HAIG REPORT: Is the CSIRO tender process CORRUPT?. Who is Bernie McDonough? Should Megan Clark retain her position as the CEO of the CSIRO? View Menu:

HAIG REPORT: See the evidence that Garth Donnelly is a long time CRIMINAL in ORGANIZED CRIME with POLICE. Garth Donnelly the Spring Hill Brothel Pimp in conjunction with Queensland police, lied, cheated, roughed up, beat and defrauded girls forced into prostitution by Queensland police brothel "patrons", FROM 1990, after Wayne Goss & Kevin Rudd terminated the Fitzgerald Enquiry. View Menu:

HAIG REPORT: See the Garth Donnelly, Brisbane City Council documentary evidence of the criminal background to the socially unacceptable heinous Crime of Armed Robbery perpetrated against an isolated vulnerable disabled old man which is just a variation on International CORRUPT ELITE phenomenon View Menu:

HAIG REPORT: Queensland Corrupt Elite is just a variation on International CORRUPT ELITE phenomenon View Menu:

Click here to read HAIG Report on the 2012 Queensland State Election.
The LNP in disarray. When will they dump Campbell Newman?

Click here For LATEST, on 25th November, 2011, hearing in the Queensland Court of Appeal of Russell Mathews' Application for Leave to Appeal, plus; Click here to see his Outline of Argument to the court; & : Click here to see the Transcript of his Oral Submission on 25th November, 2011, & Click here to see the very latest developments in this saga. [This link here will be continually UpDated to be the very latest.]

See: the Page Showing: Prevention of Tooth Decay from Dry Mouth during sleep with Simple Elastic Apparatus: & Sleep Disorder of Obstructive Sleep Apnoea [OSA]

See: the Page Showing: Mathematics <=> Logic: Algorithm => Website: Code & Program: Maths Club: Maths Tutor: ALL Open Source & Totally FREE!!

Latest Update: Many New Corruption Scandals at
THE UNIVERSITY
OF QUEENSLAND

The Cradle of Official, Judicial & Government Corruption in Qld:

Skeletons in the cupboard for Maurie McNarn, new UQ Director of Operations & ex-director of the Australian Defence Intelligence Organisation [ADIO] re Prisoner Rendition, Torture, Abuse, Murder & Abu Graib;

Click here to Learn about your Personalized Alert Notice [IMMEDIATELY BELOW] prepared by our HAIG Unique Visitor Algorithm: [HUVA]

Extended PHP version of Definitions regarding the Legal Process. header.php

The HAIG REPORT: the EVIDENCE

Fraud & Corruption EXPOSED

commonheader.php

Reg. Office: 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia, Qld. 4067, Australia.
Editor-in-Chief: Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA EMAIL your advice: Please using

considerevidence.php

Consider the evidence! Please using

http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS => Click HERE <=

includedCDDMenuAvengerRevengeRetribution.php http://HaigReport.com/aaaaMenu/Menus/includedMenuDefraudingMeMyHome.php ../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php New Document includedCDDMenuCourtTranscripts.php http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS => Click HERE <=

Definitions regarding the Legal Process

written by Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA
View list of my WEBSITES and Bulletin Boards
Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html
[go to HAIG REPORT home]

Advocates Immunity [ai]

The 'immunity' is immunity from prosecution. Anyone who works as an advocate, meaning barristers usually, but even solicitors, who advocates for clients, is immune from prosecution for anything they do that is relatted to their action or role as an advocate. This is widely and expansively interpreted. This can include anything even slightly related to the appearance in court. Some barristers may think it is being smart to hide behind this immunity to cheat his own clients, say to support his political ideology, or to act to initiate a proceeding which has no remote possibility of success but only to delay and cost the defendant. This is even so when a court holds that such was the case and orders that the "wasted costs" be paid by the instructing solicitors, who would have no doubt been advised by the barrister/advocate of the remore chance of successful litigation, apart form the "success of delay".
[go to HAIG REPORT home]

Judge's immunity [ji]

The 'immunity' is immunity from prosecution. Judges cannot be prosecuted for anything they do related to their being a judge. All that can occur is that they can be removed from office, but only on address by both houses of parliament, or so the story goes, what ever that means in practice. In practice, judges are appointed by the executive of government, usually because they have shown as barristers, that they are prepared to support that party's ideology, even if that means being crooked, as long as the strong and powerful do not suffer. With a duality of polarised political parties, there is a mutual standoff. I will leave yours alone if you leave mine alone.

