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 1:


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, 24th 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.

includedMenuAnchorsDay1.php

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 24th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

This is a Menu of the anchors placed in the Transcript of Day 1.  It is effectively a Summary of the evidence and cross examination of the witness.  There was only one witnesses on this day.  It is one continuous file/page.  These anchors are in sequence.


  1. #StartOfDay1
  2. #MagistratePaulMKluckCheckedThatI_AmNotLegallyRepresented
  3. #MagistratesProfoundlyHateUnrepresentedDefendantsInCriminalMatters
  4. #ShaneHunterWantsToAmendCharge2ToRead2006Not2008ToAgreeWithBailDocuments
  5. #BeforeAnyEvidenceProducedKluckStatesWhatEvidenceWillBeProduced
  6. #KluckStatesThat I_HaveCopiesOfTheEvidence
  7. #Hunter Had Still Not Produced One Item Of Evidence
  8. #KluckStatesMyNotBeingLegallyRepresentedIsA_Problem
  9. #For Unrepresented Defendants Police Witnesses Must Give Evidence In Person In Witness Box
  10. #KluckSpeaksOfMyLittleDogsInTheBuildingAndTheCourt
  11. #AdditionOfTwoDocumentsToParticularsOfAllegedlyOffensiveDocuments

  1. #Call Brendan Scott Read
  2. #Brendan Read Currently An Advisor At KPMG_Forensic
  3. #BrendanReadAdvisedHeWasPreviouslyDetectiveSeniorConstableQueenslandPoliceService
  4. #BrendanReadWasCaseOfficerReTheseCharges
  5. #BrendanReadWasInTheComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  6. #AndHowDidYouFirstBecomeInvolvedInThisInvestigation
  7. #ReadMentionsSergeantBruceMathiouFromPetrie
  8. #BrendanReadThenPhonedJulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarner
  9. #BrendanReadViewedWebsitesInFebruary2009
  10. #BrendanReadViewedHaigReport.comSelfHelpJustice.comAndAustLawPublish.com
  11. #BrendanReadDescribesA_Website
  12. #BrendanReadDescribesA_WebServer
  13. #BrendanReadDescribesA_ToolCalledDNSstuff.com
  14. #BrendanReadStatesItTellsThePersonWhoHasRegisteredTheDomain
  15. #BrendanReadStatesItTellsTheDateOfCommencementRegistration
  16. #BrendanReadStatesChargeDatesAreRegistrationDates
  17. #BrendanReadStatesRussellMathewsIsNameOfPersonControllingWebsites
  18. #BrendanReadStatesItHadAnAddressHawkenDriveStLucia
  19. #BrendanReadExplainsIP_Address
  20. #BrendanReadContactedWebHostCalledHostForYourself
  21. #BrendanReadAskedWebHostCalledHostForYourselfToRemoveWebsites
  22. #WebHostCalledHostForYourselfRefusedToRemoveWebsites
  23. #WebHostCalledHostForYourselfAdvisedFreedomOfSpeechInvoked
  24. #Exhibit1EmailWithHostForYourself
  25. #BrendanReadAdvisedHeUsedHtTrackSoftwareToolOnMarch122009_20090312
  26. #ThereAreTwoDiscsToGetIntoEvidenceBeforeWeNeedToPlayAnyOfThem
  27. #Exhibit2DiscCreated12thMarch2009_20090312
  28. #InJuly2009BrendanReadReceivedEmailFromJulieDick
  29. #PoorJulieDickReportedAnotherWebSite
  30. #PoorJulieDickReportedWebSiteRe_exPolicePeterDutton
  31. #BrendanReadRecordedDownloadFourWebsites17thJuly2009_20090717
  32. #Exhibit3DiscCreatedByPoliceBrendanRead20090717
  33. #BrendanReadMadeEnquiriesIntoLocatingMyPlaceOfResidence
  34. #ObtainedA_CrimesActSearchWarrant
  35. #BrendanReadAttendedBrisbaneMagistratesCourtToHaveItEndorsed
  36. #Names Of Other Police Engaged In Criminal Accessory to Armed Robbery
  37. #Detective_Sergeant_Steven_Bignall
  38. #Detective_Senior_Constables_Gavin_Hackett
  39. #Detective_Senior_Constable_Dave_Graham
  40. #AudioRecordingsByBrendanRead
  41. #TranscriptsOfAudioRecordingsByBrendanReadReceivedAsExhibits
  42. #KluckBeratesMeForNotWastingMyTimeListeningToRecordings
  43. #KluckStatesHisViewThatProsecutionStatementsAreActualEvidence
  44. #MyEditorialCommentShaneHunterKnewTheIrrelevantNatureOfTheStatementsOfEvidenceAndSaidNOTHING
  45. #Exhibit4CD_OfAudioRecordingsAndTranscriptOfTheAudioRecodingsofThePoliceWhenStealingMyDisabilityAidsOfComputerAndCamera
  46. #BrendanReadAdvisesDetectiveSergeantSteveBignellWasPresentOnRaid
  47. #BrendanReadDescribesTheRaid
  48. #I_ObjectToHunterLeadingTheWitness
  49. #CorruptMagistrateKluckPermitsHuntersImproperConductToStand
  50. #BrendanReadFalselyStatesImagesOnMyComputerScreen
  51. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecording
  52. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecordingOnMobilePhone
  53. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecordingOnVideoCamera
  54. #BrendanReadListsMyItemsStolenByPolice
  55. #BrendanReadNamesSimonLodgeAsCulpable
  56. #CDPP_PlayExhibit3WhileShaneHunterSpeaksAsIfAskingCourtToPlayIt
  57. #BrendanReadWasAdvisedOfPreviousInvestigationOfMe
  58. #BrendanReadReviewedPreviousFileOnMe
  59. #I_RequireThatFileProducedAsWasBasisForSearchWarrant
  60. #BrendanReadStatedComplaintByHerHonourJudgeJulieDick
  61. #BrendanReadStatedComplaintByHerHonourJudgeJulieDickViaStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  62. #BrendanReadStatedLetterDraftedSentByDetectiveSuperintendentBrianHay
  63. #BrendanReadStatedLetterDraftedSentByDetectiveSuperintendentBrianHayToServersAustralia
  64. #KluckIgnoresMyProperObjectionToHunterLeadingHisWitness
  65. #Read States Re VERY_SIMILAR-CONTENT_but Not Know Any Domain Names
  66. #BrendanReadStatesJaredHirstOfServersAustraliaAdvisedHeWasPullingDownWebsites
  67. #BrendanReadStatesWebsitesSubsequentlyRemoved
  68. #ShaneHuntersCDPP_PlaysSelfHelpJustice.comCD
  69. #ButShaneHunterSpeaksAsIfTheCourtIsPlayingTheCD
  70. #ShaneHunterOfCDPP_ControlsTheCourt
  71. #BrendanReadReadsMyNameRussell_G_H_MathewsFromTheScreen
  72. #KluckPermitsHunterToHaveHisWitnessReadFromTheScreen
  73. #BrendanReadReportsA_PhotoOnHaigReport
  74. #HunterHasWitnessRead_exPoliceCopParasitePeterDutton
  75. #ParasitePeterDuttonRelevantToBrendanReadChargingMe
  76. #WordsOfProsecuteTheseCriminalsAndPickThePoofRelevantToReadChargingMe
  77. #BrendanReadWorkedPreviouslyAtIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  78. #BrendanReadKnewMonicaAntonyFromIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  79. #BrendanReadKnewHenriRantalaFromIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  80. #ReferenceToHenriRantalaBeingA_Dummy
  81. #ReferenceToBigA_ForAntony
  82. #BrendanReadDislikesReferences_CorruptCops_SwineFlu_PoliceAirWing_WhoSaidPigsWillFly
  83. #BrendanReadAskedToExplainGoogleYahooRatings
  84. #KluckFinallySuggestsToShaneHunter_ItMightBeBestToAskQuestionsNotLeadWitness
  85. #MagistrateKluckTellsShaneHunterHowToDoIt
  86. #MagistrateKluckTellsShaneHunterHowToDoItAndGivesHimAnExampleSoHeWillUnderstand
  87. #ShaneHunterDispelsAnyDoubtsForHisReasonForBeingInThePublicSector
  88. #MyCommentary
  89. #MoreOfMyCommentary
  90. #BrendanReidIndicatesThatWebsiteReferenceToHenriRantalaAsAnArmedRobber
  91. #BrendanReadRelatesHisEmailToWebHostOn7thFebruary2009
  92. #BrendanReadReAnotherDetectiveSeniorSergeantAnthonyKlausFromTheFraudSquad
  93. #ShaneHunterGoesToDocumentCalledJudgeJulieDickElectoralFraud
  94. #BrendanReadRelatesComplaintFromJulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarner
  95. #BrendanReadFluffsReasonSomePhotosAreBlank
  96. #AllegedRecordingsOfWebsitesByPoliceAreDefective
  97. #BrendanReadIdentifiesPhotoOfJohnDick_aka_CleverDick
  98. #CopperBrendanReadCallsCleverDickJohnDickA_BelligerentCretin
  99. #BrendanReadMakesReferenceToMichaelFrancisMellifont
  100. #BreakInProceedings
  101. #ReadStatesReferenceToMonicaAntonyAndHenriRantalaOnTheFourWebsites
  102. #BrendanReadNotesReferenceToCorruptMagistateWalterHarveyEhrichOnWebsites
  103. #BrendanReadReferencesTheRuse
  104. #BrisbaneCityCouncilsBrisbaneCityLegalPracticeSolicitorJoanneWhitingIsMentioned
  105. #CrossExaminationOfBrendanScottReadByRussellMathewsBegins
  106. #SearchWarrantGrantedToBrendanReadIsFirstTopicOfCrossExamination
  107. #ReTakeDownNoticeInBrendanReadsAffidavitForSearchWarrant
  108. #BrendanReadAdmitsHisAffidavitIsFictionAsKnowsNothingOfAffidavitTopics
  109. #PoliceAdmitThatPoliceAffidavitForSearchWarrantWasTotalFiction
  110. #BrendanReadAdmitsStatingHearsayEvidenceAsEyewitnessAccount
  111. #BrendanReadMakesFalseStatementofWhatTheWebsiteStates
  112. #BrendanReadReiteratesButCannotFindThatStatementOnAnyWebsite
  113. #BrendanReadShaneHunterMagistratePaulMKluckRepeatedlyTryToAvoidAnswering
  114. #BrendanReadMakesFalseStatementThatWebsitesSayComplainantJulieDickIsEngagedInFraud
  115. #AllThreeCrooksSayThatStatementIsThereButCannotFindIt
  116. #AfterRepeatedlySayingTheSitesMakeSpecificAllegationTheyHaveToGiveUp
  117. #PoliceDidNotAdviseWebHostOrAnyoneOfErrorToKeepPoorPeopleOnIceSoToChargeMe
  118. #QueenslandPoliceWantedToProtectTheirArmedRobbersHenriRantalaMonicaAntony
  119. #BrendanReadPretendsHeDoesNotUnderstandTheObvious
  120. #BrendanReadTriesToPlayDumb
  121. #MagistratePaulMKluckJoinsInTheFarceOfPlayingDumb
  122. http://HaigReport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100624Day1CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php
  123. #BrendanReadTriesToBeA_SmartA---
  124. #RatherThanAnswerQuestionsPutToBrendanReadHeAsksMoreDumbQuestions
  125. #ThisIsWhatKPMG_WantedtoWorkForThem
  126. #MagistratePaulMKluckPermittedBrendanReadToContinueThisContemptOfCourt
  127. #BrendanReadStartsToSpillTheBeansOnTheRealReasonForTheCorruptPoliceCrime
  128. #BrendanReadIdentifiesJudgeJulieDickAsPreviousComplainant
  129. #BrendanReadTellsObviousLieUnderOathInCrossExamination
  130. #BrendanReadTellsObviousLieThatNoErrorOfIdentity
  131. #BrendanReadContinuesToPrevaricate
  132. #BrendanReadShowsHeHasPoorGraspOfLogic
  133. #MagistrateKluckAttacksMeAndPermitsBrendanReadToContinueToEvadeTruth
  134. #KluckAttacksMeButPermitsCorruptCopToContinueToPrevaricate
  135. #RaiseTheSubjectOfLyingJodieCrawfordFromOfficeOfMHR_ExCopPeterDutton
  136. #HenriRantalaAdmitsThereIsNothingInSearchWarrantReHenriRantalaAndMonicaAntony
  137. #BrendanReadInvitedHenriRantalaAndMonicaAntonyToBePartOfChargesAlreadyLaid
  138. #DidBrendanReadInvestigateIfHenriRantalaDidCommitArmedRobbery
  139. #PoliceHadRehearsedTheirStoryReBCC_AuthorityToEnterHenriRantalaMonicaAntonyKeepThePeace
  140. #BrendanReadSaidHeUnderstoodThatTheBrisbaneCityCouncilHadAuthorityToEnter
  141. #ReadStatesHeSpokeToHenriRantalaAsToTheReasonTheyWereThereThen
  142. #NoteThePoliceRehearsedReasonNowForTheirPresenceIsToKEEP_THE-PEACE
  143. #AtLastKluckBeginsToRestrainBrendanReadWhoIsOutOfControlTreatingCourtAsA_Joke
  144. #BrendanReadTriesToPlayDucksAndDrakesAndPrevaricateWithMagistrate
  145. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeFailedToActProperlyAndFailedToInvestigate
  146. #BrendanReadReckonsHeInvestigatedReEntryOnlyByAskingRantalaButForgetsHisAnswer
  147. #KluckIsWrongToStateHeWillNotBeConsideringIfEntryForArmedRobbersIllegal
  148. #KluckForcedMeToStandWhileInPainFromStanding
  149. #KluckDeemsToPermitMySittingWhilereadingTheScreenOnTheDesk
  150. #MagistratePaulMKluckNotConcernedWithTheTruth
  151. #MyCommentsThatTruthIsImportantInThisCase
  152. #IsThisKluckAnIdiot
  153. #ThisIsAnotherLieByBrendanScottReadAsWebsiteHaigReportThenInEvidenceProvesIt
  154. #WhatDidMagistrateKluckThinkWouldBeHisAnswer
  155. #ThereIsNoOneSoBlindAsHeWhoWillNotOpenHisEyes
  156. #DiscussingForensicAndTechnicalEvidence
  157. #BreakForLunch
  158. #CourtResumesMoreStuffingAroundTilAllIsReadyToProceed
  159. #ShaneHunterWantsToGetExhibit3BackBecauseItWasReturnedToTheBench
  160. #ReferBrendanReadToMatterOfRuseInventedByBrisbaneCityCouncil
  161. #RobertWalkerOfCrimeAndMisconductCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  162. #JohnBritonLegalServicesCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  163. #ComplaintToLegalServicesCommissionReJoanneWhitingAndWayneTolton
  164. #SusanBarkerOfOfficeOfInformationCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  165. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeAsPoliceManCannotForceEntryIfNotAuthorizedByLaw
  166. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeReliedUponCrimeAndMisconductCommissionView
  167. #BrendanReadContactedMemberOfMyFamily
  168. #BrendanReadContactedNextOfKinForMeListedOnPoliceComputerRecords
  169. #BrendanReadHadEvidenceI_WasResidingAtTaigumWithTrevorHenryCroll
  170. #OntoTheSubjectJodieCrawfordFromPeterDuttonsOffice
  171. #BrendanReadPhonedDuttonsOfficeJodieCrawfordAnsweredThePhoneSpokeToHer
  172. #BrendanReadAskedJodieCrawfordReHerEmailOnWebsite
  173. #BrednadReadAdvisedSheDeniedSendingItSoThatWasPartOfReasonForChargingMe
  174. #BrendanReadDoesNotHaveA-StatementFromHerYet
  175. #BrendanReadSaysHeDidNotKnowPeterDuttonWasExPolice
  176. #BrendanReadReckonsHeDoesNOtKnowIfJodieCrawfordRelatedToPolice
  177. #ReJudgeJulieDickComplaint
  178. #BrendanReadHasNotSpokenToJudgeJulieDick
  179. #JudgeJulieDickIsNotGivingEvidence
  180. #BrendanReadKnowsOfTerenceJosephMellifontFromReadingTheseWebsitesOrSoHeSays
  181. #BrendanReadNotInComputerCrimeAtTimeOfPreviousComplaintByJulieDick
  182. #BrendanReadSoughtGuidanceFromCommonwealthDPPAsFirstTimeTheseChargesByRead
  183. #ThisWasFirstCommonwealthWarrantForBrendanRead
  184. #CDPP_AdviceWasOneChargePerDomainNameNotForEachPage
  185. #BrendanReadAgreedThatLikeDefamationToConsiderWholeDocumentAndPartsInContext
  186. #MagistratePaulMKluckTheKlutzDefersToShaneHunterWellThatMayBeOneOofTtheDiscsThatYouDidNotPlayMrHunter
  187. #ShaneHunterConfirmsHeIsInControlOfTheCourtAdvisesKluickTheKlutzWeWillHappilyBringItUpOnTheScreen
  188. #ShysterShaneHunterAdmitsToKluckTheKlutzThatHeShaneHunterNotTheCourtHasPossessionAndControlOfExhibit3
  189. #BrendanReadListsOffensiveManacingOrHarassingAspectsOfAustLawPublish.com
  190. #BrendanReadChargesExPoliceCopPeterParasiteDuttonAsOffensive
  191. #BrendanReadChargesJoeHockeyFascistCriminalCongressAsOffensive
  192. #BrendanReadChargesMonicaAntonyBigAforAntonyAsOffensive
  193. #BrendanReadCharges: 'CorruptCops: TalkAboutBeingTheButtOfHumour' AsOffensiveAndHarassing
  194. #As A_MatterOfLawTheChargesAreTheReasonablePersonTestA_QuestionOfFactNotOfLaw
  195. #ThereAreFurtherComplainantsFromJudgesAwaitingTheOutcomeOfTheseCharges
  196. #ShaneHunterCommonwealthDPPThinksHeWillMakeA_NameForHimselfSupportingQldCorruption
  197. #CopperBrendanReadAdmitsHeTookInstructionsFromShaneHuntersCommonwealthDirectorOfPublicProsecutions
  198. #BrendanReadDescribesTheExecutionOfTheSearchWarrantOn28thAugust2009
  199. #MagistratePaulMKluckNowBeginsToDisabilityDiscriminateAgainstMeGrossly
  200. #MagistrateKluckCannotCompareToWhatWouldBeMyNormalDemeanour
  201. #ToKluckTheCourtsTimeIsTooPreciousNotToAttemptToRailroadMeAsHeDoesRepeatedly
  202. #KluckAdmitsHeHasToEnsureI_GetA_FairHearing
  203. #KluckAsksIfI_CanManageMyPERMANENT_BrainDamageWithMedication
  204. #MagistratePaulMKlucksInfamousScandalousRidiculeOfMeAndMyDisability
  205. #So,  Have You Got Your Thoughts Back  Together Again, Mr Mathews


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, 24th 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.

includedMenuAnchorsDay1.php

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 24th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

This is a Menu of the anchors placed in the Transcript of Day 1.  It is effectively a Summary of the evidence and cross examination of the witness.  There was only one witnesses on this day.  It is one continuous file/page.  These anchors are in sequence.


  1. #StartOfDay1
  2. #MagistratePaulMKluckCheckedThatI_AmNotLegallyRepresented
  3. #MagistratesProfoundlyHateUnrepresentedDefendantsInCriminalMatters
  4. #ShaneHunterWantsToAmendCharge2ToRead2006Not2008ToAgreeWithBailDocuments
  5. #BeforeAnyEvidenceProducedKluckStatesWhatEvidenceWillBeProduced
  6. #KluckStatesThat I_HaveCopiesOfTheEvidence
  7. #Hunter Had Still Not Produced One Item Of Evidence
  8. #KluckStatesMyNotBeingLegallyRepresentedIsA_Problem
  9. #For Unrepresented Defendants Police Witnesses Must Give Evidence In Person In Witness Box
  10. #KluckSpeaksOfMyLittleDogsInTheBuildingAndTheCourt
  11. #AdditionOfTwoDocumentsToParticularsOfAllegedlyOffensiveDocuments

