The Incredible Fraud Against Australia First:
AFP (NSW) Incorporated Files Action Against The Leaders Of The Former Party.
Jim Saleam May 26 2009.
On May 25, I filed a complaint with the Western Australian Department of Commerce against Diane Teasdale and two others (Barry and Jeanette Woods) in respect of the administration of Australia First Party Incorporated. These three operated from Shepparton as part of the 'National Council' of the former party.
This complaint centred on Section 44 of the Western Australian Associations Incorporation Act (1987) - that no one shall use the name 'incorporated' when they are not an incorporation; and that the named persons posing as an executive of an incorporated body made any number of 'contracts' with persons (such as taking memberships) or corporate bodies, whilst not an incorporation. I complained also of "membership oppression" whereby the membership (sic) was denied essential knowledge as to the workings of the incorporation and denied their rights despite paying their fee and entering into membership.
I sought ultimate orders of the Commissioner (a construction via Sections 31, 34, 35 of the Act) that all membership files, records, property and liquid assets be acquired from Diane Teasdale and the others, as were formerly the property of Australia First Party Incorporated and be vested in Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated.
Because Australia First Party Incorporated had its registration as an association cancelled on February 20 2006! And we are the only rightful successor group.
Since the 'party' had no registrations at that time as a party with any Electoral Commission, it meant that the entity calling itself Australia First Party Incorporated did not exist in any way at all. At best, it was a mere unincorporated grouping with no real legal standing!
Yes, that is correct. This association called a 'party' - has been a non-existent legal-entity for over three years.
The nature of this fact is legally crucial, morally repugnant and politically of enormous significance to the Australian nationalist movement.
I was a member of the original incorporation (hereafter: AFP Inc) as were the leaders of the new Australia First Party and a significant proportion of our current membership. I joined the old party in December 2001. Not until but a few weeks ago did the truth about the 'legality' of the old party begin to unravel, a truth that now begs incredible questions
In September 2007, I was formally expelled from AFP Inc. - or so it was said and so I thought. Other expelled members, some others who formally announced their resignations and other activists who simply walked away from the old group, repudiated what we all regarded as the poor management and deficient ideological and political quality of the former 'leaders' and reconstituted the party as Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated. We preserved the registration of a State party in New South Wales. We upheld Australian nationalist principles. We set out to rebuild the Australia First ideal. We have done so.
However, just our expulsions etc had been a charade, the whole entity had obviously been a charade for years. We were trapped in someone's game.
Mrs. Teasdale held herself out to people after February 20 2006 as the "president" of the Australia First Party Incorporated. She issued press releases. She issued membership forms in the name of AFP Inc and took monies. She operated a bank account in that name. She purported to be filing annual returns for the incorporation with the Western Australian Department of Commerce. She said that AFP Inc would apply in due course to become a registered Federal party and she told the organisers to collect membership forms and money to this end. We did so. Eventually over a year into this pantomime, she supposedly expelled her main leaders from the association and it claimed it would be carried on by the clean Shepparton leadership. She issued new membership forms with higher membership fees and tried to 'revamp' her group. She seldom issued receipts for these monies (so some new members of the new party state, ie those who joined the old group in error) and she commented against us via newsletters and on the Internet as people who had bad ideas and who had usurped the name of Australia First Party. She had a website in the name of the AFP Inc from which people could (and did) download a membership form - at least till recently when the Site went down. The website announced she was the only spokesperson for Australia First Party. As little as three weeks ago, she had dealings with the One Nation party and told them she was the president of Australia First Party and she spoke with an official of the former party in Western Australia too and told him that the group was in existence.
Possibly more serious in terms of perverting legal facts was another action undertaken by the Shepparton non-group. In August-September 2007, Mrs. Teasdale held herself out to the New South Wales Electoral Commission as 'Australia First Party Incorporated' and maintained she possessed some right to persaude that office from registering our party in New South Wales. As it was, the Commission rejected the argument. Whether she had any right to halt the registration was debateable, but the intent was clear. And what if she had succeeded? And has some offence been otherwise committed? I suspect so. The strike against the New South Wales Australia First members was openly designed to kill off the party in this State.