A Victorian [in Australia] Goverment site lists Judicial Immunity [related to magistrates] as: "Judicial immunity is a protection given to members of the judiciary whereby they cannot be sued for actions that are performed in their judicial capacity. Magistrates can therefore make the best decisions on the cases before them, without interference or fear of adverse consequences to themselves.
When judicial decisions do result in negative or unfair consequences, there are appeal and review rights to deal with the matter." [Oh yeah: and the appeal judges have JI too, apart from putting the "victim of the judiciary" to the effort and expense and risk, of appeal.] That Victorian Government site states in the prior paragraph: "There are a number of mechanisms in place that help to protect Magistrates’ independence, such as permanent tenure, salary protection and judicial immunity." {More likely to protect judges when they make decisions based on their prejudices. It is best for them if their prejudice is based on a popular political ideology; increases likelihood of promotion to a higher court.
[go to HAIG REPORT home ]

Fiduciary duty [fd] See also Beneficial Ownership

When one person, for example a solicitor or trustee, called the fiduciary, has a fiduciary duty to another, say the client or beneficiary respectively, the fiduciary is to work actively for the benefit and betterment of the latter. This Fiduciary Duty is far more onerous for the Fiduciary than is the Duty of Care when imposed upon a person. The Duty of Care is just to exercise reasonable care when in a position to cause harm to another; that is not to be negligent. It is even more onerous than is the duty to extend Natural Justice aka Due Process aka Procedural Fairness. The benefit and betterment of the client or beneficiary may be at the cost to or expense of another party.

What is a FIDUCIARY DUTY?? see Also Australian Disability Law Journal ISSN 1834-9609 16 July, 2007. Issue #: 200701
To emphasize FD, we have assembled some detailed definitions, [we could write a book on FD, and still leave much uncovered].

Black's Law Dictionary describes a fiduciary relationship as "one founded on trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another." A fiduciary has a duty to act primarily for the client's benefit in matters connected with the undertaking and not for the fiduciary's own personal interest. Scrupulous good faith and candor are always required. Fiduciaries must always act in complete fairness and may not ever exert any influence or pressure, take selfish advantage, or deal with the client in such a way that it benefits themselves or prejudices the client. Business shrewdness, hard bargaining, and taking advantage of the forgetfulness or negligence of the client are totally prohibited by a fiduciary.

A fiduciary Duty is far more onerous for the Fiduciary [the one having the Fiduciary Duty], than is the Duty of Care, which can itself be quite onerous.

Wikipedia, the FREE encyclopedia defines [and we approve of this definition] fiduciary thus:

'A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care imposed at either equity or law. A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom they owe the duty (the "principal"): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents. The fiduciary relationship is highlighted by good faith, loyalty and trust, and the word itself originally comes from the Latin fides, meaning faith, and fiducia.

When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a stricter standard of behaviour than the comparable tortuous duty of care at common law. It is said the fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be in a situation where their fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and a duty not to profit from their fiduciary position without express knowledge and consent. A fiduciary cannot have a conflict of interest. It has been said that fiduciaries must conduct themselves "at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd."

[go to HAIG REPORT home]

Inherent jurisdiction [ij]

Inherent derives from the verb 'inhere' meaning to stick, or remain firm in something. It means existing in or inseparable from something else. Courts have ij to control their internal functions. Most relevantly this relates to disciplining lawyers who are admitted to that court.
[go to HAIG REPORT home]

Conflict of Duty and Duty [codad]

The duties referred to here are fiduciary duties to clients. A solicitor/lawyer would expect to have numerous clients. The solicitor cannot agree to represent another new client when that new client has interests which, if satisfied, would result in loss to one of the existing clients of the solicitor, or vice versa, a gain by one of his existing clients would mean a loss to that potentially new client. Were he to accept that new client then he would have a conflict of the fiduciary duty he owed to the new client and the fiduciary duty he owed to his existing client. The classic case of codad occurs when a client brings along his parents or his parents in law to have their will prepared by the existing client's solicitor. No loss by either client or parents/parents-in-law need be proved nor even occur. Codad is a serious breach of Professional Standards. It is either Professional Misconduct or more seriously, Unprofessional Conduct. In either case the solicitor/lawyer should be struck off the roll of practicising lawyers and should no longer be a member of that Supreme Court. In the case of the latter, that would be permanently.
[go to HAIG REPORT home]

Legal professional privilege [lpp] aka client privilege

Legal professional privilege [lpp] protects confidential communications between a lawyer and his or her client made for the dominant purpose of -
* seeking or giving legal advice or professional legal assistance; or
* use, or obtaining material for use, in legal proceedings that had commenced, or were reasonably anticipated, at the time of the relevant communication.
Lpp is the right of the client and it can be waived only by the client, intentionally or unintentionally.
Legal professional privilege also protects confidential communications between the client or the client’s lawyers (including communications through employees or agents) and third parties, made for the dominant purpose of use, or obtaining material for use, in legal proceedings that had commenced, or were reasonably anticipated, at the time of the relevant communication.