  1. #Call Brendan Scott Read
  2. #Brendan Read Currently An Advisor At KPMG_Forensic
  3. #BrendanReadAdvisedHeWasPreviouslyDetectiveSeniorConstableQueenslandPoliceService
  4. #BrendanReadWasCaseOfficerReTheseCharges
  5. #BrendanReadWasInTheComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  6. #AndHowDidYouFirstBecomeInvolvedInThisInvestigation
  7. #ReadMentionsSergeantBruceMathiouFromPetrie
  8. #BrendanReadThenPhonedJulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarner
  9. #BrendanReadViewedWebsitesInFebruary2009
  10. #BrendanReadViewedHaigReport.comSelfHelpJustice.comAndAustLawPublish.com
  11. #BrendanReadDescribesA_Website
  12. #BrendanReadDescribesA_WebServer
  13. #BrendanReadDescribesA_ToolCalledDNSstuff.com
  14. #BrendanReadStatesItTellsThePersonWhoHasRegisteredTheDomain
  15. #BrendanReadStatesItTellsTheDateOfCommencementRegistration
  16. #BrendanReadStatesChargeDatesAreRegistrationDates
  17. #BrendanReadStatesRussellMathewsIsNameOfPersonControllingWebsites
  18. #BrendanReadStatesItHadAnAddressHawkenDriveStLucia
  19. #BrendanReadExplainsIP_Address
  20. #BrendanReadContactedWebHostCalledHostForYourself
  21. #BrendanReadAskedWebHostCalledHostForYourselfToRemoveWebsites
  22. #WebHostCalledHostForYourselfRefusedToRemoveWebsites
  23. #WebHostCalledHostForYourselfAdvisedFreedomOfSpeechInvoked
  24. #Exhibit1EmailWithHostForYourself
  25. #BrendanReadAdvisedHeUsedHtTrackSoftwareToolOnMarch122009_20090312
  26. #ThereAreTwoDiscsToGetIntoEvidenceBeforeWeNeedToPlayAnyOfThem
  27. #Exhibit2DiscCreated12thMarch2009_20090312
  28. #InJuly2009BrendanReadReceivedEmailFromJulieDick
  29. #PoorJulieDickReportedAnotherWebSite
  30. #PoorJulieDickReportedWebSiteRe_exPolicePeterDutton
  31. #BrendanReadRecordedDownloadFourWebsites17thJuly2009_20090717
  32. #Exhibit3DiscCreatedByPoliceBrendanRead20090717
  33. #BrendanReadMadeEnquiriesIntoLocatingMyPlaceOfResidence
  34. #ObtainedA_CrimesActSearchWarrant
  35. #BrendanReadAttendedBrisbaneMagistratesCourtToHaveItEndorsed
  36. #Names Of Other Police Engaged In Criminal Accessory to Armed Robbery
  37. #Detective_Sergeant_Steven_Bignall
  38. #Detective_Senior_Constables_Gavin_Hackett
  39. #Detective_Senior_Constable_Dave_Graham
  40. #AudioRecordingsByBrendanRead
  41. #TranscriptsOfAudioRecordingsByBrendanReadReceivedAsExhibits
  42. #KluckBeratesMeForNotWastingMyTimeListeningToRecordings
  43. #KluckStatesHisViewThatProsecutionStatementsAreActualEvidence
  44. #MyEditorialCommentShaneHunterKnewTheIrrelevantNatureOfTheStatementsOfEvidenceAndSaidNOTHING
  45. #Exhibit4CD_OfAudioRecordingsAndTranscriptOfTheAudioRecodingsofThePoliceWhenStealingMyDisabilityAidsOfComputerAndCamera
  46. #BrendanReadAdvisesDetectiveSergeantSteveBignellWasPresentOnRaid
  47. #BrendanReadDescribesTheRaid
  48. #I_ObjectToHunterLeadingTheWitness
  49. #CorruptMagistrateKluckPermitsHuntersImproperConductToStand
  50. #BrendanReadFalselyStatesImagesOnMyComputerScreen
  51. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecording
  52. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecordingOnMobilePhone
  53. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecordingOnVideoCamera
  54. #BrendanReadListsMyItemsStolenByPolice
  55. #BrendanReadNamesSimonLodgeAsCulpable
  56. #CDPP_PlayExhibit3WhileShaneHunterSpeaksAsIfAskingCourtToPlayIt
  57. #BrendanReadWasAdvisedOfPreviousInvestigationOfMe
  58. #BrendanReadReviewedPreviousFileOnMe
  59. #I_RequireThatFileProducedAsWasBasisForSearchWarrant
  60. #BrendanReadStatedComplaintByHerHonourJudgeJulieDick
  61. #BrendanReadStatedComplaintByHerHonourJudgeJulieDickViaStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  62. #BrendanReadStatedLetterDraftedSentByDetectiveSuperintendentBrianHay
  63. #BrendanReadStatedLetterDraftedSentByDetectiveSuperintendentBrianHayToServersAustralia
  64. #KluckIgnoresMyProperObjectionToHunterLeadingHisWitness
  65. #Read States Re VERY_SIMILAR-CONTENT_but Not Know Any Domain Names
  66. #BrendanReadStatesJaredHirstOfServersAustraliaAdvisedHeWasPullingDownWebsites
  67. #BrendanReadStatesWebsitesSubsequentlyRemoved
  68. #ShaneHuntersCDPP_PlaysSelfHelpJustice.comCD
  69. #ButShaneHunterSpeaksAsIfTheCourtIsPlayingTheCD
  70. #ShaneHunterOfCDPP_ControlsTheCourt
  71. #BrendanReadReadsMyNameRussell_G_H_MathewsFromTheScreen
  72. #KluckPermitsHunterToHaveHisWitnessReadFromTheScreen
  73. #BrendanReadReportsA_PhotoOnHaigReport
  74. #HunterHasWitnessRead_exPoliceCopParasitePeterDutton
  75. #ParasitePeterDuttonRelevantToBrendanReadChargingMe
  76. #WordsOfProsecuteTheseCriminalsAndPickThePoofRelevantToReadChargingMe
  77. #BrendanReadWorkedPreviouslyAtIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  78. #BrendanReadKnewMonicaAntonyFromIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  79. #BrendanReadKnewHenriRantalaFromIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  80. #ReferenceToHenriRantalaBeingA_Dummy
  81. #ReferenceToBigA_ForAntony
  82. #BrendanReadDislikesReferences_CorruptCops_SwineFlu_PoliceAirWing_WhoSaidPigsWillFly
  83. #BrendanReadAskedToExplainGoogleYahooRatings
  84. #KluckFinallySuggestsToShaneHunter_ItMightBeBestToAskQuestionsNotLeadWitness
  85. #MagistrateKluckTellsShaneHunterHowToDoIt
  86. #MagistrateKluckTellsShaneHunterHowToDoItAndGivesHimAnExampleSoHeWillUnderstand
  87. #ShaneHunterDispelsAnyDoubtsForHisReasonForBeingInThePublicSector
  88. #MyCommentary
  89. #MoreOfMyCommentary
  90. #BrendanReidIndicatesThatWebsiteReferenceToHenriRantalaAsAnArmedRobber
  91. #BrendanReadRelatesHisEmailToWebHostOn7thFebruary2009
  92. #BrendanReadReAnotherDetectiveSeniorSergeantAnthonyKlausFromTheFraudSquad
  93. #ShaneHunterGoesToDocumentCalledJudgeJulieDickElectoralFraud
  94. #BrendanReadRelatesComplaintFromJulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarner
  95. #BrendanReadFluffsReasonSomePhotosAreBlank
  96. #AllegedRecordingsOfWebsitesByPoliceAreDefective
  97. #BrendanReadIdentifiesPhotoOfJohnDick_aka_CleverDick
  98. #CopperBrendanReadCallsCleverDickJohnDickA_BelligerentCretin
  99. #BrendanReadMakesReferenceToMichaelFrancisMellifont
  100. #BreakInProceedings
  101. #ReadStatesReferenceToMonicaAntonyAndHenriRantalaOnTheFourWebsites
  102. #BrendanReadNotesReferenceToCorruptMagistateWalterHarveyEhrichOnWebsites
  103. #BrendanReadReferencesTheRuse
  104. #BrisbaneCityCouncilsBrisbaneCityLegalPracticeSolicitorJoanneWhitingIsMentioned
  105. #CrossExaminationOfBrendanScottReadByRussellMathewsBegins
  106. #SearchWarrantGrantedToBrendanReadIsFirstTopicOfCrossExamination
  107. #ReTakeDownNoticeInBrendanReadsAffidavitForSearchWarrant
  108. #BrendanReadAdmitsHisAffidavitIsFictionAsKnowsNothingOfAffidavitTopics
  109. #PoliceAdmitThatPoliceAffidavitForSearchWarrantWasTotalFiction
  110. #BrendanReadAdmitsStatingHearsayEvidenceAsEyewitnessAccount
  111. #BrendanReadMakesFalseStatementofWhatTheWebsiteStates
  112. #BrendanReadReiteratesButCannotFindThatStatementOnAnyWebsite
  113. #BrendanReadShaneHunterMagistratePaulMKluckRepeatedlyTryToAvoidAnswering
  114. #BrendanReadMakesFalseStatementThatWebsitesSayComplainantJulieDickIsEngagedInFraud
  115. #AllThreeCrooksSayThatStatementIsThereButCannotFindIt
  116. #AfterRepeatedlySayingTheSitesMakeSpecificAllegationTheyHaveToGiveUp
  117. #PoliceDidNotAdviseWebHostOrAnyoneOfErrorToKeepPoorPeopleOnIceSoToChargeMe
  118. #QueenslandPoliceWantedToProtectTheirArmedRobbersHenriRantalaMonicaAntony
  119. #BrendanReadPretendsHeDoesNotUnderstandTheObvious
  120. #BrendanReadTriesToPlayDumb
  121. #MagistratePaulMKluckJoinsInTheFarceOfPlayingDumb
  122. http://HaigReport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100624Day1CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php
  123. #BrendanReadTriesToBeA_SmartA---
  124. #RatherThanAnswerQuestionsPutToBrendanReadHeAsksMoreDumbQuestions
  125. #ThisIsWhatKPMG_WantedtoWorkForThem
  126. #MagistratePaulMKluckPermittedBrendanReadToContinueThisContemptOfCourt
  127. #BrendanReadStartsToSpillTheBeansOnTheRealReasonForTheCorruptPoliceCrime
  128. #BrendanReadIdentifiesJudgeJulieDickAsPreviousComplainant
  129. #BrendanReadTellsObviousLieUnderOathInCrossExamination
  130. #BrendanReadTellsObviousLieThatNoErrorOfIdentity
  131. #BrendanReadContinuesToPrevaricate
  132. #BrendanReadShowsHeHasPoorGraspOfLogic
  133. #MagistrateKluckAttacksMeAndPermitsBrendanReadToContinueToEvadeTruth
  134. #KluckAttacksMeButPermitsCorruptCopToContinueToPrevaricate
  135. #RaiseTheSubjectOfLyingJodieCrawfordFromOfficeOfMHR_ExCopPeterDutton
  136. #HenriRantalaAdmitsThereIsNothingInSearchWarrantReHenriRantalaAndMonicaAntony
  137. #BrendanReadInvitedHenriRantalaAndMonicaAntonyToBePartOfChargesAlreadyLaid
  138. #DidBrendanReadInvestigateIfHenriRantalaDidCommitArmedRobbery
  139. #PoliceHadRehearsedTheirStoryReBCC_AuthorityToEnterHenriRantalaMonicaAntonyKeepThePeace
  140. #BrendanReadSaidHeUnderstoodThatTheBrisbaneCityCouncilHadAuthorityToEnter
  141. #ReadStatesHeSpokeToHenriRantalaAsToTheReasonTheyWereThereThen
  142. #NoteThePoliceRehearsedReasonNowForTheirPresenceIsToKEEP_THE-PEACE
  143. #AtLastKluckBeginsToRestrainBrendanReadWhoIsOutOfControlTreatingCourtAsA_Joke
  144. #BrendanReadTriesToPlayDucksAndDrakesAndPrevaricateWithMagistrate
  145. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeFailedToActProperlyAndFailedToInvestigate
  146. #BrendanReadReckonsHeInvestigatedReEntryOnlyByAskingRantalaButForgetsHisAnswer
  147. #KluckIsWrongToStateHeWillNotBeConsideringIfEntryForArmedRobbersIllegal
  148. #KluckForcedMeToStandWhileInPainFromStanding
  149. #KluckDeemsToPermitMySittingWhilereadingTheScreenOnTheDesk
  150. #MagistratePaulMKluckNotConcernedWithTheTruth
  151. #MyCommentsThatTruthIsImportantInThisCase
  152. #IsThisKluckAnIdiot
  153. #ThisIsAnotherLieByBrendanScottReadAsWebsiteHaigReportThenInEvidenceProvesIt
  154. #WhatDidMagistrateKluckThinkWouldBeHisAnswer
  155. #ThereIsNoOneSoBlindAsHeWhoWillNotOpenHisEyes
  156. #DiscussingForensicAndTechnicalEvidence
  157. #BreakForLunch
  158. #CourtResumesMoreStuffingAroundTilAllIsReadyToProceed
  159. #ShaneHunterWantsToGetExhibit3BackBecauseItWasReturnedToTheBench
  160. #ReferBrendanReadToMatterOfRuseInventedByBrisbaneCityCouncil
  161. #RobertWalkerOfCrimeAndMisconductCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  162. #JohnBritonLegalServicesCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  163. #ComplaintToLegalServicesCommissionReJoanneWhitingAndWayneTolton
  164. #SusanBarkerOfOfficeOfInformationCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  165. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeAsPoliceManCannotForceEntryIfNotAuthorizedByLaw
  166. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeReliedUponCrimeAndMisconductCommissionView
  167. #BrendanReadContactedMemberOfMyFamily
  168. #BrendanReadContactedNextOfKinForMeListedOnPoliceComputerRecords
  169. #BrendanReadHadEvidenceI_WasResidingAtTaigumWithTrevorHenryCroll
  170. #OntoTheSubjectJodieCrawfordFromPeterDuttonsOffice
  171. #BrendanReadPhonedDuttonsOfficeJodieCrawfordAnsweredThePhoneSpokeToHer
  172. #BrendanReadAskedJodieCrawfordReHerEmailOnWebsite
  173. #BrednadReadAdvisedSheDeniedSendingItSoThatWasPartOfReasonForChargingMe
  174. #BrendanReadDoesNotHaveA-StatementFromHerYet
  175. #BrendanReadSaysHeDidNotKnowPeterDuttonWasExPolice
  176. #BrendanReadReckonsHeDoesNOtKnowIfJodieCrawfordRelatedToPolice
  177. #ReJudgeJulieDickComplaint
  178. #BrendanReadHasNotSpokenToJudgeJulieDick
  179. #JudgeJulieDickIsNotGivingEvidence
  180. #BrendanReadKnowsOfTerenceJosephMellifontFromReadingTheseWebsitesOrSoHeSays
  181. #BrendanReadNotInComputerCrimeAtTimeOfPreviousComplaintByJulieDick
  182. #BrendanReadSoughtGuidanceFromCommonwealthDPPAsFirstTimeTheseChargesByRead
  183. #ThisWasFirstCommonwealthWarrantForBrendanRead
  184. #CDPP_AdviceWasOneChargePerDomainNameNotForEachPage
  185. #BrendanReadAgreedThatLikeDefamationToConsiderWholeDocumentAndPartsInContext
  186. #MagistratePaulMKluckTheKlutzDefersToShaneHunterWellThatMayBeOneOofTtheDiscsThatYouDidNotPlayMrHunter
  187. #ShaneHunterConfirmsHeIsInControlOfTheCourtAdvisesKluickTheKlutzWeWillHappilyBringItUpOnTheScreen
  188. #ShysterShaneHunterAdmitsToKluckTheKlutzThatHeShaneHunterNotTheCourtHasPossessionAndControlOfExhibit3
  189. #BrendanReadListsOffensiveManacingOrHarassingAspectsOfAustLawPublish.com
  190. #BrendanReadChargesExPoliceCopPeterParasiteDuttonAsOffensive
  191. #BrendanReadChargesJoeHockeyFascistCriminalCongressAsOffensive
  192. #BrendanReadChargesMonicaAntonyBigAforAntonyAsOffensive
  193. #BrendanReadCharges: 'CorruptCops: TalkAboutBeingTheButtOfHumour' AsOffensiveAndHarassing
  194. #As A_MatterOfLawTheChargesAreTheReasonablePersonTestA_QuestionOfFactNotOfLaw
  195. #ThereAreFurtherComplainantsFromJudgesAwaitingTheOutcomeOfTheseCharges
  196. #ShaneHunterCommonwealthDPPThinksHeWillMakeA_NameForHimselfSupportingQldCorruption
  197. #CopperBrendanReadAdmitsHeTookInstructionsFromShaneHuntersCommonwealthDirectorOfPublicProsecutions
  198. #BrendanReadDescribesTheExecutionOfTheSearchWarrantOn28thAugust2009
  199. #MagistratePaulMKluckNowBeginsToDisabilityDiscriminateAgainstMeGrossly
  200. #MagistrateKluckCannotCompareToWhatWouldBeMyNormalDemeanour
  201. #ToKluckTheCourtsTimeIsTooPreciousNotToAttemptToRailroadMeAsHeDoesRepeatedly
  202. #KluckAdmitsHeHasToEnsureI_GetA_FairHearing
  203. #KluckAsksIfI_CanManageMyPERMANENT_BrainDamageWithMedication
  204. #MagistratePaulMKlucksInfamousScandalousRidiculeOfMeAndMyDisability
  205. #So,  Have You Got Your Thoughts Back  Together Again, Mr Mathews



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, 24th 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.

includedMenuAnchorsDay1.php

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 24th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

This is a Menu of the anchors placed in the Transcript of Day 1.  It is effectively a Summary of the evidence and cross examination of the witness.  There was only one witnesses on this day.  It is one continuous file/page.  These anchors are in sequence.


  1. #StartOfDay1
  2. #MagistratePaulMKluckCheckedThatI_AmNotLegallyRepresented
  3. #MagistratesProfoundlyHateUnrepresentedDefendantsInCriminalMatters
  4. #ShaneHunterWantsToAmendCharge2ToRead2006Not2008ToAgreeWithBailDocuments
  5. #BeforeAnyEvidenceProducedKluckStatesWhatEvidenceWillBeProduced
  6. #KluckStatesThat I_HaveCopiesOfTheEvidence
  7. #Hunter Had Still Not Produced One Item Of Evidence
  8. #KluckStatesMyNotBeingLegallyRepresentedIsA_Problem
  9. #For Unrepresented Defendants Police Witnesses Must Give Evidence In Person In Witness Box
  10. #KluckSpeaksOfMyLittleDogsInTheBuildingAndTheCourt
  11. #AdditionOfTwoDocumentsToParticularsOfAllegedlyOffensiveDocuments

  1. #Call Brendan Scott Read
  2. #Brendan Read Currently An Advisor At KPMG_Forensic
  3. #BrendanReadAdvisedHeWasPreviouslyDetectiveSeniorConstableQueenslandPoliceService
  4. #BrendanReadWasCaseOfficerReTheseCharges
  5. #BrendanReadWasInTheComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  6. #AndHowDidYouFirstBecomeInvolvedInThisInvestigation
  7. #ReadMentionsSergeantBruceMathiouFromPetrie
  8. #BrendanReadThenPhonedJulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarner
  9. #BrendanReadViewedWebsitesInFebruary2009
  10. #BrendanReadViewedHaigReport.comSelfHelpJustice.comAndAustLawPublish.com
  11. #BrendanReadDescribesA_Website
  12. #BrendanReadDescribesA_WebServer
  13. #BrendanReadDescribesA_ToolCalledDNSstuff.com
  14. #BrendanReadStatesItTellsThePersonWhoHasRegisteredTheDomain
  15. #BrendanReadStatesItTellsTheDateOfCommencementRegistration
  16. #BrendanReadStatesChargeDatesAreRegistrationDates
  17. #BrendanReadStatesRussellMathewsIsNameOfPersonControllingWebsites
  18. #BrendanReadStatesItHadAnAddressHawkenDriveStLucia
  19. #BrendanReadExplainsIP_Address
  20. #BrendanReadContactedWebHostCalledHostForYourself
  21. #BrendanReadAskedWebHostCalledHostForYourselfToRemoveWebsites
  22. #WebHostCalledHostForYourselfRefusedToRemoveWebsites
  23. #WebHostCalledHostForYourselfAdvisedFreedomOfSpeechInvoked
  24. #Exhibit1EmailWithHostForYourself
  25. #BrendanReadAdvisedHeUsedHtTrackSoftwareToolOnMarch122009_20090312
  26. #ThereAreTwoDiscsToGetIntoEvidenceBeforeWeNeedToPlayAnyOfThem
  27. #Exhibit2DiscCreated12thMarch2009_20090312
  28. #InJuly2009BrendanReadReceivedEmailFromJulieDick
  29. #PoorJulieDickReportedAnotherWebSite
  30. #PoorJulieDickReportedWebSiteRe_exPolicePeterDutton
  31. #BrendanReadRecordedDownloadFourWebsites17thJuly2009_20090717
  32. #Exhibit3DiscCreatedByPoliceBrendanRead20090717
  33. #BrendanReadMadeEnquiriesIntoLocatingMyPlaceOfResidence
  34. #ObtainedA_CrimesActSearchWarrant
  35. #BrendanReadAttendedBrisbaneMagistratesCourtToHaveItEndorsed
  36. #Names Of Other Police Engaged In Criminal Accessory to Armed Robbery
  37. #Detective_Sergeant_Steven_Bignall
  38. #Detective_Senior_Constables_Gavin_Hackett
  39. #Detective_Senior_Constable_Dave_Graham
  40. #AudioRecordingsByBrendanRead
  41. #TranscriptsOfAudioRecordingsByBrendanReadReceivedAsExhibits
  42. #KluckBeratesMeForNotWastingMyTimeListeningToRecordings
  43. #KluckStatesHisViewThatProsecutionStatementsAreActualEvidence
  44. #MyEditorialCommentShaneHunterKnewTheIrrelevantNatureOfTheStatementsOfEvidenceAndSaidNOTHING
  45. #Exhibit4CD_OfAudioRecordingsAndTranscriptOfTheAudioRecodingsofThePoliceWhenStealingMyDisabilityAidsOfComputerAndCamera
  46. #BrendanReadAdvisesDetectiveSergeantSteveBignellWasPresentOnRaid
  47. #BrendanReadDescribesTheRaid
  48. #I_ObjectToHunterLeadingTheWitness
  49. #CorruptMagistrateKluckPermitsHuntersImproperConductToStand
  50. #BrendanReadFalselyStatesImagesOnMyComputerScreen
  51. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecording
  52. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecordingOnMobilePhone
  53. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecordingOnVideoCamera
  54. #BrendanReadListsMyItemsStolenByPolice
  55. #BrendanReadNamesSimonLodgeAsCulpable
  56. #CDPP_PlayExhibit3WhileShaneHunterSpeaksAsIfAskingCourtToPlayIt
  57. #BrendanReadWasAdvisedOfPreviousInvestigationOfMe
  58. #BrendanReadReviewedPreviousFileOnMe
  59. #I_RequireThatFileProducedAsWasBasisForSearchWarrant
  60. #BrendanReadStatedComplaintByHerHonourJudgeJulieDick
  61. #BrendanReadStatedComplaintByHerHonourJudgeJulieDickViaStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  62. #BrendanReadStatedLetterDraftedSentByDetectiveSuperintendentBrianHay
  63. #BrendanReadStatedLetterDraftedSentByDetectiveSuperintendentBrianHayToServersAustralia
  64. #KluckIgnoresMyProperObjectionToHunterLeadingHisWitness
  65. #Read States Re VERY_SIMILAR-CONTENT_but Not Know Any Domain Names
  66. #BrendanReadStatesJaredHirstOfServersAustraliaAdvisedHeWasPullingDownWebsites
  67. #BrendanReadStatesWebsitesSubsequentlyRemoved
  68. #ShaneHuntersCDPP_PlaysSelfHelpJustice.comCD
  69. #ButShaneHunterSpeaksAsIfTheCourtIsPlayingTheCD
  70. #ShaneHunterOfCDPP_ControlsTheCourt
  71. #BrendanReadReadsMyNameRussell_G_H_MathewsFromTheScreen
  72. #KluckPermitsHunterToHaveHisWitnessReadFromTheScreen
  73. #BrendanReadReportsA_PhotoOnHaigReport
  74. #HunterHasWitnessRead_exPoliceCopParasitePeterDutton
  75. #ParasitePeterDuttonRelevantToBrendanReadChargingMe
  76. #WordsOfProsecuteTheseCriminalsAndPickThePoofRelevantToReadChargingMe
  77. #BrendanReadWorkedPreviouslyAtIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  78. #BrendanReadKnewMonicaAntonyFromIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  79. #BrendanReadKnewHenriRantalaFromIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  80. #ReferenceToHenriRantalaBeingA_Dummy
  81. #ReferenceToBigA_ForAntony
  82. #BrendanReadDislikesReferences_CorruptCops_SwineFlu_PoliceAirWing_WhoSaidPigsWillFly
  83. #BrendanReadAskedToExplainGoogleYahooRatings
  84. #KluckFinallySuggestsToShaneHunter_ItMightBeBestToAskQuestionsNotLeadWitness
  85. #MagistrateKluckTellsShaneHunterHowToDoIt
  86. #MagistrateKluckTellsShaneHunterHowToDoItAndGivesHimAnExampleSoHeWillUnderstand
  87. #ShaneHunterDispelsAnyDoubtsForHisReasonForBeingInThePublicSector
  88. #MyCommentary
  89. #MoreOfMyCommentary
  90. #BrendanReidIndicatesThatWebsiteReferenceToHenriRantalaAsAnArmedRobber
  91. #BrendanReadRelatesHisEmailToWebHostOn7thFebruary2009
  92. #BrendanReadReAnotherDetectiveSeniorSergeantAnthonyKlausFromTheFraudSquad
  93. #ShaneHunterGoesToDocumentCalledJudgeJulieDickElectoralFraud
  94. #BrendanReadRelatesComplaintFromJulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarner
  95. #BrendanReadFluffsReasonSomePhotosAreBlank
  96. #AllegedRecordingsOfWebsitesByPoliceAreDefective
  97. #BrendanReadIdentifiesPhotoOfJohnDick_aka_CleverDick
  98. #CopperBrendanReadCallsCleverDickJohnDickA_BelligerentCretin
  99. #BrendanReadMakesReferenceToMichaelFrancisMellifont
  100. #BreakInProceedings
  101. #ReadStatesReferenceToMonicaAntonyAndHenriRantalaOnTheFourWebsites
  102. #BrendanReadNotesReferenceToCorruptMagistateWalterHarveyEhrichOnWebsites
  103. #BrendanReadReferencesTheRuse
  104. #BrisbaneCityCouncilsBrisbaneCityLegalPracticeSolicitorJoanneWhitingIsMentioned
  105. #CrossExaminationOfBrendanScottReadByRussellMathewsBegins
  106. #SearchWarrantGrantedToBrendanReadIsFirstTopicOfCrossExamination
  107. #ReTakeDownNoticeInBrendanReadsAffidavitForSearchWarrant
  108. #BrendanReadAdmitsHisAffidavitIsFictionAsKnowsNothingOfAffidavitTopics
  109. #PoliceAdmitThatPoliceAffidavitForSearchWarrantWasTotalFiction
  110. #BrendanReadAdmitsStatingHearsayEvidenceAsEyewitnessAccount
  111. #BrendanReadMakesFalseStatementofWhatTheWebsiteStates
  112. #BrendanReadReiteratesButCannotFindThatStatementOnAnyWebsite
  113. #BrendanReadShaneHunterMagistratePaulMKluckRepeatedlyTryToAvoidAnswering
  114. #BrendanReadMakesFalseStatementThatWebsitesSayComplainantJulieDickIsEngagedInFraud
  115. #AllThreeCrooksSayThatStatementIsThereButCannotFindIt
  116. #AfterRepeatedlySayingTheSitesMakeSpecificAllegationTheyHaveToGiveUp
  117. #PoliceDidNotAdviseWebHostOrAnyoneOfErrorToKeepPoorPeopleOnIceSoToChargeMe
  118. #QueenslandPoliceWantedToProtectTheirArmedRobbersHenriRantalaMonicaAntony
  119. #BrendanReadPretendsHeDoesNotUnderstandTheObvious
  120. #BrendanReadTriesToPlayDumb
  121. #MagistratePaulMKluckJoinsInTheFarceOfPlayingDumb
  122. http://HaigReport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100624Day1CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php
  123. #BrendanReadTriesToBeA_SmartA---
  124. #RatherThanAnswerQuestionsPutToBrendanReadHeAsksMoreDumbQuestions
  125. #ThisIsWhatKPMG_WantedtoWorkForThem
  126. #MagistratePaulMKluckPermittedBrendanReadToContinueThisContemptOfCourt
  127. #BrendanReadStartsToSpillTheBeansOnTheRealReasonForTheCorruptPoliceCrime
  128. #BrendanReadIdentifiesJudgeJulieDickAsPreviousComplainant
  129. #BrendanReadTellsObviousLieUnderOathInCrossExamination
  130. #BrendanReadTellsObviousLieThatNoErrorOfIdentity
  131. #BrendanReadContinuesToPrevaricate
  132. #BrendanReadShowsHeHasPoorGraspOfLogic
  133. #MagistrateKluckAttacksMeAndPermitsBrendanReadToContinueToEvadeTruth
  134. #KluckAttacksMeButPermitsCorruptCopToContinueToPrevaricate
  135. #RaiseTheSubjectOfLyingJodieCrawfordFromOfficeOfMHR_ExCopPeterDutton
  136. #HenriRantalaAdmitsThereIsNothingInSearchWarrantReHenriRantalaAndMonicaAntony
  137. #BrendanReadInvitedHenriRantalaAndMonicaAntonyToBePartOfChargesAlreadyLaid
  138. #DidBrendanReadInvestigateIfHenriRantalaDidCommitArmedRobbery
  139. #PoliceHadRehearsedTheirStoryReBCC_AuthorityToEnterHenriRantalaMonicaAntonyKeepThePeace
  140. #BrendanReadSaidHeUnderstoodThatTheBrisbaneCityCouncilHadAuthorityToEnter
  141. #ReadStatesHeSpokeToHenriRantalaAsToTheReasonTheyWereThereThen
  142. #NoteThePoliceRehearsedReasonNowForTheirPresenceIsToKEEP_THE-PEACE
  143. #AtLastKluckBeginsToRestrainBrendanReadWhoIsOutOfControlTreatingCourtAsA_Joke
  144. #BrendanReadTriesToPlayDucksAndDrakesAndPrevaricateWithMagistrate
  145. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeFailedToActProperlyAndFailedToInvestigate
  146. #BrendanReadReckonsHeInvestigatedReEntryOnlyByAskingRantalaButForgetsHisAnswer
  147. #KluckIsWrongToStateHeWillNotBeConsideringIfEntryForArmedRobbersIllegal
  148. #KluckForcedMeToStandWhileInPainFromStanding
  149. #KluckDeemsToPermitMySittingWhilereadingTheScreenOnTheDesk
  150. #MagistratePaulMKluckNotConcernedWithTheTruth
  151. #MyCommentsThatTruthIsImportantInThisCase
  152. #IsThisKluckAnIdiot
  153. #ThisIsAnotherLieByBrendanScottReadAsWebsiteHaigReportThenInEvidenceProvesIt
  154. #WhatDidMagistrateKluckThinkWouldBeHisAnswer
  155. #ThereIsNoOneSoBlindAsHeWhoWillNotOpenHisEyes
  156. #DiscussingForensicAndTechnicalEvidence
  157. #BreakForLunch
  158. #CourtResumesMoreStuffingAroundTilAllIsReadyToProceed
  159. #ShaneHunterWantsToGetExhibit3BackBecauseItWasReturnedToTheBench
  160. #ReferBrendanReadToMatterOfRuseInventedByBrisbaneCityCouncil
  161. #RobertWalkerOfCrimeAndMisconductCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  162. #JohnBritonLegalServicesCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  163. #ComplaintToLegalServicesCommissionReJoanneWhitingAndWayneTolton
  164. #SusanBarkerOfOfficeOfInformationCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  165. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeAsPoliceManCannotForceEntryIfNotAuthorizedByLaw
  166. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeReliedUponCrimeAndMisconductCommissionView
  167. #BrendanReadContactedMemberOfMyFamily
  168. #BrendanReadContactedNextOfKinForMeListedOnPoliceComputerRecords
  169. #BrendanReadHadEvidenceI_WasResidingAtTaigumWithTrevorHenryCroll
  170. #OntoTheSubjectJodieCrawfordFromPeterDuttonsOffice
  171. #BrendanReadPhonedDuttonsOfficeJodieCrawfordAnsweredThePhoneSpokeToHer
  172. #BrendanReadAskedJodieCrawfordReHerEmailOnWebsite
  173. #BrednadReadAdvisedSheDeniedSendingItSoThatWasPartOfReasonForChargingMe
  174. #BrendanReadDoesNotHaveA-StatementFromHerYet
  175. #BrendanReadSaysHeDidNotKnowPeterDuttonWasExPolice
  176. #BrendanReadReckonsHeDoesNOtKnowIfJodieCrawfordRelatedToPolice
  177. #ReJudgeJulieDickComplaint
  178. #BrendanReadHasNotSpokenToJudgeJulieDick
  179. #JudgeJulieDickIsNotGivingEvidence
  180. #BrendanReadKnowsOfTerenceJosephMellifontFromReadingTheseWebsitesOrSoHeSays
  181. #BrendanReadNotInComputerCrimeAtTimeOfPreviousComplaintByJulieDick
  182. #BrendanReadSoughtGuidanceFromCommonwealthDPPAsFirstTimeTheseChargesByRead
  183. #ThisWasFirstCommonwealthWarrantForBrendanRead
  184. #CDPP_AdviceWasOneChargePerDomainNameNotForEachPage
  185. #BrendanReadAgreedThatLikeDefamationToConsiderWholeDocumentAndPartsInContext
  186. #MagistratePaulMKluckTheKlutzDefersToShaneHunterWellThatMayBeOneOofTtheDiscsThatYouDidNotPlayMrHunter
  187. #ShaneHunterConfirmsHeIsInControlOfTheCourtAdvisesKluickTheKlutzWeWillHappilyBringItUpOnTheScreen
  188. #ShysterShaneHunterAdmitsToKluckTheKlutzThatHeShaneHunterNotTheCourtHasPossessionAndControlOfExhibit3
  189. #BrendanReadListsOffensiveManacingOrHarassingAspectsOfAustLawPublish.com
  190. #BrendanReadChargesExPoliceCopPeterParasiteDuttonAsOffensive
  191. #BrendanReadChargesJoeHockeyFascistCriminalCongressAsOffensive
  192. #BrendanReadChargesMonicaAntonyBigAforAntonyAsOffensive
  193. #BrendanReadCharges: 'CorruptCops: TalkAboutBeingTheButtOfHumour' AsOffensiveAndHarassing
  194. #As A_MatterOfLawTheChargesAreTheReasonablePersonTestA_QuestionOfFactNotOfLaw
  195. #ThereAreFurtherComplainantsFromJudgesAwaitingTheOutcomeOfTheseCharges
  196. #ShaneHunterCommonwealthDPPThinksHeWillMakeA_NameForHimselfSupportingQldCorruption
  197. #CopperBrendanReadAdmitsHeTookInstructionsFromShaneHuntersCommonwealthDirectorOfPublicProsecutions
  198. #BrendanReadDescribesTheExecutionOfTheSearchWarrantOn28thAugust2009
  199. #MagistratePaulMKluckNowBeginsToDisabilityDiscriminateAgainstMeGrossly
  200. #MagistrateKluckCannotCompareToWhatWouldBeMyNormalDemeanour
  201. #ToKluckTheCourtsTimeIsTooPreciousNotToAttemptToRailroadMeAsHeDoesRepeatedly
  202. #KluckAdmitsHeHasToEnsureI_GetA_FairHearing
  203. #KluckAsksIfI_CanManageMyPERMANENT_BrainDamageWithMedication
  204. #MagistratePaulMKlucksInfamousScandalousRidiculeOfMeAndMyDisability
  205. #So,  Have You Got Your Thoughts Back  Together Again, Mr Mathews


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, 24th 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.

includedMenuAnchorsDay1.php

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 24th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

This is a Menu of the anchors placed in the Transcript of Day 1.  It is effectively a Summary of the evidence and cross examination of the witness.  There was only one witnesses on this day.  It is one continuous file/page.  These anchors are in sequence.


