Kevin Mitnick Hacked California Law in 1983

Early in his career, Kevin Mitnick successfully hacked California law. He told me the story when he heard about my new book, which he partially recounts his 2012 book, Ghost in the Wires.

The setup is that he just discovered that there’s warrant for his arrest by the California Youth Authority, and he’s trying to figure out if there’s any way out of it.

As soon as I was settled, I looked in the Yellow Pages for the nearest law school, and spent the next few days and evenings there poring over the Welfare and Institutions Code, but without much hope.

Still, hey, “Where there’s a will…” I found a provision that said that for a nonviolent crime, the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court expired either when the defendant turned twenty-one or two years after the commitment date, whichever occurred later. For me, that would mean two years from February 1983, when I had been sentenced to the three years and eight months.

Scratch, scratch. A little arithmetic told me that this would occur in about four months. I thought, What if I just disappear until their jurisdiction ends?

This was the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. This was a lot of manual research—no search engines in those days. He researched the relevant statutes, and case law that interpreted those statutes. He made copies of everything to hand to his attorney.

I called my attorney to try out the idea on him. His response sounded testy: “You’re absolutely wrong. It’s a fundamental principle of law that if a defendant disappears when there’s a warrant out for him, the time limit is tolled until he’s found, even if it’s years later.”

And he added, “You have to stop playing lawyer. I’m the lawyer. Let me do my job.”

I pleaded with him to look into it, which annoyed him, but he finally agreed. When I called back two days later, he had talked to my Parole Officer, Melvin Boyer, the compassionate guy who had gotten me transferred out of the dangerous jungle at LA County Jail. Boyer had told him, “Kevin is right. If he disappears until February 1985, there’ll be nothing we can do. At that point the warrant will expire, and he’ll be off the hook.”

So he moved to Northern California and lived under an assumed name for four months.

What’s interesting to me is how he approaches legal code in the same way a hacker approaches computer code: pouring over the details, looking for a bug—a mistake—leading to an exploitable vulnerability. And this was in the days before you could do any research online. He’s spending days in the law school library.

This is exactly the sort of thing I am writing about in A Hacker’s Mind. Legal code isn’t the same as computer code, but it’s a series of rules with inputs and outputs. And just like computer code, legal code has bugs. And some of those bugs are also vulnerabilities. And some of those vulnerabilities can be exploited—just as Mitnick learned.

Mitnick was a hacker. His attorney was not.

Posted on January 27, 2023 at 3:19 PM54 Comments


Alan January 27, 2023 4:15 PM

Mitnick was a hacker. His attorney was not.

No, his attorney was just a bad attorney. Statutes of limitations toll, but jurisdiction is an absolute bar; it does not toll. A competent attorney would know that.

who the heck hacked NASA's file servers January 27, 2023 4:33 PM

what’s the name of the (in)famous alleged person who allegedly broke into the NASA computers and allegedly+seemingly pannicked about cosmos and outer space images edited for content before distribution? does anybody remember that person’s name? it was a public domain gossip for a while. anybody remember? thanks.

Cris January 27, 2023 4:46 PM

“Legal code isn’t the same as computer code, but it’s a series of rules with inputs and outputs.”

Except it really isn’t. It’s a combination of written rules (constitutions, statutes, regulations) and customary ways of interpreting those rules (precedential decisions). The written rules are often vague, poorly specified, and contradictory and precedents aren’t always exactly on point and can be overruled. These rules and precedents are interpreted by human beings, whose opinions and experience are going to color their decisions.

For example, according to a literal reading of federal law and the constitution, there’s now way to convict anyone of a crime requiring a jury trial committed in the portion of Yellowstone National Park that’s in Idaho ( You’d need a jury drawn from people who live in an area that’s uninhabited. When a poacher actually tried to make this argument in court, the judge basically said, “nope, we can just try you in Wyoming in front of a Wyoming jury.”