Statute v Regulation.

The Regulation to a Statute is for the purpose of assisting in the implementation of THAT STATUTE. MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT IS SUBISDIARY TO THAT STATUTE. Public servants cannot compose and gazette a section of a regulation, to OVER-RIDE A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE or a COMMON LAW RIGHT, eg THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD: ie Due Process by a City Council. If they could, the Parliament would be IRRELEVANT

Common Purpose [in criminal law] See http://AustralianPublicSectorAnti-CorruptionConference2009FraudRortSin.info/ProofofCorruptionintheIndependentCommissionAgainstCorruptionNSW.php#Common_Purpose

[go to HAIG REPORT home]

Definition: Aid, Abet, Accessory, Accomplice:
In Criminal Law, the precise definition of these terms tends to vary across jurisdictions. As a result various Criminal Codes define the meaning for their jurisdiction. In fact, in some jurisdictions, the terms Aid and Abet are not used and have no formal meaning. The person is merely an "accessory". In Jurisictions where Common Law Prevails in the criminal jurisdiction, these terms will have meanings gleaned from precedents.

We will here discuss the general meaning of these terms. The meaning varies across a continium. Accomplice is the most serious effect. For instance, say for the case of an armed bank robbery, of course the person who demands the money from the teller while pointing the gun, real or artificial, is an armed robber, but so is the get-away driver gunning the car's engine outside as well as the lookout, watching for police or other problems.

An accessory, is lesser than an accomplice, and gives assistance before or after the "main event". An "accessory" has a similar meaning to one who "Aids and Abets".

http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS => Click HERE <=

PHPincludes/Onus of Proof includeddefinitionsregardingthelegalprocessOnusOfProof.php

Onus of Proof; aka Burden of Proof

related topics: Quantum of Proof; Standard of Proof

We could write a thesis on this topic and leave most relevant comment unsaid. However, we will attempt to distill the essence of this aspect of evidence and persuasion of the existence of a certain fact or facts to satisfy an interested layperson.

Although 'Burden' and 'Standard' are different aspects of the same general topic, these are often referenced simply as the 'Onus of Proof'.

These topics are related to which party, in a legal dispute, both criminal and civil, and the extent of 'persuasion' that must be established in relation to a factual situation of evidence.

The 'Onus' or 'Burden' is directed at determining which party to a legal dispute, is required to 'prove' a certain fact. In criminal prosecutions, it is universally mandated that the prosecution must prove the fact. In a minority of cases, the defendant may be required to prove a particular fact, in which case he bears the burden or Onus of proof f the fact.

The 'Quantum' or 'Standard' of Proof, is a more interesting aspect. This relates to the degree of persuasiveness of particular evidence as related to proving a particular fact.

The 'criminal Quantum of proof', is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This is much stricter than the 'civil Quantum of Proof' of 'on the 'balance of probabilities' or 50% ie 'more likely than not'.

Clearly, when considering evidence, readers may conceive of other degrees of persuasiveness of evidence. For instance, how persuasive does evidence have to be to merely raise a 'reasonable doubt'.

It is submitted that because of the protective nature of the Fiduciary Duty, a Fiduciary must not accept the risk if it is even just merely 'raised on the evidence'.

The judicial explanation of what constitutes the 'criminal Quantum of proof' of 'beyond reasonable doubt', is typical of lawyer double talk.

It is a nebulous concept. In fact, it has been held by appeal courts, that the lower criminal court is in error to fully explain the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt', because no one would ever be convicted. Instead, 'beyond reasonable doubt' is 'explained' to jurors, by not explaining it but leaving it to, in effect, "what you 'feel' it to be".

This is a major imperfection to our judicial process, and, importantly, leaves an opening for the development of corruption. Consideration of an alternative is another huge debate. There are alternatives, which relate to better transparency, easier publication, and less legal obfuscation.
http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS => Click HERE <=

includedSpecia NeedsCertificates.php
Special Needs Certificates:

See Procedure & Details for supplying Special Needs Certificates:

Disabled people often have disabilities which are not obvious. Disabled people often have Special Needs in order to alleviate the effects of their disability. When a disabled person having particular special needs, is not readily perceived as disabled, then they can have very substantial problems with other people discriminating against them by not permitting them their Special Needs.

This causes problems for both the disabled person discriminated against, obviously, but also for the discriminator as it is illegal in all of Australia, to discriminate against disabled persons. Because disabled person are entitled to this but invariably suffer repeated episodes of this type of discrimination, they become litigious. Litigation causes both parties distress.

