Chapter 62: Immigration’s Star Chamber Unveiled, the Philosophy of Leadership, More on Existence and the Search for Politicians to Implement a New World Order
Positions vacant: for politicians able to walk the world’s stage and establish a New World Order overcoming the modern degenerative ‘diseases’ and curing the world’s problems of overuse of resources, global warming etc. using a mathematics of concepts and the derivations found in this book. Remuneration: none, qualifications: read the book.
Abstract: the police force allows a reality, and the justice system is based on a mathematics of concepts, but the political system is ‘logically corrupt’ and a section of the Department of Immigration is acting as a Star Chamber. An analysis is given showing how leadership can be attained by creating faith in a group by using the mathematics of concepts to ‘prove’ that the leader is leading in the ‘best’ way, even when mistakes occur. Examples include, reducing the illogic of welfare recipients voting ‘rights’, recognising that ‘determination’ can be used to ‘improve’ the population and monitor its numbers etc. by redirecting welfare payments to the childless and further that compassion can have bad effects. A suggestion is made that Philosophy has ‘lagged’ over 2500 years and needs a mathematics of concepts, reality and existence in order to move as freely as technology has with mathematics .
The Public Service is commonly considered to consist of three separate and independent parts: policing, justice and government. The reason is, I suppose, is that it works, most of the time and well enough to not need changing. Change comes about when enough people are unhappy about something and create enough of a nuisance of themselves to force that change. However, whilst that is a method, is it the BEST method? The world is on the brink of disaster from a number of factors and clearly, not using a sufficiently adequate means of governing has lead to this unfortunate situation and we are trying to suggest a better method.
The Mathematics of the Mind (a mathematics of concepts) is, in my opinion, a general mathematics and will always produce solutions, but by the nature of the mathematics, the solution will be of varying usefulness, bearing in mind that the ‘best’ solution is a limit and beyond our ken, but we can get closer to it and get on the correct path by examining enough terms. It has been mentioned previously that the police act as a reality by looking out for us and making sure that our neighbours behave themselves, and if they don’t, they are penalised until they do. The justice system works according to the Mathematics of the Mind and so produces the ‘best’ result that is possible, in general.
This is a good start, in that two of the three (police, justice and public service) are as good as we can get them as a concept, and one problem is corruption, but that is an organisational problem that wends its way around concepts. However, ‘corruption’ is a lesser attractor and is composed of a range of maladies that range from those worthy of jail-time to career ‘wreckers’ and embarrassments and, in a moment, we will look at ‘logic corruption’, and find that it affects the whole community. In fact, it has been mentioned previously that the political system is in disarray and is massively ‘corrupt’ by logical standards, and in this chapter, we find that the Department of Immigration is, in one part at least, in my opinion, a Star Chamber (defined below), which is logically, very bad.
A digression might be useful at this point to place the concepts that we are using in perspective. I believe that we live in a probability of existence universe, and a property of that space, in a simple case, is a+b=1 as has been mentioned before, where a and b are measurements/observers, and this equation has no unique solution, only relativity and not absolutes, which means there is no easily defined ‘best/correct/right’ solution to concepts such as government, justice etc. This is hardly surprising as those concepts are for us, and we need the Mathematics of (our) Mind to determine them, remembering that reality requires that every-ones’ mind/brains must inter-link, which is a property of the Rule of Life and the function of the oldest parts of the brain.
As there are no absolutes, we must use iteration or a decision by a mind/brain if we are to use these concepts in a meaningful way. Keeping this very simple, starting 65 million years ago, the primates guarded a food supply territory and decided to allow a new entrant access, warned them off or fought to the death to keep them out. Ten thousand years ago, farmers did the same and eventually elected a ‘strongman’ to govern, and we use the same system today and call it democracy with the ‘strongman’ being police/justice/politicians/public service.
