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 2:


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, 25th 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.

includedMenuAnchorsDay2.php

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 25th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

This is a Menu of the anchors placed in the Transcript of Day 2.  It is effectively a Summary of the evidence and cross-examination of the witness.  There was only one witnesses on this day, the same sole witness as on Day1.  It is one continuous file/page.  These anchors are in sequence.



  1. #Very Start Transcript
  2. #Start Of Day 2
  3. #Magistrate Kluck Discriminates Against Me To Presume My Submission
  4. #Magistrate Kluck Does Not Understand Meaning Of The Word_NO
  5. #Kluck Refuses To Recuse Himself
  6. #Kluck Refuses To Exclude Himself Despite His Ridiculing Me And My Disability
  7. #Now Kluck Denies he Tried To Railroad me
  1. #Ex-Cop Brendan Read Continues
  2. #Questions Of Executing The Search Warrant And Entering My room
  3. #Brendan Read Was Not The First In My Room
  4. #Brendan Read Advises He Cannot Recall EXACTLY_Who Was First In  Room
  5. #Brendan Read Cannot Recall Whether Or Not He Preceded Me Into The Room
  6. #Even So_Brendan Read Reckons He Stayed By My Side
  7. #The Excruciating Task Of Extracting The Particulars That Is The Details Of The Charges
  8. #Shane Hunter Continues To Show He Thinks He Is A_Smart Arse
  9. #Brendan Read Explains How And When The CDPP_Was Involved At An Early Stage
  10. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingAsToProcessToFollow
  11. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingOnTaskForceArgos
  12. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingAsToConsultingHisSuperiorSergeantSteveBignell
  13. #BrendanReadExplainsContactingCommonwealthDPP_AsA_LastResort
  14. #BrendanReadSpokeToOPaxtonBoothA_QueenslandPoliceLawyer
  15. #PaxtonBoothWasTheOneWhoReferredBrendanReadToTheCommonwealthDPP
  16. #BrendanReadCommunicatedWith Anthony Gett AtCommonwealthDPP
  17. #BerendanReadDiscussesFurtherCharges
  18. #BerendanReadDiscussesFurtherChargesWithComonwealthDPP
  19. #BrendanReadAdvisesTheseFourChargesCameDirectlyToHim
  20. #DetectiveSergeantStevenBignellAdvisedMoreChargesAwaitingOutcomeOfTheseFourCharges
  21. #BrendanReadConfirmedThatJudgesAreWaitingInTheTheWingsToPursueCharges
  22. #DiscussingSubjectNatureFileMirroredFromWebsitesIncludingPHP_jpeg_jpg_bitmap
  23. #ReDemeanourJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickWhenSpeakingWithBrendan
  24. #BrendanReadAtNoTimeSpokeFaceToFaceWithJulieAndCleverDickJustByPhone
  25. #BrendanReadSpokeToCleverDickJohnDickOnlyOnceOrTwice
  26. #MajorityOfCallsBrendanReadToTheDicksWasWithJulieDick
  27. #CleverDickJohnDickWasAngry
  28. #CleverDickJohnDickWasUpset
  29. #BrendanReadUnawareThatStreetViewInGoogleMapsIsCalledStreetscape
  30. #BrendanReadAndJulieDickDidSpeakAboutJudgeJulieDick
  31. #BrendanReadAdmitsTheDicksWereAwareOfJudgeJulieDick
  32. #BrendanReadATPainsToAvoidRecognitionOf_MISTAKE
  33. #BrendanReadAttemptsToAvoidAnsweringTheObviousQuestionOfWhyNotContactTheWebsite
  34. #TheDicksJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickDidNotWishToAdviseWebsiteOfError
  35. #BrendanReadPrevaricatesReTrueFaithfulReproductionOfHisEmailToWebHost
  36. #BrendanReadCouldNotRecallIfTheDicksSpecificallyExcludedAdvisingWebsiteOfError
  37. #BrendanReadThenReliesUponFalseLogic
  38. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeKnewNothingReallyOfPreviousPoliceEventsWithWebsite
  39. #BrendanReadStatesJudgeJulieDickWasPreviousComplainant
  40. #BrendanReadStatesThatInformationWasOnTheInvestigationFileForPreviousPoliceAction
  41. #BrendanReadSaidTheFileNoteStatedThatJudgeJulieDickMadeThePreviousComplaint
  42. #BrendanReadSaidTheJudgeJulieDickComplaintCameThroughClosedPersonalProtectionUnit
  43. #BrendanReadSaidOfficersFromClosedPersonalProtectionUnitContactedComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  44. #BrendanReadThinksJudgeJulieDickMayNotHaveUsedPhoneOrSpokenDirectlyToThatUnit
  45. #BrendanReadSaidNoMentionAnywhereOfMistakenIdentity
  46. #ClearlyThePoliceDidNotWantTheErrorCorrected
  47. #ClearlyThePoliceHadAnotherAgenda
  48. #ClearlyThePoliceWereUsingJulieAndCleverDickAsPatsies
  49. #BrendanReadAdmitsTheFirstTimeItWasReferencedAsA_MistakeWasWhenHeSTOLE_MyComputer
  50. #BrendanReadHimselfAdmitsThatItWAS_A_MISTAKE
  51. #MagistratePaulMKluckStuffingAroundRePlayingRecordingOfPoliceRaid
  52. #to_also_hear_the_part_where_Im_supposed_to_run_to_my_room_from_the_door_with_the_dog_in_my_arms
  53. #BrendanReadAgainDiscussesTheIssueOfTheMistake
  54. #HunterTheRefersToTheTranscriptOfTheAudioRecordingDuringThePoliceRaid
  55. #Page41Of91PageTranscript
  56. #second_last_paragraph_theres_reference_there_to_factual_as_to_identity_confusing_identity_in_people
  57. #That_would_have_been_the_first_time_that_Id_mentioned_it_to_you
  58. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatTheMistakeIsNotMentionedInTheEmailToTheWebHostInTheUS
  59. #ReadAdvisesThatUS_WebHostsHaveAlwaysRequiredA_US_CourtOrderToTakeDownWebSites
  60. #BrendanReadGivesBogusReasonForKeepingFactOfMistakeSecretFromUS_WebHosts
  61. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeDidNotWantNorExpectTheUSHostToCorrectTheDickError
  62. #ReadAdmitsMistakeKeptSecretToAssistPoliceArmedRobbersRantalaAndAntony
  63. #BrendanReadAndPoliceLiedToJulieDickAndCleverDickThatPoliceWouldDoAllTheyCould
  64. #BrendanReadsContinuesToPrevaricateAndEvadeTheTruth
  65. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickWereInEffectJustPatsies
  66. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatFixingComplaintOfJulieDickAndCleverDickWasNotMainAim
  67. #NowTheJudgeJulieDickComplaintIfThereReallyWasOneFromJudgeJulieDick
  68. #BrendanReadSaidJudgeJulieDickComplaintCameInToStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  69. #Discussing_the_Closed_Personal_Protection_Unit
  70. #NowToThe_transcript_here_of_the_search_warrant
  71. #MagistrateKluckInterruptsToAddFurtherDifficulty
  72. #MagistrateKluckAttemptsToIntimidateMeBecauseOfMyAssistanceDogs
  73. #MagistrateKluckIsInBreachOfTheLaw
  74. #MagistrateKluckStatedThatMyAssistanceDogWasDisturbingThecourtByMerelyMoving
  75. #LyingCopperBrendanReadIsProvenLyingReMyAllegedRunningFromTheDoor
  76. #Untruthful Copper Brendan Read Admits He Was Going Off His Memory
  77. #Brendan Read  IsStill Lying To Cover This Corruption
  78. #Brendan Read Now Calls Me A-Liar
  79. #Brendan Read Continues His Lie
  80. #The Transcript Is In Error By Attributing Words to  Me That Were Spoken By Another Person
  81. #Brendan Read Says "The Name Was In His House"  oops?__DAH!!!
  82. #Is Brendan Read On Drugs
  83. #I_Point Out That The Change In Volume Of My Voice Confirms That Brendan Read Is Untruthful
  84. #Brendan Read Continues With His LIE
  85. #I_Was Assaulted By The Police Including By Brendan Read And By Steven Bignell
  86. #Brendan Read Lies Again That I Was Not Assaulted When I_Was
  87. #Did The Police Ask Me To Sit Down Or Did I_Ask May I Sit Down
  88. #The Transcript Will Prove It
  89. #I_Was The One Who Said Can I-Sit  Down_Brendan Read Is Not Doing Well
  90. #Detective Senior Constable Dave Graham was also involved in FRAUDULENT CONDUCT of POLICE
  91. #Shane Hunter Takes Control Of Magistrate Kluck's Court Re From Where In The Audio Recording
  92. #And Magistrate Paul M Kluck Defers  To Shyster Shane R_Hunter
  93. #Brendan Read Is Confused All At Sea Not Knowing If He Is Arthur Or Martha
  94. #Now Brendan Read Has Another Weak  Excuse
  95. #PoliceFeignIgnoranceOfMyDisabilitiesButThatInfoIsPublicOnTheWebInternet
  96. #BrendanReadMakesLamExcusesAboutMyBeingDeniedMyAssistanceDogs
  97. #BrendanReadsStatesTheyHadToArrestMeAsTheyCouldNotChargeMeBySummons
  98. #ThenBrendanReadChangesHisStoryToThatTheyJustDidNotWantToChargeMeOnSummons
  99. #Brendan Read Phoned The Real Julie Dick That He Was Executing The Search Warrant On Me
  100. #ThisIsJustA_BeatUpReBailConditionOfNotGoingNear The Real Julie Dick's  Home
  101. #BrendanReadSaidHePutA_BailConditionOnMeBecauseJulieDickActsLikeA_RatbagNutcase
  102. #BrendanReadAdmitsAnotherLieConfirmedByTheAudioRecording
  103. #ShaneHunterTriesToHarassMeIntoForegoingCrossExaminationOfTheirPrimeWitness
  104. #ShaneHunterCallsThemA_LogJamOfPeopleStandingOutsideSoAreJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickLogs
  105. #WhatCircumstancesPermitsShaneHunterToMenaceMeLikeThis
  106. #TheCourtResumesButBrendanReadIsNotHereButJustSentSMS_FromTaxiInEagleStreet
  107. #HunterAdvisesBrendanReadHasInterstateCommitmentsNextWeekSoIsUnavailableIfNotfinishedToday
  108. #MagistrateKluckAgainBadgersMeToPredictTheFutureReHowLongCrossExaminationOfBrendanReadWillBe
  109. #BrendanReadReturnsToTheWitnessBox
  110. #ReadIsAskedAboutTheCourtBriefHePrepared
  111. #AsCouldBeExpectedForA_PublicSectorParasiteShaneHunterJumpsToHisFeet_I_ObjectYourHonour
  112. #BrendanReadAdmitsHePreparedTheBriefOfPurportedFactsInRelationToThisMatter
  113. #KluckAdvisesYouCanAskHimQuestionsArisingOutOfAnyStatementHeMayHaveGiven
  114. #ReferenceEmailFromSergeantBruceMathiouOfThePetriePolice
  115. #BrendanReadAdvisesHeNoLongerHasAccessToThatEmail
  116. #ShaneHunterAdvisesDetectiveSergeantBignellIsNowTheCaseOfficerAtQueenslandPolice
  117. #KluckTellsMeToMakeA_NoteWithPenAndPaperButI_HaveA_WritingDisabilityDeformedThumb
  118. #I_AdviseMagistrateKluckThatHeHasAnExtraDutyToMeBecauseI_AmDisabled
  119. #A_DiscussionOfDutyToDisabledPersonsEnsues
  120. #SubjectOfBrendanReadsAffidavitForTheSearchWarrant
  121. #SubjectOfBrendanReadsAffidavitForTheSearchWarrantInParticularHisBackgroundsFacts
  122. #BrendanReadSaysHeBelievesTheHearsayInHisAffidavitIsTrue
  123. #BrendanReadAdmitsThisWasA_CivilMatterNotA_CriminalMatter
  124. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatQueenslandPoliceHadActedInCivilLawMatterToProtectArmedRobbers
  125. #QueenslandPoliceHadAttemptedToDoThisByIntimidation
  126. #BrendanReadNowTriesToInvokeFraudulentlyAustraliaCommunicationsAndMediaAuthorityACMA
  127. #DiscussionThatQueenslandPoliceDoNotHaveJurisdictionInterstateEnsues
  128. #QueenslandPoliceActedWithoutAuthorityYetAgain
  129. #MoreHearsayFromBrendanReadAsToA_TakedownNotice
  130. #BrendanReadNowDiscussesAdviceFromDetectiveInspectorJasonSaunders
  131. #BrendanRecallsThatDetectiveInspectorJasonSaundersRecalledReceivingA_PhoneCall
  132. #BrendanReadConfirmsThatJudgeJulieDickAdvisedThatWishedNoFurtherAction
  133. #BrendanReadThenAdmitsThatStatementWasFalse
  134. #BrendanReadSaysHeAssumedAsThereWasNoFollowUpComplaint
  135. #BrendanReadThenExudesA_WadOfWankAboutTheComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  136. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeDoesNotKnowToBeTrueThatWhichHeJustStated
  137. #DiscussingTheAllegedComplaintFromJudgeJulieDick
  138. #CDPPsShaneHunterAttemptsToFabricateEvidence
  139. #SixParagraphsOfBrendanReadsAffidavitIsReCleverDickJohnDickConfrontingA_Photographer
  140. #BrendanReadWronglyVolunteersTheNameTerryJosephMellifontOrTerenceJosephMellifont
  141. #TheNameMichaelMellifontIsAlsoMentioned
  142. #BrendanReadHasAnotherMistakenRecollection
  143. #BrendanReadContinuesToSearchForReasonToJustifyYetAnotherOfHisErrorsInHisAffidavit
  144. #DespiteRepeatedInvitationsBrendanReadIsUnableToShowInTheWebsiteMirrorTheFactHeStated
  145. #BrendanReadMakesRepeatedProvablyFalseStatementsOfContentsOfTheseWebsites
  146. #QuestioningReadOnHisAffidavitForIssueOfTheSearchWarrant
  147. #BrendanMadeTheFalseStatementInAffidavitThatWebsiteStatedThatTerenceMellifontLivedAtWarnerAddress
  148. #SpecificallyBrendanReadLiesReWebsiteExplicitlyStatingTerenceJosephMellifontLivesAtWarnerHouse
  149. #BrendanReadMakesFalseAssertionsReWebsiteContentsAsToMembersMellifontFamilyAtWarnerNotCarseldine
  150. #BrendanReadTriesToArgueGarbageAndRubbishRatherThanAdmitTheTruth
  151. #Discussing73HawbridgeStreetCarseldine
  152. #Discussing76HawbridgeStreetCarseldine
  153. #PhoneSubscriberAt76HawbridgeStreetCarseldineIsJ_Dick
  154. #TerenceJosephMellifontDoesNotAppearToHaveAnyPhoneAnywhere
  155. #SoBrendanReadTriesToSayThatHasRelevanceToWhereHeMayResideWithJulieDickAt12LeopardCourtWarner
  156. #BrendanReadIsConfusedButDeniesHeIsConfused
  157. #NowBrendanReadAdmitsHeIsGettingConfused
  158. #BrendanReadStillTriesToargueIllogically
  159. #BrendanReadIsDrawingLongVeryLongStrawsToTryToMakeOutA_Case
  160. #BrendanReadC9ontinuesToLieInFaceOfIrrefutableEviodence
  161. #BrendanReadIsUnawareIgnorantInFactThatHeIsConfused
  162. #SoMuchOfPoliceShaneHunterCaseIsHearsayButHunterWantsToPickWhichHearsayIsInEvidence
  163. #ShaneHunterEffectivelyIntooducesHearsayFromTheBarTable
  164. #BrendanReadSaysHeHasBeenToldEvidenceByFatPigDetectiveSergeantSteveBignell
  165. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeIncludedIrrelevantInformationInAffidavitSoItWouldSeemThatReadHadDoneSomething
  166. #BrendanReadsAffidavitForSearchWarrantIsOfNoSubstanceAndIrrelevant
  167. #BrendanReadMakesUnsubstantiatedAssuptionsAndStatesThemAsEvidence
  168. #BrendanReadisFancifulAndAwayWithTheFairiesWhereHeFindsHarassmentOnTheInternet
  169. #BrendanReadsThinkingIsGoingInCircles
  170. #BrendanReadsThinkingHaLostContactWithLogic
  171. #BrendanReadStatesHeBelievesCommentsDirectedAtOnePersonIsHarrassmentOfTwoPeople
  172. #BrendanReadBelievesCommentsOnA_WebsiteIsDirectedAtOnlyOnePerson
  173. #PeterDuttonAndHisCOMPROMISING_Email
  174. #JodieCrawfordLiesToBrendanReadAboutTheEmailSheSent
  175. #BrendanReadIsAskedWhatEvidenceHeCouldFindToSupportThatThatEmailIsUntrue
  176. #MagistrateKluckHarassesMeOverMyAssistanceDogs
  177. #CDPPsShaneHunterAndMagistratePaulMKluckGangUpToDiscriminateAgainstMeBecauseI_AmDisabled
  178. #I_WasAlreadySeverelyFatiguedDueToMyBrianDamageAndHadAdvisedBothPreviously
  179. #ThisIsClearlyHowTheyBothIntendedToWinAgainstMeByMentallyExhaustingMe
  180. #TheyCannotPleadIgnoranceTheEvidenceIsOnDiscsInEvidenceThatSpeaksForItself
  181. #JulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarnerIsNotInBusinessByAnyMeasure
  182. #SoWhyDoMagistratePaulMKluckAndCDPPsShaneHunterWantToPortrayUnskilledPartTimeCasualDayJobAsBusiness
  183. #KluckCommentsUponMyMentalExhaustionBuitThinksHeCanContinueToRailroadMe
  184. #ShaneHunterIsAlsoGuiltyOfDisabilityDiscriminationAsHeStoodToBenefitFromMyExhaustion
  185. #MagistratePaulMKluckIsJustA_PlainBULLY_AndSoIsShaneHunter
  186. #SomeRelevantEditorialCommentsOfMine
  187. #TheCourtNowDiscoversThatBrendanReadWillBeInCanberraAllOfNextWeek
  188. #ShaneHunterStatesTheyWereHopingToFinishHimToday
  189. #HunterAdvisesThatSeniorSergeantStevenBignellIsNowEffectivelyTheCaseOfficer
  190. #ShaneHunterStatesIfTheCrossExaminationOfMrReadIsAnyIndicationWeWontFinishInTheSixDays
  191. #KluckTellsMeI_HaveALL_WEEKEND_ToWorkOutIfI_HaveFurtherQuestionsForBrendanRead
  192. #KluckAsksIfI_AmTellingHimI_CannotFurtherProceedThisAfternoon
  193. #BrendanReadIsStoodDownButNotFormallyExcusedFromGivingEvidence
  194. #KluckFurtherStatesThatMayBeForThisCommittalButProbablyNotPresumingMyAdvice
  195. #KluckTellsMeToDirectMyMindToAnyFurtherQuestionsForMrRead
  196. #KluckInPresenceOfHunterStatesI_HaveTheEvidenceOfTheDicksButHunterKnowsOtherwise
  197. #KluckAdvisesThatI_WouldHaveTheOpportunityToCallWitnessesInThisCourt
  198. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterToStructureMyCrossExaminationOfTheDicksFromTheirStatementsOfEvidence
  199. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYou_know_what_their_evidence_is_going_to_be
  200. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYou_have_their_statements_dont_you
  201. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYes_thats_basically_what_theyre_going_to_say
  202. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteTheyll_give_evidencePresumably_it_will_be_consistent_with_their_statements
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, 25th 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.

includedMenuAnchorsDay2.php

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 25th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

This is a Menu of the anchors placed in the Transcript of Day 2.  It is effectively a Summary of the evidence and cross-examination of the witness.  There was only one witnesses on this day, the same sole witness as on Day1.  It is one continuous file/page.  These anchors are in sequence.