I am disabled with multiple disabilities. Through no fault of my own I have brain damage. Because of this, I have had to make adjustments and adaptations to alleviate the effects of my disabilities. Although I am entitled to welfare, I do not receive any. I do not need any gifts to survive and prosper. All I do need is to be not denied my special needs. I have one special need and that is to be accompanied by my assistance dogs. Bureaucrats deny me my right on public transport. This means I cannot travel where I cannot walk. Another special need I have, is to present argument or comment in writing, rather than verbally in person or by phone, as due to the brain damage I have suffered, my concentration ability varies. In the Internet age, that 'presentation in writing' means EMAIL. Although I have had specific medical evidence fully justifying these, they have been denied to me by public sector parasites and government tribunals, to my great detriment. I am sure I am not alone, and that what I have had to face is what other disabled people face on a daily basis, and that the bureaucrats have been encouraged to continue by success in the past. This needs to be addressed from the Australian Parliament. I have all the evidence.

I have announced my intention to run at the next Australian Federal Election for election as an Independent Senator for Queensland in the Australian Senate. One central plank in my platform is to issue Special Needs Certificates to all disabled persons in AUSTRALIA, who have special needs, if I am elected as a Senator for Queensland in the Senate of national Australian Federal Parliament. In fact, regardless of whether a person is admitted to be disabled by any government bureaucrat, if that person does have Special Needs, and can supply me, when elected, with the requisite evidence as I detail in http://AustLawPublish.com/20070716AustralianDisabilityLawJournalissue200701.pdf , I will still provide that Special Needs Certificate. The full appropriate procedure is detailed at http://AustLawPublish.com/20070716AustralianDisabilityLawJournalissue200701.pdf /. These will be issued largely using our computer systems. We will have procedure in place to guard against fraud by non-deserving individuals. However, because I am disabled with Special Needs myself, I guarantee that I will be most understanding. While I do not pretend that my Special Needs Certificates will have mandatory legal effect, they will be nationally recognized for being strong evidence that the bearer has those specific Special Needs mentioned on the Certificate. Any potential discriminator would be extremely foolish to ignore it.

http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS => Click HERE <=

includeddefinitionsregardingthelegalprocessBeneficialOwnership.php Beneficial Ownership:

Many texts and research thesis have been written on this topic. Internet readers want a quick thumbnail explanation rather than a mere definition. 'Beneficial Ownership' or 'Equitable Interest' is a central topic in the branch of 'English' Common Law known as Equity Law or Trusts. It is to be compared with 'Legal title' or 'Legal Ownership'. 'Beneficial Ownership' and 'Legal Ownership' are usually combined, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, can be assumed to be combined..

In 'English' Common Law, one legal person, called the Trustee can 'own' property for the benefit of another called the beneficiary. This arrangement is termed a TRUST, and the trustee owes the beneficiary a FIDUCIARY DUTY.

Beneficial Ownership is one form of 'Equitable Interest'. It is not legally necessary generally, for the existence of the beneficial ownership to be published.

The identity of the trustee can change such that a new trustee accepts the responsibility of having the fiduciary duty owed to the beneficial owner. The beneficiary or beneficial owner may be infirm, suffering dementia, or for some other reason may not have 'legal capacity'. If the beneficial owner is of sound mind and does have legal capacity, then that beneficial owner can require the legal title to be transferred to the beneficiary at any time. It is a beach of his fiduciary duty for the trustee to refuse.

Beneficial ownership can be extinguished If the trustee sells it and a purchaser buys it for full value without notice of the equitable interest, the beneficial interest is extinguished, and the purchaser has good title to the legal and beneficial ownership of the property. The beneficiary would have a claim against the trustee for the loss of the property, as that sale was a breach of the trustee's fiduciary duty.

http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS => Click HERE <=

PHPincludes/caucusing

caucusing

'caucusing' in a legal sense in reference to an adversorial 'judicial hearing', refers to the practice of the decision maker discussing the matter about which s/he is to make a decision with one party to the exclusion of the other adversorial party. It matters not whether the private discussion is secret or disclosed.

This is within a branch of Administrative Law called Natural Justice aka Due Process aka Procedural Fairness.

'caucusing' is a Denial of Natural Justice.

If the caucusing involves the viewing of documents by the decision maker, then the 'decision' is a Nullity aka void ab initio. That means that the decision cannot under any circumstance be upheld, and has always been a Nullity.

If the caucusing involves only verbal discussion, then the decision is voidable on appeal, but until such time as it is voided, it is a valid decision.

