HAIG    REPORT:    GoTo [on this page] HaigReport's Menu Of Themes of Menus for our thousands of pages
TIPS for
Navigating HaigReport:  If you arrived at this page, referred from a Search Engine such as Google et al, your URL link will NOT have an #Anchor/Marker to take you to the relevant spot on this page.  In that case, we do recommend that you view our "Latest HaigReport Promotions" of recent additions to our websites, by Clicking Here.  It will open in a new Browser window. 

If
you Click Here, you will be taken, usually, to the specific Unique Content on this page, for which you were most likely seeking.  However, if you Click Here, you will be taken to the Top of the HaigReport Header, below on this page. 

However, if you have arrived at this page from another of our Website pages, your link will usually have an #Anchor, also called a marker, which will take you to the intended specific spot on the page where that marker is positioned.  In fact, it will probably take you there prior to your reading this.  Moving to that Anchor is the final step in the loading of this page.

 HAIG     REPORT:   Is now on  twitter  [from 2nd June, 2013]  link to us HERE on twitter     See our Twitter Strategy    

 HAIG    REPORT:  SEE: Russell Mathews' COMMENTARY:    Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] current TOPICAL commentary on GOVERNMENT, politics & business     Press to READ       Press for MENU   

 HAIG    REPORT:    WANTED:
Healthy female "dog" to breed with Parson Russell Terrier, to produce ASSISTANCE DOGS.   Rochedale South QLD 4123
I wish to breed from my Parson Russell Terrier. He is a trained assistance dog. He has a wonderful nature. The breed of his mate could be varied or a cross; eg Parson Russell Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier, Beagle, Bull Terrier, Bull mastiff, Staffy, and/or Fox Terrier plus many others. She does not need to be "pedigreed". I am very protective of my dogs. She will become very valuable to me and become one of my assistance "dogs". If we can assist each other, please contact me on my contact form, including your email address and your landline phone number so I can phone you to discuss. 

Because I am disabled and have an LLB [so therefore understand the Law surrounding disabilities and assistance dogs] I am now branching out to providing Assistance dogs to disabled persons [even if disabled in only a minor way and so not even realizing it]. This is not a business proposition but rather just a very necessary service I can offer to the community.
Many people have a disability and do not realize their ailment or "problem" is by law, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [DDA], classified as a "disability". This is especially so for people getting on in years, and who have a dog, and are maybe moving to accommodation where they are told they cannot take their dog. In a majority of cases, those people cannot be legally forced to surrender their animal/dog.
I will be assisting those person who already have dogs, but are being forced, unlawfully, to dispose of them because maybe they are moving accommodation. I can train your existing dogs to be assistance dogs and provide the documentation as required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [DDA]. I do not intend to charge for this, but just maybe cover some marginal costs.

 Click here  to Learn how your Personalized Alert Notice [IMMEDIATELY ABOVE] is prepared by our HAIG Unique Visitor Algorithm: [HUVA] or  Click here  to see your UNIQUE Personalized Alert Notice in a new Browser Window.


 Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] QCAT & Brisbane City Council; Paul Barry & Media Watch; Comments on Government, Politics, Public Sector & Business for November, 2013:


My logo, my TRADEMARK, is the MRI of my skull, showing gross assymetry,aka DEFORMITY = ugliness and target of bullies. The HAIG REPORT: the EVIDENCE My logo, my TRADEMARK, is the MRI of my skull, showing gross assymetry,aka DEFORMITY = ugliness and target of bullies.

   It is Our legal, social and moral DUTY to EXPOSE CRIME, FRAUD & CORRUPTION plus Lying and Hypocrisy in Public Life, Including Judges & magistrates 
 

Fraud, Corruption & attempted  MURDER 
covered-up by Queensland police, EXPOSED 

Russell Mathews  [BCom BSc LLB & BA]  comments:
politics & business & exposes the many Criminal Parasites:

commonheader.php

Reg. Office: 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia, Qld. 4067, Australia.  
Editor-in-Chief:  Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA      EMAIL us anytime:  Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay. 

considerevidence.php

Consider the evidence! Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay.  

/CodingPHP/includedSeeContentPageFileNameURL.php

  Click here to GoTo Detail:=> Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] QCAT & Brisbane City Council; Paul Barry & Media Watch; Comments on Government, Politics, Public Sector & Business for November, 2013

../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

See: the Menu: for Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] commentary on politics & business

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  
http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

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

/CodingPHP/includedSeeContentPageFileNameURL.php

  Click here to GoTo Detail:=> Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] QCAT & Brisbane City Council; Paul Barry & Media Watch; Comments on Government, Politics, Public Sector & Business for November, 2013

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  

See: HaigReport's Menu of Menus of Sites of Related Fraud & Corruption Topics:


 Menu: Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] commentary on politics & business

Menu: HaigReport's Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] commentary on politics & business:

The LATEST ADDITIONS are added to the top:



  1. Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] Qld & Cth government judicial Fraud; Media Watch; Comments on Government, Politics, Public Sector & Business for December, 2013:

  2. Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] QCAT & Brisbane City Council; Paul Barry & Media Watch; Comments on Government, Politics, Public Sector & Business for November, 2013:

  3. Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] Comments on Government, Politics, Public Sector & Business for July, 2013:

  4. Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] Comments on Government, Politics, Public Sector & Business for June, 2013:

  5. Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] Comments on Politics & Business for December, 2012:

  6. Index: Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] commentary on politics & business:

  7. Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] Comments for October, 2012:

 Content: Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] QCAT & Brisbane City Council; Paul Barry & Media Watch; Comments on Government, Politics, Public Sector & Business for November, 2013

../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
Menu: HaigReport's Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] QCAT & Brisbane City Council; Paul Barry & Media Watch; Comments on Government, Politics, Public Sector & Business for November, 2013:

The LATEST ADDITIONS are added to the top:


Follow @HaigReport

  1. Wednesday, 27th November, 2013, Magistrates Court's Email response to ME last Friday, 22nd November, 2013, after I again refused to appear.:

  2. Friday, 15th November, 2013, High Court's Justice Hayne holds that Cth Criminal Code Section is unconstitutional as TRUTH would be no defence:

  3. Friday, 15th November, 2013, Foreword to Russell Mathews' communique to Magistrates Court as to the reason for no personal appearance today:

  4. Friday, 15th November, 2013, Russell Mathews' communique to Magistrates Court as to the reason for no personal appearance today:

  5. Monday, 11th November, 2013, PUBLIC NOTICE calling on Directors of ABC to do their DUTY without fear or favour:

  6. Saturday, 9th November, 2013, High Court Justice Hayne approves that user of the service both knows that the communication is, and intends that the communication to be, offensive:

  7. Saturday, 9th November, 2013, Paul Barry takes Media Watch down market; WAY DOWN.:

  8. Wednesday, 6th November, 2013, High Court's Justice Hayne holds that Cth Criminal Code Section is unconstitutional as TRUTH would be no defence:

  9. Wednesday, 6th November, 2013, Relevant excerpts from District Court Judge Dorney QC's Decision in the Starkey appeal applying Monis:

  10. Wednesday, 6th November, 2013, The TRUTH re CORRUPTION in Queensland is so "shocking" that Paul Barry, Media Watch, thought it must be defamation:

  11. Tuesday, 5th November, 2013, Brisbane Marketing ie Brisbane City Council, defrauds in the name of "noble causes":

  12. Monday, 4th November, 2013, Mario di Carlo's fax defines their Joint fraud of charity:

  13. Monday, 4th November, 2013, More about Judge George Fryberg, Supreme Court of Qld:

  14. Monday, 4th November, 2013, More about Judge (henry) George Fryberg, Supreme Court of Qld:

  15. Monday, 4th November, 2013, More about Campbell Newman ex AusArmy "Engineer" now Premier of Qld:

  16. Monday, 4th November, 2013, My win in the Appeals section [QCATA] of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal [QCAT]:

  17. Monday, 4th November, 2013, How the corrupt Brisbane City Council & its parasite employees, including solicitors and barristers, tried to defraud a charity of its legitimate long term lease.:
Follow @HaigReport

See: the Menu: for Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] commentary on politics & business

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  
Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  

See: HaigReport's Menu of Menus of Sites of Related Fraud & Corruption Topics:

Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html


Comment20131127

Wednesday, 27th November, 2013

Magistrates Court's Email response to ME last Friday, 22nd November, 2013

Just as Paul Barry had announced in  his ABC TV's Media Watch on  4th November, 2013, I was required to appear in court on the 15th November, 2013.  I did not appear but I sent a communique to the court as displayed online below, with the forword for this online version here online.   This was suppossed to be a continuation of a committal hearing that had not progressed for nearly three and a half YEARS, since 28th June, 2010, because I just refused to play their corrupt game.

I did not appear on the 15th November, 2013, so it was adjourned to the 22nd November, 2013 and I  was advised by email.  You guessed it, I did not appear on the 22nd November, 2013, either.

Following is the email sent to me by the Magistrates Court, Brisbane.  I think they have a tiger by the tail and do not wish to let go.
Follow @HaigReport

Re: CDPP v Russell Gordon Haig MATTHEWS (sic)


Courthouse Brisbane <Courthouse.Brisbane@justice.qld.gov.au> Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM


Mr Matthews (sic),

Your committal hearing has been adjourned to 9:00 am on Thursday 5
December, 2013 in Court 20 and your bail has been enlarged accordingly.


Please advise urgently if you can appear via telephone on that date.  If
you cannot appear, please advise a date on which you can, having regard
to your medical appointment schedule.

Mr Hunter of the CDPP has advised the court today that he will be
calling no further evidence and will be making submissions on 5 December
2013.


In that event you may submit that the evidence that is before the court
is insufficient to commit you for trial and you may submit that the
court should discharge you.  That is a matter entirely for you to
consider.  You of course can make any other submissions you consider
relevant.  Please advise urgently of the matters raised above concerning
the adjourned date.


For and on behalf of
Magistrate Kluck
Brisbane Magistrates Court
Ph:  3247 9419
Fax:  3247 9033

****************************************************************



Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html


Comment20131115 20131115EmailKluckHunterReMonisAndStarkeyTRUTH

Friday, 15th November, 2013

Foreword:

The magistrates court per Mr Paul M. Kluck had required me to again appear in the Magistrates Court, on 15th November, 2013, to continue the partly heard Committal Hearing that had been heard previously  on,
  1. *Day 1: 24th June, 2010
  2. *Day 2: 25th June, 2010
  3. *Day 3: 28th June, 2010 /.



Mr Kluck,
I presume you will make a copy of this available to mr Shane Hunter of the CDPP.   Because of his previous performance of agreeing with you when you prompted him if he knew any different to the untruthful proposition you proffered, that I had not communicated with the court, I will not send him a copy.  I will  send a copy to many so you will be sure to receive it and  not be able to claim again that I have "clammed up"  The, "to many" will include to the Chief Magistrate and to officers in the Magistrates Court, and marked "For (your) attention, Mr Paul M. Kluck".

I am sending  this coded as html and all hyperlinked content is part of this submission.   This has been published online together with a Foreword to explain  to the Internet Visitor how this fits into the scheme of things.  For good measure, a tweet will be published on the HaigReport Twitter Account.   Paul Barry of ABC TV's Media Watch fame is a Twitter follower of @HaigReport. 

I told you on the most recent occasion, 2nd October, 2013, that I had an operation on 23rd October, 2013.

That was ophthalmic surgery.  My eye was cut open.  I am at present  in the  28 day  convalescent  period following that surgery.  I have strict regime to follow for the 28 days. My life and eyesight are at risk.  I am unable to travel far from my home base, for any but a short period of time.  The difficulty I face is exacerbated by my substantial disabilities,  I deal in more depth below re the insidious effects of my brain damage.

Hence, I am unable to appear in court today. 

I assure you that I do really wish to cross examine, Rantala, Read [well continue with Rantala and continue with Read], and Read's dumb boss who assaulted me in August, 2009, Detective Sergeant Steven Bignell, but only when my Special Needs are being accommodated, and that includes your ensuring that I know that my Special Needs will be accommodated and am aware of precisely how that will be achieved, prior to my presenting. 

Rantala and Antony have already given evidence under oath, proving that they committed armed Robbery in company.

I note that you, Mr Kluck, have stated in open court that you are aware that I have brain damage. 
Mr Kluck, you have Recognized that There Is Prima Facie Evidence Before The Court, That I_Have Brain Injury
Mr Kluck, you further admit  that you know I_Have Cross Examined Under Difficulty For the whole Three Days

On the first day, you ridiculed me and my disability. 

Mr Paul M Kluck's Infamous, Scandalous Ridicule of Me and My Disability

"So,  Have You Got Your Thoughts Back  Together Again, Mr Mathews"

As noted below, I quote from the ABIOS website with, "People who do not understand the difficulties associated with acquired brain injury may believe the person is lazy or being difficult."

Mr Kluck, you cannot claim to be one of those "people" and believe you treated me as you did, because you believed I was "lazy or being difficult."  Quite the contrary, I am neither lazy of being difficult, as has been repeatedly proven.  I was operating under great duress, amounting  to torture.  That was mental abuse of me by you.  Mr Kluck, you have admitted that you knew I_Had "Cross Examined Under Difficulty For Three Days". Your simply denying that now, does not alter the fact that you abused a disabled person.
 
As a magistrate, Mr Kluck, you cannot claim to have been so ignorant.

Let us now consider the (im)moral compass of the Qld police, Anthony Gett, ex CDPP and now "magistrate" in Cairns, Shane Hunter of the CDPP and Mr Kluck.

The Qld police and  the Commonwealth DPP thought they were on a winner to use a section of the Commonwealth's Criminal Code Sec 474.17, to make my alleged use of broadband to upload certain truthful comments to HaigReport, a criminal offence.  Of course, they were idiots to think that telling the truth, which action could not be a civil wrong of defamation, could be a criminal offence.

Now, Justice Hayne has detailed that precisely, in

Monis v The Queen [2013] HCA 4 AHRC abstract;

Monis v The Queen [2013] HCA 4  HCA full case, [including summary and all submissions], 

In paragraph [213] of Monis, Hayne J. has made the following observation, of just that ridiculous proposition previously relied upon by the Qld police and the CDPP;  [s 471.12 is effectively parallel to Sect 474.17 with the use of the words, "to menace, harass or cause offence".]

