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.

    View the Latest    HAIG     REPORT Promotions:  in this Scrolling Window, or OPEN in new browser:     

 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.


Index: Corrupt Police Rantala Magistrates Court Transcripts, Day 00: Pre-Trial/Committal Conference:


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 

header: Rhodes BLOOD MONEY Scholarship Scandal & Fraud:

Transcripts: Corrupt Police in Court:
Australian Government Steals Disabled Old Man's home for The University of Queensland to punish Disabled Old Man for being DISABLED

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. 

Corrupt Police Rantala, Brisbane Magistrates Court, Pre-Trial Conference, 9th June, 2010 coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

includedCDDMenuCourtTranscripts.php includedMenuMagistratesCourtsCorruptPoliceRantalaTranscripts.php

Menu: Truncated Committal Hearing re Corrupt Police Henri Elias Rantala,

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 24th, 25th & 28th June, 2010 coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

Transcripts of Hearing days on which witnesses gave evidence, with Summaries as Menus of Anchors/Markers:

  1. Summary of this Case of Fraud by Queensland Police &Commonwealth DPP
  2. Index:
  3. *Day 1: 24th June, 2010
  4. *Day 2: 25th June, 2010
  5. *Day 3: 28th June, 2010

Transcripts of related Mentions, after the truncation of the committal; ['*' preceding links below means that that transcript is preceded by  a 'Summary' which is a Menu of Anchors/Markers:]

  1. Day 00:   9th June, 2010
  2. *Day 04: 29th June, 2010
  3. *Day 05: 30th June, 2010
  4. *Day 06:     1st July, 2010
  5. *Day 07:    9th July, 2010
  6. *Day 08: 10th August, 2010
  7. *Day 09:    1st September, 2010
  8. *Day 10:   8th September, 2010
  9.  * Day 11: 15th September, 2010
  10. Day 12: 22th September, 2010
  11. Day 13: 24th September, 2010

Transcripts for Pre-Trial Mentions, coram various magistrates:

  1. Day A: 14th September, 2009
  2. Day B: 2nd November, 2009
  3. Day C: 25th January, 2010
  4. Day D: 15th March, 2010.

MenuAnchorsDay00

Future Summary of this Transcript  [which appears below] of Brisbane Magistrates Court, MENTION on 9th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck.

includedCDDMenuCourtTranscripts.php includedCDDMenuAvengerRevengeRetribution.php includedSummaryCaseFraudPoliceAndCDPP.php

Summary of the case by the Criminal, corrupt & FRAUDULENT Qld police AGAINST Disabled Old Man

This is the case where corrupt police and a corrupt Commonwealth Prosecutor, shyster Shane Hunter, attempt to use brute force, of police arrest and harassment to silence the disabled old man, to conceal how the Queensland police performed an Armed Robbery on him to Assist the Queensland Government defraud the disabled old man of his house and land that he owned and which was his home.

The disabled old man has brain damage caused by severe head injury when a teenager.  That affects his ability to "work" for any but short time periods.  He is able to concentrate for only short periods. This is near impossible for a casual observer to notice.  He quickly becomes fatigued and if he is forced to continue to try to concentrate, that results in mental exhaustion.  On the first day of hearing, knowing the disabled old man's disability and the nature of it, Magistrate Klutz ridiculed the disabled old man, even though the disabled old man was trying hard to accommodate what the Magistrate desired.   CLEARLY, THE DISABLED OLD MAN MUST REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LEGAL PROCESS, UNLESS AND UNTIL HIS SPECIAL NEEDS CONSEQUENT UPON HIS DISABILITIES ARE FULLY ACCOMMODATED.   THIS IS ESSENTIAL IF HE IS TO RECEIVE DUE PROCESS.  THE ONUS IS UPON THE MAGISTRATE, JUDGE AND DECISION MAKER, TO ENSURE THAT THE DISABLED OLD MAN IS EXTENDED DUE PROCESS aka NATURAL JUSTICE.

THE DISABLED OLD MAN IS HAPPY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LEGAL PROCESS PROVIDED HE RECEIVES DUE PROCESS. 

The real crux of this fraud upon the disabled old man and concurrently, UPON THE JUSTICE AND LEGAL SYSTEM OF QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIA, is that this disabled old man is being prosecuted in the most contemptuous way, to continue the EXPLOITATION OF HIS BEING DISABLED BY THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT, in that the Queensland Government, defrauded/stole from the disabled old man, the house and land that he owned that was his home, for the use of and by The University of Queensland.  The clandestine fraud was orchestrated by the Registrar of The University of Queensland, Douglas Porter.  The fraud involved an ARMED ROBBERY of the disabled old man by Queensland Police in company with a Queensland government Authority, for the benefit of another Queensland Government authority viz, The University of Queensland. The case involved a fraudulent arrest of the disabled old man. The same corrupt cop Henri Elias Rantala also charged the disabled old man with other charges to favour The University of Queensland, who had been defrauding the disabled old man for years.  ..

Instead of the Australian government doing as it should to honour its International Commitments [
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [CRPD]] to rail against exploitation of disabled persons, it is actually perpetuating, ITSELF, the exploitation of this disabled old man, because no doubt, the exploitation of the disabled old man was by the Queensland Government, and a number of parts of the Queensland Government in collusion.

This fraud of the disabled old man was orchestrated by Queensland Public Sector Parasite, Douglas Porter, when he was Registrar of The University of Queensland, for the benefit of The University of Queensland and to punish the disabled old man for standing up for his rights as a Disabled person, while at The University of Queensland.  Involved in the Porter perpetrated fraud was an ARMED ROBBERY by the Queensland Government being the Queensland police in particular corrupt cops Henri Elias Rantala and Monica Louise Antony, of the disabled old man at his home together with a concurrent fraudulent arrest of the disabled old man by the corrupt cop Henri Elias Rantala.

The law confirms that the Armed Robbery by Henri EliasRantala and Monica Louise Antony, was actually a CRIMINAL
armed robbery. The factual evidence is also online.  The conduct constituting the armed robbery was not just accidental.   The perpetrators of the fraud, Queensland Public Sector parasites, set out to create what they expected would be an arguable case TO JUSTIFY THE "ARMED ROBBERY" as just part of their normal operations.    They created a RUSE for just that reasonHowever, the silly bitch lawyer Joanne Whiting, did not know what she was doing, so clearly the Ruse was hatched by one of her superiors.

That fact then begs the question of the purpose of that
RUSE and armed robbery, and exposes the perpetrators of the defrauding of the disabled old man of his home.  Because the Queensland Government perpetrated the fraud of the disabled old man of his home, his house and land, the Queensland government wants it concealed.  Therefore, the conduct of prosecuting the disabled old man is criminal and makes the perpetrated an accessory to the fraud.  The evidence giving those prosecuting the disabled old man a "guilty mind" is all that evidence on that webpage.  Those involved now in "prosecuting" the disabled old man  are criminal. 

While the corrupt parasite Shane Hunter, a prosecutor from the Commonwealth DPP, had the knowledge that the corrupt police Rantala and Antony did commit an armed robbery, he cannot be prosecuted as he has "advocates' immunity".  However, none of the others involved in the process of prosecuting the Disabled Old Man have immunity.  Corrupt ex-cop [now 'working' for KPMG] Brendan Scott Read had put another "prosecutor" from the CDPP right into the frame, by admitting they colluded to bring the false charges against the disabled old man, but that prosecutor was not an advocate in this matter, so does not have
advocates' immunity.  That other parasite from the CDPP is named Anthony Gett.  Corrupt ex-cop Brendan Scott Read also does not have immunity from prosecution for being an accessory to the Armed Robbery and to the defrauding the disabled old man of his house and land, worth in the order of $1million.  Of course, we will be assisting the disabled old man to gain many more similar house and land properties in the area from the Fraudsters.  This will include the house of the defrauding lawyer who did the transfer of the title with full knowledge of the fraud.  His name is Stephen Tonge.  The Queensland Government, both the Queensland Public Sector university, The University of Queensland, and the Queensland Government of Anna Bligh proper,  will be up for the majority of the damages.  This all arose because the disabled old man IS disabled.  It was thought by the public sector parasites, with UQ Registrar Douglas Porter, as the lead criminal in the box seat driving the fraud of the disabled old man, that the disabled old man was ripe for exploitation, because he is permanently disabled.  Now, the Commonwealth of Australia, in the person of the corrupt Commonwealth DPP prosecutor Shane R. Hunter, has joined the fray exploiting the disabled old man.  This in in stark contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The parasitic Federal labor government acceded to the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities  on 21st August, 2009.

Because all the police involved in the prosecution of the disabled old man, are presumed to know the detail of the evidence proving the armed robbery because the evidence and legal reason is in the Public Domain, online and it would be reasonable to presume that police would check its validity, and we know the evidence is 100% genuine, then all the police including the police solicitor Paxton Booth are put in the frame by the evidence of Brendan Scott Read.  The other police aware of the criminal conduct in which they were engaged included  Detective Sergeant Steven Bignall, Detective Senior Constables Gavin Hackett and Detective Senior Constable Dave Graham.  Each of these has been engaged in a criminal activity.  This amounts to 

Because parasitic fraudster Shane Hunter of the CDPP was prepared to prosecute these charges, when he knew the evidence proved that police Henri Elias Rantala and Monica Louise Antony committed an Armed Robbery, suggests that he expected a win, meaning that he knew the Magistrates Court, and possibly the District Court are corrupt, like as displayed, maybe by Magistrate Topsy-Turvy and District Court Judge Leanne Clare.  that .d ..


This case now has a high profile International dimension.  Australia has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [CRPD].  Importantly, the Executive Arm of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has, on 21st August, 2009 acceded to the UN's Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [OP].  As shyster Shane Hunter is a Commonwealth Public Servant within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, a Commonwealth Agency, a part of the Executive Arm of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, he and it are subject to the OP.  As the disabled old man has already suffered extensive discrimination, and fraud, at the hands of Shyster Shane Hunter, breach of the CRPD has already occurred and hence, pursuant to the OP, formal complaint can be made to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Geneva, Switzerland, once all domestic Australian remedies have been exhausted, or effectively exhausted.

The summary for each day will be a Menu of the anchors [or markers/tags] placed in the Transcript of this day.  It will be effectively a Summary of the discussion between the Magistrate Paul M Kluck [the Klutz] and Commonwealth Prosecutor, shyster Shane Hunter, [who knows the evidence that  proves the corrupt cop Henri Elias Rantala did in fact commit an armed robbery because no-one had authority to enter exclusively possessed land, on that occasion; they needed a court order but did not have one].  The disabled old man did not appear in the committal hearing coram Kluck, after 28th June, as he had become ill from the constant barrage of harassment and jibes aimed at his disabilities, and attacks upon his weaknesses caused by his disabilities, from the Magistrate Kluck the Klutz and from the Commonwealth Government lawyer fraudster Shane Hunter.  Of course, neither need worry as Magistrate Klutz has Judicial Immunity and shyster Shane Hunter who knows he is assisting a crime perpetrated by the Government against a disabled citizen, including EXPLOITATION of the DISABLED, to remain concealed, has Advocates' Immunity.  In Kluck's court, Due Process was abrogated, because the disabled old man had Special Needs that were not accommodated by Paul M Kluck. Hence, from that moment, Kluck's court became a nullity. Thus, from then, the disabled old man was denied Due Process.  Read on the transcript, how Magistrate Kluck ridiculed the disabled old man.

At the time of committing the Armed Robbery of the disabled old man, Henri Elias Rantala illegally arrested the disabled old man so as to keep him from his home while his home was ransacked and his yard was cleared of all of his possession to order of the Queensland Government, who wished to take control of his property in quick time, for The University of Queensland to use.  This was orchestrated by the then Registrar of The University of Queensland, Douglas Porter.  Well, on 20th July, 2010, 22 days after the last day that the disabled old man tried to perform in the committal hearing, on 28th June, 2010, the Queensland Court of Appeal gave it decision regarding that illegal arrest on that day of the disabled old man by parasite cop Rantala.  In clear dicta the Court of Appeal raised the spectre of the gross criminality involved in the whole matter

This day's transcript is one continuous file/page.  These anchors when listed will be listed in sequence.
The three days when witnesses have actually given evidence have been similarly summarised with "anchors" [aka markers/tags], and each appears thus:
  1. Day 1: 24th June, 2010
  2. Day 2: 25th June, 2010
  3. Day 3: 28th June, 2010
This case has international consequences, as this action by the Commonwealth Prosecutor, given that the disabled old man has been thrown out of his home by a corrupt judicial system of the magistrates and District Courts, is a disgusting reflection upon the judicial principle of Due Process, for any country in the world. This will make Australia the laughing stock of the international justice community.  So much more so as all this has been done with the full knowledge of the Australian Attorney General, Robert McClelland.

considerevidence.php

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

includedCDDMenuAvengerRevengeRetribution.php http://HaigReport.com/aaaaMenu/Menus/includedMenuDefraudingMeMyHome.php

LinkToAspinallInMorganPanel This Profile Panel re the dumb parasitic anglican priest John Leslie Morgan, links most appropriately to the site exposing the fraud by archbishop Phillip Aspinall of a vulnerable disabled guy where anglican archbishop Phillip Aspinall headed up the scheme to steal the home of this vulnerable disabled guy.

http://HaigReport.com/Photos/100_0663_20070120CanonRevProfDrJohnLeslieMorganWardenStJohnsCollegeUniversityQueenslandHidingBehindToiletRolls_cr30pc.jpg
About this despicable life form , Canon Rev. (sic) Prof. Dr John Leslie Morgan [he just loves his "titles", as worthless as they are; his PhD is in "divinity"], Anglican "Priest" & CRIMINAL, now Warden, St Johns College, St Lucia Campus, of The CORRUPT University of Queensland.