  1. #Very Start Transcript
  2. #Start Of Day 2
  3. #Magistrate Kluck Discriminates Against Me To Presume My Submission
  4. #Magistrate Kluck Does Not Understand Meaning Of The Word_NO
  5. #Kluck Refuses To Recuse Himself
  6. #Kluck Refuses To Exclude Himself Despite His Ridiculing Me And My Disability
  7. #Now Kluck Denies he Tried To Railroad me
  1. #Ex-Cop Brendan Read Continues
  2. #Questions Of Executing The Search Warrant And Entering My room
  3. #Brendan Read Was Not The First In My Room
  4. #Brendan Read Advises He Cannot Recall EXACTLY_Who Was First In  Room
  5. #Brendan Read Cannot Recall Whether Or Not He Preceded Me Into The Room
  6. #Even So_Brendan Read Reckons He Stayed By My Side
  7. #The Excruciating Task Of Extracting The Particulars That Is The Details Of The Charges
  8. #Shane Hunter Continues To Show He Thinks He Is A_Smart Arse
  9. #Brendan Read Explains How And When The CDPP_Was Involved At An Early Stage
  10. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingAsToProcessToFollow
  11. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingOnTaskForceArgos
  12. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingAsToConsultingHisSuperiorSergeantSteveBignell
  13. #BrendanReadExplainsContactingCommonwealthDPP_AsA_LastResort
  14. #BrendanReadSpokeToOPaxtonBoothA_QueenslandPoliceLawyer
  15. #PaxtonBoothWasTheOneWhoReferredBrendanReadToTheCommonwealthDPP
  16. #BrendanReadCommunicatedWith Anthony Gett AtCommonwealthDPP
  17. #BerendanReadDiscussesFurtherCharges
  18. #BerendanReadDiscussesFurtherChargesWithComonwealthDPP
  19. #BrendanReadAdvisesTheseFourChargesCameDirectlyToHim
  20. #DetectiveSergeantStevenBignellAdvisedMoreChargesAwaitingOutcomeOfTheseFourCharges
  21. #BrendanReadConfirmedThatJudgesAreWaitingInTheTheWingsToPursueCharges
  22. #DiscussingSubjectNatureFileMirroredFromWebsitesIncludingPHP_jpeg_jpg_bitmap
  23. #ReDemeanourJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickWhenSpeakingWithBrendan
  24. #BrendanReadAtNoTimeSpokeFaceToFaceWithJulieAndCleverDickJustByPhone
  25. #BrendanReadSpokeToCleverDickJohnDickOnlyOnceOrTwice
  26. #MajorityOfCallsBrendanReadToTheDicksWasWithJulieDick
  27. #CleverDickJohnDickWasAngry
  28. #CleverDickJohnDickWasUpset
  29. #BrendanReadUnawareThatStreetViewInGoogleMapsIsCalledStreetscape
  30. #BrendanReadAndJulieDickDidSpeakAboutJudgeJulieDick
  31. #BrendanReadAdmitsTheDicksWereAwareOfJudgeJulieDick
  32. #BrendanReadATPainsToAvoidRecognitionOf_MISTAKE
  33. #BrendanReadAttemptsToAvoidAnsweringTheObviousQuestionOfWhyNotContactTheWebsite
  34. #TheDicksJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickDidNotWishToAdviseWebsiteOfError
  35. #BrendanReadPrevaricatesReTrueFaithfulReproductionOfHisEmailToWebHost
  36. #BrendanReadCouldNotRecallIfTheDicksSpecificallyExcludedAdvisingWebsiteOfError
  37. #BrendanReadThenReliesUponFalseLogic
  38. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeKnewNothingReallyOfPreviousPoliceEventsWithWebsite
  39. #BrendanReadStatesJudgeJulieDickWasPreviousComplainant
  40. #BrendanReadStatesThatInformationWasOnTheInvestigationFileForPreviousPoliceAction
  41. #BrendanReadSaidTheFileNoteStatedThatJudgeJulieDickMadeThePreviousComplaint
  42. #BrendanReadSaidTheJudgeJulieDickComplaintCameThroughClosedPersonalProtectionUnit
  43. #BrendanReadSaidOfficersFromClosedPersonalProtectionUnitContactedComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  44. #BrendanReadThinksJudgeJulieDickMayNotHaveUsedPhoneOrSpokenDirectlyToThatUnit
  45. #BrendanReadSaidNoMentionAnywhereOfMistakenIdentity
  46. #ClearlyThePoliceDidNotWantTheErrorCorrected
  47. #ClearlyThePoliceHadAnotherAgenda
  48. #ClearlyThePoliceWereUsingJulieAndCleverDickAsPatsies
  49. #BrendanReadAdmitsTheFirstTimeItWasReferencedAsA_MistakeWasWhenHeSTOLE_MyComputer
  50. #BrendanReadHimselfAdmitsThatItWAS_A_MISTAKE
  51. #MagistratePaulMKluckStuffingAroundRePlayingRecordingOfPoliceRaid
  52. #to_also_hear_the_part_where_Im_supposed_to_run_to_my_room_from_the_door_with_the_dog_in_my_arms
  53. #BrendanReadAgainDiscussesTheIssueOfTheMistake
  54. #HunterTheRefersToTheTranscriptOfTheAudioRecordingDuringThePoliceRaid
  55. #Page41Of91PageTranscript
  56. #second_last_paragraph_theres_reference_there_to_factual_as_to_identity_confusing_identity_in_people
  57. #That_would_have_been_the_first_time_that_Id_mentioned_it_to_you
  58. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatTheMistakeIsNotMentionedInTheEmailToTheWebHostInTheUS
  59. #ReadAdvisesThatUS_WebHostsHaveAlwaysRequiredA_US_CourtOrderToTakeDownWebSites
  60. #BrendanReadGivesBogusReasonForKeepingFactOfMistakeSecretFromUS_WebHosts
  61. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeDidNotWantNorExpectTheUSHostToCorrectTheDickError
  62. #ReadAdmitsMistakeKeptSecretToAssistPoliceArmedRobbersRantalaAndAntony
  63. #BrendanReadAndPoliceLiedToJulieDickAndCleverDickThatPoliceWouldDoAllTheyCould
  64. #BrendanReadsContinuesToPrevaricateAndEvadeTheTruth
  65. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickWereInEffectJustPatsies
  66. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatFixingComplaintOfJulieDickAndCleverDickWasNotMainAim
  67. #NowTheJudgeJulieDickComplaintIfThereReallyWasOneFromJudgeJulieDick
  68. #BrendanReadSaidJudgeJulieDickComplaintCameInToStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  69. #Discussing_the_Closed_Personal_Protection_Unit
  70. #NowToThe_transcript_here_of_the_search_warrant
  71. #MagistrateKluckInterruptsToAddFurtherDifficulty
  72. #MagistrateKluckAttemptsToIntimidateMeBecauseOfMyAssistanceDogs
  73. #MagistrateKluckIsInBreachOfTheLaw
  74. #MagistrateKluckStatedThatMyAssistanceDogWasDisturbingThecourtByMerelyMoving
  75. #LyingCopperBrendanReadIsProvenLyingReMyAllegedRunningFromTheDoor
  76. #Untruthful Copper Brendan Read Admits He Was Going Off His Memory
  77. #Brendan Read  IsStill Lying To Cover This Corruption
  78. #Brendan Read Now Calls Me A-Liar
  79. #Brendan Read Continues His Lie
  80. #The Transcript Is In Error By Attributing Words to  Me That Were Spoken By Another Person
  81. #Brendan Read Says "The Name Was In His House"  oops?__DAH!!!
  82. #Is Brendan Read On Drugs
  83. #I_Point Out That The Change In Volume Of My Voice Confirms That Brendan Read Is Untruthful
  84. #Brendan Read Continues With His LIE
  85. #I_Was Assaulted By The Police Including By Brendan Read And By Steven Bignell
  86. #Brendan Read Lies Again That I Was Not Assaulted When I_Was
  87. #Did The Police Ask Me To Sit Down Or Did I_Ask May I Sit Down
  88. #The Transcript Will Prove It
  89. #I_Was The One Who Said Can I-Sit  Down_Brendan Read Is Not Doing Well
  90. #Detective Senior Constable Dave Graham was also involved in FRAUDULENT CONDUCT of POLICE
  91. #Shane Hunter Takes Control Of Magistrate Kluck's Court Re From Where In The Audio Recording
  92. #And Magistrate Paul M Kluck Defers  To Shyster Shane R_Hunter
  93. #Brendan Read Is Confused All At Sea Not Knowing If He Is Arthur Or Martha
  94. #Now Brendan Read Has Another Weak  Excuse
  95. #PoliceFeignIgnoranceOfMyDisabilitiesButThatInfoIsPublicOnTheWebInternet
  96. #BrendanReadMakesLamExcusesAboutMyBeingDeniedMyAssistanceDogs
  97. #BrendanReadsStatesTheyHadToArrestMeAsTheyCouldNotChargeMeBySummons
  98. #ThenBrendanReadChangesHisStoryToThatTheyJustDidNotWantToChargeMeOnSummons
  99. #Brendan Read Phoned The Real Julie Dick That He Was Executing The Search Warrant On Me
  100. #ThisIsJustA_BeatUpReBailConditionOfNotGoingNear The Real Julie Dick's  Home
  101. #BrendanReadSaidHePutA_BailConditionOnMeBecauseJulieDickActsLikeA_RatbagNutcase
  102. #BrendanReadAdmitsAnotherLieConfirmedByTheAudioRecording
  103. #ShaneHunterTriesToHarassMeIntoForegoingCrossExaminationOfTheirPrimeWitness
  104. #ShaneHunterCallsThemA_LogJamOfPeopleStandingOutsideSoAreJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickLogs
  105. #WhatCircumstancesPermitsShaneHunterToMenaceMeLikeThis
  106. #TheCourtResumesButBrendanReadIsNotHereButJustSentSMS_FromTaxiInEagleStreet
  107. #HunterAdvisesBrendanReadHasInterstateCommitmentsNextWeekSoIsUnavailableIfNotfinishedToday
  108. #MagistrateKluckAgainBadgersMeToPredictTheFutureReHowLongCrossExaminationOfBrendanReadWillBe
  109. #BrendanReadReturnsToTheWitnessBox
  110. #ReadIsAskedAboutTheCourtBriefHePrepared
  111. #AsCouldBeExpectedForA_PublicSectorParasiteShaneHunterJumpsToHisFeet_I_ObjectYourHonour
  112. #BrendanReadAdmitsHePreparedTheBriefOfPurportedFactsInRelationToThisMatter
  113. #KluckAdvisesYouCanAskHimQuestionsArisingOutOfAnyStatementHeMayHaveGiven
  114. #ReferenceEmailFromSergeantBruceMathiouOfThePetriePolice
  115. #BrendanReadAdvisesHeNoLongerHasAccessToThatEmail
  116. #ShaneHunterAdvisesDetectiveSergeantBignellIsNowTheCaseOfficerAtQueenslandPolice
  117. #KluckTellsMeToMakeA_NoteWithPenAndPaperButI_HaveA_WritingDisabilityDeformedThumb
  118. #I_AdviseMagistrateKluckThatHeHasAnExtraDutyToMeBecauseI_AmDisabled
  119. #A_DiscussionOfDutyToDisabledPersonsEnsues
  120. #SubjectOfBrendanReadsAffidavitForTheSearchWarrant
  121. #SubjectOfBrendanReadsAffidavitForTheSearchWarrantInParticularHisBackgroundsFacts
  122. #BrendanReadSaysHeBelievesTheHearsayInHisAffidavitIsTrue
  123. #BrendanReadAdmitsThisWasA_CivilMatterNotA_CriminalMatter
  124. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatQueenslandPoliceHadActedInCivilLawMatterToProtectArmedRobbers
  125. #QueenslandPoliceHadAttemptedToDoThisByIntimidation
  126. #BrendanReadNowTriesToInvokeFraudulentlyAustraliaCommunicationsAndMediaAuthorityACMA
  127. #DiscussionThatQueenslandPoliceDoNotHaveJurisdictionInterstateEnsues
  128. #QueenslandPoliceActedWithoutAuthorityYetAgain
  129. #MoreHearsayFromBrendanReadAsToA_TakedownNotice
  130. #BrendanReadNowDiscussesAdviceFromDetectiveInspectorJasonSaunders
  131. #BrendanRecallsThatDetectiveInspectorJasonSaundersRecalledReceivingA_PhoneCall
  132. #BrendanReadConfirmsThatJudgeJulieDickAdvisedThatWishedNoFurtherAction
  133. #BrendanReadThenAdmitsThatStatementWasFalse
  134. #BrendanReadSaysHeAssumedAsThereWasNoFollowUpComplaint
  135. #BrendanReadThenExudesA_WadOfWankAboutTheComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  136. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeDoesNotKnowToBeTrueThatWhichHeJustStated
  137. #DiscussingTheAllegedComplaintFromJudgeJulieDick
  138. #CDPPsShaneHunterAttemptsToFabricateEvidence
  139. #SixParagraphsOfBrendanReadsAffidavitIsReCleverDickJohnDickConfrontingA_Photographer
  140. #BrendanReadWronglyVolunteersTheNameTerryJosephMellifontOrTerenceJosephMellifont
  141. #TheNameMichaelMellifontIsAlsoMentioned
  142. #BrendanReadHasAnotherMistakenRecollection
  143. #BrendanReadContinuesToSearchForReasonToJustifyYetAnotherOfHisErrorsInHisAffidavit
  144. #DespiteRepeatedInvitationsBrendanReadIsUnableToShowInTheWebsiteMirrorTheFactHeStated
  145. #BrendanReadMakesRepeatedProvablyFalseStatementsOfContentsOfTheseWebsites
  146. #QuestioningReadOnHisAffidavitForIssueOfTheSearchWarrant
  147. #BrendanMadeTheFalseStatementInAffidavitThatWebsiteStatedThatTerenceMellifontLivedAtWarnerAddress
  148. #SpecificallyBrendanReadLiesReWebsiteExplicitlyStatingTerenceJosephMellifontLivesAtWarnerHouse
  149. #BrendanReadMakesFalseAssertionsReWebsiteContentsAsToMembersMellifontFamilyAtWarnerNotCarseldine
  150. #BrendanReadTriesToArgueGarbageAndRubbishRatherThanAdmitTheTruth
  151. #Discussing73HawbridgeStreetCarseldine
  152. #Discussing76HawbridgeStreetCarseldine
  153. #PhoneSubscriberAt76HawbridgeStreetCarseldineIsJ_Dick
  154. #TerenceJosephMellifontDoesNotAppearToHaveAnyPhoneAnywhere
  155. #SoBrendanReadTriesToSayThatHasRelevanceToWhereHeMayResideWithJulieDickAt12LeopardCourtWarner
  156. #BrendanReadIsConfusedButDeniesHeIsConfused
  157. #NowBrendanReadAdmitsHeIsGettingConfused
  158. #BrendanReadStillTriesToargueIllogically
  159. #BrendanReadIsDrawingLongVeryLongStrawsToTryToMakeOutA_Case
  160. #BrendanReadC9ontinuesToLieInFaceOfIrrefutableEviodence
  161. #BrendanReadIsUnawareIgnorantInFactThatHeIsConfused
  162. #SoMuchOfPoliceShaneHunterCaseIsHearsayButHunterWantsToPickWhichHearsayIsInEvidence
  163. #ShaneHunterEffectivelyIntooducesHearsayFromTheBarTable
  164. #BrendanReadSaysHeHasBeenToldEvidenceByFatPigDetectiveSergeantSteveBignell
  165. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeIncludedIrrelevantInformationInAffidavitSoItWouldSeemThatReadHadDoneSomething
  166. #BrendanReadsAffidavitForSearchWarrantIsOfNoSubstanceAndIrrelevant
  167. #BrendanReadMakesUnsubstantiatedAssuptionsAndStatesThemAsEvidence
  168. #BrendanReadisFancifulAndAwayWithTheFairiesWhereHeFindsHarassmentOnTheInternet
  169. #BrendanReadsThinkingIsGoingInCircles
  170. #BrendanReadsThinkingHaLostContactWithLogic
  171. #BrendanReadStatesHeBelievesCommentsDirectedAtOnePersonIsHarrassmentOfTwoPeople
  172. #BrendanReadBelievesCommentsOnA_WebsiteIsDirectedAtOnlyOnePerson
  173. #PeterDuttonAndHisCOMPROMISING_Email
  174. #JodieCrawfordLiesToBrendanReadAboutTheEmailSheSent
  175. #BrendanReadIsAskedWhatEvidenceHeCouldFindToSupportThatThatEmailIsUntrue
  176. #MagistrateKluckHarassesMeOverMyAssistanceDogs
  177. #CDPPsShaneHunterAndMagistratePaulMKluckGangUpToDiscriminateAgainstMeBecauseI_AmDisabled
  178. #I_WasAlreadySeverelyFatiguedDueToMyBrianDamageAndHadAdvisedBothPreviously
  179. #ThisIsClearlyHowTheyBothIntendedToWinAgainstMeByMentallyExhaustingMe
  180. #TheyCannotPleadIgnoranceTheEvidenceIsOnDiscsInEvidenceThatSpeaksForItself
  181. #JulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarnerIsNotInBusinessByAnyMeasure
  182. #SoWhyDoMagistratePaulMKluckAndCDPPsShaneHunterWantToPortrayUnskilledPartTimeCasualDayJobAsBusiness
  183. #KluckCommentsUponMyMentalExhaustionBuitThinksHeCanContinueToRailroadMe
  184. #ShaneHunterIsAlsoGuiltyOfDisabilityDiscriminationAsHeStoodToBenefitFromMyExhaustion
  185. #MagistratePaulMKluckIsJustA_PlainBULLY_AndSoIsShaneHunter
  186. #SomeRelevantEditorialCommentsOfMine
  187. #TheCourtNowDiscoversThatBrendanReadWillBeInCanberraAllOfNextWeek
  188. #ShaneHunterStatesTheyWereHopingToFinishHimToday
  189. #HunterAdvisesThatSeniorSergeantStevenBignellIsNowEffectivelyTheCaseOfficer
  190. #ShaneHunterStatesIfTheCrossExaminationOfMrReadIsAnyIndicationWeWontFinishInTheSixDays
  191. #KluckTellsMeI_HaveALL_WEEKEND_ToWorkOutIfI_HaveFurtherQuestionsForBrendanRead
  192. #KluckAsksIfI_AmTellingHimI_CannotFurtherProceedThisAfternoon
  193. #BrendanReadIsStoodDownButNotFormallyExcusedFromGivingEvidence
  194. #KluckFurtherStatesThatMayBeForThisCommittalButProbablyNotPresumingMyAdvice
  195. #KluckTellsMeToDirectMyMindToAnyFurtherQuestionsForMrRead
  196. #KluckInPresenceOfHunterStatesI_HaveTheEvidenceOfTheDicksButHunterKnowsOtherwise
  197. #KluckAdvisesThatI_WouldHaveTheOpportunityToCallWitnessesInThisCourt
  198. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterToStructureMyCrossExaminationOfTheDicksFromTheirStatementsOfEvidence
  199. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYou_know_what_their_evidence_is_going_to_be
  200. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYou_have_their_statements_dont_you
  201. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYes_thats_basically_what_theyre_going_to_say
  202. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteTheyll_give_evidencePresumably_it_will_be_consistent_with_their_statements

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, 25th 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.

includedMenuAnchorsDay2.php

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 25th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

This is a Menu of the anchors placed in the Transcript of Day 2.  It is effectively a Summary of the evidence and cross-examination of the witness.  There was only one witnesses on this day, the same sole witness as on Day1.  It is one continuous file/page.  These anchors are in sequence.



  1. #Very Start Transcript
  2. #Start Of Day 2
  3. #Magistrate Kluck Discriminates Against Me To Presume My Submission
  4. #Magistrate Kluck Does Not Understand Meaning Of The Word_NO
  5. #Kluck Refuses To Recuse Himself
  6. #Kluck Refuses To Exclude Himself Despite His Ridiculing Me And My Disability
  7. #Now Kluck Denies he Tried To Railroad me
  1. #Ex-Cop Brendan Read Continues
  2. #Questions Of Executing The Search Warrant And Entering My room
  3. #Brendan Read Was Not The First In My Room
  4. #Brendan Read Advises He Cannot Recall EXACTLY_Who Was First In  Room
  5. #Brendan Read Cannot Recall Whether Or Not He Preceded Me Into The Room
  6. #Even So_Brendan Read Reckons He Stayed By My Side
  7. #The Excruciating Task Of Extracting The Particulars That Is The Details Of The Charges
  8. #Shane Hunter Continues To Show He Thinks He Is A_Smart Arse
  9. #Brendan Read Explains How And When The CDPP_Was Involved At An Early Stage
  10. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingAsToProcessToFollow
  11. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingOnTaskForceArgos
  12. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingAsToConsultingHisSuperiorSergeantSteveBignell
  13. #BrendanReadExplainsContactingCommonwealthDPP_AsA_LastResort
  14. #BrendanReadSpokeToOPaxtonBoothA_QueenslandPoliceLawyer
  15. #PaxtonBoothWasTheOneWhoReferredBrendanReadToTheCommonwealthDPP
  16. #BrendanReadCommunicatedWith Anthony Gett AtCommonwealthDPP
  17. #BerendanReadDiscussesFurtherCharges
  18. #BerendanReadDiscussesFurtherChargesWithComonwealthDPP
  19. #BrendanReadAdvisesTheseFourChargesCameDirectlyToHim
  20. #DetectiveSergeantStevenBignellAdvisedMoreChargesAwaitingOutcomeOfTheseFourCharges
  21. #BrendanReadConfirmedThatJudgesAreWaitingInTheTheWingsToPursueCharges
  22. #DiscussingSubjectNatureFileMirroredFromWebsitesIncludingPHP_jpeg_jpg_bitmap
  23. #ReDemeanourJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickWhenSpeakingWithBrendan
  24. #BrendanReadAtNoTimeSpokeFaceToFaceWithJulieAndCleverDickJustByPhone
  25. #BrendanReadSpokeToCleverDickJohnDickOnlyOnceOrTwice
  26. #MajorityOfCallsBrendanReadToTheDicksWasWithJulieDick
  27. #CleverDickJohnDickWasAngry
  28. #CleverDickJohnDickWasUpset
  29. #BrendanReadUnawareThatStreetViewInGoogleMapsIsCalledStreetscape
  30. #BrendanReadAndJulieDickDidSpeakAboutJudgeJulieDick
  31. #BrendanReadAdmitsTheDicksWereAwareOfJudgeJulieDick
  32. #BrendanReadATPainsToAvoidRecognitionOf_MISTAKE
  33. #BrendanReadAttemptsToAvoidAnsweringTheObviousQuestionOfWhyNotContactTheWebsite
  34. #TheDicksJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickDidNotWishToAdviseWebsiteOfError
  35. #BrendanReadPrevaricatesReTrueFaithfulReproductionOfHisEmailToWebHost
  36. #BrendanReadCouldNotRecallIfTheDicksSpecificallyExcludedAdvisingWebsiteOfError
  37. #BrendanReadThenReliesUponFalseLogic
  38. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeKnewNothingReallyOfPreviousPoliceEventsWithWebsite
  39. #BrendanReadStatesJudgeJulieDickWasPreviousComplainant
  40. #BrendanReadStatesThatInformationWasOnTheInvestigationFileForPreviousPoliceAction
  41. #BrendanReadSaidTheFileNoteStatedThatJudgeJulieDickMadeThePreviousComplaint
  42. #BrendanReadSaidTheJudgeJulieDickComplaintCameThroughClosedPersonalProtectionUnit
  43. #BrendanReadSaidOfficersFromClosedPersonalProtectionUnitContactedComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  44. #BrendanReadThinksJudgeJulieDickMayNotHaveUsedPhoneOrSpokenDirectlyToThatUnit
  45. #BrendanReadSaidNoMentionAnywhereOfMistakenIdentity
  46. #ClearlyThePoliceDidNotWantTheErrorCorrected
  47. #ClearlyThePoliceHadAnotherAgenda
  48. #ClearlyThePoliceWereUsingJulieAndCleverDickAsPatsies
  49. #BrendanReadAdmitsTheFirstTimeItWasReferencedAsA_MistakeWasWhenHeSTOLE_MyComputer
  50. #BrendanReadHimselfAdmitsThatItWAS_A_MISTAKE
  51. #MagistratePaulMKluckStuffingAroundRePlayingRecordingOfPoliceRaid
  52. #to_also_hear_the_part_where_Im_supposed_to_run_to_my_room_from_the_door_with_the_dog_in_my_arms
  53. #BrendanReadAgainDiscussesTheIssueOfTheMistake
  54. #HunterTheRefersToTheTranscriptOfTheAudioRecordingDuringThePoliceRaid
  55. #Page41Of91PageTranscript
  56. #second_last_paragraph_theres_reference_there_to_factual_as_to_identity_confusing_identity_in_people
  57. #That_would_have_been_the_first_time_that_Id_mentioned_it_to_you
  58. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatTheMistakeIsNotMentionedInTheEmailToTheWebHostInTheUS
  59. #ReadAdvisesThatUS_WebHostsHaveAlwaysRequiredA_US_CourtOrderToTakeDownWebSites
  60. #BrendanReadGivesBogusReasonForKeepingFactOfMistakeSecretFromUS_WebHosts
  61. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeDidNotWantNorExpectTheUSHostToCorrectTheDickError
  62. #ReadAdmitsMistakeKeptSecretToAssistPoliceArmedRobbersRantalaAndAntony
  63. #BrendanReadAndPoliceLiedToJulieDickAndCleverDickThatPoliceWouldDoAllTheyCould
  64. #BrendanReadsContinuesToPrevaricateAndEvadeTheTruth
  65. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickWereInEffectJustPatsies
  66. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatFixingComplaintOfJulieDickAndCleverDickWasNotMainAim
  67. #NowTheJudgeJulieDickComplaintIfThereReallyWasOneFromJudgeJulieDick
  68. #BrendanReadSaidJudgeJulieDickComplaintCameInToStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  69. #Discussing_the_Closed_Personal_Protection_Unit
  70. #NowToThe_transcript_here_of_the_search_warrant
  71. #MagistrateKluckInterruptsToAddFurtherDifficulty
  72. #MagistrateKluckAttemptsToIntimidateMeBecauseOfMyAssistanceDogs
  73. #MagistrateKluckIsInBreachOfTheLaw
  74. #MagistrateKluckStatedThatMyAssistanceDogWasDisturbingThecourtByMerelyMoving
  75. #LyingCopperBrendanReadIsProvenLyingReMyAllegedRunningFromTheDoor
  76. #Untruthful Copper Brendan Read Admits He Was Going Off His Memory
  77. #Brendan Read  IsStill Lying To Cover This Corruption
  78. #Brendan Read Now Calls Me A-Liar
  79. #Brendan Read Continues His Lie
  80. #The Transcript Is In Error By Attributing Words to  Me That Were Spoken By Another Person
  81. #Brendan Read Says "The Name Was In His House"  oops?__DAH!!!
  82. #Is Brendan Read On Drugs
  83. #I_Point Out That The Change In Volume Of My Voice Confirms That Brendan Read Is Untruthful
  84. #Brendan Read Continues With His LIE
  85. #I_Was Assaulted By The Police Including By Brendan Read And By Steven Bignell
  86. #Brendan Read Lies Again That I Was Not Assaulted When I_Was
  87. #Did The Police Ask Me To Sit Down Or Did I_Ask May I Sit Down
  88. #The Transcript Will Prove It
  89. #I_Was The One Who Said Can I-Sit  Down_Brendan Read Is Not Doing Well
  90. #Detective Senior Constable Dave Graham was also involved in FRAUDULENT CONDUCT of POLICE
  91. #Shane Hunter Takes Control Of Magistrate Kluck's Court Re From Where In The Audio Recording
  92. #And Magistrate Paul M Kluck Defers  To Shyster Shane R_Hunter
  93. #Brendan Read Is Confused All At Sea Not Knowing If He Is Arthur Or Martha
  94. #Now Brendan Read Has Another Weak  Excuse
  95. #PoliceFeignIgnoranceOfMyDisabilitiesButThatInfoIsPublicOnTheWebInternet
  96. #BrendanReadMakesLamExcusesAboutMyBeingDeniedMyAssistanceDogs
  97. #BrendanReadsStatesTheyHadToArrestMeAsTheyCouldNotChargeMeBySummons
  98. #ThenBrendanReadChangesHisStoryToThatTheyJustDidNotWantToChargeMeOnSummons
  99. #Brendan Read Phoned The Real Julie Dick That He Was Executing The Search Warrant On Me
  100. #ThisIsJustA_BeatUpReBailConditionOfNotGoingNear The Real Julie Dick's  Home
  101. #BrendanReadSaidHePutA_BailConditionOnMeBecauseJulieDickActsLikeA_RatbagNutcase
  102. #BrendanReadAdmitsAnotherLieConfirmedByTheAudioRecording
  103. #ShaneHunterTriesToHarassMeIntoForegoingCrossExaminationOfTheirPrimeWitness
  104. #ShaneHunterCallsThemA_LogJamOfPeopleStandingOutsideSoAreJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickLogs
  105. #WhatCircumstancesPermitsShaneHunterToMenaceMeLikeThis
  106. #TheCourtResumesButBrendanReadIsNotHereButJustSentSMS_FromTaxiInEagleStreet
  107. #HunterAdvisesBrendanReadHasInterstateCommitmentsNextWeekSoIsUnavailableIfNotfinishedToday
  108. #MagistrateKluckAgainBadgersMeToPredictTheFutureReHowLongCrossExaminationOfBrendanReadWillBe
  109. #BrendanReadReturnsToTheWitnessBox
  110. #ReadIsAskedAboutTheCourtBriefHePrepared
  111. #AsCouldBeExpectedForA_PublicSectorParasiteShaneHunterJumpsToHisFeet_I_ObjectYourHonour
  112. #BrendanReadAdmitsHePreparedTheBriefOfPurportedFactsInRelationToThisMatter
  113. #KluckAdvisesYouCanAskHimQuestionsArisingOutOfAnyStatementHeMayHaveGiven
  114. #ReferenceEmailFromSergeantBruceMathiouOfThePetriePolice
  115. #BrendanReadAdvisesHeNoLongerHasAccessToThatEmail
  116. #ShaneHunterAdvisesDetectiveSergeantBignellIsNowTheCaseOfficerAtQueenslandPolice
  117. #KluckTellsMeToMakeA_NoteWithPenAndPaperButI_HaveA_WritingDisabilityDeformedThumb
  118. #I_AdviseMagistrateKluckThatHeHasAnExtraDutyToMeBecauseI_AmDisabled
  119. #A_DiscussionOfDutyToDisabledPersonsEnsues
  120. #SubjectOfBrendanReadsAffidavitForTheSearchWarrant
  121. #SubjectOfBrendanReadsAffidavitForTheSearchWarrantInParticularHisBackgroundsFacts
  122. #BrendanReadSaysHeBelievesTheHearsayInHisAffidavitIsTrue
  123. #BrendanReadAdmitsThisWasA_CivilMatterNotA_CriminalMatter
  124. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatQueenslandPoliceHadActedInCivilLawMatterToProtectArmedRobbers
  125. #QueenslandPoliceHadAttemptedToDoThisByIntimidation
  126. #BrendanReadNowTriesToInvokeFraudulentlyAustraliaCommunicationsAndMediaAuthorityACMA
  127. #DiscussionThatQueenslandPoliceDoNotHaveJurisdictionInterstateEnsues
  128. #QueenslandPoliceActedWithoutAuthorityYetAgain
  129. #MoreHearsayFromBrendanReadAsToA_TakedownNotice
  130. #BrendanReadNowDiscussesAdviceFromDetectiveInspectorJasonSaunders
  131. #BrendanRecallsThatDetectiveInspectorJasonSaundersRecalledReceivingA_PhoneCall
  132. #BrendanReadConfirmsThatJudgeJulieDickAdvisedThatWishedNoFurtherAction
  133. #BrendanReadThenAdmitsThatStatementWasFalse
  134. #BrendanReadSaysHeAssumedAsThereWasNoFollowUpComplaint
  135. #BrendanReadThenExudesA_WadOfWankAboutTheComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  136. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeDoesNotKnowToBeTrueThatWhichHeJustStated
  137. #DiscussingTheAllegedComplaintFromJudgeJulieDick
  138. #CDPPsShaneHunterAttemptsToFabricateEvidence
  139. #SixParagraphsOfBrendanReadsAffidavitIsReCleverDickJohnDickConfrontingA_Photographer
  140. #BrendanReadWronglyVolunteersTheNameTerryJosephMellifontOrTerenceJosephMellifont
  141. #TheNameMichaelMellifontIsAlsoMentioned
  142. #BrendanReadHasAnotherMistakenRecollection
  143. #BrendanReadContinuesToSearchForReasonToJustifyYetAnotherOfHisErrorsInHisAffidavit
  144. #DespiteRepeatedInvitationsBrendanReadIsUnableToShowInTheWebsiteMirrorTheFactHeStated
  145. #BrendanReadMakesRepeatedProvablyFalseStatementsOfContentsOfTheseWebsites
  146. #QuestioningReadOnHisAffidavitForIssueOfTheSearchWarrant
  147. #BrendanMadeTheFalseStatementInAffidavitThatWebsiteStatedThatTerenceMellifontLivedAtWarnerAddress
  148. #SpecificallyBrendanReadLiesReWebsiteExplicitlyStatingTerenceJosephMellifontLivesAtWarnerHouse
  149. #BrendanReadMakesFalseAssertionsReWebsiteContentsAsToMembersMellifontFamilyAtWarnerNotCarseldine
  150. #BrendanReadTriesToArgueGarbageAndRubbishRatherThanAdmitTheTruth
  151. #Discussing73HawbridgeStreetCarseldine
  152. #Discussing76HawbridgeStreetCarseldine
  153. #PhoneSubscriberAt76HawbridgeStreetCarseldineIsJ_Dick
  154. #TerenceJosephMellifontDoesNotAppearToHaveAnyPhoneAnywhere
  155. #SoBrendanReadTriesToSayThatHasRelevanceToWhereHeMayResideWithJulieDickAt12LeopardCourtWarner
  156. #BrendanReadIsConfusedButDeniesHeIsConfused
  157. #NowBrendanReadAdmitsHeIsGettingConfused
  158. #BrendanReadStillTriesToargueIllogically
  159. #BrendanReadIsDrawingLongVeryLongStrawsToTryToMakeOutA_Case
  160. #BrendanReadC9ontinuesToLieInFaceOfIrrefutableEviodence
  161. #BrendanReadIsUnawareIgnorantInFactThatHeIsConfused
  162. #SoMuchOfPoliceShaneHunterCaseIsHearsayButHunterWantsToPickWhichHearsayIsInEvidence
  163. #ShaneHunterEffectivelyIntooducesHearsayFromTheBarTable
  164. #BrendanReadSaysHeHasBeenToldEvidenceByFatPigDetectiveSergeantSteveBignell
  165. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeIncludedIrrelevantInformationInAffidavitSoItWouldSeemThatReadHadDoneSomething
  166. #BrendanReadsAffidavitForSearchWarrantIsOfNoSubstanceAndIrrelevant
  167. #BrendanReadMakesUnsubstantiatedAssuptionsAndStatesThemAsEvidence
  168. #BrendanReadisFancifulAndAwayWithTheFairiesWhereHeFindsHarassmentOnTheInternet
  169. #BrendanReadsThinkingIsGoingInCircles
  170. #BrendanReadsThinkingHaLostContactWithLogic
  171. #BrendanReadStatesHeBelievesCommentsDirectedAtOnePersonIsHarrassmentOfTwoPeople
  172. #BrendanReadBelievesCommentsOnA_WebsiteIsDirectedAtOnlyOnePerson
  173. #PeterDuttonAndHisCOMPROMISING_Email
  174. #JodieCrawfordLiesToBrendanReadAboutTheEmailSheSent
  175. #BrendanReadIsAskedWhatEvidenceHeCouldFindToSupportThatThatEmailIsUntrue
  176. #MagistrateKluckHarassesMeOverMyAssistanceDogs
  177. #CDPPsShaneHunterAndMagistratePaulMKluckGangUpToDiscriminateAgainstMeBecauseI_AmDisabled
  178. #I_WasAlreadySeverelyFatiguedDueToMyBrianDamageAndHadAdvisedBothPreviously
  179. #ThisIsClearlyHowTheyBothIntendedToWinAgainstMeByMentallyExhaustingMe
  180. #TheyCannotPleadIgnoranceTheEvidenceIsOnDiscsInEvidenceThatSpeaksForItself
  181. #JulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarnerIsNotInBusinessByAnyMeasure
  182. #SoWhyDoMagistratePaulMKluckAndCDPPsShaneHunterWantToPortrayUnskilledPartTimeCasualDayJobAsBusiness
  183. #KluckCommentsUponMyMentalExhaustionBuitThinksHeCanContinueToRailroadMe
  184. #ShaneHunterIsAlsoGuiltyOfDisabilityDiscriminationAsHeStoodToBenefitFromMyExhaustion
  185. #MagistratePaulMKluckIsJustA_PlainBULLY_AndSoIsShaneHunter
  186. #SomeRelevantEditorialCommentsOfMine
  187. #TheCourtNowDiscoversThatBrendanReadWillBeInCanberraAllOfNextWeek
  188. #ShaneHunterStatesTheyWereHopingToFinishHimToday
  189. #HunterAdvisesThatSeniorSergeantStevenBignellIsNowEffectivelyTheCaseOfficer
  190. #ShaneHunterStatesIfTheCrossExaminationOfMrReadIsAnyIndicationWeWontFinishInTheSixDays
  191. #KluckTellsMeI_HaveALL_WEEKEND_ToWorkOutIfI_HaveFurtherQuestionsForBrendanRead
  192. #KluckAsksIfI_AmTellingHimI_CannotFurtherProceedThisAfternoon
  193. #BrendanReadIsStoodDownButNotFormallyExcusedFromGivingEvidence
  194. #KluckFurtherStatesThatMayBeForThisCommittalButProbablyNotPresumingMyAdvice
  195. #KluckTellsMeToDirectMyMindToAnyFurtherQuestionsForMrRead
  196. #KluckInPresenceOfHunterStatesI_HaveTheEvidenceOfTheDicksButHunterKnowsOtherwise
  197. #KluckAdvisesThatI_WouldHaveTheOpportunityToCallWitnessesInThisCourt
  198. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterToStructureMyCrossExaminationOfTheDicksFromTheirStatementsOfEvidence
  199. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYou_know_what_their_evidence_is_going_to_be
  200. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYou_have_their_statements_dont_you
  201. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYes_thats_basically_what_theyre_going_to_say
  202. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteTheyll_give_evidencePresumably_it_will_be_consistent_with_their_statements
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, 25th 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.