[213]        To hold that a person publishing defamatory matter could be guilty of an offence under s 471.12 but have a defence to an action for defamation is not and cannot be right.  The resulting incoherence in the law demonstrates either that the object or end pursued by s 471.12 is not legitimate, or that the section is not reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of government and the freedom of communication that is its indispensable incident.  The incoherence is not removed, and its consequences cannot be avoided, by leaving a jury to decide whether reasonable persons would regard the use, in all the circumstances, as offensive.  In the case postulated, the user of the service both knows that the communication is, and intends that the communication be, offensive.  And there is no basis for the proposition (advanced by the second respondent and Queensland) that a jury would not find an accused guilty of an offence against s 471.12 in circumstances of the kind now under consideration because of the section's reference to "reasonable persons ... in all the circumstances".  Statements that are political in nature and reasonable for a defendant to make can and often will still bite in the sense relevant to s 471.12.

A statement can still be offensive even if it is true.
 
The decision in Monis was applied  in the appeal in  the Qld District Court, viz:

Starkey v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] QDC 124  with PDF online

The statement by Justice Hayne in [213] above, is not a 'statutory interpretation', but a clear simple basic moral observation. 

I remind you mr Kluck, as I do below [in context], of your comment;

BENCH: We're not conducting the inquiry as to the truth of that.

You, Mr Kluck, were prepared to let me be prosecuted for a crime of publishing a true comment, that would not even be a civil offence of defamation.  Additionally, you ridiculed my brain damage disability and me for being disabled with brain damage.  [
"So,  Have You Got Your Thoughts Back  Together Again, Mr Mathews"]

Hunter is deemed to know the law and the relevant  facts that are in evidence and by the irrefutable evidence on HaigReport.   He knew that the coppers Rantala and  Antony, had committed the armed robbery.  Where is his moral compass?  He thought he was being "clever" to persecute me further as he did in the early 1990's.

Can't either of you simply think for yourselves?  Do you think you can do absolutely anything, without limit, unless someone "authoritative" has said you can't?  Neither of you clearly know right from wrong.  Your respective immunities protect you from being prosecuted in law, but that does not mean you cannot be "tried in the media".   You are both lowlife.

Telling the truth can never be wrong.  You are both paid by the government and I have been robbed by the government at gunpoint, and in circumstances of physical violence by the Queensland government, against me.  I am sure that if I had attempted to defend my property in my home where I had exclusive possession, against this CRIMINAL INVASION BY THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT, Rantala would have murdered me just as rogue cop Constable Thomas Hess  murdered Jason Protheroe in his home at Brackenridge in April 2012.  For either of you to think that telling the truth, especially about government or political matters, could be a criminal offence, means you are ultra morons or just lowlife parasites.  Before answering any question, do each of  you think of whether you will answer it honestly? Obviously, you do. Prohibiting the telling of the truth is logically equivalent to being dishonest and telling lies.  To prohibit the telling of the truth about government corruption, and especially prosecuting to that effect, in  light of  the Freedom of Speech about government and political matters implied in the Constitution, must be the ultimate in official corruption.

You both thought you were on easy grounds, would have an easy run, knowing the litany of past official government criminal acts, including by the CMC, to coverup the armed robbery of me by Rantala and Antony in company.  

Brain damage, or, as some call it, Acquired Brain Injury or ABI, is an insidious disability.  I have serious brain damage; brain stem  damage.  It is permanent.

The best that can be done for me, is the development by me of "strategies", to assist me to cope.  When I had my business I could, to some extent, delegate, but  parasites put me out of business. 

I am realizing just how extensive has been the effects of the ABI I have suffered, reading in ABI  literature; eg "Strategies for 14 common issues";  See Page01  Page02   Page03   Page04  

and reading from "ABI" websites ie: http://www.health.qld.gov.au/abios/asp/what_is_abi.asp

In the longer term most people with ABI report changes in learning, thinking and behaviour while only 25% of people with a severe ABI will experience ongoing physical disabilities.  [So 75% have no outward signs of disability, and do not fully recognize precisely how they have been deprived.] These changes in learning, thinking and behaviour are hard for other people to recognise. People who do not understand the difficulties associated with acquired brain injury may believe the person is lazy or being difficult.


People with ABI usually retain their intellectual abilities but have difficulty controlling, coordinating and communicating their thoughts and actions.


Hence, I prefer by far to communicate in writing.  It takes me longer to communicate this way, but I can see what I have written  to try to stimulate more thoughts, when my mind goes blank and I cannot generate ideas or thoughts.

I have attached a scan  re 14 Strategies for dealing with the effects of ABI.  [See Page01  Page02   Page03   Page04  /.] It seems both of you Mr Kluck and Mr Hunter, need education.   Not all apply to me, but many do.  I suggest that #s 7, 11 & 13 would not apply to me.

When I was cross examining Read on the first day, - the 24th June, 2010 - this exchange took place:  [For the reader with less time,  the important part is in red.]

DEFENDANT: Yeah. Well - so, you haven't investigated whether the council really did have authority to enter on that day?   They claim that they do.


BENCH: No, but the question is did you investigate?


DEFENDANT: Did you investigate?    Yeah. I spoke to Henri Rantala about the reasons as to why he was there that day.


BENCH: Did you ask anyone in the council?   No, I haven't spoken to anyone in the council, your Honour.


Right.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Okay. And - it's the entire - you're a police officer. If someone asks you for entry to a property, can you just say, "Oh, well, okay, yeah", and they say, "Look, I've got something here that says, 'Oh, okay, this fellow is coming in whether you like it or not'" be forced entry or do they have to have real authority?   That have to have some sort of legal authority    


To have some authority?        to be able to do what they're doing.


So, did you check with the entire, what the nature of the authority was that the council had?   Yeah. He said that they had - he said that they were - had the authority to be there to remove some property.


And what - what authority was that did he say?   I don't recall exactly what he said.


BENCH: Is Sergeant Rantala giving evidence in these    


DEFENDANT: Yes, he is?   Yes, he is.


BENCH: You can ask him about that.


DEFENDANT: Okay, your Honour. So - so, you didn't investigate all that. Now, okay, have you got that page about Queensland Government on - I do want that. Can you go up a little bit? No, down - down a bit, sorry. Hang on a second. There, there are references to the CMC, the Legal Services Commission and Information Commissioner complaints. Okay, well, can we have a look at [indistinct], your Honour, to read this    


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT:      please, thank you, your Honour. I want to refer you to "Proof of labour something or other". They'd be a file in Haig Report stating proof of labour. There you are, yes, sorry, there we are. Proof of state labour. Yes, okay. Now, this is - you copied this, so, this is part of the material you, well, could have or should have investigated on? Can we have a look at that Crime Misconduct Commission, CMC, Robert Walker? Click on it, yeah, to see what comes up there and there should be a letter from the CMC. There you go, okay. Now, you've seen this before?   Yes.


Okay. Now, can we go through that? And so it's raised there, the question of - if we go down a little bit further, thanks. There, they're talking about Regulation 200     ?   Mmm-hmm.


     as being the authority. And does he state that case law? Can we go a bit further on? Okay. We go up. He's of the opinion that [indistinct] the complaint. The business he can't - has no authority to enter any residential premises. He maintained the council required a Court order to enter your premises and relied on section 160 of the Health Act 1937 in support of that claim. Right. Now, this is in evidence. Now, I have no grounds about admitting that's my letter. That letter was sent to me; that it's real and CMC notes in correspondence that they didn't have a Court order, so, it will be a matter, surely, your Honour, that at some time, the Court has to consider section 160 of the Health Act.


BENCH: This Court won't be considering that. We're not here about that.


DEFENDANT: Well    


BENCH: Can you just stand up in front of the microphone there, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Sorry, your Honour.


BENCH: I'll allow you sit down while you're reading the screen.


DEFENDANT: Well    


BENCH: What do you mean, this - are you seriously suggesting this Court should consider that section you referred to?


DEFENDANT: Well, the thing is, it becomes - if    


BENCH: This Court will not be conducting an inquiry as to the contents of that website on each of those matters.


DEFENDANT: No, no, no, but what has been raised, though, is that - regarding Rantala, that the website search that he an armed robber.

BENCH: We're not conducting the inquiry as to the truth of that.
[Editorial: Magistrate Kluck is wrong in this respect. It is a matter of conjecture if that is, on his part, deliberate or not.   In fact, the truth is highly relevant.

I think some lawyers, the honest few, and people who are honest and righteous would agree that it is proper that the truth about corrupt people should be published so honest people are not defrauded by these dishonest and corrupt parasites.  One of the two aspects to these charges against me, is that it is alleged that I created these websites or the parts of these websites that refer to the corrupt copper Henri Elias Rantala, as an Armed Robber.  Well, my contention is that, regardless of who published these comments, if in fact that copper did not have legal authority to enter the private property to which he did force entry, which authority the law requires, then, since he was armed and a great amount of my property was taken, he is an armed robber. He admits, under oath, that he entered and that he was armed.  There is no dispute that my property was taken and given to others.  Hence, it is highly relevant to know whether his entry was authorized by law of not.  I know it was not authorized by law.  I believe that can be published without fear, and so it should be.

The fact that Magistrate Paul M Kluck has made this statement, is, I suggest, highly suggestive that Kluck is himself corrupt.  It is not, in itself conclusive, but I suggest he would have to be a moron otherwise.  We will discover.]     


DEFENDANT: No, no. Well, but the point is, if he - well, if he was, if he was an armed robber, in reality, would there be a problem with referring to that on a website?


BENCH: Well, I think you've already asked that question, haven't you?


DEFENDANT: No, I haven't.


BENCH: Was Rantala was an armed robber; do you have any evidence that Rantala is an armed robber?   No, your Honour.


DEFENDANT: Well, [indistinct] the problem with this - it said that the website is menacing or harassing or causing offence     ?   Mmm.


     because it says he's an armed robber and the implicate there is that he isn't an armed robber. What about he is an armed robber?


BENCH: What are you asking?


DEFENDANT: Well, if he was an armed robber, would there be a problem with putting that on a website?


BENCH: Well, it's - he doesn't have to answer that.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: That's a hypothetical because he just - the witness just said he doesn't have any evidence that Rantala is an armed robber.


DEFENDANT: You can't really say whether that's offensive or not because you don't know whether he is an armed robber or not?   I don't have any evidence to suggest    


No, that's right, you don't know     ?        that he is an armed robber.



Now, Mr Kluck, you were not interested in whether it was the truth that Rantala et al were armed robbers.   You could not have cared less about the truth.   That is deplorable.  Have you sunk so low, or are you intending  to rely upon being a moron?

Not only did the police do an armed robbery, but they thought they could get away with it, and that the courts and the CDPP would assist them. To date, that has been happening.  That is shockingly deplorable.  What is worse, is that the CDPP per Anthony Gett, were assisting them in their dishonest pursuit.  He is now a magistrate with a record of promoting fraud, covering it up, and dishonesty.  I wonder if the people of Cairns would like to know that.

Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html


Comment20131111

  Monday, 11th November, 2013

Communique and Public Notice to the
Directors of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC].

The ABC, by Paul Barry and Media Watch, is Criminal accessory after the fact to Armed Robbery.  

Will the Directors of the ABC correct the record?

The Hon James Spigelman AC QC

The Honourable James Spigelman AC QC commenced his five-year term as Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 1 April 2012.

[In November 2012 James Spigelman was appointed a Director of the Board of the Lowy Institute for International Policy. In 2013 he was appointed a Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong.]

The Honourable James Spigelman AC QC, Chairman, Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Director Lowy Institute for International Policy, 31 Bligh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia, PO Box H-159 Australia Square NSW 1215 Australia. +61 2 8238 9000 lowyinstitute@lowyinstitute.org

Ms Cheryl Bart AO

Lawyer and Company Director

BCom, LLB (UNSW), FAICD

3 June 2010 – 2 June 2015.

Cheryl Bart is Chairman of

ANZ Trustees Ltd,
the South Australian Film Corporation,
Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and the
Environment Protection Authority of South Australia.

She is a director of Spark Infrastructure Ltd,
South Australian Power Networks (formerly ETSA Utilities),
Audio Pixel Holdings Ltd, the
Australian Himalayan Foundation and the
Local Organising Committee Asian Cup 2015 Ltd.

Cheryl Bart is Chairman of
ANZ Trustees Ltd,
Call 1800 011 047
Fax 03 8655 8301
enquiry@anz.com

ANZ Internet Banking Help Desk <inetbank@anz.com>
inetbank@anz.com

ANZ Internet Sales Department
accenq01@anz.com

ANZ Smart Choice Superannuation
anzsmartchoice@anz.com

Complaints Feedback at ANZ.
yourfeedback@anz.com

South Australian Film Corporation,
226 Fullarton Road
Glenside South Australia 5065
Telephone: +(618)  8394 2000

Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and the
Environment Protection Authority of South Australia.

        She is a director of
Spark Infrastructure Ltd,
South Australian Power Networks (formerly ETSA Utilities),
Audio Pixel Holdings Ltd, the
Australian Himalayan Foundation and the
Local Organising Committee Asian Cup 2015 Ltd.

Ms Jane Bennett

Lawyer and Company Director

AdvCertAppSc (Dairy Tech), FAICD

30 June 2011 – 29 June 2016.

Her other directorships include the Australian Farm Institute, Tasmanian Ports Corporation, Brand Tasmania Council and the CSIRO.  We will search to find any others.

Simon Mordant AM

Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Greenhill & Co., Inc.

CA, ACA (UK)

8 November 2012 – 7 November 2017.

Simon Mordant is Chairman of the Board of the Museum of Contemporary Art Australia.
Simon is Australian Commissioner for the 2013 and 2015 Venice Biennale,
    a member of the Leadership Council of the New Museum in New York and
    a member of the International Council of The Museum of Modern Art in New York,
    a member of the Executive Committee of the Tate International Council,
    a Director of the Sydney Theatre Company and the Garvan Research Foundation, and
    a member of the Wharton Executive Board for Asia.

Matt Peacock

Journalist, ABC

Staff Elected Director

22 April 2013 – 21 April 2018.

Matt Peacock is a senior journalist with the ABC working on the 7.30 program. He is Adjunct Professor of Journalism with Sydney’s University of Technology (UTS).