This photo was taken in a supermarket, on the 20th January, 2007 at 4:54PM Brisbane, Australia time, when Morgan was attemting to not be photographed by hiding behind some toilet rolls.

This individual is evil and he escapes scrutiny as he is a "priest".  Over time I have collected much evidence about his evil and criminal actions and published it.  I have assembled that into a menu.  I now include that menu here.
/PHPincludesCorruptBrisbaneDiocese/includedMenuJohnMorgan.php Menu: CORRUPT Rev Canon Prof Dr John Leslie Morgan, @ St Johns College, UQ:
*  PROOF of the 2001 FRAUD  by CORRUPT Rev Canon Prof Dr John Morgan
*  Directory of links about Criminal parasite priest Rev Canon John Leslie Morgan:
*  Directory of Anglican CORRUPTION matters:
*  Anglicans conspire to steal the home of disabled with aid of political & judicial corruption
*  PROOF of another instance that Rev Canon Professor Dr John Leslie Morgan is yet again a LIAR
*  PROOF that Rev Canon Professor Dr John Leslie Morgan is Incompetent
*  PROOF that Rev Canon Professor Dr John Leslie Morgan is a BULLY
*  Email from Morgan showing he is a silly malicious ratbag 
*  Is this Primate Aspinall's BUSINESS ACUMEN?
*  Anglican priest bullies DISABLED Neighbour to STEAL his HOME.
*  Yet another Morgan LIE that neither he nor St John's College had any documents about me..  I had to push it all the way to the Privacy Commission, who Morgan was repeatedly ignoring.  He really thinks he is god.
*  Anglican CORRUPTION EXPOSED
*  Another Morgan LIE
*  One of the many examples of MONEY & FRAUD being motivator of 'Rev' John Morgan
*  $1Mill+ FRAUD- St Johns College & University of Queensland
*  Australian CRIMINAL LAW Journal ISSN: 1321-6562 26 February, 2007. Issue #: 200702
*  FRAUD on Uni Students: $1,500 RENT PER WEEK, for an ASBESTOS RIDDEN dump.
*  Is FRAUD the answer for Anglican return on investment?

We will build into this caption here, the detail that is relevant to this despicable life form .  Whereever this photo appears on new pages on our websites, this caption will accompany the image of Canon Rev. (sic) Prof. Dr John Leslie Morgan [he just loves his "titles", as worthless as they are; his PhD is in "divinity"], Anglican "Priest" & CRIMINAL, Warden, St Johns College, St Lucia Campus, of The CORRUPT University of Queensland.   This caption will be progressively added to all previous representations of the photo of Canon Rev. (sic) Prof. Dr John Leslie Morgan [he just loves his "titles", as worthless as they are; his PhD is in "divinity"], Anglican "Priest" & CRIMINAL, Warden, St Johns College, St Lucia Campus, of The CORRUPT University of Queensland. 

../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 aaaaLinks/LinkToRantalaGateIndexPage.php

If you wish to view and USE the Full    Rantala-Gate:   Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia  cascading drop down menu [CDDM], click to GoTo the   Rantala-Gate:    website.



New Document

Corrupt Police Rantala, Brisbane Magistrates Court, Pre-Trial Conference, 9th June, 2010 coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

includedCDDMenuCourtTranscripts.php includedMenuMagistratesCourtsCorruptPoliceRantalaTranscripts.php

Menu: Truncated Committal Hearing re Corrupt Police Henri Elias Rantala,

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 24th, 25th & 28th June, 2010 coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

Transcripts of Hearing days on which witnesses gave evidence, with Summaries as Menus of Anchors/Markers:

  1. Summary of this Case of Fraud by Queensland Police &Commonwealth DPP
  2. Index:
  3. *Day 1: 24th June, 2010
  4. *Day 2: 25th June, 2010
  5. *Day 3: 28th June, 2010

Transcripts of related Mentions, after the truncation of the committal; ['*' preceding links below means that that transcript is preceded by  a 'Summary' which is a Menu of Anchors/Markers:]

  1. Day 00:   9th June, 2010
  2. *Day 04: 29th June, 2010
  3. *Day 05: 30th June, 2010
  4. *Day 06:     1st July, 2010
  5. *Day 07:    9th July, 2010
  6. *Day 08: 10th August, 2010
  7. *Day 09:    1st September, 2010
  8. *Day 10:   8th September, 2010
  9.  * Day 11: 15th September, 2010
  10. Day 12: 22th September, 2010
  11. Day 13: 24th September, 2010

Transcripts for Pre-Trial Mentions, coram various magistrates:

  1. Day A: 14th September, 2009
  2. Day B: 2nd November, 2009
  3. Day C: 25th January, 2010
  4. Day D: 15th March, 2010.

MenuAnchorsDay00

Future Summary of this Transcript  [which appears below] of Brisbane Magistrates Court, MENTION on 9th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck.


PHPincludes/includedWrittenByRussellMathews.php
Web-site, Written, Coded, Produced and Directed by
Russell G H Mathews
BCom BSc LLB BA

International Disability Rights Advocate
invoking
UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
& UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Image
CLICK on image => My Election HOMEPAGE

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

RussellMathewsEmailSignatureDRA

Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA
International Disability Rights Advocate
invoking
UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
& UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
See my RESOUNDING VICTORY 20th July, 2010 in
Qld Court of Appeal

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

ex-Member of the Standing Committee of Convocation of
      The UNIVERSITY of QUEENSLAND
Ph: NONE:I've given TELSTRA the FLICK. Hooray![Just email me.]

http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

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

includedCDDMenuAvengerRevengeRetribution.php http://HaigReport.com/aaaaMenu/Menus/includedMenuDefraudingMeMyHome.php

LinkToAspinallInMorganPanel This Profile Panel re the dumb parasitic anglican priest John Leslie Morgan, links most appropriately to the site exposing the fraud by archbishop Phillip Aspinall of a vulnerable disabled guy where anglican archbishop Phillip Aspinall headed up the scheme to steal the home of this vulnerable disabled guy.

http://HaigReport.com/Photos/100_0663_20070120CanonRevProfDrJohnLeslieMorganWardenStJohnsCollegeUniversityQueenslandHidingBehindToiletRolls_cr30pc.jpg
About this despicable life form , Canon Rev. (sic) Prof. Dr John Leslie Morgan [he just loves his "titles", as worthless as they are; his PhD is in "divinity"], Anglican "Priest" & CRIMINAL, now Warden, St Johns College, St Lucia Campus, of The CORRUPT University of Queensland.

This photo was taken in a supermarket, on the 20th January, 2007 at 4:54PM Brisbane, Australia time, when Morgan was attemting to not be photographed by hiding behind some toilet rolls.

This individual is evil and he escapes scrutiny as he is a "priest".  Over time I have collected much evidence about his evil and criminal actions and published it.  I have assembled that into a menu.  I now include that menu here.
/PHPincludesCorruptBrisbaneDiocese/includedMenuJohnMorgan.php Menu: CORRUPT Rev Canon Prof Dr John Leslie Morgan, @ St Johns College, UQ:
*  PROOF of the 2001 FRAUD  by CORRUPT Rev Canon Prof Dr John Morgan
*  Directory of links about Criminal parasite priest Rev Canon John Leslie Morgan:
*  Directory of Anglican CORRUPTION matters:
*  Anglicans conspire to steal the home of disabled with aid of political & judicial corruption
*  PROOF of another instance that Rev Canon Professor Dr John Leslie Morgan is yet again a LIAR
*  PROOF that Rev Canon Professor Dr John Leslie Morgan is Incompetent
*  PROOF that Rev Canon Professor Dr John Leslie Morgan is a BULLY
*  Email from Morgan showing he is a silly malicious ratbag 
*  Is this Primate Aspinall's BUSINESS ACUMEN?
*  Anglican priest bullies DISABLED Neighbour to STEAL his HOME.
*  Yet another Morgan LIE that neither he nor St John's College had any documents about me..  I had to push it all the way to the Privacy Commission, who Morgan was repeatedly ignoring.  He really thinks he is god.
*  Anglican CORRUPTION EXPOSED
*  Another Morgan LIE
*  One of the many examples of MONEY & FRAUD being motivator of 'Rev' John Morgan
*  $1Mill+ FRAUD- St Johns College & University of Queensland
*  Australian CRIMINAL LAW Journal ISSN: 1321-6562 26 February, 2007. Issue #: 200702
*  FRAUD on Uni Students: $1,500 RENT PER WEEK, for an ASBESTOS RIDDEN dump.
*  Is FRAUD the answer for Anglican return on investment?

We will build into this caption here, the detail that is relevant to this despicable life form .  Whereever this photo appears on new pages on our websites, this caption will accompany the image of Canon Rev. (sic) Prof. Dr John Leslie Morgan [he just loves his "titles", as worthless as they are; his PhD is in "divinity"], Anglican "Priest" & CRIMINAL, Warden, St Johns College, St Lucia Campus, of The CORRUPT University of Queensland.   This caption will be progressively added to all previous representations of the photo of Canon Rev. (sic) Prof. Dr John Leslie Morgan [he just loves his "titles", as worthless as they are; his PhD is in "divinity"], Anglican "Priest" & CRIMINAL, Warden, St Johns College, St Lucia Campus, of The CORRUPT University of Queensland. 

Fraud by Douglas Porter, The University of Queensland, [part of the Australian Government], by defrauding a disabled reclusive old man of his HOUSE & LAND; including Douglas Porter's being linked to the ATTEMPTED MURDER of the disabled old man; with clandestine police complicity

These pages will be developed to expose the defrauding of a disabled, and hence reclusive old man of his house and land at 254 Hawken Drive St Lucia [view MAP] by Douglas Porter, the previous Registrar of The University of Queensland, for use by The University of Queensland.  Douglas Porter had been attacking, bullying and discriminating against this disabled reclusive old man since the early 1990s when he was a mature age student at The University of Queensland.

Porter was closely associated with two others linked to the Attempted MURDER of the disabled old man, being the then recent law lecturers Quentin Bryce, and Patsy Mary Wolfe.  The disabled old man was, at that time, a student of law at the University of Queensland, where Porter was Registrar.  Porter was engaged in bullying 
the disabled old man prior to the Attempted Murder of the disabled old man, and subsequenly, but then with greater  gusto.   Douglas Porter, then, as clandstine Chair of the St Johns College Council, that ran the St Johns College on the St Lucia, Brisbane Campus of The University of Queensland, began to secretly orchestrate the theft of the home of the disabled old man; the house and land owned in trust by the disabled old man, to take advantage of the fact that the disabled old man was under a strident attack..  

LinkToAspinallInPorterPanel.php This Profile Panel re the parasitic Douglas Porter, rewarded by the anglican archbishop Phillip Aspinall and the anglican church, because Porter used confidential information obtained as Registrar of The University of Queensland, to assist Phillip Aspinall steal the home of a vulnerable disabled guy links most appropriately to the site exposing the fraud of this vulnerable disabled guy by anglican archbishop Phillip Aspinall.

  Douglas PORTER is linked to the ATTEMPTED MURDER of the disabled old man; with clandestine police complicity.
See fat pig parasite Porter playing with himself

  masturbating

in his office. So, what can you expect from The University of Queensland?
Write and tell us what you think about this University.
  Douglas Porter taken at 9:55AM 12th July, 2006 in his office at The University of Queensland where he was at that time, Registrar of The University of Queensland, and also clandestinely, the Representative of The University of Queensland on, and importantly Chairman of, the St Johns College Council which runs St Johns College on the St Lucia Campus of The University of Queensland.  For years prior and years since then, Porter was secretly scheming to steal my home, beneficially owned by me, from me, by threatening and manipulating the emotionally challenged emotional shell of the trustee.

Concurrently, while I was then a student at the Universiity of Queensland, Douglas Porter, as Registrar, repeatedly discriminated against me in relation to my use of the libraries and my being accompanied by my two wee assistance dogs while on the campus of UQ.

Just days before the armed robbery on me on 29th November, 2004, by corrupt cop [and Armed Robber] at my home at 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia, as a preliminary and integral step towards stealing my property [my home, my beneficially owned house and land], from me, all orchestrated by Douglas Porter, Douglas Porter had that same corrupt cop Henri Elias Rantala charge me with bogus criminal charges. No doubt this was intended to complicate my life even more than my life was being complicated, on top of my disabilities, by all the Douglas Porter inspired disability discrimination of me in UQ libraries, so making the theft of my home even easier for The University of Queensland.


We will build into this caption here, the detail that is relevant to this intellectual lightweight and corrupt gutless parasite .  Whereever this photo appears on new pages on our websites, this caption will accompany the image of Douglas Porter  with Doctor of Economics honoris causa [gained with his charactersitic effort - as evidenced in the conjoined photo],, the clandestine representative of The University of Queensland on, and importantly, Chairman of, St Johns College COUNCIL, which runs, and importantly, sets the BUDGET for, St Johns College on the St Lucia Campus of The University of Queensland, and Secretary and Registrar for 22years retiring [as Registrar but not as Chair of St Johns College Council], on 31st December, 2008 .   This caption will be progressively added to all previous representations of the photo of Douglas Porter  with Doctor of Economics honoris causa [gained with his charactersitic effort - as evidenced in the conjoined photo],, the clandestine representative of The University of Queensland on, and importantly, Chairman of, St Johns College COUNCIL, which runs, and importantly, sets the BUDGET for, St Johns College on the St Lucia Campus of The University of Queensland, and Secretary and Registrar for 22years retiring [as Registrar but not as Chair of St Johns College Council], on 31st December, 2008 . 