includedMenuAnchorsDay2.php

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 25th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

This is a Menu of the anchors placed in the Transcript of Day 2.  It is effectively a Summary of the evidence and cross-examination of the witness.  There was only one witnesses on this day, the same sole witness as on Day1.  It is one continuous file/page.  These anchors are in sequence.



  1. #Very Start Transcript
  2. #Start Of Day 2
  3. #Magistrate Kluck Discriminates Against Me To Presume My Submission
  4. #Magistrate Kluck Does Not Understand Meaning Of The Word_NO
  5. #Kluck Refuses To Recuse Himself
  6. #Kluck Refuses To Exclude Himself Despite His Ridiculing Me And My Disability
  7. #Now Kluck Denies he Tried To Railroad me
  1. #Ex-Cop Brendan Read Continues
  2. #Questions Of Executing The Search Warrant And Entering My room
  3. #Brendan Read Was Not The First In My Room
  4. #Brendan Read Advises He Cannot Recall EXACTLY_Who Was First In  Room
  5. #Brendan Read Cannot Recall Whether Or Not He Preceded Me Into The Room
  6. #Even So_Brendan Read Reckons He Stayed By My Side
  7. #The Excruciating Task Of Extracting The Particulars That Is The Details Of The Charges
  8. #Shane Hunter Continues To Show He Thinks He Is A_Smart Arse
  9. #Brendan Read Explains How And When The CDPP_Was Involved At An Early Stage
  10. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingAsToProcessToFollow
  11. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingOnTaskForceArgos
  12. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingAsToConsultingHisSuperiorSergeantSteveBignell
  13. #BrendanReadExplainsContactingCommonwealthDPP_AsA_LastResort
  14. #BrendanReadSpokeToOPaxtonBoothA_QueenslandPoliceLawyer
  15. #PaxtonBoothWasTheOneWhoReferredBrendanReadToTheCommonwealthDPP
  16. #BrendanReadCommunicatedWith Anthony Gett AtCommonwealthDPP
  17. #BerendanReadDiscussesFurtherCharges
  18. #BerendanReadDiscussesFurtherChargesWithComonwealthDPP
  19. #BrendanReadAdvisesTheseFourChargesCameDirectlyToHim
  20. #DetectiveSergeantStevenBignellAdvisedMoreChargesAwaitingOutcomeOfTheseFourCharges
  21. #BrendanReadConfirmedThatJudgesAreWaitingInTheTheWingsToPursueCharges
  22. #DiscussingSubjectNatureFileMirroredFromWebsitesIncludingPHP_jpeg_jpg_bitmap
  23. #ReDemeanourJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickWhenSpeakingWithBrendan
  24. #BrendanReadAtNoTimeSpokeFaceToFaceWithJulieAndCleverDickJustByPhone
  25. #BrendanReadSpokeToCleverDickJohnDickOnlyOnceOrTwice
  26. #MajorityOfCallsBrendanReadToTheDicksWasWithJulieDick
  27. #CleverDickJohnDickWasAngry
  28. #CleverDickJohnDickWasUpset
  29. #BrendanReadUnawareThatStreetViewInGoogleMapsIsCalledStreetscape
  30. #BrendanReadAndJulieDickDidSpeakAboutJudgeJulieDick
  31. #BrendanReadAdmitsTheDicksWereAwareOfJudgeJulieDick
  32. #BrendanReadATPainsToAvoidRecognitionOf_MISTAKE
  33. #BrendanReadAttemptsToAvoidAnsweringTheObviousQuestionOfWhyNotContactTheWebsite
  34. #TheDicksJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickDidNotWishToAdviseWebsiteOfError
  35. #BrendanReadPrevaricatesReTrueFaithfulReproductionOfHisEmailToWebHost
  36. #BrendanReadCouldNotRecallIfTheDicksSpecificallyExcludedAdvisingWebsiteOfError
  37. #BrendanReadThenReliesUponFalseLogic
  38. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeKnewNothingReallyOfPreviousPoliceEventsWithWebsite
  39. #BrendanReadStatesJudgeJulieDickWasPreviousComplainant
  40. #BrendanReadStatesThatInformationWasOnTheInvestigationFileForPreviousPoliceAction
  41. #BrendanReadSaidTheFileNoteStatedThatJudgeJulieDickMadeThePreviousComplaint
  42. #BrendanReadSaidTheJudgeJulieDickComplaintCameThroughClosedPersonalProtectionUnit
  43. #BrendanReadSaidOfficersFromClosedPersonalProtectionUnitContactedComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  44. #BrendanReadThinksJudgeJulieDickMayNotHaveUsedPhoneOrSpokenDirectlyToThatUnit
  45. #BrendanReadSaidNoMentionAnywhereOfMistakenIdentity
  46. #ClearlyThePoliceDidNotWantTheErrorCorrected
  47. #ClearlyThePoliceHadAnotherAgenda
  48. #ClearlyThePoliceWereUsingJulieAndCleverDickAsPatsies
  49. #BrendanReadAdmitsTheFirstTimeItWasReferencedAsA_MistakeWasWhenHeSTOLE_MyComputer
  50. #BrendanReadHimselfAdmitsThatItWAS_A_MISTAKE
  51. #MagistratePaulMKluckStuffingAroundRePlayingRecordingOfPoliceRaid
  52. #to_also_hear_the_part_where_Im_supposed_to_run_to_my_room_from_the_door_with_the_dog_in_my_arms
  53. #BrendanReadAgainDiscussesTheIssueOfTheMistake
  54. #HunterTheRefersToTheTranscriptOfTheAudioRecordingDuringThePoliceRaid
  55. #Page41Of91PageTranscript
  56. #second_last_paragraph_theres_reference_there_to_factual_as_to_identity_confusing_identity_in_people
  57. #That_would_have_been_the_first_time_that_Id_mentioned_it_to_you
  58. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatTheMistakeIsNotMentionedInTheEmailToTheWebHostInTheUS
  59. #ReadAdvisesThatUS_WebHostsHaveAlwaysRequiredA_US_CourtOrderToTakeDownWebSites
  60. #BrendanReadGivesBogusReasonForKeepingFactOfMistakeSecretFromUS_WebHosts
  61. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeDidNotWantNorExpectTheUSHostToCorrectTheDickError
  62. #ReadAdmitsMistakeKeptSecretToAssistPoliceArmedRobbersRantalaAndAntony
  63. #BrendanReadAndPoliceLiedToJulieDickAndCleverDickThatPoliceWouldDoAllTheyCould
  64. #BrendanReadsContinuesToPrevaricateAndEvadeTheTruth
  65. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickWereInEffectJustPatsies
  66. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatFixingComplaintOfJulieDickAndCleverDickWasNotMainAim
  67. #NowTheJudgeJulieDickComplaintIfThereReallyWasOneFromJudgeJulieDick
  68. #BrendanReadSaidJudgeJulieDickComplaintCameInToStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  69. #Discussing_the_Closed_Personal_Protection_Unit
  70. #NowToThe_transcript_here_of_the_search_warrant
  71. #MagistrateKluckInterruptsToAddFurtherDifficulty
  72. #MagistrateKluckAttemptsToIntimidateMeBecauseOfMyAssistanceDogs
  73. #MagistrateKluckIsInBreachOfTheLaw
  74. #MagistrateKluckStatedThatMyAssistanceDogWasDisturbingThecourtByMerelyMoving
  75. #LyingCopperBrendanReadIsProvenLyingReMyAllegedRunningFromTheDoor
  76. #Untruthful Copper Brendan Read Admits He Was Going Off His Memory
  77. #Brendan Read  IsStill Lying To Cover This Corruption
  78. #Brendan Read Now Calls Me A-Liar
  79. #Brendan Read Continues His Lie
  80. #The Transcript Is In Error By Attributing Words to  Me That Were Spoken By Another Person
  81. #Brendan Read Says "The Name Was In His House"  oops?__DAH!!!
  82. #Is Brendan Read On Drugs
  83. #I_Point Out That The Change In Volume Of My Voice Confirms That Brendan Read Is Untruthful
  84. #Brendan Read Continues With His LIE
  85. #I_Was Assaulted By The Police Including By Brendan Read And By Steven Bignell
  86. #Brendan Read Lies Again That I Was Not Assaulted When I_Was
  87. #Did The Police Ask Me To Sit Down Or Did I_Ask May I Sit Down
  88. #The Transcript Will Prove It
  89. #I_Was The One Who Said Can I-Sit  Down_Brendan Read Is Not Doing Well
  90. #Detective Senior Constable Dave Graham was also involved in FRAUDULENT CONDUCT of POLICE
  91. #Shane Hunter Takes Control Of Magistrate Kluck's Court Re From Where In The Audio Recording
  92. #And Magistrate Paul M Kluck Defers  To Shyster Shane R_Hunter
  93. #Brendan Read Is Confused All At Sea Not Knowing If He Is Arthur Or Martha
  94. #Now Brendan Read Has Another Weak  Excuse
  95. #PoliceFeignIgnoranceOfMyDisabilitiesButThatInfoIsPublicOnTheWebInternet
  96. #BrendanReadMakesLamExcusesAboutMyBeingDeniedMyAssistanceDogs
  97. #BrendanReadsStatesTheyHadToArrestMeAsTheyCouldNotChargeMeBySummons
  98. #ThenBrendanReadChangesHisStoryToThatTheyJustDidNotWantToChargeMeOnSummons
  99. #Brendan Read Phoned The Real Julie Dick That He Was Executing The Search Warrant On Me
  100. #ThisIsJustA_BeatUpReBailConditionOfNotGoingNear The Real Julie Dick's  Home
  101. #BrendanReadSaidHePutA_BailConditionOnMeBecauseJulieDickActsLikeA_RatbagNutcase
  102. #BrendanReadAdmitsAnotherLieConfirmedByTheAudioRecording
  103. #ShaneHunterTriesToHarassMeIntoForegoingCrossExaminationOfTheirPrimeWitness
  104. #ShaneHunterCallsThemA_LogJamOfPeopleStandingOutsideSoAreJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickLogs
  105. #WhatCircumstancesPermitsShaneHunterToMenaceMeLikeThis
  106. #TheCourtResumesButBrendanReadIsNotHereButJustSentSMS_FromTaxiInEagleStreet
  107. #HunterAdvisesBrendanReadHasInterstateCommitmentsNextWeekSoIsUnavailableIfNotfinishedToday
  108. #MagistrateKluckAgainBadgersMeToPredictTheFutureReHowLongCrossExaminationOfBrendanReadWillBe
  109. #BrendanReadReturnsToTheWitnessBox
  110. #ReadIsAskedAboutTheCourtBriefHePrepared
  111. #AsCouldBeExpectedForA_PublicSectorParasiteShaneHunterJumpsToHisFeet_I_ObjectYourHonour
  112. #BrendanReadAdmitsHePreparedTheBriefOfPurportedFactsInRelationToThisMatter
  113. #KluckAdvisesYouCanAskHimQuestionsArisingOutOfAnyStatementHeMayHaveGiven
  114. #ReferenceEmailFromSergeantBruceMathiouOfThePetriePolice
  115. #BrendanReadAdvisesHeNoLongerHasAccessToThatEmail
  116. #ShaneHunterAdvisesDetectiveSergeantBignellIsNowTheCaseOfficerAtQueenslandPolice
  117. #KluckTellsMeToMakeA_NoteWithPenAndPaperButI_HaveA_WritingDisabilityDeformedThumb
  118. #I_AdviseMagistrateKluckThatHeHasAnExtraDutyToMeBecauseI_AmDisabled
  119. #A_DiscussionOfDutyToDisabledPersonsEnsues
  120. #SubjectOfBrendanReadsAffidavitForTheSearchWarrant
  121. #SubjectOfBrendanReadsAffidavitForTheSearchWarrantInParticularHisBackgroundsFacts
  122. #BrendanReadSaysHeBelievesTheHearsayInHisAffidavitIsTrue
  123. #BrendanReadAdmitsThisWasA_CivilMatterNotA_CriminalMatter
  124. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatQueenslandPoliceHadActedInCivilLawMatterToProtectArmedRobbers
  125. #QueenslandPoliceHadAttemptedToDoThisByIntimidation
  126. #BrendanReadNowTriesToInvokeFraudulentlyAustraliaCommunicationsAndMediaAuthorityACMA
  127. #DiscussionThatQueenslandPoliceDoNotHaveJurisdictionInterstateEnsues
  128. #QueenslandPoliceActedWithoutAuthorityYetAgain
  129. #MoreHearsayFromBrendanReadAsToA_TakedownNotice
  130. #BrendanReadNowDiscussesAdviceFromDetectiveInspectorJasonSaunders
  131. #BrendanRecallsThatDetectiveInspectorJasonSaundersRecalledReceivingA_PhoneCall
  132. #BrendanReadConfirmsThatJudgeJulieDickAdvisedThatWishedNoFurtherAction
  133. #BrendanReadThenAdmitsThatStatementWasFalse
  134. #BrendanReadSaysHeAssumedAsThereWasNoFollowUpComplaint
  135. #BrendanReadThenExudesA_WadOfWankAboutTheComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  136. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeDoesNotKnowToBeTrueThatWhichHeJustStated
  137. #DiscussingTheAllegedComplaintFromJudgeJulieDick
  138. #CDPPsShaneHunterAttemptsToFabricateEvidence
  139. #SixParagraphsOfBrendanReadsAffidavitIsReCleverDickJohnDickConfrontingA_Photographer
  140. #BrendanReadWronglyVolunteersTheNameTerryJosephMellifontOrTerenceJosephMellifont
  141. #TheNameMichaelMellifontIsAlsoMentioned
  142. #BrendanReadHasAnotherMistakenRecollection
  143. #BrendanReadContinuesToSearchForReasonToJustifyYetAnotherOfHisErrorsInHisAffidavit
  144. #DespiteRepeatedInvitationsBrendanReadIsUnableToShowInTheWebsiteMirrorTheFactHeStated
  145. #BrendanReadMakesRepeatedProvablyFalseStatementsOfContentsOfTheseWebsites
  146. #QuestioningReadOnHisAffidavitForIssueOfTheSearchWarrant
  147. #BrendanMadeTheFalseStatementInAffidavitThatWebsiteStatedThatTerenceMellifontLivedAtWarnerAddress
  148. #SpecificallyBrendanReadLiesReWebsiteExplicitlyStatingTerenceJosephMellifontLivesAtWarnerHouse
  149. #BrendanReadMakesFalseAssertionsReWebsiteContentsAsToMembersMellifontFamilyAtWarnerNotCarseldine
  150. #BrendanReadTriesToArgueGarbageAndRubbishRatherThanAdmitTheTruth
  151. #Discussing73HawbridgeStreetCarseldine
  152. #Discussing76HawbridgeStreetCarseldine
  153. #PhoneSubscriberAt76HawbridgeStreetCarseldineIsJ_Dick
  154. #TerenceJosephMellifontDoesNotAppearToHaveAnyPhoneAnywhere
  155. #SoBrendanReadTriesToSayThatHasRelevanceToWhereHeMayResideWithJulieDickAt12LeopardCourtWarner
  156. #BrendanReadIsConfusedButDeniesHeIsConfused
  157. #NowBrendanReadAdmitsHeIsGettingConfused
  158. #BrendanReadStillTriesToargueIllogically
  159. #BrendanReadIsDrawingLongVeryLongStrawsToTryToMakeOutA_Case
  160. #BrendanReadC9ontinuesToLieInFaceOfIrrefutableEviodence
  161. #BrendanReadIsUnawareIgnorantInFactThatHeIsConfused
  162. #SoMuchOfPoliceShaneHunterCaseIsHearsayButHunterWantsToPickWhichHearsayIsInEvidence
  163. #ShaneHunterEffectivelyIntooducesHearsayFromTheBarTable
  164. #BrendanReadSaysHeHasBeenToldEvidenceByFatPigDetectiveSergeantSteveBignell
  165. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeIncludedIrrelevantInformationInAffidavitSoItWouldSeemThatReadHadDoneSomething
  166. #BrendanReadsAffidavitForSearchWarrantIsOfNoSubstanceAndIrrelevant
  167. #BrendanReadMakesUnsubstantiatedAssuptionsAndStatesThemAsEvidence
  168. #BrendanReadisFancifulAndAwayWithTheFairiesWhereHeFindsHarassmentOnTheInternet
  169. #BrendanReadsThinkingIsGoingInCircles
  170. #BrendanReadsThinkingHaLostContactWithLogic
  171. #BrendanReadStatesHeBelievesCommentsDirectedAtOnePersonIsHarrassmentOfTwoPeople
  172. #BrendanReadBelievesCommentsOnA_WebsiteIsDirectedAtOnlyOnePerson
  173. #PeterDuttonAndHisCOMPROMISING_Email
  174. #JodieCrawfordLiesToBrendanReadAboutTheEmailSheSent
  175. #BrendanReadIsAskedWhatEvidenceHeCouldFindToSupportThatThatEmailIsUntrue
  176. #MagistrateKluckHarassesMeOverMyAssistanceDogs
  177. #CDPPsShaneHunterAndMagistratePaulMKluckGangUpToDiscriminateAgainstMeBecauseI_AmDisabled
  178. #I_WasAlreadySeverelyFatiguedDueToMyBrianDamageAndHadAdvisedBothPreviously
  179. #ThisIsClearlyHowTheyBothIntendedToWinAgainstMeByMentallyExhaustingMe
  180. #TheyCannotPleadIgnoranceTheEvidenceIsOnDiscsInEvidenceThatSpeaksForItself
  181. #JulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarnerIsNotInBusinessByAnyMeasure
  182. #SoWhyDoMagistratePaulMKluckAndCDPPsShaneHunterWantToPortrayUnskilledPartTimeCasualDayJobAsBusiness
  183. #KluckCommentsUponMyMentalExhaustionBuitThinksHeCanContinueToRailroadMe
  184. #ShaneHunterIsAlsoGuiltyOfDisabilityDiscriminationAsHeStoodToBenefitFromMyExhaustion
  185. #MagistratePaulMKluckIsJustA_PlainBULLY_AndSoIsShaneHunter
  186. #SomeRelevantEditorialCommentsOfMine
  187. #TheCourtNowDiscoversThatBrendanReadWillBeInCanberraAllOfNextWeek
  188. #ShaneHunterStatesTheyWereHopingToFinishHimToday
  189. #HunterAdvisesThatSeniorSergeantStevenBignellIsNowEffectivelyTheCaseOfficer
  190. #ShaneHunterStatesIfTheCrossExaminationOfMrReadIsAnyIndicationWeWontFinishInTheSixDays
  191. #KluckTellsMeI_HaveALL_WEEKEND_ToWorkOutIfI_HaveFurtherQuestionsForBrendanRead
  192. #KluckAsksIfI_AmTellingHimI_CannotFurtherProceedThisAfternoon
  193. #BrendanReadIsStoodDownButNotFormallyExcusedFromGivingEvidence
  194. #KluckFurtherStatesThatMayBeForThisCommittalButProbablyNotPresumingMyAdvice
  195. #KluckTellsMeToDirectMyMindToAnyFurtherQuestionsForMrRead
  196. #KluckInPresenceOfHunterStatesI_HaveTheEvidenceOfTheDicksButHunterKnowsOtherwise
  197. #KluckAdvisesThatI_WouldHaveTheOpportunityToCallWitnessesInThisCourt
  198. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterToStructureMyCrossExaminationOfTheDicksFromTheirStatementsOfEvidence
  199. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYou_know_what_their_evidence_is_going_to_be
  200. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYou_have_their_statements_dont_you
  201. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYes_thats_basically_what_theyre_going_to_say
  202. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteTheyll_give_evidencePresumably_it_will_be_consistent_with_their_statements
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.

includedMenuAnchorsDay2.php

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 25th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

This is a Menu of the anchors placed in the Transcript of Day 2.  It is effectively a Summary of the evidence and cross-examination of the witness.  There was only one witnesses on this day, the same sole witness as on Day1.  It is one continuous file/page.  These anchors are in sequence.