Prof Julianne Schultz AM FAHA

Appointed Director for a five year term commencing 27 March 2009

Julianne Schultz is the founding editor of Griffith REVIEW. She is the
    Chair of the Australian Film, Television and Radio School and
    a member of the Board of the Grattan Institute. Professor Schultz is
    a member of the advisory boards of the Centre for Advanced Journalism, Companion to Australian Media, High Resolves Initiative, Australian Indigenous Mentoring Enterprise, and is
    an ambassador for Australian Indigenous Education Foundation. She is a judge of the Miles Franklin, Walkley and Sidney Myer Creative Fellowship awards.

 Mr Mark Scott AO

Appointed Managing Director for a five year term from 5 July 2006.
Reappointed Managing Director for a five year term from 5 July 2011.

He is married to Briony Scott, the principal of Wenona School.

Mr Mark Scott AO
Managing Director of the ABC
GPO Box 9994 Sydney NSW 2001
mark.scott@abc.net.au

Mr Mark Scott MD, ABC c/- Dr Briony Scott, the principal of Wenona School <principal@wenona.nsw.edu.au>

Mr Steven Skala AO

Appointed a Director for a five year term from 6 October 2005
Reappointed a Director for a five year term from 24 November 2010.

Steven Skala is
    Chairman of Wilson HTM Investment Group Limited, and
    Director of Hexima Limited. He is
    Vice President of the Board of the Walter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research,
    Deputy Chairman of the General Sir John Monash Foundation and a
    Director of the Centre for Independent Studies. Mr Skala serves as a
    Member of the International Council of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York,
    the Advisory Council of the Australian Innovation Research Centre, and the
    ANZAC Centenary Advisory Board Business Group.

 Professor Fiona Stanley AC FAA FASSA

Patron and the founding Director of the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research

30 June 2011 – 29 June 2016.

Fiona Stanley is a Distinguished Research Professor in the School of Paediatrics and Child Health at the University of Western Australia, a Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow and Director of the 2013 Festival of Ideas at the University of Melbourne, and Chair of the Alcohol Advertising Review Board, an initiative of the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth. Professor Stanley has more than 350 published papers, books and book chapters.


Dear Directors of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC],

I had intended finding email addresses for each of the Directors of Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC] for the purpose of sending them each this communique in regard to their responsibilities as Directors of the ABC in respect of the Direction of the ABC.  This is in relation to the Criminal conduct of the ABC by virtue of its broadcast of the criminal action by Paul Barry and Media Watch on 4th November, 2013.

Publication of this communique on the HaigReport, together with a link  to it on the HaigReport Twitter account of which, Paul Barry [@TheRealPBarry] is a follower, and as an employee/subcontractor of ABC, especially the one involved in his matter, means  this communique to the Directors of the ABC, assumes the character of a Public Notice.

As  many of you directors have LLBs, and are described as lawyers and/or judge/s, you are better able than the other non-lawyer directors, to be able to realize the criminal conduct of the ABC.  This conduct was through the actions of Paul Barry and Media Watch on 4th November, 2013, in defaming the exposure on the website, my website, HaigReport.com of the many episodes of criminal conduct against me, by various organs of government in Australia. The effect, and most assuredly the goal, was to nullify the exposure by HaigReport, of the criminal acts by  government.  Whether deliberate, or reckless and negligent, that  action by Media Watch and Paul Barry, made the ABC and its responsible directors, Accessories after the fact to the criminal acts perpetrated against me.  I am sure those "other directors" without LLBs, do know that ignorance of the law is no excuse.


I trust you all realize just how motivated I am.   I have sustained repeated criminal acts against me by various instruments of government.  The criminal fraudulent acts are interrelated.  Some can be identified simply as an entity within itself.  Those, such as the Armed Robbery, are my thin edge of the wedge.   That Armed Robbery of me and my home on 29th November, 2004 was by the Qld government in the persons of Qld police and officers/staff of Brisbane City Council. The TIMELINE shows the repeated episodes of criminal conduct aimed at covering up the armed Robbery on 29th November, 2004.  

You could be forgiven for the ABC's initial criminal act against me of defaming me and HaigReport by Paul Barry and Media Watch to negative the evidence and argument of the repeated government defrauding of me.  Paul Barry and Media Watch got it wrong.  Whether deliberately or not, they cannot claim mistake as all the irrefutable documentary evidence was before them on HaigReport. Any "mistake" will thus be a mistake of law and as the many lawyers amongst you should know, mistake of law is never a valid excuse.   The effect, regardless of whether that was the aim, was to seem to negative or nullify the evidence of much criminal conduct against my interests by other elements, including the Commonwealth DPP, the other elements of the government of the Commonwealth of Australia, while noting that the ABC is also an element of the Commonwealth of Australia.  In the past, all public sector parasites, could claim immunity, including advocates' immunity and judicial immunity.  Judges' Unaccountability due to "judicial immunity" is a matter of concern internationally.  Because all this has been carried on the internet, I have already been contacted by international jurists and researchers.

However, now as Directors of a company, albeit wholly government owned, you directors cannot claim immunity. The Corporations Law defines your duty  Further, the nature of the directors' actions in  regard to criminal conduct by the ABC, could reasonably be seen as an indication of how each of you directors will act in your other directorships.   I believe that if you each fail in your duty to correct the record of the ABC's criminal conduct of attempting to nullify and negative the evidence and legal argument of multiple criminal conduct against my interests, by organs of government in  Australia as carried on HaigReport, via Paul Barry and Media Watch, that will mean you are guilty of the criminal act of being accessories after the fact to Armed Robbery, and accessories to each of the other elements of criminal coverup of the Armed Robbery
 

You cannot, legally, permit the erroneous criminal view created by the ABC, to persist.  Your responsibilities as Directors, are to put the record, as erroneously produced by the ABC, the company for which you are directors, straight.  Unless you do correct the record,  your actions in ignoring your responsibilities, your failings or omissions, will assume the character of the criminality of all the underlying criminal acts.  It is your  duty to completely correct the record, not merely apologise.

Most of you have other directorships, with interested stakeholders.  Regardless of how you act, I will bring such actions, for good or bad, to the notice of such stakeholders.  I do not need to again produce the irrefutable evidence, as it is still online on HaigReport, despite the attempts of the parts of government who have defrauded me to have it removed.  I do not need to yet again explain the legal significance of it.  The plenary explanation is online on the HaigReport.   All explanations are interrelated with a generous complement of hyperlinks.

You will note that in the heading of this communique, with each of your names I have included the detail of your other directorships, as detailed on the ABC website, just so Google et al will highlight them in searches on your individual names.  I trust they will link to my reports of how, you, the directors of the ABC, ensured that the record was corrected.

Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html


Comment20131109

  Saturday, 9th November, 2013

Paul Barry takes Media Watch down market; WAY DOWN.

Now that the Qld police and the Commonwealth DPP have come to a dead end in attacking Russell Mathews so as to conceal their Armed Robbery, and repeated public sector accessories to that crime, poor Paul Barry and the Commonwealth's ABC have taken up the 'baton' to batter Russell Mathews further.  

This is an act of desperation by the Commonwealth of Australia, to conceal government, including judicial crime.

Paul Barry makes a practice [as detailed below], of repeating false outlandish allegations after they have been proven false, without correcting them. This seems to be the characteristic mark of Paul Barry publications; to make his stories more substantial to what appears to be his market which is the dumb, lowest common denominator, the social media chattering classes.  He does this repeatedly.  Paul Barry is clearly "out of his depth"on the substantive ABC.  This matter proves he is loose with the truth. Is it incompetence of the ABC senior management that he is hosting Media Watch?  Maybe they have a deal with  him to  host for free so he can promote his latest book.   Maybe that is the reason he is repeatedly attacking the Murdock papers; the subject of his latest book.

Barry delivers his lines with a false but supercilious superiority.  Of course, the
social media chattering classes wouldn't know the difference, and may go out and buy his latest book he is promoting.

He and Media Watch has now shown itself for being on the side of the corrupt government and public sector, by attacking HaigReport which is highlighting corruption in the public sector, but then it is public sector. The evidence of corruption is online on HaigReport.  It would take time and intelligence to contemplate all the irrefutable evidence detailed on HaigReport, but, if they had, they could not honestly call anything on HaigReport defamation.  

Media Watch and Paul Barry are parts of the public sector.  HaigReport is determined to expose the extensive corruption in the public sector.  The Qld police and  the Commonwealth DPP thought they were on a winner to use a section of the Commonwealth's Criminal Code Sec 474.17, to make my alleged use of broadband to upload certain truthful comments to HaigReport, a criminal offence.  Of course, they were idiots to think that telling the truth, which action could not be a civil wrong of defamation, could be a criminal offence.

Now, Justice Hayne has detailed that precisely, in

Monis v The Queen [2013] HCA 4 AHRC abstract;

Monis v The Queen [2013] HCA 4  HCA full case, [including summary and all submissions], 

In paragraph [213] of Monis, Hayne J. has made the following observation, of just that ridiculous proposition previously relied upon by the Qld police and the CDPP;  [s 471.12 is effectively equivalent to s 474.17 using the words, "to menace, harass or cause offence".]

[213]        To hold that a person publishing defamatory matter could be guilty of an offence under s 471.12 but have a defence to an action for defamation is not and cannot be right.  The resulting incoherence in the law demonstrates either that the object or end pursued by s 471.12 is not legitimate, or that the section is not reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of government and the freedom of communication that is its indispensable incident.  The incoherence is not removed, and its consequences cannot be avoided, by leaving a jury to decide whether reasonable persons would regard the use, in all the circumstances, as offensive.  In the case postulated, the user of the service both knows that the communication is, and intends that the communication be, offensive.  And there is no basis for the proposition (advanced by the second respondent and Queensland) that a jury would not find an accused guilty of an offence against s 471.12 in circumstances of the kind now under consideration because of the section's reference to "reasonable persons ... in all the circumstances".  Statements that are political in nature and reasonable for a defendant to make can and often will still bite in the sense relevant to s 471.12.

A statement can still be offensive even if it is true.
 
The decision in Monis was applied  in the appeal in  the Qld District Court, viz:

Starkey v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] QDC 124  with PDF online

The police and  the CDPP now have a difficult decision.   In light of those cases, the police and CDPP are scrambling and stumbling, involved in discussions to try to determine how they can possibly salvage anything from their criminal acts against me.

You see, they sued me under Sect 474.17 because, unlike for defamation, they thought, at that time, "truth" was no defence to a charge under Sect 474.17 of the Criminal Code (Cth). See
Hayne J. comment in para[213] above.   Because the facts of each of the elements of Armed Robbery are not at all contentious, the police and CDPP knew that the statements on HaigReport are true. 

They operated on the basis that they thought that in 2010, they would be able to have orders made to close down HaigReport although the statements were and still are, true.  Because the police were party to the Armed Robbery, and there have been so many instances where "government" has acted to "keep a lid" on the corruption detailed, the police, Queensland and Commonwealth governments have attempted to brazen it out. 

Just think if poor Paul Barry, found the content of  HaigReport to be so "shocking"  that  he  automatically  thought  that  it must be defamatory, [if that is what really happened], what  must be the extent of corruption in Queensland such that that "shocking" content  is TRUE?   I invite the visitor to delve into the "shocking" content  on HaigReport; about the Armed Robbery, and an early "judicial" attempt to conceal it.

Surely, all this government corruption, would be a much bigger story than merely a purportedly "defamatory website", don't you think?

That Starkey decision highlights how "offensive" comment can be and  still not fall foul of Sect 474.17.  Now that the High Court of Australia, has stated that, the Qld police and  CDPP are panicking like headless chooks.  Consideration of this matter has now reverted to the CDPP in  Canberra who are discussing with, what the CDPP prosecutor Shane Hunter has called the "victims", presumably the Qld police who were the Armed Robbers, what they should now do to attempt to salvage something, anything.  There have been a litany of criminal acts as accessories to the original criminal act of Armed Robbery.  What should all  these parasites do?  Try  to kill me again, as they did in 1996?  Qld police, federal police, Shane Hunter and the CDPP had already been engaged in criminal conduct towards me prior to 1996,  and I was prominently publicising that at that time.

It seems the CDPP in Canberra, has sought the assistance of a compliant Paul Barry, for ABC's Media Watch, to attack me for telling the truth.  Does Paul Barry have an LLB? 

The URL is http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3883771.htm /. 

HaigReport is my website and I am the "man behind the website".  He has used my disability to denigrate me.   He does not produce a balanced view, such as, since this is all a 'legal' discussion, it could be relevant that I have an  LLB.  

He has clearly not considered the evidence produced on that website of HaigReport that he has been  defaming.  He has used my disability to make a superficial populous segment for TV, trying to appeal to the "Social Media Chattering Classes".  All the evidence on HaigReport is of how the government has attacked me and robbed me. All evidence is irrefutable.

He quotes from  the  SMH article,  [from the webpage entitled "Haig Report Accused May Not Face Court"]; & entitled 

Online harassment: man may be unfit to face court

Date

 http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/online-harassment-man-may-be-unfit-to-face-court-20100908-150g0.html#ixzz2k3enI2F8

A Brisbane man accused of online harassment of Queensland public figures and organisations may not be fit to be tried by a criminal court, a magistrate has said.

... A committal hearing involving four witnesses began in late June but on the third day of his case, [the man] who is representing himself, failed to turn up to court.

— Sydney Morning Herald Online, 8th September, 2013

That date provided by Media Watch and Paul Barry, of 8th September, 2013 is false. Check the original article.  The URL is http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3883771.htm /.  That article was published 8th September, 2010.  See
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/online-harassment-man-may-be-unfit-to-face-court-20100908-150g0.html  /.

That "error" gives the impression that the "June" mentioned was June 2013.  In fact, the June was 2010.