Our government system is still changing and as will be seen below, the increased taxation over the last 100 years and its re-direction into welfare payments has ‘skewed’ the political system. The Eureka Stockade is an example of the populous forcing the government to change. In 1854, ‘Mother England had only begrudgingly allowed limited franchise at home and its system of governance was still firmly entrenched in the halls of privilege, patronage and petty officialdom’ (Eureka Stockade, Geoff Hocking, p 25)
‘The ‘squattocracy’, who also made up the membership of the Legislative Council, demanded that the governor do something to bring the workers back to their farms, the shepherds to their flocks, labourers to their workshops and skivvies back into their parlours…. The squatters and the government had long kept the land out of the grasp of the working man, refusing to allow any purchase of property by any except the new aristocrats’ (p 23) ‘[The] Government, in fact, has done nothing forever for the diggers but tax them! The whole amount of taxation which the squatters, who hold the whole country in possession … pay to the government, is 20,000 pounds a-year. The diggers, on the contrary, pay in licences more than half a million a-year’. (p 57)
‘The battle at the Eureka Stockade, crude embattlement of broken drays, fallen logs and stakes driven into the ground, lasted for less than half an hour, yet 22 diggers and six troopers of the 40th Regiment lay mortally wounded or already dead.’ (p 7) ‘The only man sentenced to a term of imprisonment for complicity in the whole Eureka affair was the editor of the Ballarat Times, Mr Henry Seekamp. Seekamp was arrested in his own office on 4 December 1854, tried and jailed for sedition. (p 171)
So, we have the iterative effect of democracy guiding the politicians and also the strongman, kings and queens etc. that are not all that different, because if they don’t listen to the ‘will of the people’ they may be over-thrown by a coup, popular uprising or votes. I will repeat the statement, that these systems are not very different, provided that they govern by ‘Rule of Law’ and these have been written down and constitute the ‘absolute’ measurement that doesn’t ‘naturally’ exist. Usually these two types of system (democracy, dictator, king/queen etc.) are considered opposites and yet, we find them to be very similar. So what is the opposite to these ‘iterative’ means of governing? I believe that it is the Star Chamber because a Star Chamber uses a mind/brain with no reference to the public and no public accountability.
This is appalling that we should find this type of governance, but even worse that it should be found hidden deep within the public service! There exist rational outcomes within the Department of Immigration that are not being followed and decisions are being made by people, presumably by Sarah Fuller’s department. I thought that the public service was open and above board, but personal experience has brought this state of affairs to light (see below), and her actions could be thought to be responsible for implementing a New World Order, so perhaps we should thank her!
I will re-repeat the above statement, that these systems are not very different, provided that they are governed by ‘Rule of Law’, but the Rule of Law is a continuum that moves from the highly regulated life of today to the historical times when the law was decided by the leader. From above, the Eureka Stockade rebellion resulted from the ‘ineffectual and openly disregarded Lieutenant-Governor Charles Joseph La Trobe was at last recalled to England… the new governor was Sir Charles Hotham … however, the British government had insisted that he was to balance the disastrous colonial budget. Hotham had inherited an almost bankrupt bureaucracy with a deficit to the coffers of around 1,000,000 pounds.’ (p 76) Clearly, these gentlemen were successful in their careers, but were unable to handle the situation that they were given, and this chapter attempts to show how to ‘lead’ better.
From above, ‘the law was decided by the leader’, leads into a definition of a leader, and that definition haunts the political parties of today because it is very damaging to change leaders, so it would be advantageous to ‘know’ how a leader should behave, in the sense of what to do. As we have seen, measurement comes about through iteration and/or a mind/brain and that is what we see in the continuum of law/leadership because choosing a leader requires iteration, for the choosing, and we are choosing a mind/brain to lay down laws that are relative, not absolute. Murdering someone can be ‘planned’ and attract the death penalty or incarceration, or it could be ‘man-slaughter’, or an ‘accident’, or even ‘justifiable homicide’, depending on the circumstances.
So, a judge, lawyers, precedents, Department of Public Prosecutions, citizens’ outrage etc. establish a justice system that works, and it works, perhaps works well, because it is based on the Mathematics of the Mind (as above). Similarly, a leader ‘earns’ the trust of his/her followers because of the judgements that are made and each person is content because they believe that they will be treated fairly, bearing in mind that ‘fairly’ is a relative term. This book is about the use of the Mathematics of the Mind and finding a class of people that are called the ‘Best’ and these people would align with or contain the leaders, referred to above.
