Magistrate orders Berlin held in custody until early June

Click on image to enlarge

The Daily Examiner on 17 May 2011:

John Xavier Berlin is in jail.

An advertisement placed by Berlin in a Clarence Valley newspaper earlier this month was deemed by Magistrate David Heilpern in Grafton Local Court yesterday as a breach of bail.

Berlin, 62, of Maclean, already on a 12-month good behaviour bond for offences of impersonating police last year, had last month been granted bail on 14 other criminal charges, many involving impersonating police.

But an ad in the Clarence Valley Review's Memoriam classified section in early May, a dedication to a police constable who was killed on duty in Sydney in 1989, stated that it had been inserted by former NSW Police Commissioner Peter Ryan and "former Australian Police DCI John Xavier Berlin - shot 28.12.96".

Berlin, through his barrister David Imlah, denied placing the advertisement.

Mr Imlah said Berlin suffered "difficulties" in his lumbar spine, was on heart medication and suffered from a psychiatric disorder which was not named in court.

"Mr Berlin is a very unusual man and I find it very difficult to represent him at times," he said.

Police prosecutor Mark Sinclair outlined an email trail showing that Berlin had in fact paid for the ad in question.

"This accused is thumbing his nose at the courts," he said.

Mr Heilpern said the prosecution had a very strong case.

"Who else has a vested interest in claiming that he was shot on duty? Who else would pay money to claim that he was a DCI (detective chief inspector)? The answer is, of course, that nobody does," Mr Heilpern said.

"Mr Berlin lives in some parallel universe in which, again, someone has conspired to place an ad in a local paper.

"It's a world of fantasy and make believe and he is seeking to hoodwink the court.

"Police contacted the ex-police commissioner Peter Ryan in the UK and he denied all knowledge of the placement of that ad."

Berlin was denied bail and will next appear in Grafton Local Court on Monday, June 6, at which point, Mr Heilpern said, the court would re-evaluate the situation.

Berlin's charges include using a police insignia, making a false statement to obtain money, and making false accusation subject other to investigation.

Shots exchanged across the Clarence Valley Divide

Over the time since European explorers first set foot in the region the Clarence Valley on the NSW North Coast developed a natural social divide, based on both geographic features and community of interest.

Despite forced local government amalgamation in 2004 this divide continues and shots are frequently heard coming from both sides of the barricades. Never more so than when someone mentions land rates or council finances, as this exchange in The Daily Examiner letters to the editor page demonstrates.

Clarence Valley Council (both as Council in the Chamber and as Management) has frequently entrenched this divide by its own behaviour and decisions.

Service costs

BILL DAY has been conservative in stating: "The CVC has a blowout of nearly $1m in its maintenance budget" (DEX, April 20).

Council has been reducing its maintenance costs for some years.

But at whose expense?

Unlike Grafton's plush Memorial Park and river frontage, Yamba's river frontage adjacent to its CBD is compromised by an unpretentious caravan park that responsibly generates some $1.5m revenue, in addition to its rates, to pay for services and facilities and their maintenance.

Iluka's caravan park generates $lm. Brooms Head $lm. Minnie Water $3000, Wooli $2000 to pay for their primitive services.

However, included in Grafton's proposed waterfront precinct, is the upgrading of its streetscape, night lighting and building infrastructure, including the upgrading of Memorial Park.

Further, an abundance of services and facilities, such as sandy beaches, pergola climbers, garden furniture, paveways, boardwalks, boat ramps, staircases, sculptured earth terraces,etc totalling some $6m.

All this is prone to regular flooding, incurring extensive annual maintenance costs, including insurance (if able to be insured).

There are merits for a waterfront precinct, but with such opulence?

Recently the general manager, Stuart McPherson, applied to increase our rates above the pegged rate increase, on the basis of council's diminished capacity to finance capital works.