  1. #StartOfDay1
  2. #MagistratePaulMKluckCheckedThatI_AmNotLegallyRepresented
  3. #MagistratesProfoundlyHateUnrepresentedDefendantsInCriminalMatters
  4. #ShaneHunterWantsToAmendCharge2ToRead2006Not2008ToAgreeWithBailDocuments
  5. #BeforeAnyEvidenceProducedKluckStatesWhatEvidenceWillBeProduced
  6. #KluckStatesThat I_HaveCopiesOfTheEvidence
  7. #Hunter Had Still Not Produced One Item Of Evidence
  8. #KluckStatesMyNotBeingLegallyRepresentedIsA_Problem
  9. #For Unrepresented Defendants Police Witnesses Must Give Evidence In Person In Witness Box
  10. #KluckSpeaksOfMyLittleDogsInTheBuildingAndTheCourt
  11. #AdditionOfTwoDocumentsToParticularsOfAllegedlyOffensiveDocuments

  1. #Call Brendan Scott Read
  2. #Brendan Read Currently An Advisor At KPMG_Forensic
  3. #BrendanReadAdvisedHeWasPreviouslyDetectiveSeniorConstableQueenslandPoliceService
  4. #BrendanReadWasCaseOfficerReTheseCharges
  5. #BrendanReadWasInTheComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  6. #AndHowDidYouFirstBecomeInvolvedInThisInvestigation
  7. #ReadMentionsSergeantBruceMathiouFromPetrie
  8. #BrendanReadThenPhonedJulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarner
  9. #BrendanReadViewedWebsitesInFebruary2009
  10. #BrendanReadViewedHaigReport.comSelfHelpJustice.comAndAustLawPublish.com
  11. #BrendanReadDescribesA_Website
  12. #BrendanReadDescribesA_WebServer
  13. #BrendanReadDescribesA_ToolCalledDNSstuff.com
  14. #BrendanReadStatesItTellsThePersonWhoHasRegisteredTheDomain
  15. #BrendanReadStatesItTellsTheDateOfCommencementRegistration
  16. #BrendanReadStatesChargeDatesAreRegistrationDates
  17. #BrendanReadStatesRussellMathewsIsNameOfPersonControllingWebsites
  18. #BrendanReadStatesItHadAnAddressHawkenDriveStLucia
  19. #BrendanReadExplainsIP_Address
  20. #BrendanReadContactedWebHostCalledHostForYourself
  21. #BrendanReadAskedWebHostCalledHostForYourselfToRemoveWebsites
  22. #WebHostCalledHostForYourselfRefusedToRemoveWebsites
  23. #WebHostCalledHostForYourselfAdvisedFreedomOfSpeechInvoked
  24. #Exhibit1EmailWithHostForYourself
  25. #BrendanReadAdvisedHeUsedHtTrackSoftwareToolOnMarch122009_20090312
  26. #ThereAreTwoDiscsToGetIntoEvidenceBeforeWeNeedToPlayAnyOfThem
  27. #Exhibit2DiscCreated12thMarch2009_20090312
  28. #InJuly2009BrendanReadReceivedEmailFromJulieDick
  29. #PoorJulieDickReportedAnotherWebSite
  30. #PoorJulieDickReportedWebSiteRe_exPolicePeterDutton
  31. #BrendanReadRecordedDownloadFourWebsites17thJuly2009_20090717
  32. #Exhibit3DiscCreatedByPoliceBrendanRead20090717
  33. #BrendanReadMadeEnquiriesIntoLocatingMyPlaceOfResidence
  34. #ObtainedA_CrimesActSearchWarrant
  35. #BrendanReadAttendedBrisbaneMagistratesCourtToHaveItEndorsed
  36. #Names Of Other Police Engaged In Criminal Accessory to Armed Robbery
  37. #Detective_Sergeant_Steven_Bignall
  38. #Detective_Senior_Constables_Gavin_Hackett
  39. #Detective_Senior_Constable_Dave_Graham
  40. #AudioRecordingsByBrendanRead
  41. #TranscriptsOfAudioRecordingsByBrendanReadReceivedAsExhibits
  42. #KluckBeratesMeForNotWastingMyTimeListeningToRecordings
  43. #KluckStatesHisViewThatProsecutionStatementsAreActualEvidence
  44. #MyEditorialCommentShaneHunterKnewTheIrrelevantNatureOfTheStatementsOfEvidenceAndSaidNOTHING
  45. #Exhibit4CD_OfAudioRecordingsAndTranscriptOfTheAudioRecodingsofThePoliceWhenStealingMyDisabilityAidsOfComputerAndCamera
  46. #BrendanReadAdvisesDetectiveSergeantSteveBignellWasPresentOnRaid
  47. #BrendanReadDescribesTheRaid
  48. #I_ObjectToHunterLeadingTheWitness
  49. #CorruptMagistrateKluckPermitsHuntersImproperConductToStand
  50. #BrendanReadFalselyStatesImagesOnMyComputerScreen
  51. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecording
  52. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecordingOnMobilePhone
  53. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecordingOnVideoCamera
  54. #BrendanReadListsMyItemsStolenByPolice
  55. #BrendanReadNamesSimonLodgeAsCulpable
  56. #CDPP_PlayExhibit3WhileShaneHunterSpeaksAsIfAskingCourtToPlayIt
  57. #BrendanReadWasAdvisedOfPreviousInvestigationOfMe
  58. #BrendanReadReviewedPreviousFileOnMe
  59. #I_RequireThatFileProducedAsWasBasisForSearchWarrant
  60. #BrendanReadStatedComplaintByHerHonourJudgeJulieDick
  61. #BrendanReadStatedComplaintByHerHonourJudgeJulieDickViaStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  62. #BrendanReadStatedLetterDraftedSentByDetectiveSuperintendentBrianHay
  63. #BrendanReadStatedLetterDraftedSentByDetectiveSuperintendentBrianHayToServersAustralia
  64. #KluckIgnoresMyProperObjectionToHunterLeadingHisWitness
  65. #Read States Re VERY_SIMILAR-CONTENT_but Not Know Any Domain Names
  66. #BrendanReadStatesJaredHirstOfServersAustraliaAdvisedHeWasPullingDownWebsites
  67. #BrendanReadStatesWebsitesSubsequentlyRemoved
  68. #ShaneHuntersCDPP_PlaysSelfHelpJustice.comCD
  69. #ButShaneHunterSpeaksAsIfTheCourtIsPlayingTheCD
  70. #ShaneHunterOfCDPP_ControlsTheCourt
  71. #BrendanReadReadsMyNameRussell_G_H_MathewsFromTheScreen
  72. #KluckPermitsHunterToHaveHisWitnessReadFromTheScreen
  73. #BrendanReadReportsA_PhotoOnHaigReport
  74. #HunterHasWitnessRead_exPoliceCopParasitePeterDutton
  75. #ParasitePeterDuttonRelevantToBrendanReadChargingMe
  76. #WordsOfProsecuteTheseCriminalsAndPickThePoofRelevantToReadChargingMe
  77. #BrendanReadWorkedPreviouslyAtIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  78. #BrendanReadKnewMonicaAntonyFromIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  79. #BrendanReadKnewHenriRantalaFromIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  80. #ReferenceToHenriRantalaBeingA_Dummy
  81. #ReferenceToBigA_ForAntony
  82. #BrendanReadDislikesReferences_CorruptCops_SwineFlu_PoliceAirWing_WhoSaidPigsWillFly
  83. #BrendanReadAskedToExplainGoogleYahooRatings
  84. #KluckFinallySuggestsToShaneHunter_ItMightBeBestToAskQuestionsNotLeadWitness
  85. #MagistrateKluckTellsShaneHunterHowToDoIt
  86. #MagistrateKluckTellsShaneHunterHowToDoItAndGivesHimAnExampleSoHeWillUnderstand
  87. #ShaneHunterDispelsAnyDoubtsForHisReasonForBeingInThePublicSector
  88. #MyCommentary
  89. #MoreOfMyCommentary
  90. #BrendanReidIndicatesThatWebsiteReferenceToHenriRantalaAsAnArmedRobber
  91. #BrendanReadRelatesHisEmailToWebHostOn7thFebruary2009
  92. #BrendanReadReAnotherDetectiveSeniorSergeantAnthonyKlausFromTheFraudSquad
  93. #ShaneHunterGoesToDocumentCalledJudgeJulieDickElectoralFraud
  94. #BrendanReadRelatesComplaintFromJulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarner
  95. #BrendanReadFluffsReasonSomePhotosAreBlank
  96. #AllegedRecordingsOfWebsitesByPoliceAreDefective
  97. #BrendanReadIdentifiesPhotoOfJohnDick_aka_CleverDick
  98. #CopperBrendanReadCallsCleverDickJohnDickA_BelligerentCretin
  99. #BrendanReadMakesReferenceToMichaelFrancisMellifont
  100. #BreakInProceedings
  101. #ReadStatesReferenceToMonicaAntonyAndHenriRantalaOnTheFourWebsites
  102. #BrendanReadNotesReferenceToCorruptMagistateWalterHarveyEhrichOnWebsites
  103. #BrendanReadReferencesTheRuse
  104. #BrisbaneCityCouncilsBrisbaneCityLegalPracticeSolicitorJoanneWhitingIsMentioned
  105. #CrossExaminationOfBrendanScottReadByRussellMathewsBegins
  106. #SearchWarrantGrantedToBrendanReadIsFirstTopicOfCrossExamination
  107. #ReTakeDownNoticeInBrendanReadsAffidavitForSearchWarrant
  108. #BrendanReadAdmitsHisAffidavitIsFictionAsKnowsNothingOfAffidavitTopics
  109. #PoliceAdmitThatPoliceAffidavitForSearchWarrantWasTotalFiction
  110. #BrendanReadAdmitsStatingHearsayEvidenceAsEyewitnessAccount
  111. #BrendanReadMakesFalseStatementofWhatTheWebsiteStates
  112. #BrendanReadReiteratesButCannotFindThatStatementOnAnyWebsite
  113. #BrendanReadShaneHunterMagistratePaulMKluckRepeatedlyTryToAvoidAnswering
  114. #BrendanReadMakesFalseStatementThatWebsitesSayComplainantJulieDickIsEngagedInFraud
  115. #AllThreeCrooksSayThatStatementIsThereButCannotFindIt
  116. #AfterRepeatedlySayingTheSitesMakeSpecificAllegationTheyHaveToGiveUp
  117. #PoliceDidNotAdviseWebHostOrAnyoneOfErrorToKeepPoorPeopleOnIceSoToChargeMe
  118. #QueenslandPoliceWantedToProtectTheirArmedRobbersHenriRantalaMonicaAntony
  119. #BrendanReadPretendsHeDoesNotUnderstandTheObvious
  120. #BrendanReadTriesToPlayDumb
  121. #MagistratePaulMKluckJoinsInTheFarceOfPlayingDumb
  122. http://HaigReport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100624Day1CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php
  123. #BrendanReadTriesToBeA_SmartA---
  124. #RatherThanAnswerQuestionsPutToBrendanReadHeAsksMoreDumbQuestions
  125. #ThisIsWhatKPMG_WantedtoWorkForThem
  126. #MagistratePaulMKluckPermittedBrendanReadToContinueThisContemptOfCourt
  127. #BrendanReadStartsToSpillTheBeansOnTheRealReasonForTheCorruptPoliceCrime
  128. #BrendanReadIdentifiesJudgeJulieDickAsPreviousComplainant
  129. #BrendanReadTellsObviousLieUnderOathInCrossExamination
  130. #BrendanReadTellsObviousLieThatNoErrorOfIdentity
  131. #BrendanReadContinuesToPrevaricate
  132. #BrendanReadShowsHeHasPoorGraspOfLogic
  133. #MagistrateKluckAttacksMeAndPermitsBrendanReadToContinueToEvadeTruth
  134. #KluckAttacksMeButPermitsCorruptCopToContinueToPrevaricate
  135. #RaiseTheSubjectOfLyingJodieCrawfordFromOfficeOfMHR_ExCopPeterDutton
  136. #HenriRantalaAdmitsThereIsNothingInSearchWarrantReHenriRantalaAndMonicaAntony
  137. #BrendanReadInvitedHenriRantalaAndMonicaAntonyToBePartOfChargesAlreadyLaid
  138. #DidBrendanReadInvestigateIfHenriRantalaDidCommitArmedRobbery
  139. #PoliceHadRehearsedTheirStoryReBCC_AuthorityToEnterHenriRantalaMonicaAntonyKeepThePeace
  140. #BrendanReadSaidHeUnderstoodThatTheBrisbaneCityCouncilHadAuthorityToEnter
  141. #ReadStatesHeSpokeToHenriRantalaAsToTheReasonTheyWereThereThen
  142. #NoteThePoliceRehearsedReasonNowForTheirPresenceIsToKEEP_THE-PEACE
  143. #AtLastKluckBeginsToRestrainBrendanReadWhoIsOutOfControlTreatingCourtAsA_Joke
  144. #BrendanReadTriesToPlayDucksAndDrakesAndPrevaricateWithMagistrate
  145. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeFailedToActProperlyAndFailedToInvestigate
  146. #BrendanReadReckonsHeInvestigatedReEntryOnlyByAskingRantalaButForgetsHisAnswer
  147. #KluckIsWrongToStateHeWillNotBeConsideringIfEntryForArmedRobbersIllegal
  148. #KluckForcedMeToStandWhileInPainFromStanding
  149. #KluckDeemsToPermitMySittingWhilereadingTheScreenOnTheDesk
  150. #MagistratePaulMKluckNotConcernedWithTheTruth
  151. #MyCommentsThatTruthIsImportantInThisCase
  152. #IsThisKluckAnIdiot
  153. #ThisIsAnotherLieByBrendanScottReadAsWebsiteHaigReportThenInEvidenceProvesIt
  154. #WhatDidMagistrateKluckThinkWouldBeHisAnswer
  155. #ThereIsNoOneSoBlindAsHeWhoWillNotOpenHisEyes
  156. #DiscussingForensicAndTechnicalEvidence
  157. #BreakForLunch
  158. #CourtResumesMoreStuffingAroundTilAllIsReadyToProceed
  159. #ShaneHunterWantsToGetExhibit3BackBecauseItWasReturnedToTheBench
  160. #ReferBrendanReadToMatterOfRuseInventedByBrisbaneCityCouncil
  161. #RobertWalkerOfCrimeAndMisconductCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  162. #JohnBritonLegalServicesCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  163. #ComplaintToLegalServicesCommissionReJoanneWhitingAndWayneTolton
  164. #SusanBarkerOfOfficeOfInformationCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  165. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeAsPoliceManCannotForceEntryIfNotAuthorizedByLaw
  166. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeReliedUponCrimeAndMisconductCommissionView
  167. #BrendanReadContactedMemberOfMyFamily
  168. #BrendanReadContactedNextOfKinForMeListedOnPoliceComputerRecords
  169. #BrendanReadHadEvidenceI_WasResidingAtTaigumWithTrevorHenryCroll
  170. #OntoTheSubjectJodieCrawfordFromPeterDuttonsOffice
  171. #BrendanReadPhonedDuttonsOfficeJodieCrawfordAnsweredThePhoneSpokeToHer
  172. #BrendanReadAskedJodieCrawfordReHerEmailOnWebsite
  173. #BrednadReadAdvisedSheDeniedSendingItSoThatWasPartOfReasonForChargingMe
  174. #BrendanReadDoesNotHaveA-StatementFromHerYet
  175. #BrendanReadSaysHeDidNotKnowPeterDuttonWasExPolice
  176. #BrendanReadReckonsHeDoesNOtKnowIfJodieCrawfordRelatedToPolice
  177. #ReJudgeJulieDickComplaint
  178. #BrendanReadHasNotSpokenToJudgeJulieDick
  179. #JudgeJulieDickIsNotGivingEvidence
  180. #BrendanReadKnowsOfTerenceJosephMellifontFromReadingTheseWebsitesOrSoHeSays
  181. #BrendanReadNotInComputerCrimeAtTimeOfPreviousComplaintByJulieDick
  182. #BrendanReadSoughtGuidanceFromCommonwealthDPPAsFirstTimeTheseChargesByRead
  183. #ThisWasFirstCommonwealthWarrantForBrendanRead
  184. #CDPP_AdviceWasOneChargePerDomainNameNotForEachPage
  185. #BrendanReadAgreedThatLikeDefamationToConsiderWholeDocumentAndPartsInContext
  186. #MagistratePaulMKluckTheKlutzDefersToShaneHunterWellThatMayBeOneOofTtheDiscsThatYouDidNotPlayMrHunter
  187. #ShaneHunterConfirmsHeIsInControlOfTheCourtAdvisesKluickTheKlutzWeWillHappilyBringItUpOnTheScreen
  188. #ShysterShaneHunterAdmitsToKluckTheKlutzThatHeShaneHunterNotTheCourtHasPossessionAndControlOfExhibit3
  189. #BrendanReadListsOffensiveManacingOrHarassingAspectsOfAustLawPublish.com
  190. #BrendanReadChargesExPoliceCopPeterParasiteDuttonAsOffensive
  191. #BrendanReadChargesJoeHockeyFascistCriminalCongressAsOffensive
  192. #BrendanReadChargesMonicaAntonyBigAforAntonyAsOffensive
  193. #BrendanReadCharges: 'CorruptCops: TalkAboutBeingTheButtOfHumour' AsOffensiveAndHarassing
  194. #As A_MatterOfLawTheChargesAreTheReasonablePersonTestA_QuestionOfFactNotOfLaw
  195. #ThereAreFurtherComplainantsFromJudgesAwaitingTheOutcomeOfTheseCharges
  196. #ShaneHunterCommonwealthDPPThinksHeWillMakeA_NameForHimselfSupportingQldCorruption
  197. #CopperBrendanReadAdmitsHeTookInstructionsFromShaneHuntersCommonwealthDirectorOfPublicProsecutions
  198. #BrendanReadDescribesTheExecutionOfTheSearchWarrantOn28thAugust2009
  199. #MagistratePaulMKluckNowBeginsToDisabilityDiscriminateAgainstMeGrossly
  200. #MagistrateKluckCannotCompareToWhatWouldBeMyNormalDemeanour
  201. #ToKluckTheCourtsTimeIsTooPreciousNotToAttemptToRailroadMeAsHeDoesRepeatedly
  202. #KluckAdmitsHeHasToEnsureI_GetA_FairHearing
  203. #KluckAsksIfI_CanManageMyPERMANENT_BrainDamageWithMedication
  204. #MagistratePaulMKlucksInfamousScandalousRidiculeOfMeAndMyDisability
  205. #So,  Have You Got Your Thoughts Back  Together Again, Mr Mathews


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.

includedMenuAnchorsDay1.php

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 24th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

This is a Menu of the anchors placed in the Transcript of Day 1.  It is effectively a Summary of the evidence and cross examination of the witness.  There was only one witnesses on this day.  It is one continuous file/page.  These anchors are in sequence.


  1. #StartOfDay1
  2. #MagistratePaulMKluckCheckedThatI_AmNotLegallyRepresented
  3. #MagistratesProfoundlyHateUnrepresentedDefendantsInCriminalMatters
  4. #ShaneHunterWantsToAmendCharge2ToRead2006Not2008ToAgreeWithBailDocuments
  5. #BeforeAnyEvidenceProducedKluckStatesWhatEvidenceWillBeProduced
  6. #KluckStatesThat I_HaveCopiesOfTheEvidence
  7. #Hunter Had Still Not Produced One Item Of Evidence
  8. #KluckStatesMyNotBeingLegallyRepresentedIsA_Problem
  9. #For Unrepresented Defendants Police Witnesses Must Give Evidence In Person In Witness Box
  10. #KluckSpeaksOfMyLittleDogsInTheBuildingAndTheCourt
  11. #AdditionOfTwoDocumentsToParticularsOfAllegedlyOffensiveDocuments