  1. #Very Start Transcript
  2. #Start Of Day 2
  3. #Magistrate Kluck Discriminates Against Me To Presume My Submission
  4. #Magistrate Kluck Does Not Understand Meaning Of The Word_NO
  5. #Kluck Refuses To Recuse Himself
  6. #Kluck Refuses To Exclude Himself Despite His Ridiculing Me And My Disability
  7. #Now Kluck Denies he Tried To Railroad me
  1. #Ex-Cop Brendan Read Continues
  2. #Questions Of Executing The Search Warrant And Entering My room
  3. #Brendan Read Was Not The First In My Room
  4. #Brendan Read Advises He Cannot Recall EXACTLY_Who Was First In  Room
  5. #Brendan Read Cannot Recall Whether Or Not He Preceded Me Into The Room
  6. #Even So_Brendan Read Reckons He Stayed By My Side
  7. #The Excruciating Task Of Extracting The Particulars That Is The Details Of The Charges
  8. #Shane Hunter Continues To Show He Thinks He Is A_Smart Arse
  9. #Brendan Read Explains How And When The CDPP_Was Involved At An Early Stage
  10. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingAsToProcessToFollow
  11. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingOnTaskForceArgos
  12. #BrendanReadExplainsHisThinkingAsToConsultingHisSuperiorSergeantSteveBignell
  13. #BrendanReadExplainsContactingCommonwealthDPP_AsA_LastResort
  14. #BrendanReadSpokeToOPaxtonBoothA_QueenslandPoliceLawyer
  15. #PaxtonBoothWasTheOneWhoReferredBrendanReadToTheCommonwealthDPP
  16. #BrendanReadCommunicatedWith Anthony Gett AtCommonwealthDPP
  17. #BerendanReadDiscussesFurtherCharges
  18. #BerendanReadDiscussesFurtherChargesWithComonwealthDPP
  19. #BrendanReadAdvisesTheseFourChargesCameDirectlyToHim
  20. #DetectiveSergeantStevenBignellAdvisedMoreChargesAwaitingOutcomeOfTheseFourCharges
  21. #BrendanReadConfirmedThatJudgesAreWaitingInTheTheWingsToPursueCharges
  22. #DiscussingSubjectNatureFileMirroredFromWebsitesIncludingPHP_jpeg_jpg_bitmap
  23. #ReDemeanourJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickWhenSpeakingWithBrendan
  24. #BrendanReadAtNoTimeSpokeFaceToFaceWithJulieAndCleverDickJustByPhone
  25. #BrendanReadSpokeToCleverDickJohnDickOnlyOnceOrTwice
  26. #MajorityOfCallsBrendanReadToTheDicksWasWithJulieDick
  27. #CleverDickJohnDickWasAngry
  28. #CleverDickJohnDickWasUpset
  29. #BrendanReadUnawareThatStreetViewInGoogleMapsIsCalledStreetscape
  30. #BrendanReadAndJulieDickDidSpeakAboutJudgeJulieDick
  31. #BrendanReadAdmitsTheDicksWereAwareOfJudgeJulieDick
  32. #BrendanReadATPainsToAvoidRecognitionOf_MISTAKE
  33. #BrendanReadAttemptsToAvoidAnsweringTheObviousQuestionOfWhyNotContactTheWebsite
  34. #TheDicksJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickDidNotWishToAdviseWebsiteOfError
  35. #BrendanReadPrevaricatesReTrueFaithfulReproductionOfHisEmailToWebHost
  36. #BrendanReadCouldNotRecallIfTheDicksSpecificallyExcludedAdvisingWebsiteOfError
  37. #BrendanReadThenReliesUponFalseLogic
  38. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeKnewNothingReallyOfPreviousPoliceEventsWithWebsite
  39. #BrendanReadStatesJudgeJulieDickWasPreviousComplainant
  40. #BrendanReadStatesThatInformationWasOnTheInvestigationFileForPreviousPoliceAction
  41. #BrendanReadSaidTheFileNoteStatedThatJudgeJulieDickMadeThePreviousComplaint
  42. #BrendanReadSaidTheJudgeJulieDickComplaintCameThroughClosedPersonalProtectionUnit
  43. #BrendanReadSaidOfficersFromClosedPersonalProtectionUnitContactedComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  44. #BrendanReadThinksJudgeJulieDickMayNotHaveUsedPhoneOrSpokenDirectlyToThatUnit
  45. #BrendanReadSaidNoMentionAnywhereOfMistakenIdentity
  46. #ClearlyThePoliceDidNotWantTheErrorCorrected
  47. #ClearlyThePoliceHadAnotherAgenda
  48. #ClearlyThePoliceWereUsingJulieAndCleverDickAsPatsies
  49. #BrendanReadAdmitsTheFirstTimeItWasReferencedAsA_MistakeWasWhenHeSTOLE_MyComputer
  50. #BrendanReadHimselfAdmitsThatItWAS_A_MISTAKE
  51. #MagistratePaulMKluckStuffingAroundRePlayingRecordingOfPoliceRaid
  52. #to_also_hear_the_part_where_Im_supposed_to_run_to_my_room_from_the_door_with_the_dog_in_my_arms
  53. #BrendanReadAgainDiscussesTheIssueOfTheMistake
  54. #HunterTheRefersToTheTranscriptOfTheAudioRecordingDuringThePoliceRaid
  55. #Page41Of91PageTranscript
  56. #second_last_paragraph_theres_reference_there_to_factual_as_to_identity_confusing_identity_in_people
  57. #That_would_have_been_the_first_time_that_Id_mentioned_it_to_you
  58. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatTheMistakeIsNotMentionedInTheEmailToTheWebHostInTheUS
  59. #ReadAdvisesThatUS_WebHostsHaveAlwaysRequiredA_US_CourtOrderToTakeDownWebSites
  60. #BrendanReadGivesBogusReasonForKeepingFactOfMistakeSecretFromUS_WebHosts
  61. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeDidNotWantNorExpectTheUSHostToCorrectTheDickError
  62. #ReadAdmitsMistakeKeptSecretToAssistPoliceArmedRobbersRantalaAndAntony
  63. #BrendanReadAndPoliceLiedToJulieDickAndCleverDickThatPoliceWouldDoAllTheyCould
  64. #BrendanReadsContinuesToPrevaricateAndEvadeTheTruth
  65. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickWereInEffectJustPatsies
  66. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatFixingComplaintOfJulieDickAndCleverDickWasNotMainAim
  67. #NowTheJudgeJulieDickComplaintIfThereReallyWasOneFromJudgeJulieDick
  68. #BrendanReadSaidJudgeJulieDickComplaintCameInToStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  69. #Discussing_the_Closed_Personal_Protection_Unit
  70. #NowToThe_transcript_here_of_the_search_warrant
  71. #MagistrateKluckInterruptsToAddFurtherDifficulty
  72. #MagistrateKluckAttemptsToIntimidateMeBecauseOfMyAssistanceDogs
  73. #MagistrateKluckIsInBreachOfTheLaw
  74. #MagistrateKluckStatedThatMyAssistanceDogWasDisturbingThecourtByMerelyMoving
  75. #LyingCopperBrendanReadIsProvenLyingReMyAllegedRunningFromTheDoor
  76. #Untruthful Copper Brendan Read Admits He Was Going Off His Memory
  77. #Brendan Read  IsStill Lying To Cover This Corruption
  78. #Brendan Read Now Calls Me A-Liar
  79. #Brendan Read Continues His Lie
  80. #The Transcript Is In Error By Attributing Words to  Me That Were Spoken By Another Person
  81. #Brendan Read Says "The Name Was In His House"  oops?__DAH!!!
  82. #Is Brendan Read On Drugs
  83. #I_Point Out That The Change In Volume Of My Voice Confirms That Brendan Read Is Untruthful
  84. #Brendan Read Continues With His LIE
  85. #I_Was Assaulted By The Police Including By Brendan Read And By Steven Bignell
  86. #Brendan Read Lies Again That I Was Not Assaulted When I_Was
  87. #Did The Police Ask Me To Sit Down Or Did I_Ask May I Sit Down
  88. #The Transcript Will Prove It
  89. #I_Was The One Who Said Can I-Sit  Down_Brendan Read Is Not Doing Well
  90. #Detective Senior Constable Dave Graham was also involved in FRAUDULENT CONDUCT of POLICE
  91. #Shane Hunter Takes Control Of Magistrate Kluck's Court Re From Where In The Audio Recording
  92. #And Magistrate Paul M Kluck Defers  To Shyster Shane R_Hunter
  93. #Brendan Read Is Confused All At Sea Not Knowing If He Is Arthur Or Martha
  94. #Now Brendan Read Has Another Weak  Excuse
  95. #PoliceFeignIgnoranceOfMyDisabilitiesButThatInfoIsPublicOnTheWebInternet
  96. #BrendanReadMakesLamExcusesAboutMyBeingDeniedMyAssistanceDogs
  97. #BrendanReadsStatesTheyHadToArrestMeAsTheyCouldNotChargeMeBySummons
  98. #ThenBrendanReadChangesHisStoryToThatTheyJustDidNotWantToChargeMeOnSummons
  99. #Brendan Read Phoned The Real Julie Dick That He Was Executing The Search Warrant On Me
  100. #ThisIsJustA_BeatUpReBailConditionOfNotGoingNear The Real Julie Dick's  Home
  101. #BrendanReadSaidHePutA_BailConditionOnMeBecauseJulieDickActsLikeA_RatbagNutcase
  102. #BrendanReadAdmitsAnotherLieConfirmedByTheAudioRecording
  103. #ShaneHunterTriesToHarassMeIntoForegoingCrossExaminationOfTheirPrimeWitness
  104. #ShaneHunterCallsThemA_LogJamOfPeopleStandingOutsideSoAreJulieDickAndCleverDickJohnDickLogs
  105. #WhatCircumstancesPermitsShaneHunterToMenaceMeLikeThis
  106. #TheCourtResumesButBrendanReadIsNotHereButJustSentSMS_FromTaxiInEagleStreet
  107. #HunterAdvisesBrendanReadHasInterstateCommitmentsNextWeekSoIsUnavailableIfNotfinishedToday
  108. #MagistrateKluckAgainBadgersMeToPredictTheFutureReHowLongCrossExaminationOfBrendanReadWillBe
  109. #BrendanReadReturnsToTheWitnessBox
  110. #ReadIsAskedAboutTheCourtBriefHePrepared
  111. #AsCouldBeExpectedForA_PublicSectorParasiteShaneHunterJumpsToHisFeet_I_ObjectYourHonour
  112. #BrendanReadAdmitsHePreparedTheBriefOfPurportedFactsInRelationToThisMatter
  113. #KluckAdvisesYouCanAskHimQuestionsArisingOutOfAnyStatementHeMayHaveGiven
  114. #ReferenceEmailFromSergeantBruceMathiouOfThePetriePolice
  115. #BrendanReadAdvisesHeNoLongerHasAccessToThatEmail
  116. #ShaneHunterAdvisesDetectiveSergeantBignellIsNowTheCaseOfficerAtQueenslandPolice
  117. #KluckTellsMeToMakeA_NoteWithPenAndPaperButI_HaveA_WritingDisabilityDeformedThumb
  118. #I_AdviseMagistrateKluckThatHeHasAnExtraDutyToMeBecauseI_AmDisabled
  119. #A_DiscussionOfDutyToDisabledPersonsEnsues
  120. #SubjectOfBrendanReadsAffidavitForTheSearchWarrant
  121. #SubjectOfBrendanReadsAffidavitForTheSearchWarrantInParticularHisBackgroundsFacts
  122. #BrendanReadSaysHeBelievesTheHearsayInHisAffidavitIsTrue
  123. #BrendanReadAdmitsThisWasA_CivilMatterNotA_CriminalMatter
  124. #BrendanReadAdmitsThatQueenslandPoliceHadActedInCivilLawMatterToProtectArmedRobbers
  125. #QueenslandPoliceHadAttemptedToDoThisByIntimidation
  126. #BrendanReadNowTriesToInvokeFraudulentlyAustraliaCommunicationsAndMediaAuthorityACMA
  127. #DiscussionThatQueenslandPoliceDoNotHaveJurisdictionInterstateEnsues
  128. #QueenslandPoliceActedWithoutAuthorityYetAgain
  129. #MoreHearsayFromBrendanReadAsToA_TakedownNotice
  130. #BrendanReadNowDiscussesAdviceFromDetectiveInspectorJasonSaunders
  131. #BrendanRecallsThatDetectiveInspectorJasonSaundersRecalledReceivingA_PhoneCall
  132. #BrendanReadConfirmsThatJudgeJulieDickAdvisedThatWishedNoFurtherAction
  133. #BrendanReadThenAdmitsThatStatementWasFalse
  134. #BrendanReadSaysHeAssumedAsThereWasNoFollowUpComplaint
  135. #BrendanReadThenExudesA_WadOfWankAboutTheComputerCrimeInvestigationUnit
  136. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeDoesNotKnowToBeTrueThatWhichHeJustStated
  137. #DiscussingTheAllegedComplaintFromJudgeJulieDick
  138. #CDPPsShaneHunterAttemptsToFabricateEvidence
  139. #SixParagraphsOfBrendanReadsAffidavitIsReCleverDickJohnDickConfrontingA_Photographer
  140. #BrendanReadWronglyVolunteersTheNameTerryJosephMellifontOrTerenceJosephMellifont
  141. #TheNameMichaelMellifontIsAlsoMentioned
  142. #BrendanReadHasAnotherMistakenRecollection
  143. #BrendanReadContinuesToSearchForReasonToJustifyYetAnotherOfHisErrorsInHisAffidavit
  144. #DespiteRepeatedInvitationsBrendanReadIsUnableToShowInTheWebsiteMirrorTheFactHeStated
  145. #BrendanReadMakesRepeatedProvablyFalseStatementsOfContentsOfTheseWebsites
  146. #QuestioningReadOnHisAffidavitForIssueOfTheSearchWarrant
  147. #BrendanMadeTheFalseStatementInAffidavitThatWebsiteStatedThatTerenceMellifontLivedAtWarnerAddress
  148. #SpecificallyBrendanReadLiesReWebsiteExplicitlyStatingTerenceJosephMellifontLivesAtWarnerHouse
  149. #BrendanReadMakesFalseAssertionsReWebsiteContentsAsToMembersMellifontFamilyAtWarnerNotCarseldine
  150. #BrendanReadTriesToArgueGarbageAndRubbishRatherThanAdmitTheTruth
  151. #Discussing73HawbridgeStreetCarseldine
  152. #Discussing76HawbridgeStreetCarseldine
  153. #PhoneSubscriberAt76HawbridgeStreetCarseldineIsJ_Dick
  154. #TerenceJosephMellifontDoesNotAppearToHaveAnyPhoneAnywhere
  155. #SoBrendanReadTriesToSayThatHasRelevanceToWhereHeMayResideWithJulieDickAt12LeopardCourtWarner
  156. #BrendanReadIsConfusedButDeniesHeIsConfused
  157. #NowBrendanReadAdmitsHeIsGettingConfused
  158. #BrendanReadStillTriesToargueIllogically
  159. #BrendanReadIsDrawingLongVeryLongStrawsToTryToMakeOutA_Case
  160. #BrendanReadC9ontinuesToLieInFaceOfIrrefutableEviodence
  161. #BrendanReadIsUnawareIgnorantInFactThatHeIsConfused
  162. #SoMuchOfPoliceShaneHunterCaseIsHearsayButHunterWantsToPickWhichHearsayIsInEvidence
  163. #ShaneHunterEffectivelyIntooducesHearsayFromTheBarTable
  164. #BrendanReadSaysHeHasBeenToldEvidenceByFatPigDetectiveSergeantSteveBignell
  165. #BrendanReadAdmitsHeIncludedIrrelevantInformationInAffidavitSoItWouldSeemThatReadHadDoneSomething
  166. #BrendanReadsAffidavitForSearchWarrantIsOfNoSubstanceAndIrrelevant
  167. #BrendanReadMakesUnsubstantiatedAssuptionsAndStatesThemAsEvidence
  168. #BrendanReadisFancifulAndAwayWithTheFairiesWhereHeFindsHarassmentOnTheInternet
  169. #BrendanReadsThinkingIsGoingInCircles
  170. #BrendanReadsThinkingHaLostContactWithLogic
  171. #BrendanReadStatesHeBelievesCommentsDirectedAtOnePersonIsHarrassmentOfTwoPeople
  172. #BrendanReadBelievesCommentsOnA_WebsiteIsDirectedAtOnlyOnePerson
  173. #PeterDuttonAndHisCOMPROMISING_Email
  174. #JodieCrawfordLiesToBrendanReadAboutTheEmailSheSent
  175. #BrendanReadIsAskedWhatEvidenceHeCouldFindToSupportThatThatEmailIsUntrue
  176. #MagistrateKluckHarassesMeOverMyAssistanceDogs
  177. #CDPPsShaneHunterAndMagistratePaulMKluckGangUpToDiscriminateAgainstMeBecauseI_AmDisabled
  178. #I_WasAlreadySeverelyFatiguedDueToMyBrianDamageAndHadAdvisedBothPreviously
  179. #ThisIsClearlyHowTheyBothIntendedToWinAgainstMeByMentallyExhaustingMe
  180. #TheyCannotPleadIgnoranceTheEvidenceIsOnDiscsInEvidenceThatSpeaksForItself
  181. #JulieDickOf12LeopardCourtWarnerIsNotInBusinessByAnyMeasure
  182. #SoWhyDoMagistratePaulMKluckAndCDPPsShaneHunterWantToPortrayUnskilledPartTimeCasualDayJobAsBusiness
  183. #KluckCommentsUponMyMentalExhaustionBuitThinksHeCanContinueToRailroadMe
  184. #ShaneHunterIsAlsoGuiltyOfDisabilityDiscriminationAsHeStoodToBenefitFromMyExhaustion
  185. #MagistratePaulMKluckIsJustA_PlainBULLY_AndSoIsShaneHunter
  186. #SomeRelevantEditorialCommentsOfMine
  187. #TheCourtNowDiscoversThatBrendanReadWillBeInCanberraAllOfNextWeek
  188. #ShaneHunterStatesTheyWereHopingToFinishHimToday
  189. #HunterAdvisesThatSeniorSergeantStevenBignellIsNowEffectivelyTheCaseOfficer
  190. #ShaneHunterStatesIfTheCrossExaminationOfMrReadIsAnyIndicationWeWontFinishInTheSixDays
  191. #KluckTellsMeI_HaveALL_WEEKEND_ToWorkOutIfI_HaveFurtherQuestionsForBrendanRead
  192. #KluckAsksIfI_AmTellingHimI_CannotFurtherProceedThisAfternoon
  193. #BrendanReadIsStoodDownButNotFormallyExcusedFromGivingEvidence
  194. #KluckFurtherStatesThatMayBeForThisCommittalButProbablyNotPresumingMyAdvice
  195. #KluckTellsMeToDirectMyMindToAnyFurtherQuestionsForMrRead
  196. #KluckInPresenceOfHunterStatesI_HaveTheEvidenceOfTheDicksButHunterKnowsOtherwise
  197. #KluckAdvisesThatI_WouldHaveTheOpportunityToCallWitnessesInThisCourt
  198. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterToStructureMyCrossExaminationOfTheDicksFromTheirStatementsOfEvidence
  199. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYou_know_what_their_evidence_is_going_to_be
  200. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYou_have_their_statements_dont_you
  201. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYes_thats_basically_what_theyre_going_to_say
  202. #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteTheyll_give_evidencePresumably_it_will_be_consistent_with_their_statements
http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

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

SRB Transcript Day 2

Corrupt Police Rantala, Brisbane Magistrates Court, 25th 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 25/06/2010


..DAY 2

THE COURT RESUMED

CLARE JARVIS APPOINTED AS RECORDER

BENCH: Yes, I take the continuation of committal proceedings, Russell Gordon Haig Mathews. Yes, Mr Hunter.


MR HUNTER: Thank you.


BENCH: And Mr Read, if you can just take your seat in the box there; you're subject to the oath that you took yesterday. Yes, Mr Mathews?


BRENDAN SCOTT READ, CONTINUING:


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, I wish to make submissions, your Honour, a submission.

BENCH: What sort of submission?

DEFENDANT: Well, I - it probably would be better is the witness is not in the room, your Honour.


BENCH: Look, just out of caution, can I just ask you to leave, thank you. I donít know what Mr Mathews is going to say, so     


WITNESS LEAVES COURTROOM


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, this is obviously a grand abuse of process. You know that a regulation cannot overrule a section of a legislation, a section of an Act     

BENCH: Mr Mathews.

DEFENDANT:      of a statute.

BENCH: Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: If you're going to ask that these proceedings be struck out or stayed for any purpose because of an abuse of

process, I just reiterate what I said to you on the review when you asked for the matters to be struck out; that being committal proceedings, the only way that these proceedings can be determined or finalised is upon a finding that the evidence is either sufficient or it's not sufficient to commit a person for trial.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. And     


BENCH: So, is that what you're asking? Is that what you're going to ask?


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour; yesterday afternoon     


BENCH: No, if you just answer my question.


DEFENDANT: No. No.


BENCH: You're raising the issue of abuse of process.


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour.


BENCH: For what purpose do you raise that?


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, yesterday afternoon I explained my disability and how it was affecting me at the time.


BENCH: Yes. And I granted you an early adjournment.


DEFENDANT: That's right, yes, your Honour. And then I asked a question which I had already worked out prior, regarding something and you said, "Oh, you got your concentration back again, have you?"


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Now, I mean, that     


BENCH: And I thought out of caution, given what you'd already said to me about your condition yesterday afternoon, I thought the best thing to do was adjourn and not hear from you.


DEFENDANT: But your Honour, if I may say, that was said in a way to - in a derogatory way to my disability to - to attack my disability.


BENCH: What do you want to raise then this morning?


DEFENDANT: I believe you should recuse yourself, your Honour, on the grounds of - that's an indication of - a reasonable apprehension of bias by reasonably informed bias standard. I heard that, "Oh, you got your - oh, you got your concentration back again now, have you?"


BENCH: Is that all you wish to raise?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: I refuse to excuse myself from these proceedings on that basis. I donít think any reasonable person, sitting in the back of the courtroom, would consider that I am in any way biased against you because of that. So, if you haven't any further submissions to make, I'll ask you to resume your cross-examination of the witness.


DEFENDANT: In light of the fact that, you know, there - it's a continuation of a cover-up. This - this - I mean, this     


BENCH: Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes. I mean, the fact that the prosecution would bring this on - would bring this on, when it's so obvious     


BENCH: You can make submissions after the hearing of the evidence.


DEFENDANT: It's - your Honour, it just smacks of a     


BENCH: You can make submissions.


DEFENDANT:      of further corruption, your Honour.


BENCH: You'll be given the opportunity of making submissions on the evidence. Remember, these are committal proceedings. We're dealing solely with sufficiency and as I indicated to you at the outset, this Court does not decide your guilt or innocence.


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour, but     


BENCH: Merely whether the evidence is sufficient to put you on trial. If it's not, you'll be free to go. That's a matter of law at the end of the prosecution case essentially.


DEFENDANT: And they - well, yes, your Honour. And you did say that - about the valuable time of the Court.


BENCH: That's right.


DEFENDANT: The Court's valuable time.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: And when I had expressed the fact that I - I was not capable, you wanted me to push on.


BENCH: I granted you the adjournment.


DEFENDANT: Yes, but you wanted me to push on prior to that.


BENCH: I didnít insist that you push on.


DEFENDANT: Well, you tried to     


BENCH: I granted you the adjournment.


DEFENDANT: You tried to get me to agree to it, your Honour. The record     


BENCH: I did not.


DEFENDANT: Well, the record will whatever the situation was, provided the record - yes.


BENCH: It was merely putting on the record, for your benefit, that Court time is valuable and not to be wasted, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt by granting you the early adjournment     


DEFENDANT: And your Honour     


BENCH:      because of your condition.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, and this is - having a committal hearing can be a waste of the Court's time as well, your Honour. It's - you know - it's putting me on my     


BENCH: Well, the Court doesnít decide to bring the charges; that's what the prosecution - that's a prosecution function.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, I - I know, your Honour.


BENCH: Once the charges are brought and you seek to defend the matters or contest the matters, the process must be gone through and this is the process. I donít know whether I can state it any clearer to you.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, it's - it's just is a - you know, in breach of the - in view of the cover up by three government commissions, the prosecution's wanting this Court also to continue with the cover up. And it just smacks to me of abuse.


BENCH: It's based solely on evidence, what the evidence is before this Court. If that evidence is sufficient; if it's - if it touches or if it establishes the elements of the offence and reasonable inferences can be drawn, that - you have a case to answer. Well, then you'll be committed for trial; if not, you'll be free to go. So, can we move on with the evidence, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Can you recall Mr Read, please.


BRENDAN SCOTT READ, CONTINUING:


CROSS-EXAMINATION:




BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews, if you can continue with your cross-examination?