It is tempting to say, as in mathematics, that adhering to the Mathematics of the Mind is a necessary condition, but that would be ‘too strong’, but it is indicative. Clearly, it would be nice to say that the Mathematics of the Mind is a sufficient condition, but that would be too strong. Perhaps the best that we can say is that a leader using the Mathematics of the Mind would be more successful more of the time, because the answer is only known exactly in the limit, but is at least on the ‘correct’ track! In other words, a person using the Mathematics of the Mind will be correct more often, and when wrong, will have an excuse and (hopefully) a chance to ‘adjust’ the answer by adding more relevant attractors.
At this point, it seems sensible to point out that the world has problems of over-population, over-consumption, global warming etc as well as the degenerative ‘diseases’ and the latter have been looked at and can be dealt with on the personal level, but the former can not. Clearly, the political system needs fixing and, much to my disgust, a section of the public service, namely the Department of Immigration appears to need urgent ‘renovating’.
Why is the above so important, you may ask? It is important because the people making the decisions (politicians) are currently acting firstly, in the short term and secondly, want to keep their employment by rewarding their voters. Their interests are not wholly aligned with the voter’s interests and yet they are standing between the voters and getting the answers to the world’s problems. The problem is not the politician, who is trying to do two jobs, the problem is the voting system and in particular, social security recipients, those in jail etc need a lesser voice, and secondly, voters need to vote for a leader that they believe is looking after their long-term interests using a sensible plan, and not one that ‘toes’ a party line.
As an example of electoral illogic, Chapter 22: Magic, Proverbs, Politics and the Voting System discussed the problem of voters voting for governments that hand them more money as a means of being elected and proposed a sliding scale whereby the value of a voter’s vote decreased with their dependence on the public purse. This is not to say that they lose money, only influence over the politicians, and this is more in agreement with the original concepts of democracy.
The result of elections depends largely on a small number of swinging voters because the majority are committed to wealth, social security etc. and the relevant political party. The centre group would follow a leader/path that would tend to ‘save’ the world and rationalizing pensioner’s votes can be done in a later term at say 2% reduction each year. Notice that chapter 47: Getting Preferential Politics to Work is designed to give swinging voters more say, after all, they have twice the influence of the committed voter and they can send messages through the Independent votes. There has to be bipartisan agreement of ‘core’ items, for obvious reasons and a mathematics of concepts will ensure that. I have heard a politician say that they all agree to a path by ridiculing objectors and as I have said before, the Mathematics of the Mind shows the self-interest of objectors very clearly and it is a general method that can only be countered by adding more attractors to change the result, which is for the good.
Notice that this does not affect the amount of pension that pensioners receive, only their influence over the distribution. Along the same thinking, it has been put forward previously that compassion is addictive and there is nothing wrong with that, providing that it does not extend into subsequent generations as it does at present. People that could be considered ‘unsuitable’ are freely breeding and in some cases, to obtain increased welfare payments. The answer is, I believe, to reduce social security with each child because the determinant should be determination to breed. This is fully discussed in chapter 54: The Determination Orgene, Selecting the Best, and a General Solution to ‘Struggle Street’ and the World’s Overpopulation and suggests a way to reduce and select the subsequent generations and that it is much more sensible to reward those with very few children with a pension and allowing parents with more children to be looked after by their children.
These examples may seem strange because they are (somewhat) the reverse of current practice. I don’t know the reasoning behind their implementation, but they are illogical when an ‘absolute’ is brought into the measurement, and that absolute is (literally) saving the planet from humans. Understanding ‘measurement’ is necessary as I have just shown, if the right/correct answer is needed, and right/correct/success defines a leader, and the mathematics of concepts brings this out. Again, literally, we can’t afford to get this wrong!
We have to go back to the problem of measurement relativity (a+b=1) that has been discussed in previous chapters and comes about by using the concept of Survival of the Best as an ‘absolute’. Survival of the Fittest uses iteration and Survival of the Best uses a mind/brain. Again, we cannot escape the limitations of world O and world P that define the two sets of units that ‘cloud’ our thinking and lead to the three Laws of Life. The subject that mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts is fully discussed (in the postscript) in chapter 2: The Philosopher’s Stone.