He stated: "We have about 50 community halls, community centres and library buildings. In the recent past we have been able to finance only modest maintenance and renewal programs and yet these places are seen as emblematic of village life and central to the cohesion of the communities. From the councillors' tours held in these halls, the age of the fittings and fixtures and the good condition relatively of the buildings is a testament to the community groups who maintain them. These groups are worthy of more support from council." (Council meeting March 23,2010, Att. c, p3).

The Clarence Valley has one of the lowest incomes per capita in NSW and we have simply got to come to terms with that fact and Iive within our means.

There was a time the Lower Clarence enjoyed free use of its sports fields, as its rates were sufficient to cover their costs.

Since forced amalgamation our kids cannot afford the fees now implemented for no other reason than Grafton charged fees to use its sports fields.

So, we should do the same.

The reason Grafton charged fees was because its rates were insufficient to cover the costs of its prolific services.

If council can afford a Grafton waterfront precinct, it can afford an adequate transparent financial records system that shows the costs of services provided to communities.

RAY HUNT
Yamba
[The Daily Examiner 30 April 2011]

Misleading claim on parks income

It would appear from previous letters to the editor that correspondent Ray Hunt is a keen observer of the business of the Clarence Valley Council and its affairs,

It seems he pores over every minute financial detail of the council.

This is not a bad thing, in fact it is healthy in a democracy. But given his apparent deep understanding of council finances, I was surprised to read his letter (DEX, April S0) citing the amount of money the Clarence Valley Council makes from coastal caravan parks.

For Mr Hunt's benefit, the Clarence Valley Council makes absolutely zero dollars out of caravan parks on coastal reserves.

These parks are not owned by the Clarence Valley Council. They are reserves and are owned by the taxpayers of NSW.

All money raised from these parks must be reinvested in reserves. If any of this money goes into council finances, it is getting it by dubious means.

When councillors consider matters relating to the reserves, they have to take off their council hats, they lose their council titles (ie councillor) and sit as Mr, Mrs, Miss or Ms and operate under the Crown Lands Act.

I hope this was a simple misunderstanding by Mr Hunt and not an attempt to have people believe the coastal communities were propping up the Clarence Valley Council's coffers to support his cheaper rates for a Yamba campaign.

G. GRAYNDLER
South Grafton
[The Daily Examiner 5 May 2011]

CVC does not own coastal caravan parks

The letter of G. Grayndler, South Grafton (DEX, May 5) completely misses the point.

With his smug vituperative falsely accusing me of “citing the amounts of money the CVC makes from (owning) coastal caravan parks.

Sorry to disappoint G. Grayndler.

I am aware, as is everyone else, including the local galah at the Grafton pet shop, that the CVC does not own coastal caravan parks, but simply manages them pursuant to Section 95 Crown Lands Act.

Like other caravan parks, the $1.5m revenue from Yamba’s caravan park pays for facilities and services on coastal reserves within the Clarence Reserve trust, relieving the burdensome obligations otherwise placed on council’s rates revenue.

G. Grayndler expresses concern that these trust revenues must be kept separate and says “if any of this money goes into council finances, it is getting it by dubious means”.

That being the case, perhaps G. Grayndler might like to explain why I was the only one to complain to ICAC that council staff were using financial codes in their recommendations to have councillors approve CCRT expenditures on council facilities (Item 14.191/09 Meeting 9-2-10). And why Councillor Toms failed to get a seconder in her motion to investigate council’s past records (Item 14.191/09 Meeting 9-2-10).

But the point I made in my letter (DEX, April 30) and overlooked by G. Grayndler was the difference in fiscal responsibility between the use of Yamba’s river frontage adjacent to its CBD being compromised by an unpretentious caravan park that relieve the burden otherwise placed on rate revenues.

Compare Grafton’s waterfront precinct on its river frontage adjacent to its CBD, with its abundance of opulent facilities amounting to $6m, prone to regular flooding, and irresponsibly incurring massive maintenance strain on an already stretched maintenance budget.

G. Grayndler might like to explain why those village ratepayers bereft of basic services should pay for such opulence, or why those fiscally responsible communities like Yamba should pay for such opulence.

Grafton has no one to blame for its high rates but itself.

It put its rates up to pay for its prolific services.