  1. #Call Brendan Scott Read
  2. #Brendan Read Currently An Advisor At KPMG_Forensic
  3. #BrendanReadAdvisedHeWasPreviouslyDetectiveSeniorConstableQueenslandPoliceService
  4. #BrendanReadWasCaseOfficerReTheseCharges
  5. #BrendanReadWasInTheComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  6. #AndHowDidYouFirstBecomeInvolvedInThisInvestigation
  7. #ReadMentionsSergeantBruceMathiouFromPetrie
  8. #BrendanReadThenPhonedJulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarner
  9. #BrendanReadViewedWebsitesInFebruary2009
  10. #BrendanReadViewedHaigReport.comSelfHelpJustice.comAndAustLawPublish.com
  11. #BrendanReadDescribesA_Website
  12. #BrendanReadDescribesA_WebServer
  13. #BrendanReadDescribesA_ToolCalledDNSstuff.com
  14. #BrendanReadStatesItTellsThePersonWhoHasRegisteredTheDomain
  15. #BrendanReadStatesItTellsTheDateOfCommencementRegistration
  16. #BrendanReadStatesChargeDatesAreRegistrationDates
  17. #BrendanReadStatesRussellMathewsIsNameOfPersonControllingWebsites
  18. #BrendanReadStatesItHadAnAddressHawkenDriveStLucia
  19. #BrendanReadExplainsIP_Address
  20. #BrendanReadContactedWebHostCalledHostForYourself
  21. #BrendanReadAskedWebHostCalledHostForYourselfToRemoveWebsites
  22. #WebHostCalledHostForYourselfRefusedToRemoveWebsites
  23. #WebHostCalledHostForYourselfAdvisedFreedomOfSpeechInvoked
  24. #Exhibit1EmailWithHostForYourself
  25. #BrendanReadAdvisedHeUsedHtTrackSoftwareToolOnMarch122009_20090312
  26. #ThereAreTwoDiscsToGetIntoEvidenceBeforeWeNeedToPlayAnyOfThem
  27. #Exhibit2DiscCreated12thMarch2009_20090312
  28. #InJuly2009BrendanReadReceivedEmailFromJulieDick
  29. #PoorJulieDickReportedAnotherWebSite
  30. #PoorJulieDickReportedWebSiteRe_exPolicePeterDutton
  31. #BrendanReadRecordedDownloadFourWebsites17thJuly2009_20090717
  32. #Exhibit3DiscCreatedByPoliceBrendanRead20090717
  33. #BrendanReadMadeEnquiriesIntoLocatingMyPlaceOfResidence
  34. #ObtainedA_CrimesActSearchWarrant
  35. #BrendanReadAttendedBrisbaneMagistratesCourtToHaveItEndorsed
  36. #Names Of Other Police Engaged In Criminal Accessory to Armed Robbery
  37. #Detective_Sergeant_Steven_Bignall
  38. #Detective_Senior_Constables_Gavin_Hackett
  39. #Detective_Senior_Constable_Dave_Graham
  40. #AudioRecordingsByBrendanRead
  41. #TranscriptsOfAudioRecordingsByBrendanReadReceivedAsExhibits
  42. #KluckBeratesMeForNotWastingMyTimeListeningToRecordings
  43. #KluckStatesHisViewThatProsecutionStatementsAreActualEvidence
  44. #MyEditorialCommentShaneHunterKnewTheIrrelevantNatureOfTheStatementsOfEvidenceAndSaidNOTHING
  45. #Exhibit4CD_OfAudioRecordingsAndTranscriptOfTheAudioRecodingsofThePoliceWhenStealingMyDisabilityAidsOfComputerAndCamera
  46. #BrendanReadAdvisesDetectiveSergeantSteveBignellWasPresentOnRaid
  47. #BrendanReadDescribesTheRaid
  48. #I_ObjectToHunterLeadingTheWitness
  49. #CorruptMagistrateKluckPermitsHuntersImproperConductToStand
  50. #BrendanReadFalselyStatesImagesOnMyComputerScreen
  51. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecording
  52. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecordingOnMobilePhone
  53. #ReadAdvisedDectectiveSergeantSteveBignellMakingVideoRecordingOnVideoCamera
  54. #BrendanReadListsMyItemsStolenByPolice
  55. #BrendanReadNamesSimonLodgeAsCulpable
  56. #CDPP_PlayExhibit3WhileShaneHunterSpeaksAsIfAskingCourtToPlayIt
  57. #BrendanReadWasAdvisedOfPreviousInvestigationOfMe
  58. #BrendanReadReviewedPreviousFileOnMe
  59. #I_RequireThatFileProducedAsWasBasisForSearchWarrant
  60. #BrendanReadStatedComplaintByHerHonourJudgeJulieDick
  61. #BrendanReadStatedComplaintByHerHonourJudgeJulieDickViaStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  62. #BrendanReadStatedLetterDraftedSentByDetectiveSuperintendentBrianHay
  63. #BrendanReadStatedLetterDraftedSentByDetectiveSuperintendentBrianHayToServersAustralia
  64. #KluckIgnoresMyProperObjectionToHunterLeadingHisWitness
  65. #Read States Re VERY_SIMILAR-CONTENT_but Not Know Any Domain Names
  66. #BrendanReadStatesJaredHirstOfServersAustraliaAdvisedHeWasPullingDownWebsites
  67. #BrendanReadStatesWebsitesSubsequentlyRemoved
  68. #ShaneHuntersCDPP_PlaysSelfHelpJustice.comCD
  69. #ButShaneHunterSpeaksAsIfTheCourtIsPlayingTheCD
  70. #ShaneHunterOfCDPP_ControlsTheCourt
  71. #BrendanReadReadsMyNameRussell_G_H_MathewsFromTheScreen
  72. #KluckPermitsHunterToHaveHisWitnessReadFromTheScreen
  73. #BrendanReadReportsA_PhotoOnHaigReport
  74. #HunterHasWitnessRead_exPoliceCopParasitePeterDutton
  75. #ParasitePeterDuttonRelevantToBrendanReadChargingMe
  76. #WordsOfProsecuteTheseCriminalsAndPickThePoofRelevantToReadChargingMe
  77. #BrendanReadWorkedPreviouslyAtIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  78. #BrendanReadKnewMonicaAntonyFromIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  79. #BrendanReadKnewHenriRantalaFromIndooroopillyPoliceStation
  80. #ReferenceToHenriRantalaBeingA_Dummy
  81. #ReferenceToBigA_ForAntony
  82. #BrendanReadDislikesReferences_CorruptCops_SwineFlu_PoliceAirWing_WhoSaidPigsWillFly
  83. #BrendanReadAskedToExplainGoogleYahooRatings
  84. #KluckFinallySuggestsToShaneHunter_ItMightBeBestToAskQuestionsNotLeadWitness
  85. #MagistrateKluckTellsShaneHunterHowToDoIt
  86. #MagistrateKluckTellsShaneHunterHowToDoItAndGivesHimAnExampleSoHeWillUnderstand
  87. #ShaneHunterDispelsAnyDoubtsForHisReasonForBeingInThePublicSector
  88. #MyCommentary
  89. #MoreOfMyCommentary
  90. #BrendanReidIndicatesThatWebsiteReferenceToHenriRantalaAsAnArmedRobber
  91. #BrendanReadRelatesHisEmailToWebHostOn7thFebruary2009
  92. #BrendanReadReAnotherDetectiveSeniorSergeantAnthonyKlausFromTheFraudSquad
  93. #ShaneHunterGoesToDocumentCalledJudgeJulieDickElectoralFraud
  94. #BrendanReadRelatesComplaintFromJulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarner
  95. #BrendanReadFluffsReasonSomePhotosAreBlank
  96. #AllegedRecordingsOfWebsitesByPoliceAreDefective
  97. #BrendanReadIdentifiesPhotoOfJohnDick_aka_CleverDick
  98. #CopperBrendanReadCallsCleverDickJohnDickA_BelligerentCretin
  99. #BrendanReadMakesReferenceToMichaelFrancisMellifont
  100. #BreakInProceedings
  101. #ReadStatesReferenceToMonicaAntonyAndHenriRantalaOnTheFourWebsites
  102. #BrendanReadNotesReferenceToCorruptMagistateWalterHarveyEhrichOnWebsites
  103. #BrendanReadReferencesTheRuse
  104. #BrisbaneCityCouncilsBrisbaneCityLegalPracticeSolicitorJoanneWhitingIsMentioned
  105. #CrossExaminationOfBrendanScottReadByRussellMathewsBegins
  106. #SearchWarrantGrantedToBrendanReadIsFirstTopicOfCrossExamination
  107. #ReTakeDownNoticeInBrendanReadsAffidavitForSearchWarrant
  108. #BrendanReadAdmitsHisAffidavitIsFictionAsKnowsNothingOfAffidavitTopics
  109. #PoliceAdmitThatPoliceAffidavitForSearchWarrantWasTotalFiction
  110. #BrendanReadAdmitsStatingHearsayEvidenceAsEyewitnessAccount
  111. #BrendanReadMakesFalseStatementofWhatTheWebsiteStates
  112. #BrendanReadReiteratesButCannotFindThatStatementOnAnyWebsite
  113. #BrendanReadShaneHunterMagistratePaulMKluckRepeatedlyTryToAvoidAnswering
  114. #BrendanReadMakesFalseStatementThatWebsitesSayComplainantJulieDickIsEngagedInFraud
  115. #AllThreeCrooksSayThatStatementIsThereButCannotFindIt
  116. #AfterRepeatedlySayingTheSitesMakeSpecificAllegationTheyHaveToGiveUp
  117. #PoliceDidNotAdviseWebHostOrAnyoneOfErrorToKeepPoorPeopleOnIceSoToChargeMe
  118. #QueenslandPoliceWantedToProtectTheirArmedRobbersHenriRantalaMonicaAntony
  119. #BrendanReadPretendsHeDoesNotUnderstandTheObvious
  120. #BrendanReadTriesToPlayDumb
  121. #MagistratePaulMKluckJoinsInTheFarceOfPlayingDumb
  122. http://HaigReport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100624Day1CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php
  123. #BrendanReadTriesToBeA_SmartA---
  124. #RatherThanAnswerQuestionsPutToBrendanReadHeAsksMoreDumbQuestions
  125. #ThisIsWhatKPMG_WantedtoWorkForThem
  126. #MagistratePaulMKluckPermittedBrendanReadToContinueThisContemptOfCourt
  127. #BrendanReadStartsToSpillTheBeansOnTheRealReasonForTheCorruptPoliceCrime
  128. #BrendanReadIdentifiesJudgeJulieDickAsPreviousComplainant
  129. #BrendanReadTellsObviousLieUnderOathInCrossExamination
  130. #BrendanReadTellsObviousLieThatNoErrorOfIdentity
  131. #BrendanReadContinuesToPrevaricate
  132. #BrendanReadShowsHeHasPoorGraspOfLogic
  133. #MagistrateKluckAttacksMeAndPermitsBrendanReadToContinueToEvadeTruth
  134. #KluckAttacksMeButPermitsCorruptCopToContinueToPrevaricate
  135. #RaiseTheSubjectOfLyingJodieCrawfordFromOfficeOfMHR_ExCopPeterDutton
  136. #HenriRantalaAdmitsThereIsNothingInSearchWarrantReHenriRantalaAndMonicaAntony
  137. #BrendanReadInvitedHenriRantalaAndMonicaAntonyToBePartOfChargesAlreadyLaid
  138. #DidBrendanReadInvestigateIfHenriRantalaDidCommitArmedRobbery
  139. #PoliceHadRehearsedTheirStoryReBCC_AuthorityToEnterHenriRantalaMonicaAntonyKeepThePeace
  140. #BrendanReadSaidHeUnderstoodThatTheBrisbaneCityCouncilHadAuthorityToEnter
  141. #ReadStatesHeSpokeToHenriRantalaAsToTheReasonTheyWereThereThen
  142. #NoteThePoliceRehearsedReasonNowForTheirPresenceIsToKEEP_THE-PEACE
  143. #AtLastKluckBeginsToRestrainBrendanReadWhoIsOutOfControlTreatingCourtAsA_Joke
  144. #BrendanReadTriesToPlayDucksAndDrakesAndPrevaricateWithMagistrate
  145. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeFailedToActProperlyAndFailedToInvestigate
  146. #BrendanReadReckonsHeInvestigatedReEntryOnlyByAskingRantalaButForgetsHisAnswer
  147. #KluckIsWrongToStateHeWillNotBeConsideringIfEntryForArmedRobbersIllegal
  148. #KluckForcedMeToStandWhileInPainFromStanding
  149. #KluckDeemsToPermitMySittingWhilereadingTheScreenOnTheDesk
  150. #MagistratePaulMKluckNotConcernedWithTheTruth
  151. #MyCommentsThatTruthIsImportantInThisCase
  152. #IsThisKluckAnIdiot
  153. #ThisIsAnotherLieByBrendanScottReadAsWebsiteHaigReportThenInEvidenceProvesIt
  154. #WhatDidMagistrateKluckThinkWouldBeHisAnswer
  155. #ThereIsNoOneSoBlindAsHeWhoWillNotOpenHisEyes
  156. #DiscussingForensicAndTechnicalEvidence
  157. #BreakForLunch
  158. #CourtResumesMoreStuffingAroundTilAllIsReadyToProceed
  159. #ShaneHunterWantsToGetExhibit3BackBecauseItWasReturnedToTheBench
  160. #ReferBrendanReadToMatterOfRuseInventedByBrisbaneCityCouncil
  161. #RobertWalkerOfCrimeAndMisconductCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  162. #JohnBritonLegalServicesCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  163. #ComplaintToLegalServicesCommissionReJoanneWhitingAndWayneTolton
  164. #SusanBarkerOfOfficeOfInformationCommissionSaysRegn200OverrulesSec160HealthAct
  165. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeAsPoliceManCannotForceEntryIfNotAuthorizedByLaw
  166. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeReliedUponCrimeAndMisconductCommissionView
  167. #BrendanReadContactedMemberOfMyFamily
  168. #BrendanReadContactedNextOfKinForMeListedOnPoliceComputerRecords
  169. #BrendanReadHadEvidenceI_WasResidingAtTaigumWithTrevorHenryCroll
  170. #OntoTheSubjectJodieCrawfordFromPeterDuttonsOffice
  171. #BrendanReadPhonedDuttonsOfficeJodieCrawfordAnsweredThePhoneSpokeToHer
  172. #BrendanReadAskedJodieCrawfordReHerEmailOnWebsite
  173. #BrednadReadAdvisedSheDeniedSendingItSoThatWasPartOfReasonForChargingMe
  174. #BrendanReadDoesNotHaveA-StatementFromHerYet
  175. #BrendanReadSaysHeDidNotKnowPeterDuttonWasExPolice
  176. #BrendanReadReckonsHeDoesNOtKnowIfJodieCrawfordRelatedToPolice
  177. #ReJudgeJulieDickComplaint
  178. #BrendanReadHasNotSpokenToJudgeJulieDick
  179. #JudgeJulieDickIsNotGivingEvidence
  180. #BrendanReadKnowsOfTerenceJosephMellifontFromReadingTheseWebsitesOrSoHeSays
  181. #BrendanReadNotInComputerCrimeAtTimeOfPreviousComplaintByJulieDick
  182. #BrendanReadSoughtGuidanceFromCommonwealthDPPAsFirstTimeTheseChargesByRead
  183. #ThisWasFirstCommonwealthWarrantForBrendanRead
  184. #CDPP_AdviceWasOneChargePerDomainNameNotForEachPage
  185. #BrendanReadAgreedThatLikeDefamationToConsiderWholeDocumentAndPartsInContext
  186. #MagistratePaulMKluckTheKlutzDefersToShaneHunterWellThatMayBeOneOofTtheDiscsThatYouDidNotPlayMrHunter
  187. #ShaneHunterConfirmsHeIsInControlOfTheCourtAdvisesKluickTheKlutzWeWillHappilyBringItUpOnTheScreen
  188. #ShysterShaneHunterAdmitsToKluckTheKlutzThatHeShaneHunterNotTheCourtHasPossessionAndControlOfExhibit3
  189. #BrendanReadListsOffensiveManacingOrHarassingAspectsOfAustLawPublish.com
  190. #BrendanReadChargesExPoliceCopPeterParasiteDuttonAsOffensive
  191. #BrendanReadChargesJoeHockeyFascistCriminalCongressAsOffensive
  192. #BrendanReadChargesMonicaAntonyBigAforAntonyAsOffensive
  193. #BrendanReadCharges: 'CorruptCops: TalkAboutBeingTheButtOfHumour' AsOffensiveAndHarassing
  194. #As A_MatterOfLawTheChargesAreTheReasonablePersonTestA_QuestionOfFactNotOfLaw
  195. #ThereAreFurtherComplainantsFromJudgesAwaitingTheOutcomeOfTheseCharges
  196. #ShaneHunterCommonwealthDPPThinksHeWillMakeA_NameForHimselfSupportingQldCorruption
  197. #CopperBrendanReadAdmitsHeTookInstructionsFromShaneHuntersCommonwealthDirectorOfPublicProsecutions
  198. #BrendanReadDescribesTheExecutionOfTheSearchWarrantOn28thAugust2009
  199. #MagistratePaulMKluckNowBeginsToDisabilityDiscriminateAgainstMeGrossly
  200. #MagistrateKluckCannotCompareToWhatWouldBeMyNormalDemeanour
  201. #ToKluckTheCourtsTimeIsTooPreciousNotToAttemptToRailroadMeAsHeDoesRepeatedly
  202. #KluckAdmitsHeHasToEnsureI_GetA_FairHearing
  203. #KluckAsksIfI_CanManageMyPERMANENT_BrainDamageWithMedication
  204. #MagistratePaulMKlucksInfamousScandalousRidiculeOfMeAndMyDisability
  205. #So,  Have You Got Your Thoughts Back  Together Again, Mr Mathews


http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

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

Corrupt Police Rantala, Brisbane Magistrates Court, 24th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:


TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


MAGISTRATES COURT


KLUCK, Magistrate


M-171907/09(8)


THE CROWN

Complainant


and



RUSSELL GORDON MATHEWS

Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/06/2010


..DAY 1

CLARE JARVIS APPOINTED AS RECORDER

BENCH: Yes, I take the committal proceedings involving the defendant Russell Gordon Haig Mathews. Could you announce your appearances, please?


MR HUNTER: Please your Honour, my name is Hunter, initials S R, counsel from the Commonwealth DPP.


BENCH: And Mr Mathews, you appear     



DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, Russell Mathews.


BENCH:      not legally represented?


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour.


BENCH: And at the review of this matter on the 9th of June, you indicated that you were not seeking to be legally represented in this matter?


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


BENCH: And your view hasn't changed, in that regard?


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour. That's correct.


BENCH: And are you ready to proceed now, Mr Mathews? I'll just read the charges, for the record.


MR HUNTER: Excuse me, your Honour. There is one application I would like to make, before you read the charges.


BENCH: What's that?


MR HUNTER: With respect to charge 2, there's a typographic error. The commencement date of charge 2, on the Bench charge sheet, is 2008; the commencement date is, I think, August 2008, charge 2. The Court brief; bail undertaking; search warrant application all say 2006.


BENCH: So you want to amend 2008 to read 2006?


MR HUNTER: Yes, 2006.


BENCH: Any issue with that, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: I've got to find it, your Honour. Where?


BENCH: Charge 2.


DEFENDANT: Where are the charges now?


BENCH: Mr Hunter simply wants to amend a date, to accord with the evidence that's going to be produced.


DEFENDANT: Sorry, your Honour?


BENCH: Mr Hunter simply wants to amend the date to accord with, no doubt, the evidence that's going to be adduced.


DEFENDANT: I've just got to find - one place where the charges are recorded.


BENCH: Look, I'll just read the charges as they stand. It says that on diverse dates between the 26th of July 2008 and the 18th of July 2009 at Taigum in the State of Queensland on Russell Gordon Haig Mathews used a carriage service, namely Telstra Big Pond, in such a way that reasonable persons would regard that use as being menacing, harassing or offensive contrary to sub-section 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code, Commonwealth.


Charge 2 says that on diverse dates between the 21st day of August 2008 and the 18th day of July 2009 at Taigum in the State of Queensland on Russell Gordon Haig Mathews used a carriage service namely Telstra Big Pond in such a way that reasonable persons would regard that use as being menacing, harassing or offensive contrary to sub-section 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code, Commonwealth.


Now, that is the charge that Mr Hunter wants to amend; the date on that charge.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Yes, okay.


BENCH: Any issue with that?


DEFENDANT: Well, if he can do it, he can do it, can't he?


BENCH: I'll amend that charge accordingly.


Charge 3 says that on diverse dates between the 22nd day of February 2007 and the 18th day of July 2009 at Taigum in the State of Queensland one Russell Gordon Haig Mathews used a carriage service, namely Telstra Big Pond, in such a way that reasonable persons would regard that use as being menacing, harassing or offensive contrary to sub-section 474.97(1) of the Criminal Code, Commonwealth.


Charge 4 says that on diverse dates between the 12th day of June 2009 and the 18th day of July 2009 at Taigum in the State of Queensland one Russell Gordon Haig Mathews used a carriage service, namely Telstra Big Pond, in such a way that reasonable persons would regard that use as being menacing, harassing or offensive contrary to sub-section 474.97(1) of the Criminal Code, Commonwealth.


So they are the charges, Mr Mathews. Do you understand the nature of those charges?


DEFENDANT: No I don't, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, I think it's     

DEFENDANT: I mean I     


BENCH: It's self-explanatory. The wording of the charges.


DEFENDANT: Well yeah, in what respect? I mean are they     


BENCH: Now, are you ready to proceed? You've received the     


DEFENDANT:      I'm just wondering     


BENCH:      brief of evidence.


DEFENDANT:      what in particular they're taking issue with - it's apparently to do with web-sites?


BENCH: Well, we will find out when the evidence is produced. But you have copies of the evidence.


DEFENDANT: Okay, well I'll find out what they're talking about.


BENCH: Well, you have the brief of evidence, you told the review - you told me on the review that you had it. Apart from one item, though, wasn't it, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Yes, your Honour. I still don't have that in my possession, most unfortunately.


BENCH: What was it again?


MR HUNTER: It's the computer forensic report.


BENCH: How does that affect these proceedings?


MR HUNTER: Well, I could probably run the proceedings without them, but it is relevant, and given that he's an unrepresented defendant, I hopefully will have it within the next hour or so.


BENCH: Oh, so it's on its way?


MR HUNTER: And we can consider it overnight, and     


BENCH: All right. So given that this matter is listed for six days, if the evidence is produced today it should not be a problem, you'll be given time to peruse this.


DEFENDANT: Okay, so it is likely to extend the six days?


BENCH: Well, that's how long the matter's listed for.


DEFENDANT: Yeah. What I'm wondering is, how long before - how long does the prosecution expect their prosecution to take?


BENCH: Well, how many witnesses do you have?


MR HUNTER: There's only 10.

BENCH: Only 10 witnesses?


MR HUNTER: Oh, 10, 11.


DEFENDANT: Eleven.


BENCH: Or 11?


DEFENDANT: So that won't be today, I guess.



BENCH: The problem is, because you're not legally represented, those witnesses have to give their evidence     


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


BENCH: Now, I just want to place this on the record. That the Chief Magistrate has given you permission to bring your - your little dogs into the building.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Now, however their presence in the Court room is solely contingent upon their good behaviour.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: If they are not of good behaviour, and the proceedings are disrupted, or if they appear stressed at any time, I will have to direct that you remove them.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour sometimes I'll need to take them out, as myself, for a break and things like that.


BENCH: Well, in any event, in the normal course of proceedings, the Court will be taking regular breaks.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And therefore hopefully there won't be a problem.


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: But all I'm saying to you is that if there is a problem, they will have to go. Okay? I'm presuming that you have provided for their necessary - for their needs?


DEFENDANT: Yes, I have water and food.


BENCH: Right. That's all I want to say on that.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. And they've been for their little breaks, and walks, and such.


BENCH: Now, because you're not legally represented Mr Mathews, I'll briefly explain to you the proceedings. Now, I've read you the charges; you're not required to enter a plea at this stage of the proceedings.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: These are committal proceedings as I've indicated. Now the Court in these proceedings does not decide your guilt or innocence     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      the prosecution will call each witness to give evidence in full and you can cross-examine each of those witnesses, in turn.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: It's the function of this Court to determine if the prosecution has established what's called a prima facie case.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Whether a properly instructed jury could, not necessarily would or ought to convict you     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      but whether a jury, properly instructed, could convict you of an indictable offence.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: The Court will decide that issue, once all of the prosecution witnesses called have been examined and you've been given the opportunity of making submissions on the evidence, and on whether the Court could be satisfied that a prima facie case has been established.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: That is the sole function of this Court.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: If I find a prima facie has been established, I'll advise you of that, and certain other things, which I need not go into, at this stage, except to say that if I do find a prima facie case established, you will be committed to the District Court.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: To be tried.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: If I'm not satisfied on the evidence that such a case has been established, you will be discharged and you'll be free to go.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.

BENCH: Do you have any questions on that issue? Procedure?


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, I'm     


BENCH: On procedure?


DEFENDANT: On procedure. There is the - I had asked for criminal histories of the witnesses, from the prosecution. They told me they had put a request in to the Queensland Police to provide those details, and I haven't yet been provided with any advice as to whether - what's come back from the Queensland police - criminal history of the witnesses.


BENCH: Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Your Honour the civilian witnesses don't have a criminal history. And there's only three of them, Mr and Mrs Dick and a gentleman from Telstra. About 15 minutes ago the solicitor from the Queensland Police Service delivered to me a bundle of paper from the Ethical Standards Command; I have not had an opportunity to review it yet. It is only if it goes directly to their credibility that I'm required to hand it over, and I haven't had an opportunity to review it.


BENCH: Well, I mean, credibility of witnesses is a live issue in committal proceedings.


MR HUNTER: Absolutely. I suspect that there will only be two witnesses called today, given the nature of how we're going to run it. There are a couple of house-keeping matters I wish to raise before we get into the evidence. I suspect that the first witness will be still in the witness box in chief by the morning break, and I can have a look - if there is a report relating to him - in this bundle of material, rather than hold the process up now.


BENCH: All right. Well, the way things will probably pan out, Mr Mathews, we'll have a break anyway, after evidence-in-chief. Any other issues at this point?


DEFENDANT: As to     


BENCH: No?


DEFENDANT:      procedure?


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: No, I don't think so, your Honour, no.


BENCH: Thank you. Yes, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Okay, your Honour. Just by way of housekeeping, I've printed out the point in time legislate - from the point in time legislation data base, what the section looked like the day before the commencement of the charges, and what the section looked like on the final day of the charges. Perhaps I     

BENCH: Was it amended?


MR HUNTER: No, it wasn't. But just to - given that the accused is unrepresented, it would be appropriate to do that, on this occasion. So perhaps I can hand a copy to him, and hand a copy to your Honour, to show what the legislation was. It hasn't changed.


BENCH: Right.


MR HUNTER: But just out of fairness to the defendant.


BENCH: Thank you.


MR HUNTER: With respect to the evidence from Telstra, the witness is based in Melbourne and the evidence is effectively a section 95 certificate. However there is a small amount of technical evidence to be led from the Telstra witness, and I would apply under section 39 of the Evidence Act, 39R I think, of the Evidence Act, for that witness to give evidence by telephone.


BENCH: Was this raised on the review? You didn't raise any issue like that - that's what reviews were for.


MR HUNTER: No - it wasn't, your Honour.


BENCH: Is there any issue with that there, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: I guess not, your Honour.


BENCH: All right. Thank you for your cooperation.


MR HUNTER: Thank you, your Honour.


DEFENDANT: As long as I've been provided with stuff in writing, anyway.


BENCH: What's that?


DEFENDANT: As long as I'll be provided with stuff - the detail in writing?


BENCH: Well, you should have it, shouldn't he?


MR HUNTER: He already has it.


DEFENDANT: What, the 95?


BENCH: What's the name of this witness?


MR HUNTER: Gelfe, G-E-L-F-E.


DEFENDANT: Oh, okay.


MR HUNTER: And the 95 certificate under the hand of Mr Jarvis.


DEFENDANT: Yes, okay.

MR HUNTER: It's purely technical evidence, your Honour.


BENCH: All right.


MR HUNTER: With respect to the particulars that the Crown would rely on, I think I handed up a document at the review; that document has been slightly amended, and I would     


BENCH: What document was that?


MR HUNTER: It was the document - just entitled, "particulars". Your Honour may not have kept it. In any event, it will assist your Honour to follow the evidence.


BENCH: It's not on file.


MR HUNTER: It wasn't formally tendered.


BENCH: Oh, I see. So - thank you.


MR HUNTER: And I'll supply a copy to Mr Mathews, just for his information     


BENCH: Oh yes, I remember that. Think I might have given it back     


MR HUNTER:      there's two documents that are highlighted, which weren't on the document handed up in - on the review.

And I mention the matter of the statement that's not yet in my possession, so, please your Honour, I could call the first witness at this point.


DEFENDANT: Excuse me, your Honour. Could I ask how these are different? What was the change?


MR HUNTER: The documents that are highlighted, for example in charge 1, document C and F     


DEFENDANT: C, and F, yes?


MR HUNTER:      and F, were not on the document handed up to his Honour at the review     


DEFENDANT: Oh, okay.


MR HUNTER:      three weeks ago. So there's the addition of two documents to the particulars.


DEFENDANT: And these are what - these are the     


MR HUNTER: Allegedly offensive documents.


DEFENDANT:      allegedly offensive documents.


MR HUNTER: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Would we be able to see them on the screens, your Honour?

BENCH: I would imagine so.


MR HUNTER: That's the plan.


DEFENDANT: Before - or what, as witnesses give their evidence-in-chief or     


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT:      initially     


BENCH: I think that's the best way to do it.


DEFENDANT: Okay, so each witness will have     


BENCH: But you were given that, though. You were given a disc, weren't you?


MR HUNTER: Yes, he has both discs.


BENCH: And you have a computer? So you would have been able to view that?


DEFENDANT: These - well for a start, they're graphic and photographic attachments - don't seem to - just a number of words don't seem to be references to files or anything.


BENCH: But you would have been able to follow that through on the disc, wouldn't you? The disc you were given?


DEFENDANT: Well, not if it's not the name. I mean there's just one number there, 100_4166.


BENCH: Did you look at the material that was on the disc


DEFENDANT: I've had a bit of a look at it, your Honour, yes.


BENCH: Well, you may recognise it then, when it comes up on the screen.


MR HUNTER: With respect, your Honour, the website is named Haig.report.com, right? When you open that folder Haig.report.com there are a number of documents that appear, and (A) the one named Julie - Judge Julie Dick Electoral Fraud et cetera is named as being the document in the folder.


BENCH: All right.


MR HUNTER: So that's how we identified.


BENCH: So, could you call your first witness?


MR HUNTER: Yes, certainly.


DEFENDANT: That will be Brendan Reid, will it?


MR HUNTER: If it please the Court     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, could I - would I be able to hand up some material before we commence?


BENCH: Well


DEFENDANT: Affidavits.


BENCH: Well, you're not required to give or call evidence in these proceedings until a case has been found against you.


DEFENDANT: Oh, okay.


BENCH: So - but look, I can't give you legal advice.


DEFENDANT: Okay, no, no, okay. Fair enough. Okay, no worries.


MR HUNTER: Please your Honour, I call Brendan Scott Read.


BENCH: R-E-I-D?


MR HUNTER: R-E-A-D.




BRENDAN SCOTT READ, SWORN AND EXAMINED:




MR HUNTER: Can you tell the Court your full name, please?   Brendan Scott Read.


And what's your occupation, Mr Read?   I'm currently a position of senior advisor at KPMG Forensic.


And what was your occupation prior to moving to KPMG?   I was a detective with the Queensland Police Service, held the rank of Senior Constable.


And how long were you a police officer?   Approximately 10 years.