Or ask XKCD put it much more pithily:

willmore January 27, 2023 4:54 PM

I had need to work with a lawyer a couple of years back. I read as much of the relevant law as I could get my hands on–which it pretty much all of it if you are aware of it. By the time I spoke with a lawyer, he asked if I had studied law and I had to admit that no, I hadn’t, I’m just an engineer. He suggested that, should I ever want a change of career, I should consider being a paralegal. Maybe it helped that we had gone to the same univeristy, but I think there’s a lot of similarity between the law profession an programming/hacking. I think the accountants and financial people are similar in some respects as well.

darkprism42 January 27, 2023 7:29 PM

what’s the name of the (in)famous alleged person who allegedly broke into the NASA computers and allegedly+seemingly pannicked about cosmos and outer space images edited for content before distribution? does anybody remember that person’s name? it was a public domain gossip for a while. anybody remember? thanks.

I think you’re referring to Gary McKinnon.

AlanS January 27, 2023 8:58 PM

Not much of a lawyer. The meaning of a rule isn’t a given. It’s contingent, contextual, cultural, it’s accomplished in practice. Legal code is not computer code. It’s contingency is not a bug, a mistake, or an exploitable vulnerability.

Sellam January 27, 2023 9:35 PM

Some of the best lawyers I know were all computer people before they got into law. Hacking the law is very much a thing. I’ve been doing it for 20 years.

I know how to get root access.

ResearcherZero January 27, 2023 11:50 PM

Prosecutors use the same approach. Occasionally the odd magistrate or judge also “hacks the system” with a technicality. Generally this takes place in a closed court, but not exclusively, and typically when nobody is stupid enough to sit in on the proceedings.

The large majority of people, if instructed by someone who has the appearance of importance, that they cannot do something, they will comply.

“You cannot enter the courtroom.”

Assuming the statement is true, most will sit waiting outside, without every acquiring the validity of the statement (attempting to enter through the door, or by further inquiry for example). They never know what really takes place inside. Who would bother to attend proceedings when not absolutely necessary?

But not to worry, everyone working within the legal system is a responsible adult. Being responsible adults, they would be sure to lodge a complaint if something untoward took place. And the best place to look for complaints? A waste disposal vessel of some description, on the mere chance you were actually stupid enough to make one.

ResearcherZero January 28, 2023 12:13 AM

“the mechanistic view of physis has affected our understanding and discussion of anything—any agent or agency—we might take to be immaterial”

“Descartes’s mechanism made the explicitly metaphysical claim that material entities really were (in themselves) simply mechanical in their activity, a more methodological mechanism would abstract from the question about what material entities really are (in themselves), and restrict itself rather to treating those entitles as if they were mechanical in their activity—treating them, that is, just so far as they manifest in mechanical ways. Finally, then, this more methodological mechanism is now of a statistical sort: it treats material entities in so far as they manifest in terms of mechanical order—particles, aggregates of particles—and this is seen to be an occurrence of statistical frequency.”

Yet there are these silly little humans working everywhere. They are not machines. They are not infallible, as they appear to be alive, and when they are paying attention, seem to possess at least some form of reasoning.

Clive Robinson January 28, 2023 4:30 AM

@ darkprism42, ALL,

Some one has been trying to hack this blogs posting rules.

Have a look at the URL behind the name field of,

“who the heck hacked NASA’s file servers”

You will see it’s very “political” and would attract undesirable attention (as has happend in the past).

Presumably it’s been put here to get the Search Engine Robots to find thus get it up ranked.

@ Moderator,

The URL’s behind names on this page are mostly iffy as are the comments they are attached to.

keithpeter January 28, 2023 5:33 AM

In the UK we have the word ‘reasonable’ in various laws and regulations. Tends to make edge cases harder to exploit but not impossible.

Michael O'Kane January 28, 2023 10:07 AM

No online research in 1983? Nonsense. There was Lexis, which was available at most law school libraries, Westlaw (same), Juris (the gov’t’s version), FLITE (the Air Force’s version) and law journal articles were indexed on laser disc.

Winter January 28, 2023 10:56 AM


In the UK we have the word ‘reasonable’ in various laws and regulations.