The Lower Clarence on the other hand recognised its low income per capita and adopted a low rate structure and responsibly lived within its means.

It is not a matter of increasing rates; it’s a matter of reducing Grafton’s services and then reducing its rates.

RAY HUNT
Yamba
[The Daily Examiner 13 May 2011]

Someone forgot to tell Australia it's rooned

Oft repeated sayings sometimes have a long life because they contain an element of truth and on Friday the 13th “There are degrees of falsehood - lies, damn lies and statistics” was taken out for a spin by Mike 'Mish' Shedlock in his Howe Street (U.S.) compilation “Economic Bust in Australia:Near-Record Corporate Bankruptcies, Employment Drops Unexpectedly; Rise in Bad Home Loans;Record Low Property Transactions”.
According to Mish (artistically depicted at right) Australia is in dire straits and everyone is shortly destined for financial hell down under - but no-one has told the Oz Government or most average Aussies who think that the economy is heading in the right direction.
When you look at the numbers used by this American Chicken Little they don’t justify that scaremongering headline.
With investment advisers like Mish, perhaps Sitka Pacific Capital clients should be wary of where their money is being sent.

Pic found at Google Images

What can one believe when reading online?

From Science News on 11 May 2011:

Dense networks, on the other hand, such as many social networks, were much easier to control: Influence roughly 20 percent of the nodes and the whole network responds.
“I found that very shocking,” says Magnus Egerstedt, director of the Georgia Robotics and Intelligent Systems Laboratory at Georgia Tech. “Social networks, which seem to be these random, ad hoc collections of people freely expressing information and sharing their thoughts — those were much easier to control than other networks.”

This finding probably explains why Facebook thought it worthwhile to hire a public relations firm to further its interests by selectively placing 'information' before individuals active on social networks.

In one instance it backfired and this email exchange was promptly posted at PasteBin on 3 May 2011, detailing an alleged Facebook smear campaign against Google:

*************************

From: Christopher Soghoian [mailto:chris@soghoian.net]

Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:11 AM

To: Mercurio, John

Subject: Re: Op-Ed Opportunity: Google Quietly Launches Sweeping Violation of User Privacy

Who is paying for this? (not paying me, but paying you)

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Mercurio, John <John.Mercurio@bm.com> wrote:

Mr. Soghoian,

I wanted to gauge your interest in authoring an op-ed this week for a top-tier media outlet on an important issue that I know you’re following closely.

The topic: Google’s sweeping violations of user privacy. Google, as you know, has a well-known history of infringing on the privacy rights of America’s Internet users. Not a year has gone by since the founding of the company where it has not been the focus of front-page news detailing its zealous approach to gathering information – in many cases private and identifiable information - about online users.

Despite an unprecedented rebuke from the Federal Trade Commission last month forcing Google into a government mandated two-decade privacy review program, Google is at it again – and this time they are not only violating the personal privacy rights of millions of Americans, they are also infringing on the privacy rules and rights of hundreds of companies ranging from Yelp to Facebook and Twitter to LinkedIn in what appears to be a first in web history: Google is collecting, storing and mining millions of people’s personal information from a number of different online services and sharing it without the knowledge, consent or control of the people involved.

The Federal Trade Commission made it clear last month that Google had agreed to change its ways, and in so doing, the United States government gave Google an imprimatur of credibility and trust amongst the American people. As FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz stated not four weeks ago: “When companies make privacy pledges, they need to honor them…This is a tough settlement that ensures that Google will honor its commitments to consumers and build strong privacy protections into all of its operations.”

Unfortunately the ink was barely dry on the settlement before Google rolled out its latest tool designed to scrape private data and build deeply personal dossiers on millions of users – in a direct and flagrant violation of its agreement with the FTC.

In light of the recent agreement between the government and Google, Congress and the FTC must immediately investigate this latest violation of online privacy. The American people must be made aware of the now immediate intrusions into their deeply personal lives Google is cataloging and broadcasting every minute of every day– without their permission.