In Australia, caucusing is regularly employed, as circa 1990, in Brisbane, by corrupt political public servants, such as John Joseph Armstrong 'employed' in the then named Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [hreoc], now renamed the Australian Human Rights Commission [ahrc], and corrupt Administrative decision maker named Kevin Patrick O'Connor, then a decision maker in the then named Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [hreoc], now renamed the Australian Human Rights Commission [ahrc], nominally, he was called the 'Privacy Commissioner' but was really just a dumb criminal. This corrupt parasite has been named by New South Wales corrupt labor government as President, of the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal and given the 'accolade' by a corrupt Australian Federal government of AM.

Others corrupt individuals scurrilously were involved in this episode of corruption by many public sector parasites, labor lawyers and judges appointed by labor including Federal Court judge Jeffrey Ernest John Spender.

http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS => Click HERE <=

PHPincludes/Wasted Costs Order

Wasted Costs Order [WCO]:

is an order of a court that the plaintiff should pay the defendant's legal costs that were wasted by the legal proceeding initiated for an ulterior purpose other than the purpose of winning the legal point.

The best way to express the nature of a WCO is to quote the findings of the case where one was found. The court costs in a proceeding usually follow the case: the loser pays the costs of the winner. A WCO can be ordered by that court, where one party has caused another party to expend resources needlessly, to defend an action initiated without any, or much, prospect of success, but merely, for instance, to defame the defending party so that they are forced to fight to clear their name. The improper purpose of the plaintiff can be to merely buy time and to put the other party on the defensive and so at a disadvantage when suing the plaintiff.

See the investigative assessment of the reason it happened in this particular case where a WCO was ordered by the court:

CABOOLTURE PARK SHOPPING CENTRE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) and WHITE INDUSTRIES (QLD) PTY LTD v. FLOWER AND HART (A FIRM) Nos. QG198 of 1986 and QG174 of 1992 FED No. 667 Courts - Practice and Procedure (1993) 117 ALR 253

http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS => Click HERE <=

includeddefinitionsregardingthelegalprocessVoirDire.php

Voir dire

In the court environment in Australia, the term void dire is used as a general term to mean, a "trial withing a trial". As disclosed below with quotes from respected [except the CDPP of course], websites, voir dire has many uses in different jurisdictions around the world. These basically derive their meanings from usage, with minor changes across jurisdictions.

From Wikipedia:"Voir dire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Voir dire (English pronunciation: /vwar dear/) is a phrase in law which comes from the Anglo-Norman language. In origin it refers to an oath to tell the truth (Latin verum dicere), i.e., to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest in content, or both.

The word voir (or voire), in this combination, comes from Old French and derives from Latin verum, "that which is true". It is not related to the modern French word voir, which derives from Latin vidēre ("to see"), though the expression is now often interpreted by false etymology to mean "to see [them] say."

    * 1 Use in Commonwealth countries
    * 2 Use in the United States of America

Use in Commonwealth countries

In the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (as sometimes in the United States of America) it refers to a "trial within a trial." It is a hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence, or the competency of a witness or juror.[1] As the subject matter of the voir dire often relates to evidence, competence or other matters that may lead to bias on behalf of the jury, the jury is removed from the court for the voir dire.

The term has thus been broadened in Australian jurisdictions to include any hearing during a trial where the jury is removed. The High Court of Australia has noted that the voir dire is an appropriate forum for the trial judge to reprimand counsel or for counsel to make submissions as to the running of the court to the trial judge.[2]

Use in the United States of America

In the United States, it now generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. It also refers to the process by which expert witnesses are questioned about their backgrounds and qualifications, in order to potentially give an expert opinion in court testimony. As defined by Gordon P. Cleary: "Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."[3] As noted above, in the United States (especially in practice under the Federal Rules of Evidence), voir dire can also refer to examination of the background of a witness to assess their qualification or fitness to give testimony on a given subject.[4]

References

   1. ^ Lloyd Duhaime: Legal Dictionary
   2. ^ See the High Court of Australia's judgement in Jago v The District Court of NSW &ors. [1989] HCA 46.
   3. ^ Cleary, Gordon P. (2007). Trial Evidence Foundations. James Publishing. Section 201.
   4. ^ Christopher B. Mueller, Laird C. Kirkpatrick. Evidence (4th ed., 2009). Aspen Treatise Series. ISBN: 9780735579675. §§6.2, 6.59, 7.14

Australia's Commonwealth DPP gives the restrictive definition viz:
Voir dire
Legal argument about the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence in court. The witness and the jury are sent out of court while this argument takes place.

Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS

Click here to read HAIG Report on the 2012 Queensland State Election.
See: the Page Showing: Prevention of Tooth Decay from Dry Mouth during sleep with Simple Elastic Apparatus: & Sleep Disorder of Obstructive Sleep Apnoea [OSA]
See: the Page Showing: Mathematics <=> Logic: Algorithm => Website: Code & Program: Maths Club: Maths Tutor: ALL Open Source & Totally FREE!!
Latest Update: Many New Corruption Scandals at
THE UNIVERSITY
OF QUEENSLAND

The Cradle of Official, Judicial & Government Corruption in Qld:

Skeletons in the cupboard for Maurie McNarn, new UQ Director of Operations & ex-director of the Australian Defence Intelligence Organisation [ADIO] re Prisoner Rendition, Torture, Abuse, Murder & Abu Graib;
Click here For LATEST, on 25th November, 2011, hearing in the Queensland Court of Appeal of Russell Mathews' Application for Leave to Appeal, plus; Click here to see his Outline of Argument to the court; Click here to see the Transcript of his Oral Submission on 25th November, 2011, & Click here to see the very latest developments in this saga. [This link here will be continually UpDated to be the very latest.]
Click here to read of how Genuine Best Value HAIG BROADBAND can save you money and Improve your online experience.
See: Video PROOF of Aggravated Assault
on VULNERABLE, DISABLED OLD MAN
& AUSTRALIAN Police Refuse to Act
Alert Professor Dr Megan Squire of Elon University, North Carolina EXPOSES FAKE & BOGUS websites promoting US online "Universities".
Learn to Speak English Distinctly & Enunciate Clearly Without any Accent

Follow the text as you listen to the AUDIO RECORDINGS, then listen to the audio as you READ THE TEXT ALOUD in unison with the audio recording and so PERFECT your pronounciation.
Kevin Burrage is a parasite and a FRAUDSTER mathematician:
NOW @ OXFORD UNIVERSITY, UK: Professor
approves PLAGIARISM:
Criminal FemiNazi [aka Radical Feminism] Contagion erupting in Queensland Circa 1980/90:

SEE: Summary of the 290+ University of Queensland Documents Proving the deliberate FRAUD of a DISABLED STUDENT by Professors Kevin Burrage & Andrew Lister as a Menu of all of the summary titles of each document:
[SSAT] is a Fraud & a Farce:
FemiNazi 'Fang' Jane K. Macdonnell , now rorts the SSAT: [quote:
"very aggressive and goes off half cocked"]
& is the current ['til 2015] & only "Principal" member, of SSAT, Australia-wide.
PROOF that students & staff should be WARY of University of Western Sydney [UWS]:
& see Menu of why the Administration of the University of Western Sydney [UWS] should be WORRIED

"Plagiocephaly"
What is it? Click above to discover.

See DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
of the Fraud, LIES, & Corruption
@ The University of Queensland - law school

The University of Queensland Administration is BAD NEWS

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
University of Qld, Mathematics' Dr Elizabeth Billington
exposes obsequious Executive Dean femi-nazi Andrew Lister
as lead ACADEMIC FRAUDSTER:

SEE: the Menu: for CLANDESTINE CRIME of Anthony Gett;
the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law Exposed:

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
University of Qld, Mathematics' Dr Elizabeth Billington
exposes obsequious Executive Dean femi-nazi Andrew Lister
as lead ACADEMIC FRAUDSTER:

Read & HEAR the AUDIO recording of my APPEARANCE
& SUBMISSION to the District Court coram DCJ Kerry O'Brien
for TOMORROW 4th March, 2011

Is Professor Carolyn Sappideen an evil wicked
femi-nazi?

SCANDAL @ The University of Queensland
Beware, & Avoid Maths Dept University of Qld:
See the DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FROM UQ files ProofBurrageGatesListerPorterFraudMathsDeptUQ
See the DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FROM UQ files ProofSappideenWalkerListerFraudLawUQ

Qld Chief Justice Paul de Jersey, Tony Morris QC and the National Australia Bank:
The Doneley Case:

The Very Friendly letter from Chief Justice Paul de Jersey to Tony Morris QC:

See the Connection of Gov-Gen Quentin Bryce, Qld Chief District Court Judge Patsy Mary Wolfe to FRAUD on the Justice System:
Read all about the Commonwealth DPP's lawyer Shyster Shane Hunter [with Advocates Immunity to protect him from prosecution for his evil].
The Way Corruption works in Queensland: police prosecutors:
See the reason Queensland Police and judiciary are utterly corrupt

MORE UQ CRIME: Richard Zebrovius, another University of Queensland CRIMINAL & Public Sector Parasite:
See the EVIDENCE: Yet more CRIME from The University of Queensland:

, mental dumb parasite finds LYING, CHEATING & BULLYING DISABLED PERSONS EXCITING.
See the EVIDENCE: MORE CRIME from The University of Queensland
Brisbane Magistrate Paul M Kluck denies Due Process to DISABLED OLD MAN - then RIDICULES him & his disability.
The Government appointed Magistrate Paul M Kluck is assisting Shane Hunter [below]who is prosecuting this disabled old man to shut him up from publishing how the Qld Police ARMED ROBBERY assisted other sections of the Public Sector [ie the Government, who appointed Kluck] defraud this disabled old man of his house and land. This is unlawful EXPLOITATION of the DISABLED per the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Shane Hunter, Commonwealth DPP: Public Sector Fraudster
Prosecuting a Disabled Old Man to protect CRIMINAL Qld police ARMED ROBBERY of that disabled old man to defraud him of his House and Land for benefit of PUBLIC SECTOR, Douglas Porter, Registrar,The University of Queensland.