Douglas Porter was The University of Queensland's SECRETIVE/CLANDESTINE representative, [and Chair], on the Governing body of one college, St Johns College at the University of Queensland - [see 7th paragraph of this linked UQ publication] or our copy.   [Of course, The University of Queensland has complete control of that land on which the college is built, with its complicated legal arrangement.]  The Governing body is called the the St Johns College Council [SJCC] and Douglas Porter is the Chair of the SJCC. Important in the workings of St Johns College and the St Johns College Council, is the SJCC Budget.  The Warden of St Johns College is the fraudster the Rev John Morgan.  He is answerable to the SJCC for the running of SJC.  In particular, he is petrified of his spending being in excess of the SJCC budget.  He even attempts to defraud to avoid spending money that is not in the SJCC budget.  Earlier that year, Morgan admitted lying to me the previous year, so that he would not have to face up to the St Johns College Council [SJCC], for having spent money that he was legally required to spend, that was, however, not in the SJCC budget.  

Hence, SJCC is a part of the Australian Government Sector, as is The University of Queensland.  Also involved in this fraud were other divisions of the Australian Public Sector, namely the Brisbane City Council, Queensland Police [including the most senior level, on the evidence of the Queensland Police], Queensland Courts especially Magistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich aka Magistrate Topsy-Turvy and Supreme Court Judge Henry George Fryberg. Others were involved for the money they would make from it and to be "on the in" with corrupt public sector parasites.  These include lawyer Stephen Tonge, [view home of Tonge on MAP]  then a partner of Firm of lawyers Flower & Hart but more recently of Tress Cox.  Some Capital Funding was provided by the Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church aka the Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Paul de Jersey, is the Chancellor of the Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church [BDAC].  They provided the funding for an expected return [albeit fraudulent] of approximately 20% year on year plus a locked in Capital Gain well in excess of CPI indexation.

Because the Australian Government has been involved in defrauding this disabled reclusive old man, this matter, and his being defrauded of his Commonwealth Disability Support Pension by Centrelink, will end up coram/before UN committees in Geneva pursuant to Australia's acceding to the UN's Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.   The Corrupt Australian Government and all parts of it involved in this widespread fraud should be greatly shamed and we will expose them.

The Queensland Court of Appeal, the highest court in Queensland, has recently spoken on this matter.  [It was written up in the Brisbane newspaper as "Talk of the Legal World".], However, there is far more to come.

Link to Public Sector Parasites VERSUS the Internet:

On a related topic, have a look at Public Sector Parasites Versus The Internet:
It's coming: Watch this space, but in the interim have a look at:

http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

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

http://HaigReport.com/aaaaMenu/Menus/includedMenuDefraudingMeMyHome.php

LinkToAspinallInMorganPanel This Profile Panel re the dumb parasitic anglican priest John Leslie Morgan, links most appropriately to the site exposing the fraud by archbishop Phillip Aspinall of a vulnerable disabled guy where anglican archbishop Phillip Aspinall headed up the scheme to steal the home of this vulnerable disabled guy.

http://HaigReport.com/Photos/100_0663_20070120CanonRevProfDrJohnLeslieMorganWardenStJohnsCollegeUniversityQueenslandHidingBehindToiletRolls_cr30pc.jpg
About this despicable life form , Canon Rev. (sic) Prof. Dr John Leslie Morgan [he just loves his "titles", as worthless as they are; his PhD is in "divinity"], Anglican "Priest" & CRIMINAL, now Warden, St Johns College, St Lucia Campus, of The CORRUPT University of Queensland.

This photo was taken in a supermarket, on the 20th January, 2007 at 4:54PM Brisbane, Australia time, when Morgan was attemting to not be photographed by hiding behind some toilet rolls.

This individual is evil and he escapes scrutiny as he is a "priest".  Over time I have collected much evidence about his evil and criminal actions and published it.  I have assembled that into a menu.  I now include that menu here.
/PHPincludesCorruptBrisbaneDiocese/includedMenuJohnMorgan.php Menu: CORRUPT Rev Canon Prof Dr John Leslie Morgan, @ St Johns College, UQ:
*  PROOF of the 2001 FRAUD  by CORRUPT Rev Canon Prof Dr John Morgan
*  Directory of links about Criminal parasite priest Rev Canon John Leslie Morgan:
*  Directory of Anglican CORRUPTION matters:
*  Anglicans conspire to steal the home of disabled with aid of political & judicial corruption
*  PROOF of another instance that Rev Canon Professor Dr John Leslie Morgan is yet again a LIAR
*  PROOF that Rev Canon Professor Dr John Leslie Morgan is Incompetent
*  PROOF that Rev Canon Professor Dr John Leslie Morgan is a BULLY
*  Email from Morgan showing he is a silly malicious ratbag 
*  Is this Primate Aspinall's BUSINESS ACUMEN?
*  Anglican priest bullies DISABLED Neighbour to STEAL his HOME.
*  Yet another Morgan LIE that neither he nor St John's College had any documents about me..  I had to push it all the way to the Privacy Commission, who Morgan was repeatedly ignoring.  He really thinks he is god.
*  Anglican CORRUPTION EXPOSED
*  Another Morgan LIE
*  One of the many examples of MONEY & FRAUD being motivator of 'Rev' John Morgan
*  $1Mill+ FRAUD- St Johns College & University of Queensland
*  Australian CRIMINAL LAW Journal ISSN: 1321-6562 26 February, 2007. Issue #: 200702
*  FRAUD on Uni Students: $1,500 RENT PER WEEK, for an ASBESTOS RIDDEN dump.
*  Is FRAUD the answer for Anglican return on investment?

We will build into this caption here, the detail that is relevant to this despicable life form .  Whereever this photo appears on new pages on our websites, this caption will accompany the image of Canon Rev. (sic) Prof. Dr John Leslie Morgan [he just loves his "titles", as worthless as they are; his PhD is in "divinity"], Anglican "Priest" & CRIMINAL, Warden, St Johns College, St Lucia Campus, of The CORRUPT University of Queensland.   This caption will be progressively added to all previous representations of the photo of Canon Rev. (sic) Prof. Dr John Leslie Morgan [he just loves his "titles", as worthless as they are; his PhD is in "divinity"], Anglican "Priest" & CRIMINAL, Warden, St Johns College, St Lucia Campus, of The CORRUPT University of Queensland. 

Corrupt Police Rantala, Brisbane Magistrates Court, Pre-Trial Conference, 9th June, 2010 coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

includedCDDMenuCourtTranscripts.php includedMenuMagistratesCourtsCorruptPoliceRantalaTranscripts.php

Menu: Truncated Committal Hearing re Corrupt Police Henri Elias Rantala,

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 24th, 25th & 28th June, 2010 coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

Transcripts of Hearing days on which witnesses gave evidence, with Summaries as Menus of Anchors/Markers:

  1. Summary of this Case of Fraud by Queensland Police &Commonwealth DPP
  2. Index:
  3. *Day 1: 24th June, 2010
  4. *Day 2: 25th June, 2010
  5. *Day 3: 28th June, 2010

Transcripts of related Mentions, after the truncation of the committal; ['*' preceding links below means that that transcript is preceded by  a 'Summary' which is a Menu of Anchors/Markers:]

  1. Day 00:   9th June, 2010
  2. *Day 04: 29th June, 2010
  3. *Day 05: 30th June, 2010
  4. *Day 06:     1st July, 2010
  5. *Day 07:    9th July, 2010
  6. *Day 08: 10th August, 2010
  7. *Day 09:    1st September, 2010
  8. *Day 10:   8th September, 2010
  9.  * Day 11: 15th September, 2010
  10. Day 12: 22th September, 2010
  11. Day 13: 24th September, 2010

Transcripts for Pre-Trial Mentions, coram various magistrates:

  1. Day A: 14th September, 2009
  2. Day B: 2nd November, 2009
  3. Day C: 25th January, 2010
  4. Day D: 15th March, 2010.

MenuAnchorsDay00

Future Summary of this Transcript  [which appears below] of Brisbane Magistrates Court, MENTION on 9th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck.

includedCDDMenuCourtTranscripts.php http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

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

../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 aaaaLinks/LinkToRantalaGateIndexPage.php

If you wish to view and USE the Full    Rantala-Gate:   Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia  cascading drop down menu [CDDM], click to GoTo the   Rantala-Gate:    website.



Fraud by Douglas Porter, The University of Queensland, [part of the Australian Government], by defrauding a disabled reclusive old man of his HOUSE & LAND; including Douglas Porter's being linked to the ATTEMPTED MURDER of the disabled old man; with clandestine police complicity

These pages will be developed to expose the defrauding of a disabled, and hence reclusive old man of his house and land at 254 Hawken Drive St Lucia [view MAP] by Douglas Porter, the previous Registrar of The University of Queensland, for use by The University of Queensland.  Douglas Porter had been attacking, bullying and discriminating against this disabled reclusive old man since the early 1990s when he was a mature age student at The University of Queensland.

Porter was closely associated with two others linked to the Attempted MURDER of the disabled old man, being the then recent law lecturers Quentin Bryce, and Patsy Mary Wolfe.  The disabled old man was, at that time, a student of law at the University of Queensland, where Porter was Registrar.  Porter was engaged in bullying 
the disabled old man prior to the Attempted Murder of the disabled old man, and subsequenly, but then with greater  gusto.   Douglas Porter, then, as clandstine Chair of the St Johns College Council, that ran the St Johns College on the St Lucia, Brisbane Campus of The University of Queensland, began to secretly orchestrate the theft of the home of the disabled old man; the house and land owned in trust by the disabled old man, to take advantage of the fact that the disabled old man was under a strident attack..  

LinkToAspinallInPorterPanel.php This Profile Panel re the parasitic Douglas Porter, rewarded by the anglican archbishop Phillip Aspinall and the anglican church, because Porter used confidential information obtained as Registrar of The University of Queensland, to assist Phillip Aspinall steal the home of a vulnerable disabled guy links most appropriately to the site exposing the fraud of this vulnerable disabled guy by anglican archbishop Phillip Aspinall.

  Douglas PORTER is linked to the ATTEMPTED MURDER of the disabled old man; with clandestine police complicity.
See fat pig parasite Porter playing with himself

  masturbating

in his office. So, what can you expect from The University of Queensland?
Write and tell us what you think about this University.
  Douglas Porter taken at 9:55AM 12th July, 2006 in his office at The University of Queensland where he was at that time, Registrar of The University of Queensland, and also clandestinely, the Representative of The University of Queensland on, and importantly Chairman of, the St Johns College Council which runs St Johns College on the St Lucia Campus of The University of Queensland.  For years prior and years since then, Porter was secretly scheming to steal my home, beneficially owned by me, from me, by threatening and manipulating the emotionally challenged emotional shell of the trustee.

Concurrently, while I was then a student at the Universiity of Queensland, Douglas Porter, as Registrar, repeatedly discriminated against me in relation to my use of the libraries and my being accompanied by my two wee assistance dogs while on the campus of UQ.

Just days before the armed robbery on me on 29th November, 2004, by corrupt cop [and Armed Robber] at my home at 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia, as a preliminary and integral step towards stealing my property [my home, my beneficially owned house and land], from me, all orchestrated by Douglas Porter, Douglas Porter had that same corrupt cop Henri Elias Rantala charge me with bogus criminal charges. No doubt this was intended to complicate my life even more than my life was being complicated, on top of my disabilities, by all the Douglas Porter inspired disability discrimination of me in UQ libraries, so making the theft of my home even easier for The University of Queensland.


We will build into this caption here, the detail that is relevant to this intellectual lightweight and corrupt gutless parasite .  Whereever this photo appears on new pages on our websites, this caption will accompany the image of Douglas Porter  with Doctor of Economics honoris causa [gained with his charactersitic effort - as evidenced in the conjoined photo],, the clandestine representative of The University of Queensland on, and importantly, Chairman of, St Johns College COUNCIL, which runs, and importantly, sets the BUDGET for, St Johns College on the St Lucia Campus of The University of Queensland, and Secretary and Registrar for 22years retiring [as Registrar but not as Chair of St Johns College Council], on 31st December, 2008 .   This caption will be progressively added to all previous representations of the photo of Douglas Porter  with Doctor of Economics honoris causa [gained with his charactersitic effort - as evidenced in the conjoined photo],, the clandestine representative of The University of Queensland on, and importantly, Chairman of, St Johns College COUNCIL, which runs, and importantly, sets the BUDGET for, St Johns College on the St Lucia Campus of The University of Queensland, and Secretary and Registrar for 22years retiring [as Registrar but not as Chair of St Johns College Council], on 31st December, 2008 . 

Douglas Porter was The University of Queensland's SECRETIVE/CLANDESTINE representative, [and Chair], on the Governing body of one college, St Johns College at the University of Queensland - [see 7th paragraph of this linked UQ publication] or our copy.   [Of course, The University of Queensland has complete control of that land on which the college is built, with its complicated legal arrangement.]  The Governing body is called the the St Johns College Council [SJCC] and Douglas Porter is the Chair of the SJCC. Important in the workings of St Johns College and the St Johns College Council, is the SJCC Budget.  The Warden of St Johns College is the fraudster the Rev John Morgan.  He is answerable to the SJCC for the running of SJC.  In particular, he is petrified of his spending being in excess of the SJCC budget.  He even attempts to defraud to avoid spending money that is not in the SJCC budget.  Earlier that year, Morgan admitted lying to me the previous year, so that he would not have to face up to the St Johns College Council [SJCC], for having spent money that he was legally required to spend, that was, however, not in the SJCC budget.  