And in what unit did you complete your service as a police officer?   The High-Tech Crime Investigation Unit, which was formerly known as the Computer Crime Investigation Unit.

 

And is it the case that you are the - effectively, or were, the case officer with respect to these proceedings before the Court today?   Correct.


Right. And the gentleman sitting at the Bar table, do you know his name?   Yes, I do.


And what's that?   Russell Gordon Haig Mathews.


And how did you first become involved in this investigation?   Initially in the Computer Crime Unit, we handled a lot of computer crime related investigations, across the whole State. It was a small team; quite often we would have police officers from around the State emailing us for advice and support in relation to any investigations involving anything in the on-line, Internet, or computer related crime.


Okay, well if I can just direct you - in February of 2009 did you receive information from a Sergeant Mathiou from Petrie?   Yep, I did.


And what did you do as a result of receiving that information?   I responded back to Sergeant Bruce Mathiou, with some details of what needed to be done.


Right. And did you subsequently have a conversation with someone else?   Yes, I then had a phone call to a lady by the name of Julie Dick, who was a resident of 12 Leopard Court, Warner who was one of the complainants in relation to the investigation that Sergeant Bruce Mathiou had commenced.


Okay. So in February 2009 did you view a number of web-sites, on the Internet?   Yes, yes I did.


Do you know the names of those websites?   There were three in particular that I looked at initially; there was the Haig report.com; self-helpJustice.com and AustlawPublish.com


Now, the technical expertise that you've acquired, in your duties with the Computer Crime Unit, can you describe for the Court please what a web-site is?-- A website is a collection of material being in electronic form, whether it's an image; text; video, and it is centrally located on a domain - under a domain name.


Right. And where is that information stored?   The - all web sites are stored on a web server.

Right?        and they could be stored anywhere around the world. There's a number of different actual companies that provide web-hosting services.


So, those companies, can they have more than one web site     ?   Yes.


     which they host?   If someone wanted to, they could host multiple web sites on one - one web server.


Right. Now, did you conduct any enquiries to ascertain the identity of the person who had control of the three web sites you've mentioned earlier?   Yes, I did. There's     


What did you do?   There's a tool that we used in the Computer Crime Unit called dnsstuff.com     


That's dnsstuff?   That's correct.


Okay. Thank you?   That's a particular web site that provides information in relation to web sites or domain names. So, if we're investigating a particular web site, we can enter that web site into this web page and it will retrieve the details in relation to where that actual web site is hosted     


Right?        by searching through what's known as dns servers.


Okay. Does it give any other information about the particular web site or domain name?   It will return information being the IP address of the web server, where the actual web site it located, or that domain name is located. Thank you. As well as the registration information of the person who's actually registered that domain name.


Right.


DEFENDANT: Objection, your Honour.


BENCH: Yes?


DEFENDANT: It wouldn't be of the person; it would be of a name.


BENCH: Well, this is his evidence. You can     


DEFENDANT: Okay. Sorry, your Honour.


BENCH: You can cross-examine him on that.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: But I - I should have said to you that you can object to any evidence, oral or documentary, and if you have an objection, tell me and I'll rule on it. But that - what you're raising now is really - it seems to me a matter of cross-examination. All right? Which you'll     


DEFENDANT: Yes, okay.


BENCH:      be given the opportunity to do. Yes, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Yes thank you, your Honour. So, are there any other details of the - of the creation of the web site, domain name?   It will record a person's details whether it be an organisation or a name and an address of the actual registrant as well.


Any dates?   And the date of the actual - the commencement of the registration and when it expires.


Okay. Now, you, ultimately, charged Mr Mathews; is that right?   That's correct.



Now, the dates that you used to form the charges, where did you get them from?   I based that around the information that was obtained through the dnsstuff.com searches where the actual registration commencement dates of those particular web sites.


Okay. And did the enquiries you make on - via this program, show the - the name of the person in control of those three web sites?   Yes, it did. The information was the same for all - all the web sites that I mentioned before     


Right?        which is Mr Russell Mathews.



Okay?   And it had an address at St Lucia. Hawken Drive, St Lucia.


Now, you mentioned before an IP address; what's that?   An IP address is a - a number that's allocated to a computer that's on an actual network. So, any computer that's no a network has to have an IP address to be able to communicate across the network.


Right?   And that IP is unique on that network. So, for example, in relation to these particular web sites, they all came from the same web server which was one IP address, and that IP address is unique.


Right. And what web server was that?   The actual web server was owned by a company called Host for Yourself Technologies which is based in the United States of America.


Okay. Was there an address given for Mr Mathews at that time on the - in that enquiry that you made?   I believe it was 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia.


Okay. Now, as a result of your enquiries with - through using this programme and identifying this material, or at least the web sites, did you make any contact with the web host     ?   Yes I did.


     in the States? Okay. Just have a look at this document, please. Can you identify that document, or at least that email stream as it is? There's two emails in the document; is that right?   Yes, there is. Yes.


DEFENDANT: Shouldn't I get to see that first, your Honour?


MR HUNTER: Well, he's got a copy of it, but I'll give him another one.


DEFENDANT: Thank you.


BENCH: Yes, Mr Hunter? Continue on.


MR HUNTER: Can you tell the Court how that email stream came into existence?   Yes, I can. The bottom section of the email is - of the page I should say, is the original email that I sent from my Queensland Police email account, personal email account to the address that identified off the web site for the web host in the United States of America     


Yes?        which was help@hostforyourself.com.


Right. And just for his Honour's benefit, before I tender it, what was the thrust of your email?   The basic thrust of it was that I advised that we were making investigations in relation to these particular web sites and that we were asking their assistance in relation to having them removed or from being active.




Right. And what was the response from the US web host?   They advised that they weren't in a position to remove them. They required further information and that it could be more related to freedom of speech rather than - well, that was an issue that they were mentioning.


Okay. Yes, thank you. I'll tender the email, your Honour.


BENCH: Is there any objection to that?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, I object because it could be accepted that statements made in here are truthful and this may not be the case for instance     


BENCH: I'll admit it if that's your only objection. Is that your only objection?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour because they're     


BENCH: Okay. It's admitted and marked Exhibit 1.




ADMITTED AND MARKED "EXHIBIT 1"




BENCH: Yes, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Thank you, your Honour. After you received the response on the 7th of February did you conduct further enquiries on those three web sites?   Yes, I did.


In particular, on the 12th of March, did you conduct any - any further enquiries?   Yes.


2009, I should say?   Yes, I did.


What was that?   I used a software tool called httrack.


Yes?   That particular software tool allows you to enter a particular domain name or website into it. It will then make contact with that web server or domain name and it will start pulling off any data that it can from that domain name.


Right?   And - and in fact it's - what it's trying to do is basically a mirror copy of what's held on the web server.


And did that activate with respect to the three web sites you've just you've mentioned earlier?   Yes, it did.


What happened then?   I then - that information was saved locally on the computer at the Computer Crime Unit. I then burnt that to a DVD.


Okay. Have a look at this disc please. Can you identify the handwriting on that disc?   Yes, that's my handwriting and that's - that's the DVD I produced with     


On the 12th of March 2009?   That's correct.


Thank you. Your Honour, I tender that.


BENCH: What's in that again?


MR HUNTER: Well     


BENCH: Does it need to be played?


MR HUNTER: I wasn't going to do that just now.


BENCH: Are you going to play it?


MR HUNTER: There's two discs to get into evidence before we need to play any of them, your Honour


BENCH: Have you - have you seen that, Mr Mathews? Have you run that?


DEFENDANT: I - if that's the same as the ones they've sent me, I don't - yeah, I've - I can't object to it. If     


BENCH: Right.


DEFENDANT: Well, not necessarily what Brendan Read is saying about it but as to it going into evidence, yeah, it can go in.


BENCH: Admitted and marked Exhibit 2.

ADMITTED AND MARKED "EXHIBIT 2"

MR HUNTER: I should say, did you make a number of copies of that disc?   Yes, I did.

And provided them to the prosecution?   Yes, I did.

Okay. Thank you. After making that disc, did you conduct further enquiries?   Excuse me. Yes, I did.


Indeed, in July of 2009, did you receive correspondence from this Julie Dick that you referred to earlier?   Yes.

And as a result of that, what did you do?   I received an email. As a result of the email I received, I again visited the three web sites that I've mentioned previously.


Mmm-hmm?   Plus there was another web site that was mentioned by Julie Dick, and     


Do you remember the name of that?   It was quite a long URL for the web site; it was similar to ex - ex-police. Peter Dutton - I can't remember the full, sorry, the     


Okay. Well, in any event, did you conduct the HT tracker software with respect to all four of those web sites     ?   Yes.


     in July?   Yes, I did.


Okay. And did you create a disc in the same manner on the 17th of July?   Yes, I did.


Okay. Just have a look at that disc, thanks?   Yeah. That's the second - second download I did of those three initial web sites plus the new web site.


Okay. Well, I'll tender that, your Honour and     


BENCH: Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Same as previously, your Honour. Yeah, it can go in, I guess.


BENCH: Admitted and marked Exhibit 3.

ADMITTED AND MARKED "EXHIBIT 3"

MR HUNTER: Now, you've since looked at the material that was downloaded as a result of the enquiry that you made, the software enquiry, effectively?   Yes.

It's the case that certain photos are hyperlinked into documents; is that correct?   That's correct.


And some of them     


DEFENDANT: Are what into documents, sorry, your Honour?


MR HUNTER: Hyperlinked.


DEFENDANT: Hyperlinked. Okay.


MR HUNTER: But on a examination some of those photos don't actually appear in the document; you have to go back to the main route. Why is that?   That's correct.


Sometimes there can be - when the software is trying to pull the web site from the web host, it tries to gather as much - as much data as it can. In some instances some of those links are still pointing to files outside of the local source. So, for example, if I opened up the website locally on my laptop and I float my mouse over some of the hyperlinks or URLs that are embedded in the web page, some of them are actually trying to point back to an external source being back to the original web site address.


Which the HT tracker didn't download on to your computer?   That's correct.


Right. And that's why there's a blank?   That's correct.


All right. So, after viewing the material on now four web sites that you've downloaded onto disc on the 17th of July, what did you do after that with respect to this particular investigation?   I - I began making enquiries to identify the location of where Mr Mathews was residing.


Right?   I was aware that he was no longer residing at the Hawken Drive address in St Lucia. And I eventually identified a new address at 34 Haywal Street at Taigum.


Right. And what did you do once you identified that address?   I then obtained a Crimes Act search warrant.


Right?   I subsequently attended the Brisbane Magistrates Court where I had that endorsed.


Okay. And then on the 28th of August 2009 did you execute that warrant on 34 Haywal Street Taigum?   Yes, I did.

Okay. Did you have a tape-recorder running during that search?   Yes. I activated the tape as we pulled up in the street, in Haywal Street on that morning. I recall at the time there were three other officers present, Detective Sergeant Steven Bignall, Detective Senior Constables Gavin Hackett and Detective Senior Constable Dave Graham.


Was there a technical officer present as well?   There was also the Forensic Examination Unit officer, Michael Tanowski was also present.


Now, just chronologically leap forward a little bit at this point. Did you subsequently charge Mr Mathews?   Yes, I did.


And at the watch house, did you speak to Mr Mathews?   Yes. I waited for Mr Mathews to be released.


Right?   And did you tape-record that conversation?   Yes, I did.


And so, that was on the 28th of August. On the 1st of September, just a few days later, did you return some of the property you'd taken from Mr Mathews to his house?   Yes, I did.


Did you tape-record that conversation?   Yes, I did.


Okay. Have a look at this disc, please. Can you identify the writing on the disc?   Yes. That's Detective Sergeant Steve Bignell's writing.


But does that disc, to your knowledge, contain the three - the three tape-recordings of the search warrant, the watch house conversation and the return of the property?   Yes, I recall Steve - Detective Sergeant Steve Bignell making that copy.


Okay. All right. Well, I'll tender that disc, your Honour, and I'll hand up the three transcripts.


BENCH: Mr Mathews, have you listened to that, have you read the transcripts? Listened to the tapes?


DEFENDANT: I - I haven't gone through them all to see - check their veracity, your Honour, if they're accurate or not. But I've seen them.


BENCH: Were you intending to play them?


MR HUNTER: No, your Honour.


BENCH: Why not?


MR HUNTER: They go for several hours. But we have the transcript; if there's any part of the warrant that requires some degree of cross-examination     


BENCH: Why haven't you read it? What have you been doing with the evidence if you haven't considered it, haven't read it? Mr Mathews? Mmm?


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH: That's the whole idea of giving you the evidence before the hearing so you know what's going to be produced. [Editorial: This must be considered in light of Shane Hunter's admissions on the following Monday after Kluck had told me to study the evidence in the Prosecution Statements and prepare my cross examination on that basis.  What is most important is that Hunter knew the irrelevant nature of the "Statements of Evidence", and said NOTHING.]  So, I'm going to ask you if you wish to object to any of this going in as exhibits.


DEFENDANT: Well, I haven't - yeah, that would be a massive job, your Honour, listening to all the cassette. That'd be hours and hours and days and days and days. And I mean, yeah, that's part of what this is all about. It's police harrassment of me.


BENCH: No. This is all about evidence, whether it should be admitted or not into these proceedings. I'm simply asking you - you haven't even looked at the transcript of the recorded conversations.


DEFENDANT: I've looked at them your Honour, but I haven't read them all through.


BENCH: Do you have any objection then, if you've looked at them?


DEFENDANT: No, that can go in, your Honour.


BENCH: Exhibit 4.

ADMITTED AND MARKED "EXHIBIT 4"

MR HUNTER: Thank you, your Honour. I'll just hand up the transcripts.


BENCH: And the transcripts as an aid. Thank you. So, the CD     


MR HUNTER: Field recordings.


BENCH:      as Exhibit 4 and the transcripts as an aid.


MR HUNTER: Thank you.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, I'd like the reservation being that there - not necessarily - I don't agree that they are necessarily the - accurate, but they can go in.


BENCH: Thank you.


DEFENDANT: Yeah. As long as they're not - I mean, if any part is at any time, seemed to be immaterial, I'd like to be able to consider it. Yes.


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, the Crown's quite open and amenable to any alteration of the transcript if it's inaccurate. It is simply the interpretation of occasionally muffled conversations. If the stenographer has mistaken, we can certainly sort that out.


BENCH: Yes, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Thank you, your Honour. Now, if I could just taken you back to the 28th of August 2009, you attended the address at 34 Haywal Street?   That's correct.


Who was - who was present at the time?   Detective Sergeant Steve Bignell     


I'm sorry. Who was     ?   Sorry.


     present at the house?   At the house?


You've already told us which police went with you?   When I first approached the door and knocked on the door, a male person answered the door. I'm not too sure exactly what that male person's name was. I asked him where Mr Mathews was and he advised he was in the house. I then told him, advised him that we had a search warrant. We then entered the front door of the dwelling. I recall walking down the hallway where it opened out into where the kitchen was and sort of lounge and living room, and I recall seeing Mr Mathews with one of his dogs, standing beside the sliding glass door as if he was about to go outside.


Yes. Did you subsequently call Mr Mathews back and conduct the search     ?   Yes, that's correct, yeah.


     in accordance with the warrant?   I advised Mr Mathews that we had a search warrant.


Yes. Did you provide him with a copy?   Yes.


DEFENDANT: I object your Honour, to the fact that prosecution call back, because the witness didn't say about being called back.


BENCH: What's that?


DEFENDANT: Mr Hunter did say - asked him, did he call me back. Well, the fact is that that's putting words into the witness's mouth.


MR HUNTER: Well, your Honour, the witness said he was at the door. I'm just saying that     


BENCH: Yes. Just     


DEFENDANT: Yeah, but that doesn't mean he had to call - call back.


BENCH: All right. Just - you can cross-examine him.


DEFENDANT: It's just - just that     


BENCH: You can cross-examine him. Yes, Mr Hunter, continue?


MR HUNTER: So, you executed the search warrant?   That's correct.


Yes. So, can you just describe how you went about that, where there was computer material in the house?   There were - there were only - the two occupants in the house was the - the gentleman who answered the door and - and Mr Mathews.


Yes?   We were directed to where Mr Mathews bedroom was     


Yes?        which was towards the back of the house. As we entered the bedroom, there was a desk, a bed and on the desk was a computer that was set up and actually running. I recall seeing the screen was on and the actual images that were on the screen looked quite similar to what I'd seen on the web sites that I was looking at previously.




Okay. So, subsequently after - well, did you examine the computer or did someone else examine the computer?   No, Michael Tanowski, the forensic officer on the scene did the examinations.


And did he tell you something as a result of his examinations?   He advised that     


Well, did he tell - he told you something about what he'd found?   Yes.


And as a result of that, did you seize the computer tower?   That’s correct, yes.


Okay?   And just also, I recall Detective Sergeant Steve Bignell was also making a recording - a video recording.


Right?   From memory, on his mobile phone.


Yes?   And then, later, with an actual video camera.


Okay. Was there any other items seized from Mr Mathews' house on that day?   There were five items in total that were seized.


Yes?   The desktop computer, a - external hard drive; that was in the room as well. Actually, all the items came from Mr Mathews' room. A digital camera - a Kodak digital camera and a USB thumb-drive and a Thompson voice recorder.


Right. With respect to the camera, was any investigation made of its contents?   Yes, there was.


Okay. Can you just tell us what happened to the contents of the camera?   Yes, the camera actually had an SD memory card     


Yes?        inside which was storing the photos that had been taken. Excuse me. And that was examined, upon return, to Queensland Police Headquarters.


You examined it?   I was present when it was examined.


Okay. And are you aware that a copy has been made of the content of the camera?   Yes.


Have a look at this disk, please?   Yes, that's     


Can you     ?   That's the copy of the data that was off the ST card that was in that camera.


Okay. And who - do you know who it was that made that copy?   Yep, it was a forensic officer by the name of Simon Lodge.


Okay. Perhaps, I should tender that for identification, your Honour and     


BENCH: Yes. Any objection at this stage, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour. no.


BENCH: That'll be admitted as Exhibit "A" for identification.


MARKED "A" FOR IDENTIFICATION

MR HUNTER: Okay. So, subsequent to the execution of the warrant, you arrested Mr Mathews and took him to the watch-house?   That’s correct.

And then, subsequently, you returned some of seized material to him?   Yeah, Mr Mathews was very particular. He would like the - the Thompson audio recorder back as quickly as possible. So, I expedited to have that forensically examined first, so then it could be returned as quickly as possible.


All right. Now, in formulating the charges, did you consider the material that was downloaded from the internet and subsequently loaded onto those disks?   Yes, definitely.


Might I have the return of the disk dated 17 July, your Honour?


BENCH: Exhibit 3.


MR HUNTER: Exhibit 3 and might we play that or at least, view the contents of that on the screens now?


BENCH: Yes.


MR HUNTER: Can I - just before we do that, as part of your investigation, did you become aware of how the complaint was initiated?   Ah     



The original complaint?   Yes. When I commenced this particular investigation and Mr Mathews' name had come up as a - as a person of interest, there are other members within the computer crime unit that advised that there was a similar incident that had happened previously. I subsequently made inquiries and reviewed a previous file in relation to that investigation.


Right. And what did that file reveal?   It was in relation to a complaint that was made by her Honour Judge Julie Dick to the Queensland Police     


Did     ?        via State Crime Operations Command     


Right?        and subsequently, a letter had been drafted and sent by Detective Superintendent Brian Hay     


To     ?        to Services Australia which was a web host based in Australia that was hosting particular websites at the time that were under that investigation.


Right. Do you know which - the names of those websites?   Not off hand, I don't, no.


Were any of them consistent with the four websites     


DEFENDANT: I - objection, your Honour. The witness has already said he doesn't know.


WITNESS: I don't recall the names of the websites but I do recall that the actual content was very similar to     


MR HUNTER: Okay. The content was similar?        the matter I was investigating.


All right.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, what does "similar" mean?


BENCH: Well, you can     


DEFENDANT: Yeah, similar.


BENCH: You can - you can cross-examine the witness on that.


MR HUNTER: In any event, the Australian Web Server, you said, was - sent a letter?   That’s correct.

 

And do you know what happened as a result of that letter?   Gerard Hirst who was employee of Services Australia, had pulled down - advised that he was pulling down those websites and they were subsequently removed.


Right. And was there any further correspondence from her Honour Judge Dick?   Not as far as I'm aware, no.


With respect to her original complaint, I mean?   No, no, not in relation to the original complaint.


All right.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour     


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT:      in regards to what - okay. Date. That's all right. I'll     


MR HUNTER: So, with respect to charge 1, can we look at the folder called "Self help Justice.com" and open the first particular - the document entitled, "Index".

EXHIBIT 3 PLAYED

BENCH: Is that coming up on your screen there, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Good.


WITNESS: It's at the top, second line.


MR HUNTER: It's index - 2. Can we just scroll down a short distance, just to there? Now, is this a document that you're familiar with?   Yes, I am.


And just with respect to the top box there, it notes a network administrator?   Yes, it does.


And who's that?   It states Russell G H Mathews.


Okay. And was that something that was relevant to your decision to charge?   Yes, that was also consistent with the details that were provided by the search on D and S Stuff.com.


Okay. And just scroll down a little further, please. And just stop there. There's reference to the name, Russell G H Mathews and "view list of my websites". Is that correct?   That is correct.


Can we just click on the hyperlink there please to view my list - list of my websites and then click the click? Was this a document that you sighted?   Yes, it was.


Right. It was Haig - the Haig logo. "I am Russell G H Mathews"?   Yes.


Can you just scroll     ?   Yes.


     down please? Sorry, just go back to the black and white photo. Was that a photo that you found in the website entitled, "Haig report"?   Yes, there was.


Okay. And we just hit the back arrow, please, twice. If we just scroll down to the words, "the evidence", there. Again, there's reference there to "an ex-police cop parasite, Peter Dutton"?   Yes.


Was that relevant to your decision to charge Mr Mathews?   Yes.


Okay?   That was actually similar to the - that fourth website, I - I couldn't recall before.


Right?   Very similar to that actual term.


Okay. And if we scroll down a little further again, just stop there. It says, "This website is part of the web presence of Russell G H Mathews"?   Yes.


Was that relevant to the - you having charged Mr Mathews?   Yes, it was.


Okay. Can you just scroll down a little further, please? Just - okay. See, there's a hyperlink there, "Other public sector parasites"?   Yes. I see that.


Just click on there, the hyperlink. Scroll down. Just stop there. It says, "Prosecute these criminals and pick the poof"?   Yes.


Was that relevant to your decision to charge Mr Mathews?   Yes, it was.


Okay. Just scroll down a little further, please. Just - sorry, back up. Again, it refers to Mr Ben Venutti there as being, "a criminal scumbag"; was that relevant to your decision to charge Mr Mathews?   Yes, it was.

  

Yes. Scroll down a little further, please. Now, do you know these two police officers?   Yes, I do. I - I've worked with both officers. They used to be stationed at Indooroopilly Police Station and I was also formerly at Indooroopilly Police Station.


Right. Do you know their names?   On the left is Monica Antony     


Yes?        and on the right is Henri Rantala.


Okay. Just scroll down a little further, please and it refers to Mr Rantala being "a dummy"?   Yes.


And there's reference there to Big A for Antony?   Yes.


Okay. If you'd just hit the back arrow, please. And was that - that content relevant to your decision to charge Mr Mathews?   Yes, it was.



Okay. Just scroll down a little further. You can just stop there. Does the reference there to ”corrupt cops" and "swine flu" have anything to do with the police air wing and "who said 'pigs will fly'"; did that reference have any relevance to your decision to charge him?   Yes, it did.


Just go down a little bit further. Just - it says there, "my qualifications"?   Yes.


Can we try the hyperlink to the Bachelor of Science perhaps. So, there's a hyperlink there to a Bachelor of Science in the name of Russell Gordon Haig Mathews. Was that relevant to your decision to charge Mr Mathews in particular?   Yes, it was.


Just back arrow please. If we can just scroll down a little further. "Our latest topics", just stop there. Sorry, keep going. Just keep going. Actually, it might be quicker if you just put in a control F, D-O-L-L-Y-I-N-G - I-N-G. Okay. There's reference there to - it says, "What I am proposing now takes us to a whole new level. I will use (already have) my already existing phenomenal Google Yahoo ratings to inoculate all of the domain - domains in this new global internet self-help justice network which like I did with Haig report". Can you explain in your capacity as a computer technician effectively, what it might - what this - the issue of Google Yahoo ratings are?   When you enter a search term into a web search engine such as Google or Yahoo, obviously people are trying to increase their ratings which would mean that they would appear, sort of, before any other entries would. So, people are trying to - say for example, if you put in Brendan Read, if you were hoping to - to get better ratings you'd want that - your web site to come up first for that particular search hit. So, I do recall Mr Mathews making mention on his web sites - I don't recall exactly which one, it talks about the Google touch and basically with that sort of theory, it appears that trying to link multiple web sites together will increase that traffic and then increase the ratings of that particular site.


Okay. And there's references there in the paragraph above to the sites "being all my own"?   Yes.


And he says, "I will use (already have) my existing phenomenal Google ratings". Was notations of that kind relevant to your decision to charge Mr Mathews in particular?   Yes, it was.


Okay. If we can just X out of that particular document and go to "forum" and type in "view topic 3F2D and scroll down, please; just a little further. "We're using your power", no, further down. Yes. You see in the middle of that paragraph,. or just below the paragraph, it starts, "There is cogent evidence that Judge Julie Dick is involved in electoral fraud"?   Yep, I see that.


Did references - did that reference and references of that kind play any role in your decision to charge Mr Mathews?   It - it did, yes.


Okay.


BENCH: Perhaps it might be best if you can just ask rather than lead; there's a bit of leading going on here.


DEFENDANT: There's a lot of leading, your Honour. It's all leading.

 

BENCH: So, the witness can see what's written on the screen; you can ask him, "Did anything in that - on that page influence you in charging the defendant?"


MR HUNTER: Okay. Thank you, your Honour. The     


DEFENDANT: It'll be relevant your Honour, that     


MR HUNTER: Well, it's     


DEFENDANT:      how it's happening.


MR HUNTER: With respect your Honour, the document does speak for itself. Me     


BENCH: Well, this is exactly right. So     


MR HUNTER:      reading it out is neither here nor there. It's simply taking him to the - to the relevant part.


BENCH: But you're asking him what's relevant and in him charging. It goes to the charges, so-----


MR HUNTER: Very well, your Honour. Thank you.


BENCH: And he can read for himself and he can answer for himself.


DEFENDANT: He said yes to everything, your Honour, so-----


MR HUNTER: Can you just scroll down a bit further, please.


BENCH: And I'm saying this because Mr Matthew's not legally represented so, you could probably do this sort of thing with a legally represented person.


MR HUNTER: Mmm. Just scroll down, thanks. Just stop there.


BENCH: You can identify the page that the witness is looking at     


MR HUNTER: Yes.


BENCH:      and then ask him the question.


MR HUNTER: Okay. You see the reference there?   Yes. There's a reference for Russell G H Mathews.


Right. And the sentence below it?   "View list of my web sites". That appears quite often throughout a number of these pages.


Right. So, we can say - okay. So, we can shorten proceedings by saying that - you've said that it appears on multiple occasions?   That's correct.