Actually, almost every country has this in their law or procedures.

US law is different. In the 1990’s I read “The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America” by Philip K. Howard.

For me as a non-American, this was an eye opener. The basic philosophy of US legal thinking is explained as the principle that nobody can be trusted. Therefore, law should be written as algorithms with no option for interpretation, not by judges, not by prosecutors, not by lawyers.

This leads to all the idiocies of USA legal practice where, e.g., people are jailed for life for stealing a bicycle [1] or breaking into a car [2].

The underlying mistrust of everyone leads to a system where the law is a quagmire where no human being is safe. [3]

[1] ‘

[2] ‘

[3] Don’t Talk to the Police (really, really watch this)

Because, you will be guilty of something:
Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime

Clive Robinson January 28, 2023 11:49 AM

@ Michael O’Kane,

“There was Lexis, which was available at most law school libraries,”

But from memory not available to the public due to cost.

Mind you back in 83 there was no actual computer crimes legislation as such. I remember trying to find out about it at various times and spending fruitless hours in several law libraries (Both UK and US legislation is very badly written for primarilly non sensical reasons, which can make running searches by hand a nightmare).

Jon January 29, 2023 12:09 AM

@ Cris, among others

That was something that used to bug me. That these legislators would go to such efforts to try to make the law complete and cover all cases – and yet so badly fail when an even half-clever lawyer shows up.

But sometimes the law is deliberately written to be vague.

Sometimes because they want the law to be flexible – so that if culture or technology or the use thereof changes dramatically, the law still applies. A law against smashing up your neighbor’s oxcart still applies if you smash up your neighbor’s Ferrari, even if internal combustion power wasn’t originally specified.

Sometimes because they want to cause a chilling effect – if the law is vague, who knows who might be a criminal? A little ‘selective enforcement’ can go a long way.

All this is anathematic to computer code. Computers are ruthlessly literal – they do exactly what you tell them to. Computers don’t do ‘sarcasm’ or ‘nuance’. Despite what are called ‘interpreted’ languages, that’s not what ‘interpretation’ means in law. Everything must be carefully specified, and anything outside the specification shall be ignored. Furthermore, computers have no concept of mercy, or of ‘looking the other way’ – if it is to be executed, it will be executed.

It’s logic, but in the law, the logic is distinctly ‘fuzzy’. Sometimes up can be down. Sometimes 2+2=4, sometimes 2+2=banana. You’ll never get that (or at least shouldn’t!) in code.

Finally, arguing about the law is a highly profitable profession. Arguing about what computer code does is pointless.

Have fun, J.

ResearcherZero January 29, 2023 3:10 AM


I would call this kind of tactic ‘unreasonable’.

It is however well rooted in Western Australia legal practice – to go after the victim. It has gotten particularly nasty, some may say abhorrent, when directed at minors, as such proceedings are usually sealed and cannot be publicly disclosed or reported by media.

Most minors lack resources, knowledge and the ability to defend themselves against such an attack. Some of these proceedings I would describe as a legal form of ‘baby seal clubbing’, with the prosecutors pausing to turn and smile at the gallery after landing each blow.

It’s a little mean when the victims have been subjected to aggravated kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, and other matters which are sealed. But the prosecutors have to protect their friends somehow. Occasionally they are forced to jail the odd pal of theirs, but it’s a difficult task to make it happen, and it takes a very long time.

Winter January 29, 2023 4:46 AM


I would call this kind of tactic ‘unreasonable’.

Re: defamation

I do not know about Australia, but in the UK defamation law is organised to allow censor the weak. Write about the crimes of the powerful, and you get silenced for defamation.

ResearcherZero January 29, 2023 9:36 PM


It is the same system in Australia. People are inexperienced and do not believe that professionals, especially those practicing in the legal profession, can be sophisticated and malicious con artists. Compliance is also terrible.