Hence, SJCC is a part of the Australian Government Sector, as is The University of Queensland.  Also involved in this fraud were other divisions of the Australian Public Sector, namely the Brisbane City Council, Queensland Police [including the most senior level, on the evidence of the Queensland Police], Queensland Courts especially Magistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich aka Magistrate Topsy-Turvy and Supreme Court Judge Henry George Fryberg. Others were involved for the money they would make from it and to be "on the in" with corrupt public sector parasites.  These include lawyer Stephen Tonge, [view home of Tonge on MAP]  then a partner of Firm of lawyers Flower & Hart but more recently of Tress Cox.  Some Capital Funding was provided by the Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church aka the Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Paul de Jersey, is the Chancellor of the Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church [BDAC].  They provided the funding for an expected return [albeit fraudulent] of approximately 20% year on year plus a locked in Capital Gain well in excess of CPI indexation.

Because the Australian Government has been involved in defrauding this disabled reclusive old man, this matter, and his being defrauded of his Commonwealth Disability Support Pension by Centrelink, will end up coram/before UN committees in Geneva pursuant to Australia's acceding to the UN's Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.   The Corrupt Australian Government and all parts of it involved in this widespread fraud should be greatly shamed and we will expose them.

The Queensland Court of Appeal, the highest court in Queensland, has recently spoken on this matter.  [It was written up in the Brisbane newspaper as "Talk of the Legal World".], However, there is far more to come.

includedCDDMenuAvengerRevengeRetribution.php

Corrupt Police Rantala, Brisbane Magistrates Court, Pre-Trial Conference, 9th June, 2010 coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

includedCDDMenuCourtTranscripts.php includedMenuMagistratesCourtsCorruptPoliceRantalaTranscripts.php

Menu: Truncated Committal Hearing re Corrupt Police Henri Elias Rantala,

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 24th, 25th & 28th June, 2010 coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

Transcripts of Hearing days on which witnesses gave evidence, with Summaries as Menus of Anchors/Markers:

  1. Summary of this Case of Fraud by Queensland Police &Commonwealth DPP
  2. Index:
  3. *Day 1: 24th June, 2010
  4. *Day 2: 25th June, 2010
  5. *Day 3: 28th June, 2010

Transcripts of related Mentions, after the truncation of the committal; ['*' preceding links below means that that transcript is preceded by  a 'Summary' which is a Menu of Anchors/Markers:]

  1. Day 00:   9th June, 2010
  2. *Day 04: 29th June, 2010
  3. *Day 05: 30th June, 2010
  4. *Day 06:     1st July, 2010
  5. *Day 07:    9th July, 2010
  6. *Day 08: 10th August, 2010
  7. *Day 09:    1st September, 2010
  8. *Day 10:   8th September, 2010
  9.  * Day 11: 15th September, 2010
  10. Day 12: 22th September, 2010
  11. Day 13: 24th September, 2010

Transcripts for Pre-Trial Mentions, coram various magistrates:

  1. Day A: 14th September, 2009
  2. Day B: 2nd November, 2009
  3. Day C: 25th January, 2010
  4. Day D: 15th March, 2010.

MenuAnchorsDay00

Future Summary of this Transcript  [which appears below] of Brisbane Magistrates Court, MENTION on 9th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck.

includedCDDMenuCourtTranscripts.php includedMenuMagistratesCourtsCorruptPoliceRantalaTranscripts.php

Menu: Truncated Committal Hearing re Corrupt Police Henri Elias Rantala,

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 24th, 25th & 28th June, 2010 coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

Transcripts of Hearing days on which witnesses gave evidence, with Summaries as Menus of Anchors/Markers:

  1. Summary of this Case of Fraud by Queensland Police &Commonwealth DPP
  2. Index:
  3. *Day 1: 24th June, 2010
  4. *Day 2: 25th June, 2010
  5. *Day 3: 28th June, 2010

Transcripts of related Mentions, after the truncation of the committal; ['*' preceding links below means that that transcript is preceded by  a 'Summary' which is a Menu of Anchors/Markers:]

  1. Day 00:   9th June, 2010
  2. *Day 04: 29th June, 2010
  3. *Day 05: 30th June, 2010
  4. *Day 06:     1st July, 2010
  5. *Day 07:    9th July, 2010
  6. *Day 08: 10th August, 2010
  7. *Day 09:    1st September, 2010
  8. *Day 10:   8th September, 2010
  9.  * Day 11: 15th September, 2010
  10. Day 12: 22th September, 2010
  11. Day 13: 24th September, 2010

Transcripts for Pre-Trial Mentions, coram various magistrates:

  1. Day A: 14th September, 2009
  2. Day B: 2nd November, 2009
  3. Day C: 25th January, 2010
  4. Day D: 15th March, 2010.

MenuAnchorsDay00

Future Summary of this Transcript  [which appears below] of Brisbane Magistrates Court, MENTION on 9th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck.

http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

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

text of Transcript

Corrupt Police Rantala, Brisbane Magistrates Court, Pre-Trial Conference, 9th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

MAGISTRATES COURT

KLUCK, Magistrate


THE CROWN

Complainant


and



RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS

Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 09/06/2010

Pre-Trial Conference, 9th June, 2010

CLARE JARVIS APPOINTED AS RECORDER


BENCH: Yes, good morning, I'll just take the matter of Russell Gordon Haig Mathews. For the record could you announce your appearance, please?


MR HUNTER: Thank you, your Honour, my name's Hunter, initials S R, counsel from the Commonwealth DPP.


DEFENDANT: Yes, good morning, your Honour     


BENCH: And Mr Mathews, yes?


DEFENDANT: Yes, Russell Mathews is my name, your Honour, I'm unrepresented. I'm the defendant in this matter.


BENCH: Yes. My name's Kluck, I'm the Magistrate, good morning.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Now, this matter is listed for hearing commencing 24 June.


DEFENDANT: The committal hearing, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Committal hearing, yes. 24 June, and it's to run for six days; is that your understanding, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: That was the time allocated for it, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Yes. So - and you're aware of that, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: So six days. Now, just mentioning this matter this morning, just to run through a few issues.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And you'll be not legally represented on the day?


DEFENDANT: I'll be not legally represented, that's correct, your Honour.


BENCH: Now, that's fine, there's no problem with that, but if I can just ask you, have you applied for Legal Aid? You may be eligible, I don't know whether you are or not, but is that something you've     


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour. No - no, your Honour. I don't have any faith in Legal Aid.


BENCH: So do you know if you're eligible?


DEFENDANT: No, I don't know, your Honour. I don't know, your Honour.


BENCH: You haven't inquired?


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour.


BENCH: And you're not going to?


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: I'm not - I don't intend to, your Honour.


BENCH: All right. Well, that means, and this is probably why the matter's listed for six days, that each witness called for the prosecution has to give their evidence in full. That is     


DEFENDANT: Oh, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: You're aware of that?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And in some committal proceedings, where a person's legally represented, statements can be tendered.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: But - so - now, have you got the brief of evidence, the copies of the statements and exhibits that will be tendered on the committal hearing.


DEFENDANT: I - some of them, your Honour, some of them, but I have asked for particulars, and in particular there's a statement by some Brett Jarvis, and he refers in that to the document A following - a document marked with the letter A following - or the following document marked with the letter A, and there's no such document. Now, I've asked the Prosecutor for that, but I've had no response. But that is only a minor point, but there would be some questions of law     


BENCH: Well - yes, we'll get to that. But I'm just simply asking you about the brief. So, Mr Hunter, has the brief been fully provided?


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, the brief was provided in bulk on the 2nd of November last year. There is one statement, or possibly two outstanding which only go to the technical/expert explanation of what a carriage service it is. It is a matter of expert evidence to give that, that's the only material that's outstanding. I still don't have it, the police are in the process of obtaining it. All the substantive witnesses have been provided back in November last year, along with the exhibits.


DEFENDANT: Objection, your Honour, the - the exhibits haven't been presented to me at all.


BENCH: Well, when you say exhibits, Mr Hunter, what do you mean?


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, on the 2nd of November, it was forwarded to Mr Mathews, and I have the letter here - just bear with me for a moment. The statements of all the relevant witnesses, except for two, which were later provided two weeks later, and a number of CDs, there were three compact discs, one marked 12th of March, one marked 17 July, and one marked Mathews search. All the exhibits are contained on those three discs.


BENCH: So did you get any discs, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: There's some somewhere, your Honour, but I don't have a printer. I mean, how am I going to - we're in Court, how am I going to be able to look at CDs? Now, the particulars were just lines of text. Now, I should see - now, the - I mean this is a new area of law, because, you know, CDs are pretty new, but     


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT:      I should have an index of documents, well - now, the situation is that this is - they're alleging that there's four websites that they have alleged in mine, and they have downloaded those. They've used some software, apparently, to download those, and they have what they say is a copy of the website. But, of course, that is not a copy of the website, that's just a copy of what they downloaded on that publication on that day. And     


BENCH: All right. Mr Mathews, you would appreciate, I don't know anything about this matter yet because I haven't heard any     


DEFENDANT: Oh, okay.


BENCH: I haven't heard any evidence, I haven't seen any evidence.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: So, Mr Hunter, what comprises the exhibits, what are they, and is there an index?


MR HUNTER: Well, the discs themselves have a drop down menu at the start.


BENCH: Do you have a computer, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: I do, your Honour, but     


BENCH: Are you able to view that?


DEFENDANT: Well, I didn't know what's on there, and I mean, that's not going to be produced to the jury, the jury's not going to be able to see that. The     


BENCH: But you've looked at the discs, though, haven't you?


DEFENDANT: No, I haven't looked at the discs, your Honour.


BENCH: Why haven't you done that?


DEFENDANT: I thought they were just copies off my computer. They stole my computer, and I thought they were copies of something off my computer.


BENCH: Well, they are the exhibits. So     


MR HUNTER: Yes, your Honour, all the documentary exhibits are contained on those discs.


BENCH: So - and on the hearing - in the committal hearing     


MR HUNTER: Mmm.


BENCH: What - how are they going to be tendered, just in that form, or what?


MR HUNTER: I've made contact with the IT technician of the Court, there will be hardware and software available to actually view the documents that are on the discs in the courtroom, on various screens, as I understand it. And that is the pure form, if you like, of the exhibits themselves. To produce them on paper, well, we could do that, but the pure form of the exhibit is, in fact, the electronic medium on which it was originally created, and has since been copied.


BENCH: All right. So do you understand that, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Is that going to be the way it's going to be produced to the jury?


BENCH: I don't know about the jury, but - I'm not concerned about the jury, all I'm concerned about is the evidence before the committal hearing.


DEFENDANT: That's right.


BENCH: It may be that there's some other process, if you're committed. But - so what you're going to have to do is view those discs, the exhibits on the discs, and that will be, on the committal hearing, the evidence produced, and it'll be produced as Mr Hunter says, it'll be able to come through on screens, various screens set up in the courtroom.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: Okay?


DEFENDANT: Yes. Well, now, where is that - the other statement is the statement by Jarvis, the letter A, or something like that.


BENCH: This is the one you referred to earlier, that seems to be missing?


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour, yes.


BENCH: So it's attached to a statement of a Mr Jarvis, was it?


DEFENDANT: Yes, that's right, your Honour.


BENCH: But it wasn't attached?


DEFENDANT: It wasn't attached.


BENCH: Is that what you're saying?


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour, it refers to the following, but it wasn't following.


BENCH: All right. Do you know anything about that, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: There is no witness named Jarvis in this case, your Honour.


BENCH: Mmm. So     


DEFENDANT: Well, there - well, the thing is, there's a statement - hang on, I'll try and pull it up, a Telstra statement, Gelfe, Adam Gelfe.


MR HUNTER: Gelfe, yes.


DEFENDANT: Gelfe.


MR HUNTER: Yes.


DEFENDANT: And then Gelfe has the certificate underneath that.


MR HUNTER: Yes.


DEFENDANT: S95, for evidence.


MR HUNTER: Yes.


DEFENDANT: "I Brett Jarvis, network manager, Bigpond."


MR HUNTER: Yes.


DEFENDANT: "Telstra Corporation, do hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and beliefÖ" And at five, the paragraph numbered five, "The following document attached hereto and identified with the letter A was produced by the said computer during the said period." And I don't see any A document marked A following. So     


MR HUNTER: I'm sorry, what paragraph of Mr Gelfe's statement are you reading from?


DEFENDANT: No, on Mr Gelfe's statement, as - following Mr Gelfe's statement there's a certificate, S95(4), Evidence Act, dated 26 October 2009.


MR HUNTER: Yes. And then the next page says, "Telstra Law Enforcement Liaison Section, Telstra Bigpond."


DEFENDANT: No, no, nothing following.


MR HUNTER: Nothing following?


DEFENDANT: Nothing following.


MR HUNTER: Okay. Well, it must have missed the scan, I'll send it out today, it's one page, your Honour.


BENCH: All right. So Mr Hunter's undertaken then to send that out to you, whatever it is.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour     


BENCH: How is he best to do that, how can he best do that?


MR HUNTER: I'll scan it and email it today, your Honour.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: That's fine, your Honour, I'd like a hard copy of it, seeing I've already advised that, your Honour. Because I don't have a printer. And I - you know, I don't have a printer to print stuff, so     


MR HUNTER: So I'll email and mail it, your Honour.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: Thank you. Thank you.


BENCH: Now, so that's all we need to talk about today, with respect to the brief?


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour. As I say, I don't have a printer.


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: And the particulars refer to URL, the - I've got it here somewhere, I think     


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, I could give you a copy of the particulars, as provided.


DEFENDANT: Please do, your Honour.


BENCH: So these particulars, were they     


MR HUNTER: They've been provided to Mr Mathews on     


BENCH: But via a disc, were they? Or hard copy?


MR HUNTER: They were sent by email - no, no, they were only - well, Mr Mathews is insisting now on everything being sent by email, so we've sent by email, and now he's saying he wants hard copy.


BENCH: So you've got particulars via email?


DEFENDANT: Just that page you have there, your Honour, and that just has     


BENCH: A page and a bit?


DEFENDANT: Lines - characters on it.