That three year difference makes a big difference to the understanding. The three year difference is important because there would certainly have been developments in the three years and two months since.  There have been.  Of course, I have been found "fit to stand trial".  The magistrate  was at a loss because he had been repeatedly failing to accommodate my Special Needs arising from my brain damage disability, [now called ABI for Acquired Brain Injury]. The magistrate, Paul M. Kluck, ridiculed me for my brain damage and abused me because of my brain damage. He did that for three days.  I did not, and do not have to accept that.  Living with disability is a matter of adopting appropriate strategies to deal with the effects of the disability; strategies that alleviate, as much  as possible, the effects of  the disability.  This gives rise to "Special Needs",  to  which  I have a legislated right, pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)[DDA].

That treatment of me by Paul Barry and the Australian Commonwealth, is definitely treating me less favourably than a non-disabled person by referring to my disability in an unbalanced way.  They have used my disability to defame me and to justify not presenting a balanced view.  Now we have that Paul Barry and the Commonwealth of Australia, denigrate disabled persons for being disabled.

They did not need to mention that I am disabled.  They did not need to mention that the magistrate had suggested I may not be fit to stand trial.  There has since been a determination that  I am fit to stand trial, but Paul Barry omitted that.

This is par for the course for Paul Barry.  Paul Barry makes a practice of repeating false outlandish allegations after they have been proven false, without correcting them.   He is desperate to make his stories seem scoops that  they are not.

Consider his statement re the hacking of the phone of Milly Dowler.

I quote from Terry McCrann's, Herald Sun article dated 1st October,  2013 and entitled,

"Media man Paul Barry shows bias on his watch"

online at
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/media-man-paul-barry-shows-bias-on-his-watch/story-fni0d8gi-1226730302721

On Sunday night, discussing the News of the World hacking scandal in Britain with O’Loghlin, Barry said that what had finally “cracked it” was the revelation that the paper had hacked into the phone of a schoolgirl who had gone missing and was subsequently found to have been murdered, Milly Dowler.

It “appeared News of the World (a Murdoch paper) had also deleted some of the messages on her phone,” Barry said. That had given her parents false hope, that she was still alive, he added.

Now that was the ORIGINAL claim by the Guardian newspaper. Subsequently, it became clear through the Leveson inquiry into the media that the messages had almost certainly been deleted by the phone company. As happens with mobile phones.

Indeed, the Guardian itself reported in a front-page story (30/11/2012): the “tabloid (News of the World) was not responsible for raising false hope that the missing schoolgirl was still alive by deleting messages as this paper reported, Lord Justice Leveson has said.”

Yes, obviously, the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone was appalling, as indeed was all the other hacking by the News of the World.

But the suggestion that the paper had deleted some of her messages, took the crime to a whole new level of disgrace. And led, as Barry detailed, straight to the paper’s closure.

At no stage in his extended interview with O’Loghlin, did Barry point out that the original story about the deletions turned out to be wrong. He left uncorrected his false statement that the News of the World appeared to have done the deletions.


That may be a fine but dishonest tactic, but not when it comes to disabled persons.  This begs the question.  Why, when the Qld police and the CDPP have come to a dead end as to how to silence a website detailing corruption by them and the many parts of government including the judiciary, has Paul Barry and the ABC, all parts of the Commonwealth public sector, just like the CDPP, decided to do a job on  me, the publisher of the details of the criminal acts by government?

Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html


Comment20131106

Wednesday, 6th November, 2013

The TRUTH re CORRUPTION in Queensland is so "shocking"  that  Paul Barry, Media Watch, automatically  thought it must be defamatory. No other reason. The "BIG payday that awaits" may be from the ABC.  


Response from HaigReport to Paul Barry's 4th November, 2013, Media Watch denigration of HaigReport website, without his considering the evidence.

G'day Paul Barry,

Surely, you did not expect that I would not respond. I do so in my own media.  You did put quite a negative spin to HaigReport.com /.  The thought that repeatedly recurs to me is that you have given HaigReport this publicity to promote HaigReport and my claims. Of course, you could not do that overtly, so hence the negative spin. You, with your part ownership of Crikey.com and other digital journals of "Private Media", would have known that your mention of HaigReport would boost traffic to HaigReport, which it has.   Then, I ask myself, "Why would he want to promote HaigReport?"  Of course, you are not wanting to promote me and HaigReport.  Well, with my response, this is now a dialogue.  I see your attacking the Murdock press and their attention to you.  What's the bet, they, or one of their journos, will consider whether you have this wrong? How many of News Ltd journalists watch Media Watch to maybe gain leads on new stories?

I think you omitted some important detail, and failed to show the close connection between related facts that you mentioned as unrelated.

One of your most important omissions is that I have an  LLB.  In fact, my LLB is one of four degrees I have.  I have mathematics majors in both my Science degree [BSc] and Arts degree [BA] where a goodly proportion of my maths' and Honours Maths' results were grades of 7 [aka High Distinction].  I think that is relevant as the whole theme of your consideration of HaigReport was "legal".  It could have been appropriate to mention the LLB when you mentioned that I was self represented.  I do not think I have had a bad result to date from that.  What do you think? There has been a longer than three year hiatus in that committal hearing.  I will mention later recent precedent developments  re the four Sect 474.17 charges, very much beneficial to me.

You mention my brain damage.  Not mentioning my four degrees from The University of Queensland, suggests you did not wish to introduce any dissonance in your audience.  Surely, you would have to admit that to gain four uni degrees including  an LLB with High Distinctions in many maths subjects in the presence of severe brain damage is some accomplishment.

You lead off with the Fryberg mention, and later made reference to my having been declared a "vexatious litigant".  Fryberg made that order, to clearly defeat my legal claim against the Brisbane City Council. Claims that I am a vexatious litigant so as to defeat my legal cases, was my only engagement with Fryberg.  His involvement was just another instance in the litany of events [one  highlighted in one of my wins in the Qld Court of Appeal] which had the result of "keeping a lid" on the Armed Robbery perpetrated against me. 

You mentioned that maybe a "BIG payday awaits" from Google and ZoomInfo.  Maybe it will be from the ABC, and to ME.

I note you spent four years at University of Oxford, 1970 - 1973.  That would have been when you were aged 18 to 22.  When I was of that age, I was attempting to cope with the permanent brain stem damage I had suffered.  Progress coping with ABI [acquired brain injury] has to do with adopting coping strategies.  I have  assiduously pursued that.   I was unable to discover online, the disciplines in which you had qualifications from Oxford.   I presume it was not in law, as nothing  was mentioned.  Hence, I suspect that it was in some soft, insignificant pursuit. 

You made repeated reference to "defamation" in relation to HaigReport.  I wonder how sure you are that the material is defamatory.  My name is mentioned all over HaigReport.  If that material is not defamatory, because it is true, or otherwise protected, have you considered that the payday that awaits could be from the ABC?  You may need to make some "clarification" as you suggested the ABC had done with the "bikie photo" from Getty images.

You mentioned the four charges I face.  They are all section 474.17 Criminal Code (Cth); "using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence".  That was alleged to have been my use of broadband to upload the content of HaigReport.

There have been a couple of interesting cases this year relevant to those charges I still face. 

Monis v The Queen [2013] HCA 4 AHRC abstract;

Monis v The Queen [2013] HCA 4  HCA full case;

 &

Starkey v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] QDC 124  with PDF online


The police and  the CDPP now have a difficult decision.   In light of those cases, the police and CDPP are scrambling and stumbling, involved in discussions to try to determine how they can possibly salvage anything from their criminal acts against me.


You see, they sued me under Sect 474.17 because, unlike for defamation, they thought, at that time, "truth" was no defence to a charge under Sect 474.17 of the Criminal Code (Cth). See
Hayne J. comment in para[213] below.   Because the facts of each of the elements of Armed Robbery are not at all contentious, the police and CDPP knew that the statements on HaigReport are true. 

They operated on the basis that they thought that in 2010, they would be able to have orders made to close down HaigReport although the statements were true.  Because the police were party to the Armed Robbery, and there have been so many instances where "government" has acted to "keep a lid" on the corruption detailed, the police, Queensland and Commonwealth governments have attempted to brazen it out. 

Just think Mr Barry, if you found the content of  HaigReport to be so "shocking"  that  you  automatically  thought  that  it must be defamatory, what  must be the extent of corruption in Queensland such that that "shocking" content  is TRUE?  

Surely, that would be a much bigger story than merely a purportedly "defamatory website", don't you think?


On that Starkey appeal, Dorney QC DCJ stated,
[2]    The appellant was convicted and sentenced on 21 December 2012. At that time the
High Court had not handed down its decision in Monis v The Queen (which was on
27 February 2013). Accordingly, the learned Magistrate did not have the advantage<
of the proper interpretation of a somewhat substantially similar provision by the
joint judgment of Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.


In paragraph [213] of Monis, Hayne J. stated ;


[213]        To hold that a person publishing defamatory matter could be guilty of an offence under s 471.12 but have a defence to an action for defamation is not and cannot be right.  The resulting incoherence in the law demonstrates either that the object or end pursued by s 471.12 is not legitimate, or that the section is not reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of government and the freedom of communication that is its indispensable incident.  The incoherence is not removed, and its consequences cannot be avoided, by leaving a jury to decide whether reasonable persons would regard the use, in all the circumstances, as offensive.  In the case postulated, the user of the service both knows that the communication is, and intends that the communication be, offensive.  And there is no basis for the proposition (advanced by the second respondent and Queensland) that a jury would not find an accused guilty of an offence against s 471.12 in circumstances of the kind now under consideration because of the section's reference to "reasonable persons ... in all the circumstances".  Statements that are political in nature and reasonable for a defendant to make can and often will still bite in the sense relevant to s 471.12.

A statement can still be offensive even if it is true.

Dorney QC DCJ continued:

[12] Given the 3:3 outcome in Monis, (and its consequences) it is to the joint judgment of Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ that recourse is had to determine the content of the relevant tests. It is acknowledged that each of the remaining 3 separate judgments also accepted a narrow definition of the relevant wording. It must be said, from the outset, that no judgment in Monis held other than the relevant standard to be applied to the alleged use “is the view of a reasonable person taking into account all the relevant circumstances”: for instance, at [261]. Additionally, considering Monis in more detail, it needs to be acknowledged that the offence in question in that case that was alleged was pursuant to s 471.12 (which dealt with “a postal or similar service”, although, virtually identical wording is otherwise used in both provisions). Additionally, for s 474.17, unlike s 471.12, s 473.4 required certain matters to be taken into account in determining whether reasonable persons would regard particular material, or a particular use, of a carriage service being in all the circumstances “offensive”, such matters including “the general character of the material” and “the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults”. As was remarked upon in the joint judgment, it may be observed that many of the matters raised for consideration by s 473.4 would be taken into account in the application of the reasonable persons‟ standard in s 471.12: at [263]. Finally, in this regard, the question in the High Court concerned the constitutional validity of s 471.12. Therefore, the matter of whether reasonable persons would regard the content of the communications under consideration there as relevantly “offensive” was not a matter which fell to be determined there: at [255]. Even so, the context of the provision involves more than the mere causing of the (menace, harassment or) offence “to the recipients” and, while the characterised use can arise from the content, the method of the use is also relevant: at [261] and [288]. Taking all those factors into account, it would appear that the nature of the actual recipient, or recipients, is relevant to the objective determination.

[13] Since the respondent on appeal - as it did at first instance - relied upon all three adjectives, it is also necessary to consider what the joint judgment said about “menacing” and “harassing”. It was stated that, while it is true that a communication which has the quality of being menacing or harassing could be seen to be personally directed and deliberately so, an offensive communication may have those qualities - but it may not: at [310]. It was further said that the grouping of the three words and their subjection to the same objective standard of assessment for the purpose of the offences suggest that what is “offensive” will have a quality at least as serious in effect upon a person as the other words convey; and that the words “menacing” and “harassing” imply “a serious potential effect upon the addressee, one which causes apprehension, if not a fear, for that person‟s safety”: also at [310]. The judgment added that, for consistency, to be “offensive” a communication “must be likely to have a serious effect upon the emotional well-being of an addressee”: also at [310].

[14] The above conclusions predicate that the next answer which Monis raises is that a narrow reading should be given to the relevant words. The joint decision held that there was no barrier presented to reading the provision down to apply to a narrower category of offensive communication than would be the case if attention were directed only to the wider meaning of the word “offensive”, adding that it was unlikely that Parliament intended to prohibit all communications which happened to contain matter which may cause “some” offence, thus meaning that s 412.12 may be taken to strike a balance between competing interests “by prohibiting communications which are offensive to a higher degree”: at [333]. This degree of offensiveness was held to be at the high end of the spectrum, although not necessarily the most extreme, with words such as “very”, “seriously” or “significantly” offensive being apt to convey this: at [336]. With respect to the application of the objective standard of the reasonable person, it was stated that it was a person “who may be taken to reflect contemporary societal standards, including those relating to robust political debate” (emphasis added): also at [336].

[15] The last important element that Monis illuminates is what guidance is available in determining the limits of such an offence. The joint judgment, after referring to examples given in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales of the type of reaction which an “offensive” communication might engender as being useful to show the level of seriousness of the offence, added that one would expect such communication “to be likely to cause a significant emotional reaction or psychological response”, with the former ranging “from shock through to anger, hate, disgust, resentment or outrage”, and the latter as potentially including “provocation, anxiety, fearfulness and insecurity”, although an exhaustive list is not possible: at [338]. It was further stated that communications with such serious effects “may be contrasted with those which may cause mere hurt feelings”: also at [338].

[16] Lastly, in dealing with the fault element (referred to earlier), the joint judgment determined that the fault element that applies to the use of the “postal service” is recklessness, with a person being reckless if he or she is at least unaware of a “substantial risk” that reasonable persons would so regard the use, where it is unjustifiable to take the risk: at [341]. Additionally, it was held that intention or knowledge would also satisfy the fault element of recklessness: also at [341]. It was then stated that the requirement of proof of fault excludes from the scope of the offence those cases where the conduct could not be said to be intentional or reckless: also at [341].


Thanks  to you Mr Barry, the  ABC may be on the wrong  end of the "BIG PAYDAY that awaits".

Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html


Comment20131105

Tuesday, 5th November, 2013

Brisbane Marketing is the "free market" arm of Brisbane City Council, to pursue "noble causes", albeit it dumb fraud, to make the BCC parasites appear wonderful:  

The purpose of this content is to publish an email sent to persons related to this Brisbane City Council [BCC] Fraud. It appears below the names of the members of the Board of Directors and Executive 'team' at Brisbane Marketing.  This is so that the populus can  consider this fraud and the names associated with it.  Brisbane  Marketing, the wholly owned subsidiary of BCC is another "noble cause" fraudster.   I believe people should be careful when dealing with people associated with such "noble cause" fraudsters. For that reason I have listed below the names of the members of the Board of Directors and Executive 'team'.

We believe the really corrupt part of the BCC is the "wholly owned 'free market' subsiduary" of Brisbane City Council [BCC] called Brisbane Marketing.  BCC has bought this five acres and about another 60 acres of adjoining land as future District Sports, with the money they have extorted from developers for "sporting headworks". BCC does not expect to be developing this as District Sports  for 10 to 15 years, as they would not have the funding to do that.   We think  the really evil part  of BCC is Brisbane Marketing, and all the parsites within who think they are world beaters and can do as they like, as increasing benefits for Brisbane is a "noble cause". I believe this just as I believe Brisbane Marketing was responsible for the armed robbery by BCC at my St Lucia Home on 29th November, 2004.  I suspect that the BCC has plans for BM to do something of a "noble cause" character, with this 60 odd acres.  They had to be able to say,"Well we had this 60 acres site just sitting there."

In fact, the most vulnerable part of BCC is Brisbane Marketing.   Parasites in BCC think Brisbane Marketing [BM] will make them look good, so they think BM can surreptitiously defraud vulnerable and isolated people so that BM can make the parasites appear wonderful for achieving that "Noble Cause".

Matthew Ramsey is a US resident who was studying in Brisbane as a Jack Kemp Student [like a Rhodes Scholar] and was working in  Brisbane for The University of Qld [UQ] [and discovered how fraudulent UQ really was].  [Just consider how Greenfield thought he could promote his daughter's entry to Medicine by his clandestine "leap frogging" her over more meritorious students. UQ is a massive pitt of fraud. Many others at UQ knew of his corrupt act, but Greenfield and most others thought the fraud culture at UQ would permit it. That is just more evidence that a widespread "FRAUD CULTURE" exists at UQ.]  As part of his working for UQ on its International Students division, Matthew was involved with Brisbane Marketing.  It was Matthew who alerted me to the fraud within BM. 

BM is desirious of attracting persons from two groups.  The first of the two Groups are overseas residents who can be conned into visiting Brisbane and bringing money with them.  The second  group are Brisbane businesses who can be conned out of subscriptions on the basis that they will be able to share in the BM conning  largese.

I and many others have been cheated by BCC parasites. The only way to gain compensation from these parasites is not to appeal to their non-existent "better natures".   The appropriate method is to expose the fraud and importantly the names of the persons involved in the fraud or of the persons who silently permit the fraud to persist.

There are three groups of persons we can discourage.  Apart from the two groups above, the other group are the directors of Brisbane Marketing.   Those directorships are most certainly sinecures; money for nothing. Readers will have to wonder, why else they would be associated with such corruption.  I ahve been able to find email addresses for some of the directors, but I will here name all directors of Brisbane Marketing. This may be an indication of the reason these individuals have been "successful" elsewhere, and maybe people should be careful when dealing with them.  Google et al will pick up all these names.


Board Members

Ian Klug (Chairman), Company Director

Ian is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. He is a non-executive Director of the Aboriginal Centre for the Performing Arts and formerly a director of the Wide Bay Water Corporation, where he also sat on the Audit and Risk Committee. Ian is also Chairman of both Place Design Group, an international planning and design company and the Lord Mayor’s Economic Development Steering Committee. Previous roles and appointments include Partner of Pitcher Partners Chartered Accountants, Chairman of Queensland Artworkers Alliance, Director of Tennis Queensland and Councillor of Tennis Australia.


Phillip Di Bella, Founder, Di Bella Coffee

Phillip Di Bella is the Founder and Managing Director of Di Bella Coffee, Australia’s fastest-growing coffee company. Phillip is an awarded entrepreneur and an Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship at Griffith University. Knighted with the ‘Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity’ for contribution to the community from the Italian Government, he is also Chair of the Queen Street Mall Advisory Board, Chair of The Valley Mall Advisory Committee and sits on the Lord Mayor’s Business Round Table. 


Malcolm Hall-Brown, Company Director

Malcolm Hall-Brown is a property developer and Fellow of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants. He is the Chairman of Ergon Energy Pty Ltd, and is on the Board of  a number of property-related companies including Northeast Business Park Pty Ltd. 


Sean Ryan, General Manager, Nova 106.9

Since Sean Ryan launched commercial radio station Nova 106.9 in April 2005, he has built a thriving business which continues to dominate Brisbane’s radio ratings. Prior to his role with Nova, Sean managed 21 radio stations for DMG Radio in Townsville for three years. He also spent 14 years with WIN television, where he held a number of senior roles. Sean is committed to a number of charities, including the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and the Variety Club Children’s Charity. Sean is also involved in many organisations such as Brisbane City Smart, Lord Mayor’s Business Round Table, Brisbane Sister Cities, Brisbane Marketing, Lord Mayor’s Multicultural Round Table and Asia Pacific Cities Summit. 

Belinda Walters, Company Director

Belinda has a broad range of experience in the event management, convention and tourism industries. She has held a number of senior positions in these industries, including General Manager, Australian Major Events (SA Events Corporation) and Executive Director, Adelaide Convention and Tourism Authority along with many years of experience as a Board Director.

Liz Savage, Company Director

Liz Savage is an aviation industry professional. Most recently as Group Executive Commercial at Virgin Australia Group, Liz played a lead role in transformation from low cost to full service airline, with responsibilities including sales, marketing and the group’s holidays business.  Prior to joining Virgin, Liz was Managing Director of Flights & Holidays at Monarch Travel Group and a senior leader at easyJet for ten years. Liz has recently established a Brisbane-based consultancy, working with business leaders to deliver branded customer experience.


Adam Penberthy, Founder and Creative Director, Fresh

Adam Penberthy is the founder and Creative Director of youth advertising agency, Fresh.  As a member of Gen Y (Adam is 27) Adam is regarded as a leader in communicating with youth, specialising in engaging under 30s through experiential marketing, new-media, social media, social networking and Web 2.0.  Adam has worked on campaigns for various governments as well as brands such as Hell Pizza, QUT, Channel 10 and AOT Holidays.



Executive 'team'

John Aitken, Chief Executive Officer
As Chief Executive Officer of Brisbane Marketing, the city's economic development board, John Aitken is an industry leader with proven success in leading city-wide economic development strategies and projects. Prior to this role John was responsible for some of Australia's largest major events and iconic celebrations. 

He is a member of a number of prominent boards and committees including: Australia Trade Coast, Australian Association of Convention Bureaus, Brisbane City Council Sister Cities Advisory Group, Queensland Exploration Council and the Brisbane City Council's Mall Advisory Committee. 

Between 1980 and 2007, John's major events company delivered more than 1,000 events including Brisbane's Riverfestival, raising over $200 million in revenue via sponsorship, government funding and sales attracting more than 25 million people to enjoy his work. 

Prior to joining Brisbane Marketing, John was General Manager Events and Marketing for Australia's oldest event tradition the Sydney Royal Easter Show.

Kieran O’Hea, Chief Digital Officer
As Chief Digital Officer, Kieran O’Hea is responsible for developing and implementing a progressive Brisbane Digital Strategy that will contribute to the economic growth of Brisbane city. Kieran has over 15 years experience in digital strategy development at corporate, public sector and municipal level in Ireland and abroad. Most recently, Kieran developed the Digital Capability Framework for the European Commission. Kieran’s core areas of expertise include digital transformation, digital capability, online strategy and digital marketing.

Megan Barron, Director CBD
Megan Barron leads the teams responsible for driving economic and social value to Brisbane through the promotion of major events, city branding strategies, activation programs and marketing campaigns that showcase the retail and destination offer of Brisbane.  With over ten years’ experience in the property sector, Megan’s previous role involved sales and marketing for multi-award winning development group Citimark Properties.  Having successfully delivered over $1.5b in residential, commercial and retail projects located across the eastern seaboard of Australia, Megan is well-known and highly regarded within the property industry, and was awarded the 2011 UDIA Women in Development Excellence Award for Outstanding Achievement by a Woman in Strategic Management.  

Jon Kritzinger, Director, Finance, IT and Operations
Jon Kritzinger is a Chartered Accountant with more than 16 years experience in management accounting and financial management. He has a strong background working in medium sized companies with particular expertise in the manufacturing and retail construction sectors. He has held a number of Directorships on various divisional Boards and is a member of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia. He is responsible for financial management, information technology, risk management, corporate administration and insurance.

Gordon Scott, Director, Export
Gordon Scott oversees the Study Brisbane initiative, which supports and develops Brisbane’s largest export sector – international education. Gordon brings 20 years international expertise in the public and private sectors to his role, including experience managing Brisbane City Council’s Sister City and international relations programs. He currently represents Brisbane Marketing on several committees including Griffith University’s international advisory panel, the Lord Mayor’s Multicultural Round Table and the Queensland Trade and Export Council.

Annabel Sullivan, Director, Convention Bureau
Annabel Sullivan brings almost 20 years of diverse experience in the tourism, conference and incentive industry to her role as Director, Convention Bureau. Annabel has worked for major brands and stakeholders in the tourism industry including Tourism Queensland, Qantas Australian Resorts, P&O Australian Resorts and Voyages Hotels and Resorts. Her wealth of experience enables her to guide the team in their efforts of attracting business events to Brisbane.

Steven Silvester, Director, Investment Attraction
As Acting Director of the Investment Attraction team, Steven takes responsibility for guiding companies from within the Digital Content and IT, Mining Technology and Services, and Infrastructure sectors on their plans to establish or expand operations in the Greater Brisbane region. Specifically, Steven focuses his attention on those convergent areas where digital technologies are advancing productivity gains within the traditional industry sectors of mining, infrastructure development and energy generation. Steven has a Bachelor of Engineering in Microelectronic Engineering and a Masters in Technology Management and previously worked for one of Australia’s largest and most diverse human resources outsourcing and recruitment companies

Shane Rodgers, Director, Marketing and Communications
Shane Rodgers has more than 20 years of experience as a media, business, marketing and communications leader. Before joining Brisbane Marketing in 2012, Shane was Editorial Director of APN Australian Regional Media with editorial responsibility for the group’s 70 daily and weekly mastheads across print and online. He has previously served as General Manager of Queensland Newspapers, publisher of the state’s largest print and digital titles, and Director of Marketing and Communication at The University of Queensland. Shane is a former Editor-in-Chief and Deputy General Manager of Quest Newspapers and National Media Manager for Centrelink. 

Earlier in his career, Shane held the positions of Deputy Editor, News Editor and Chief-of-Staff of The Courier-Mail. He has worked twice in the Canberra press gallery, including as Chief-of-Staff of the News Ltd bureau and national economics and industrial relations correspondent for the News group. As a reporter he has also covered social issues, politics, statistics, popular culture, police, courts, education, mining and rural issues. He holds a Bachelor of Arts (Economics and Government) from The University of Queensland.

Anne-Maree Moon, Director, Leisure Tourism & Major Events
Anne-Maree Moon is one of Queensland’s most experienced events marketing executives. Ms Moon has spent the past 18 years in arts and entertainment marketing in Brisbane, most recently as Associate Director ACMN Marketing and Advertising where she developed and implemented national marketing strategies for a variety of high profile events and performances. Previously, Ms Moon was Director of Marketing and Ticketing, Queensland Performing Arts Centre (QPAC) where her achievements included developing a nationally-recognised audience development program.

Lewis Ramsay, Director, Commercial 
Lewis Ramsay comes to Brisbane Marketing with extensive commercial experience, including as a Director of Ramlock Properties and as Commercial Manager for the North Queensland Cowboys, Brisbane Broncos and clothing company Bright Bots. His extensive experience in business will help Brisbane Marketing in its role as a link between the public and private sectors. Lewis will work closely with industry to source and develop new commercial opportunities and support business and economic growth in Brisbane.

Roxanne Hopkins, General Manager, Marketing – South Bank
Roxanne Hopkins has over ten years marketing experience across a range of industries including finance, tourism and retail.

Prior to transitioning to Brisbane Marketing, Roxanne was the General Manager of Marketing at South Bank Corporation.  She has also worked for several well-known brands including Dreamworld, White Water World, Youngcare and the Colorado Group.

At Brisbane Marketing, Roxanne is responsible for overseeing the marketing, communications, events and brand development functions for the South Bank Parklands.