I believe that this problem has occurred in philosophy because the mathematics of concepts was not recognised because philosophers use top down reasoning and I used bottom up, that showed world P. ‘Today’s science and mathematics so far transcend the achievement of the Greeks that no modern scientist is likely to study Euclid, or Hippocrates or Archimedes for other than purely antiquarian reasons. Modern philosophers, by contrast, continue to discuss problems which were first raised some two thousand five hundred years ago, and they often do so in terms which their Greek predecessors would have found fully intelligible’. (Greek Philosophers, Keith Thomas, General Editor, Past Masters, Forward) Have philosophers missed something important? I suspect that they need the mathematics of concepts to understand the basics of philosophy!
This all sounds a bit strange and the reason is through the definition of ‘existence’! The Churches teach that we exist because God made the universe, and that means that absolutes exist because the universe is ‘real/exists’, whereas I believe that we exist in a probability of existence space and that there are relatives, but no absolutes, as has been mentioned before. Plato appears to be troubled by this problem: ‘in the first book of the Republic (332-3). If good living is a skill or art, what is it the skill to do? There seems no way of specifying the skill as ”the skill to do x“ without making it also the skill to do the opposite of x’. (Greek Philosophers, R. M. Hare, p 127) In the light of the above paragraph, all philosophers seem to believe that we are ‘real/exist’, whereas I believe that ‘determination evolved a reality out of the possibility of existence’, noting that this reality contains the certainty of existence (at 1) and this belief/derivation came out of the mathematics of concepts. So, if there are no absolutes, we have to define something to be an absolute so that we can measure it and bring it into (our) existence/knowledge/mind/brain.
Concepts are handled on a higher plane by proverbs and on a higher level by a personality that brings a wider situation to mind. Just as Judas Iscariot brings on the advent of the major religions, for the moment, until the situation clears, I will use Sarah Fuller as the ‘pivot’ that shows the illogic, in my opinion, of the stand of the Department of Immigration and politics in general and personalizes the search for a New World Order. I have no option but to let this personal matter for the moment, ‘lie on the table’ and try to work on the bigger ‘picture’ as Immigration does not seem to want to redress my situation.
The importance of finding ‘statesmen/women’ that can bring the politicians into the world of logic and reality is paramount and leaders that through logic and common sense can get everyone behind them
are necessary to attend to the world’s problems and I believe that the mathematic of concepts is necessary because it aligns political policy with the underlying ‘rightness’ of the three Laws of Life. However, it will probably be younger politicians, conversant with the mathematics of concepts and its ramifications that will lead change because the ‘Old Guard’ will probably be reluctant to change their thinking, and that will take time.
Finally, Plato was very interested in government and life and his works offer some pertinent thoughts, ‘philosophy is left with a crucial role, but it is not allowed to dictate to people what they are to find good in life…. If there are going in any case to be relatively few people who have the power of government and exercise its functions, even in a democracy, then Plato is surely entirely right in holding that it will be best if they receive, before they attain this position of power, an education which will enable them to exercise it wisely.’ (p 180) I would go further, and have mentioned previously that a ‘haggle’ of philosophers might be useful because politicians are principally salesmen/women and while they ‘work’ similar areas (or Laws) they have different functions/strengths.
But do we have time? The push for renewable energy is a move in the right direction, but it is not the key concern in the world’s problems and the policies should produce agreement with a minimum of party politics through the action of ridicule, which is more possible with a formal application of a mathematics of concepts.
Peter Dutton MP,
as minister@ border.gov.au I would like to inform you that certain aspects of your Department appear to be acting as a Star Chamber and acting, perhaps not illegally, but anti-legally in a possibly actionable manner.
‘In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings’. (Wikipedia, Star Chamber)
I am starting to suspect that the decision that my friend MIGHT over-stay her visa is offered as an excuse to refuse the visa, as it has happened twice. I am a normal successful, upright tax-paying citizen and this reason is so implausible that it may be that I am being ‘hounded’ for some ‘wrong’ that has appeared on my file. It seems pointless to ask if this is true, just as it seems pointless to ask how I might be successful in my endeavour for a ‘short stay’ visa as I received misinformation from Sarah Fuller on the last occasion that I sought clarification..