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: You know, print characters, it doesn't say what is supposedly offensive or - now, I mean, I'm also wondering whether they're trying to say that these websites are - I mean, apart from whether I controlled them, or whether I uploaded material to them or whatever, or whether I controlled them, or they're done for my benefit or purpose, or at my instigation. I'm happy they're there, and the - the, see I'm - they're trying to railroad me here too, this - it relates to a police forcing entry to my place when they didn't have a warrant.


BENCH: But if you - are you able - you have the wordings of the charges, though, don't you?


DEFENDANT: Yes, basically the     


BENCH: The four charges.


DEFENDANT: Basically the section of the Act, and just putting different dates in there.


BENCH: But in - opposite each charge, if you see the particulars, have you got it there in front of you, the particulars?


DEFENDANT: I'm looking for, hang on a second, your Honour. Queen's case, yes, your Honour, now     


BENCH: See, opposite charge 1 it's got, "Self-help Justice.com."


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: Right? A and B.


DEFENDANT: That's right, A and B, what's offensive about that, your Honour? They're just characters, they're just words.


BENCH: Well, no, well, I'm assuming, see, I don't know anything about this case yet, and at this point I don't need to know anything about it, particularly, because I haven't started hearing it.


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour.


BENCH: But A dot, the first dot, A, says index 2, HTML. Now, presumably, you're able to then, via the disc     


DEFENDANT: I don't know what that is, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, no, you should be able to get into that disc, and bring that up, to see what it is. Is that right, Mr Hunter? I don't know.


MR HUNTER: Yes, your Honour. If your Honour looks at paragraph 4 of the particulars.


BENCH: Mmm.


MR HUNTER: It says, "The above described use by Mr Mathews of a carriage service, namely an internet service provider, to post documents and create links to those documents of the nature and content of the documents referred to below." Now, index-2, in the folder on disc - on both the discs, both dated March and July, Self Help Justice.com is a folder, if you open that folder, there are documents in that folder, and the two identified documents, which the Crown says proves the charge, are the ones called index-2.html, that is a document that appears in the drop down list, under that folder of Self Help Justice.


BENCH: Mmm.


MR HUNTER: If you click on that document it opens, and there is significant content in there, which the Crown says is offensive, harassing, or menacing. Now, the charges state - use the words, "In all the circumstances." The document can't simply be     


BENCH: Well, in such a way.


MR HUNTER: In such a way.


BENCH: "Used a carriage service in such a way."


MR HUNTER: "In such a way that a reasonable person would consider, in all the circumstancesÖ"


BENCH: That's what the section says, does it?


MR HUNTER: The section says.


BENCH: It's just not in the body of the charge, does it need to be?


MR HUNTER: In which event, the document must go in, in full.


BENCH: So are you able to view that, or get assistance to view that?


DEFENDANT: Well, no, your Honour, I'd like that as a paper document, so I can see it. What will be - I want to see, I mean how it's going to be produced to the - if it goes to the jury, how it's going to be produced to the jury.


MR HUNTER: Well, it'll be produced on a screen, from the disc, which is the evidence.


DEFENDANT: Okay. So that's - the whole - now, what has happened, that disc is a copy of what is alleged to be my website, is that - that's the case?


MR HUNTER: Correct.


BENCH: That's right, yes.


DEFENDANT: And it was downloaded, and that appeared - that was the publication on the day it was recorded.


BENCH: Or created, is that what you mean?


DEFENDANT: Yes, created, the date that this was created.


BENCH: Oh, by     


DEFENDANT: Or the date that the original     


BENCH: Created by the prosecution? Or created     


DEFENDANT: Yes, by the prosecution, by the police, the date that that was created by the police.


MR HUNTER: The dates that the police copied the website is, there's two dates, and there are two discs, the 12th of March, and the 17th of July. They're both marked, as such, they were both provided to Mr Mathews in November last year.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, I'll just pick up on a point there, your Honour, is that he says a copy of the website.


BENCH: Look, we're getting into the evidence now, Mr Mathews, I'm really just asking about whether you have the material, and it seems like you do, and it's in electronic form.


DEFENDANT: I have - I have the     


BENCH: I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of how it was created, and all of that sort of thing, because you can - you can cross-examine witnesses on the committal hearing, with respect to all of that.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, but I - I haven't viewed the material, and I don't know that I - I'd like to be able to have it in paper.


BENCH: Well     


DEFENDANT: Because I - as I say, I don't have a     


BENCH: You've got it in the form that it will be produced to the Court.


DEFENDANT: So it won't be produced in paper to the Court, ever?


BENCH: No, it doesn't seem like it, it's going to be in this form.


MR HUNTER: Not unless we're directed to, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, how much material is there?


MR HUNTER: Well, as you can see from the particulars, there's     


BENCH: But in page numbers, that sort of thing.


MR HUNTER: At a rough guess, possibly 50.


BENCH: So it wouldn't be a particularly difficult exercise then, we're not looking at thousands of pages, are we?


MR HUNTER: Not at the moment, I am.


BENCH: But for the evidence before the Court.


MR HUNTER: For the purposes of the committal, no.


BENCH: So about 50 pages.


MR HUNTER: Well, don't quote me on that, but that's - that's     


BENCH: So     


MR HUNTER: When one looks at a website it's difficult to know, you know, how a stream of information will print, and whether it will print.


BENCH: Mmm.


MR HUNTER: In the same form as it's seen on the screen.


BENCH: Mmm.


MR HUNTER: So nobody's ever - nobody's done that yet?


MR HUNTER: Well, I've done a couple, and they don't necessarily line up as they do on the screen.


BENCH: Mmm. Now, this probably leads into this other issue you have with your eyesight, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Is it an issue related to that, with you looking at screens, as opposed to looking at paper documents. What's the issue there?


DEFENDANT: The - well, the thing is, I have a number of disabilities, your Honour, and they all weigh     


BENCH: Yes, I'm just talking about your eyesight, at this stage.


DEFENDANT: Yes, but the point is, that yes, your Honour, that they all affect me in my performance and how I can do things, and how effectively I can do things.



BENCH: Because the reason I'm raising this again, is that I'm aware of correspondence between yourself and the Chief Magistrate.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And confining ourselves to this issue of your eyesight and your wish to have a camera in the courtroom.


DEFENDANT: Only if I need to transcript any documents, your Honour. It's just instead of my having to - because I have a hyper-extended right - I'm right handed, and a     


BENCH: Oh, so it's got nothing to do with your eyesight?


DEFENDANT: What, the camera?


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Not having the - the camera's not, no, the     


BENCH: Is your eyesight fine?


DEFENDANT: Um     


BENCH: Nothing wrong with your eyesight.


DEFENDANT: It's - my eyesight is - oh, yeah - no, I - I     


BENCH: Well, is it?


DEFENDANT: My - my - well, my eyesight is changing all the time, as far as being able to focus, and     


BENCH: So this issue of having things printed out, rather than just being viewed on a screen; thatís not really an issue as far as your vision is concerned? You have good vision?


DEFENDANT: I have - I have a fair - well reasonable vision in     


BENCH: If I can ask you     


DEFENDANT: Right.


BENCH: If something is projected onto a screen, you can see it?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. It's a matter of organising the thing. Being able to organise     


BENCH: No. What I'm saying is if the prosecution produce their evidence via a screen, and there's a number of screens in the courtroom, and there's a big one on the wall, and there's a number of smaller screens in the courtroom, you would be able to see it?


DEFENDANT: Ah, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, I would be able to see that, your Honour.


BENCH: Okay.


DEFENDANT: Yeah.


BENCH: So thatís not the problem.


DEFENDANT: Oh, yes. Yes. Now     


BENCH: So - just wait a minute, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews. So you have good vision. You can read the screen. Now, this issue with your camera     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      what do you need that for?


DEFENDANT: If I need - if I have any reason to transcript anything.


BENCH: But you would have that anyway. If - any - anything that's produced by the prosecution, you'll have it on the disc.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. But there could be some notes that I need to take or something like that. If there's some document that I need to make some notes on.


BENCH: Well there won't - there shouldnít be any document produced on the committal hearing that you don't already have notice of on the disc.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Then, well I wouldnít be using the camera then, your Honour?


BENCH: No. Okay. Now     


DEFENDANT: I'd only use the camera, and I'd only use it in your Court, your Honour, with your permission.


BENCH: Yes. Because the Chief Magistrate has given you permission to bring a camera in, as long as you don't take photographs of anyone.


DEFENDANT: Of anyone. Yes, your Honour. I appreciate that     


BENCH: And also not use it in the courtroom without permission. You know that.


DEFENDANT: It's not - yes, your Honour. Oh, yes, your Honour. I appreciate that.


BENCH: Okay. Now, we'll just     


DEFENDANT: No problems there, your Honour.


BENCH: Now, let's move on to this other issue about your dogs.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And the Chief Magistrate has already written to you saying that you may be able to bring them into the building.


DEFENDANT: That's right. Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: But as far as actually in the courtroom, it's a matter for this Court     


DEFENDANT: For the actual Magistrate in charge of the courtroom, your Honour.


BENCH: That's right. So     


DEFENDANT: At the time. Yeah, that would be yourself.


BENCH: It's a bit of a difficult sort of exercise to undertake as to whether you'd be able to bring them into the courtroom. Youíve given pictures, and I've got them here. The Chief Magistrate - youíve sent photographs of the dogs to the Chief Magistrate. I'm assuming you still want to bring them in the courtroom, do you?


DEFENDANT: Oh, yes, your Honour. I don't want to be separated from them.


BENCH: Well, the thing is it could become a question of them being distracting and creating other types of hazards, so     


DEFENDANT: We'll, um     


BENCH: That will become an issue if it happens, and - but there's - theyíd be in some sort of cage, will they?


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour. I had provided a total of - I had mentioned this to - I had discussed this with the Chief Magistrate by email.


BENCH: Yes, I got that.


DEFENDANT: I do have a carrying disability.


BENCH: But the Chief Magistrate has already advised that the issue of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      may not apply. You aware of that?


DEFENDANT: What?


BENCH: You don't agree with that. But thatís what     


DEFENDANT: What's that? What may not apply, your Honour?


BENCH: Well, you     


DEFENDANT: The Disability Discrimination Act, Commonwealth     


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: 1992.


BENCH: 1992. Youíve quoted it.


DEFENDANT: Section 9(2)(c) you're talking about, or that whole legislation or the whole Act?


BENCH: Yes. The Chief Magistrate has said to you in writing that, on the basis of the information you provided to him, he wasn't persuaded     


DEFENDANT: He wasn't persuaded.


BENCH:      that you produced evidence that either of your dogs is an assistance animal within the meaning of that Act.


DEFENDANT: That's right. Yes, your Honour. He has said that.


BENCH: So I'm assuming youíve produced all the evidence to the Chief Magistrate about that.


DEFENDANT: Well, no, your Honour, but I believe I - I believed I had produced enough.


BENCH: Well it seems like I - look, the Chief Magistrate's already expressed a view on that.


DEFENDANT: Yes     


BENCH: And     


DEFENDANT: He already - well do you have the letter that I'm     


BENCH: That's right.


DEFENDANT: I'm - he has approved my bringing them in, in the cage?


BENCH: Into the building.


DEFENDANT: Into the building; that's right, your Honour.


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: And then he later approved my bringing them in not in the cage after I had mentioned my carrying disability; I cannot carry a cage. And that was because - well, the cage I have is a mobile cage, and I have provided him a photograph of the mobile cage with my two dogs in it.


BENCH: Well, I'm not aware of anything that the Chief Magistrate has told you about not bringing your dogs in a cage. The latest     


DEFENDANT: I - I - I do have     


BENCH: The latest correspondence I've got is 22 March, where he says, "You may bring your caged dogs and a camera with you into the courthouse."


DEFENDANT: Yes. I have another letter from him, and I'll just - I have it laminated, and I'll just pull it out so I can refer to it.


BENCH: What date's that?


DEFENDANT: That - I'll tell you, your Honour, when I have a look at it, and - my dogs are registered with the Logan Council as assistance dogs, and - okay, I have 9th of April, a letter from - a two page letter from the Chief Magistrate, date 9th of April.


BENCH: Okay. What's it say?


DEFENDANT: Well, it's two pages, your Honour. My email date is     


BENCH: This is from the Chief Magistrate?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: 9th of April?


DEFENDANT: 9th of April 2010.


BENCH: What's he say?


DEFENDANT: He says, "I note you have since written explaining that for medical reasons you are unable to carry the cage. In my letter I said that on the information provided I was not persuaded. You have since advised you have trained your dogs and" - now, goes down the second page - okay - "In light of the further information you have provided, I will make arrangements for you to bring your dogs, restrained on a leash, into the Court building at 363 George Street, Brisbane." That is the - one, two, three, four, five, six, the sixth last paragraph on the - on the second page of the letter dated 9th of April.


"As explained, in light of the further information you have provided" - that would be the certificate regarding my lifting and carrying disability due to bilateral long bicep tenosynovitis, which is aggravated by lifting and carrying. "It would be for the Magistrate deciding if - in accordance with him how proceedings may be conducted in that courtroom, including whether you might have your dogs present.


I have advised Court security officers that I have agreed to your bringing your leashed dogs with you into the courthouse on any Court date allocated for your matters. You may present this letter to the Court security officer to identify you as the person concerned. I will also advise the Magistrate hearing your matter of your request to have your dogs present."


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: So that's - yeah, that is the reason I have it laminated. And, your Honour, I have evidence from the Logan City Council that they're registered as assistance dogs, and I have medical certificates regarding my assistance dogs.


BENCH: All right. Now, have you ever - youíve been present in Court on these proceedings before, haven't you?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Did you - I mean physically present.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Did you have your dogs with you on that day?


