asic mail contents defined

Just received reply from Mr Medcraft.

Response preamble:

[[[ Dear Mr Grundel

WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED

Thank you for your letter dated 10 April 2012. In your letter you have restated your previous allegations that ASIC has failed to take action on the alleged mismanagement by Wellington Capital Limited (Wellington) as responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund (PIF) and queried the basis of my letter of 23 March 2012.

I can confirm that my letter of 23 March was in response to your letter of 29 February 2012 to the Hon Bill Shorten.]]]

COMMENT: Hallelujah; the unauthorized deputising confirmed!

Mr Medcraft continues with: “ You have again claimed that ASIC has failed you and other investors in the PIF by: ... etc“

A well thumbed-through list of my 5 points put to Bill Shorten is reproduced, concluding with:
"In addition you have requested that ASIC:
(1) take steps to freeze sale of assets of the PIF; and
(2) facilitate democratic election of a new responsible entity."

On Point 1 heading: >Refusing to recognise breaches of the Corporation Act<, "... ASIC is in the process of finalising its investigation and will be in a position to provide a response to you more fully in the near future".

COMMENT: Well, still outside the "This QUADRANT (january-march" promised to me by breaker1, but not disheartening!

On point 2 heading >Allowing Wellington to liquidate the remaining assets of PIF<; only last sentences are quoted as most relevant: "Our enquiries have considered whether the circumstances surrounding recent sales of assets may indicate breaches of Wellington's obligations as a responsible entity, for example through the sale of a property to an associate or related party.
On the basis of the information reviewed by ASIC there does not appear to be evidence of Wellington breaching its obligation in relation to the sale of assets of the PIF."

COMMENT: Medcraft still avoids explaining his position taken via Itallised statement from letter 22 Aug 2010.
TO EVERYONE: can we rake-in some research to show "Related Party connection in any of the sales so far.

When I will bivouac again in Canberra, I will be presenting Wellington lies vis-a-vis her statement before ASX, Dowsett, ASIC that there is bugger all for her to disclose in the matter of "unusual 24 hour PIN share trading", while in fact shares were transacted to & from related parties. I will soon show Canberra that history tends to repeat itself when criminal pathology of Wellington ilk is invoked in repetitive dealings
Please to all: continue helping me with your spadefuls of WC/ASIC dirt.

On point 3 heading >Allowing Wellington to sell assets without putting it to PIF member<

COMMENT: A usual COP-OUT diatribe in which ASIC still is not awakening to the true meaning of Section 601FC with relevant sub-sections.`
Probably the easiest breach of Corporation Act for PIF to prove.

On point 4 heading >ASIC breaching its own regulations and guidelines< Medcraft leaves the door open with:
"As previously stated it is unclear as to the specific issues you are referring to in support of the claim you have made here, we would be prepared to respond if you provide further information".

COMMENT: Bingo! At last the pro-forma cacophony is ditched and a GENUINE offer of further clarification is extended. Bravo Mr Medcraft.
TO EVERYONE: we are invited to formulate in a diligent form this particular issue.
Please provide your lists of perceived breaches and breach mechanics.

On point 5 heading >ASIC failing to process your application for an administrative hearing< The "assisting effort" is best to date. I reproduce in full:
"Again as previously stated ASIC may suspend or cancel an Australian financial services licence, pursuant to subsection 915C(1) of the Act in cases where, amongst other things:
* the licensee has failed to comply with its obligations under section 912A of the Act: and
*ASIC has reasons to believe that the licensee will not comply with their obligations under section 912A of the Act.

Pursuant to subsection 915C(4) of the Act, ASIC may only suspend or cancel the Australian financial services licence after giving the licensee the opportunity to make submissions to ASIC on the matter to appear or be represented at a hearing before ASIC, that takes place in private. ASIC must have sufficient relevant and credible grounds to support a decision to proceed to an administrative hearing.
As previously stated part of the investigation process that ASIC is undertaking includes determining whether there are breaches of sec tion9122A of the Act."

Cc: Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation (in italics)

COMMENT: Another reasonable leg-up with a clear road map for us to follow.
TO EVERYONE: Please provide whatever may seem relevant.

A surprising and restorative departure from letter 22 Aug 2010.
Back on track, while not yet totally “All the way with ASIC Bray!”

The TARGET IS Mr B.SHORTEN IN the CAPACITY outlined by Mr Medcraft.
By the time I may see Mr Shorten, it is to be hoped that his Libido will shrivel to the point of not being a hindrance in his performance of PUBLIC DUTIES, foremost of which IS implementing IMMEDIATE PIF SOLUTION!

And to everyone, I am not giving up on youse: please respond to my REQUESTS ASAP.

PS: Jadel; full copy being mailed today.

Please send all W.F.T's direct to:
Wellington Capital Limited
GPO Box 694 BRISBANE QLD 4001
to the attention of Jenny HUTSON MD or
Caroline SNOW; vice MD.

Regards,