Right. Okay. And that - information of that kind was relevant to you?   Yes, it was.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, should be asking the detective - I mean, if the detective did the charging, just ask him what was - why did you charge this man?


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: I mean, you know, what - what - you know, I mean     


MR HUNTER: Well, Mr Mathews has said he doesn't know what the charge is about. We're going to go through each     


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour     


MR HUNTER: Excuse me. I'm addressing the Magistrate.


DEFENDANT: Sorry.


MR HUNTER: He's said he doesn't know what the charge is about. I am taking him chapter and verse through every piece of text in every document     


[Editorial: Shane Hunter Dispels Any Doubts For His Reason For Being In The Public Sector.  Shane Hunter is trying every bit of corruption that he can as he is maintaining an abuse of the process of the court system.  This is my first step to having my house and land returned to me plus many times the value in damages for the fraud of me by the Public Sector, that is the Governments of Australia, and by this Commonwealth Charge prosecuted by the Commonwealth of Australia, - Shane HUnter is from the CDPP, the Commonwealth is now culpable. The part of the Fraud of me of my house by the Queensland Government by the individual of Douglas Porter, the then Registrar of The University of Queensland that was this ARMED ROBBERY by the Police and Brisbane City Council, both parts of the Public Sector, is so simple and easy to prove.  All the evidence is public.  They needed a Court Order.  A court Order was MANDATORY, by LAW. 
There has never been a court order. Everyone involved when they know this evidence, which is public, becomes culpable.  It is a matter of unwinding.  There were many sections of the public sector involved as well as the Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church and Stephen Tonge. There have been so, so many public sector parasites involved.  All will be attempting to deflect the blame.  Each will be pointing the finger at others. Those others will try to defend themselves by blaming yet others.  Of course, we have already had a resounding victory in the Queenland Court of Appeal, that became "Talk of the Legal World".  The Court of Appeal also made highly relevant dicta comments by quoting ME.  This part of the committal hearing and actions by Shane Hunter were prior to my resounding victory in the Queenland Court of Appeal and it was related to the same subject matter.]

BENCH: You can do that but just don't lead the witness, that's all.


MR HUNTER: Yes, I understand.


BENCH: I know it's a difficult exercise but - and the information on the disc is in evidence but if you're asking a question and it goes to the charges, it has to be the witness's own evidence.


MR HUNTER. Okay. Well, perhaps we can shorten proceedings considerably if the discs are in evidence and I don’t have to take him to the document because he's been charged, because the charges have been laid and we can go through them     


BENCH: That's a matter for you, Mr Hunter.


MR HUNTER: Go through them during submissions.


BENCH: Purely a matter for yourself. And to make submissions I'm presuming you're alluding to.


MR HUNTER: Mmm.


BENCH: So, it may - it may - I mean, you'll still be making submissions?


MR HUNTER: Yes. I'm just trying to formulate the best     


BENCH: Yes.


MR HUNTER:      way of informing the Court of what the nature of the allegations are in     


BENCH: I was simply saying the page is viewable on the screen.


MR HUNTER: Mmm.

[Editorial: Magistrate Kluck had to detail in the simplest terms, the way that Shane Hunter should be doing his job; is this the reason that Shane Hunter is in the Public Sector?  Since it is such an abuse of process because Henri Elias Rantala and Monica Louise Antony - she is ultra dumb; just read her testimony in this matter - did commit ARMED ROBBERY, ]

BENCH: You could - and you could identify for the record what screen the witness was looking at and you could simply say, "Is there anything on that page there that influenced your decision to charge the defendant.


MR HUNTER: Yes. All right.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


MR HUNTER: Just X out of that one. Can we go to forum view topic; just punch in the view topic 2D 2E. Just stop there. Is there anything you see there that influenced you to charge Mr Mathews?   Yes.


And what part of it?   There was references to Henri Rantala being involved - being an armed robber.


Yes?   And references to being involved with corrupt police.

  

Yes?   And also the same for Monica Antony. And then, further below, there's some references to myself and also to another detective senior sergeant from the Fraud Squad, Anthony Klaus being corrupt cops and criminals.


All right. Can we X out of that document, please. In fact, X out of that folder and go to Haig report and     ?   Just to point out in that - that last page, when I initially did look at these web sites, I didn't actually see any references to myself. It wasn't until I'd sent that email to the web host in the US and I went back to these web sites, that my name began appearing, and references to that email and also, as you saw, that I was corrupt and a criminal.


So, that was after - I'll just get the date of the email, I think, was the 7th of February 2009?   Yeah. That's correct.


All right. If we can go the a document called Judge Julie Dick Electoral Fraud, another Word document please?   Assistance to the Court, when I initially was looking at these web pages, it was in relation to that - that complaint and it did come from Julie Dick, the resident of 12 Leopard Court, Warner.


Mmm-hmm?   So, that was my initial reason for looking at these sites. And subsequently, after looking at them, was it that I saw the other information relating to a number of other people, including the two officers, Henri Rantala, Monica Antony     


Right?        and then subsequently, myself.


So, you've referred to someone named Julie Dick, other than the Judge?   That's correct.


Okay. And is that lady     ?   She's the     


     the one from …?   That's correct. Yes. She was the initial complainant.


Okay. Now, is there anything in this particular web page - and I'll just scroll down slowly - that was relevant to your decision to charge?   Yeah. The references in that initial paragraph at the top relating to Judge Julie Maree Dick being involved in electoral fraud.


Yes. Right. Just scroll down, thanks. Just keep going. Keep going till you get to, "So, who is Julie Dick?" Just - can we just stop you there; do you know what this particular part of the document's referring to?   Um     


12 Leopard Court?   These are references to an address for Judge Julie Dick.


The real Judge?   Yes. That's correct.


Okay. Scroll down a bit further, thanks. Now, can you just stop there. There's a blank space there but it refers to the front gate. Can you explain why some of the photos earlier appear and this one doesn't?   Again, it could just be that the - the way that the - the particular web site is coded; its looking for a particular reference for the image somewhere.


Right?   And when it's pulled off the web site, it's trying to find that image and it just can't seem to find it.


Okay. Just scroll down a bit further now, thanks. Keep going. Okay. Stop there. Have you seen this before?   Yes. Definitely.


And     ?   That - there's a reference there for Julie Maree Dick, 12 Leopard Court, Warner and that was the actual details for the complainant who contacted Sergeant Bruce Mathiou and the subsequently spoke to myself.


Okay. Scroll down a bit, thanks. Now, you'll notice here that there it says "Location and maps and satellite photos"; is there any way of finding out where those photos might be contained given that they're not in the document there and the link seems to have failed?   I have viewed those images before, directly off the web site.


Right?   They may be contained in some of the folders that are on that particular CD.


Right click on the red cross, please; go down to properties. Does that help us at all?   Yep. If you can direct to that particular file name, 20map_cr01.


Okay. Have you see that before?   Yes. That's     


Is that the photo was that in situ in that space?   That was, yes.


Yes. Just click to the next photo, down the - down the bottom right. Yes, just click to the next one. And again, is that     ?   Yes.


And again?   That was one of the images that was [indistinct]; yes, and that one as well. Yeah.


Okay. So, there's four images there of - of what?   They're all - that's an aerial shot of ….


Okay. Right. We X out of that; and again, back to the document we were looking at before. Okay. So, we just scroll down a little further now, thanks. So, these blank spaces are the four photos we just saw?   Yep, that's correct. They were all - all together.


Yes. I'll just stop you there; was this something that you saw when you     ?   Yes.


     were conducting your investigations     ?   Yes, it was.


     again?   There's definitely references to the address and the phone number.



[Editorial: See Testimony of John Dick aka Clever Dick, who replies to a question for particulars with, "Do you want me to spell it?".]

Okay. Now, just scroll down to the text and photograph here. And is there anything that you see there that is relevant to this [indistinct]?   Yep. That's - that particular person in that photograph is John Dick, who's the husband of Julie Dick at 12 Leopard Court, Warner I should say.

 

Okay. Just scroll down, the text below that. Is there anything you see there that was relevant?   It's making a reference to the - to a Michael Francis Mellifont, and saying that he's a belligerent cretin. And it's - it's not actually Michal Mellifont; it's John Dick.


Okay. All right.


BENCH: We might have a break there, I think     

MR HUNTER: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

BENCH:      Mr Hunter. We're going to have a break now, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: So, you can attend to whatever you have to attend to.


DEFENDANT: Yes, thank you. How long will we be breaking?


BENCH: Probably about 15, 20 minutes.


DEFENDANT: Fifteen, 20 minutes. Okay. Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: Thank you.

THE COURT ADJOURNED

THE COURT RESUMED

BRENDAN SCOTT READ, CONTINUING:

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF:

BENCH: Mr Hunter?

MR HUNTER: Thank you, your Honour. Just take a seat please, Mr Read. We were, just before the break, looking at a document on the Haig Report     ?   Yes.


     which is entitled, well, it starts with the words, "Judge Julie Dick, electoral Fraud"?   Yes.


We'll just simply scroll down to another photos of a police officer; do you know that police officer?   Henri Rantala is in the screen there.


Is there anything on that particular part of the screen that is relevant to your investigations?   There's comments - sorry, just - if you just go up a bit, sorry, there's comments in that paragraph at the top just in relation to [indistinct], that the BCC and that parasites trespass, stole the property and had the Queensland Police assist them. And then it goes on to say, "I'll" - "I'll tell you about that parasite cop" - "parasite of a cop below".


All right. If we can X out of that document, please, and go to Haig Report index-2?


BENCH: So, just for the record, Mr Hunter, is this still relevant to which charge, charge 1?


MR HUNTER: Sorry, charge - charge 2.


BENCH: Charge 2.


MR HUNTER: The Haig Report is charge 2.


BENCH: Right.


MR HUNTER: Now, was there anything in this particular document that was relevant to your investigations?   Yep. The reference to ex-police, cop parasite, Peter Dutton.


Yes. Keep going?   Just on that again, it's signed off - again, "This web site is part of the web presence of Russell G H Mathews".


Right. Can I just ask you this; you've examined files on all four of these web sites?   That's correct.


Can you nominate who the authors of those documents are, what references to authorship, if any?   The only references that I saw in any of these web sites were for Russell Mathews.


Okay?   I didn't see any other mention of any other authors in relation to these particulars sites that we're looking at.


Okay. So, this document here, index-2 on the Haig Report web site     ?   Yes?


     is it mirrored anywhere else, do you remember?   If you     


Well, we've looked at a document earlier, index-2 on Self-help Justice     ?   These - I was just going to say, the images that appear and their references to the two police officers appear throughout the web sites     


Okay?        that we're reviewing at the moment, so it seems that there's quite a lot of repetition and - and one web site across the others.


Right?   They all do have certain differences but in particular, there's references to these two police officers across all - all those four web sites.


Okay. So, we can X out of the one index-2 and go to one called Proof of BCC; it should be in [indistinct]?   Yep.


No, the other one, sorry. Okay. Just scroll there; just stop there?   Yep. Just at the top in the - where the red box is?


Yes?   Makes mention of corrupt Australian Magistrates, Walter - I'm not sure of the pronunciation of the surname, Ehrich, is that?


DEFENDANT: Ehrich.


WITNESS: Yeah, Ehrich sorry. And Colin Strofield.


MR HUNTER: Okay. Just scroll down a little further. What about     ?   Again, just if you go up in that orange box, it makes mention of "Queensland Labour Government conceals Labour crime armed robbery". And then another reference to, "'Twas armed robbery shows the gun on her big right hip, big A".


And there's earlier references to who that is?   Yeah, there was a reference for Big A for Antony, for Monica Antony.


Okay. Just up a little bit, thanks. One more click up?   Yeah, there was - sorry     


[Editorial: The RUSE can be viewed On these Websites:]
Is there anything there you see?   Yeah, there was the ruse, where the red text is.


Yes. Anything before that?   There's also another paragraph above that, above the orange box which also makes - in references to solicitor Joanne Whiting - some rather vulgar sort of comments there.


Okay. And they speak for themselves?   Yeah.


What about, you mentioned the part that says the ruse?   Yeah. It just continues on about solicitor Joanne Whiting and just, obviously, the descriptions that are preceding her name there.


Okay. Just scroll down a little bit further again, thanks?   And there was also just references to her acting criminally as well.


Just stop there?   Again, the same comments are in bold - sorry, in capitals I should say.


Okay. Keep going. Again, this appears to be a replication of what was on another web site?   Yes.


And just back up a little?   Yep. Referring to the people in the photograph as criminals and "pick the poof".


Yes?   Again, Monica Antony and Henri Rantala.


And the same references as we saw before?   Same references as before, yeah.


Okay.. Just scroll down again; stop there?   And then there's references to Russel G H Mathews, member - ex-member of the standing committee, and then the address, 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia which is where Mr Mathews was residing. SKYPE address.


Yes?   And then an email address - gmail address.


Okay. So, you can just X out of that one, thanks.


Perhaps we can shorten proceedings a little bit; with respect to the other two web sites we haven't yet gone to, did you find similar content on those web sites to what we've already seen this morning?   Yes, that's correct.


Right.


BENCH: Will you be referring to those in your submissions or - or displaying them on the screen as evidence?


MR HUNTER: Yes, I will, your Honour. Yes. Yes.


BENCH: All right. That's - that relates to charges 3 and 4?


MR HUNTER: Three and four, yes. They're similar content. And as I said, as your Honour has correctly identified, the documents in there speak for themselves.


BENCH: Mmm.


MR HUNTER: They've all been tendered; we can refer to them in submissions if necessary but in the event that - I can go through every single one, but there will be a significant repetition. Rather than do that     


BENCH: Every single?


MR HUNTER: Every single document that's noted in the particulars.


BENCH: I see.


MR HUNTER: Rather than do that now, your Honour will no doubt have the flavour for the nature of the allegations     


BENCH: Yes.


MR HUNTER:      across the board. I have no further questions for this witness.


BENCH: All right. Mr Mathews?


CROSS-EXAMINATION:


DEFENDANT: Yes. Now, g'day. I can refer you - take you to your search warrant?   Yes.

Now, in your search warrant all the material that you - the evidence you gave that the reason you needed a search warrant related to Julie Dick, is that correct? Nothing to do with the real Julie Dick, wife of John Dick?   Are you referring to Julie Dick at 12 Leopard Court, Warner?


Yeah, yeah. The real Julie Dick. The other - Judge Julie Dick is really Julie Mellifont, isn't she?   I'm not sure if she is.


BENCH: Well, perhaps you could just frame your question in terms of address of the respective Julie's.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Well, Julie Dick, there is - but now you did     


BENCH: So, just for clarification, the search warrant related to Leopard Court, did it?   The complainant in relation to the matter that I was investigating, your Honour, initially came from 12 Leopard Court, Warner. Her name was Julie Dick.


Right?   She had the same name as Judge Julie Dick.


DEFENDANT: Yes. Now - yes, now you've mentioned previously about a take-down notice, served on servers Australia to remove - this is in your search warrant too     ?   That's correct.


     as it was in breach of his policy and - now they weren't in Queensland, were they?   Servers Australia? I'm not sure exactly where they were located.


But Queensland Police served - I'll put it to you that they were interstate - Queensland Police wouldn't have any jurisdiction there, would they? Or would they?   I'm not - I wasn't involved with the serving of any documentation.


But you've mentioned it - you've mentioned it?   Yes. I was aware of the


You've related it to - you've related to it. And said it was taken down?   I was aware that a letter was sent from Brian Hay to Servers Australia.


Yeah, okay. And so as far as whether that happened as you were saying, you can't really attest to it, how it got - how it actually happened, can you? Or can you?   Yeah     

You were saying you weren't involved in it, so you     ?   I wasn't personally involved in it, but I spoke     


So it's all hearsay?        I spoke to another officer who was involved in that actual investigation.


So it's hearsay, at this stage? So you're introducing hearsay evidence. Yep. Okay. And - okay. The - now, you're familiar with the Julie Dick matter, because you've put it in your affidavit here. And that it related to photographs being taken in their back - of their back yard basically?   That's correct.


And that's what - and basically John Dick and Julie Dick are concerned about is the fact some photographs were taken?   Yes, Julie Dick was quite upset when she initially spoke to me. When she came across the website.


That's right, yes. But the thing is, you've related it here, how she had been - you say, "John Dick stated the male person then walked to a purple coloured vehicle which was possibly a Mitsubishi"?   That's correct.


That's right. Now, so let's go to that part, you know, this is long before Julie Dick contacted you, long before Julie Dick spoke to you, isn't it? You put notices in your search warrant here     ?   That information that you just read out to the Court, that came from a statement obtained from John Dick.


No - yeah well this is - okay, fair enough. And so - yeah, okay. Now, and - well you concede that John Dick was concerned about some photographs being taken?   Yes, he was.


Of his property? And they'd made a complaint to police, at that time?   No, not at that time. No, he - the complaint     


You state that in - so, they definitely - they didn't or you don't know?   All I know is, the complaint that came to us came at a time after the photos were taken.


Yes. I'll put it to you that they did make a complaint to the police, and that's - I'll put it to you, that's what their real concern was, the fact that someone had taken a photograph in their back yard?   When I spoke to Julie Dick on the phone     


Yes?        after she had spoken to Sergeant Bruce Mathiou at Petrie Police Station - her concerns were in relation to her house appearing on the Internet     


Yes?        and being involved in - that that particular location - that the person residing there is involved in corruption and fraud, and at the time she was actually taking care of young children; she's a stay-at-home carer     


No, hang on, hang on a second.


BENCH: No, if you let the witness - Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: Mr Mathews - just let the witness answer. You asked the question; let him answer?   At the time she was a carer for kids, so she had kids that were actually staying at her - parents would bring them, drop them off there. A person who she doesn't know was taking photos of her house, posting them on the Internet, making all these allegations. So she was quite upset.

    

DEFENDANT: But are there allegations, what are the allegations about     ?   Well, on the website it says that the person residing at this address is involved in fraud and corruption.


Does it say that, or ask that question, are they?   No, it says that the person involved in this - at this address is involved in fraud and     


MR HUNTER: Can you point us to it, please?


DEFENDANT: I'm asking the witness your Honour, not the prosecution.


BENCH: Well, I'll allow Mr Hunter to     


DEFENDANT: To assist the prosecution - well, he's already been prompting him before, yes?    I just don't have control.


BENCH: He is the Prosecutor, and I'll allow him to bring the disc up, the information on the disc. The witness has already identified in his evidence-in-chief, so he can be redirected to that. If not now, certainly in re-examination. So we might as well do it now, allow it - allow the Prosecutor to     


DEFENDANT: Just bear with me for a moment, your Honour.


BENCH:      direct the witness to the relevant part.


MR HUNTER: Is it the Haig report first?


DEFENDANT: Well, I can keep on talking to you - and that can come up     


BENCH: No, it won't take long.


DEFENDANT:      okay, okay.


BENCH: Just keep you on track here. So the Haig report     ?   Yes, your Honour. If we could possibly bring     


MR HUNTER: No, go to ex-police powers site, Peter Dutton.

Go to what Peter Dutton did.


BENCH: Mr Read, are you familiar with the sequence on the disc?   Yeah, I'm just     

So you will be able, in any event, to     ?   Identify where it is.


     to direct them     ?   Yes, your Honour.


     direct Mr Hunter's assistant, there.


DEFENDANT: You've noted text not found, and that we're searching for it?   Could you just go back to the top of that?

There was an email - sorry, go down. Yes, stop there. I'm sorry, stop. No, I don't think it's actually on this particular page. Can we try just the index, on the right-hand side of the screen? Yeah, try the index. There's definitely references to corruption, and the people residing at that address.


Well, let's see it?   When I say residing, sorry, to      


Well, let's see it, please?        Julie Dick. Sorry?


Where is it?   Well     


BENCH: It's being retrieved. So if you just be patient.


DEFENDANT: Okay, okay.


BENCH: It was on the screen before, when he was giving his evidence-in-chief. And we're just trying to retrieve it, okay?


DEFENDANT: But not at that address, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, you've asked the question     


DEFENDANT: Well, we'll see it, we'll see it.


BENCH:      and it's being retrieved?   Scroll down to that URL there, the Haig report, Julie - Judge Julie Dick. So Mr Mathews, just at the top there, as you were saying before, are you referring to whether it's more of a question - is she involved in electoral fraud?


Well I think - isn't your question directed to the Julie Dick at Leopard Court?


DEFENDANT: Julie Dick at Leopard Court - that's     


BENCH: Is that your question?


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour.


BENCH: So it's not the Judge Julie Dick, it's     


DEFENDANT: It was stated that Judge Julie Dick - that Julie Dick at Leopard Court has a picture of her house - and that there's people there involved in corruption. Now, where does it say that on the websites?   We need to find it, just bring up the - where those pages of her home address, of 12 Leopard Court, appear? So slow down a bit - there's definitely references to 12 Leopard Court on this particular - on the screen at the moment.


Yes, yes?   And then there's references to the person in the photo being a belligerent cretin. Can we scroll down a bit further? Then there's references to Labour electoral fraud.


That doesn’t answer the question?   Phantom voters.


That doesn't answer the question?   Well, there's references on that particular website, talking about the people residing at     


Where - where please?   


BENCH: Well, if you just let the     ?   About people residing at 12 Leopard Court     


DEFENDANT: Where?        are one and the same as the same - as Judge Julie Dick who's residing at another address.


Where?   If you go back up the top, it mentions it. Scroll down a bit. The house at 12 Leopard Court, Warner. To increase the perception that Judge Julie Marie Dick lives here, the sign between the two white pillars to the right of the front door, states, "JD's place." There is more evidence that 12 Leopard Court Warner according to the Q 4500 is the electoral home of Judge Julie Marie Dick. Is there any more needed to connect Judge Julie Marie Dick to the Mellifonts?


The complainant - you've noted the complainant is not Judge Julie Marie Dick though, haven't you? She is a different person?   That's correct.


That's right. So Julie Marie Dick who is the complainant     ?   Yes.


     is not Judge Julie Marie Dick?   That's right.


There's no allegation that the Julie Marie Dick your complainant, is involved in corruption?   This website is suggesting that the person who's residing at 12 Leopard Court, Warner, is Judge Julie Marie Dick.


It's asking you the question? It's asking you the question    ?   Is any more needed to connect Judge Julie Marie Dick to the Malevont Mellifonts?


Mmm. Now, okay - now Julie Marie Dick was on the phone to you and she's all concerned. What did she want done?   She wanted those - she wanted to know what she could do about getting those websites removed.

   

Yes. Did you tell her - well at the top there's a email the administrator? There's an address there? Did she do that?   I did that on her behalf.  [Editorial:  Bunkum: Have a look at his email.]


What, hang on - at the top of the page, at the top of the page?   Yep.


There's - well the top of one other page, where are the other- there's other pages that - there is - well, why didn't she advise the website that in fact the - there is an error here?   That's a question you'll have to ask her, I think.


No, no. There is an error there, is there?   An error?


Of - as opposed to Julie Dick and Julie Dick, the Judge Julie Dick?   I'm not following     


Julie Dick at Leopard Court, and Julie, Judge Julie Dick? They are different people, are they?   That's correct.


They are different people? Okay. Now, and Judge Julie Marie Dick does not live at 12 Court, 12 Leopard Court?   No.


No, okay, it's a different Julie Dick. Okay. Now, and - so there is a mistake there, is there? Would you say it was a mistake?   I'd say the person who's authored this website has made an error.


Has made an error? There is an error there?   That's correct.


And you are saying Julie Dick wanted it taken down, wanted it removed?   She wanted to know what could be done to have it removed.


Have the error removed, basically?   Sorry?


Have the error removed, the error?   Well, the details about - her personal details that were on the actual website.


But it wasn't her personal details, it was Judge Julie Dick and     ?   Well, her name's mentioned, there's a White Pages extract with her name, her phone number, her address, photos of the front of her house, photo from the back fence, of her husband.


Yes, yeah, yeah, that's right. But the - but J M Dick is the Judge? 


BENCH: I'm not sure I'm following what your question is?


DEFENDANT: J N Dick, Julie Dick, if someone wanted to find the phone number for Julie Dick, they might go to J - they know Julie - her name is Marie, Julie Marie Dick. If they see a J M Dick in the phone book they'd go to that, would they? I mean     ?   If I'm looking for Julie Marie Dick, I'd go to the phone book and look for it, yes.


Sorry - J M Dick?   I wouldn't then post it on a website and - with allegations?   No, but - the thing is, that's already up on the website, that's already up on the Internet. On White Pages. Internet, on-line White Pages?   Yeah, White Pages - there's an extract of someone's details, and their phone, contact details in the White Pages.

Mmm?   That alone is not an offence in itself, as far as I can see.

   

No?   But then you couple that with other things, such as photos     


Oh you don't say I do it, but you - you allege that I did it?   And text around that, the story around what's going on. And that all - all adds to the whole crux of what we're on about.


There's an error there. What I'm saying is, there are, on the - was - was the actual website itself notified of the error?   Which website are you referring to?  [Editorial: Brendan Read did not need to ask this question.  He was just trying to be a smart arse.  Apparently, this is the type of person that KPMG want to have working for them. That is where Brendan Read now "works". This was Contempt of Court and Magistrate Paul M Kluck should not have permitted this to continue.] 

This - well, any of the websites?   Are you referring to the author of this website.


Well, the website itself; there are places on the website where it has, you know, to e-mail the website?   There was an e-mail that came up before. I think it was Russell Mathews at gmail.com.


That was on the bottom of a     ?   Yes.


     of a page, yes?   Is that what you're referring to?


Right. But I'm also saying at the top of a lot of the pages there is a - in the - there's a blue banner across the top?   Okay.


And it has my name in it and then it has beside it, it looks like a hyperlink to e-mail someone. There's     ?   Okay.


It was up earlier in the day. A lot of the pages have it on, I think?   Do you - you don’t remember which particular site it was?


No. No, no, I don’t. Yes. It's - okay, this site is complained about too in your - you say you're aware of this site?   Yes.


And they're e-mail the administrator?   Okay.


Then is that done?   No.


Why not; 'cause that would have maybe if he had advised the website of the error, then - and that Julie Dick at 12 Leopard Court was not Judge Julie Dick, it may have disappeared     ?   Mr     


     do you think that might have happened?   Mr Mathews, look previously I mentioned that I became aware of a previous investigation. 


Yes?   That involved exactly the same sort of thing.


Well     ?   Websites that were posting certain things on it which was the complaint that was made by the Judge Julie Dick which 

[Editorial:  We will discover whether Judge Julie Dick really did make this previous complaint.  We think not, and we believe we can prove the identity of the "previous Complainant". ]  

 

Well, we'll get to that later, yeah. but - no, what I'm saying is here, but this is - was that an error? Was that an error of     ?   No. I didn’t see     

 

     mistake of identity?   I didn’t see any reason to try and contact the person because we've tried to remove the website before and the website has just moved to another location.


What I'm saying is - was that an error before? Was there an error - this is a clear error here, isn't it; two Julie Dicks?   Yes, I think we've covered that.


Okay. We're clear, two Julie Dicks. What I'm saying is, did you ask her why she - had she - well, has anyone notified the administrator of the website     ?   No.


     of the error?


BENCH: You’ve asked that and he's answered it.


DEFENDANT: No.