DEFENDANT: No, I didnít, your Honour. But I wasn't happy about the fact I didnít. It doesnít - the Disability Discrimination Act doesnít mean that I - that I am unable to function without them, at all. That would be the same - that - or there is any alternative to my having them with me. That would be akin to saying a person with a guide dog, they can use a white cane, instead of having a guide dog to assist a blind person.


BENCH: Okay. So when you - if you're - well, it seems like youíve got permission to bring them into the building, but     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: What's - what would be the situation? What would you do with them if you couldnít have them in the courtroom? You can have them in the building, but not in the courtroom; what would you do with them?


DEFENDANT: Well thatís - thatís the problem, your Honour.


BENCH: It is, isn't it? Yes.


DEFENDANT: And so - now, as I was saying, your Honour     


BENCH: I'm not sure security are not going to look after them for you.


DEFENDANT: I - well, as I was saying, your Honour, the cage; I have a mobile dog cage which was at one time a shopping trolley, and - so it was mobile. But the point is I may not be able to get that into Court. Be able to get - be able to travel with it. See, because I'm getting hassles from TransLink. Now, that is a disability aid, under the - you know, I'm definitely disabled. You know     


BENCH: What's a disability aid, again, sorry? What did you say?


DEFENDANT: Anything which is - a disability aid is anything which is used by the disabled person.


BENCH: And what do you use.


DEFENDANT: It is a - because I have a lifting and carrying disability


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Tenosynovitis.


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: I use - it is - it was a shopping trolley. It was a shopping trolley.


BENCH: And what do you use it for?


DEFENDANT: For carrying.


BENCH: What were you     


DEFENDANT: As a cage for my dogs, if need be.


BENCH: Well, it seems like you don't have to use a cage.


DEFENDANT: It - it     


BENCH: It seems like a leash is sufficient


DEFENDANT: Ah, yes, your Honour. But I still use     


BENCH: For the building.


DEFENDANT: I still have that cage with me, if I can.


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: And that would be if, at times, you know, I can leave the top open or have it closed. So it can either be an enclosed cage or an open cage, and I can put my own, you know, backpack and stuff in there too, and anything I have to carry. And I can then push it.


Now, what I would do if I want to restrain my dogs for - to a degree, is put them in there. If I have it with me.


BENCH: I thought     


DEFENDANT: And thatís     


BENCH: I thought the whole idea was you couldnít have it with you, because it was too heavy or too awkward.


DEFENDANT: No, it's a mobile cage. It's mobile. I can push it, but I can't carry it. But it's - it basically was a shopping trolley.


BENCH: So are you saying now that you can have it - have them caged?


DEFENDANT: I - it depends on whether I can get it to Court with me.


BENCH: Get into Court?


DEFENDANT: With it, you see. That is the point. I - I mean, I don't know. I'm the - four and a-half hours' walking from Court, where I am now. And I - you know, I've sent this to the Courts yesterday.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: I did a - a Google map investigation between 363 George Street and my address here in Rochedale South. And the route and such, if I go Logan Road, it's - they say four and a-half hours. But that would be walking. And I imagine it would be longer. But it has a note, of course, on there that there may not be pathways, so     


BENCH: Well.


DEFENDANT: For walking, so I - you know, I     


BENCH: Mr Mathews     


DEFENDANT: I have several     


BENCH: Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Yes. So     


BENCH: This is not a consideration for the Court as to how you're going to get to Court. All right. We're just talking about these dogs that you want to bring into Court.


DEFENDANT: That's right. As a     


BENCH: Now, what - what - so how many breaks are we going to have to have? And what's going to happen? I mean, these dogs have to - the call of nature, some time, I would imagine, throughout the day.


DEFENDANT: Well, yes, your Honour, and they     


BENCH: What's going to happen then?


DEFENDANT:      will need to have a drink too. But they sleep with me overnight.


BENCH: But what is going to happen when the call of nature arrives - or is made?


DEFENDANT: Well, theyíll make my attention known. Theyíll attract my attention. They will sit up and maybe nudge me or something     


BENCH: But what is going to happen?


DEFENDANT:      as they do now.


BENCH: What is going to happen?


DEFENDANT: Well, then if I know, if they need to go outside, we'll have to ask - I'll have to ask for a rest break, your Honour. But the point is when there are breaks during the day normally, as there would be, they would - we would go outside and they would be able to do anything that they needed, such as that.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: So this - also, your Honour, have you seen my certificate regarding my brain damage and how that affects me, my concentration ability?


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: Have you seen that certificate that disabilities and - I am at a great disadvantage in face to face and telephones. I am at a disadvantage now, being - having to be face to face and telephone. I'm at a disadvantage now, being - having to be face to face.


BENCH: Well, this is why     


DEFENDANT: Because I      


BENCH: You think you need some assistance?


DEFENDANT: Well, I don't need a lawyer, your Honour. I don't need a lawyer.


BENCH: Well, you say you don't need one. But you - on the one hand you say you don't need a lawyer, but on the other hand you say you need some assistance.


DEFENDANT: Well, I - the thing is, your Honour, I'm     


BENCH: Basically saying you need - need assistance.


DEFENDANT: I'm alone in this world, and the police know this, and this is why I'm afraid to live by myself, because the police will come and take me away, and - as they have done in the past, and no-one knows. No-one knows.


BENCH: No-one knows what?


DEFENDANT: And - no-one knows that I've been taken by the police and that I could be locked up. Now, it's happened twice with     


BENCH: All right. Well, we're not going to get into that.


DEFENDANT: Yeah.


BENCH: Youíve already said you don't want to apply for Legal Aid, even though you may be eligible.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: I'm just simply raising these issues as - and you say you're under these disabilities and everything. I'm just simply saying, well, why don't you get some assistance?


DEFENDANT: Well, I am intelligent, your Honour. I am intelligent.


BENCH: I'm not saying - it's nothing about your intelligence.


DEFENDANT: Itís a matter of     


BENCH: Itís about your ability to     


DEFENDANT: Itís a matter of     


BENCH:      to run your hearing. Run your part of the committal.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Well - yeah, I - I just require that my special needs are met.


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: Because of my disabilities.


BENCH: All right. Now, Mr Hunter, do you want to come in on this business about Mr Mathews' dogs?


MR HUNTER: No, your Honour. The Crown makes no submissions. It's really a matter for the Court to make the ruling on that.


BENCH: What sort of dogs are they, again?


DEFENDANT: One is - he's just come on my lap this moment, at his own volition, he is 3 - about 3.3 kilogram male poodle Maltese cross. He's about     


BENCH: And the other one?


DEFENDANT: He's about seven years old. And the other one is a Parson Russell Terrier, weighing about 12 kilograms, and he's about seven and a-half, going on eight years old. He's asleep at the moment.


BENCH: And they're not yappy?


DEFENDANT: No, no. No. Well, no, your Honour.


BENCH: Mmm. Well, as I say, thatís an unusual request.


DEFENDANT: They are     


BENCH: The Chief Magistrate has given approval for you to bring them in the building, so     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: I don't know what was thought that was going to happen if you could bring them in the building but not in the courtroom, so I would think     


DEFENDANT: Well, I don't     


BENCH: I would think you can bring them in the courtroom, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: But with the     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour?


BENCH:      obvious proviso that they behave themselves.


DEFENDANT: Well, I     


BENCH: Behave themselves in terms of not barking, and thatís the obvious one.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, yes. Yes.


BENCH: And not distracting - distracting the Court; the witnesses.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And the other participants in the proceedings.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, yes.


BENCH: And as far as whether they should be caged or not, I don't know. I - I would     


DEFENDANT: Well, they usually     


BENCH: I would think they would have to be.


DEFENDANT: Depends if I can bring my cage to Court, your Honour. And I'm having trouble there with TransLink. It's - thatís another problem. I - I have - I can't rely on anyone to do anything for me. I have to do everything for meself. So I have to     


BENCH: Well, sometimes you have to ask. Sometimes you have to ask, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Well I - there's no-one I can ask, your Honour. I - I'm not going to - unless people have a duty to provide something to me, I'm not going to ask for - for favours, you know, from anyone. And I don't have any family. My animals are my only family. My assistance dogs are my only family, your Honour. So     


BENCH: But this contraption that you mentioned earlier seems to be a mobile apparatus?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, it has wheels.


BENCH: So you can get it to the courthouse.


DEFENDANT: Well, if I - yeah - well, if I could - where I was in the northern suburbs, I would have been able to put it on the train, except I was having hassles with TransLink.


BENCH: What's the dimensions of it?


DEFENDANT: It's effectively a shopping trolley - was a shopping trolley, your Honour. So that's the dimensions of it. The - both - there is a - there is a photo which has been     


BENCH: Thatís not very big. Thatís not very big to have two dogs, even though they're only relatively small dogs.


DEFENDANT: Well, I've actually sent a photograph of the two dogs sitting in it, your Honour. My two sisters' dogs sitting in it with the top closed.


BENCH: I haven't got that.


DEFENDANT: Okay, your Honour.


BENCH: No, there is a photo here of a dog's - looks like it's sitting in a shopping trolley.


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour.


BENCH: Is that it?


DEFENDANT: Well that is actually the mobile cage.


BENCH: But it's got a roof on it has     


DEFENDANT: It has a lid on it, yes, a cover on it, your Honour.


BENCH: And they sit in there quite happily, do they?


DEFENDANT: Well, they look happy to you there, don't they, your Honour?


BENCH: Mmm. Yes, but if they sit in here for five hours, though, how happy will they be?


DEFENDANT: Well, if they're sleeping, well, it's a matter of if, you know, they     


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: Well, the, you know     


BENCH: You can bring your dogs in.


DEFENDANT:      they're very     


BENCH: Bring your dogs in as long as they're in that cage. Okay?


DEFENDANT: Okay, your Honour. Okay.


BENCH: Thatís the conditions. Thatís the conditions and also the conditions that they behave themselves, not distract any of the Court participants.


DEFENDANT: Yes. Well, they are very different in character the two assistance dogs, your Honour.


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: And     


BENCH: Well I just hope it's not going to cause them distress, thatís all, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Oh, yes, your Honour, I wouldnít want - they're very important to me, your Honour.


BENCH: Exactly.


DEFENDANT: I don't want to cause them distress.


BENCH: So if they look like they're distressed, you might have to make other arrangements. Okay?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Could I just say that because they're different in character, the little one, Pook, is his name, Pook, may be quite happy to sit in the cage, in the mobile cage, but Celtic may be happier to sit at my feet.


BENCH: Look the dogs are staying in the cage.


DEFENDANT: On a lead.


BENCH: I think that there has to be some rules.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour     


BENCH: Okay?


DEFENDANT: A person with a - with a guide dog would not have to keep him in the cage.


BENCH: These aren't guide dogs.


DEFENDANT: They're assistance dogs, your Honour.


BENCH: They're not guide dogs.


DEFENDANT: Yes. That's right, your Honour.


BENCH: And the Chief Magistrate - youíve made your application to the Chief Magistrate, and he's said that on the basis of the evidence produced they don't come within the definition.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Well, if I     


BENCH: And I've asked you before if you have other evidence, and you said no.


DEFENDANT: Well, I have     


BENCH: So thatís where it lies.


DEFENDANT: I have - sorry, your Honour. Well, I have a - I have a registration with the Logan City Council, as     


BENCH: So is there anything else, with respect     


DEFENDANT:      assistance dogs.


BENCH: I'm not going - is - nothing else with respect to the dogs, Mr Matthews, is there?


DEFENDANT: Well that evidence, your Honour, that - well, the evidence is section 9(2)(c) of the     


BENCH: No, I'm not going into that. Youíve raised that with the Chief Magistrate.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Okay. Okay. No worries. The     


BENCH: I've given you permission to bring them into the courtroom in cage.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: They can sit next to you, of course.


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: But the moment they cause a disturbance, either because - I don't know, whether they don't like the look of someone in a courtroom or they're getting distressed, you'll have to make alternative arrangements. Only you know these dogs and how they will react.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And I don't want you to put them in the situation where they're distressed, and it will.


DEFENDANT: Oh, no, your Honour, no.


BENCH: For obvious reasons, and also it's going to disrupt these proceedings.


DEFENDANT: No. That's right, your Honour. No worries. And so     


BENCH: And - just going back to the - the evidence, I'm satisfied that you have the means; you have a computer. You can view those exhibits on your computer at home. Youíve told me you have a computer. The evidence will be produced in that form, electronic form on the committal hearing and you will be able to view that on the screens. So     


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: I don't think I need make any further directions there.


DEFENDANT: So I don't - I won't need also to produce any paper copies of any documents I wish the Court to see? I would be able to add them on a CD?


BENCH: You can.


DEFENDANT: I'll be able to put them on a CD?


BENCH: If you like.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Okay. And what will be the situation that - something that is tendered to the Court to go into evidence; if it is - were all - were all these discs here admitted into evidence?


BENCH: Yes. Well, I'm assuming so.


DEFENDANT: So the whole disc would be admitted into evidence?


BENCH: Well that seems to be what Mr Hunter said. The exhibits are on     


DEFENDANT: So     


BENCH:      on the discs.


DEFENDANT: Okay. And so they're all - they will all be before the Court?


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Usually it would be that evidence would be tendered     


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Evidence would be held by the prosecution and they would then, you know, require that certain documents may be placed into evidence, tendered as - to the Court, and be placed into evidence. But what's happening here is that all of this will be automatically in evidence before the Court?


BENCH: That seems to be what Mr Hunter's saying. Is that right, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: The discs have exhibits on them that have been identified.


BENCH: Mmm-hmm.


MR HUNTER: It is the identified files which is - which form the basis of the Crown case which will be effectively tendered. The disc in total is referred to in the evidence of police officer Read, who did it. So to that extent, the whole disc is evidence, but that the individual files identified in the particulars are that which the Crown relies upon to prove its case.