I’m happy to help place the op-ed and assist in the drafting, if needed. For media targets, I was thinking about the Washington Post, Politico, The Hill, Roll Call or the Huffington Post.

Please let me know your thoughts. Also, I’m available to discuss this by phone, if you’re available.

Many thanks,

John

LESS THAN ONE MONTH AFTER FTC PRIVACY VIOLATION SETTLEMENT, GOOGLE QUIETLY LAUNCHES SWEEPING VIOLATION OF USER PRIVACY

About Google Social Circles

Recently, Google quietly introduced its latest attempt to enter the social space with a new feature called Google Social Circles. The idea behind the feature is to scrape and mine social sites from around the web to make connections between people that wouldn’t otherwise exists and share that information with people who wouldn’t otherwise have access to it. All of this happens without the knowledge, consent or control of the people whose information is being shared. Here is how Google Social Circles works:

1) Google’s robots scour the web for people’s social connections on different websites. These connections are then stored in a collection people’s connections on different websites. This collection is then mined, creating connections between people on different websites, that those people never intended and can’t control.

2) This information is then shared with anyone who has a Google account, whether it is Gmail, Chat or another Google service that includes a personal profile -- more than 146 million people have Gmail accounts alone, and some estimates say as many as 400 million people have at least one Google account.

3) Google Social Circles automatically enables people to trace their contacts' connections and profile information by crawling and scraping the sites you and your contacts use, like Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, Yelp, Yahoo and many others, likely in direct violation of the Terms of Service for those sites, unless those sites have partnered with Google on this “service,” something else users ought to be aware of.

4) Even if you are not a Google account holder, your information is still mined, stored and shared as long as you have some connection on any site Google scrapes to someone who has a Google account. You don’t even have to have a direct connection to the person with a Google account. If someone you are connected to is connected with someone with a Google account, your information will be shared.

5) To find out if your own Social Circles direct and secondary connections that Google has indexed to your account, visit: http://www.google.com/s2/u/0/search/social#socialcircle, and https://profiles.google.com/u/0/connectedaccounts

Privacy Violations

The ability to abuse this information and violate the privacy rights of millions of Americans is clear:

No notice: Google does not notify people that their information is being used in a way that the person would not expect—to connect different groups of people within an Internet-wide database Google created.

No consent: Google Social Circles does not ask “permission” from individuals who will have their profiles, connections and other personal data shared in the new network. Google will simply “scrape” their information from dozens of sources and compile the data into one massive dossier aligned directly with user’s personally identifiable information.

No control: On all of the sites Google scrapes, you can change your mind. You can delete your account. You can make or break connections to other people. How do you remove this information from the database that Google is sharing with hundreds of millions of people? You can’t.

Serious real world risks: Google is taking different parts of people’s lives—parts they deliberately separated onto different sites—and presenting the collage Google created to other people. Reminiscent of Google Buzz, Google’s latest plan totally disregards the intimate and potentially damaging details that could be revealed, including sexual orientation, political affiliation, personal connections, etc…

Steals from other sites: Dozens of private companies will have their own privacy rules and regulations violated by the Google information fishing intrusion.

Disregards FTC agreement: Despite the clear direction from the FTC to the contrary, Google has again created a program without a clear path for users to “opt out”.

References

· FTC Statement on Google Settlement

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/google.shtm

· Google Shows Off How Well It Knows Your Social Circle

Switched.com (HuffingtonPost Tech)

http://www.switched.com/2010/08/09/google-shows-off-how-well-it-knows-your-social-circle/

· “Do you feel like big brother is watching you now?”

About.com

http://marketing.about.com/b/2011/03/31/google-wants-you-to-1.htm

· Google’s Social Circle & Social Search May Not Violate Any Privacy Laws But It Gives Me The Creeps

LibrarianByDay.com

http://librarianbyday.net/2010/03/30/googles-social-circle-social-search-may-not-violate-any-privacy-laws-but-it-gives-me-the-creeps/

*************************

Mercurio, John <John.Mercurio@bm.com>

to Christopher Soghoian <chris@soghoian.net>

date Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:38 AM

subject RE: Op-Ed Opportunity: Google Quietly Launches Sweeping Violation of User Privacy

mailed-by bm.com

Thanks for the prompt reply. I’m afraid I can’t disclose my client yet. But all the information included in this email is publicly available. Any interest in pursuing this?