Your Department’s actions have caused, and are causing great inconvenience to both my friend and I, and I appear to have no effective means to redress the situation. My rights have been trampled and I can only appeal to you to reorganize aspects of your Department and grant a 12 months visa to Marites as a small measure of recognition of her pain and suffering. Whilst the pen may be mightier than the sword, it is all that I appear to possess and have to resort to emails to find a champion of my rights.
I have been advised that the most suitable legal avenue might be to pass this problem to the state Law Associations, presumably because the commonwealth, as with a multi-celled organism, must remain constantly in communication with the states in a two-way process. Needless to say, there is a similar relationship flow (placebo/nocebo continuum) between government and politicians.
Perhaps the time and opportunity has come to seek resolution through the mathematics of concepts as outlined on my website http://darrylpenney.com The mathematics of concepts (Mathematic of the Mind) is completely general and makes the consideration of concepts more transparent and brings about agreement because it can be seen that greed, self-interest, incompetence, errors etc. are apparent to all parties. So, a little ‘fireside’ chat might explain the problem.
A friend in the Philippines says that she has relatives that do this work at the Embassy, and I have her approval to present it here:
hi darryl,.just for your information ok?! the embassy grant the visa base on what you answer to their question, if your answer is right and satisfied them..they will grant it, but if you answer their question with sound suspicious, they will not tell you that your answer is not satisfied them..they will just deny your visa..coz part of the processing visa is interview! that is always the main reason why visa denied..by didn’t passing the interview! that’s it..so maybe the embassy denied the visa of the lady coz maybe when the embassy interview her, she maybe answer that might sound she will going to over stayed there..
As to Sarah Fuller’s letter of ‘explanation’:
what?! immigration said that? that she need to fund her trip?? i don’t believe that.. if sponsoring her didn’t grant her visa how much more if she will be fund her trip! it needs more documents and lots of money
The Embassy’s interview appears, to contribute to the understanding of the situation, but it only ‘appears’ to contribute, because it is not a reality as the mind of the interviewee is not constant nor is the mind of the interviewer continuous, and similarly for the application form, where no guidance is given by stating the absolute values that are required. Where reality is not continuous and relevant, magic things happen, and they are usually disastrous, as in this case. In other words, what would Marites gain by overstaying? If she did, firstly she has to be presumed to be dishonest and secondly, she wouldn’t be able to return. She could change her mind whilst here etc. even apart from my Statuary Declaration to be responsible for her debts. There are fundamental flaws in your organisational logic as applied to people!
The mathematics of concepts brings disputing parties together because they must agree with the mathematics, or face derision for attempting to pervert natural justice. I have shown that your Department was at fault in rejecting two attempts (for this inappropriate reason) to obtain a visa, so I suggest that you give Marites a 12 month visa, for a start. The longer that this goes on, the more people that will become familiar with this problem, and challenge your stand.
It is probably appropriate to simplify the concepts further to aid understanding. The system of Law is based on the mathematics of concepts, or more accurately, the Mathematics of the Mind where an iteration or mind judges, as a Judge does, from precedents in English Law (attractors or determinations of past judgements) brought to his/her attention by arguments of trial lawyers, and any judgements are reviewed by the Department of Public Prosecutions, and ultimately by public outrage and possibly a Eureka Stockade. This is in the image of the Mathematics of the Mind where there are no ‘absolutes’ and decisions are made on a number of attractors and the more attractors or concepts that are considered, the better the result. Only an all-knowing god can make a definitive decision because every piece of knowledge in the universe must be considered and knowledge is iterative as well as unknown and undefined until measured.
Two derivations are necessary: A. reality requires continuity and relevance, otherwise magic happens, and B. determination evolved reality from the probability of existence and I suggest my website http://darrylpenney.com for clarification.
The Law is a reality and overarches everything. A job interview is the prerequisite for joining a work reality, which leaves the non-work reality for the rest of the time, which together, form a reality under the Law. The Department of Immigration’s interview is not a reality because it is neither continuous nor relevant. It is not continuous because it occurs before entering the country and is not relevant because the state of mind cannot be ‘absolutely’ assessed, whereas proof of passport, criminal history etc. are known absolutes.