This is one from a few years back…

“member of the syndicate travelled from Sydney to Perth numerous times to help launder the proceeds of their organised crime. He received money on 13 occasions, collecting up to $500,000 in cash at a time. A total of 163 bank transactions estimated to be worth $29.5 million were made, with the depositors visiting as many as 10 bank branches a day.”

“If staff aren’t effectively trained in what behaviours or transaction patterns might suggest ML/TF activity, they are unlikely to flag these matters for investigations or reporting to AUSTRAC.”

Of course people rarely hear where the money comes from, as those crimes can be particularly ugly.

ResearcherZero January 29, 2023 9:38 PM

But watch out for those scary, scary hackers. They could launch a nuclear weapon remotely from anywhere! 😉

ResearcherZero January 30, 2023 4:21 AM


Defamation Law


there is a new requirement that the plaintiff suffer “serious harm” in order to sue

As a public sector employee, you must always act in the public interest. In other words, you are accountable to the public for your actions.

This means you need to treat everyone you have contact with in your work, including colleagues, equally without prejudice or favour, and with honesty, consistency and impartiality.

You also need to:

place the public and DCS’s interests above your private interests
uphold the law, the institutions of government and our democratic principles
provide apolitical and non-partisan advice
provide transparency and support public scrutiny
be financially responsible and focus on efficient, effective and prudent use of all government resources.

Sanctions are intended to be proportionate to the nature of the breach, provide a clear message to the relevant employee that their behaviour was not acceptable, and act as a deterrent to the employee and others … The sanction should focus on the seriousness of what the employee has done—the number of elements breached is not, of itself, a relevant consideration. Prior misconduct is also relevant to the imposition of a sanction and might usefully be taken into account by the sanction delegate where:

it indicates that the employee was, or should have been, well aware of the standard of conduct expected and the potential consequences of misconduct

it demonstrates that the employee is apparently unwilling to adhere to the standard of conduct expected


Celebrities, politicians, high-ranking or powerful government officials, and others with power in society are generally considered public figures/officials and are required to prove actual malice.

Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.

…It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn’t like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.

Federal employees must always place loyalty to high ethical standards above private gain. Understanding and observing ethics rules are essential to fulfilling that trust.

“breathing space” is necessary “if the freedoms of expression [are] … to survive.”

Winter January 30, 2023 4:54 AM


Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.

That does not seem to be the case in the UK. That is why the UK courts are so popular by rich evil-doers, eg, terrorist financiers.

Steve January 30, 2023 5:14 PM

@bruce: “Mitnick was a hacker. His attorney was not.”

“Mitnick was a conman and a fugitive from justice. His attorney was not.”

There, fixed that for you.

I see nothing admirable or interesting about such a ploy and I hope that the California Legislature has remedied this egregious loophole.

While Mr Mitnick might have been a dubious “culture hero” there are plenty of other felons who are not.

The fact that he seems to now make his living as a “security consultant” makes just about as much sense as giving a bank robber a job as a security guard at your local savings and loan.

Fred January 30, 2023 8:18 PM

What you call hacking and describe as “pouring over the details, looking for a bug—a mistake—leading to an exploitable vulnerability” is what is called legal research. If by “bug” you mean the statue is not being applied as you think the legislature intended. Who knows; you could read the legislative history and maybe get a feel but SCOTUS isn’t too big on caring about legislative history these days. Sometimes a statue is vague by design, sometimes not. Statutes are made by legislative compromise and that is a lot messier than writing code.

ResearcherZero January 31, 2023 2:14 AM

As a public sector employee, you must always act in the public interest.

provide transparency and support public scrutiny

provide a clear message to the relevant employee that their behaviour was not acceptable

and act as a deterrent to the employee and others

The law is pretty messy alright. They did demote a judge to a magistrate in Perth, Western Australia. The judge was dragging young boys off the street into public parks and sexually assaulting them. He committed assualts on his lunch break, within close proximity to the courthouse where he worked, smack bang in the middle of the city. He attacked children in public toilets. He also kidnapped children who were walking home from school. As these assaults took place in public places, in broad daylight, he was caught committing these crimes.