*************************

Memo to all Clarence Valley Shire Councillors: Effin' Bloody Fools!

According to The Northern Rivers Echo on 14th May 2011:
"there appear to be large reserves of conventional or natural as well as CSG (both composed largely of methane) in the Clarence Moreton Basin, which runs from south of Grafton up to the border and joins the Surat Basin in Queensland. There are currently three companies operating on the North Coast". (see map showing gas exploration in the Clarence Basin, a mid-Triassic to early Cretaceous basin)

On Friday 13th May 2011 The Daily Examiner ran an article which reported that:
“CLARENCE Valley Council is taking a “wait and see approach” to joining the chorus of Northern Rivers councils calling for a moratorium on coal seam gas mining.
Mayor Richie Williamson said coal seam gas mining was primarily a State Government issue.
“The state policies would come into consideration if and when there was an application for coal seam gas mining in the Clarence council local government area,” he said.
“I am aware that other councils are calling on the State Government for a moratorium, but it really is a State Government decision.
“The council hasn’t considered joining those other councils in calling for a moratorium as yet.”
Cr Williamson said the idea of fracking was a new issue for council.”

On Thursday 14th April 2011 a Duke University study (using analyzed groundwater from 68 private water wells) was approved for publication in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on 9th May:
“Directional drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies are dramatically increasing natural-gas extraction. In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shalegas extraction. In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L-1 (n 1/4 26), a potential explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in neighboring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similar geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only 1.1 mg L-1 (P < 0.05; n 1/4 34)…….
Our results show evidence for methane contamination of shallow drinking-water systems in at least three areas of the region and suggest important environmental risks accompanying shale-gas exploration worldwide.”

This isn’t the first science-based warning about fracking and many other councils on the NSW North Coast (Ballina, Lismore, Kyogle and Tweed) have taken note of the problems created by this type of mining - along with a growing number of areas worldwide in which fracking is banned. But the arrogant nongs currently infesting local government in the Clarence Valley are an ignorant breed apart.

Of course Clarence Valley councillors are not alone in their folly as this email from the equally foolish NSW Nationals MP for Clarence (who obviously considers himself a lobbyist for Metgasco, Santos, Petronas, Total, Shell, PetroChina & Kogas) shows:
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:55:57+1000
From: ElectorateOffice.Clarence@parliament.nsw.gov.au
To: mikemizzi@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: gas in the Clarence
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your email indicating your concerns regarding coal seam gas mining in all regions of Australia.
I support coal seam gas exploration being undertaken in our area. I think the industry can deliver a lot of benefits to our community in terms of employment and economic opportunities. At the same time it is important for the industry to operate in an environmentally responsible manner and to respect the interests of landowners. As you may know we released a Strategic Land Use Policy before the election which aims to strike a balance between the interests of the different groups. A copy of the policy is attached for your interest.
Exploration licenses have been held on the Mid North Coast for decades and extensive gas exploration has been undertaken in that time with little concern from the community. Community issues seem to have only come up since the movie Gaslands has been shown in the area. You should be aware that this movie is about the Shale Gas industry in the US and has little relevance to Australian gas industry practice. The movie is not a realistic portrayal of the gas industry in Australia as both the operational activities and regulatory environments are quite different. I have attached an information factsheet about the Gaslands movie that addresses some of the inaccuracies.
The coal seam gas industry is regulated by the Department of Industry and Investment in the exploration stage of operations when notices are placed in local papers notifying the intention to grant an exploration licence. Prior to any development being undertaken an environmental assessment is undertaken and must be approved by the Department of Planning, who co-ordinates the input from all relevant NSW Government agencies, including environmental agencies. At this stage there is an extensive community consultation process. Government agencies review an extensive list of environmental factors and specifically address any impact on underground aquifers and existing or future land uses. An example of these studies can be found at: http://www.glng.com.au/Content.aspx?p=90.
The coal seam gas industry is regulated by NSW State regulation. The National Industrial Chemicals Notifications and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) is a Commonwealth authority and therefore is not a relevant agency for the purposes of regulating the industry. Several independent studies have examined the potential for water contamination due to hydraulic fracturing practices and found that the practice does not pose a threat to underground sources of drinking water. You can download the study at: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/
class/hydraulicfracturing/wells_coalbedmethanestudy.cfm.
Coal seam gas currently supplies over 90% of Queensland’s gas supply and is likely to become an increasingly important source of energy in NSW as well. I do believe that the industry can be developed in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Regards
Steve
Steve Cansdell, MP
Member for Clarence