DEFENDANT: Yes. Good morning, Mr Read. You said in your evidence-in-chief that when you entered my bedroom during the search warrant the screen was on?   Thatís right.

Okay. Could you - could you go through the situation of entering my room, how that occurred?   I wasnít the first one in your room.


Who was the first - okay, who was the first in the room; what was the process?   I donít recall exactly who was the first in the room, one of the other officers; I believe it might have been Detective Sergeant Steve Bignall, seeing he was recording and I'm sure that Michael Tanowski, who was the forensic officer on the scene would have been close by him.


Mmm?   And then I went into the room sometime after they'd been in there.


So, you went in after me or before me or     ?   I donít recall.


You donít recall. So     ?   I might have gone in there at the same time you were there because I recall pretty much being by your side the whole time at the search warrant because you were quite - appeared upset that we were there and I was doing my best to try and calm you and just to assure you that - of the process of what we were doing.


I see. Okay. And you're sure the screen was on as you came into the room?   My recollection was seeing your screen on.


Yeah. Okay?   Yes.


And - okay. And you say you came into the room at the same time as I did?   No, I donít recall exactly when I came in the room.


But you say you were by my side most of the time so you could     ?   Yeah. I recall being at your side quite a bit for my time in there - in the house. So, I'm not sure exactly - if you're trying to ask me specifically did I walk in at the same time with you, I can't say I did.


Okay. So, I'm just wondering how reliable your evidence is going to be?   It's very reliable but I'm not going to tell you lies or to this Court.


No. No. That's right?   So, if I can't recall something, I'm not going to make it up.


That's right. Okay. So, I'm just wondering what else you can't     ?   I can tell you that you were definitely in company of a police officer, whether it be myself or another police officer.


Okay?   You weren't in there on your own.


Okay. And did any police officers search any part of the house without myself being present?   You'll have to ask the other police, I'm not sure.


But you donít - but I mean, you wouldnít     ?   There were other areas of the house searched and you wouldnít have been present for that, but there were other occupants of the house present.


Were there when     ?   Yes.


How many other occupants were there of the house?   One.


Okay. And how many police officers were checking the house, the search of the house?   Well, there was four - four police officers in - present in the house.


Okay. Now     ?   But the only actual room that was pretty much searched was your bedroom.


Okay?   Because that's where you advised where all the computer equipment was in relation to the matter that was under investigation.


Now, I was in the process of asking yesterday afternoon, your Honour, the question I was going to ask him; you then said did I have my concentration back. The four charge - no, of the Court - of the four charges, if I can find out - there's four charges there and there's basically two factual situations. There's the Dick and there's the Rantala; there's two situations which are giving in evidence. It was only - only the - in relation to Dicks for the search warrant but there's Dicks and Rantala are the two basic cases. So, I'm just wondering are they in all of the four charges?


BENCH: Are you asking the witness this?


DEFENDANT: No, I'm asking the Court. I'm asking the prosecution because - well, okay, as the Court - ask the witness. There's four charges, you preferred four charges?   Thatís correct.


Now, of those four charges, how much is related to Dicks and how much is related to - I was going to say Mellifont - related to Rantala and Antony?   I'm not prepared to give a percentage in relation to     


Not percentage, not percentage but there's - does     ?   There's     


     this much relates to here or this much relates to there?    There's content on all those four websites that relate to both - well, on the four there's definitely postings that relate to the officers, Henri Rantala and Monica Antony.


Mmm?   And there was also subsequent postings that also included Julie Dick, who was the initial complainant.


Okay. On - okay. Now, there are - there are listed in the     ?   There are also a number of other sites that weren't actually included that had content as well but we held off on actually proceeding with any charges in relation to those.


There are particulars of each of the charges. I'm wondering which of these two factual situations relate to each of these particulars, or is each of these particulars is - is each of the situations included in each of these particulars?   I donít know what you're looking at. I     


Well, the particulars - there's files. You would have seen the files indexed to [indistinct] in Melbourne. We can go through them now if people like to see them; self-help justice?   I - I donít know what the question is.


I'm wanting to know     ?   If youíve got something specific you want me to comment on     


I'm wanting to know in a, b and c for charge 1, is - is Rantala and Antony included in each one. Is the Dick situation included in each one?


BENCH: Well, perhaps the witness can be shown that particulars form. He's referring to the particulars.


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, the evidence is before the Court. We donít need this witness to explain     


BENCH: Well, Mr Mathews does, so can you just put the particular form to the witness, please.


MR HUNTER: Exhibit 3, your Honour.


DEFENDANT: Well, what I'm wondering, your Honour - the reason I'm wondering     


BENCH: Exhibit 3 is the disc.


MR HUNTER: The disc.


BENCH: No, what he's referring to is the document with particulars. It sets out the     


MR HUNTER: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Exhibit 3 yes.


BENCH: Charge 1, self-help justice dot com and then it goes a, b, c. So, is that what you want to do, Mr Mathews?


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


BENCH: Okay. Just ask the witness questions on that.


DEFENDANT: What I'm wondering, your Honour, is it     


BENCH: Well, ask the witness.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, right, okay. What I'm wondering is - see, if the Court decides that the situation regarding the Dicks is proven or sufficient evidence there, but not sufficient evidence in relation to the factual situation of Antony of Rantala, then they may commit - the Court may commit on only one factual situation. So, I'm wondering     


BENCH: All right. Well, look, I can answer that. If you're saying - if you're asking me, the Court, charge 1, if there's an overlap of scenarios     


DEFENDANT: Of the two scenarios, yes.


BENCH: If it's shown that there's one established; well, yes.


DEFENDANT: Sorry?


BENCH: If it's shown that there's one established or prima facie case, well, yes.


DEFENDANT: For?


BENCH: I can answer that. I mean, that would be obvious, wouldnít it?


DEFENDANT: For each of the particulars?


BENCH: Each of the charges.


DEFENDANT: Each of the charges, yes.


BENCH: If the scenarios, as you put it overlap for charge 1 - Mr Hunter, is this your case; what you're presenting. The charge 1 is not just the Julie Dick scenario or the Henri Rantala scenario.


MR HUNTER: That's right.


BENCH: If it's - if the Court's satisfied there's sufficient evidence on just one     


DEFENDANT: Of the two, yes.


BENCH:      well, obviously that makes out the charge.


DEFENDANT: Okay. And it doesnít - then the particulars, all the particulars, there's a mention of three particulars there, would they proceed on the three particulars?


BENCH: Well, if the evidence is sufficient to establish just one.


DEFENDANT: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.


BENCH: That's - you understand that.


DEFENDANT: Yes. Yes. In - but for a, b or c; not charge 1. okay, I can see charge 1, but for a, b and c.


BENCH: But look, is this something you should be canvassing with the witness or not; I donít think so. It's really a matter of submissions, isn't it at the end of the evidence? See, this witness is here to answer questions on the evidence that he's given, right? And it was - it was relayed to you yesterday that it really - it's not an issue of what this witness thinks about whether something is offensive or     


DEFENDANT: Yes, I understand, your Honour.


BENCH:      harassing et cetera. It's the reasonable person test.


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour and now, how do you explain yesterday that prior to preferring any charges, you or the team had collaborated with the CDPP? You had     ?   Sorry, the Commonwealth DPP.


Yes. Commonwealth     ?   Yeah, sorry.


     DPP?   Sorry, I lost you there.


Yes. Commonwealth DPP. So, you had collaborated with them to     ?   Prior to - or when the investigation started and I was looking at obviously the complaint in its entirety and also what types of offences may have been committed, if any, I - my attention was sort of brought towards a particular section which is what the charges are before the Court. And looking at being able to prove that sort of charge, I could see that it was going down the part of having to take a Crimes Act search warrant to gather evidence to support that and as I'd never - as I mentioned yesterday, I'd never proceeded a charge as this one, the one that I did and also, I'd never actually taken out a Crimes Act search warrant. I sought some advice from the Commonwealth DPP in relation to pursuing those avenues of investigation.



Would you normally check with your superior Officer Bignall in the case     ?   Yeah. I checked with a number of officers in the Fraud Squad and I was asked if there'd be anyone outside of the Fraud Squad that would potentially have taken out a Crimes Act search warrant. Unfortunately, it's not a common practice for the Queensland State Police to rely on Commonwealth search warrants because we normally go under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, as our method of conducting search warrants. I did make contact with officers, detectives from taskforce Argos because they do act under Commonwealth legislation at times. Unfortunately, their particular matters are quite sensitive and it wasnít sort of suitable for them to be able to provide me with documentation to help in they were sort of a different focus to what I was looking at anyway. So, in that regard I had to contact - or the next point of call is to contact Commonwealth DPP.

 

Mmm?   I did speak to the Queensland Police - one of the lawyers that's employed by the Queensland Police, Paxton Booth to get his advice but he - he was the one that said it would be best talking to the Commonwealth DPP.


Okay. Who at the Commonwealth DPP?   Who was the person I spoke to?


Yes?    Anthony Gett.


As in Get, G-E-T-T?   I can't remember the exact spelling; I think it might be double T.




Communication was by what means?   Email and phone.


Email and phone. And since those emails have been mentioned, I'd like to see them - have them produced, your Honour.


MR HUNTER: Well, I object to this line - I object to this line of questioning. The correspondence between police and prosecutor in an investigative stage is privileged. It is come in - it comes into existence for the sole purpose of litigation, and it shouldnít be the subject of cross-examination, nor for the production of documents to substantiate it. And, in any event, this line of questioning is irrelevant to any issue that your Honour has to determine today, or in these proceedings.


BENCH: No, firstly, on the issue of relevance?


DEFENDANT: If there is - excuse me, your Honour, if there is any privilege, it's now been waived.


BENCH: What's the relevance though? What is the relevance?


DEFENDANT: The relevant, your Honour, is the - in the context that this is being a political set-up of myself. And, you know, it's rather - it's evidence. It's evidence and it's relevant, and any privilege, any - if there had been any privilege, it's been waived.


BENCH: I'm not sure about privilege, but I just donít think it's relevant.


DEFENDANT: Well, still, it's on the record that I've asked for it to be produced.


BENCH: Mr     


DEFENDANT: Still, it's on the record that I've asked for it to be produced and produced to this Court.


BENCH: Yes, it's on the record.


DEFENDANT: Beg your pardon?


BENCH: But it's not relevant. So move on.


DEFENDANT: And so youíve also discussed future charges with the CDPP, we'll call it DPP?   No.


But you did say yesterday that there were further charges pending?   Thatís correct.


Okay. So - but you hadn't discussed any of that with them?   No.


So, all the complaints had come directly to you?   No.


Okay. How did the complaints arrive with you?   The ones that we're talking about today came to me. Yes.

Directly to you?   Yes.

BrendanReadAdvised

TheseFourChargesCameDirectlyToHim

Okay. And the other complaints that you say you know of, and you mentioned in evidence     ?   Yes.


     where are they - how did they originate?   Steven Bignell, Detective Sergeant Steven Bignell advised me that there are other postings that have come to light. And he advised that the people involved in those were awaiting the outcome of this matter before they decided which way.


And you said they were Judges?   I'm not sure exactly which ones, but, yeah, I am aware that there are Judges involved     


Mmm?        and - and who were thinking about pursuing it further.


Okay. Now, talking of the evidence, the evidence which is before the Court, the recording copies that youíve made of downloads?   Which recording? The     


Well     ?        search warrant?


No, not - well, the whole lot. But of the - these are the - of the websites?   Okay.


Yes. Is there any PHP in there?   Specific PHP files?


Yes. Are there any - is there any PHP - PHP is a form of coding, is it?   Thatís right. Yeah.


Yes. Is there any PHP in those files youíve recorded?   I'd have to have a look again just to confirm, but I donít think there was.


Okay?   They're all H2 mil based or images     


Yes. So     ?        some forwarded as in like a jpeg or a bitmap formatted image.


Some of them have got dot PHP. They're called dot PHP, I think?   Okay.


And are there any of these here? There's none. They're all dot ASTML, are they? Okay. Now, with the Dicks, now, they - youíve spoken to both Julie Dick and John Dick?   Yes.


The - of Warner?   [Indistinct] Warner.



Address at Warner?   Yeah. Oh, sorry, Leopard Court     


Leopard Court?        Warner, I should say.


Mmm. What was their demeanour when they were speaking with you?   His demeanour?


Demeanour, yeah?

MR HUNTER: I object to the question, your Honour. Yesterday, we canvassed that it's inappropriate to lead evidence of     


BENCH: Oh, look, he can - I'll allow the question. But donít go into it too deeply there, Mr Mathews. Just - what was their demeanour when you spoke to them?   Yes, your Honour. I - I didnít speak to them face-to-face.


All right.


DEFENDANT: No?   So, I couldnít comment on what their physical demeanour was.


At no time?   No.


Never?   I've never met them     


Okay. Fair enough?        face-to-face. I've spoken to them, but never met     


On the phone?   Yes.


Okay. Yeah. Fair enough. And so what was the sequence of calls from either witness?   The sequence as in     

The sequence. I mean who - who of the Dicks first spoke to you?   Oh, Julie. I spoke to Julie more. I think I might've only spoke to John maybe once or twice in the entirety of the investigation.


Yes?   But my majority of correspondence was with Julie Dick.


Okay. And what was her - what was John - the few occasions you spoke with John Dick, why - what was his point?   He was quite angry.


Quite angry?   Is that - is that what you're wanting to know, sorry?


Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah?   Yeah, he was quite upset     


And     ?        and angry about the postings, and there was a photo of him on the - on the internet.

CleverDickJohnDickWasStillLividOverSomeoneTakingPhotographsOverTheirFence

He was upset about - well, he's - you're - you're aware of the situation with the Dicks that they'd made a complaint previously about someone taking photographs over their fence, or apparently is what they're saying?   Yes.


Yeah?   Yeah.


And someone taking a photograph of their house or something?   Yes.


Mmm. You're aware of Google Streetscape are you?   Streetscape? I'm aware of Google Maps.


Yeah. And then go to "streetscape" to get a view of the     ?   I'm not sure if that's the actual term, but, yeah, Google Maps allows you to have a street view as well as     


Street view. Thatís right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah?        a - yeah.


The cars going along all the streets and, you know - around the world. Yeah. Would their house be up on there, do you know?   I haven't looked.


No. Okay. Well, Did you canvass with either of the Dicks when you spoke with them that they - the relevance of Judge Julie Dick - did Judge Julie Dick ever come into the conversation?   Of course, yes.


It did?   Yes.


And what was their view about Judge Julie Dick? Was it     ?   Oh, their personal view of her?


No, no, of the situation with Judge Julie Dick. Was it - they believed there was a mistake; it was a mistaken identity?   Well, they contacted me, yes.


Yeah. Did they say it was - that they believed there was a mistaken identity there?   They said that they - or they're aware that - that there was a Judge Julie Dick, that she shared the same as Judge Julie Dick's     


Yeah. Yeah?        but, yeah.


But did they say that, you know, there was a reference to the fact that Julie Dick - Judge Julie Dick possibly lived there?   No.


Or is suggesting it? Mmm?   Oh, sorry, I'm not following the question.


Was there any suggestion that, in their view, that it was Judge Julie Dick - or that the website was supposed to be saying that Judge Julie Dick lived there, or was a possibility Judge Julie Dick living there?   Yes.


That was - yeah?   That was part of the conversation, yes.


Yeah, that's right. And, of course, they would've believed that was a mistaken identify, did they or what?   Well, yes, 'cause she doesnít live there.


No, no, no, no, that's right. Yeah. So did they believe it was a mistake? Did you canvass with them the idea of maybe contacting the website?   Didnít I answer this question yesterday?


BENCH: Oh, could you answer it again?   As in myself contacting the website, or     


No, no, did you - did you canvass with them, well, you know, if there was a mistake on there, why not contact     ?   They didnít wish     


     the website?   They didnít wish to make contact with the website. As I said yesterday, I was aware of the other incident involving the other websites, and that - that takedown notice had to be issued for the sites to be removed. And then it also subsequently emailed the web host in the United States, and that the owner of that website had been cc:d in on the email. And then there were postings on the websites later making note of that email that I had sent taking particular extracts out of it and making comment on it, and comment on - on myself personally, and - and     


Was that email on the website accurate of what you'd sent?   It had been modified, but there were     


How - how had it been     ?        extracts from the email.


     modified?   Well, there were comments put in amongst what I'd said.


Oh, I see. But were they clearly comments that - there was clearly add-in comments, were there?   Yes. But it wasnít the exact email's been posted up; there was extracts from my email with comments alongside it.

BrendanReadLiedThatRelevantPartsOfHisEmailHadBeenOmitted

What; your whole email wasnít there? There are parts of your email which were excluded, was there?   Yeah, I believe so.


Mmm. Well then maybe we should see your email that you sent?   Well, it was produced to the Court yesterday.


BENCH: But is that Exhibit 1, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: Exhibit 1.


DEFENDANT: Oh, okay. It's somewhere here. Okay. Yeah. I remember now. Now - okay, you said that they didnít want to contact the website?   Yes.


They - they told you that, did they?   I can't recall if they specifically said it. I might've passed it as a comment to say, "Potentially you could contact the website." I donít recall exactly.


DEFENDANT: You donít know if you did or not?   I can't recall the exact details of the conversation, but I remember     


But you had - go on?   'Cause I was just going to say I do recall thinking about contacting the website, but then realised that that wasnít going to be the best process, because it's been tried before, and the - the website's had to physically be taken down.


Well, now, when it was taken down previously, was there this confusion between - or this mistake between the two Julie Dicks on there?   Oh, I wasnít involved in that particular investigation. All I knew was that - that there were websites.


Mmm?   But, yeah, there was obviously information in relation to Judge Julie Dick, because she was the one who proceeded with the complaint, initially.


Well, how do you know that was hearsay?   Because I looked at your file - investigation file.


Yeah. And it said Julie Dick made the report?   Yes.


Did it have her - was it handwritten or     ?   No, they were electronic notes.


Electronic notes of the police. But     ?   Yes.


     there's not her - not her actual complaint. So how was her complaint - how was her complaint made? You donít know?   No, you'd have to - well     


So, in fact, it may not have been her complaint. It could've been someone complaining on her behalf, would it have been?   No. What the note said is that it was Judge Julie Dick     


The note said. Yes?        had made contact with the Queensland Police, and that - from memory, that the actual complaint had come through our - our CPP unit, which is like our Closed Personal Protection Unit which looks after security in relation to public officials.


Mmm?   And then that - the officers from that unit had then contacted computer crime for assistance in relation to, you know, what - what could be done about it.


Police officers would know CPP - of the CPP - of the - what was the section called?   Oh, the closed - yeah, I think it's referred to Closed Personal Protection Unit. Yeah.


Okay?   I'm not sure if that's its - its exact name, but that's     


The CPPU, or whatever. Yeah. Okay. So police would know of that section?   Police would know of it?


Police would know of     ?   That it exists?


Of that, you know, and so would know that that's where complaints should be made if they wanted to get someone protected or something like that?   No, that - I think just because they were involved in that particular filed in relation to those sort of public officials as I've described them.


Yeah?   It may not have been necessarily that Judge Julie Dick has picked up a phone or spoken directly to people from that unit, but the complaint's come in to State Crime Operations Command was my understanding. It's been detailed to the CPP because of the title of the complainant, being a Judge, for them to investigate it. And, then, as part of that, they've contacted Computer Crime Unit for assistance, because if was a computer crime related investigation involving websites and so forth. They just didnít have the expertise to deal with it.


Was any mention made to anyone contacted from the - from the servers, you know, in Australia or overseas, that there was a mistake on the website?   That there was a mistake?


Mistake - of mistaken identity?   No, I didnít - that wasnít mentioned in the email. No.


That wasnít mentioned in the email. No?   No.



Why not? That would've seemed the ideal thing if you wanted to get that mistake removed?   Well, itís not just a mistake in relation to Judge Julie Dick and - and the - and the Julie Dick that lives at 12 Leopard Court, Warner. There's also postings on there about police officers.


Okay. So, this is not all about just the Dicks. This is just - well, keep the Dicks on as - you know, so they have a complaint, rather than get them satisfied - rather than settle their problem, the problem - the situation was, we'll keep them to be able to charge this guy, or charge someone. Well, donít let them be satisfied?   Sorry, your Honour.


BENCH: Do you understand the question?   No, I - I don't     


Ask it again.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Well     


BENCH: Or rephrase it.


DEFENDANT:      the situation - okay. It was decided that - well, okay, we donít want to fix up the problems that is facing the Dicks; that is, having the mistaken identity being - on the websites, but, rather, we went to keep them so that they're on tap, keep them on heat so we can use them as witnesses and say this is offensive. If they're feeling offensive - or offended, so - or harassed by it, so, rather than fix the problem up - you know, if we tell the web host that there's - or tell the web host in Australia - you say there was a web host in Australia - if we tell them - was there any mistake mentioned to the web host in Australia that you know of?   I donít know.

No. But - so - okay. But the thing about the US that you - you were involved with was the - the Dicks were the complainants. So if they     ?   They were complainants, yes.

Okay. Now, when was the - the mistaken identity ever noted to anyone? When was it first     ?   To anyone? Is there any - anyone in particular, or     



Anyone. Anyone. When it was first noted publicly that there was a mistake there?   Noted publicly?


Well, did you ever mention it to me that there was a mistake between the     ?   Yes, I did.


     two people?   When I was executing the search warrant.


Okay. What did you say?   I donít think you realise, but the postings that are on this particular site are incorrect. And there's details of a - a lady - of a person by the name of Julie Dick, who has her personal details up on this site, and she's made a complaint to us. And there's reference to her being the Judge Julie Dick as living at that address.


Maybe we could hear the recording of the search warrant, your Honour. Could we hear that?   Your Honour, just for     


BENCH: Perhaps     ?   Oh, sorry.


Well, I was going to say if you could isolate it in the - in the transcript.

DEFENDANT: Well, I'd like to also hear the part where I'm supposed to run to my room from the door, with the dog in my arms?



BENCH: Well, first things first, which one do you want to play?


DEFENDANT: Well, the thing is, it's a search warrant. It runs on?   Your Honour     


BENCH: Yes?        just in relation to the recording of the search warrant, I fully understand what Mr Mathews is trying to achieve but the recording of that conversation may or may not have been picked up. I can't say for sure.


Of the - well, which particular conversation?   The particular details of the conversation that     


Issue of mistake?   Of the mistake may or may not be on that recording but I'm quite confident that there was another subsequent recording conversation that same day when Mr Mathews was released from the watch-house and I spoke to him on the footpath. We then spoke about the issue of the mistake.


But this conversation that Mr Mathews is putting to you happened at his residence, didn't it?   I recall mentioning it to him at the residence and then again later.


Right. So, if it happened at the residence it should be on this recording?   Potentially but we were moving around, so, I'm just - I wasn't sure if it was picked up at that point.


Did you have a recording attached to your person; a recorder attached to your person?   I believe so, yes.


So, it should be recorded then, you'd think?   I hope so.


So, have you read these transcripts?   No, I haven't read them.


Well, do you know in what sequence or what particular part of the conversations in the search, which part of the search this conversation may have come about; may have been had?   I couldn't say for sure, your Honour. I believe it would be more towards the start rather than     


And Mr Mathews, I can take it from you, that you haven't considered the transcripts and gone through that?


DEFENDANT: I haven't - I had them here somewhere, your Honour.


MR HUNTER: If your Honour can go to page 41?


BENCH: Page 4?


MR HUNTER: Forty-one of the transcript     


BENCH: Right.


MR HUNTER:      the 91-page transcript.


BENCH: Page 41.


MR HUNTER: You'll see in the second last paragraph, there's reference there to factual as to identity, confusing identity in people.


DEFENDANT: Page 41 you said?


MR HUNTER: Forty-one, it's the first one.


BENCH: Right.


MR HUNTER: And page 45 and page 44.


BENCH: Are you able to see that, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Well, can the witness     


BENCH: Forty-one, 44 and 45 of the larger transcript.


DEFENDANT: Mmm.


BENCH: Is that what - do you have any questions there arising out of that?


DEFENDANT: Well, yes, okay, now, okay, now     ?   Just which page?


Well, 44 or 41, but, anyway, do you admit that there was - there was indication that     ?   Yes.


     that advice of mistaken identity at that stage     ?   Yeah.


     as advised to me. That hadn't been advised to me previously because obviously     ?   No. That would have been the first time that I'd mentioned it to you personally.


Okay. And that hadn't been advised to the web host in Australia or the web host in the US?   I can't comment on the web host in Australia.


Okay?   But the email that I sent to the United States has been submitted in evidence. It's not mentioned in that, though.


But if you really - when they came back and said "freedom of speech" and all that, do you think that it would have been corrected if - would have been corrected if it had been advised to them?   No.


You don't think they would have     ?   Definitely not.


     corrected it if it had been advised to them?   No.

 

Why not?   Because with our multiple investigations in relation to computer crimes, they've taken us to servers in overseas countries including the United States and on every single occasion, the web host has requested some form of documentation or a Court order in their own jurisdiction in that particular jurisdiction whichever it may be     


Yes?        for the actual information or websites to be removed.


Okay. Now, they did indicate that they were including their client?   CC-ing their client.


CC-ing their client on that?   That's correct.


Do you think if they had - if you had advised the situation, the real situation instead of keeping it a secret, that there was a mistake on the website that it may have been changed?   Well     


That it might have been?   It wasn't just a mistake that was under investigation. There were postings, the two officers as well, so     


Yes, sorry, but do you think the Dicks, the Dicks would have been made happy - the Dick situation would have been fixed? The police may not have been happy but do you think     ?   No.


     the Dicks might have been     ?   Because I - I advised Julie Dick straight away that the chances of being able to remove this type of material is not easy but we would do what we could to, you know, to appease her. She was, as I said, she was upset.


By the mistake, obviously?   By the photos that were on the site of her house.


Mmm. By the mistake?   Well, there were postings on there saying that she's - that Judge Julie Dick resides at that address.