BENCH: And you're not going to get a different     


DEFENDANT: So no one did.


BENCH:      answer the more times you ask it.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Fair enough.


BENCH: So move on.


DEFENDANT: Did you ask her if she had?   No, I don’t think she was in a position to want to - to talk to the people but that's a     


Well, she     ?        question you can ask her.


What I'm asking, you see, is the - you're relating here to their being angry about someone taking photographs?   Mr Mathews     


Yes?        a member of the public makes a complaint to the Queensland Police.


Mmm?   We charged - well, we're responsible for investigating that complaint.

[Editorial: Oh yes, of course.  I complained to police about the Armed Robbery committed by Henri Rantala and Monica Louise Antony by email, and all they did was block my emails, and did nothing to investigate the Armed Robbery.  That suggests that Rantala did not act alone but was acting for and with the knowledge of the upper ranks of QPS.]

That's right?   Okay?


Mmm?   So, as part of that responsibility, I contacted the web host,[Editorial: Check his email; it is in the TAN PANEL at this page.] where the actual websites were hosted to see if they could be removed.

[Editorial:  The very important point here is that they did not tell the webhost that there was a mistake on the website, and the nature of the error. Check his email; it is in the TAN PANEL at this page. They did not give either webhost, on either occasion any good reason they would require the website to be taken down.  In fact what the corrupt police wanted was to close down ALL of MY websites completely.  There was no reason to advise the webhost of the error, because then all that would have happened is that the error would have been corrected, most likely, and our websites, the thorns in the Sides of the Corrupt Qld Police, would remain.]


Yes?    At that - can I finish?


Yeah?   At that point, at the response by the web host, [Indistinct] Cammerit, when he responded to my e-mail, he said, "I'm cc-ing my client in on this e-mail". So, at that point, I presume - I'm unsure at this point, but I presume that you would have been made aware by the fact that my name then appeared on all these sites     


Well, do     ?        with extracts of the e-mail that I'd sent. Okay. If at that point, it was aware that something was going on, could not have something been removed then. If it had been brought to your attention, or to whoever was authoring this website's attention, that that stuff was on there and obviously the police were involved and investigating it     


There's not - but does anyone advise of a mistake? That's what I want to know?   Could the author not have contacted     


Sorry?   Could the author not have contacted me? My contact details were at the bottom of the e-mail - the author of these websites, because whoever got that e-mail has then posted it on here with my details, saying I'm corrupt and I'm a criminal. But they didn’t consider to contact me.


Well, yeah, that's right. What - all I'm asking is, if the people had wanted to get it - if that was there real reason - I'm suggesting to you that what they're very upset about, is they want to get someone prosecuted and when they saw that come up on the website, that was just, "Oh, here's a go; we can have a go at this person who's over the fence; that John Dick talks about in his affidavit"?    They made a complaint; it was investigated.


Mmm?   I found there was enough evidence to pursue a charge before the Court.


Yeah. Yeah?   So, I did.


Okay. But the - but anyway - okay. And could I suggest to you too also no one here indicates there is a mistake in the - in the e-mail to - who is it, Cammerit; that there was a mistake on the website?   Sorry, I don’t understand the question.


No - there is clearly a mistake here.


BENCH: Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: Move on will you?


DEFENDANT: Okay. Now, okay     


BENCH: I don’t know how much - how many more questions you can ask on that topic?


DEFENDANT: Fair enough.


BENCH: It's becoming repetitious.


DEFENDANT: Now, you have advised that - talking about Jodi Crawford; Jodi Crawford, office manager of Peter Dutton     ?   Mmm.


     this is in your statement to gain a search warrant?   That’s correct.


And stated she had never sent any e-mails of any nature in relation to what was posted on the website?   That is what she told me.


Yes. Okay. Did that have any bearing on your deciding to lay charges?   It had bearing on me obtaining a search warrant in relation to that particular website.


Yes. If she had - well, how would your opinion have been different; how would you have acted differently had she not said that; had she admitted that she had sent that e-mail?   Well, that - there was still information on that particular website; the ex-police parasite Peter Dutton.


Yes?   It still related to the officers Henri Rantala and Monica Antony but on that occasion there was references to an e-mail that was sent from the office of Peter Dutton.


Peter Dutton, yes?   So, then I made inquiries with his office.


Yes?   And that's when I spoke to that lady you mentioned.


That's right. And she said no and what - you put that into the - into the search warrant application?   That’s right.


So, that - what sort of bearing did that have on your deciding to proceed?   Well, just added to the fact that there was another piece of information on this website that was supposedly untrue.


If it was - if that was the actual truth though, would that have affected your actions in any way?   No.


It wouldn’t have?   No.


So, you know - okay. Fair enough. And - okay. Now - but there's nothing in your search warrant about Rantala or Antony?   Okay.


Is there?   If I may just have a look.


Can't you remember?   It's been a while.


Okay. Fair enough. And - but - yeah, okay, you need to see it?


BENCH: Do you have a copy of the search warrant?


MR HUNTER: It's the unsigned copy, your Honour, but it's still the draft.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Now, there is nothing in the search warrant regarding Rantala or Antony, is there, or is there?   No, there isn't, in this particular search warrant.


Okay. Now, I'll put it to you that you actually - after you'd seized or stolen my computer, you then contacted Rantala and contacted Antony and asked them did they want to make a complaint and be a part of this?   I spoke to them during the     


After?        investigation.


Hey?   I spoke to them during the investigation process and then they advised that they wished to proceed with a complaint.


So, you didn’t ring them after the     ?   I spoke to them after the search warrant as well.


Okay. And - and asked them to lodge a complaint?   I asked them what they'd like to do, yeah; did they wish to proceed with a complaint.


Okay. So, you’ve     ?   Well, in relation to     


     you rang them and     ?   I asked if they wished to supply a statement     


Yeah. So, you     ?        regarding the things that were posted.


Yeah. But you rang them and invited them basically to add - piggy-back on your - on your Dick mistaken identity action?   They were already aware of the postings that had been there for some time.


Yeah, I don’t doubt that but     ?   They'd made their own inquiries to try and get it removed but were unsuccessful. So, when this investigation kicked off     


Okay. Well, now - now, the - what is the - regarding Rantala's - well, let's talk - just deal with Rantala; everything regarding Antony piggy-backs off that - okay, Rantala. Now, what's the problem with Rantala? He's being     ?   Problem?


You're saying he's been defamed in some way?   He's referred to as an armed robber.


Okay?   As a criminal.


Fair enough. Well, think - you're investigating officer, you're a police, so you did investigations?   Yes.


Did you investigate that aspect?   About the Brisbane City Council being out there?


Yes?   On that particular day?


Yeah. And is - yeah okay. Now, his forcing entries to the property; did he? Did you - I mean, you investigated all this, didn’t you?   The City Council had a - had a     


Had a what?   You'll have to ask them exactly what the particular document was in relation to why they were there, but it was a particular authority as to why they were there and Henri Rantala was there as a keep the peace role.


And - but he - he forced entry?   I - I didn’t     


I mean - but the - well, I put it to you the council didn’t have authority to enter?   Well, my understanding was that they did. [Editorial: Clearly, this dumb plod Brendan Scott Read, did not "investigate". His role was to silence me so that the corrupt police protecting the Queensland Corruption where the Queensland Public Sector can Steal a disabled person's home, would be able to continue. Douglas Porter, the then Registrar of The University of Queensland, pat of the Queensland Public Sector, organized a number of other Public sector sections in Queensland to interact to defraud me of my home and much of my other assets. A step in that process was to clear my yard of my possessions, as a step in dispossessing me of my house and land that I owned.]


Well, I mean, you're the investigating officer?   Yeah.


You're the investigating officer and now, it's already in evidence and it's prima facie evidence as a document there from Brisbane City Council?   Okay.


Now, can we call that up, please; that was on one of those BCC     ?   Top one; entry notes.


Yeah. Yeah, that's the one?   Yeah, that's it.


Now, can we go down there?


BENCH: Just for the record; that's a letter to yourself dated     


DEFENDANT: That's a letter dated 25th of November 2004 from the Brisbane City Council addressed to Russell Mathews at 254 Hawken Drive, Saint Lucia. Now, that's prima facie evidence of that letter; isn't it - of the council?   That's a letter from the council, yes.


That's right. Okay. Now, what does it say there regarding what they are doing?   "As you have failed to comply with the notice on or before the 15th day of November 2004, council is authorised to enter your property under regulation 200 and perform work as notified to you in the notice dated 1st day of November 2004. It is council's intention to enter your property and perform the work on Monday 29th of November 2004 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. without further notice to you".


That's right?   "The council has obtained legal advice and confirms that your consent to that entry is not required and council is authorised to do all acts necessary to obtain entry and perform the work."


Okay. I'll put it to you and now you have previously referred to the rooms. Okay, this - just there now, they - that letter does state under regulation 200, right. And without notice to me - now, they don’t have that - clearly, they don’t have a Court order; would you say that?   I'd say that's not a Court order; that's a letter     


That's a letter; that's right?         stating the authority.


And if they had a Court order that would have been stated there?   That's not a Court order; that's a letter.


That's a letter, that's right. And they're saying they have authority under regulation 200?   That's what they're stating.


That's right. And that they have legal advice to that effect. Well, now, did you investigate that further?   Yeah, I spoke to Officer Henri Rantala as to the details as to why they were there on that day.


Yeah?   And he advised me.


Advised you what?   That - that they were there removing some property.


That's right?   From the - from the actual     


Premises - yeah?        premises and that he was there just purely as a keep the peace.


And force entry?   I wasn’t there. So, if you’ve got questions     


No. No, that's right. That's right?        for Mr Rantala     


Okay?        Henry Rantala ask him.


Okay. So, now - but the point is, regulation 200 - okay, I put it to you, you haven't investigated this very well, because also on that - we've seen it this morning, there is Queensland Government, I think it starts - the Queensland Government corruption or something like that. I think it's on a Haig report. Okay - well, now there is - I think it's actually in the - no, it's not. There's - but can you refer to the file called - in the Haig report, 2006/11/16 open letter police Queensland Government HML? Okay. Now, can you - okay. Now, are you familiar with that?   Yes.


Okay. Open letter to the Police Commissioner     ?   Yeah.


     and all Queensland executive; what does it - what does it say basically?   It makes reference to corrupt police.


And to BCC criminals, "prosecute these BCC criminals", I think it says, doesn’t it?    That's - that's what I read, yes.


Yeah. Okay. Can we go back up there again a little, thanks; "corrupt police, armed robbery"?   Yes.


And have you followed all this through in your investigations?   Well, I'm not     


Did you investigate fully the matter regarding Rantala and - because I'll put it to you - now, I'll put it to you and the Court can - if Rantala - if the council did not have authority to enter - you know, how did they - how would they [indistinct] - Plenty and Dillon cases. Your Honour, would be familiar with Plenty and Dillon. Council has to have authority to enter, to enter a property. Now, if they didn’t have authority to enter and it was a mistake of law; a mistake of law is no excuse, is it? Then Rantala would have had no authority to force entry, would he?


BENCH: Well, are you     


MR HUNTER: Well, with respect, your Honour.


BENCH:      asking him a question of law.


MR HUNTER: He's asking him a question of law. He can't     


DEFENDANT: Well, I mean, is this a law enforcement     


BENCH: You're asking him a question of law.


DEFENDANT: It's a law enforcement officer, your Honour.


BENCH: But     


DEFENDANT: He has to know something of the law.


BENCH: He's not here to give evidence as to his opinion as to the law.


DEFENDANT: But I mean, your Honour, he's investigating.


BENCH: Mmm. An ancillary matter, it seems.


DEFENDANT: Well, it's very central because they're complaining that - they're saying that the website and they're saying I am the website but the website is actually saying that     


BENCH: You can make submissions on that.


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


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


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


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


Right.


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


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


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


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


BENCH: Is Sergeant Rantala giving evidence in these     


DEFENDANT: Yes, he is?   Yes, he is.


BENCH: You can ask him about that.


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


BENCH: Yes.


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


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


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


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


DEFENDANT: Well     


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


DEFENDANT: Sorry, your Honour.


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


DEFENDANT: Well     


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


DEFENDANT: No, I haven't.


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


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


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


BENCH: What are you asking?


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


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


DEFENDANT: Okay.


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


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


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


     know - fair enough, you don't know whether he's an armed robber or not. Okay. Now, connecting me, personally, Russell Mathews, to these websites. Now, you've got my name all over them?   Yes.


And you've got letters that have been sent to me all over them?   Yes.


And, okay, and you've got the main name, that's my name, that my name has been registered?   Yes.


But what do you - do you have any other evidence that pinpoints me specifically as opposed to someone else taking on my identity?   Well, the computer that was located in your room that you were occupying at that house at 34     


Yes. Yes. Yes?        Haywal Street at Taigum     


Yes?        had references to these websites.


Yes, that's right. I'm aware of the websites?   Mmm.


And it's all my stuff on there?   Yeah.


I mean, you know, it's my name on there, my case. You know, I was robbed by police. I mean, it's my case, so, why wouldn't I be aware of it but have you got anything that says that I put it there and that I - I actually controlled it apart from - 'cause you don't - all it has is that however controlled it had put Russell Mathews on there and put an address on there, and such forth. What have you got that links me to it?   Well, I wasn't standing watching you update a web page if that's what you're asking.


Okay. Yes. What other things - what other forensic evidence can you put that puts me     ?   Well, Simon Lodge will be able to give forensic evidence in relation to what was on the computer that was located in your room.


That's right. But whether I am connected to those websites in the way that being in control     ?   I'm sure the evidence that Simon Lodge will be able to give might be able to assist you in that inquiry.


The detail are you saying?   I'm saying that the evidence of what was located on the computer coupled with what is posted on the sites     


Now     ?        plus the DNS registry.


That's right. But that's - none of that is conclusive, is it?   Well, it sort of points to a particular person.


That's right?   There's no other references     


It's no more than like a telephone entry, J N Dick. That's no more than a telephone entry, J N Dick, is it?   There's no other references on the site that anyone else is authoring or in control of that website.


Someone may be trying to make out that they're me?   Perhaps.


Perhaps. Maybe it could be someone who likes me and trying to do me a favour but, anyway, okay, well, you don't have anything stronger than merely references     ?   It would be impossible for me to sit there and physically watch you update these pages.


Yes. But forensically?   The same pages or I won't say the same, very similar pages, had already been taken down previously from Servers Australia     


Mmm?        which were sites that were in your name.


Mmm?   And these sites have appeared again and now Servers Australia that appeared overseas.


Mmm. And stuff on my computer. Now, also, is it possible to copy stuff off the internet onto computers?   Well, you're looking at it right now. That's correct.


Yes. That's right. Okay. So, what's on my computer, if it's similar to what's on the website, doesn't say which way it went, whether it went from my computer to the website or website to my computer?   I didn't do the forensic analysis on your computer and that's something that you'll have to ask Simon Lodge.


Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Now, can I refer you to the [indistinct]? Where was that, on page     ?   Yep. That's it.


The [indistinct], yes. Now, the substance of that, was it going to legal opinion from a Wayne Talton?   Yes.


Okay. Now, what it's saying is, basically, as I understand it, is that it's saying that - suggesting that the council didn't have authority to enter and you didn't investigate that?


BENCH: He's answered that, hasn't he?


DEFENDANT: Okay. You didn't investigate that. Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Now, re HT track, you said     ?   Yes.


     that took a mirror copy that's [indistinct] on the web server?   It attempts to, anyway.


Mmm?   It attempts to.


It attempts to?   There's obviously issues that can arise with changing technology, I mean, changing the way a website is formatted. This particular site or some of the pages that were - the ones that were subject to this matter today were in PHP and there are some issues in relation to PHP.


What are they?   Just sometimes HTML pages are sitting there as a file where the PHP runs off a web server and it generates, as the user comes to - visits the site, the PHP server, the web server, generates the web page for them.


I see?   That's a PHP file rather than HTML file.


Okay. Now, so, did you copy PHP on - you've got - you've said you've mirrored the website?   As best I could with the software.


Okay?   Yeah.


But is it - I think you said it was a mirror copy but it's not a mirror copy, it's an imperfect mirror copy?   It's the best that I could do with that software, yeah.


Okay. But do you know how accurate it is, a copy of the server?   No. Because I can't actually look into the server to see exactly what's on there but     


You can't?   I can't but I     


Okay?        can say that everything that I've got on the disc there has been provided to the Court today     


Yes?        that's come off that web server.


Has come off that web server. It actually come off your computer what's been served up to your     ?   That's right. To     


     to your computer?   The software connects to the web server. It then pulls the files back to my local computer     


Yes?        and then I then burnt - the files that were saved in the local computer and then burnt to a DVD which is what we're looking at.


Okay. Now, a different computer could or could not get a different - pages, different content?   Sorry, a different computer?


Would another, a different computer get exactly the same content?   Sorry, which     


Is it dependent upon which computer you used to - to produce these discs?   I'm not sure which computer you're referring to.


No, no     ?   The one where the web server is or     


No. You - you - your police computer?   Okay, yeah.


You're sitting there at your police computer and you put it in and you got a copy. Now, that's that computer. Would you get the same from another computer, exactly the same - you say this is a mirror image, mirror copy? Would you get an identical mirror copy from another computer or would it be different?   If you're using the same version of software you should be.


Same version of HT tracker?   Mmm. It's suggested it would, yeah.


It would be?   Mmm.


Are you sure of that?   I'd suggest that it was accurate.


Okay. So, you'd get exactly the same copy from any where, from a computer any where in the world?   If you followed the same procedure.


Yes. Same procedure?   So, if I used a different computer in the same room, connected the same way, using the same version of software     


Mmm?        in theory, you should get exactly the same result.


What about in a different city? Would you get the same mirror copy in a different city? Would it produce the same disc?   Are you talking about the same software or     


Yes, the same software, HT tracker, so, yeah. If you use the same version, same program?   Potentially you could. It would all depend on the connection speed as well, how many files you're getting because sometimes, you can get errors in relation to the extraction of these websites     


Okay. Let's - okay?        and then there will be a log that will come with that as to what, if there was an error.


Were there any errors like that on this one?   There was, yeah.


Okay. And where's the error log on that? Is that on there, is it?   It's held within the disc.

Okay. And what was the substance of those error logs?   I can't recall.


I think it's worthwhile investigating that?   HTS log.


HTS log?   So, at the top of the screen on the first line, you just see that's when the software was launched. It shows the version, time and date stamp, and then list across -if you just go up to the menu, I think it's "view", sorry, "format" in the Word rack. Just make it a bit easier possibly to see everything on the screen. Then you'll see the list of the websites that were entered to do the actual extraction, so, Self Help Justice.com, Austil Publish.com, Ex Police Peter Parasite Dutton     


Okay. Yes. Okay. Now, how - why - why would this error log be produced?   You'll see that it makes references to PHP files there. Again, sometimes with PHP, you might need a user name and password for it to be able to actually attain that     


Did that occur in any of these, that you need the user name and password?   I'm not sure if that's exactly what was the problem with it but it just threw an error in relation to Index.PHP as you'll see - there's a time stamp 15.42.12 and then the next line underneath that makes reference to a file from Ag Report.com, Index.PHP. And then the reference for the time stamp was "error not found 404 at link Ag Report.com".


Mmm?   So, the software is, while it's drilling down into the website, it's identifying all these different links.


Yes?   It's hit a link for a PHP file and it just can't find it, so, it's come back saying, "I can't find that PHP file".


I see. Okay?   But if it was HTML, it would be able to pull it off because HTML files just sit in there.


Okay?   As if, like, just the same as an image does.


Okay. So     ?   And that may account for why some of those images weren't showing up.


Okay. Now, would that be the same from - would that be the same for any computer, from any place else that you get the same error report?   It all depends because at the other end, I don't know what State that the website or website server is at at the other end, so, that might change.


Yes?   So, I couldn't say.


So, the web server could be serving up different things to different people?   Yeah. It might - the web server might not have been activated or that part of the web server might not have been activated to allow the PHP to be produced or it could be something along those lines.


So, that mirror copy is not really a mirror copy?   Well, it's the best I could do at that time.


Okay. So     


BENCH: We might break for lunch now.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: Come back at 2 o'clock. Come back a bit early, yes     


DEFENDANT: Two o'clock. Okay.


BENCH: All right then. So, unfortunately, you'll be sometime, I suppose with     


DEFENDANT: Mmm.


BENCH:      the witness.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: So, 2 o'clock. Make it for two.


DEFENDANT: Yes. I appreciate it. The little boy is getting a bit restless, too. Thank you.




THE COURT ADJOURNED










THE COURT RESUMED




BRENDAN SCOTT READ, CONTINUING:




BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes?


BENCH: Your cross-examination.


DEFENDANT: Thank you. Yes, your Honour. The screen's not up.


BENCH: We'll just get that.


DEFENDANT: [Indistinct] wait, please.


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, perhaps we can get Exhibit 3 back because that was returned to the Bench?


BENCH: While we're just waiting for that to come up, tomorrow I do have another matter in the morning so, I thought - I anticipate it will be completed by 11 so, just with your witnesses tomorrow     


MR HUNTER: Yes, thank you, your Honour.


BENCH:      Mr Hunter, if you could not have them     


MR HUNTER: Not before 11 o'clock?


BENCH:      here before 11.


MR HUNTER: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: It's a matter that - it's a long going matter - a long-standing matter which I need to complete and I fear if I don't do it tomorrow, it will just go on and on so     


DEFENDANT: So, we     


BENCH:      if you can grant me that indulgence, thank you, Mr Hunter.


DEFENDANT:      won't need to be here till 11 either?


BENCH: Not till 11, Mr Mathews. Okay?


DEFENDANT: Okay. Thank you, your Honour.


MR HUNTER: Just while that's coming up, your Honour, as I

mentioned a bit earlier, that final statement was handed to me during the morning break .


BENCH: Right.


MR HUNTER: I haven't had an opportunity to actually fully consider it, however, it comes with a disc. I'll be meeting with the witness this afternoon but perhaps I should just hand that over to Mr Mathews now     


BENCH: Yes.


MR HUNTER:       and if he has a computer he can view the disc tonight. I probably won't call the witness tomorrow given the shortened day tomorrow.


BENCH: Mmm-hmm.


MR HUNTER: it'll probably be Monday.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: What is that about?


MR HUNTER: That's the computer forensics.


DEFENDANT: Oh okay.


BENCH: All right? So, that's yours, Mr Mathews, for you to consider.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: So, is that right to go now?


MR HUNTER: Yes, we're ready. Sorry, your Honour, yes.


BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Thanks, your Honour, no worries.


BENCH: So, what questions do you want to ask the witness now?


DEFENDANT: Now - thank you, your Honour.




CROSS-EXAMINATION:




DEFENDANT: Could I refer to that - the ruse, the part that was a ruse, please? Now, you have already said that you were aware of the page there, complaint to the Police Commissioner?   Yes.


About armed robbery, and you had read that?   Yeah.


Yeah. Did you     ?   The one - yep.


Did you investigate by following up with the other sections of the police whether they had acted on that themselves?   No.


Any section of the police had?   No.


Did you check with the Commissioner's Office?   No.


No. Okay. Fair enough. And now, on this section, the ruse     ?   Yes.


     we've already looked at the CMC - oh no, what was that where we had John Britten and the CMC, Robert Walker? That was - excuse me a second, your Honour. Proof of BCC multiple crimes?   Yep.


No, no, no. That's not it. That's what we're on. Proof of Labour - okay, we've got the John Britten - now, you've - we've already seen that, Rob Walker where he says basically, regulation 200 overrules section 160 of the Health Act. Could we have a look at John Britten's letter, 'cause you - you would have viewed all these, of course, wouldn't you?   Yep.


Okay. Complaint about Joanne Whiting and Wayne Tolton. If you go down through there, he mentions that effectively regulation 200 overrules section 160 of the Health Act. If you come down there, we'll find that where he says that. Hang on. You were of the view that the Health Regulation - and the cases referred to in your complaint so, that - that regulation would be overruled case law and here it is saying that - he here effectively approved the - what the council had done. Would that be what you would have got out of that?   No. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to work out which part you're talking about, Mr Mathews?


Well, the whole letter from John Britten; he was basically saying that he agreed with the - what the council had done, that the regulation - talking about health regulation and health regulation 200.


BENCH: What - what's the question?   Yeah, I don't     


Mr Mathews? What     


DEFENDANT: I'm asking whether Mr Read has viewed this and understands what it's saying?   Yeah, and it's saying that Mr Tolton's view was correct - advice was correct.


That - that's right. That - that - so, okay. And now if we could have a look at the information Commissioner   ?   And that BBC - BCC is not required to seek permission from a Court before entering the premises.


Okay. Yeah?   I don't understand the point, yep.


You got that from that letter, too. Yeah, okay. Now, can we go to - can we go back and - and then go to the information Commissioner's - where we go to, John Britten. And then Susan Parker, "Is this the information Commissioner", can we click on that 'cause that was up on the web site, too and it's part of the evidence. And if we go down 427, the bottom of that, you can see that the council was, in fact, entitled to enter the applicant's property under section 200 of the Health Act and that she mentions, I think, above that section 160 so, and the - she also mentions the case, cases there, Plenty and Dillon. "There was nothing before me to suggest council [indistinct] was unlawful. The applicant relied upon cases dealing with the power to enter unto land without - on to land without warrant [indistinct]". And so, now, you're familiar with that too? You had considered that before you charged me; is that correct?   I've seen this document before.


Yeah, and you considered the merit of what was being said, the substance of it? What I'm wondering is, did that - did that reaffirm your decision to charge me, you know, that - the three - those three letters from the CMC, the Legal Services Commission and from the Information Commissioner saying that the council were you know, entitled to enter in those circumstances?   Just going back to the first letter that you produced - that you brought up, which was the CMC one.


Yes?   I don't know if you - you didn't mention it before, but there was an actual paragraph in there that spoke about that there was no - in relation to Officer Rantala     


Yes?        you made specific comment about there was no misconduct or - or anything     


That's - that's right, yeah. So     ?        against him.


So, you saw that and you - so, you took that to be that that was more reason to charge me, that was good reason to charge me, the fact that - and the regulation 200 and that the council was always entitled to do what they were doing, talking of regulation 200?   Well, in relation to - to charging you     


Mmm?        everything was taken in to consideration.


So, all that was - that was actually taken into consideration?   I have looked at that document?


Hey?   I have looked at that document but that     


You have looked at that?   But that - that wasn't the sole reason of the charge.


No, no, no, no, no but that and the - the fact that - well, and the fact that - well, the police hadn't reacted to the open letter of complaint. They would have been all positive aspects, would they, to towards charging me, yep?   Sorry, what do you mean by open letter of complaint?


Well, did you see the letter to Atkinson, open letter to Atkinson earlier, referred to? You're familiar with that 'cause that's up there?   Yep.


Yeah. So, yeah, so you were happy because that and these other three letters, that reaffirmed your confidence that you were - you were - reason to charge me?   I was looking at the specific comments around what was said against Officers Rantala and Antony in relation to allegations that they were criminals and involved in armed robbery.