The judge continued working as a magistrate for decades, but his many victims were viciously dealt with by the prosecutors, in closed proceedings.

The prosecutors represented the accused, instead of the victims, who they were supposed to be prosecuting on behalf of. Unreasonably denied evidence. Lost evidence. Offered recommendations completely not fit for sentencing.

The prosecutors did not stop with the judge either, they repeated the process with other members of a tight-knit group engaged in kidnapping, child exploitation, extortion, embezzlement, and money laundering. Each working closely with the prosecutors in government jobs.

The prosecutors gathered all the incriminating evidence together, with their own sticky little hands. Then they “lost” it, where they presumed it would never be found.

Just one of them has been jailed, three decades later, though there is no mention of these previous crimes, or that he was caught embezzling funds from the Health Department decades earlier.

There is a reference to “a culture in which Paul Whyte’s corrupt conduct was able to thrive”.

Paul Whyte corruption hearing told he started charging for fake services two days after being hired.

“it is clear that the processes underpinning our policies require strengthening, and we have initiated a program of changes to achieve this”

I have been assured of that more than a few times now, over the decades. In light of the many inquires, where many details were not disclosed, I’m beginning to suspect it smells a little bit like s__t…

Time to open up all these boxes and boxes of evidence that the prosecutors conveniently compiled to provide transparency and support public scrutiny, provide a clear message to the relevant employee that their behaviour was not acceptable, and act as a deterrent to the employee and others.

ResearcherZero January 31, 2023 7:26 AM

correct link

Fortunately the prosecutors gathered all the incriminating evidence together.

The commissioner shot through as complaints began to make their way to the Crime and Corruption Commission, and the investigation into Paul Whyte got under way. Ocallaghan had been under investigation and subject to a number of legal proceedings himself, many long before becoming commissioner.

Importantly Paul Whyte establishes a legal threshold for a pattern of behaviour, and a disregard for the law, which makes introducing further evidence much easier. Evidence seized from the prosecutors.

Steve January 31, 2023 4:06 PM

@Researcher Zero: I’m well aware Mr Mitnick spent time in prison, well deserved, mind you, though I find the use of solitary confinement in general to be barbaric and a form of torture.

Marc January 31, 2023 8:51 PM

Years ago I took a Computers and the Law course, and it started with the basic idea of figuring out which word or phrase to attack. If murder is “the intentional killing of another person without justification of excuse”, then does your defense focus on the “intentional”, or “justification” or even “another person”. Focusing attention on specific details was key and very programmer/hacker-ish. Similarly dependent and independent clauses in patents we’re trivial for programmers to understand while apparently it’s a difficult concept for many law students. The difficult part is that the legal system sees no need to be consistent in what a word means across two laws, which is incredibly frustrating for most programmers.

Nick Levinson February 1, 2023 12:07 AM

Geometry as we know it got hacked by someone who didn’t have a practical reason for doing it. (This is my understanding from decades ago and not lately researched.)

We understood the rules of geometry for up to 3 spatial dimensions. Someone wondered about 4 or more spatial dimensions and developed a set of rules for geometry for that general case. It worked, but no one had a use for it, back then.

A hundred years passed before anyone needed to work with n-dimensional space where n was a positive integer greater than 3. Only then did old n-dimensional geometry rules become useful.

(Notes: Einstein’s relativity theories spoke of 4 dimensions, but 1 was temporal, so only 3 were spatial.

(Later developments in physics refer to dozens of dimensions at the micro level; I don’t know if they’re relevant here.

(Hypercubes are conceptual, not physical.

(Data tables commonly begin as 2-dimensional but their dimensionality could reach 4 or higher.)

Nick Levinson February 1, 2023 12:41 AM

Hacking is not limited to people with good intent. From @Bruce Schneier’s description, I see that Kevin Mitnick was a hacker of both law and IT.