Gmail - Brisbane Marketing/BCC FRAUD; QCAT APL305-13 Newton, Face2Face v BCC

Russell Mathews <http://HaigReport.com/eml.html>

Brisbane Marketing/BCC FRAUD; QCAT APL305-13 Newton, Face2Face v BCC


Russell Mathews <http://HaigReport.com/eml.html> Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM
To: "Kevin O'Hanlon, QCAT Adjudicator(?) +61733741114 kevmarlioh@gmail.com" <kevmarlioh@gmail.com>,

"Chandler Ward, Adrian Schrinner LNP BCC Shop 8, Millennium Centre, 14 Millennium Boulevard Carindale Qld 4152b+617 3407 1400 chandler.ward@ecn.net.au" <chandler.ward@ecn.net.au>,

"Ross Vasta MP, Bonner electorate office 69 Clara Street, Wynnum QLD 4178 +61738933488 +61738933422 Parliament House Office CANBERRA ACT 2600 +61262774632 Ross.Vasta.mp@aph.gov.au" <Ross.Vasta.MP@aph.gov.au>,

"Ian Walker (LNP) Assistant Minister for Planning Reform, Mansfield Electorate Office PO Box 2202 MANSFIELD BC QLD 4122 12 Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road UPPER MT GRAVATT QLD 4122 +61738493488 Mansfield@parliament.qld.gov.au" <Mansfield@parliament.qld.gov.au>,

"Alexander Crawford, barrister QCAT adjudicator [Major areas of practice? - Administrative, 'ha'] +61731121070 Fax3112 5101 apcraw@gmail.com" <apcraw@gmail.com>,

"Christopher Crawford, barrister +61732115666 Fax 3236 3026 Mob 0405824332 crawford@qldbar.asn.au" <crawford@qldbar.asn.au>,

"Clifford Crawford APM barrister, +61733554381 Fax 3355 4381 Mob 0400 057 062 cjcrawford@qldbar.asn.au" <cjcrawford@qldbar.asn.au>,

"Mr Cliff Crawford +61 7 3138 5164 cj.crawford@qut.edu.au" <cj.crawford@qut.edu.au>,

"Ms Janice Crawford, barrister, +61732101019 Fax 3236 1669 Mob 0418 752 425 janicecrawford@qldbar.asn.au" <janicecrawford@qldbar.asn.au>,

"Adam Penberthy, Director Brisbane Marketing, Founder and Creative Director, ThinkFresh, The Thumb Factory, The App Network Adam@thinkfresh.net.au" <Adam@thinkfresh.net.au>,

"Adam Penberthy, Director Brisbane Marketing, Founder and Creative Director, ThinkFresh, The Thumb Factory, The App Network enquiries@thinkfresh.net.au" <enquiries@thinkfresh.net.au>,

"Adam Penberthy, Director Brisbane Marketing, Founder and Creative Director, ThinkFresh, The Thumb Factory, The App Network hello@appnetwork.com.au" <hello@appnetwork.com.au>,

"Adam Penberthy, Director Brisbane Marketing, Founder and Creative Director, ThinkFresh, The Thumb Factory, The App Network info@thumbfactory.com.au" <info@thumbfactory.com.au>,

"Ian Klug, Chairman Brisbane Marketing klug@placedesigngroup.com" <klug@placedesigngroup.com>,

"Malcolm Hall-Brown, Director Brisbane Marketing, Chairman of Ergon Energy Pty Ltd businesscustomerservice@ergon.com.au" <businesscustomerservice@ergon.com.au>,

"Malcolm Hall-Brown, Director Brisbane Marketing, Chairman of Ergon Energy Pty Ltd recruitment@ergon.com.au" <recruitment@ergon.com.au>,

"Phillip Di Bella, Director Brisbane Marketing, Founder, Di Bella Coffee employment@dibellacoffee.com.au" <employment@dibellacoffee.com.au>,

"Phillip Di Bella, Director Brisbane Marketing, Founder, Di Bella Coffee roastingwarehousesyd@dibellacoffee.com.au" <roastingwarehousesyd@dibellacoffee.com.au>,

"Phillip Di Bella, Director Brisbane Marketing, Founder, Di Bella Coffee roastingwarehousevic@dibellacoffee.com.au" <roastingwarehousevic@dibellacoffee.com.au>,

"Sean Ryan, Director Brisbane Marketing, General Manager, Nova 106.9, Director Qld Music Festival, Director Commercial Radio Australia info@qmf.org.au" <info@qmf.org.au>,

"Sean Ryan, Director Brisbane Marketing, General Manager, Nova 106.9, Director Qld Music Festival, Director Commercial Radio Australia mail@commercialradio.com.au" <mail@commercialradio.com.au>,

"Hon Campbell Newman, PO Box 3010 ASHGROVE QLD 4060, Ashgrove Central, 221 Waterworks Road, ASHGROVE QLD 4060 +61733666000 Ashgrove@parliament.qld.gov.au" <Ashgrove@parliament.qld.gov.au>,

"Hon Jack Dempsey MP, Member for Bundaberg & Minister for Police and Community Safety, Level 24, State Law Building, 50 Ann Street, Brisbane QLD 4000. GPO Box 15195, City East QLD 4002 +617323 90199" <Police@ministerial.qld.gov.au>, Bundaberg@parliament.qld.gov.au,

"LIBERAL PARTY FEDERAL SECRETARIAT, RG Menzies House, Cnr Blackall and Macquarie Streets, Barton ACT 2600 +61262732564 libadm@liberal.org.au" <libadm@liberal.org.au>,

"Kevin Healan & Beverley Healan - Principals, First National Real Estate Rochedale, 547 Underwood Road Rochedale South QLD 4123 07 3341 6777 faxes to 07 3341 6099 Administration mail@fnrochedale.com.au" <mail@fnrochedale.com.au>,

"Kevin Healan & Beverley Healan - Principals, First National Real Estate Rochedale, 547 Underwood Road Rochedale South QLD 4123 07 3341 6777 faxes to 07 3341 6099 Property Management rentals@fnrochedale.com.au" <rentals@fnrochedale.com.au>,

"Kevin Healan & Beverley Healan - Principals, First National Real Estate Rochedale, 547 Underwood Road Rochedale South QLD 4123 07 3341 6777 faxes to 07 3341 6099 Sales sales@fnrochedale.com.au" <sales@fnrochedale.com.au>,

"Melanie Spall, First National Real Estate Rochedale, 547 Underwood Road Rochedale South QLD 4123 melanie@fnrochedale.com.au" <melanie@fnrochedale.com.au>


Cc: Matthew Ramsey <A good friend so email address deleted>,

"Cr Lisa Bradley, Chairperson Health, Environment and Sustainability Committee, Representing Daisy Hill (part of), Priestdale, Rochedale South, Springwood (part of) and Underwood (part of),.+61734123412 lisabradley@logan.qld.gov.au" <lisabradley@logan.qld.gov.au>,

"Laura Fraser Hardy, Labor Candidate for Bonner, Associate, Hall Payne Lawyers, +611800659114 +61730172400 Fax: 0730172499 general@hallpayne.com.au" <general@hallpayne.com.au>,

"Laura Fraser Hardy, Labor Candidate for Bonner, Associate, Hall Payne Lawyers, +611800659114 +61730172400 Fax: 0730172499" <laura.fraserhardy@australianlabor.com.au>,

"The Hon Bill Shorten MP, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Financial Services and Superannuation bill.shorten.mp@aph.gov.au" <bill.shorten.mp@aph.gov.au>,

"The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, PO Box 6022, House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au" <A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au>,

"Mayor Pam Parker, PO Box 3226, Logan City DC 4114 +61734124226 mayor@logan.qld.gov.au" <mayor@logan.qld.gov.au>

G'day all,

I am writing this to somewhat crow and to advise all elected representatives on this email that I will be campaigning against your re-election. As per the attached, [see MY win in the Appeals section [QCATA] of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal [QCAT] against the fraudsters at Brisbane City Council. The PDF report of the decision is online too.] I WON. It was all down to me. Despite Dr Forbes casting aspersions upon me for my conduct of the case, [Paragraph 14], he stated, in what seemed like an apology to the parasites, "I am bound by law to draw these conclusions, regardless of the manner in which the Appellants' case was conducted.". Dr Forbes had to admit the BCC case was fatally defective. I knew that from the time it became defective as it was so obvious. That proves that I did not have to act other than as I did. I knew and Dr Forbes confirmed that QCAT did not have jurisdiction. Schrinner said repeatedly that he would await QCAT's decision. Schrinner is an irrelevancy. He is clearly unable to obtain any tertiary qualification more meritorious than a degree in "politics". I guess he had to make the best with what little intellect he had. The LordMayor Graham Quirk has been made aware of this fraud but also permitted it to continue. No doubt, they think the corrupt public sector parasites in the BCC's Legal Department, the Brisbane City Legal Practice, would make them look good.


Walker, the LNP's State member for this area, and Vasta, the LNP's Federal Member for this area, were made aware of the fraud going down, at the instigation of LNP members of BCC, but chose to do nothing. I consider that an indictment of both of them.


The BCC staff have been acting in a public misfeasance since early 2009 when they attempted to defraud Face 2 Face Foundation Pty Ltd [F2FF] of their lease, but committed their public misfeasance to writing. [One public sector parasite headed his script with the futility of "Without Prejudice", as if to keep it secret from any court of law. These morons without LLBs think they know the law.] They clearly had a hidden agenda which can be presumed to have been at the direction of their masters, the elected representatives of BCC. The Lord mayor at that time was Campbell Newman.


Campbell Newman was also the Lord Mayor when the BCC [no doubt at the instigation of Brisbane Marketing who were closely involved with The University of Qld and Douglas Porter, the then Registrar of UQ and Chair of St Johns College Council where Porter wanted to have the fraudulent use of my St Lucia house for St Johns College [SJC], which is presently the case] perpetrated, together with Qld Police, an Armed Robbery of me at that St Lucia house, my home, so as to clear my yard of my possessions in preparation for Porter taking over control of my house and land for SJC. I repeatedly advised Campbell Newman of what had been done on his watch, but he did nothing. That suggests to me that Newman approved of the Armed Robbery of me at my home for the benefit of Douglas Porter and SJC, and maybe, because Newman, as "head" of Brisbane Marketing would have had close contact with Porter at BM/UQ meetings [as BM was promoting UQ to overseas students], Campbell Newman may have actually instigated the process of BCC and Brisbane City Legal Practice planning the Armed Robbery of me at my home to clear my yard of my possessions in preparation for Douglas Porter and SJC taking "possession" of my house and land, beneficially owned by me as beneficiary of a trust, and which was my home.


The public position is that this Rochedale land, the subject of this QCAT WIN, is purportedly for future District Sports. BCC do not have the funds to develop it thus at present, and it is unlikely to be so developed for 10 to 15 odd years. The question remains as to the reason that the BCC acts as though it must clear this 50 or 60 acres of land immediately. I suspect that the BCC, through its Brisbane Marketing arm, wishes to have this as "vacant land" so it can run an event like an Expo, so they can big note themselves as "great people". If that is the case and there would be a positive revenue in it for Brisbane Ratepayers and residents, BCC should not have proceeded to defraud existing tenants, but honestly negotiated with them for the tenants to facilitate the "noble cause".


Instead, the BCC, under the direction of continuing LNP parasites, have destroyed assets belonging to Brisbane Ratepayers. This has included a solid two storey mansion at 915 Rochedale Road worth in the order of one million dollars [$1,000,000] [see photos of the BCC/BM vandalism it at

http://HaigReport.com/RussellMathewsComment/RussellMathewsCommentsGovernmentPoliticsPublicSectorBusiness201306June2013.php#20130623_LNP_VandalsDestroyPubliclyOwnedAssets /]


and another solid sprawling mansion at 921 Rochedale Road worth conservatively half a million dollars [$500,000]. This has all been done in the name of Brisbane Marketing [BM]. Hence, not only should the ratepayers of BCC be concerned but also clients of BM being the overseas and interstate suckers that BM is attempting to attract to Brisbane to defraud, as BM has been doing for years with international tertiary students. Other "associates" of BM who should also be concerned are the Brisbane businesses and "conference and accommodation centres", from whom BM is attempting to con subscriptions to be "members" of BM, and last but not least, the "sinecure directors" and "sinecure executives" of BM, who should be receiving this communique, [as well as those for whom I do not have email addresses, at present]. I will be continuing to target this information to these three groups of associates of BM on the Internet. This is all information of a political or government nature and there exists the constitutional implied freedom of speech about political and government matters.


Importantly, I now call on Adrian Schrinner and LordMayor Quirk, and all directors and executives of BM, to justify the decision to destroy this one million dollar building and the half million dollar mansion on the adjoining 10 acre block. How was the decision made, and what factors and detailed information was used to make that decision? I will be publishing that call too on HaigReport.


F2FF is due substantial damages for the misfeasance and fraud perpetrated by BCC. It is fortunate that I have copies of the BCC documents implicating BCC in the fraud that BCC supplied to Chris Newton under Information Privacy.


I now realise that BM was the connection between BCC and The University of Qld [UQ], via UQ's then Registrar Douglas Porter, that motivated BCC to commit an armed Robbery under a Ruse, all orchestrated by Douglas Porter, so as to clear my yard of all my possessions, so my house and land property could be stolen from me as orchestrated by Douglas Porter who was Chair of the St Johns College Council that ran the St Johns College on the St Lucia campus of UQ. My house and land is now run as an "external college of St Johns College". Hence, BM is definitely a valid target for me. Many overseas tertiary students have also been defrauded by BM. You can ask Matthew Ramsey, who is included in the CC: field, about this. As a Jack Kemp student from the US, now back in the US, he experienced the nefarious interaction between UQ and BM when he worked for both organisations when studying in Brisbane.


BM is such a nefarious organisation, everyone should realize that similar motivation can be ascribed to the Directors and Executives of BM. Of course, they can claim they were unaware of the evil and criminal conduct. The purpose of this communique is to ensure that all directors and executives are aware of what is being done under their direction and instruction.


They can no longer claim, "I nooo nutting.". I will also be publishing this information online with all directors and executives named.


My view is that if these persons are prepared to continue with an organisation of nefarious operations even if for a "noble cause", when they have effective political and "government"/public sector protection, these people are not good people. I think that should be a large influence on how members of the community view the corporate governance of all other organisations with which they are associated at present or have been associated in the past. Therefore I will include a "profile" listing their other "associations", for each person who is a director or executive of Brisbane Marketing. This is a valid instance of discussion of political and government matters, implicitly protected in the Australian Constitution.


The pivotal matter which forced the decision maker Dr Forbes to find that the QCAT had no jurisdiction to make this order, is just a matter of common sense. It is simple logic that no-one can make a complaint that another person has committed a wrong, before that other person has done it, just on the off-chance they they may do it. If that was possible, we would have a new "legal animal" called "contingent torts". If that was the case, every person can make an infinite number of complaints about every other person. Of course that is ridiculous. It is not necessary to cite precedent for such a conclusion.


I must question the bone fides of the "adjudicator" Alexander P. Crawford who effectively issued the "warrant of possession" to the police to evict me and the appellants from this land. It matters not to the police that a "warrant of possession" is void ab initio. Adjudicator Alexander P. Crawford knew this. He is supposed to be a qualified "Junior Barrister". Well now I have shown him up. I know I look an unrefined fellow, so did Crawford think he could put it over on me, and that I did not realize. I realized from the time the agents for BCC, First National Real Estate Rochedale issued the "Amended application" dated 23rd April, 2013, on the orders of QCAT "adjudicator" Kevin O'Hanlon. O'Hanlon made the ultra vires order on 15th April, 2013. This was well beyond the competence of O'Hanlon as I shall discuss hereunder.