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: Yes. But they're all before the Court. So I don't - if I want any - if want - because - and I'm assuming this goes up to the District Court, of course, and so therefore all of these will therefore be - go up to the District Court, therefore, these three discs     


MR HUNTER: Correct.


DEFENDANT:      as is, will go up to the District Court.


MR HUNTER: Correct.


BENCH: I would think so.


MR HUNTER: Correct.


BENCH: If you're committed, thatís the evidence, you see.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. So they're all - they will all - well they haven't been - have they been tendered yet? They haven't been tendered yet, have they?


BENCH: No, because we haven't started the hearing. This is just the review.


DEFENDANT: That's right. That's right, your Honour. So they will be - the whole disc will be tendered.


MR HUNTER: Correct.


DEFENDANT: I just want to make sure that this in whole, rather than     


BENCH: Well, the physical disc. But it's what's on the disc that is the evidence; right.


DEFENDANT: That's right.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: And all that - and all that is on the disc will be before the Court, in other words?


BENCH: Yes.


MR HUNTER: Correct.


BENCH: That's correct.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Okay. Um     


BENCH: But you're not required to give evidence or to call evidence, of course, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: No, no, no. That's right. Yes. No, no.


BENCH: But if you do - if you do. If you do want to show any of the witnesses any evidence that you have     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: You may.


DEFENDANT: Oh, yes, I understand that, your Honour. And     


BENCH: And if it's on a disc form, well you know, so be it.


DEFENDANT: That's right.


BENCH: As long as it's able to be viewed.


DEFENDANT: That's right.


BENCH: There's no problem. But     


DEFENDANT: And then, of course, if I require it to - if I - if - say there's a witness there and I have a document and I say, "Do you recognise this?", or whatever, and they say, "Yes.", because they see it up on the screen. And I say, "Your Honour, I'd like that tendered in evidence.", and     


BENCH: Well     


DEFENDANT:      the prosecution may object or whatever; if it is, does the whole disc go in or just that file?


BENCH: Just the file. Just the file. What normally happens is in the committal - and it's - itís a difficulty with unrepresented people, but you have the right to object to any evidence given, oral or documentary.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, yes.


BENCH: Now, it may be, in this sort of case, we go through that process initially. Is that if you have any objection to any of the evidence     


DEFENDANT: Yes - yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      on the disc.


DEFENDANT: Yes. Yes.



BENCH: Now, you may wish to object to the whole of that evidence, I donít know, but if you do     


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH:      you're going to have to lay a basis for me to rule     


DEFENDANT: Thatís not - thatís not [indistinct].


BENCH:      after hearing submissions from Mr Hunter. So think about that.


DEFENDANT: If I ask     


BENCH: Think about that for the hearing.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Could I ask your Honour, these two discs, I haven't looked at them.


BENCH: Well, look at them, thatís the first thing youíve got to do.


DEFENDANT: I will do, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Youíve had them since November.


DEFENDANT: Do they have - do they have on them the statements by the witnesses?


BENCH: No. You should have the paper statements.


DEFENDANT: Yeah.


BENCH: Youíve looked at those, haven't you?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, I've - the statement by the police officer.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: They're - you should have those.


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: The only things that are on the disc are the exhibits. The statements arenít exhibits.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Yes, your Honour, thank you. Now, there was a point I wanted to ask regarding the charges, your Honour. 47417 the [indistinct] case.


BENCH: Now, all right. Just hang on there, just wait a minute.


DEFENDANT: Thank you.


BENCH: I've been given this - I didnít have it before, I've been given this - I'm afraid I'm going to have to re-visit the issue of the dogs, Mr Hunter.


DEFENDANT: Mmm.


BENCH: I've been given the letter of the Chief Magistrate dated the 9th of April to yourself.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: And he says, "Apart from the issue of whether your dogs are assistance animals under the Act, I have given consideration to your advice that you are not able to lift a cage. This information is inconsistent with your initial request that you be allowed to bring the caged dogs into the Court, as I     


DEFENDANT: I advised - I did advise the reason that that was not inconsistent too, your Honour, to     


BENCH: Okay, I'm just reading on. As I said     


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: This is the Chief Magistrate saying, "As I said."     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: I'm quoting, "As I said," he says     


DEFENDANT: I understand, your Honour.


BENCH: "I am concerned to ensure you have reasonable access to the Court for the purpose of the proceedings in which you are involved. In light of the further information you have provided, I will make arrangements for you to bring the dogs, restrained on a leash, into the Court building."


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: So forget the cage, bring them on a leash.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, but I would still need the mobile cage as a disability aid     


BENCH: But hang on a minute, you can't lift it, thatís what you told the Chief Magistrate, wasnít it?


DEFENDANT: But it's mobile. It's mobile - itís mobile.


BENCH: What?


DEFENDANT: It's a mobile cage. It's like a shopping trolley.


BENCH: Okay, so when do you have to lift it? Are you saying you donít have to lift it?


DEFENDANT: I donít.


BENCH: You donít?


DEFENDANT: I donít have to lift it. But I may not be able to get it - I may not be able to have it there because of the size. Where I [indistinct] I would not be able to take it with me.


BENCH: Okay.


DEFENDANT: So - so     


BENCH: Bring them on a leash. Bring them on a leash, forget the cage, bring them on a leash.


DEFENDANT: But I may bring the cage?


BENCH: Oh, look, if you bring the cage, well, we'll put them in there. But I thought the whole basis of your application was that you couldnít lift it.


DEFENDANT: I donít need to lift it. The point is, I may not - I could not - I imagine, and I was correct in     


BENCH: So just tell me, Mr Mathews, why do you need a cage then?


DEFENDANT: For carrying, and     


BENCH: But youíve got them on a leash, what, can't they walk?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, but some people may - well, as you were considering that they would be dead in the cage anyway, so     


BENCH: Well, initially I did, and as the Chief Magistrate initially thought they would be as well. But given this other information that you can't lift it - but I tell you what, if you can get the cage here, we'll put the dogs in it. If you can't get the cage here, they'll be restrained on a leash.


DEFENDANT: Oh, yes, your Honour, they're always on a leash, your Honour.


BENCH: Okay. So we donít need - so forget the dogs now.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: We're moving on now to     


DEFENDANT: 47417 - 4741     


BENCH: No, well, is this this issue of law you're talking about?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, look, I donít want to spend too much time on this because you must be mindful of the nature of the proceedings.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Now, the proceedings are committal proceedings.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And the proceedings are governed by the Justices Act, even though they're Commonwealth offences     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      the proceedings are governed by the Justices Act. You'd know that? You may not know that, but I'm telling you.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, I do, yes. Yes, your Honour, thank you.


BENCH: Now, the sole basis - or the sole function of the Court in committal proceedings is to decide if the evidence is sufficient.


DEFENDANT: Is sufficient?


BENCH: To commit a person for trial; right?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, I understand. I understand, your Honour.


BENCH: Thatís the sole basis. So if you're asking for the matters to be struck out, can't do it.


DEFENDANT: No, no.


BENCH: Until the evidence has been heard.


DEFENDANT: Thatís right, your Honour, yes.


BENCH: And they can't be stayed, the proceedings can't be stayed, if thatís what you're asking as an [indistinct] process.


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour, I'm asking about - I'm asking about section 47417, strict liability or absolute liability.


BENCH: This is all a matter for the committal.


DEFENDANT: Well, I would need     


BENCH: As to whether the evidence is sufficient, which is really a question of law anyway.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, but what is - what - the question of law is whether section 417 - 414.17 has a requirement for strict liability or absolute liability.


BENCH: Yes, but we're not going into it today.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, I would need to know to know how to prepare my case, what the Court is going to decide on that, so I can decide     


BENCH: Well, the Court will only decide after the evidence has been adduced.


DEFENDANT: [indistinct] what is the point of law? Is - there would be a liability attached to section 417 - whether mistake of fact is the defence to 474.17, that seems to be the only difference between strict liability and absolute liability, and apparently section 417 - 41417 would be one of the two. Either     


BENCH: This is a matter you can raise on - in submissions on the hearing, on the committal hearing.


DEFENDANT: But it's already - it's in the legislation, which it is, your Honour, I donít know, and I'm wondering what the Court is going to - how the Court     


BENCH: Well, I'm not - if you're asking me for legal advice, I'm not going to give it.


DEFENDANT: No, no, not legal advice, what the Court was going to require, whether they're going to require strict liability for 47417 or absolute liability, and I mean I need to know now, your Honour. I need to know what the Court would require. Because section 414.17 does not state in itself whether it is strict liability or absolute liability. I mean Mr Hunter may like to voice an opinion.


BENCH: Do you wish to say anything, Mr Hunter on that point at this stage?


MR HUNTER: Should be reserved for the committal hearing, your Honour.


BENCH: Mmm.


MR HUNTER: But I donít wish to traverse into the area of giving Mr Mathews legal advice, given that these are adversarial proceedings.


BENCH: Mmm-hmm.


MR HUNTER: But the section appears in a Code. It is a Code - is self contained. The only defences available are that which are found in the Code, and my understanding, if any element of a Code offence is to be strict or absolute liability, the Code will say so.


BENCH: All right. Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: Look, we're not going - this is a matter for the hearing. A matter for submissions made after the evidence has been adduced.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Now, as I understand it from the - from the statements, the affidavits by the police officer, that the - what he finds offensive apparently is the fact that the     


BENCH: Mr Mathews - Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: We're not going into this today. This is a matter for the hearing. We're just reviewing this matter, raising all these issues I have raised about your dogs, about your camera, about the brief, the statements, the exhibits, those are all matters properly for review. Now you're getting into the substantive issues, and thatís a matter for the hearing - committal hearing.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Could I ask that the statements, all the statements are provided to me by email on a scanned copy?


BENCH: Youíve got them though. Youíve got the statements, haven't you?


DEFENDANT: I've got paper - I've got paper copies, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, thatís your statements. Yes, youíve got them. What more do you need?


DEFENDANT: If I could have - because, yeah, I just - I was wanting them in electronic form too, your Honour. But     


BENCH: So you want them in electronic form as well. Why do you need them in electronic form?


DEFENDANT: So I can - so I can - see, I have - I have brain damage which affects my ability to organise things and so the computer is the way I can organise stuff. So if I have them as scanned copies, I can find them more readily.


BENCH: But you - but with the exhibits though, you wanted them in paper form? Now you're saying you organise yourself electronically.


DEFENDANT: Yes, I also - I did not realise that all the material was going to be before the Court as evidence, it was already going to be admitted into evidence. Now, thatís what I'm being told, that it's all going to be admitted into evidence and not individual pages.



BENCH: Well, you're not - you wouldn't be - you wouldn't be given it otherwise. You wouldn't be given that material otherwise, and it would be put into evidence. Or sought to be put into evidence.


DEFENDANT: And - like, individual [indistinct]     


BENCH: It seems like you've got all of that material, apart from the document that Mr Hunter's undertaken to provide to you, both electronically and hard copy, I think.


MR HUNTER: Yes, I will scan it, email it and mail it.


DEFENDANT: He has the address for me?


BENCH: That was that document. Yes. Yes.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: All right, so anything else?


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, there's just one matter that I would seek to raise.


BENCH: Yes.


MR HUNTER: With respect to the document that was filed in March, entitled "Application" by Mr Mathews     


BENCH: Yes.


MR HUNTER:      your Honour will note that there are some 16 grounds forming that application.


BENCH: But that - yes.


MR HUNTER: In     


BENCH: This was his application though to strike it out.


MR HUNTER: To strike out, yes.


BENCH: Or in the alternative, to have documents provided.


MR HUNTER: Yes.


BENCH: I can't strike it out. I've already told him.


MR HUNTER: I just wish to put this on the record, your Honour.


BENCH: Yes.


MR HUNTER: If your Honour looks to points 10, 12, 13 and 14.


BENCH: Mmm.


MR HUNTER: There are references there to compensation for various things against the Queensland Police.


BENCH: Mmm.


MR HUNTER: I have advised Queensland Crown Law that that application has been made and they may well send a lawyer because I donít represent the Queensland Police.


BENCH: But I'm not - this application won't be heard on the hearing. I'm - I've dealt with that application now.


MR HUNTER: Very well, your Honour. I'll - I'll     


BENCH: On the basis that the application - well, if I can just read it.


MR HUNTER: Mmm.


BENCH: "Take notice that the applicant is applying to the Court for the following orders:"


MR HUNTER: Mmm.


BENCH: "Application for striking out the proceeding, or in the alternative, directions."


MR HUNTER: Yes.


BENCH: Now, I think I can adequately deal with that application today by saying, on the basis of the case of Higgins and Comans, which is [2005] QCA 234, Higgins v. Comans and the DPP, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: How - you going to try and make a note, Higgins     


BENCH: Ah, v. Comans and the DPP.


DEFENDANT: And Coman. And DPP, yes.


BENCH: [2005] QCA 234.


DEFENDANT: Yes, 234, is that available on AustLII? AustLII?


BENCH: Yes, should be.


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: Now, being committal     


DEFENDANT: How do I spell Coman? How do I spell Coman, C O     


BENCH: C-0-M-A-N-S.


DEFENDANT:      A-N-S. [indistinct].


BENCH: On the basis of that case     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      and there's other cases as well, but that's the most recent one     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      the Court, in committal - Magistrates Court in committal proceedings can't strike those proceedings out. It can give directions, which I've - we really have about the brief and everything, but it can't strike it out because this is not a Court of trial. You see?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, that's right.


BENCH: There is only one - there's only two ways in which committal proceedings can be finalised and that is on the basis of whether the evidence is sufficient, person is committed; if the evidence is not sufficient, the person is discharged. Right?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Yes.