Mmm. Saying that or asking that? Doesn't the page start off, "Is", you know, "Is Judge Judy Dick involved     "?   Implying that.


"     in electoral fraud?? Is she on her maiden name, married name or something like that?   Thatís correct.


That's right. It asks a question, doesn't it?   At times it asks a question.


Okay. Now, okay, so, we've got that sorted out but you were wanting the site taken down, not - not just for the Dicks but for other - other reasons?   Yeah, The Dicks wasn't the sole reason for having the site     


No. And, so, therefore, the Dicks, you weren't really looking at - you were looking at the whole picture rather than just solving the Dicks' problem?   Thatís right, yeah.


That's right. So, the Dicks weren't the prime importance?   They weren't the - no, they weren't just the focus of the whole investigation.

  

Okay. Now, fair enough, and, yes, now, getting back to the situation with the complaint by Judge Julie Dick, you say was a complaint by Judge Julie Dick, now, how would that have gone before it went to the CPP [Editorial:  CPPU stands for "Closed Personal Protection Unit"]? It would have come in where else?   To the State Crime Operations Command which is just the - Queensland Police is broken up into certain divisions.


Yes?   The specialist units that operate out of Queensland Police Headquarters come under the banner of State Crimes Operations Command, so, the actual complaint initially comes through the office there.


Okay. Fair enough. And then they would have decided, okay, Judge Julie Dick?   Just purely by the nature of that it was a Judge involved     


Mmm?        it would have gone to that Person Protection Unit.


Mmm?   Just     


What was     ?        in the event that there was anything that needed to be - if there was any fear or threat of danger to that particular person, we need to take it seriously.


Why - was she being threatened, was she?   I don't know the exact details as to why specifically they've sent it to there but it's just a normal procedure that anything that relates to a public official or that sort of stature would go to that unit for them to address.


Okay?   Or at least so they're aware of it, anyway, so, if they don't investigate it, it gets forwarded to another unit such as Computer Crime Unit. We would then finalise the investigation but then the CPP Unit are aware of it.


Okay. So, in fact, anyone could have made that complaint on behalf of Julie Dick, Judge Julie Dick?   Oh, anyone can make a complaint.


Yes. That could have - now, it could have been, say, Peter Dutton, for instance?   Well, I didn't take the complaint, so, yeah.


No, no, no, what I'm saying is     


BENCH: He can't answer these questions. He's given his evidence about that matter.


DEFENDANT: Okay. So, fair enough. Well, that would be the case.


BENCH: You're just speculating now.


DEFENDANT: Okay.

BENCH: He'd be guessing, so, move on.


DEFENDANT: But you would know nothing - you don't know - yes, that's right, you've said that you haven't seen her signature on a complaint?   No.


Fair enough. Okay, now - now, we've got the transcript here of the search warrant?   Yes.


And can I take you to the transcript, page 2?   Yes.


Now     


BENCH: Now, for the record, this is the bigger     


DEFENDANT: The transcript of the search warrant.


BENCH: The longer - yes, 28 August, yes.


DEFENDANT: Can I sit down for a moment, please, your Honour?


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Matheson, page 2, "He's down in the far room", Matheson says, and you say, "Okay" and inaudible [indistinct] talking - what - what was that? Were you talking or other police officers talking?   I don't know.


Okay. And the recording is, "How are you going, Mr Mathews", from yourself, right?


BENCH: Mr Mathews, what are you going to do with this? You're not going to take him through the whole transcript?


DEFENDANT: No, no, no, no, no, we just     


BENCH: So, can you get to the point?


DEFENDANT: Yes, okay. Now, I said something inaudible and you said to me, "How are you going"? And you said your names and I said, "Yes", and then you said you were detectives and I said, "Yes".


BENCH: Mr Mathews, you must have a question in your mind.


DEFENDANT: Well, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, get to it.


DEFENDANT: Maybe you can tell us now - sit down - sit down. Maybe you can tell us now what was happening and then this is only a transcript. Now, where - I was at - when you came in, you say I was at the door, this is with the little dog?   The sliding glass door, yep.


The sliding door. So, and that's when you said - so, where was I when you said, "How are you going, Mr Mathews"?   Where were you, you were at the sliding glass door. That was     

I was at the sliding glass door when you said, "How are you going, Mr Mathews"?   Yes. That's the first words I said to you as I came out of the hallway and it opened up to this big area.


Mmm?   You were at the sliding glass door.


Mmm?   The first words out of my mouth, "How are you going, Mr Mathews"?


Mmm?   And that's where you were.


And, okay, and I said - yes, okay, so, when have I - running - running across the room?   You'll see later, page     


No, no, so, I ran straight across the room then before I said anything.


BENCH: Well, he's just - he's just answering the question if you'd let him.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Sorry, go on?   Page - the top of page 3, it looks like. No, sorry, bottom of page 2, I say, "Where are you going"? So, obviously, movement has happened prior to that.


Sorry?   Movement has happened prior to that. You've been moving at a point in time prior to that which has caused me to say, "Where are you going"?


Okay. And how long would this have taken to go from where you say, "How are you going, Mr Mathews", and then, "I'm just here and get - to check other rooms, so, we checked other rooms to make sure there's no-one here". "Mmm." "But before we do anything, I'll just make sure there's no-one else here." And I say, "What's the problem"? And you say, "I'll explain once, mmm, yeah". And I say, "Okay". "Yes. Once we know", and you go through and talk a bit more and     


BENCH: So, the question is, how long did all of this     ?   Your Honour, I can't say for sure but the actual audio digital recording     


The recording will show?        will show that.


All right. Well, we may have to play that.


DEFENDANT: Could you play that, your Honour.


BENCH: We're going to have a break first. We'll have a 10-minute break.


DEFENDANT: Ten minutes.



BENCH: Because I can see that your little dog is getting a little bit restless.


DEFENDANT: Oh, that's     


BENCH: And as I've said right at the outset, they can only remain     


DEFENDANT: There's no disturbance.


BENCH:      in the Court as long as they behave themselves.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, is that disturbing the Court?


BENCH: Yes, it is. So, we're just having a break, 10 minutes.


THE COURT ADJOURNED


THE COURT RESUMED


BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes, they're going to listen to the audio.


BENCH: Which is - which exhibit is that?


DEFENDANT: The search warrant audio.


BENCH: Exhibit 4. So just the first portion of that, really?


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


BENCH: At this stage. Because it's right at the beginning, isn't it?


DEFENDANT: Yes.

EXHIBIT 4 PLAYED


DURING THE PLAYING OF THE TAPE


BENCH: So, Mr Mathews, is this where you want to stop it, at this point?


DEFENDANT: Okay, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Thank you. So if you could just ask - you may have some questions on that?


BRENDAN SCOTT READ, CONTINUING:


CROSS-EXAMINATION:



DEFENDANT: I didn't put a stop watch on that, but there's quite a time between your saying - my first talking to you, saying - "Brendan Read's my name", and I'm saying, "Yes?" "I'm a detective from Queensland Police." There's a lot of time between there and you people go off, and there's no talking for ages before I say, "I'm going in here to get my recorder."?   Yes.


So I didn't run from the gate - from the door there, did I, as you've said the other day. You said, soon as I - you saw me - that would have been soon as I would have said, "Yes", I ran?   There is some conversation in between, but I do recall you running towards your room, yes.


Well that's what we heard down here, when I said, "I'm going to get a recorder"?   Yes.


That wasn't running though, was it?   Yes, it was.


I'll put it to you it wasn't running, I was going to get my recorder, I said?   Well, it appeared that you were running, to me - or moving as fast as you could towards your room.


Well, but anyway - that was not - that was well after     ?   Well, there is a gap where there's some conversation in between.


Yeah, so I didnít bolt from the door, soon as I came in - when I was at the door, with the dog?   Well, there is some conversation and then you - as you heard on the tape - you make your way to your room.


Well, we can listen, the jury will be able to listen to that, and also you know, your comments of     ?   That's correct.


     can see the changes when - if we get to the District Court. So     ?   I think the tape is the best accurate representation of what occurred on that day. I was going off my memory     


Yeah, you?        at the time.


Yes?   Hearing the tape, there was some conversation. You were definitely at the doorway; we've had conversation and my recollection was that when you understood why we were there, you've then made way to your room as quickly as you could humanly move.


To get a recorder?   Well, who knows what you were getting, Mr Mathews?


Yeah, okay but I said what I wanted?   Yeah, you said something. You said     


To get a recorder?        you were getting a recorder. I don't know - I've never met you. I don't know what you were going for.


Yeah. But I didn't bolt from the door?   Yes, you did. That's what I just said. You were at the door, at the glass - sliding glass door.


Yeah?   And you went from that point, and ran towards the bedroom.


But the tape says - the recording actually says differently. It - you     

BENCH: Just in clarification, witness     ?   Yes, your Honour.


Where in the transcript it says, it has you asking, "Is it just the two of you, or     "?   Yep.


     it has Mr Mathews saying, "Well, well, I'd be guessing"?   No, I think that was actually the     


I don't think that's Mr Mathews, is it?--      I believe that was actually the fellow who answered the door.


Yes, well it didn't sound like Mr Mathews, but - anyway?   Yes.


 

So at that point, and you say, "Oh, okay." Then there's some background talking, inaudible. Where was Mr Mathews?   He was at the glass sliding door. So, as we've come down the - the fellow has answered the door, we've had that initial conversation - because I'd never met Trevor Croll, but I - the name was in his house - sorry, the house was in his name.


Is that the name on the warrant?   It - I'm not even sure if it actually had a name on the warrant, your Honour. I believe it just had the address.


Just that you asked, "Is Trevor home", initially, so     ?   Oh, just because I knew it wasn't Mr Mathews, from seeing Mr Mathew's picture, so.


All right. So - but just going back there?   Yeah.


So where was Mr Mathews when that particular passage was - conversation was being had, do you say?   My recollection was he was still at the sliding glass door.


Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Okay. Now, if we can - maybe we can hear some of that tape again, just the part where, when I first say, "Yes", and then you say - then I saw, "I'm well", you'll notice there's a vast difference in volume?   Okay.


BENCH: But what do you     ?


DEFENDANT: But by the time I'm saying, "I'm well", I'll put it to you, I was over within you know, a few feet of yourself?   Oh, perhaps you might have moved a short distance closer towards me. You've sort of turned towards me.


Mmm?   And you may have taken a step, but you weren't standing beside me, that's - there was some distance between us, because at the moment that you moved towards your bedroom, we had to move quickly to cut you off.


And when I was assaulted by the police, where was I?   I don't recall you ever being assaulted by the police.


Well, when I was restrained by the police?   Um     


Hands were put on me, and I was - I was held.


BENCH: At what point in the transcript do you say that that happened, Mr Mathews? You put it to the witness? 


DEFENDANT: It's after this - oh, in the transcript? Then when you say, "You are detained, Mr Mathews", that's when     ?   Page 3.


     yeah, page 3, a third of the way down?   Yep.


Okay.


BENCH: So what's your question there?


DEFENDANT: Where was I then? You said I wasn't assaulted?   You've said you were going for your recorder.

   

Mmm?   I believe there was a seat that you were beside, a chair, and we asked you to sit in the chair. I remember the officers being around you and sort of - holding onto your arm, from memory. And that I've just asked you - I recall - either myself or one of the other officers asked you to take a seat.


Or did I ask, "Can I sit down?"?   No, because we would have liked you to sit down. So I believe - you may have asked that later in the transcript. But I think we asked you, initially.


Read the transcript - you've got the transcript there?   Yeah, sure. Thank you.


Halfway down the page?   Page 2, still?


Page 3, page 3, halfway down the page; 3?   Yep.


"You're detained, Mr Mathews.", says Read. I say, "Eh?" "Under the execution of the search warrant which I'll explained to you if you just wait out here." And I say, "Can I sit down?"?   Yep.


Because I was being held up and I wanted to sit down?   I didn't there's nothing to say that you were actually held up there.


Well, you just said - you just said, "I was being held"?   You're held at some point, yeah. Prior to going in the room.


[Indistinct]?   But we didn't - the officers didn't hold on to you the whole time. they've restrained you from going into the room, and then you've stood there     


And Bigden in particular     ?   And then     


     grabbed me and wrestled me?        well, I - my recollection was the officers having to grab you by the arm, to stop you from going in the room, and there was more than one officer that had to grab you, there wasn't just one.


No - well, not that they had to, but they did?   You were going for your bedroom.


Mmm?   What appeared to be going for your bedroom, and we have no idea what you had in there. This is a security risk     


Yeah, yeah, that's right. that's right, yeah, fair enough, fair enough. What I'm - I'm just you know, I'm just comparing the reality with your - the best you can make it from the transcript and the recording?   Sure, yep.


With your recollection?   Yes.


And then you know, this we can determine your recollection, to compare, but other things were - you know, your evidence will be, you know, we won't be able to compare, will we?   Mmm.


Okay. Now so there's - you know, I was asking if I could sit down, and you were saying, you told me to sit down. And     ?   I can't recall the exact conversation word for word, that occurred on that particular day, and that's why we record everything.


Yeah, that's right?   So all I can say is that going off my memory I recall you - having a conversation with you, you were at the sliding glass door, and my memory was, you had one of your dogs under your arm, and it appeared to me that you were about to take the dog outside. Because it was the morning     


Maybe - maybe I'd just brought it inside, could that be a possibility?   Possibly. You were standing at the glass door, and looked like you were about to open it, so that's what it appeared to me.


Mmm?   The door was shut.


Maybe I'd just shut it?   You might have, but you were still standing and looking towards the door.


Maybe I - yeah well maybe I just shut it, and when you appeared, would that be the case?   You might have just come in. Might be going out, but you were standing at the glass sliding door.


I'd just come in and shut the door. I had my hand on the door handle?   I don't recall you physically having it on the door handle, as such. Just remember you holding the dog, and standing near the door, as if you were about to go out the door. That's what it appeared to me.


Okay. Now, we heard the dog bark on the recording, didn't we?   Yes, there was one, yeah.


Now, you were there. Was that dog from inside or outside, when you heard the dog bark?   I thought it was inside.

Coming through the door?   Yes.


I'll put it to you that it was outside, and it has gone around the side?   Okay.


But anyway     ?   There were two dogs.


     two dogs, yeah?   In the house. So     


That's right. And the other dog, bigger dog     ?   I don't know which one was barking.


     and which one was in my hand?   I thought it was the little one, from memory.


Yeah, yep?   The fluffy one.


The little ball of fluff, yeah. And - mind's gone blank for a minute, your Honour. Can I sit down for a moment please, your Honour?


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Now, there were a number of detectives there, at the time?   Three.


And     ?   Four, four, sorry.


     and who was the detective who came back with you, when you returned the     ?   That was Detective Senior Constable Dave Graham.


Dave Graham, yes. And he was there on the     ?   The execution of the search warrant, yes.


Yeah, that's right. And when I was going to get my recorder, to record it     ?   At the start of the search warrant?


Yeah?   Yes.


When I was going to record it, and you said - just before you said, "You're detained Mr Mathews", I - and I said I was - you know, restrained - I said assaulted, and you said I wasnít assaulted. So okay, restrained, physically restrained, touched by police officers?   Yep.


Particularly by big Bignell - Bignell was the main one who wrestled me     ?   He was one of the officers that was restraining you, yes.


And I'll put it to you that you all, at one time, touched me?   I don't recall touching you.


Well, I'll put it to you, on the recording, when you returned my recorder here, a few days later, when it would have been fresh in your mind, you'd actually said, "We all touched you"?   Oh, we may have. But     


So Al?        just in touching, as in - are you talking as part of the restraining process?


Restraining?   I don't think I - my recollection was there was just two officers that - and they were just grabbing your arms. From what I can remember.


Yeah, like that, yeah?   Yes. I may have placed a hand on you, just when you were sitting down, to sort of calm you, more than an actual restraint, but I don't recall actually physically grabbing you.


I'll put it to you I was pretty calm anyway? And I said, "Can I sit down?" You just said, "Hang on a sec, hang on a sec", and I said, "Sit down. Can I sit down?"?   Well, just listening to the tape again it didn't sound calm at the time.


It didn't?   Not at the start, no. You definitely calmed down later, during the search warrant.


Can we hear it again?


CLERK: From the beginning?


MR HUNTER: No, just from 220.


DEFENDANT: A little bit before that.


MR HUNTER: Try that, 220, just from there.

TAPE PLAYED

DEFENDANT: Okay, will you stop it there. Now, okay, I was a little bit concerned when I was being insulted by the police, or being physically restrained     


BENCH: What's your question?


DEFENDANT: But by the time I get back there, saying, "Can I sit down?", and you seemed more concerned than I was - more tense than I was - and, "No, no, no, no, just hang on, just hang on a sec." Would you say - you were quite     ?   Mr Mathews every time a police officer goes in - I can speak for myself, every time I was executing a search warrant, as part of my duty, I was always concerned, going into someone's house because it's always an unknown factor. We don't know who is in there. We don't know what sort of weapons or what the state of mind is, of the person that's in there.


Mmm?   Considering some of the comments that we're reading on the web-site, or I in particular was reading on the website, all sort of allegations about not only myself but the other complainants in the actual investigation, there is no way that I wasn't taking full precautions in relation to the execution of this search warrant. So if I sound at all as if I'm heightened, or not totally relaxed, that would be the reason for it.

I put it to you, though, that apart from the fact that I am being physically manhandled, and speaking there and saying, "I just want to get my recorder", that I was quite calm by the time you said, just back here?   Well, you've calmed down to the point where we didn't have to restrain you, anymore. That's right.


I just wanted to sit down?   Yeah, you did mention     


You [Brendan Read] said, "Hang on, hang on"?   Yes.


You're saying now you wanted me to sit down, but then you were saying you didnít want me to sit down there. When I asked to sit down, you said to hang on?   Well, you did sit down, I recall talking to you. I remember kneeling beside you     


Yeah, because I did sit down, didnít I?   Yeah.


You know, so I got to sit down?   We'd only just effected entry into the dwelling. You were trying to make a movement towards your bedroom; we donít know, we haven't searched the house yet, to find out who else is in the house.


You had?   No we hadn't - we were still conducting it, if you hear - listen to the conversation. If you listen to the tape, after you make your way to the door, I then comment about, "Is there anyone else in the house"?


Yeah, but that was - when you said, "Is there anyone else in the house?", that was prior to my being restrained?   I asked the question of the occupant; "is there anyone else in the house?"


Yes?   And then, after the tape, if you listen to the tape, after that, there's comments made about - is there anyone else in the house, has it been searched? Because we were obviously trying to identify if there's anyone else in the house that's not     


That's right. That's right. And they had already gone and we were waiting, while they were all checking, or     ?   there was an officer - I can't remember how many officers went off to actually physically check, but there was a check done. For that purpose, to identify if anyone else     


That's right. And that was done before     ?   was in the actual dwelling.


Okay, and that was done before I was physically manhandled?   No, it was done - it was in the process of being done at the time that you made your way to your bedroom.

So if I sounded like I wasn't listening to your request to sit down, that was because I was thinking about, "Is there anyone else in this house, is anyone else going to come running out." They were my concerns at that present point in time, not about whether you could stand up or sit down.


Okay. So where does - so where on the tape or on the transcript does it show that they're reporting back that there's no one else in the house?   They might not have reported back, they might have just given me a thumbs up, or.


BENCH: Well, it is on the tape, I heard it.


DEFENDANT: Look at the middle of page 3.


BENCH: Halfway down page 3     ?   Read - "Is everyone - all right, no-one else there?" Unidentified: "No."?   There you go.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Now was [indistinct].?   Sorry, I didn't understand that?


Yes - concurrent. But anyway, they'd gone off looking prior to that anyway?   They were in the process. The first     


Yeah, okay. Fair enough. Saying I wanted to get my other dog, was that correct?   I remember you made comment about your assistance dogs.


Yes?   Yes.


And I was refused, was I?   Initially I think you were. Because we didn't understand - or we didn't know what dogs there were, and we were still trying to secure the dwelling.


But you've got a file on me, you've got a thick file o me, don't you?   A file? I don't have a file on you.


The police have a file on me?


BENCH: Are you asking the witness if - if - if prior to the search, you had a file on Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes. Okay, yes prior to the search?   I did background checks.


Yes, with police?   As best I could. On the computer system.


Yeah, and you had details of me, there?   Details in relation to any incident where you were involved in, where police were present?


Mmm-hmm. Going back many years?   As far as the records went, yeah.


And because you said you actually rang someone who was next of kin, or something?   That's right, yeah.


BENCH: I don't know whether you want to really go into this aspect of what the witness may know, about you. He being a police officer, I don't know whether you really want to draw that evidence out.


DEFENDANT: We're going disability.


BENCH: All right. You want to confine it to that.


DEFENDANT: Now     


BENCH: Do you know anything about Mr Mathews's disability? Prior to this search, I think he's trying to say?


DEFENDANT: That's right?   No, no. I didn't know - there was no record on the computer for my recollection, about any sort of medical history. If that's     


Or disability, whether it be medical history or just comment of disability?   No, I don't recall ever seeing that. I would have taken note, your Honour, if that was the case. No, I don't recall that.


So Bingaling gets in on the act, and how do they assist you and such?   That's correct, yeah.


Is that from your recollection too?   Yeah, because I suppose, same as myself, my only knowledge in relation to assistance dogs is for the blind, so - or for law enforcement purposes. But so I wasn't sure exactly what they were assisting you in.


And in the words of the Act, "alleviate the effects of the disability "?   Okay.


There are numerous disabilities, aren't there? Or are there?


MR HUNTER: Well how can this witness answer that question, your Honour? Are there numerous disabilities? Where are we going with that?


DEFENDANT: Okay. So you were satisfied then that I did have some disability, or not?   I think at the time, once we identified the type of dogs that they were, we were quite happy for you to have them - or sort of access to them, because the last thing we wanted to do was to try and inflame the situation, if that was going to ease and calm the situation, then that's fine.


But then you wouldn't let me take the dogs with me, you arrested me and took me away, did you?   Yes, that's right.


And did you allow me to take my dogs; did I ask?   I believe you did.


Yes?   We didn't have the capacity to take the dogs into the Brisbane City watch-house, and I don't believe the Brisbane City watch-house has the - I've never actually taken a dog in there, so.


Could I have been charged on warrant?   You're wanting to know if we could have proceeded another way?

I'm asking could I have been charged on warrant?   No, no you couldn't.


On summons, I mean?   No.


I couldn't have been charged on summons on these charges?   People can be charged that way, but we didn't want to proceed in that way, in regard to this particular matter.


I see. You just said you didn't want to, not that I couldn't have been?   That's right, it was a choice that we made, as part of the investigation.


Okay. And so why was that?   Because in relation to an investigation, if you want certain bail conditions put down, you have to go to the watch-house to be able to allow that process to take place. The issue of a notice to appear, or complaint and summons. We don't have that ability to provide bail conditions.

   

And I see, so that was the reason a bail condition was put on the - on my bail, was it?   I was just going to say - as I said - my comments previously about Julie Dick, when I spoke to her, she was quite - quite concerned about the postings that were on there, and the fact that someone had been outside her house, taking photos. At that point - sorry, prior to executing the search warrant, I did ring Julie Dick to advise her that I was executing the search warrant.


And just to let her know, and the fact that - because she was ringing concerned about vehicles at times, going past her house. And so I rang her to say, "Look, we're going to be executing the search warrant, if there's anything of particular notice that you're concerned about, by all means take any details down, if you can see a registration of a vehicle and so forth. And let me know, and we'll follow it through." The bail conditions were there, purely because it was an unknown factor as to how you might act, as a result of being charged. Whether you might go round to the house, or not. We just weren't sure. So as a precaution we wanted that as a bail condition.


So you were quite happy to take me away from my dogs?  Yeah. 

But it wasnít a case that we wanted to remove you from your place of residence, or take you away from your dogs, in any regard, it was just that merely that process of having to get the bail conditions. Because as part of our investigation process it is a lot easier for police to be able to just issue a notice to appear at the scene. And we can follow up the paperwork later, in relation to that. That was always my preference, was to proceed by way of notice to appear. And that was the whole idea of that procedure being brought in.


Mmm. Okay.


WITNESS: Your Honour is it possible just to get some more water, please?


DEFENDANT: Now could I say also that you said in your evidence-in-chief that you called me back from the door, when you first came in and I had the dog in my arm, you said you called me back from the door?   Yes, sorry. When you were at the sliding glass door, yes.


Yes, yes. Can you see where you said that, on the tape?   No, that was going off my recollection as to the best as I - as I said, the audio recordings going to be the best     


Yeah, that's right, that's right. Yeah. But still, this is for the purpose of being able to verify your recollections, you see?   Yes.


So, and so that - according     ?   I - sorry.


Go on?   No, no, you     


Yeah, you were going to say?        I was just going to say, as you were asking in relation to those words, 'calling you over', I didn't specifically say, I didn't call you over, as such.


Okay. Well, we can check the evidence-in-chief on that respect. So - now I've forgotten what I was going to say. This is the problem I have, your Honour, I have a thought in my mind, and it just goes. Thatís right, it's in your mind that you're saying I was going out the door?   That's just how     


You've said, that's?        how it appeared, yep.


And that's why - would that be the case why you said you called me back from the door because it's in your mind that you thought I was going outside?   No, all I can say is that, when I've come round, out of the hallway into that opening, and I saw you at the doorway, it just appeared to me that it looked like you were going outside.


Well, that's what you're saying now. you're saying now your recollection was that it appeared to you, yeah?   That's right. You may have in fact been just coming in, like you suggested earlier, I'm not sure. But that     


The transcript would tend to suggest that maybe I wasn't going outside and you didnít call me back, so?   You were on the inside of the glass door, the glass door was shut.


Yeah, inside the door. Yeah?   So it was as if - it appeared to me as if you were going, you were about to go out the door.