That's right. And the fact that that whole aspect that they obviously weren't' [indistinct], because the council were legally entitled to enter because this all confirms that the council were legally entitled to enter. If - what I'm saying is if the council weren't entitled to enter, then Rantala wouldn't have been able to force their entry, would they?   Sorry, I'm - [indistinct]     


If the council hadn't done what they had to do to enter - you're a police officer, you know what police have to do and they can't force a house-holder, a sole occupant - rather, an exclusive resident, exclusive possessor or property, to allow another person into their property if they don't want them to, if they're not entitled to, are they, you can't do that as a police officer?   If there's a lawful reason for - for that action to occur     


But if there's no lawful reason; if there's no lawful reason for those people to be - to enter, you as a police officer can't force entry, can you?   No. I wouldn't be forcing entry to someone's home     


No?        without a lawful reason.


Or - or their property which they have exclusive possession; that's right. That's right. So, what I'm saying is you've considered all these matters and you were confident that you know, the police officer hadn't - Rantala, hadn't acted improperly?   That's right.


Because he thought - you - you were - you were confident that he     ?   Well, even if - if there was issues in relation to his actions     


Yes?        that would have been addressed in the CMC, in that letter that they've responded with.


You'd say so. And that gave you added confidence?   Yeah, of course.


Yeah. Okay. Okay. That's - that's what I'm wanting. These things gave you added confidence. Okay. Now, in your - is it in your statement or in your affidavit that you state that you contacted a family member?   Sorry, in what part was that?


In either your - to obtain my address or something?   No, that was done through another means.


But you do mention in one of your statements about contacting a family member?   Yeah, there was a number of enquiries I did to try and locate you and one of those was to try and identify if there was a family member that knew where you were currently residing.


And what happened there?   I did speak to someone.


Who was it?   Is it mentioned in the     


No, it's not mentioned; just mentions a family member?   The actual person I spoke to - I don't remember his exact name.


Well?   It was a male, but he couldn't tell me exactly where you were residing.


Well, what - where was he, how did you contact him, or     ?   It was just a next of kin listed on - on our computer records.


Okay. And who was that?   I - I can't recall.


Okay. So - but it was a male listed as my next of kin. Now, because it's mentioned in the document, I'll find the - I'll find the document in a moment to - that's right. "Checks on the police computer system identified the person residing at that address as Trevor Henry Kroll. I conducted enquiries with family members of Mathews who stated Mathews was living in Taigum with a person by the name of Trevor Kroll" Okay. Now, can you elucidate on that or expand on that?   No, that's the only information that they were able to provide.


Okay. Who was - but - well, we want to know who it was. I mean, I want to know who it was. I mean, if you're, you know, this is evidence that you - you've sworn to     ?   Mmm.


     to gain an affidavit, and so, you know, that could be in contention?   I don't recall the exact name of the family member but that wasn't the basis for me identifying that address. There was other avenues of enquiry that I relied upon.


Okay. But they - they have - you state here that they have provided you with some positive evidence, that Taigum     ?   Yeah, all they said was that - the suburb and that person's name of Trevor Kroll.


Okay. So - and do they say definitely or do they say     ?   No, it was just - it's believed - they weren't in current contact with you but the last that they heard that you were living in - around that area, around the Boondall area and - Boondall/Taigum area, and that you were living with a person that they knew as Trevor Kroll. That's all they could say.


Okay?   But they said they hadn't spoken to you so - for some time.


Okay. So, yeah. Would you have kept records of that?   The actual conversation.


Yeah. Of - made notes of it either, of time and dates and person or anything like that?   I can't recall off the top of my head.


Well, we could call for them, could we, your Honour? May I call for that as evidence to be produced to the Court?


BENCH: What, his notebook? What are you seeking?


DEFENDANT: Well, his - the witness has alluded to the fact that he has had made - did make notes of - of enquiries he conducted with a family member, male family member.


BENCH: I thought he said he couldn't recall whether he made notes?   Yeah. That's right.


DEFENDANT: Or can you     ?   I can't recall whether I made a note of it or not.


Okay. So, when you were writing this up, you wrote up this from memory, when you were writing your statement?   Just that component.


Okay?   Because I didn't mention the actual person's name in the affidavit.


No, that's right. How can we identify whether there was - your Honour , whether there was a note made of it? If there was, and the witness says he can't remember     


BENCH: You can only ask the witness if he made a note of it     


DEFENDANT: And if he can't remember can we     


BENCH:      and if he didn't make a note of it ask him how he remembers it.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, well that's right. Well, how do you remember it and - and     


BENCH: You know, when did he make the statement? When did he     


DEFENDANT: That's right. Well, the statement was made 27th     


BENCH:      make the - you know, explore it that way, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Sorry?


BENCH: Explore his     


DEFENDANT: The statement was made on the     


BENCH:      recollection in that manner.


DEFENDANT: The statement was made on the 27th, was it, 27th day of August?   That sounds right, yep.


Yes, it's dated the - dated. So     ?   It was shortly prior to that, that that enquiry was made.


Okay. So     ?   But that wasn't the basis for me to go to     


So, it’s not your practice     ?        identify 34 Haywal Street, Taigum     


No, no?        as the address for the warrant, no.


No, no. But - that's right. But now, it's - it's not - is it your practice to make notes of your investigations as you go through them of the things you do? Date, time, you know, on this matter     ?   At times, yes.


Mathews' matter. You know, checked family member; is that your practice?   At times, yeah.


Yeah. At times? Not always?   Sometimes I can just recall it.


Mmm?   Sometimes I can just recall the details.


Yes. But you don't put - do you have - do you have files, investigations files? It could be - you could be leaving the police force, as you have, and someone else has to take over so, they have to know what's been done, wouldn't they?   I guess, if it was being handed over.


So, who - who would now have control of that?   Perhaps that could be a question you could ask Detective Sergeant Steve Bignell.


Mmm. Okay.





So, wouldn't it be - is it practice, the police practice to make notes of the investigations they undertake if they make phone calls? Would this be via a phone call?   That wasn't the - it wasn't crucial evidence to identify the address that you were staying at, so     


No. There's been some - it is mentioned in the affidavits for the search warrant therefore it must be relevant?   It's relevant, of course.


Yes. That's right. So, therefore, it's - it's legitimate for me to question on it?   Yeah. By all means.


Okay. So     ?   I just don't recall if I made an actual notation about who the person was.


Where would that be? You don't have any - so, you don't have access to that now?   No.


Because you're no longer in the Police Force?   That could be a question maybe for one of the other law enforcing officers.


So, who - who would now have control of that?   Perhaps it could be a question you could ask Detective Sergeant Steve Bignell.


Mmm. Okay. I'll say you referred me. Okay. No worries. Now, in your statement, you say you checked with the ANZ Bank     ?   That's correct.


     that I did internet banking?   That’s correct. Well, I didn't say you did internet banking. I said the bank account - your - the bank account in your name     


Yes?        had conducted internet banking transactions.


Internet banking transactions, does that mean making transactions over the internet?   That’s correct.


It doesn't mean these websites necessarily?   No, separate to these websites.


No, no, no?   Yeah.


Because these websites being internet, a jury could - could, in their minds think, that's saying he's using bank for those - for the internet. You know, it could be misconstrued in that way; would you agree?   Sorry, I'm not following your question.


Well, you did say "bank accounts" and "internet transactions". Now, can you see that people may think internet, these websites, jury members?   No. That was just the way of identifying a possible location where you were.


I see. Okay. All right. Okay. And - but do you have anything to link that IP address with those internet transactions were done from to the website?   No. That wasn't the purpose.


No. But do you have any other evidence of that effect that links that website - links that IP address that was doing internet banking to these websites?   I don't know.


You don't - well, do you have any evidence to that effect?   I don't personally. Simon Lodge might be able to provide some further information in relation to that.


I see. Okay. Okay. Now, okay, now, you spoke to Jodi Crawford, did you, in     ?   That's from Peter Dutton's office?


Peter Dutton's office. Did you speak to Peter Dutton?   No.


No. He wasn't available or what or you didn't bother?   I believe I rang and spoke - she answered the phone, Jodi did     


Yes?        and I advised her what the call was in relation to and she seemed to have an idea about it and had spoken to you at some point or communicated with you at some point, so, she spoke to me about it.


And she was aware of - of the email on the website?   I advised her of what was on the website and asked her to have a look at it and to     


But she hadn't seen it prior to that or had she?   I'm not sure. I just asked her to let me know if that was accurate; what was on there was accurate.


Why did you ask her that?   To try and identify whether it was, the further information that had been posted on the site was, in fact, true.

Yes. Yes. And that was - that was part of the reason that I'm being charged with this in relation to that page, is it?   Yes.


That's what Peter - what Peter Dutton did, how he did it, the evidence by HTML?   Yes.


That page there, so, that's, okay, so, that was one of the aspects of why that was - because that was untrue; you're saying that was untrue?   Yeah. Well, that's what they were claiming, yes.


Yes, that's right. So, but, that's only hearsay that that was untrue, isn't it? Are you going to produce evidence to the effect that - are you going to produce her as a witness to say that was untrue?   I haven't got a statement from her yet.


You don't have a statement from her, no?   No.


But that was part of the reason you decided to charge me in relation to that site?   And also Henri Rantala and Monica Antony also appear on that site.


On that page. I see. Okay. And so, fair enough. Okay. Okay. Did you - Peter Dutton, he was a police officer?   I didn't know that.


Didn't know that?   I know there was references to it on the - on your - not your website but on the website.


On the website, yes, allegedly was mine?   But I wasn't aware that he was an ex police officer, no, not until I read it on the site.


Okay. Have you confirmed that since or not?   No.


You haven't?   No.


Do you know whether Jodi Crawford is related to police members?   No. No idea.


You don't know. Okay. And, fair enough. That's right. There's a mention that - well, you've mentioned about the previous complaint by Judge Julie Dick?   Yes, that's correct.


Allegedly by Judge - allegedly by Judge Julie Dick. Now, it's also stated that she had determined not to continue with it; not to continue with that complaint?   That's my understanding.


Okay. So, you don't - so, you haven't spoken to her to find out not to continue?   I haven't spoken to the Judge Julie Dick, no.


Okay. Now, the fact that - I should mention to the Court, the fact that that was mentioned in evidence about Judge Julie Dick haven't made a complaint and such and discontinued it, that's hearsay at this stage. The prosecution should produce evidence that they want that to support that evidence. They should support their own - they should produce witnesses who can state that.


BENCH: State what?


DEFENDANT: That - regarding the complaint by Judge Julie Dick.


BENCH: Is not continuing?


DEFENDANT: No, no, there was - previously, it's alleged that there was a complaint by Judge Julie Dick about websites.


BENCH: Is that right?


DEFENDANT: Sorry?


WITNESS: That's correct.


BENCH: That's correct. Yes, the witness says that correct.

DEFENDANT: And the thing is, that's hearsay; that's hearsay. This witness can't - doesn't have personal knowledge of that.


BENCH: About the complaint being made?


DEFENDANT: Yes. By a Judge Julie Dick previously.


BENCH: Well, you haven't spoken to the Judge personally?   I haven't spoken to her personally, your Honour, no.


But somebody has told you that she made a complaint?   One of the other fellow colleagues from my old team was involved in that investigation.


DEFENDANT: That would be hearsay.


BENCH: It sounds like hearsay.


DEFENDANT: Mmm.


BENCH: It's a complaint.


DEFENDANT: It's hearsay. It's hearsay that     


BENCH: Presumably, Mr Hunter, is somebody being called to give that evidence or is it relevant or what?


MR HUNTER: Well, it's     


WITNESS: Steve Bignell can speak in relation to that as well.


MR HUNTER: Steve Bignell is a witness; he's a witness.


BENCH: He's a witness. All right.


DEFENDANT: Okay. So, he     


BENCH: Sorry, Mr Hunter, is     


MR HUNTER: Yes. No     


DEFENDANT: Yes. Okay. Okay. So, I've got to ask Steve Bignell these things. I should make a note so I don't forget. Can someone remind me to ask him about - sorry.


BENCH: I take it the Judge is not giving evidence     


MR HUNTER: No, your Honour.


BENCH:      Mr Hunter?


DEFENDANT: And what was the other matter to ask Bignell about? Okay. Okay. Now, on the search warrant, you had numbers of persons mentioned as looking - as information you were looking for?   Yes.


People you were looking     ?   One of the conditions.


     seeking condition which relate to anyone or more of the following, my name, Judge Julie Dick, Peter Dutton, Jodi Crawford, Michael Francis Mellifont, Terrence Joseph Mellifont. Now, do you know who Terrence Joseph Mellifont is?   No, not personally.


Not personally, no, but do you know who he is from     ?   I got his details from looking at the websites when I was analysing those.


And have you followed up on any of that?   What do you mean, followed up?


Have you confirmed whether that is the case or not?   Whether what's the case?


That what is said on the website regarding Terry Mellifont is true or not     ?   No.


     or it's actual - actual? That he is married to Judge Julie Dick, for instance?   No.


So, you don't know whether Judge Julie Dick is really Judge Julie Mellifont and her maiden name was Dick; married name Mellifont?   I don't know.


Mmm. Don't know?   No.


Now, procedure in your office, do you have to get - you get the complaint; you do an investigate of the complaint as happened here?   Yes.


Do you decide then what to do or do you have a superior with whom you deal to determine what to do?   We have meetings in relation to current investigations and to make sure they're progressing and the right     


Okay?        right way.


So, there would have been a meeting regarding this case which I'm facing now?   It would have been mentioned at some point, I'm sure, yeah. I don't recall specifically a meeting talking about it but I'm sure it did come up at some point.


Okay. And at that meeting, you would have - who would - someone would be at the meeting or yourself or a senior officer     ?   Normally, it's just a team meeting.


Hey?   Just a team     


A team meeting?        meeting.


Okay. But you have a senior officer and he allocates jobs, does he?   Steve Bignell, yes.


Steve Bignell, he allocated the jobs?   Yes.


So, he would have been the one who decided - who said, "Okay, no, we're going to prosecute Mathews"     ?   No.


     or "Go and do a search warrant"?   No. That was my - my investigation so it was my call.


It was your call?   Yes.


Okay. So, and - and, I think, 7th of July, was it, the first time you - no, no. Julie Dick, that was February?   Yes. It was February.


February - that's when you first became aware of these matters?   From Sergeant     


That you first became involved?        yeah, Bruce Mathiou, yeah.


Okay. When the previous matter was a complaint by Julie Dick, were you in the time at that time?   No. That was before I started in Computer Crime.


Before you started in the team. Okay. Okay. So, Bignell would know     ?   Yes. He was - he was working there at the time.


He'd know all that. Okay. Okay. So, okay. Now, I might ask you, the charge mentions, basically, each of the charges mention three aspects, menace, harass and cause - like to cause offence. Now, likely to cause offence is mentioned at 423.something or other. Okay. Now, did you charge me, these four charges on these pages, this particulars, in relation to what aspect of that menace, harass or cause offence or throw them all up and hope one sticks?


MR HUNTER: Well, I object to that term     


DEFENDANT: Well, sorry, I'll put it     


BENCH: Well, can you just - do you understand the question?   Yes, your Honour. Yeah. In relation to being harassing and offensive.


Okay, harassing and offensive as opposed to causing offence. Harassing and - not menacing. You're saying harassing or offensive. I didn't hear you. I'm just - I can't remember what you said?   Yep, harassing and offensive.


So, you're excluding menacing?   Menacing would be included as well.


So, you would - you'd say these, each of these sites are menacing. Now     ?   Well, each particular site would contain components of menacing, harassing and offensive material.



Okay. Now, okay. Now, do you believe that all these websites have to be taken as a whole or little pieces can - can be extricated from them to say that's - that is menacing; that's offensive - that's offensive or should it be considered as a whole and, you know, all parts of it qualify any part? If you pull out a part, you say that looks offensive?   No. I sought guidance from the Commonwealth DPP in relation to this particular investigation because I'd never actually charged anyone in relation to this offence and it was the first one I'd ever taken out a Commonwealth warrant.


Yes?   I'd actually sought advice from the Commonwealth DPP in relation to the sort of charges that should be preferred in relation to it and to     


And - yes, go on?   I was just going to say, and the advice was that it would be one offence relating to one particular domain name. So, the Haig Report.com, even though that might have multiple sub-pages involved with that, we wouldn't charge in relation to each individual page, just to one particular domain name.


Okay. And, so, what has been mentioned on the particulars has been the pages. Would each of the other - would the rest of the website, in fact, be - that would be done for that to be qualifying each of these matters, these pages?   I'm sorry, Mr Mathews.


Yes, okay. It's only a couple of pages, well, in Self Help Justice, three pages are mentioned?   Okay.


Okay. Would it be valid to look at the other pages and how they qualify those three pages or the aspects of those three pages which are said to be found offensive or menacing or whatever?   Well, as - the process I took was to run that software on a HTT track     


Yes?        to do that extraction for that purpose to be able to look at everything as a whole.


Yes?   And then make a decision as to what was on there and     


Okay. So, it's like in defamation, you don't just take out a small piece out and say that's - you look at it as in context?   Yeah     


So, you did consider these pages in context - sorry, I'll ask     ?   I don't know which pages you're referring to, sorry.


Well, all the pages on the - has the witness seen the particulars, the pages?


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, just on - there's an objection at this point. Tell me where this line of cross-examination is going? The formulation of the Crown case is entirely a matter for the Crown, not the police. Police conduct the investigation and we've particularised the charge as the Crown sees fit at this point. Cross-examining this witness about what is and isn't relevant is futile, in my submission.

BENCH: Well, a matter in submissions, I would have thought.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, these are charges preferred by this police officer.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: It's relevant in his mind why he was preferring them.


BENCH: I don't know whether you can take it much further than you already have. He's given evidence that each of the - all the charges relate to the four sites, the four domain names.


DEFENDANT: Mmm.


BENCH: And that you’ve asked him about the elements of the offence, you know, menacing, harassing or offensive. He said they - each site has components of all of those elements, as I understand the evidence. That's your evidence; isn't it?   That’s right, your Honour.


So, I don’t know how much further you can take that.


DEFENDANT: And     


BENCH: So, I'll ask you to move on.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Is it     


BENCH: It's a question of making submissions on that at the end of the evidence.


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: All right?


DEFENDANT: But it's important to get the evidence out, you know.


BENCH: Well, he's given evidence.


DEFENDANT: Yeah. That     


BENCH: The evidence is in the discs and he's given evidence as to - like I just said.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: His mindset when he was laying the charges. So, I don’t think you can carry that any further, other than make submissions on it at the end of the evidence.


DEFENDANT: Yeah. Well, as far as I can see, there's been no mention of the Austil Publish website, or has there been?   Yes. That was one of the first three.


Yeah. But I mean     ?   Haig report     


     but it hasn’t been - nothing in evidence has been shown, has it?


BENCH: Well, that may be one of the discs that you didn’t play, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Yes, your Honour, at the point of time where we concluded the questioning, we mentioned that all that evidence     

BENCH: Yes, I know, but Mr Mathews may want to ask some questions on it. So     


MR HUNTER: We'll happily bring it up on the screen.


BENCH:      is that the case?


DEFENDANT: Well, I mean, what in particular is alleged to be offensive of that; offensive or harassing or     


BENCH: Well, looks like we'll have to bring that up then.


DEFENDANT: Okay. And can we specify whether it's menacing, harassing or     


BENCH: No, wait a minute; is that in Exhibit 2?


MR HUNTER: Exhibit 3 that we have here.


BENCH: Three, is it; the same disc.


MR HUNTER: It's in the disc.


BENCH: The same one, all right. So, which one do you want to ask of him, which question; the main site, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Austil Publish dot com.


BENCH: Austil or Publish. And what's the question?


DEFENDANT: Well, what is allegedly offensive in those pages?   Can you just go back to that - yeah. So, just up on the screen there, Mr Mathews is     


I'll just get myself some water - it comes off     


BENCH: That particular page was played this morning, wasn’t it?


MR HUNTER: Yes, but this is - I'm sorry, your Honour.


BENCH: This is a different one.


MR HUNTER: This is on a different website.


BENCH: I see.


MR HUNTER: So, as I said, when I completed my     


BENCH: I'm with you now. Yes.


MR HUNTER:      examination that they're replicated.


BENCH: So, yes, Mr Mathews - well, the witness has     ?   Your Honour.


     can you answer the question now? What's the word, offensive; is that the question, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yeah. Offensive, what's     


BENCH: What's offensive about it?


DEFENDANT: What is it; offensive, harassing or menacing; what aspect?   Well, just that first box there, there's references to "ex police cop parasite Peter Dutton".


Yeah. What - those words?   Yep.


Those words are what, menacing?   Offensive.


Offensive?   Yeah.


Okay?   The scroll - sorry, just up a bit - with Joe Hockey and fascist criminal congress is another offensive.


You find that offensive? Well, shouldn’t that be in context?   Just scroll down a little bit further; again, just there, the references to Monica Antony.


What "Big A" for Antony?   That's one, yeah.


What else about     ?   Corrupt cops; talk about being the butt of humour, that's one.


That's offensive, is it?   Yes.


Okay?   Harassing.


I mean, is that menacing or     ?   Harassing.


That's harassing, is it? That's one page and that's what - that - they are the elements on that page, are they?    That's some of them; the page goes down further as well.


Okay. Well, what else is there. Now, what's offence on this page?


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, I must object at this point.


BENCH: Mmm.


MR HUNTER: There is no point in asking this witness what is and isn't offensive, or menacing or harassing. The charge is that a reasonable person in all the circumstances, would find it menacing or harassing. Getting specific evidence from a witness, as to what he thinks might be, is irrelevant. The charge as framed is specific. It refers to what a reasonable might find as harassing, menacing or otherwise offensive. Asking this witness to say what part is harassing and what part is menacing or what part is offensive, is irrelevant to the issues that your Honour has to decide here.

[Editorial: This Shane Hunter is clearly the one pushing these charges as this witness Brendan Read admits above.  It seems that Shane Hunter is wanting to ingratiate himself to the corrupt elements of the judiciary, police, politicians and other public sector parasites.  Shane Hunter has all the evidence, as does the court with the evidence exhibited, that the police in particular Henri Rantala and Monica Antony, committed an ARMED ROBBERY, and that that was a preliminary step to defrauding me of my home, - the house and land I owned as sole beneficiary of a Trust (because I am disabled) - by dispossessing me of it for the benefit of Douglas Porter, the then Registrar of the University of Queensland, who was in the CLANDESTINE box seat, secretly driving the defrauding of me because I had stood up to him over the previous decade when he was bullying me, discriminating against me and cheating me - because I am disabled - to please the Dean of Law then Geoffrey deQuincey Walker and for ex lecturers from the UQ Law School who had tried to cheat me when I was in Business as an Accountant and Tax Agent and they were lawyers/public sector parasites.]

DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour     

BENCH: Will the persons who are the subject of these articles be called to give evidence?


MR HUNTER: No. Well, sorry - Julie Dick and John Dick, who are effectively the complainants will be called to give evidence. They're the only ones and Rantala and Anthony.


BENCH: Right. So, they're going to give evidence     


MR HUNTER: They are going to give evidence.


BENCH:      as to?


MR HUNTER: As to the context in which, not as to the way they felt, but as to the context in which their contact with Mr Mathews arose because the charge says, "in all the circumstances a reasonable person would find it harassing, offensive" et cetera. So, the circumstances of     


BENCH: All right. So, is that a question of a reasonable person, is that a question of law, or a question of fact?


MR HUNTER: No, that's a question of fact for the jury to decide.


BENCH: So, this Court though, does not need evidence of - from each of those particular persons on the     


MR HUNTER: No, not as to the     


BENCH:      website, as to how they felt.


MR HUNTER: As to how they felt. In fact, it would be inappropriate to lead that evidence. There's case law on the - very recent case law.


BENCH: Because     


MR HUNTER: Because     


BENCH:      that's not the test.


MR HUNTER:      that's not the test. It's a reasonable person test.


BENCH: Because a complainant may well be super-sensitive to something.


MR HUNTER: Exactly.


BENCH: That a reasonable person would not.


MR HUNTER: The explanatory memorandum to this legislation says it takes subjective issues out of the criminal process here, with respect to this offence. And the use of the word common sense would prevail. So, it's an objective test. What this witness might think about what is offensive or otherwise, or any other witness, be a complainant or otherwise, is irrelevant.


DEFENDANT: That is in relation to offensive, your Honour and not in relation to menacing or harassing.


MR HUNTER: Yes. It's relative to the entire of offence provision.


DEFENDANT: By case law as opposed to this statute?


MR HUNTER: Well, the statute is - the statute is specific. It says     


DEFENDANT: About offences.


MR HUNTER:      "In all the circumstances a reasonable person would find the conduct offensive, harassing or menacing". What an individual might think, be it an individual witness might think     


BENCH: Yes.


MR HUNTER:      is irrelevant.


BENCH: And particularly, an investigating officer. What an investigating officer may think is irrelevant.


DEFENDANT: Well, yes - well, he framed the charges, your Honour.
[Editorial: Precisely. This officer proffered the charges. So why did he proffer these particular charges.]


BENCH: Yes. But don’t ask him questions about whether that is - whatever is on that site is particularly menacing, harassing or offensive.


DEFENDANT: Well, why do you frame the charges if he can't be questioned on what he     



BENCH: All right. Can you answer that question; why did you frame the charges in that     ? 

WITNESS: Brendan Read:  Your Honour, I - as I already said, I sought advice from the Commonwealth DPP in relation to it and it was at that point they advised of the ordinary person test would apply in relation to the circumstances. So, based on that I - I believed that the ordinary person - well, there was enough evidence there to substantiate that an ordinary person would find that menacing, harassing or offensive. Therefore, I based it just on purely four websites, which were the four that were brought to my attention by Judge - by Julie Dick from Leopard Court at Warner. There are a number of other sites here that I haven't even looked at; plus there's a number of other complainants that are awaiting the outcome of this matter, as to whether they're going to proceed. And that - involving judicial     


Involving what?   Judges and so forth.


I see. But we're just dealing with these four matters, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, yes.


BENCH: So, that's his evidence so move on.


DEFENDANT: So, this is a trial case; this is a trial to - yeah. Now, the reasonable person test?   Mmm.


Now, that - now all - all the - you’ve taken copies of - on Haig report, can we pull up the page Facebook, starting Facebook.


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Which one, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Is there a Facebook history - word history in it?


MR HUNTER: Is that it?


DEFENDANT: Yeah, okay. Can we have a look at that; that's on the website. So, you considered these pages - can we go down a bit or can we go to the Facebook synoptic - go back and then synoptic. There'll be something synoptic, I think,

S-Y-N-O-P-T-I-C. Okay, have a look down there if you want to, that page; we go down there. Now, can we have a look at that? Just that - can we get that on the screen by itself, fully on the screen? Now, are you familiar with this on the website?   Yes.


Okay. Now, that's - while I'm here I'll read out what he said, that's     


BENCH: Well, it's on there; just ask the question.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: We can all read it.


DEFENDANT: Well, just so that the transcript gets it correct, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, it's - that's in evidence. What do you want to ask him?


DEFENDANT: Now, ordinary test     


BENCH: You're not going to ask him what the ordinary test is?


DEFENDANT: Someone put him out     


BENCH: You can make submissions on this. You could make submissions on the contents of these websites as to whether it's menacing, harassing or offensive. All right? Or whether in the mind of the reasonable person, they are.