Hence, the Department has refused entry to people anti-legally. I use this term because it is not for me to judge the extent of the damage (in disappointment, monetary costs, discomfort etc.) that the Department has inflicted on people, nor do I profess to know the ‘ins and outs’ of the law. I know that Marites and I have been put to considerable inconvenience, cost etc., especially as each visit to the Embassy involves a 10 hour round trip on her part.
The Law is ‘just’, within workable limits, but the Department’s actions are not, and I ask that the state Law Associations consider the problem posed here. The Law is ‘reviewable’ but the Department charges $1604 to review a decision, otherwise it states that its determination will not be reviewed. We have nowhere to turn for help or advice, and I have no option but to call parts of the Department, a Star Chamber and try to get someone to reorganize it into a much more user friendly and efficient organization.
The states and commonwealth are in a similar organisational relationship as are the multi-celled organisms and evolution shows much insight. Lawyers and politicians need the mathematics of concepts that are their stock-in-trade, as shown above, and they may wish to consult my website, after all, the ‘one-eyed person is king in the kingdom of the blind’!
Regards, Darryl Penney dwpenney2@bigpond.com
Peter Dutton MP,
as minister@ border.gov.au I am sending this complaint to you, and informing you that it is my intention to try to initiate a Class Action against your Department for compensation for mischief, inconvenience and defamation.
This is being done because it is easily provable, as below, and also, with the intention of providing a better set of guidelines for your organization in general, outside of a possible clique of some ill-informed and misguided ‘do-gooders’ with their own agenda that has caused this complaint.
I now have enough information from your rejection procedures to see that your Department is making fundamental errors in applying concepts and this situation is similar around the world because of a lack of a mathematics of concepts. You should be pleased that I have developed one and applied it to many cases and that it can be found on http://darrylpenney.com
I repeat that you should be pleased that I have developed this mathematics because not only will it will allow you to put your Department in order, but it is applicable to all organizations and further, help right many of the world’s ills. The index to the website, which is currently running at 60 chapters, is appended to show the scope of this method.
For brevity, from the website: ‘determination evolved a reality from the probability of existence’ and this fundamental determination leads to the fact that in the simplest case a+b=1 as a property of our probability of existence space. Thus any concept can only exist with a ‘reciprocal’ concept to be available to measure it, in other words, there are no ‘absolutes’ only relativity. Applying this simple statement to your Department, the law, according to NORCAS and Sarah Fuller, has provided ‘absolutes’, but not for the question of a visa holder returning to her own country and this was the reason given to reject two applications for short stay visas.
This simple statement proves my case, that relativity is imposed on your employees and they will produces errors because any judgement must be based on some absolute law of nature or man and the supposition that Marites will over-stay her visa cannot be justified without knowing her intension. Your model is flawed in this crucial point and worthless. That case is proven, but there are further ramifications of the practice, and that is intent.
We often need to personify concepts, such as Judas Iscariot or Sarah Fuller in this case and huge amounts of monetary damages can be awarded by judge and jury although, or perhaps because, they have little experience in any particular field, and as above they do not have a ‘measuring rod’ which requires a known reference to base damages on. It is apparent that your Department should exercise extreme care in making arbitrary decisions because they are undefinable, as in this case. Perhaps Your Department did what it did in good, if misguided faith, but the rules are straight forward that a Statuary Declaration or bond can be applied, without the necessity of rejection. This shows that Sarah Fuller’s letter was a sop sent to ill-inform me. Shame!!
The Department is making value judgements on the reasons that a visa seeker would not return home based on the conditions in that country and the serious error in not considering the person’s state of mind/intent. This attempt at a mathematical model would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious and causing me so much trouble. May I suggest that my website http://darrylpenney.com might supply more insight into the mathematics of concepts and to this end, I have attached the index of 60 chapters of the book to the end of this email to show that I have some expertise in this matter.
I believe that I have the grounds for a Class Action against your Department and I will have to seek legal advice. I have shares in IMF Bentham – International Litigation Funding and will seek their advice, and in the meantime, you have caused me great distress and I demand a 12 month visa for Marites immediately without prejudice to future action.
