Have the ABC, ACMA and Commonwealth Ombudsman conspired to pervert the course of justice?

Let's start with the following information: Chris Uhlmann one day; Tony Jones the next Does this provide evidence of a criminal act of fraud by the ABC? This, of course, has not been proven in a court of law. The ABC complaints process allows the ABC, the ACMA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman to draw their own conclusions and remain unaccountable for their actions in shutting down complaints against the ABC - regardless of whether or not the evidence submitted may support a finding of criminal wrongdoing. "A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted"." Do the ABC, the ACMA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman simply work together to form a Kangaroo Court? CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECTION 43 Attempting to pervert justice: (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person attempts to obstruct, to prevent, to pervert or to defeat the course of justice in relation to a judicial power; and (b) the judicial power is the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years. 2) Absolute liability applies to the paragraph (1)(b) element of the offence. Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2 of the Criminal Code . (3) For the person to be guilty of an offence against subsection (1), the person's conduct must be more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. The question whether conduct is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence is one of fact. (4) A person may be found guilty of an offence against subsection (1) even if doing the thing attempted is impossible. Perverting the course of justice in English, Canadian, Hong Kong, and Irish law, is a criminal offence in which someone prevents justice from being served on himself or on another party. It is a common law offence carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Common law defence is a defence based on decisions in previous cases. Let's see what the http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/86111/sd-bb-95-... website has to offer: The prosecution must prove that:

• The defendant did the conduct alleged in the indictment;
• That the conduct alleged in the indictment had the tendency to pervert the course of justice, (see note 2 below) i.e., turn it aside from its proper course; The prosecution does not have to prove that the course of justice was perverted or would have been perverted. It is sufficient that the prosecution established that there was a real risk that injustice might result; (see note 3 below)
• That the defendant intended to pervert the course of justice by his actions. (see note 4 below)

Notes: (1) See footnotes to Attempts. (2) The “course of justice” commences when the jurisdiction of the court is invoked. The “course of justice” is synonymous with the “administration of justice (R v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268 at 276 per Mason CJ) but the offence can be committed when no curial proceedings are on foot (Rogerson per Mason CJ at 277 (“…action taken before curial or tribunal proceedings commence may have a tendency and be intended to frustrate or deflect the course of curial or tribunal proceedings which are imminent, probable or even possible”) and Brennan and Toohey JJ at 283-284 (“Although police investigation into possible offences against the criminal law or a disciplinary code do not form part of the course of justice, an act calculated to mislead the police during investigations may amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice”). See too R v Murphy (1985) 158 CLR 596 at 618. (3) The suggested direction is based on the judgment of the High Court in Meissner (1995) 184 CLR 132 which in turn adopted the statements of principle in Rogerson (ibid) 275-276, 279 and 277. In Rogerson (280) Brennan and Toohey JJ said: “The course of justice consists in the due exercise by a court or competent judicial authority of its jurisdiction to enforce, adjust or declare the rights and liabilities of persons subject to the law in accordance with the law and the actual circumstances of the case: Todd [1957] SASR 305, 328. (4) See footnotes to Intention. So what does all this mean? Does it mean the Australian Government and its Agencies have, at their absolute discretion, used a Kangaroo Court to pervert the course of justice? So if this has occurred, who is guilty? Is it the people employed by the Government Agencies or is it the Agencies themselves? Is the Law adequate in its current form? One of the only ways to prosecute might be a Class Action lawsuit, but the lawyers involved typically seek a percentage of the payout in addition to fee reimbursement. If there is no payout because the citizens forming the class action seek only justice, is there a lawyer prepared to seek only fees and no windfall to take on a noble cause? But class actions can be either closed class actions or open class actions. Closed means there are a limited number of people taking action. Open means the whole of society is taking the action; for example against the banks for unjustified bank charges. So why not an open class action by the people of Australia against the ABC for its illegal conduct? We shall see.