When "adjudicator" Crawford interrupted my submission on my case, and indicated he would make a decision, he stated clearly, that he had before him a "notice to leave" dated 15th April, 2013, with a handover date of 17th June, 2013, the date up to which the purported tenants were required to leave, and an application for a warrant of possession dated 23rd April, 2013 for FAILURE TO HAVE VACATED BUT EIGHT WEEKS BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THEY WERE REQUIRED TO LEAVE. Is barrister Alexander Crawford dumb or corrupt? Also, why did the BCC continue with this case knowing that their case was fatally defective? Did they expect that QCAT would make an invalid order, AS ALEXANDER CRAWFORD DID? MOST IMPORTANTLY, IS THIS THE USUAL PROCEDURE IN QCAT, WHERE MOST DEFENDANTS ARE LEGALLY UNSKILLED? QCAT HAS MANY DIFFICULT ALLEGATIONS TO ANSWER.


On O'Hanlon's orders, Melanie Spall, the "Property Manager" [big deal - she was completely out of her depth] issued a purported Notice to Leave dated 15th April, 2013 with a "handover date" of 17th June, 2013. All, including adjudicators, QCAT, BCC solicitors and counsel, real estate agent and employee heaped ultra vires incompetence upon ultra vires incompetence.


I quote section 293 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act [RTRAA]. Even non-lawyers will be able to clearly interpret its meaning as to when a landlord can apply to QCAT for a Termination Order.


293 Application for termination for failure to leave

(1) The lessor may apply to a tribunal for a termination order

because—

(a) the lessor gave a notice to leave the premises to the

tenant; and

(b) the tenant failed [ie past tense] to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the lessor on the handover day.

(2) An application under this section must be made within [the word is not "before" ie a 2 week window] 2 weeks after the handover day.

(3) An application made under this section is called an

application made because of a failure to leave.


BCC engaged a barrister named Richard Schulte (Dr no less) [ a bit below Crawford on the list of Junior Barristers by "seniority"]. I shall publish the precise wording [both occasions], of Schulte's interpretation (?) of Sec 293. [I do not believe he could have honestly believed the garbage he wrote. It would seem he, and the BCC expected to win in QCAT despite their having no case. That may suggest that they expected the "tribunal fraud" to continue. What does that say about QCAT and the fact that most "respondents" are not trained in law, and generally not permitted to have lawyers. [In this case,BCC had solicitors and barrister.]


So, it would seem I have beaten two barristers [the "adjudicator" Alexander Crawford is listed as a "barrister"] and BCC solicitors and "property manager" for a real estate firm.


Apro pos the barristers; am I skilled [well, I know I am] or are those two barristers dumb or corrupt, or because barristers have "Advocated Immunity" in Australia not technically "corrupt" (so "anything goes"); or is that an "inclusive or" proposition? [This is all discussion of a political or government nature.] Barristers have been "admitted" as "Officers of the Court" so are part of the public or government sector. Also, QCAT and BCC [and BM] are all part of "government".


Schulte is clearly ambitions. He did some post grad at UQ, [but did not complete so received an "interim qualification" - BCL] and then did a PhD. He did his LLB at QUT. LLBs from UQ are of higher repute that LLBs from QUT, because UQ has higher entry standards. That would suggest that Schulte did not have a sufficiently high matriculation to gain entry to UQ law school. [My LLB is from UQ and my matriculation equates to the upper regions of OP1.] Schulte's big mistake was raising his voice to me in the QCAT hearing,


However, consider the Statutory Declaration of Dr Christine Jane Eastwood, reproduced


at http://haigreport.com/QldPoliceCorruption/QldPoliceCorruptionStatDecDrChristineEastwoodMagistrateJohnCostanzoRobertNeedhamHelenCouperCMC_PeterLindsayHansard25Nov2009.php#Statutory_Declaration


Dr Eastwood alleged therein, "I told him I could not ask the QPS to investigate because potentially up to three very senior police ‘families’ could be involved in those alleged serious crimes. I also told him that all the senior police have had, or currently have fathers, brothers, nephews and/or sons serving in the QPS, up to and including Assistant Commissioner level."


Now, barrister Alexander P. Crawford made a big mistake when he made an order when he had no power or authority to make it. He knew the application was made before the grounds for the claim had arisen. He made the order as requested by his fellow barrister [Dr] Richard Schulte, and the BCC,

Let's consider the "Crawford" Family name, for "Crawfords" involved in law as lawyers and law "enforcers". We do not know that all these Crawfords are related. I reckon there is a high probability that many are related. Let's first consider Crawfords in the Qld Police "Service". As of May, 2013, we have "Assistant Commissioner" Peter Crawford. We also find online connected to the Qld police, a Senior Sergeant Trevor Crawford, and on May 9, 2012 an Acting Inspector David Crawford-Raby. On 22 February,2000 we see a mention of Senior Police Constable Robert Kelvin Crawford. On July 4, 2012, we see a News item mention of Nick Crawford, a former detective sergeant with the elite Hydra taskforce, now working with the law firm defending Hells angels bikies.


At an earlier time, in fact on 8 June 1964 we find that a Cliff Crawford joined Queensland Police Service as a cadet. For November, 1994 we see Cliff Crawford has been promoted to the rank of Chief Superintendent. Cliff Crawford gained an LLB, and quit the Qld police. He became recognized as a barrister; admitted as an "Officer of the Court" so a member of the judicial arm of government.


We find, in May, 2013 a mention in regard to northern NSW, of Crime co-coordinator Sergeant Stuart Crawford.


Now I am not saying that any of the Crawfords in the Qld police are corrupt. I believe however there is a stench.


I have personal experience of corruption on many occasions by Qld police. In general, Qld police, as a unit is corrupt. I am unaware of any corrupt act towards me by any of the Crawford police, but that does not mean that there has been none.


Now, ex cop Peter Dutton is the LNP's Federal Member for Dickson. His office manager is one Jodie Crawford. Jodie Crawford sent me an email published online at


ttp://exPolicePeterParasiteDuttonLiberalHelpPolicelaborElectoralFraud.info/WhatPeterDuttondidHowhediditTheEVIDENCE.php#dutton_jodie_email_to_me_20080808


In a police statement since, Jodie Crawford denies having sent that email to me. If she has denied it, she is a liar. I can prove it.


I reckon that Peter Dutton had not expected her to put it in writing, but just to phone me. He knew I was acting under a misapprehension and he thought he could be a smart arse. I had asked him to check a fact of which he would be well advised. Instead, he showed himself to be a dick head and would-be smart arse. With Dutton having been in the police, and his behaving in less than proper meritorious manner, he could be viewed as desiring an office manager who would lie for him and never repent. As a general principle, who can crocked cops "trust" other than another corrupt cop or family member of that corrupt cop? When the facts are determined, these relationships could be proven, totally or substantially.


A further point re Alexander Crawford, is that acording to his Qld Bar Database listing, this Alexander Crawford has a BTh(ACT), a Bachelor of Theology from the Australian College of Theology. That "degree" and the "Australian College of Theology is detailed on the website of the Chinese Theological College Australia; http://www.ctca.org.au/ . Theology is the study of the mumbo jumbo supernatural fiction, on a par with Harry Potter, superstition and astrology. Religion and theology are thus the refuges of rogues and rorts.


Lawyers and judges, [and QCAT adjudicator as Alexander Crawford was in this case as per the attached], are required to apply the law to the "facts". With religion and theology, there are no facts. It is all imagined fanciful fiction. Hence, a BTh(ACT) detracts from Crawford's quality as a "lawyer" rather than supports the quality.


Another incompetent "adjudicator" in this whole matter is a Kevin O'Hanlon. Part of the BCC fraud was to fraudulently, characterise the pre-existing lease between the company appellant, and the previous owner, which then became a lease in much the same terms with the new owner which was the BCC, as just a "residential tenancy" which would have terminated on the change of ownership. BCC wanted the previous owner to "renegotiate" the lease to be a "Residential Tenancy Agreement", which would have expired/terminated on the change of ownership. According to the BCC records which I have viewed and understood, BCC were attempting to achieve this result, but realized that they had not, and that the original lease persisted. The BCC were not about to let that fact get in the way of what they wanted. Hence, they acted as though they had been successful in having the 5 acre property become subject to just a Residential Tenancy Agreement, with Chris Newton as the "tenant" rather than his then, when he was a director, employer company.


None of these facts, this evidence, was coram QCAT. They did not need to be as my win has shown.


Kevin O'Hanlon presided at the first hearing on 15th April, 2013. I prepared the attached submission. Poor Kevin O'Hanlon. He did not know what he was doing although this is a very simple proposition.


He began in a quiet tone speaking to the real estate agents and an employee of BCC, that this was a simple case of termination of a residential tenancy. Chris Newton then handed him the submission as attached with the attachments as noted therein. He took ages to read it, [and kept coming back to it to re-read parts - it was too much for him to understand at one reading]. Then he started shouting at Chris Newton, "You're playing games Mr Newton, you're playing games." "You're playing games Mr Newton, you're playing games."


Because the BCC had given the Notice to leave to the wrong party, and commenced action against the wrong party, the whole matter was ultra vires and beyond the power of O'Hanlon. At that point it was void ab initio. It was dead and nothing could resurrect it. BCC should have started from scratch again. As it turned out, everything done since in that matter has been futile, but Alecander Crawford BTh(ACT) was clearly not bothered by that. The "orders" made by Kevin O'Hanlon were futile figments. They were all null and void. I expect that was more incompetence than intentionally fraudulent. Just consider his background. Kevin O'Hanlon has listed himself on the Queensland Law Society Locum register as wanting work. I have just checked and it has just been removed. It was there a few days ago. Luckily I had taken a copy of it previously. He was desperate for work.


He was "admitted" in 1980, and added,

"I practised for over 19 years in central Western Queeensland as a sole general practitioner until I sold my practice. During the almost13 years that I was living in Longreach (before relocating the Practice to Brisbane), I necessarily was involved in most areas of law with particular emphasis in rural property and succession.


"I very much like working in country areas, and am prepared to travel."


Clearly,if I had not become involved, BCC would have been successful and the building on this 5 acre property would now be history. For what ever reason, BCC is wanting this whole area of 50 to 60 acres to be a vacant wasteland. So what is the hidden agenda of the BCC and BM? If any of the directors of BM have any inkling of interim plans for this area prior to it becoming "District Sports" of sporting fields, they are implicated in this BCC/BM fraud. I firmly believe that the BCC does not have the funds nor need to develop this land as District Sports, at the present time nor in the next 10 odd years. Yet, Adrian Schrinner has stated in writing that the land is wanted cleared for this development immediately. That is very likely to fully implicate him in this fraud. If it occurs that an interim development is built on this land, or plans for one are current, all elected reps and directors and executives will definitely have questions to answer.

BCC is a government corporation. Governments cannot be permitted to defraud citizens and think they can do it with impunity. They do because there are hitler like parasites conducting the actions of these government corporations. These parasites must be exposed, otherwise, they will continue. These public sector parasites persist because their masters, the elected representatives, such as Adrain Schrinner and Graham Quirk, permit them and the fraud to continue. I wonder if they will be re-elected.

**************************************************
Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA     

Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html
**************************************************


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kirby Anacita <Kirby.Anacita@justice.qld.gov.au>
Date: Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:55 PM
Subject: APL305-13 Newton, Face2Face v BCC
To: Russell Mathews <http://HaigReport.com/eml.html>, "Chris Newton," <DELETED@face2face.com.au>, Larissa Newton <DELETED@face2face.com.au>, Sheione Green <Sheione.Green@brisbane.qld.gov.au>


 <<APL305-13 Decision & Reasons 9_Oct_2013.pdf>> Dear Parties

As per tribunal directions dated 5 August 2013, the abovementioned
matter was to be determined on the papers, based on written submissions
from the parties.

The decision has now been handed down. Please find attached an
electronic copy of the final decision along with reasons for the
decision. Hard copies will be posted out to the parties shortly.

The reasons will soon be published via the supreme court library.

Kind regards

Kirby Anacita
CAD Case Manager | Queensland Civil & Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)
Level 9 |BOQ Building | 259 Queen Street | Brisbane Qld 4000
GPO Box 1639 | Brisbane Qld 4001
P: 07 3247 3334 | F: 07 3247 3300
E: enquiries@QCAT.qld.gov.au
W: www.qcat.qld.gov.au

P | Please consider the environment before printing this email

QCAT is an independent tribunal which actively resolves disputes in a
way that is fair, just, accessible, quick and inexpensive.

****************************************************************
Please think about the environment before you print this message.

This email and any attachments may contain confidential, private or legally privileged information and may be protected by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print or copy this email without appropriate authority.

If you are not the intended addressee and this message has been sent to you by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, destroy any hard copies of the email and delete it from your computer system network. Any legal privilege
or confidentiality is not waived or destroyed by the mistake.

Opinions in this email do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General or the Queensland Government.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interferences by third parties or replication problems.
****************************************************************





Email:
http://HaigReport.com/eml.html



Monday, 4th November, 2013

I beat all the fraudulent might of the corrupt Brisbane City Council as the parasite employees, including solicitors and barristers, tried to defraud a charity of the legitimate long term lease that the charity had, on an agricultural, commercial and industrial holding.


I have been quiet for some time in so far as adding content to these websites, but I have not been slack. I have been adding to our Menu of Themes of Menus
which now appears at the bottom of almost all of our thousands of pages. The addition was quite quick and easy, with just one line of strategically placed php code added to our websites' coding. Adding the menus of the 200 to 250 odd directory websites and separate domain websites, to the respective Themes, has taken, and will take, a little longer. It is probably only about 30% complete at this stage. That aspect will be progressively increased. Concurrently, we are "tidying up" many of our pages to diminish the repetitive content so as to accelerate the loading of our pages.

I have also been engaged in having a win in the Appeals section [QCATA] of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal [QCAT] against the fraudsters at Brisbane City Council. The PDF report of the decision is online. I was appointed a Director of Face 2 Face Foundation Pty Ltd [F2FFPL] to have carriage of this matter coram QCAT, and coram QCATA. I am not mentioned by name anywhere in that decision but Dr John Forbes refers to me in unflattering terms in paragraphs 14, 15 and 23. Of course, what is important is that I won. Dr Forbes was my lecturer for the Natural Justice aspect of Administrative Law in 1994 at The University of Qld.