In short, my website derives the Mathematics of the Mind (a general mathematics of concepts) and entanglement that requires ALL concepts in the universe to be considered, and anything less imparts errors (lack of knowledge). Your attempt to make a rational decision is ludicrous and I am complaining that you have wasted my time, energy and money as well as undermined my reputation etc.
.
Also, I would like you to be aware that the Department is actively restricting tourism in a manner that affronts me and my rights in making decisions that are not theirs to make. This high-handed behaviour should not be tolerated. Please contact Sarah Fuller at visitor.policy@immi.gov.au for more information as it was she that wrote the letter quoted below.
But, what is ‘visitor policy’? I appreciate that terrorists and crime figures should be kept out of the country, but the decision-making process, above, was so inept, or apparently so inept, that it appears to target ordinary people, including myself! Add to this the oft quoted warning by your Department that decisions will not be reviewed, which is akin to saying that no guarantees are given, which is not common practice and I suspect, illegal.
Your Department appears to contain some fiefdom of incompetence, arbitrariness and other organizational ‘nightmares of yesterday’. I urge you to ‘take your medicine’, compensate the massive harm that your Department has done to (probably) thousands of visa seekers and bring your organization into the new century. I repeat that my website http://darrylpenney.com is freely available for your consultation.
Conclusion: I suspect that your Department is engaging in Social Engineering and I have no objection to that, if it is being done in a ‘proper’ manner. My website is ultimately about the same subject, but it presents it on a rational basis.
Regards Darryl Penney dwpenney2@bigpond.com
COMPLAINT I have just been informed that my second attempt to secure a short-term visa for Marites has been refused because Marites is an ‘over-stay risk’. I have property, highly educated etc and value Law and Order as it works to my advantage and for her to ‘over-stay’ would be un-thinkable as she could not return, also, this decision is an affront to me as I provided statuary declarations that I would be responsible for her debts whilst she would be in Australia. Your process is deeply flawed in the section that she is reputed to not pass. ‘Personal circumstances or other conditions in the applicant’s home country, that may encourage the applicant to remain in Australia, including:’ the most important reason is, if she over-stays, she can’t return to Australia! The most important reason has been left out! Probably because it is difficult to assess, but leaving it out skews the determination, leading to the necessity for me to complain! ’Whilst the applicant has supplied relevant information relating to her personal circumstances in the Philippines, the documentation supplied by the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the applicant has significant ties to the Philippines that would induce her to return home within the validity of her visa’ (NORDAS). This is akin to proving your innocence in court! The family consists of two parents, three sisters and a business! Previously, I complained to my local MP, Dr. Hendy MP (Eden-Monaro) that the organization of the Department was not operating properly, especially as an appeal cost $1604 and I thought that he should fix it, and he secured a letter from the Department of Immigration, that did not tell me what I wanted to know. The letter said, in part:
‘While I appreciate your disappointment at this visitor visa application being refused, all applicants are required to meet the legal requirements in order to be granted a visa. The criteria for a Visitor visa include that the applicant intends a genuine visit to Australia (i.e. a short stay for non-work purposes), meets Australia’s health and character standards and has adequate funds to support themselves during the period of the visit.’ (Sarah Fuller)
I took this to mean that she had to be able to fund the trip, so I put $2000 into her account to comply, even though I was sponsoring her. Whether I misinterpreted that part of letter, or whether it was unclear etc., I have ‘burnt my boats’ and am forced to seek a favourable outcome so that Marites can use the money for the trip. In short, I applied again only to find that she is viewed an over-stay risk, even when I gave her the money to cover the trip, which was the reason that I thought, that the first attempt had failed. I am happy to post a surety because I know that she will return and anyway, I am forced to reapply because I have given her the money for the trip, as I believed that I was what I was instructed to do by the letter from the Department. In conclusion, I am again complaining of the same problem with the Department’s processes and the loss of my rights and that I am forced to wait another 3 months to apply again. Marites, and I, deserve better treatment than this. I don’t expect anything to come from this complaint and my anger is (unfortunately) limited to complaining and the ballot box and I will now vote Independents/Labour until this is resolved. Sincerely, Darryl Penney dwpenney2@bigpond.com
darrylpenney 