Mmm. So Dick was - Julie Dick was of 12 Leopard Court, was ringing you constantly wanting some action?   She was - "constantly", I donít know if I'd use that word - but     


Well, okay?        she was ringing a number of times to find

out what was happening. And as I - as I suggested - or - or, sorry, as I stated earlier, she contacted me when she saw some new postings that had come up, and that was when I did that second download with the - that software of the websites, and there was the - the new one included. That was as a result also of information that Julie Dick provided to me.


Okay. So - look     


BENCH: That might be a good time to have a break for lunch, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Okay, your Honour.

  

MR HUNTER: Your Honour, can I just - ordinarily I wouldnít ask this question, but, in the circumstances, can Mr Mathews can give us any indication of how much longer he's going to be with this witness? I've got now a log jam of people standing outside.


BENCH: Well, Mr Hunter, I donít know.


MR HUNTER: Can you give us any indication?


BENCH: Can you give any indication     


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, I     


BENCH:      Mr Mathews, how much longer you will be?


DEFENDANT: The thing is, this is - this is a very important matter as you can probably appreciate.


BENCH: So you can't give any indication?


DEFENDANT: No, I can't, your Honour     


BENCH: Thank you.


DEFENDANT:      'cause I     


BENCH: I would say that you would only - you can expect Mr Read to be in the box for the rest of the afternoon at the rate we're going.


MR HUNTER: Mmm.


BENCH: Murphy's Law would suggest that probably wouldnít be the case once we get going.


MR HUNTER: Mmm.


BENCH: But if you send all your witnesses away     


MR HUNTER: No, well, I won't send all of them away, your Honour, just half of them.


BENCH: So keep one or two. Keep one or two on standby.


MR HUNTER: Yes, thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: So, we'll start again at 2.15, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: 2.15, your Honour. Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: All right.


THE COURT ADJOURNED


THE COURT RESUMED


MR HUNTER: The witness is just on his way, your Honour. He should     


BENCH: Not here.  [Editorial: Not here.]


MR HUNTER: He's a minute late at the moment, I understand. He was in a taxi and sent a text message five minutes ago and he's just got to come up from Eagle Street, so, he shouldn't be too long. I apologise for that.


BENCH: All right. Well, we'll just break then till he's here if he's not just outside. We can't do much if he's not here, so, we'll a break then until he - unless there's something you want to raise at the moment.


MR HUNTER: Perhaps I should say, given the matter I raised just before the lunch break, if Mr Read isn't - the cross-examiner isn't - cross-examination isn't concluded today, Mr Read has commitments interstate early next week. I would seek your Honour's leave to interpose other witnesses on Monday morning and Tuesday and recall Mr Read at the end of proceedings as interstate commitments     


BENCH: All right. So, when is he going away?


MR HUNTER: I understand he has interstate commitments Monday and Tuesday.


BENCH: On Monday and Tuesday. All right.


MR HUNTER: As I understand that. That might have been changed     


BENCH: Okay.


MR HUNTER:      over the lunch break. He's not a police officer any more, so, he's working for a private firm as you'd understand     


BENCH: But he's back, though, on Wednesday?


MR HUNTER: Well, he would be available at the committal to conclude his cross-examination, if necessary.


BENCH: Well, the end of it will be Thursday.


MR HUNTER: Thursday.


BENCH: Thursday. Yes. All right. Well, it's really up to how long Mr Mathews is cross-examining this witness. Mr Mathews, have you turned your mind to how long you will be

with this witness?


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour.

BENCH: I'm going to ask you to turn your mind to that if it's not completed today. All right?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Okay. Yes, Mr Read, just go back in the witness box. Yes, Mr Mathews, can you continue with your cross-examination?


DEFENDANT: Okay, thank you.


BRENDAN SCOTT READ, CONTINUING:

CROSS-EXAMINATION:


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour. Now, could I ask you, I know it isn't evidence, but the Court brief, did you prepare the Court brief?   Yes.


Okay.


MR HUNTER: I object. The Court brief isn't in evidence, your Honour. He's put a scenario to the witness which is false.


BENCH: Are you talking about the exhibits, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour, the Court brief where it states     


BENCH: By "brief", what do you mean, the statements of witnesses?


DEFENDANT: "The facts in relation to this matter are as follows".


BENCH: No.


MR HUNTER: The QP9, your Honour, he's talking about.


BENCH: Well, a brief can encompass a lot of things. It can encompass witness statements and exhibits. There are no witness statements in evidence, Mr Mathews, as you know, because this is the reason we have witnesses in the witness box.


DEFENDANT: Thatís right, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And the exhibits are in evidence.


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour.


BENCH: Okay. But you can ask him if he got the brief. Did you get the brief together?   Yeah, I prepared the brief, your Honour.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Now - so, since the - the statements are not in evidence     


BENCH: You can ask him questions about the statement.


DEFENDANT:      I really have to go - I really have to go through it again to make sure that this information goes - to go into evidence.


BENCH: Well, what are you reading from?


DEFENDANT: Well, the statement of witness, Brendan Scott - Brendan Scott Read.


BENCH: Well, this is Mr Read here.


DEFENDANT: Yes, that's right. Yeah.



BENCH: Yes. You can ask him questions arising out of any statement he may have given.


DEFENDANT: Thatís right. Dated - signed at Brisbane this 19th day of October 2009.


BENCH: So ask the question. So ask him the question.


DEFENDANT: Okay. I was about to, your Honour, thank you. "I recall on Monday, the 2nd of February" - this is number 3 in your affidavit - "of 2009, I received an email from Sergeant Bruce Mathiou of the Petrie Police requesting assistance in relation to the matter." Could we put that - get that email into evidence, please, your Honour?


BENCH: Well, ask him about it.


DEFENDANT: Good. Yeah. Well, where is that email? Could we have it into evidence, please? I ask that it be     ?   Well, I donít have access to that email.


Okay. Well, then how - your Honour, how do I get it? How do we - I mean this has been related in evidence. It's mentioned in evidence.


BENCH: I haven't got the statement. I donít know what the email's about.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: Ask him some questions I     


DEFENDANT: Okay. The evidence - you state in your affidavit, as I read - I read it again. "I recall on Monday, the 2nd of February 2009, I received an email from Sergeant Bruce Mathiou of Petrie Police requesting assistance in relation to a matter."?   Yes.


Okay. Can we have all the details of that - specifically what did that email say?   I can just tell you to the best of my recollection what was in the email.


Why can     ?   I donít have access to it.


Why donít you have access to it?   I'm not an employee of the Queensland Police.


BENCH: Just tell me what was - can you tell the Court what was in the email     ?   Sure.


     to the best of your recollection?   Yes, your Honour. He advised that he'd been contacted by a person by the name of Julie Dick, and John Dick, regarding some websites. And he was after some advice as to how he should proceed, or how he can proceed in relation to an investigation around it.


DEFENDANT: Did he mention anything about their prior complaint?   No.


He didnít mention anything regarding their prior complaint in that email?   No.


What I want to ask you - speak to your Honour. Your Honour, it makes it difficult; witnesses attest to something and then say they donít have access to it.



BENCH: Make a submission at the end of the evidence. I donít decide - I can't tell the prosecution what to put into evidence.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


MR HUNTER: Perhaps I can assist, your Honour. Perhaps he could ask Detective Sergeant Bignell. He's the case officer now at the Queensland Police. He could     


BENCH: He'll be giving evidence?


MR HUNTER:      be able to produce it? Yes, he will be.


BENCH: Very good. There's your answer. You can ask him. Ask another question.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, because of my disability, I forget things.


BENCH: Okay. I understand that.


DEFENDANT: Can someone - can that be reminded to ask Bignell that, if I forget?


BENCH: Well, you'll have to make a note of it. Youíve got pen and paper there, I see. Make a note of it.


MR HUNTER: I'll make a note of it, your Honour.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Thank you.


BENCH: I can't run your case for you, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour.


BENCH: And the prosecutor can't either. But of the - out of     


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, but I understand that, you know, there has to be some duty to disabled, to take care of a disability.


BENCH: There's a duty - there's a duty for me to ensure that you get a fair committal.


DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. Yes, your Honour. And on top of that     


BENCH: Thatís what I'm attempting to do.


DEFENDANT:      there - there is the aspect of disability as well. That would be the case with a person whether they're able bodied or disabled. And that a disabled person, you would have another common law duty as well.


BENCH: Well, the Court doesnít appoint anyone to look after your affairs as the results of this matter.


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour, but have a duty not to take advantage of me.


BENCH: Nobody's taken advantage of it.


DEFENDANT: Just - I want to take advantage of my disabilities.  [Editorial:  I want to check the audio recording on this. I believe I more likely said "I want no-one take advantage of my disabilities."]


BENCH: Of your disability?


DEFENDANT: If I can go to your - for a moment, I'll get back to that. Your affidavit for the search warrant?   Yes.


Background?   Thank you.

   

You stated background 6A. What is the point of 6A? "I'm informed invariably that in August the informed corporate had involved their own investigation." I mean, so what, an investigation? That     ?   Basically, that means that it's referring to the previous complaint by Judge Julie Dick. And, although I wasnít personally involved in that particular investigation, that my inquiries surrounding looking into - to the details of that investigation gave me certain pieces of information which I've never relied upon in this document. So, by stating at that first line there, that I'm informed of and verily believe that, although I didnít conduct the investigation, that I - I believe that the information I did receive is true. And, as such, I'm relying upon aspects of that for this warrant.

DEFENDANT: Now, 6E, you say, "Take that a notice was served on - served at a stage, removed the website paidreport.com, as it was in breach of its policy." In breach of its policy, that would be a civil matter, would it? Breach of - this policy being a policy of     ?   Oh, it could - could cross over into both sphere, both civil and criminal.


I see. Well, it doesnít mention it was in breach of any criminal act. It just says in breach of its policy?   Yeah, thatís what it says.


Yeah. So, why is the - that's the Queensland Police force. It's the - did the Queensland Police serve this?   The Queensland Police Service. Yep.


Yeah. Did the Queensland Police act against Service Australia?   There's a letter sent from the Queensland Police to Service Australia.


To take that - what was it - what is it a takedown notice?   It's - it was a notice to - to have the website removed because it - it - it, for whatever reason, it didnít - it breached certain - I believe it fell under the Australia Communications and Media Authority; that they had certain     


ACMA. Yeah?   Yeah, ACMA have certain guidelines of - of content that - that's allowed to be publicly available or     


Mmm?        or stuff that isn't - doesnít sort of - or shouldnít be publicly available. And, for whatever reason, it was - it fell into that category.


I'll put it to you that - well, Queensland Police - where - where is Service Australia? In Queensland?   I donít know where they're located. I believe it's down south somewhere.


What, not in Queensland?   Oh, they might have an office in Queensland. I'm not sure.


Well, if they're not in Queensland, can the Queensland Police have any jurisdiction?   They sent a letter.


They can send a letter?   Yeah.


And does that have any bearing, any effect at all?   Well, if that company decides to remove its - that's a personal issue for that company.


Okay. So, is it a really takedown notice as such?   Well, it was a takedown notice that was issued, as far as I'm aware.


Did you see a copy of it?   I - no, I didnít.


You just - someone said that a takedown notice was served?   Thatís right.


Okay. And so you took it as gospel. Now, how was Detective Inspector Jason Saunders advised? You say he was advised of certain information?   Sorry, I'll just to back to it.


6E, you're still in 6E?   Oh, sorry, 6E.


Jason Saunders, third line?   Yeah, sorry, what was the - yeah, I've just read that. What was the question again, Mr Mathews?


How was he advised?   I spoke to him.


No, Saunders was advised by Jared Hirst. How was he advised on Servers Australia, the website was removed?   When I spoke to him, he - his recollection was that he received a phone call just to say that it was going to be.


His recollection was?   Yes.


I see. So his recollection, it's hearsay of recollection, of a phone call?   Well, it's the best I could do. I spoke to Detective Inspector Saunders, who was currently at the Fraud Squad at the time that this first matter had happened. So, I'd asked him details surrounding what had happened.


So, there's no - no great confidence in this information in this 6E well? That much of 6E?   Confidence?


Confidence that it's     ?   Oh, rely on what - what     


I mean it's - how reliable is it, and it's not documented; not photograph evidence? It's not     ?   Well, it was also a case file for that previous investigation as well. There was notes made on that.



On the case file?   Yeah. Which backed up what Detective Inspector Saunders was telling me. But I was just asking him more for further clarification on what I'd already read.


Okay. Now, her Honour Judge Julie Dick advised she did not wish to take any further action, and the complaint was finalised?   Thatís right.


How did she advise that?   I donít know. I wasnít involved in the investigation.


How do you know she was advised - how do you know she advised well?   I - well, all I know is that she didnít make a formal complaint because there was no record of the matter proceeding any further by way of going to Court or just discontinued from lack of evidence.


Oh, okay. So, you state here an active matter that she advised something, but the thing is, what you're saying is it didnít go any further than that?   Oh, I suppose what - what I can to help you, Mr Mathews, and for the Court, is the computer crime unit is a very different investigative unit to anywhere else in the police. Because the matters that we investigate cross multi-jurisdictional boundaries, both nationally and internationally, we can only put matters of investigation on our computer - on the Queensland Police computer system that have occurred within Queensland. So, if an offence - if an offence - or a matter comes before our desk for investigation, we donít necessarily put it straight on the computer system, as the normal procedure is with a complaint. So, for example, if you were broken into and the police turn up and take your details, when they go back to the station, all that information gets entered in the computer system, on the live computer system, which any officer can then view and read. For the matters that come through computer crime, initial investigations have to take place first before we can identify, has this offence occurred in Queensland, or in Australia or overseas, and if we can identify the jurisdiction, then we either forward the investigation on or - or so forth. So, in this particular matter, the first one that we're referring to, a initial file was created in the computer crime unit to look into it. But at such time after that letter was sent, the websites were removed. Judge Julie Dick didnít wish to proceed. So it didnít then go formally onto the computer system as such.


Okay. So     ?   However, records are kept     


Yeah?        at computer crime.


Okay. So the fact that Julie Dick did not wish to proceed     ?   Judge Julie Dick?


Judge Julie Dick?   Yep.


Yeah, sorry, Judge - Judge Julie - all you know about that is the fact that there's nothing there to record that she's wanting more to happen?   Well, there was     


You'd since     ?   There was no complaint on the - on the police computer system. But I was only made aware of it by other members - other colleagues within the computer crime unit that this had occurred previously. And then they directed me towards - oh, there was a previous file, and that's why I did some research and - and identified.


So this file is not on the computer system, though. Is that     ?   There are certain records that we - we kept internally.


Yeah?   We used to keep a spreadsheet     


Yeah?        of all files just to keep track of how many, 'cause we had so many. And, yeah, there was records on that as well. Yeah.


So, this record that this was on is not the police record but the computer crime unit?   Yeah, because we     


Their own internal records?   Thatís right. Because we have to keep some sort of record as to what's coming     


Yeah?        into our office to keep track of them.

But it's not on the police computer as such?   No. No.

 

Okay. So, you donít know that she actually advised - actively got on the phone or was she contacted? You donít - you can't say?   I donít know the details about how it was - or how she didnít wish to pursue the matter any further. I just - yeah, I donít know those details.


Mmm. So, it could be - well, it could be anything. It could be that someone else made the complaint and she just didnít even know about it?   I donít want to speculate.


BENCH: Look, he doesnít know.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, you donít know. That would be speculation. Thatís right. So     


BENCH: Exactly. So move on.


DEFENDANT: So this section here is only speculation, this last sentence. Speculation     ?   Sorry?


     she advised. You donít know she did?   Well, she would've had to advise, 'cause there's no complaint on the system.


Yes. But what would happen if she did nothing?   Well we would still be pursuing it and taking it as far as we could, and there'd be a record on the Queensland Police system to that effect.


Would there?   Yes.


I mean, could there be any other scenario?   Perhaps     


BENCH: Look     


DEFENDANT: Speculation again.


BENCH: Look, look, just - Mr Mathews     


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH:      sorry - can I ask you, Mr Hunter     


MR HUNTER: Yes.


BENCH:      the issue with Judge Julie Dick     


MR HUNTER: Yes.


BENCH:      is that a live issue in these proceedings?


MR HUNTER: No.


BENCH: Well, right.


MR HUNTER: Only in the sense that Mr Mathews is aware that there was a takedown notice with respect to that content, and that it was removed. And then those - that same website effectively reappeared on a US site.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour     


BENCH: But the issue of whether Judge Julie Dick is proceeding with the complaint     


MR HUNTER: It's irrelevant to these proceedings.


BENCH: It's - it's     


MR HUNTER: My submission.


BENCH:      relevant to the other Julie Dick, though, isn't it in terms of     


MR HUNTER: Well, the fact that there was originally a complaint made by the Judge. A takedown notice was served. The website disappeared. The Judge didnít take the matter further.


DEFENDANT: We donít know that for sure, your Honour.


BENCH: But is it an issue in these proceedings     


MR HUNTER: Well, this witness can't give it.


BENCH:      that it's reappeared?


MR HUNTER: Yes.


BENCH: And so it is a live issue then? It is an issue?


DEFENDANT: It is a live issue.


MR HUNTER: The fact that the Judge     


BENCH: Has there been a subsequent complaint?


MR HUNTER: By?


BENCH: The Judge?


MR HUNTER: No.


BENCH: So     


MR HUNTER: Only by civilian Julie Dick.


BENCH: So, all of these questions that - I notice you haven't been objecting to them. So I'm presuming it must be an issue     


MR HUNTER: Mmm.


BENCH:      of whether a complaint was made or not; whether it was discontinued or not.


MR HUNTER: He's     


BENCH: So you haven't been objecting to that     


MR HUNTER: He's cross - no, he's been cross-examining the witness about the content of his affidavit and how he got the information.


BENCH: Yes. But is - if - is that relevant?


MR HUNTER: Not particularly.


BENCH: So why haven't you been objecting on the grounds of relevance? Because we've spent a long time on this.


DEFENDANT: Well, it is relevant, your Honour.


BENCH: I mean is it or isn't it relevant?


MR HUNTER: Well, in my submission, it's not.


BENCH: Because there's other - what the prosecution would say is fits the description of the section in the same site.


MR HUNTER: Mmm.


BENCH: Thatís what you're saying     


MR HUNTER: Mmm.


BENCH:      Mr Hunter?


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, it is of - going to the point that the - this prosecution now is just a continuation     


BENCH: Yeah.


DEFENDANT:      of a political attack     


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT:      upon me.


BENCH: Okay. But I want you to move on from the issue of Judge Julie Dick making complaint or not. I think youíve fully canvassed that, and I donít think you can get any further with it.


DEFENDANT: Well, I just     


BENCH: So I want you to move on from that issue.


DEFENDANT: Well, I just want the witness to - well     


BENCH: I'm directing you to move on from that issue, Mr Mathews.

DEFENDANT: Well, it's     


BENCH: For the reasons I've given.


DEFENDANT: Okay. But that's in evidence that there's no - there's no evidence of that. Okay. You mention that Julie Dick - this is at 12 Leopard Court - was aware she shared the same name of Queensland Judge?   Thatís right. Yep. Thatís right.


Well, now, did you canvass what that related to? How she was aware of that?


MR HUNTER: Well, I object. This is hearsay. Perhaps he can ask the witness that.


DEFENDANT: Yes.


MR HUNTER: This witness is not qualified to give that answer.


BENCH: You said it's hearsay. So ask the witness, Julie Dick.


DEFENDANT: Well, did you question Julie Dick about this mistaken identify?


BENCH: Didnít you ask that question this morning? You asked that question this morning, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: On one - on which - on every occasion you spoke to her? You spoke to her how many times?   I donít know in total. It was quite a few.


Quite a few. And was it always the same, or were there different matters being raised?   It was in relation to this matter we're talking about today, about the websites.


Websites?   Mmm.


Now, the - you devote six - seven or six - seven - six paragraph of your affidavit to the matter of John Dick confronting a photographer?   Okay.


So that must have been an important issue, was it?   Considering Mr Dick's photo was on the website, yes.


Okay. And it was - he was described as John Dick, was he, on the - he was described as John Dick?   No, he was described as being someone else.


Who was he described as being?


MR HUNTER: The evidence speaks for itself, your Honour. It's in evidence.


BENCH: Well, answer - can you answer the question?   Your Honour, it was Terry Joseph Mellifont.


DEFENDANT: Or     ?   Or Terence Joseph Mellifont.


Would it have been Michael Mellifont?   Oh.


Okay.


BENCH: Could it have been Michael Mellifont?   There was a - there was two names mentioned; Michael Mellifont and Terence - I thought it was Terence Mellifont.


BENCH: Yes. All right. But, again, as Mr Hunter said, it's in the evidence. It's in the - it's in the disk on the DVD, which you would've displayed in the Court yesterday, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Yeah. Your affidavit states that - you state in the final sentence of 6R, that these were all - there are also comments made in reference to Terence Joseph Mellifont residing at this address as well. I'd like you to point those out, please, your Honour.


MR HUNTER: Exhibit 3, your Honour. It's before or after that.


WITNESS: Just scroll down. It might be - just wanted to read that text. Just up a little bit, that paragraph at the top. Might be a different section. I'd have to - I just - yeah. Sorry, no just go up a bit. Mellifont's at that address. That's the other address. Yeah.


MR HUNTER: Is it necessarily that document?


WITNESS: It might've been a link off that one. My recollection was that there was references to Terence and Michael and Judge Julie Dick living at that particular address. That's what that reference makes     


Well - well we just need to see it. I mean it's in evidence to we need to confirm it or     


BENCH: Well, isn't that it, witness, that screen - what's on the screen there now?   Yeah, your Honour, it's     


DEFENDANT: What does it say?


BENCH: Well, it will have to be read in context with what's just above that previous screen, doesn't it next?   Well, on this particular site it just makes reference to a Judge Julie Dick and - um, and Michael Francis Mellifont being at that address.


I see, okay. So it doesn't say anything that comments made in reference to Terence Joseph Mellifont residing at this address as well?   Um, just trying to recall. Can you scroll me that page? Can you scroll up? Scroll down. Your Honour, just in this document here it's making reference to - um, there's an address for Judge Julie Dick at - at Carseldine. But then saying that Michael Mellifont isn't residing - does not reside at that address and is providing the other address of - of Judge Julie Dick being at this 12 Leopard Court at Warner.


So is that your answer?   Well, your Honour     


You're response to the     ?   Just to the best of my recollection. There were so many pages and links within in the one particular site. It's hard to remember exactly where that was contained. Um     


Yes, Mr Mathews?   That's the best I could do.


DEFENDANT: What's that - well, is it there, or not? Is it - does it state that anywhere or not?   Well, it makes particular references to - to the family members and makes references     


Yeah, it reads?        to     


But Terence Joseph Mellifont residing at this address?   To Michael and Judge Julie being at Warner.


Yes. But does it say that - is that statement correct? That sentence correct?   Well, I believe it to be correct, yes.


Well     ?   I just can't seem to     


     where is it?   To the best of my knowledge it - it was contained within - within those documents, within those websites.


Well, I mean, they are all in evidence, aren't they? Are they, or are they not?   The websites?


That where this is dated?   Is this     



I mean, I'm inviting you to produce it - anything - is there anywhere that says - I'm mean - this could be - this is very relevant - this is very relevant to a jury deciding whether a reasonable person could believe. So, you know, this is a very - a very important point.


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, that evidence isn't in evidence, or the - that material is not in evidence. He's cross-examining him about the affidavit for the search warrant which is predicated on the basis - says, "I'm informed and verily believe", right.


BENCH: Well it's in his statement and it     


MR HUNTER: Well it's not in his statement     


BENCH:      seems to be an inconsistent statement.


MR HUNTER:      it's in the     


DEFENDANT: His affidavit.


BENCH: It's an inconsistent statement. I presume he's putting to him. He's questioning him on the contents of his statement.


MR HUNTER: No, not on his statement, on the affidavit for the search warrant.


BENCH: Well, see, this is - I'm at a disadvantage. I don't know what you're referring - I thought it was     


DEFENDANT: This affidavit was     


BENCH:      a statement that this witness had given under the Justices Act.


DEFENDANT: Where's the affidavit?


MR HUNTER: No, this is - no, this is the affidavit for his     


BENCH: All right.


MR HUNTER:      search warrant.


DEFENDANT: Well that's an affidavit, your Honour.


BENCH: Yes, you can question him on that.


DEFENDANT: It's the affidavit - affidavit     


BENCH: But it's still an affidavit and it's still     


DEFENDANT: And I mean     


BENCH:      a statement he's made. Yes, that's correct.


DEFENDANT: And I mean if you made that here in an affidavit you're likely to make - it actually goes to the District Court in front of a jury?   Your Honour, it - it'd take me some time to actually peruse all those documents that are in the website to find that specific point.


BENCH: Look that - on the site there     ?   Yes, your Honour.


     there was a photograph, and it's of a person?   Yes.


A male person?   Yes, your Honour.


And I think yesterday you said that it was     ?   John

Dick.


     John Dick. Now in and around that photograph there is a reference to     ?   Family members.


     12 Leopard Court, or whatever it is?   That's right, your Honour.


And the names of Mellifont     ?   That's - that's correct.


     and Judge Julie Dick. But it's posed in the question - as a question really, isn't it? Can you just scroll down a bit. Under the photograph this is none other than my Michael Francis Mellifont?   Yes.


I mean, does that help you? I mean I'm leading you I know, but     ?   No, your Honour     


     that's not what you're - that's not what you're referring to, is it?        No, your Honour, it's     


     your recollection. There's something more, is there?   No, I was just - you know - but I believe Mr Mathews, you were questioning me specifically about Terence rather than Michael?


DEFENDANT: Yes. I mean to     


BENCH: I mean, I suppose strictly speaking I am helping - helping Mr Mathews     


DEFENDANT: Yeah, no - no     


BENCH:      in his cross-examination, if I can     


DEFENDANT: Well, the point is     


BENCH:      do that.


DEFENDANT: Well, the point is, you made the statement there?   Yes.


An affidavit. That's a sworn statement.


BENCH: Yes, but - sorry, Mr Mathews. You're asking him now as the contents of that affidavit, right? There's no problem with that - about the contents of that as it relates to the evidence that's now before the Court, right?