BENCH: So you can't strike out the proceedings, stay them, anything like that, because this Court does not sit as a Court of trial in committal proceedings.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: So your application's refused to strike the matters out. I donít know - I can't - you can't really argue that, I donít think. Hmm, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes, okay. Well, you're making your decision, your Honour. [indistinct].


BENCH: And I've given you directions, so your application's refused to strike out the proceedings and I've given directions, so that's the end of your application.


MR HUNTER: I'll advise Crown Law accordingly, thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: So is there anything else before we adjourn?


DEFENDANT: I won't be a moment, your Honour. I'll - the - you know, it is important that I - as the defendant, I know the case that is being made against me. Am I required - the - there are three basic functions to each of these charges, that is menace, harass or cause offence. Am I being required - will it be alleged it is causing all three, each is causing all three?


BENCH: Well     


DEFENDANT: Or just offence?


BENCH: Read the Act, read the section, and inform yourself, give yourself some advice on that. I'm not giving you legal advice.


DEFENDANT: [indistinct]     


BENCH: It's a matter for the Court on the evidence, on the day, as to whether the charges are being made out or whether you have a case to answer.


DEFENDANT: Okay, your Honour, and     


BENCH: But with the witnesses you might like to canvass all of those alternatives when you cross-examine them.


DEFENDANT: Well, yes, your Honour. Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Or make - and make submissions on all of the alternatives. Okay?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, that would - yes, okay. Okay. Okay. And at - at the committal we would be able to discuss points of law prior to the hearing of witnesses? I'm talking there about section 160 of the Queensland Health Act, or the Health Act, in relation to Court orders to enter property, matters such as that.


BENCH: Well, it seems like that just goes towards whether you would be objecting to any of the evidence sought to be adduced. Legality of the warrants, legality of the search, something like that, is it?


MR HUNTER: No, I think it's something different.


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour. This goes to the point of     


BENCH: Is that what he's - no. Is that what you're going on about?


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour. What - it goes to the point of what I believe they say is causing an offence.


BENCH: Oh, look     


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: It's a question of - look, if you just keep it simple, whether the evidence is sufficient to commit you for trial, sufficiency of evidence whether the properly instructed jury could convict you, not whether they would, or they ought to     


DEFENDANT: Yes, that's right. Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      or whether they should     


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH:      it's whether, as a matter of law, the evidence adduced by the prosecution, taken at its highest, that is taken to be correct, drawing all inferences in favour of the prosecution, not the defendant at that stage, whether you could be convicted.


DEFENDANT: Yes. That is [indistinct].


BENCH: That's the test for committal at Queensland at this point.


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour. Now     


BENCH: But you can object to any of the evidence, lay the basis - I'll hear from Mr Hunter on the day, and we'll - I'll rule on it.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, now     


BENCH: If that's what you're going on about? Whether they're points of law.


DEFENDANT: This - these - if - well, I'm looking at the matter of truth as being a defence, as it is in the case of defamation because it was this - this section     


BENCH: Well, look - yes.


DEFENDANT:      is very similar to defamation, there's a lot of similarities.


BENCH: Well, I donít need to canvass all these issues today on the review. These are matters for the hearing. Okay?


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: If you're not sure of what to do, get some advice, independent legal advice.


DEFENDANT: Yes. Yes. Mmm, okay. Okay, your Honour. I - and that matter of Higgins and Comans, you've already decided on that on the basis of that, so I     


BENCH: Yes, if     


DEFENDANT: Yes, okay.


BENCH: It was doomed to fail, that application to strike the matters out.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: Because it's not a Court of trial. It's a     


DEFENDANT: Thanks, your Honour. Yes, okay. And that was what Higgins and Comans was about - Comans, was about, so that     


BENCH: Yes, that was dealing with an application to stay, I think it was, stay the proceedings as an abuse of process.


DEFENDANT: Yes, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: But the Court - the Court of Appeal, in that case, went through the authorities, from my memory, on committal proceedings.


DEFENDANT: So in that case it would be dicta as opposed to     


BENCH: And basically confirmed that - what committal proceedings were all about and how they could be finalised.


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: Given the Magistrates Court is not a Court of trial, it's - it can only be dealt with on sufficiency of evidence, either the evidence is sufficient, the person is committed.


DEFENDANT: Yes. Yes.


BENCH: If it's not sufficient, they're discharged, and that's the end of it. No other way can they end other than those two alternatives.




DEFENDANT: Yes. Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Okay?


DEFENDANT: And - yes, okay. Okay. Therefore, for a jury to decide it, it's an abuse of process. If     


BENCH: Well, you can make that application, if you're committed you make that application to the District Court.


DEFENDANT: Yes, that's right. That's right, your Honour.


BENCH: Yes, not to this Court.


DEFENDANT: No, that's right, your Honour, I understand. And then the prosecution decide, if they really want to waste the resources and the Court's time. But thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: But look, all we're concerned about at this stage is sufficiency of evidence, and that will begin on the 24th of June, your bail continues to that date. So you must be here in person on that date, with your dogs. Permission is granted to have them leashed.


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: On the proviso, as I said before, that they behave themselves and they're not distressed, otherwise you'll have to make alternative arrangements.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Okay?


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: Thank you, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: Feel free to hang up.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour, goodbye.


BENCH: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Hunter.


MR HUNTER: Thank you, your Honour.


DEFENDANT: See you on the 24th.


BENCH: 24th, 9 a.m., Court 20.


DEFENDANT: Court 20, okay.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: That's where it'll heard, or it'll be referred from     


BENCH: Yes. It'll be handed out from there, you initially go to Court 20.


DEFENDANT: But it will be before yourself?


BENCH: That's right.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: Bye now.


BENCH: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Hunter, we'll just adjourn the Court.


THE COURT ADJOURNED


Fraud by Douglas Porter, The University of Queensland, [part of the Australian Government], by defrauding a disabled reclusive old man of his HOUSE & LAND; including Douglas Porter's being linked to the ATTEMPTED MURDER of the disabled old man; with clandestine police complicity

These pages will be developed to expose the defrauding of a disabled, and hence reclusive old man of his house and land at 254 Hawken Drive St Lucia [view MAP] by Douglas Porter, the previous Registrar of The University of Queensland, for use by The University of Queensland.  Douglas Porter had been attacking, bullying and discriminating against this disabled reclusive old man since the early 1990s when he was a mature age student at The University of Queensland.

Porter was closely associated with two others linked to the Attempted MURDER of the disabled old man, being the then recent law lecturers Quentin Bryce, and Patsy Mary Wolfe.  The disabled old man was, at that time, a student of law at the University of Queensland, where Porter was Registrar.  Porter was engaged in bullying 
the disabled old man prior to the Attempted Murder of the disabled old man, and subsequenly, but then with greater  gusto.   Douglas Porter, then, as clandstine Chair of the St Johns College Council, that ran the St Johns College on the St Lucia, Brisbane Campus of The University of Queensland, began to secretly orchestrate the theft of the home of the disabled old man; the house and land owned in trust by the disabled old man, to take advantage of the fact that the disabled old man was under a strident attack..  

LinkToAspinallInPorterPanel.php This Profile Panel re the parasitic Douglas Porter, rewarded by the anglican archbishop Phillip Aspinall and the anglican church, because Porter used confidential information obtained as Registrar of The University of Queensland, to assist Phillip Aspinall steal the home of a vulnerable disabled guy links most appropriately to the site exposing the fraud of this vulnerable disabled guy by anglican archbishop Phillip Aspinall.

  Douglas PORTER is linked to the ATTEMPTED MURDER of the disabled old man; with clandestine police complicity.
See fat pig parasite Porter playing with himself

  masturbating

in his office. So, what can you expect from The University of Queensland?
Write and tell us what you think about this University.
  Douglas Porter taken at 9:55AM 12th July, 2006 in his office at The University of Queensland where he was at that time, Registrar of The University of Queensland, and also clandestinely, the Representative of The University of Queensland on, and importantly Chairman of, the St Johns College Council which runs St Johns College on the St Lucia Campus of The University of Queensland.  For years prior and years since then, Porter was secretly scheming to steal my home, beneficially owned by me, from me, by threatening and manipulating the emotionally challenged emotional shell of the trustee.

Concurrently, while I was then a student at the Universiity of Queensland, Douglas Porter, as Registrar, repeatedly discriminated against me in relation to my use of the libraries and my being accompanied by my two wee assistance dogs while on the campus of UQ.

Just days before the armed robbery on me on 29th November, 2004, by corrupt cop [and Armed Robber] at my home at 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia, as a preliminary and integral step towards stealing my property [my home, my beneficially owned house and land], from me, all orchestrated by Douglas Porter, Douglas Porter had that same corrupt cop Henri Elias Rantala charge me with bogus criminal charges. No doubt this was intended to complicate my life even more than my life was being complicated, on top of my disabilities, by all the Douglas Porter inspired disability discrimination of me in UQ libraries, so making the theft of my home even easier for The University of Queensland.


We will build into this caption here, the detail that is relevant to this intellectual lightweight and corrupt gutless parasite .  Whereever this photo appears on new pages on our websites, this caption will accompany the image of Douglas Porter  with Doctor of Economics honoris causa [gained with his charactersitic effort - as evidenced in the conjoined photo],, the clandestine representative of The University of Queensland on, and importantly, Chairman of, St Johns College COUNCIL, which runs, and importantly, sets the BUDGET for, St Johns College on the St Lucia Campus of The University of Queensland, and Secretary and Registrar for 22years retiring [as Registrar but not as Chair of St Johns College Council], on 31st December, 2008 .   This caption will be progressively added to all previous representations of the photo of Douglas Porter  with Doctor of Economics honoris causa [gained with his charactersitic effort - as evidenced in the conjoined photo],, the clandestine representative of The University of Queensland on, and importantly, Chairman of, St Johns College COUNCIL, which runs, and importantly, sets the BUDGET for, St Johns College on the St Lucia Campus of The University of Queensland, and Secretary and Registrar for 22years retiring [as Registrar but not as Chair of St Johns College Council], on 31st December, 2008 . 

Douglas Porter was The University of Queensland's SECRETIVE/CLANDESTINE representative, [and Chair], on the Governing body of one college, St Johns College at the University of Queensland - [see 7th paragraph of this linked UQ publication] or our copy.   [Of course, The University of Queensland has complete control of that land on which the college is built, with its complicated legal arrangement.]  The Governing body is called the the St Johns College Council [SJCC] and Douglas Porter is the Chair of the SJCC. Important in the workings of St Johns College and the St Johns College Council, is the SJCC Budget.  The Warden of St Johns College is the fraudster the Rev John Morgan.  He is answerable to the SJCC for the running of SJC.  In particular, he is petrified of his spending being in excess of the SJCC budget.  He even attempts to defraud to avoid spending money that is not in the SJCC budget.  Earlier that year, Morgan admitted lying to me the previous year, so that he would not have to face up to the St Johns College Council [SJCC], for having spent money that he was legally required to spend, that was, however, not in the SJCC budget.  

Hence, SJCC is a part of the Australian Government Sector, as is The University of Queensland.  Also involved in this fraud were other divisions of the Australian Public Sector, namely the Brisbane City Council, Queensland Police [including the most senior level, on the evidence of the Queensland Police], Queensland Courts especially Magistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich aka Magistrate Topsy-Turvy and Supreme Court Judge Henry George Fryberg. Others were involved for the money they would make from it and to be "on the in" with corrupt public sector parasites.  These include lawyer Stephen Tonge, [view home of Tonge on MAP]  then a partner of Firm of lawyers Flower & Hart but more recently of Tress Cox.  Some Capital Funding was provided by the Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church aka the Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Paul de Jersey, is the Chancellor of the Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church [BDAC].  They provided the funding for an expected return [albeit fraudulent] of approximately 20% year on year plus a locked in Capital Gain well in excess of CPI indexation.

Because the Australian Government has been involved in defrauding this disabled reclusive old man, this matter, and his being defrauded of his Commonwealth Disability Support Pension by Centrelink, will end up coram/before UN committees in Geneva pursuant to Australia's acceding to the UN's Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.   The Corrupt Australian Government and all parts of it involved in this widespread fraud should be greatly shamed and we will expose them.

The Queensland Court of Appeal, the highest court in Queensland, has recently spoken on this matter.  [It was written up in the Brisbane newspaper as "Talk of the Legal World".], However, there is far more to come.

RussellMathewsEmailSignatureDRA

Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA
International Disability Rights Advocate
invoking
UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
& UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
See my RESOUNDING VICTORY 20th July, 2010 in
Qld Court of Appeal

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

ex-Member of the Standing Committee of Convocation of
      The UNIVERSITY of QUEENSLAND
Ph: NONE:I've given TELSTRA the FLICK. Hooray![Just email me.]

linksforumworldrecession
Links to our FORUMS regarding the 21st Century World Recession, SURVIVING IT & PROSPERING.
  1. 21st Century World Recession
  2. Analysis of the 21st Century World Recession
  3. FULL detail of the Analysis of 21st Century World Recession
  4. How to SURVIVE the 21st Century World Recession, & PROSPER
  5. In detail: How to SURVIVE the 21st Century World Recession, & PROSPER.
  6. Looking for Work: Looking for a Job:
  7. How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY doing it!!
  8. FULL detail: How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY doing it!!
  9. FULL detail: How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY FINDING it, and REAL MONEY doing it!!
  10. FULL DETAIL: Looking for Work: Looking for a Job:
  11. Small Business Advisory FORUM
  12. Full Description, Small Business Advisory Forum.
I have addressed this way forward, depending upon one's predilection, based on one's past actions or inclinations: Income from working for an 'employer' or working in one's own business.

  1. Looking for Work: Looking for a Job: How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY doing it!!
  2. Small Business Advisory FORUM
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