We cannot believe, after our conversations with the Western Australian Department of Commerce which confirmed to us its processes, that Mrs. Teasdale did not know that the association's registration had been cancelled. She knew. She was warned of pending deregistration, and continually corresponded with. Records exist at the Department of Commerce.
Deregistration could easily have been prevented in 2006 by simple reply or its registration reinstated later, if as the official statement said, "cancellation had been in error".
Mrs. Teasdale did none of this. Rather, she allowed the cancellation of the registration of the association. She never reinstated it.
I cannot say at what point the other members of her Shepparton based 'National Council' of the party became aware of the fraud. I am sure they did learn of it. They too joined in the deception. It is matter of what they may now say.
So what was the game?
The cancellation of the association's registration took place some ten weeks after the Civil Uprising at Cronulla. Australia First had won substantial publicity. Many people joined. It was announced the party would apply to become a Federal party. While that was occurring, clearly, Mrs. Teasdale did nothing in respect of preserving the party's corporate status. She hardly informed me of what was taking place.
Thereafter, the members undertook to work harder to secure Federal party status and embarked on efforts to raise the party's profile. In that period, Mrs. Teasdale conferred regularly with officers of the party via phone and fax, approved documents and appeared to give instructions.
However, it became clear too from late 2006 that the Shepparton 'leadership' group sought to centralise the party, shut down other websites than their won and otherwise secure their 'authority'. Was that also part of the master-plan?
Ironically, from mid 2006 until mid 2007, a group of mainstreamer 'patriots' sought to take over Australia First - or thought that was what they were doing. Had they succeeded, they would have seized nothing! Internal dissension was unleashed about which Mrs. Teasdale appeared to do little. Perhaps it also served the plan? Perhaps the dissension served her in managing the group to nowhere? Finally, in May 2007, she began to 'expel' organisers on all sides of this dissension and ultimately - expelled me.
In my view, it was clearly (as we can now see) that Mrs. Teasdale was simply managing the group out of existence both 'quietly' on the one hand and with misdirected 'noise' on the other. Once the screaming was all over after the expulsions, she sought to appear to assert her 'moral' (sic) authority and her rights and stated Australia First would continue on as a pressure group, but not become a registered party (obviously not!) Did she simply hope the thing in Shepparton would die after a while - and the fraud would never be noticed?
What is reasonably certain now, is that this was Mrs. Teasdale's essential intention from late 2005. Her peculiar internal conduct now becomes explicable.
Whom did this all serve? What was Mrs. Teasdale's real motive?
She misused many people and their money. Obviously. This was an offence under Western Australian law. She took a big risk that the fraud would not be noticed. Incredibly, it was not noticed. Nobody ever checked up upon her 'legalities'. To take such a risk both to her 'legal' position and to her 'reputation', implied that the game was one where the stakes were not low ones.
Mrs. Teasdale was hardly serving the cause of Australian nationalism in all this. She was serving 'someone' else. I shall not at this point, ahead of the facts, make any claim as to 'who' that might be. Yet, we are aware of claims made by (at least) the New South Wales political police in early 2007, that they have disrupted patriotic organisations. Was it something like that? Or was it something else? Certainly, the political police agency ASIO would well have known what was occurring. Right now, we cannot really say.
Whatever cause she served, Mrs. Teasdale's motive was obviously to rid the scene of the Australia First Party. Otherwise, it could grow and become the major party of Australian patriotism. It would take on new members and perhaps some new directions. She would be compelled no longer to lead a dead pan country social group, but a party. She could not do it. She did not want to do it. So, she opted to kill it off.
That is the bottom line. It was just more of the wrecking employed against the nationalist and patriotic movement, wrecking from within by little people with personalist agendas.
The action of the Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated with the Western Australian Department of Commerce, will certainly make it clear that we are the legitimate inheritors of the Australia First name and tradition and that Mrs. Teasdale behaved with less than propriety. Her reputation anywhere is gone. She may face prosecution and other legal burdens - and up to $60,000 in fines. That is no longer our concern.
The truth is told and the chips fall where they may.
Home: Defend Australian Nationalism