When I read The Ice Man, by Philip Carlo, a biography of a contract murderer for the Mafia, for which the biographer said he tried to verify the subject’s stories, my impression of the murderer was that he was a geek, a murder geek, with something in common with computer geeks. If a business executive doesn’t know much about the computer at their desk and it fails, they call the office’s computer geek and say something like “it’s not printing.” The geek often immediately thinks of 5 reasons why it might be broken even if all the geek says out loud is “I’ll be right there.” The murderer used different techniques to fit varied circumstances, including surprises, and clearly was highly skilled in choosing and using techniques, and apparently the Mafia usually didn’t tell him how to murder, only whether to include torture or not, and usually left the choice of technique up to him. Murder being unlawful and antisocial is separate from whether he was skilled. It doesn’t even matter that, according to his statements to the biographer, he sometimes did good: once on his way to murder the victim he had tied up and loaded into the van he was driving and having decided that if a cop stops him he’d murder the cop, he decided he’d obey all the traffic laws so as to avoid getting stopped by a cop and thus didn’t kill a cop that day; and once he rescued young children from a criminal who that afternoon had offered him a child for whatever he wanted, even though he rescued them by murdering the criminal and other adults in the house where the children quietly sat and then, while giving himself 20 seconds’ head start to avoid being seen by cops, coaching one girl on how to call the police and have all of them wait outside. The murderer murdered around 200 people and was suspected for only 6, suggesting a 97% success rate before arrest; that underscores skill even though we don’t have to give him an award.

PHP February 1, 2023 8:54 AM

There are lots of examples of real-world hacking.

People hacking medical equipment, or other stuff running out of support.

But there are examples of engineers with an unknown / untreatable disease that has unlimited time, and thus can diagnose, and possible even invent treatment with a professor. If I end up there, I will likely know more than a local doctor within a few weeks.

Lots of public services, if you keep calling them, your request might be pushed up in the pile, as it is too costly to keep getting buggered by you. Make fulfilling your request is the easy option.

Clive Robinson February 1, 2023 9:52 AM


Re : hyper-dimensions

“Later developments in physics refer to dozens of dimensions at the micro level; I don’t know if they’re relevant here.”

The joys of “string theory” that started with twenty six dimensons then due to supersymmetry went down to ten.

The problem is those dimensions are way way down at the Planck length scale end of the line. And wrapped so tightly around each other they make a rose bud look loose.

But String Theory appears to be like “the golden daffodils” more a product of a type of imagination[1] rather than reality.

ARS Technica gave an article on it just a few days ago,

[1] Kurt Gödel was the first to find a solution for Einstein’s equations, and gave the paper to him as a 70th Birthday present. However whilst the maths worked it was not supported by reality… A kind of inverse Horatio

Big Foot February 1, 2023 4:40 PM

This was not a bug in the law, was by design. Juvenile courts have no authority on the subject when they reach age of majority. He just used the system as designed. More DIYer than hacker in this sense.

ResearcherZero February 3, 2023 6:04 AM

“The commission concludes the invoices were a ploy to disguise the payment of a bribe.”

*”This occurred after we had reported on [North Metropolitan Health Service], when people went to jail or were fined and so forth. It occurred after Paul Whyte had been publicly charged as well. It occurred after various things.”

“We have several more reports that we can’t presently publish because of court proceedings although we’re looking to see if we can change that.”

“Hopefully things have changed now under new management and we’ll wait and see.”

“free” holiday 😉

ResearcherZero February 4, 2023 2:58 AM

It occurred after various things… that date back some 30 years.

Several alleged victims accused the medical industry watchdog of protecting the reputation of doctors and the broader medical industry at the expense of patients’ interests and safety.

“surge” in sexual misconduct allegations

Departmental referrals and court orders can also be used to refer victims of abuse to professionals with a history of abuse…

In some cases, it was clear that institutions chose to preserve the alleged perpetrator’s reputation and their own, above protecting children who reported child sexual abuse. Creating cultures of fear, they threatened, blackmailed or intimidated children to deter them from reporting the child sexual abuse and with limited opportunities for disclosure, children often had no one to turn to. ~ report on Institutional Abuse

Tactics exploited by perpetrators working in institutions enable such behaviour to continue even today.