"Emails between department staff (Department of Industry and Investment) and Metgasco show that testing for coal seam gas using fracking can go ahead without approval being sought or required from the Environment Department.
The practice of fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves injecting a mix of water, sand and chemicals underground to force gas to the surface."

UPDATE: I noticed that Steve Cansdell’s email contained a reference to an U.S. study rather than an Australian one. I suspected that Steve chose to ignore studies closer to home because they were not as favourable to his support of fracking on the NSW North Coast.
An investigation into the anticipated impacts of mining proposed in the Clarence-Moreton Basin communities: The Felton Project Report from the University of Queensland stable shows Valley locals may not be quite as enthusiastic as the Clarence MP expects:

Major anticipated environmental impacts which are negative are:
 contaminated groundwater and damaged aquifers
 capacity to successfully rehabilitate soil
 reduced air quality
o Significant anticipated environmental concerns are also negative: the potential for ecosystem damage and the cumulative impact and perceived limited capacity for environmental regulation.
o Major anticipated social impacts are negative:
 community tensions between mine and non-mine populations
 the social dislocation of farming families
 loss of visual amenity
 infrastructure, particularly roads

And Steve along with Clarence Valley Council ignores the fact that the large amount of waste water produced by fracking has to go somewhere and the cheapest option available to mining companies is to have the untreated contaminated water injected into natural underground aquifers or spread across the environemnt in other ways. It’s a sure bet the NSW O’Farrell Government would allow this without so much as a solitary moment of hesitation.

Stu Murphy behind the lens

 

Stu Murphy is from South Grafton on the NSW North Coast and has posted his work at Red Bubble. He has a fine eye and I hope we see more of his work.

Budget Reply 2011: exposing the hollow men

The Coalition Budget Reply - old, tired and inaccurate..........

ABC TV Lateline program on 12^th May 2011:

TOM IGGULDEN, REPORTER:

In the lead-up to tonight's speech, the Opposition was letting it be known Tony Abbott would be detailing new policies for small business and welfare.
He must have lost them on the walk to the chamber; there were no new initiatives, even a copy of the speech distributed to the media was a year out of date.

TONY JONES:

Well we didn't get a lot of response to the actual budget tonight in Tony Abbott's speech. So, he did talk about "forgotten families", and the Coalition's been very critical about changes to family benefits in the Swan budget. There are 1.9 million families who receive Family Tax Benefit A. Do you know how many of them Treasury estimates will lose their benefit after the changes?

ANDREW ROBB: Well as I understand it with Tamily Tax A, that almost all of those families will be affected by the decision of the Government to freeze the indexation.

TONY JONES: Well, according to Treasury, only 31,000 families will be affected by the changes.......

TONY JONES: Well in that case, do you know how many are affected by the changes, according to Treasury, in Family Tax Benefit B?

ANDREW ROBB: Well as I understand, some 44,000 families will be affected.

TONY JONES: No, it's 9,000. Apparently out of 1.6 million, 9,000 are going to be affected by the changes to family tax benefit B. Yes, 31,000 are going to be affected by changes to the other tax benefit A, and if you add them together, you get the figure you just mentioned.

Hansard transcript of Budget Reply - see Page 81.