See How Douglas Porter, Used his position as Registrar of The University of Qld to defraud a disabled student [who Porter bullied for years], of his home for the University and for Porter's own glory.

LAWYERS Stephen Tonge & Flower & Hart LAND FRAUD & Armed Robbery

OPEN LETTER: 2010/08/05 Stephen John Tonge, Flower & Hart, & Tress Cox re Stephen Tonge FRAUD:

Who is Lawyer Stephen Tonge & How Did He Defraud Me?

OPEN LETTER: 2010/08/05 Stephen John Tonge, Flower & Hart, & Tress Cox re Stephen Tonge FRAUD

Flower & Hart [F&H] Land Fraud & Armed Robbery

Qld Court of Appeal exposes LNP Brisbane LordMayor Campbell Newman FRAUD

Qld's Court of Appeal Exposes Egregious conduct by Brisbane Magistrate

The topsy-turvy "Alice in Wonderland" Magistrate CLICK HERE

Qld's Court of Appeal ON TRIAL: Delivers a GLORIOUS DECISION

HOT VIDEOS: Police Brutality videos: Queensland & Australian

See the EVIDENCE: Corrupt LAWYERS: Are John W Peden and Ms V Prasley CORRUPT??

See Stat Dec re CORRUPT POLICE, by Respected Law Lecturer Dr Christine Eastwood

http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS => Click HERE <=

See **** The EVIDENCE **** that ex-police cop parasite Peter Dutton, Liberal Party Federal MP for Dickson, tried, but failed, to close down our website disclosing labor ELECTORAL FRAUD, using corrupt Qld cops.

Australian Federal Court Judge Jeffrey Spender is criminal scum. See the EVIDENCE

BREAKTHROUGH in Daniel Morcombe case.
We SCOOPED Channel 7, TV & EXPOSED POLICE CORRUPTION.
See the photo PROOF.
E-Contact us to tell us what you think:

This website is part of the web-presence of

Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA

View list of SOME of my WEBSITES and Bulletin Boards
Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html

SEE WHAT I PLAN TO DO ABOUT IT!

CLICK on image => My Election HOMEPAGE

Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA

View list of my WEBSITES and Bulletin Boards
Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html

See our LATEST TOPICS:

HOT NEWS: HARD EVIDENCE: Joe Hockey & FASCIST CRIMINAL congress

I have been bullied my whole life. See the reason. That means that I have had fights my whole life. You can realize the I detest bullies; that is, bullies that are personal to me, politically domestically which includes corrupt polticians, judges and ,MAGISTRATES & MAGISTRATES, magistrates, more magistrates, lawyers, lawyers, and police, police, and other public sector parasites, plus, politically INTERNATIONALLY.

CORRUPT ARMED ROBBER [with violence] Henri Elias Rantala.

[see NEW Website on Henri Rantala]

"PPheeeeew , that is HUUUUGE", he whispered.

Monica Antony [BigA for Antony]

Corrupt Cops [talk about being the BUTT of humour] 'Does Swine flu [flew] have anything to do with the POLICE AIR WING? ' and who said, 'PIGS WILL FLY'.

SEE WHAT I PLAN TO DO ABOUT IT!

My Qualifications

       Bachelor of Commerce [BCom] [The University of Queensland] - 1978
       Bachelor of Science [BSc] [The University of Queensland] - 1997
       Bachelor of Laws [LLB] [The University of Queensland] - 2003
       Bachelor of Arts [BA] [The University of Queensland] - 2003

../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php ../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php

Dumb Cop Henri Rantala UPDATE:

SEE: Rantala-Gate: => Qld Police CORRUPTION COVER-UP
& FACE of Rantala-Gate:

UPDATE:

More PROOF of SENIOR LEVEL POLICE Corruption in Qld

[and not just in Queensland:]
Dumb cop Henri Elias Rantala dumps Superintendent Pointon and Senior cops right into the CORRUPTION MIRE that is Queensland.