ResearcherZero February 4, 2023 3:02 AM

PwC was effectively paid not to deliver the Robodebt report; to never “finalise” it, to keep it in draft form so nobody ever had to be accountable.

“No … I can’t recall.” “I don’t know.” “I’m not sure”. “I don’t recall”. “I’m not sure I can say whether or not it is”. “Sorry, I can’t think of one” …

A senior public servant has said his political masters cared only about money, according to meeting minutes shown to the Royal Commission into Robodebt. The meeting was with one of Australia’s largest consulting firms, which trashed the scheme in a report that was never given to the government.

“My rationale was multifaceted in terms of why it had not crossed my mind that it would be unlawful.”

“But you understand the concept of ministerial responsibility?”

Annette Musolino, who was chief counsel at the Department of Human Services, knew that the administrative appeals tribunal had ruled several times against the scheme. She was responsible for a team of lawyers handling these decisions, but she did not act to clarify the law.

“I consider it was a failure of public administration on a significant scale,” Ms Campbell said.

“Can you think of a bigger one?” she was asked by Justin Greggery.

“I have been involved with other significant failures and there have been other significant failures, but I don’t think that it’s useful to talk about those,” she said.

ResearcherZero February 4, 2023 4:42 AM

“So, unfortunately, kind of a disputed bureaucratic dispute over money has now led to really embarrassing international humiliation.”

The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has warned the New South Wales and Queensland governments to “think carefully about the international company they are keeping” by blocking or limiting United Nations inspectors’ access to detention facilities.

Assistant commissioner Leon Taylor said some infrastructure dated back to the Victorian era and did not support “contemporary correctional practice”.

Australia, after much f__kery, ratified the CRC in December 1990 which means that Australia has a duty to ensure that all children in Australia enjoy the rights set out in the treaty.

Just so no one forgets…

guidelines – federal police – notification of a crime

ResearcherZero February 12, 2023 11:02 PM

“This can’t happen again.”

The government sat on the evidence for 25 years.

Whyte and Seiver were able to access restricted information of their victims, track these children, and even redirect medical referrals and appointments.

But people in senior positions don’t just have access to restricted information, they also have access to a lot of money and power…

Whyte used his senior positions at the Department of Housing and the Department of Communities to approve invoices and credit card transactions to three companies, owned by his friend and alleged co-accused Jacob Anthonisz, which had not actually done any work for the government.

Payments to the businesses — iValuate, Boldline and Quadrant Analytics — totalled $22 million and Whyte had access to the funds through online banking and company cards.

“An ad hoc system of Commonwealth and state/territory witness protection programs have co-existed with often substandard outcomes for participants, law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Eight regimes are run with inconsistent methods of operation and a lack of accountability.”

“concerns about every step of the regulatory process”

People working in mental health settings make up almost a third of all proven sexual misconduct cases among health workers.

Some mental health workers with proven complaints against their name aren’t removed from practice at all.

“The system is very broken, these people are effectively untouchable and that needs to change.”

If you read any of the vast array of laws that protect government secrets, disclosure in the public interest is discouraged, criminalised, punished, and deplored.

ResearcherZero February 12, 2023 11:17 PM

“Forty-three transactions were made from one of the accounts to help pay off the mortgage of a Mosman Park home on Palmerston Street owned by Whyte”

Nice little reward for repeated aggravated kidnapping, extortion, and extremely serious and violent child abuse hey?

Many of the victims have died over the last 30 years, so you could say I’m just a bit disappointed at the repeated failures, which still continue today.

Though I did hear, “It can’t happen again,” -again from every department, and at every political level – state and federal.

Most of their computer systems have all the security of a sieve. Seems designed that way to avoid any responsibility, and accountability, based on at least my humble observations. With only a few exceptions.

Hendrik Visage February 15, 2023 8:50 AM

It reminds me of a drawing in my school English text book:

Law Study guide

Table of Contents

Criminal law p 1
Matrimonial Law p 25
Contract Law p 75
Loopholes p150
Index p550

Leave a comment


Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.