I had not needed to introduce to QCAT, the evidence of fraud by BCC, as the BCC and QCAT had committed already, throughout the proceedings, many ultra vires acts, making any decision emanating from QCAT, void ab initio for being made by QCAT without jurisdiction and so ultra vires. The BCC case had been incompetent from the beginning.  The legal action was built upon a fraud committed by the Brisbane  City Council. Additionally, QCAT "adjudicators" Kevin O'Hanlon and Alexander Crawford, supposedly a "barrister" in Brisbane, acted incompetently, if not corruptly. While new evidence cannot usually be introduced on appeal which is a creature of legislation, pertinent evidence can be introduced on the Common Law proceeding of Judicial Review of an Administrative decision. Queensland has now replaced the Common Law procedure of Judicial Review by the legislated judicial review pursuant to the Judicial Review Act [JRA]. We could not know who would conduct the appeal by QCATA, "on the papers". My experience with courts; magistrates and judges, in Queensland and Australia, shows that they do not mind making clearly corrupt decisions. See Magistrate Ehrich [ aka Topsy-Turvey per Qld Court of Appeal] and judge Henry George Fryberg below. So, expecting that the decision on appeal could be corrupt, as QCAT and BCC had been repeatedly, my purpose in explaining the argument of fraud and lack of jurisdiction by QCAT, was to let QCATA know what we would be introducing, on application for Judaical Review to the Qld Court of Appeal. The QCATA decision maker, whoever that may have been, did not have a discretion as to what decision s/he made. As Dr Forbes states in Paragraph 23, "I am bound by law to draw these conclusions ...".  I knew that long ago.  We were happy to permit the BCC to waste their time.  Because QCAT per Alexander Crawford had made a plainly obvious ultra vires decision, and the BCC has a "barrister" who was clearly making totally unsubstantiated and obviously bogus arguments opposing our application for leave to appeal and our appeal, we suspected that the BCC expected the corrupt decisions from QCAT would continue.

I have been involved with F2FFPL for over three years now and had been unaware of how F2FFPL had been defrauded by the Brisbane City Council [BCC]. I became aware of the BCC fraud earlier this year, only after I investigated occurrences in 2009, involving the interaction and correspondence between the BCC and the previous owner of this five acre agricultural holding, a minor portion of which is a residence. We obtained this documentation by an Information Privacy application of the BCC. Some content was expunged, but what remained showed clear fraud.

BCC had transferred ownership to it in December, 2009. BCC was bound by the lease the previous owner had with F2FFPL. BCC did not want this. They wished to cheat F2FFPL of their long term lease. That lease did not terminate on the transfer of ownership. A "Residential Tenancy" pursuant to the Residential Tenancy and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld)[RTRAA] gives jurisdiction to QCAT.  Clearly, BCC want QCAT to have, or appear to have, jurisdiction.  That is probably because they expected that they would have been able to gain fraudulent decisions from QCAT.  QCAT seems to be a "corrupt lawyers picnic".  I produced the document that shows that not only did the lease not become a Residential Tenancy [RT], but also, that the BCC knew it. They had set out in correspondence to the previous owner Mario di Carlo [brother I am told of Qld barrister Sam diCarlo], what had to be done to make it a Residential Tenancy [RT], or appear to be an Residential Tenancy. Mario wrote to BCC advising how he had been unable to do as they wanted. I publish that letter below. You see, for it to be a RT, the premises have to be "Residential Premises" which the RTRAA states in Sect 10 to be:

10 Residential premises

Residential premises are premises used, or intended to be used, as a place of residence or mainly as a place of residence.

The logically operative word is "mainly". Just because there is a residence constituting a minor portion of a leased property, does not mean the whole property, or "head lease" for the whole property can be a Residential Tenancy. It cannot be. The words "SOLELY" & "EXCLUSIVELY" can be beneficially added to that definition, for understanding. viz:

10 Residential premises

Residential premises are premises used, or intended to be used, SOLELY or EXCLUSIVELY as a place of residence or mainly as a place of residence.

"Mainly" clearly means more than 50%.  Mario was attempting to have the directors forfeit their lease and lease just the house, for a lesser sum, in their own names rather than the company name, and he would let them use the rest of the 5 acres for free, without any lease.  Fortunately, they refused.  Mario di Carlo and the BCC still entered the "lease" on an RTA [Residential Tenancy Authority] form.  That did not make it a RT, but the BCC wanted it to appear to be a RT.  Apart from the house on the five acres, the property also has a 110sq metre, 7 metre high lockable shed and a large office, and an industrial workshop, on the property as well as stock handling yards and equipment.  Hence, the residence is a very minor part of the five acre agricultural holding, so definitely not "Residential Premises" as the premises are far less than "mainly a place of residence".

The "law" practiced by QCAT is cheap and nasty. QCAT has jurisdiction re RTRAA and that is an additional reason that the BCC wanted the lease with F2FFPL to appear to be a Residential Tenancy subject to the RTRAA and QCAT. People are not usually permitted lawyers in QCAT. BCC likes that idea, as it enables them to defraud people, as it clearly intended to do to F2FFPL. The previous directors did not realize how the BCC was setting out to defraud F2FFPL. Usually, people in that situation would not. A lawyer quoted F2FFPL an approximate cost of $50,000 to take on this matter, and did not suggest as attractive outcome as we have been able to achieve. Most people faced with that and the BCC fraud would just give up. 

One can gauge much about the character of people employed by BCC by considering this matter. This BCC fraud is additional to the Armed Robbery perpetrated by BCC in company with Armed Qld police against me on 29th November, 2004. Over a period of about one month, personnel at BCC had concocted a ruse seeming to give them authority to enter my premises without the mandatory Court Order as required by legislation. All the details are explained elsewhere on our website.  In a day or so,I will detail more re the corrupt police actions following this.  There have been three days of hearing in a Committal Hearing in the Magistrates Court regarding this Armed Robbery by the police and BCC.  I have summarised each day in a menu of Anchors placed into each days transcript.  Day01Day02, Day03.  Qld police and CDPP had charged me with "using a carriage service to menace, harass, or  cause offence".  The committal hearing has not progressed for over three years now.  In that time there have been an interesting HCA case [Monis] and a Qld District Court Appeal applying Monis [Starkey].  I anticipate detailing these developments in this file in a few days.  I will list then on Twitter.

  Central in that BCC Armed Robbery, are two persons prominent in the news at present. They are Campbell Newman who was LordMayor of Brisbane at the time of the Armed Robbery, and importantly, the Figure head for Brisbane Marketing, the wholly owned subsidiary of BCC. The Armed Robbery by BCC of me and my possessions was incidental to the theft of my house and land which I owned as the beneficiary of a trust, so it was necessary to remove me from possession of my house and land that was my home, so the purchasers, for St Johns College Council, the Chair of which was Douglas Porter, the then Registrar of the University of Queensland, could claim they did not have prior knowledge of my beneficial interest. Douglas Porter was orchestrating the theft. Brisbane Marketing and The University of Qld had a close association because Brisbane Marketing was the main body marketing Tertiary Education in Brisbane, mainly at UQ, to overseas students. I had wondered at the inordinate attention that BCC was paying me. It is a matter of LAW that the BCC and Qld Police committed an armed robbery. While I cannot be certain and prove that Campbell Newman and Douglas Porter had determined to jointly defraud me, I did notify Campbell Newman on a number of occasions of the Armed Robbery Criminal conduct by his BCC on his watch. The fact that he did nothing adds weight to my suspicion that he was a partner with Douglas Porter, in the fraud. Douglas Porter had expressly acted to defraud me of my house and land, and had further acted to cheat me within The University of Qld and permitted other staff of UQ to cheat me.

Campbell Newman was LordMayor of Brisbane  in 2009 when the Brisbane City Council were, in conjunction with Mario di Carlo, setting out to defraud  Face 2 Face Foundation Pty Ltd of their long term lease.

There have been many "people" keen to "keep a lid" on this armed robbery by the government of Queensland. See the TIMELINE, the chronological list. The other person in the news at present is Justice Henry George Fryberg. Then, at that time, both Campbell Newman and George Fryberg were on the same side opposing me. Now they seem to be opposing each other. I maintain that for Fryberg to get it so wrong, in face of the law, and for what he had stated just two days earlier, [that the alleged history of "vexatious litigation", was far less than that which is necessary for an order of "Vexatious Litigant", I can see no other explanation than that he would be corrupt, but for his Judicial Immunity.   Douglas Porter was Chair of St Johns College Council [SJCC], which ran St Johns College [SJC] on the St Lucia Campus of The University of Qld.  SJCC is a joint venture between The University of Qld and the Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church [BDAC] which was also desiring to steal my house for SJC.  The Chief Justice of Qld, Paul de Jersey is Chancellor of BDAC.  Was pleasing the Chief Justice, Fryberg's motive for defeating my claim against the BCC by declaring me a Vexatious Litigant, when I had a legitimate claim against the BCC?

There is a proceeding beginning in the Qld Supreme Court today 4th November, 2013,  which proceeding has a connection to this matter of the BCC v F2FFPL proceeding further. We shall produce that content after we had placed some tweets re this content so far today.


http://HaigReport.com/images/20091102MarioDiCarloFaxToIanKetchionBCC_ReComplicatedLeaseWholePropertyF2FFPL_Cr01.jpg






Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html


Tweet

Themes of  Websites
for the
HAIG   REPORT: Group of Websites:
[We expect, in time, to have all of the thousands of pages on the
HAIG   REPORT: group of websites accessible from this Menu of THEMES. Eventually, there will be 20 themes, each with an average of 15 to 20 websites/domains/directories, with each website/domain having an average of 20 pages. This would equate to 20 x (15 to 20) x 20 = 6,000 to 8,000 pages. This menu of Themes will be included near the bottom of each page, in time. With one line of code, strategically placed, this Menu of Themes is now on thousands of pages. We are continually and progressively adding pages to this Menu of Themes of website Menus.]

Menu: HaigReport'sThemes or Categories of the the Topics of the HaigReport Group of Websites: 
© COPYRIGHT: Russell Gordon Haig Mathews 2002 - 2018

The LATEST ADDITIONS are added to the top:


See  All 67 Domain Names in the HaigReport Group 

© COPYRIGHT: Russell Gordon Haig Mathews 2002 - 2018

Now here are the THEMES:



  1. Commonwealth of Australia Knowingly Employs LIARS, CHEATS and CRIMINALS:


  2. Government Corruption Infecting Corporates; ASX:


  3. New ADDITIONAL platform; Printed Distributed HaigReport NEWSPAPER:


  4. Self Help Law: Do your own Legals/Law:


  5. International: Corrupt Politics & Corrupt religion:


  6. About HaigReport Group of Websites including
    Vote One Russell Mathews:


  7. Russell Mathews [BCom BSc LLB & BA] Commentary additional to the rest of these Websites:


  8. Legal Rights, & BLACKLISTS of parasite residents & tenants in rental accommodation:


  9. RAMPANT POLICE CORRUPTION Exposed by HaigReport Websites; Publicize Your Complaint Here:


  10. Other public sector corruption Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  11. RELIGION Corruption CRIME & PAEDOPHILIA Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  12. Qld Govt Translink wankers & pony spankers Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  13. Corrupt JUDGES, COURTS, & TRIBUNALS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  14. Corrupt LAWYERS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  15. Corrupt POLITICANS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  16. University of Qld Fraud & Corruption Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  17. Corruption at other universities; Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  18. Expose' of Other CORRUPTION, including TELSTRA, under influence of public sector parasites, as exposed by the HaigReport Group of Websites:


  19. Business Promoted by HaigReport Websites:


  20. Finance by HaigReport Websites:
HaigReport Themes

Themes of  Websites
for the
HAIG   REPORT: Group of Websites:
[We expect, in time, to have all of the thousands of pages on the
HAIG   REPORT: group of websites accessible from this Menu of THEMES. Eventually, there will be 20 themes, each with an average of 15 to 20 websites/domains/directories, with each website/domain having an average of 20 pages. This would equate to 20 x (15 to 20) x 20 = 6,000 to 8,000 pages. This menu of Themes will be included near the bottom of each page, in time. With one line of code, strategically placed, this Menu of Themes is now on thousands of pages. We are continually and progressively adding pages to this Menu of Themes of website Menus.]

commonheader.php

Reg. Office: 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia, Qld. 4067, Australia.  
Editor-in-Chief:  Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA      EMAIL us anytime:  Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay. 

Menu: HaigReport'sThemes or Categories of the the Topics of the HaigReport Group of Websites: 
© COPYRIGHT: Russell Gordon Haig Mathews 2002 - 2018

The LATEST ADDITIONS are added to the top:


See  All 67 Domain Names in the HaigReport Group 

© COPYRIGHT: Russell Gordon Haig Mathews 2002 - 2018

Now here are the THEMES:



  1. Commonwealth of Australia Knowingly Employs LIARS, CHEATS and CRIMINALS:


  2. Government Corruption Infecting Corporates; ASX:


  3. New ADDITIONAL platform; Printed Distributed HaigReport NEWSPAPER:


  4. Self Help Law: Do your own Legals/Law:


  5. International: Corrupt Politics & Corrupt religion:


  6. About HaigReport Group of Websites including
    Vote One Russell Mathews:


  7. Russell Mathews [BCom BSc LLB & BA] Commentary additional to the rest of these Websites:


  8. Legal Rights, & BLACKLISTS of parasite residents & tenants in rental accommodation:


  9. RAMPANT POLICE CORRUPTION Exposed by HaigReport Websites; Publicize Your Complaint Here:


  10. Other public sector corruption Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  11. RELIGION Corruption CRIME & PAEDOPHILIA Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  12. Qld Govt Translink wankers & pony spankers Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  13. Corrupt JUDGES, COURTS, & TRIBUNALS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  14. Corrupt LAWYERS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  15. Corrupt POLITICANS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  16. University of Qld Fraud & Corruption Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  17. Corruption at other universities; Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  18. Expose' of Other CORRUPTION, including TELSTRA, under influence of public sector parasites, as exposed by the HaigReport Group of Websites:


  19. Business Promoted by HaigReport Websites:


  20. Finance by HaigReport Websites:

This page is part of the Internet 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!


Image
CLICK on image => My Election HOMEPAGE