Superintendent Dale Richard Pointon,
Officers from

Ethical Standards Command,
Security Intelligence Branch,
State Crime Operations Command

"The offensive material has been subsequently been maintained on the internet since that time until the present day. I have been contacted by Superintendent Pointon, Officers from Ethical Standards Command, Security Intelligence Branch, State Crime Operations Command, relatives all asking questions about the material from 2006 until the present day."

../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php ../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php
This, above, has been stated in writing in a signed statement by the Corrupt Police Prosecutor Henri Elias Rantala, dated 21st October, 2009; [20091021]. What he calls "offensive material" is the irrefutable PROOF that Police Officer Henri Elias Rantala, committed an ARMED ROBBERY. This "offensive material" also includes MY REPORT TO POLICE OF ARMED ROBBERY, which they have ignored. This statement by Rantala, is now PROOF that the police are AWARE OF THE ARMED ROBBERY and are ignoring my complaint of ARMED ROBBERY, AND BREAKING, ENTERING AND STEALING by Queensland Police and Government officials. I am trained in law with an LLB apart from my other qualifications. I know more law that these mug police officers. The evidence, the irrefutable PROOF, is shown on these websites. It shows that Rantala, while armed, ensured that thieves could ransack my home. The fact that the thieves pretended they were from Brisbane City Council is irrelevant, as they did not have a legal right to enter. The Queensland Parliament sets the process for Council to enter private property. This involved obtaining a COURT ORDER. The armed robbers and thieves did not have a court order. Australia is becoming a REAL POLICE STATE, when police believe they can over-ride STATUTE LAW passed by the legislature.

That police ignore instances of ARMED ROBBERY, is not unique in Queensland. Andrew Phillip Scipione the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police Force is GUILTY OF SIMILAR CRIME [cover-up] IN NSW as relates to the case below.

Thieves using ARMED POLICE to detain the owner of the property, and keep the owner of the property separated from his property while the thieves steal the property, happens regularly with Queensland Corrupt Police. One case occurred on 15th September, 2005 in Cairns when the thieves from St Vincent de Paul Society, with whom Jim Tierney previously of JT's Gym in NSW, were operating a Joint Venture for Charitable Purposes, called "Vinnie's Gym", where Jim Tierney supplied his own labour and his own Gym equipment, valued many years previous, at over $1 million dollars worth. The thieves from St Vincent de Paul Society had corrupt ARMED police attend and 'escort' Jim Tierney, AT GUN POINT, from his equipment and keep him from it, while they stripped the Gym of Jim Tierney's valuable gym equipment.

On 15th September, 2005,the ARMED police and sparmy callous hypocritical Brisbane based paid staff of St Vincent dePaul Society, arrived unannounced to steal Jim Tierney's one million dollars plus worth of gym equipment, by ostensibly 'closing' the gym. When one of the instructors asked what they should tell the group of very disabled people who were due in that afternoon, the answer from the sparmy hypocritical CEO of the thieving St Vincent dePaul Society was 'life is tough'. In an effort to calm the situation, "Enough," said Judith Tierney.

Police Armed Robbery Elsewhere

This has been a case of POLICE THUGGERY. This, my case, is not a unique case of armed police using their position, to detain property owners, to enable thieves to rob them. Another documented case occurred in 2002 at Queanbeyan, with ARMED ROBBER scum pig Leslie Charles Gilroy employed by Andrew Phillip Scipione the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police Force.

../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php ../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

Definitions regarding the Legal Process

Advocates Immunity [ai]

Judge's immunity [ji]

Fiduciary duty [fd] See also Beneficial Ownership

Inherent jurisdiction [ij]

Conflict of Duty and Duty [codad]

Legal professional privilege [lpp] aka client privilege

Definition: Aid, Abet, Accessory, Accomplice:

Onus of Proof; aka Burden of Proof

caucusing

Wasted Costs Order [WCO]:

CABOOLTURE PARK SHOPPING CENTRE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) and WHITE INDUSTRIES (QLD) PTY LTD v. FLOWER AND HART (A FIRM) Nos. QG198 of 1986 and QG174 of 1992 FED No. 667 Courts - Practice and Procedure (1993) 117 ALR 253

Voir dire

From Wikipedia:"Voir dire

The University of Queensland Administration is BAD NEWS

CORRUPT ARMED ROBBER [with violence] Henri Elias Rantala.

[see NEW Website on Henri Rantala]

"PPheeeeew , that is HUUUUGE", he whispered.

Monica Antony [BigA for Antony]

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

Dumb Cop Henri Rantala UPDATE:

UPDATE:

More PROOF of SENIOR LEVEL POLICE Corruption in Qld

Superintendent Dale Richard Pointon,

Officers from

Ethical Standards Command,

Security Intelligence Branch,

State Crime Operations Command

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

Police Armed Robbery Elsewhere

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.