I understand that blackmail is a crime if one is doing it for personal gain. I also understand that because of the nature of blackmail the information one is threatening to share is more than likely critical to ones relationship, career, bank balance or whatever...but what if the information is majorly important information that NEEDS to come to the attention of the people directly or indirectly affected by the actions of the blackmailee for the purpose of said individual being in a position of HUGE responsiblity...

What if it is theft or misuse of funds?...

What if it is insider trading of some description?...

What if..what if..what if?...

Do you have faith in the courts enough to believe that if it was significant to the people of Queensland they would make the information available...or would they cover it up?

No confidence in Peter Beattie or any of his vile fascist Ministers and labour party thugs in the Republic of Qld. Mary Rose is typical of who is still there in the Parliament and she does deserve to spend time in the big house just like the not so honourable ex-Health Minister, but I will predict a suspended sentence due to the mitigating circumstances. Severe bout of depression, she must have caught it from the not so honourable ex-Attorney-General Linda Lavach who took action against several senior court officers and the Registrar in the Central Registry of the Supreme Court in Brisbane when they all packed up and left for some unknown reason that the Courier Mail reported on the 12 July 2006 and was not aware of.
I do recall that when allegations made about the not so honourable Peter Beattie of bribing the Palm Is Council were made, the only recorded evidence of the complaint that was sent to the CMC, the only single copy of the recorded conversation, mysteriously turned with nothing on the tape.
Does anybody have faith in the courts, well that depends on what dispute resolution process you are referring too as the curial process that the Qld legislation provides for in accordance with Chapter 111 of the Aust Constitution is not what is being provided but the peasants and the majority of the not so honourable members of the fascist regime in Qld don’t know what the real difference is and how it is being altered by the very people who control the entire alleged judicial process.
The High Court rules, Federal Court, Fed Magistrates Court, and the Qld Supreme Court Act describes precisely what the design of the various court SEALS look like but the Qld Dis tricked Court's Act does not describe or identify any thing and the attempt made by one of the more honourable independent members of the Qld Parliament, when requesting precisely this information on all of the Qld Court SEALS from the ex-Attorney-General, it was refused

I note that the evidence against Mary rose was a recorded phone conversation and you try and use a tape record in the so called public court rooms so that you can get evidence of the judicial scams, they want to then allege contempt of court and lock you up to teach you a lesson. They then produce alleged orders that do not display the SEAL of the court on the alleged court orders.
They then charge you $4.00 for each page of the alleged transcripts which are not certified copies and not evidence of anything, its just expensive toilet paper but your tape recording is evidence if you intend to dispute the decision or object to the blatant bias and vile offensive conduct displayed by the pretend judges in their pretend courts especially if you are not prepared to pay one of the parasitic bottom feeding lawyers. Then we have the Attorney-General's Dept instructing the various Registrars not to use any of the official Court SEALS on the Originating Process. So when you turn up what happens when you have your dispute dealt with by the public servant sitting behind the Bench pretending to be a Judge but not bound by his judicial oath of office in a pretend court that has not been properly constituted with the use of the SEAL of the court. Thousands of people know exactly what happened and they all leave the room, that is just a Masonic Temple, feeling that they have been scammed and they are correct, but they will never know why

Young Dan - a suggestion. Calm down a bit, take some time a write out your concerns more clearly (if possible get a friend to proof read them) then post them.

I struggled to understand what your points were, to much mixed in together. You will probably have more success in making others aware of your concerns with a rewrite.

On the topic - wouldn't we all like to know what the threat was about.

R0bert

politicians are crooked, and hyenas ain't vegetarian. if you complain about either, why not complain about gravity, as well?

there are alternatives to being the victim of pollies, it just needs a bit of education and rather more character than yer average ozzie whinger.

google 'direct democracy' for a hint.

RObert, What you fail to understand is that the Mary Rose case was not dealt with in the Qld District Court properly constituted by the Registrar. It was conducted in the same place, same court room and dealt with by an individual who just happens to be appointed as a Judge of the Qld District Court but due to the Registrar of that Court not dealing with the Originating Process in accordance with the Qld Parliament's legislative requirements, the statutory court that is in compliance with Chapter 111 of the Constitution was never constituted and in this alternative jurisdiction the so called evidence of the threats will never be released as the individual was not bound by the rule of law when making the decision and dear old Mary Rose made it easy and pleaded guilty.
My prediction of the suspended sentence was correct but I am not sure what the out come of the Hurley case will produce, I suspect guilty of assult only as this will keep every body happy to a point.
It would appear that my description of the Dis tricked Court being conducted in the Masonic Temple has got you scratching your head. That is exactly what happens you when you get TRICKED and DECEIVED into having a pretend judge in a pretend court, which has no statutory SEAL, exercise judicial power and effect your inalienable rights without your express consent but only having relied on your implied consent because you were ignorant of your rights and how you alone have authorised the exercise of judicial power just as Mary Rose's agent, her Solicitor or Barrister, did on her behalf.
I suggest you and DEMOS read paragraph 14, 15, 16 of the published reasons for the decision in a High Court case Kable v The DPP NSW and then when you fully understand that document you may have the capacity to understand my comments and why these grubs have been the ruling regime for so long in the Police State of the Republic of Qld when in the federal arena the opposite political situation exists