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


BENCH: Okay.


DEFENDANT: But now the witness could be given - you know, would be called if it goes to the District Court     


BENCH: Yes, look, I know all that.


DEFENDANT: Yes. So I mean, you know     


BENCH: But the thing is, you've asked him a specific question about a statement, is there, about     


DEFENDANT: Yeah, he makes     


BENCH:      John and Terence Mellifont and Judge Julie Dick residing at 12 Leopard Court. Is that right?


DEFENDANT: No, no. Terence Joseph Mellifont.


BENCH: Terence Joseph     


DEFENDANT: Just particularly about Terence Joseph Mellifont     


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT:      residing at this address.


BENCH: Right.


DEFENDANT: Also comments in relation to - to reference to - now that's     


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, I mean, that's     


BENCH: So what do you say about what's on the screen at the moment     ?   Yeah, your Honour     


     a picture of John Dick who you say you      ?   Oh, yes     


     can - is the image of John Dick?   Yes.


And underneath that is what - this is none other than Michael Francis Mellifont?   Mellifont.


This was the same belligerent cretoness Terence Joseph Mellifont, also known as, or aka Terry Mellifont?   Yes.


That's not what you're referring to?   Yes, that is. Yes.


That is what you're referring to?   Yes.


DEFENDANT: What does that say? It says it's the same as in, was in behaviour and appearance in 1974. That's saying he looks and - he looks and behaves like Terence Mellifont did in 1974, does it? Isn't that what it's saying?   The crux of the website is saying that - that Judge Julie Dick and obviously members of the Mellifont family don't reside at Carseldine, they reside at this place here at Warner.


Does it say that?   Well, that's what is says here. You've got a photo of - of a person saying this is none other than Michael Francis Mellifont.


Yeah. But that's the only Mellifont said to be living there, isn't it? The - the website says he's living there?   And there's other comments saying that Terence Mellifont doesn't reside at this other address at Carseldine.


Does it say that? Well, okay, now you've said that. Okay, where does it say that, please?   It was up on the screen before.


Let's see where it says     ?   Just go to the PDF document. I think it was in there. It might've been up at - out to the right - top right, on that column on the right when you get up to the top. Mmm. "We believe that Michael Mellifont does not presently live there."


Michael Mellifont does not presently live at     ?   And that's talking about - if you go to the previous sort of sections of those columns     




At 73?        its reference to 76 - 73 Hawbridge Street, yeah.


Okay. But any other Mellifonts?   Then it goes on to talk about the address at - to get the phone number of the old address and it's - and you're saying that he doesn't reside there. But then you're making other     


Where the website is?   Yeah, well     


Okay. Attributed to me?   Sorry, yeah.


Okay. Now can we - so let's go into this. I mean, you're saying about phone numbers too. Let's get this clear. What's it saying about the phone number? It's     ?   Oh, on the screen there, Mr Mathews, it just says the phone number at that address is plus 617     


That's at 76 Hawbridge Street, Carseldine?   Sorry?


That's 76 Hawbridge at Carseldine?   Yes, it appears to be that.


Yeah, okay?   That's what it's referring to, yeah.


And?        And the subscriber for that number and address is a Dick J.


And Terence Joseph Mellifont does not appear to have any phone anywhere?   Anywhere.


Okay?   And then it's     


But that doesn't say he has - he's anywhere himself, does it?   And you later produce a photo - well, you don't, but a photo was produced on that website.


On this website or the other website?   Well, this document came out of that same website - maybe not, sorry.


It didn't, no, okay?   It didn't come out of the same website. It - the     


The prosecutor helped the witness. Yes, yeah, okay that's all right. Got to get it right.


MR HUNTER: Well, it's in evidence, your Honour. It's from a different folder in the disc.


DEFENDANT: Yeah.


MR HUNTER: I'm not leading the witness at all. It's in a different folder.


BENCH: Perhaps     ?   Your Honour, just in relation to this     


     the witness should have control of the device?   Yes. Just in relation to these websites, there's a lot of crossover where I might start on the Haig report and then there will be multiple links on the site, and you click on that then they'll take you across to AustLawPublish.com, and then again you go back through another link back into the Haig report. And it's - they're very much intertwined, and that's what was in the discussion yesterday about getting the Google ranking up, and that's one of the procedures that people use to get those rankings up is to try to intertwine those sites because there's multiple links between them. And that's one of the algorithms that is used to identify a ranking. So it becomes a very confusing scenario to be able to point out exactly where in particular it's located.


Mmm?   But as I said before, that document I - I produced - that affidavit I produced for the Crimes Act warrant I did to the best of my knowledge and ability, and all the information I used to produce that warrant, or that affidavit, came out of the documents that were located on the website     


DEFENDANT: Mmm?        or the four websites we're talking about today.



Yes, your Honour. Okay. Um, yes, so but you're making your statements and, you know they're - well, you're confused?   No, I'm not.


Well you're making statements there that - regarding phone number. Now what does it say about - all it says it that - I think that - does it say Michael Mellifont probably doesn't live there, or something?   It says, "Consider the address, 73 Hawbridge Street Carseldine." Then the next paragraph says, "That phone number at that address is", and then it goes down further to the next - the start of the column at the top of the page.


Yeah?   "That Michael Mellifont does not presently live there."


Okay. So what - does that mean that he doesn't live there? Does it mean that - that's saying that he lives out at Carseldine, does it?   Well, there's reference on the site that - that there's a photo taken of a person who is - sorry, which one - getting confused now. Michael Francis Mellifont.

 

But this site doesn't say that Michael Francis Mellifont is - is there, does it? This one here. This one we're looking at now - show Criminal Law journal issue 277 - 200707. So, yeah, okay. So where does that take us? The fact that - where does it say that - okay - "We believe that Michael Mellifont does not presently live there." So is there any suggestion on that there where he may be?   Well, there's reference to the Mellifonts living at that address by the fact that there's a photo up on the site.


Of one Mellifont?   Yeah.


Yes. Okay. But are these - there's - they're two different documents; different places on the website. They're two different websites, in fact, I think?   Okay.


Are they?   Yeah.


Okay. Are they contemporaneous? Are they both at the same time?   Um, as in were they created at the same time?


Created at the same time?   I - I haven't looked at the actual data on the actual document themselves, it's when they were created.


So - but I think there might be a date on that - that one there?   You couldn't rely on that as being the creation date of the document, no. That's - that's the file name.


Yeah, okay, 27707, yes. Is there a date on the top of the document? Would that be any indication of when     ?   But, again, that's not going to tell you when that actual file was created. You'd have to do forensic analysis on the particular file to try and identify when it was created.



..After - after we've gone through - there - there's nothing to say that there were references to Terry Mellifont living at Warner or wherever, at Leopard Court?   Well, there was definitely references to the Mellifonts living at that address, and that one was photographed there.


The one Mellifont?   Yeah, one was photographed. Thatís the photographs that were on the site.


Thatís right. One Mellifont. And - but you - you make - you donít say to Mellifont, but you say specifically Terence Joseph Mellifont?   Thatís right.


Residing at this address as well?   So at some point I saw that on there.


You're sure?   I've put it in my affidavit. I'm sure.


Okay. That was done contemporaneously. I mean this is - youíve taken a copy of what you saw. This is a copy of what you saw at the time, isn't it?   Thatís right. But as I said, too, the Hastie track software tries to do the best it can to pull off as much as it can. So, looking at the site live is not the same as what we're looking at here. This is the best I could do at the time.


Yeah. But this is - the software - I mean it's pretty faithful copy isn't it?   Well, it's the best I could do.


Yeah. But I mean the software. I mean you relied on software. You didnít just do it     ?   As I pointed out to the Court     


You just plugged it in. Put in the names and let it go?   As I pointed to the - out to the Court yesterday, there's specific issues in relation to obtaining PHP related sites.


Mmm?   As against HTML based sites.


Is that a specific problem here, that the - with that     ?   It could be.


Well, that's speculation?   Thatís right. It's - I haven't said it definitely is.


Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, so     


BENCH: We donít want him to speculate, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: No. Well, this sentence here is speculation, well?   No, I'm saying that, at the time of doing this affidavit     


Mmm?        I relied on information that I saw and read. I'm saying it's - there is - it's all truth in here. I haven't made anything up. I haven't lied about anything.


But you donít think you could be confused about that?   No.

BENCH: I think you should move on from that.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, I'm - yeah, I just - he's - the witness is still maintaining that the did see this; that the website show that somewhere.


BENCH: Thatís his evidence.


DEFENDANT: Beg your pardon?


BENCH: That's his evidence.


DEFENDANT: Well, then - and the evidence is that this     


BENCH: And the evidence is in.


DEFENDANT:      is a faithful copy. A mirror image.


BENCH: And you     


DEFENDANT: A mirror image.


BENCH: Well, have you gone - do you want to put to him that youíve gone through everything there and you can't find it, that reference?


DEFENDANT: I'll put that to you, too. I've - I have actually been looking for it. I haven't found it.


BENCH: Okay.


DEFENDANT: So, I'm     ?   Well, all I can say to you is that maybe that was one of the particular sites that was PHP coded, and I couldnít see it.


BENCH: Now move on. Ask another question in a different area - different topic.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Now, you mentioned the identity of the IP address     ?   Yes.


     in the name of?   Do you have a - just a reference for the paragraph?


6W?   Okay. Thank you. 6W. Is that the one that start, "Checks on the police computer system."?


Yeah. May - oh, the 6X, in fact?   Okay.


Now, "Kroll and Mathews were associates     ?   Yes.


     due to previous dealings with Kroll."?   Yes.


Now, can you expand on that, please? What - what does that mean?


MR HUNTER: Well, I object to the hearsay. He's - the - perhaps he could put it in context. It says, "I also made inquiries with Detective Sergeant Steve Bignell"     


BENCH: Bignell's going to give evidence.


MR HUNTER:      who is going to give evidence - "who advised me     


BENCH: All right.


MR HUNTER:      that he was aware of Kroll and Mathews."


BENCH: See, youíve been - Mr Read, youíve been told by Bignell these things?   Thatís correct.


All right. Ask Mr Bignell those - these questions, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Now, you mention there in 6AA, "Email response to his client using the email address Jacob@Iwebfusion.net?   Yes.


What was the point of that? I mean what does that - does that show anything? Is that connected to me in any way or what? What was the point of that being in your affidavit, or just to take up more reading space for whoever Magistrate signed it?   As to why I included the email address?


Yeah. I mean what - where does that - what - what - where does that take us?   Because that was one of the inquiries I ran out     


Okay?        in relation to it. So it just     


It just petered out basically. Is that what you're saying there?   Yeah, basically.


There's no relevance to it. So why include it?   Because that was the response I received, and I thought it was relevant that the person who's signing this warrant was aware of every avenue of investigation that was taken.


Oh, okay. And it didnít take - didnít take you anywhere?   Yeah.


I thought you'd only put in the things in the warrant which were relevant. Would that be     ?   They are relevant, because that was a response from the web host.


Oh, okay. So could that be an indication there's someone else involved?   No, anyone can create a - a - an email address.


Okay?   It doesnít identify who the person is. I think - sorry. Just to add onto that point. One of the conditions of the warrant, the second condition which is on page 2, I've listed that Jacob@Iwebfusion.net     


Okay?        as one of the conditions of the items I'm looking for. Just purely because that was mentioned by the - the web host as a person - as the communication point.


Did you find it?   You'll     


You said you     ?   I - I didnít personally find it. But, again, you might find that that question would be better asked to Simon Lodge who did the forensic examination on the computer.


Okay. So     


BENCH: We might have a 10 minute break there, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.

THE COURT ADJOURNED

THE COURT RESUMED

BRENDAN SCOTT READ, CONTINUING:

CROSS-EXAMINATION:

BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews?

DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour. Now, in your affidavit, your application for a search warrant     ?   Yes.


     even though all your investigations were in relation to Julie Dick of 12 Leopard Court - were they, or - all the matters in your affidavit for a search warrant related to     ?   References to Julie Dick.


Yeah, no references to Rantala at all?   No, not in - not in the affidavit. No.


No, no, that's right. But then you - seven - can I refer to paragraph 7?   Yes. Okay.


"Russell Gordon Mathews did use the internet from 24 Haywal Street, Taigum, to harass, directed towards her Honour Judge Julie Dick." So, Julie Dick is a live issue. Previously the prosecution said it wasnít a live issue, to the Court. That     


MR HUNTER: I didnít say that at all, your Honour. We were talking about the complaint by the Judge having been withdrawn as being irrelevant to these proceedings, not that the name Julie Dick was.


DEFENDANT: Judge Julie Dick. The relation to her Honour Judge Julie Dick. Any relation to the Judge. So that was the purpose of your gaining a search warrant, was it?   In relation to the complaint received from Julie Dick.


Yes. Because that's what it says here?   Yes.


So that was - so the matter of whether Julie Dick - why were you still investigating for Julie Dick - I mean for Judge Julie Dick - her Honour Judge Julie Dick?   There were postings about her Honour Judge Julie Dick, but the complaint came from Julie Dick.


Yes, thatís right. The real     ?   But     


     Julie Dick of 12 Leopard Court?   Yeah.


Okay. So     ?   That - that paragraph 7 just relates - it's saying the things described will provide evidence relating to harass - harass directed towards her Honour Judge Julie Dick.


Yeah. Why did you not - 'cause the complaint is regarding Julie Dick of 12 Leopard Court?   Yeah.


Why was that objected to - why was it not mentioned - why did you not mention it in your affidavit searching for a search warrant, Julie Dick of 12 Leopard Court; a different person?   It's just the comment actually says it's providing evidence in relation that doesnít mention that it's the complainant Judge Julie Dick.


No, no, no, no. But you'd - I mean one - one is the complainants there you find it for another person?   Sorry, I just missed that.


I mean they're different people?   Yes, that's right.


Well, why - why are you search - applying for a search warrant in relation to evidence to her Honour Judge Julie Dick?   The harassment was directed towards her Honour Judge Julie Dick. Thatís what the whole basis of those websites are. It's     


Thatís what you believe?        directed at     


Thatís what you say?   Yes.


Yeah, okay. Fair enough. Yeah?   It's not directed towards Julie Dick, 'cause you - or whoever did the websites     


Yeah?        didnít appear to know that it was Julie Dick, the civilian. So the harassment is directed towards a particular person being her Honour Judge Julie Dick.


I see. Okay?   So     


Was there harassment, though?   I - I believe there is, and thatís why we're here today.


Of - of the Judge?   Of     


MR HUNTER: He's answered the question.


DEFENDANT: No, sorry. I - you said     ?   Oh, yeah. The     


     of the Judge. Yeah?   The complaint came from this     


I know where it - yeah?        Julie Dick. Yeah.


Go on?   The evidence I'm looking for relates to harassment thatís directed to her Honour Judge Julie Dick.


Yeah?   But in that direction towards her Honour Judge Julie Dick the posting about the lady Judge Julie Dick - the civilian Julie Dick, I should say.

   

Okay. So - well, you could've put both names in there, in fact. Is that the truth?   But the person - the person whoís posting the comments on the website is not posting them about the civilian Julie Dick, they're posting them about Judge Julie Dick.


I see. Okay. So there was no harassment intended for     ?   Well, I didnít write the website, so I donít know what the intention was.


So, no, okay. So, you're - you're - but you believe that the harassment was - was harassment directed at the Judge and only the Judge?   The comments on the website relate to Judge Julie Dick     


Yeah?        not to a person being a civilian Julie Dick.


Thatís right. Yeah?   So thatís the evidence I'm looking for; evidence of those conditions listed in there which will afford evidence relating to harassment - or as it says in there, "Harassing" - in paragraph 7 - "Harass directed towards her Honour Judge Julie Dick." If the comments on the website were specifically to Julie Dick, the civilian, then it would read that - like that.


Oh, okay. So, do you think you found evidence directed towards her Honour Judge Julie Dick, harassing towards - directed towards harassing Judge Julie Dick?   Well, I think the - the DVDs speak     


Okay?        for themselves in relation to what's on the content of the websites.


Okay. So why isn't Julie Dick here giving evidence, or because she doesnít need to? You just put the websites up and say, "Thatís harassing", and that's it?   Julie Dick's waiting outside the Court.


The Julie - this Julie Dick, but what about Judge Julie Dick? You're not worried about her?   Well Judge Julie Dick hasnít provided a statement or hasnít     


Okay?        made a complaint in relation to these matters.


Okay. So why did you go looking for - I mean I can't understand why you would     ?   That - that paragraph 7 doesn't relate to a complaint from Judge Julie Dick. It's just saying that the evidence that I'm looking for is in relation to harassment as directed towards her Honour Judge Julie Dick.


Mmm?   But the actual complaint has come from someone else.


Oh, okay. Okay?   'Cause that's all spelled out in the affidavit, in its entirety, when you read it.


Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And     ?   I donít mention Judge Julie Dick in relation to her making complaint at all     


No. No?        in the affidavit.


No. No, not on this occasion, but you had previously?   Thatís right. Yeah.


Okay. Now, you mention Peter Dutton's office. Now that - when did that arise, that     ?   Is there a particular reference to    

6CC?   Yes. Okay. What - the evidence regarding Peter Dutton, now what - what is all the evidence you have regarding the Peter Dutton - what investigations did you make in regarding - in regard to Peter Dutton and the - that website xpolice.peter?   That particular website had a posting of an email on there.

Yes?   Supposedly from the office of Peter Dutton.


Yeah?   So I contacted him - I contacted that office with a view of speaking to him about that email.


Yeah. Yeah?   And he wasnít available. And, as I mentioned yesterday, I spoke to Jodie Crawford.


Okay?   And she was aware of - when I mentioned the name Russell Matthews, she was aware of     




Yeah?        of that name     


Yeah?        and of the email in question and I asked her to have a look at this particular site     


Yeah?        and she came back to me and said, "No. That - that was definitely not an email that was sent".


Okay. And did she - there is another email on there - on that site too. Can we have a look at those, please? Okay. Now, we have a look at the email that you say she never sent any emails of that nature?   Yes.


That - that's one that's sent to her, is it? Did she - okay. Yeah. We go back to the one she said she didn't send?   Yeah, that was the one.


Okay. Now, she said     ?   Regarding the investigation, yep.


Okay. Did she add any more - did she - she looked - she had not seen that before when you contacted her?   I can't remember if she said she hadn't seen it. She just - when I asked her to have a look at     


Yeah?        the particular site     


Yes?   I'm not sure whether she was aware of the site but when - asked her to - to have a look at it and let me know whether that was an accurate email     


Yeah?        she came back and said, "No, it wasn't".


What else did she say?


MR HUNTER: Well, I object to the hearsay. Let's move on.


DEFENDANT: Well, it's in     


MR HUNTER: Well, it's hearsay     


DEFENDANT: Okay.


MR READ:      through this witness.


DEFENDANT: Police investigation. Yeah. Okay. So, what is - well, what is the relevance of this paragraph in your application for the affidavit - in your affidavit for the search warrant, rather?   What's the relevance is that there's a posting on there.


Yes?   It's not true.


That you allege is not true. Yeah. Okay?   Allege is not true, yeah.


And so, that's more reason to - how would that support you gaining a search warrant that paragraph? What could you find out to support that?   What could I find to support that?


Yeah, by gaining a search warrant?   Electronic evidence that's on the computer that was seized.


Yeah. Would be what - what would it be, to say     ?   Could be a number of things.


     this is a false email. This is a false email being composed or something?   Could be a number of things.


Okay?   We're     


Fish - fishing - basically, fishing for something, you might find. Did she mention any other - recall seeing emails? Did she mention anything about - there is another email there that was sent to her - was sent to that office - was allegedly sent to that office. Could we have a look at that? Yeah, I repeat, I was speaking with Jody?   That's the one at the top there, is it?


Yeah. The one at the top?   Yeah, you were just on before. Yep.


Okay. Did she make any comment regarding that email?   Yes.


What did she say about that?   She says she recalls receiving an email from a person by the name of Russell Mathews regarding an issue of Judge Julie Dick being involved in electoral fraud and then I advise - and then I asked her to have a look at it and then to find any comment, she can and that's when she said that other email, it's just - that wasn't true.


Okay. Did she say anything else about the email that was - the first email she was talking about - the email sent to her?   Not that I recall other than the fact that she says she remembers seeing an email sent.


Remembers seeing an email or that email?   She couldn't say it was exactly that email. She just says she remembers receiving an email     


And photographs?        regard - I believe she said phone calls as well, yes.


Okay. Can we have a look - are there any more emails on that page?   I don't think there are actually. Here we go, yep.


BENCH: Is your dog Brian - Mr Mathews     


DEFENDANT: He'll be all right. Yeah, yeah. He's okay. He's just - yeah, if that's annoying, I'll hold     


BENCH: He's only for - if he's on good behaviour. He has to go if he's not.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Keep him under control.


DEFENDANT: Beg your pardon?


BENCH: Keep him under control.


DEFENDANT: Yes, yes, yes. Will do.


BENCH: Is there a question out of that, Mr Mathews? You've asked for something to be brought up.


DEFENDANT: Yes. Now, is that a reference to a page anywhere on the - on the site; that's in the particulars, is it, that actual page there, is it?


MR HUNTER: Yes.


WITNESS: That's - that's another email that was under the Jody Crawford email before.


DEFENDANT: Okay. And does it state that Julie Dick is engaged in electoral fraud?   This particular email?

   

MR HUNTER: Well, it speaks for itself. Why does this witness have to give     


BENCH: You have an objection, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: I do have an objection.


BENCH: What is it?


MR HUNTER: The document speaks for itself. Why does this witness have to confirm what's in the evidence already before the Court.


BENCH: Are you simply asking him to read or what, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Well, no, how he viewed it     


BENCH: What     


DEFENDANT: Did he view that it     


BENCH: Well, as Mr Hunter says, it speaks for itself. We can all view it.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Well, it     


BENCH: Are you going to ask a question on it     


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH:      a meaningful question.


DEFENDANT: Does it say she was knowing the - involved in - knowingly     


BENCH: It says what it says, doesn't it?


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: If you have a question on it - a meaningful question about it, ask it. If not, move on. These are all things you can make submissions on     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, yeah.


BENCH:      at the end of the evidence. I don't simply want you to ask a witness what - to read what's on a screen because we can all read that. But you can ask questions arising out of it, of course, but don't simply ask a witness to read something and then, leave it at that.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Have any other questions?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, yes, yes.


BENCH: Well, hurry up, then. You're wasting time.


DEFENDANT: Apologies, your Honour, apologies. I'm concerned about when you say you had lengthy discussions with Julie Dick over the phone that you may remember something - yeah, if we go to the District Court, you may remember something else that was said. So, I'm just wanting to     


BENCH: Have you told - Mr Read, have you told the Court everything that you can remember about your conversations with Julie Dick - and this is Leopard Court?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, Julie Dick in Leopard Court.



BENCH: Julie Dick, Leopard Court?   Yep. I believe that I've covered it as much as I can recall about any conversations I've had with her, the fact that she was concerned at the start, the photos of her house; that she was running a business there in relation to caring for young children.  [Editorial: Read What Julie Dick has to say about it herself. It is not a business.  It is a random job. She will home care for others' kids as determined by Morton Regional Council.  It has none of the characteristics of a business. It is an Unskilled Part-Time Casual Day Job.]  That she didn't know who the person was who was coming to the house, taking the photos and she had major concerns regarding that and for the children. And she obviously wanted to make a complaint and have the sites removed. She didn't know who did it. She had no idea who would want to do it.


DEFENDANT: Did she believe the - it was directed at her?


MR HUNTER: How can this witness     


BENCH: Look     


DEFENDANT: Did she state that she - that it was directed at her?


MR HUNTER: Well     


BENCH: Look     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Move on. The witness has said everything that happened between her and him in conversation.


DEFENDANT: Well, it does say he had lengthy discussions and a witness has also said he had many, many discussions with her.


BENCH: Well, he's just given to the Court a prťcis of everything that happened between them.


DEFENDANT: And so, most of her - well, was she repeating most of her calls were repetitious, were they?   She's obviously concerned. The sites are still up, so she'd ring back.



BENCH: You're becoming repetitious, Mr Mathews. I'm going to ask you to move on from that topic, because you canvassed that - these issues this morning and after lunch. I direct you to move on to another topic.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Do you have any further questions for the witness, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: I do, your Honour. My mind is going blank.


BENCH: Well, if you don't - if you don't ask one soon, I'm going to treat your cross-examination at an end - as at - as being at an end.


DEFENDANT: My mind is blank. I'm - it happens and I mean, I'm - I had been - you know, having to concentrate consistently today and yesterday and it's not in accordance with my - the adaptation I have worked - evolved for my - yeah, with my disability, your Honour.


I know I have more questions for this witness, your Honour. But my mind is blank at the moment.


BENCH: What do they relate to?


DEFENDANT: To the evidence, your Honour but I'm - it's - it is my disability, your Honour. I - it - can't do anything about it. I wished I didn't have it. I - you know     


BENCH: Well, you can get some assistance in these proceedings.

[Editorial: Magistrate Paul M Kluck has blundered repeatedly, and so has Shane Hunter.  To have had my Special Needs Accommodated, as they are BOTH required to have done, I should not have been forced to this level of Exhaustion. Disabled Persons are entitled to expect to live with DIGNITY.   THERE IS NO DIGNITY IN BEING REPEATEDLY THREATENED, AS I HAVE BEEN.  Additionally, there is no dignity in being denied ACCOMMODATION of my Special Needs, and instead, having to endure the indignation as I would now, if I followed Kluck's suggestion of engaging counsel, ["some assistance in these proceedings"], and so of having to rely upon another person.  It is torture to be forced to try to perform when I am mentally fatigued. This presage to mental fatigue is solely a consequence of my brain damage disability. It is further indignity that I am forced to suffer, to then have, as Kluck now attempts, for others to try to suggest alternative "accommodations", such as Kluck has done to suggest that maybe medication can replace lost brain tissue.]

DEFENDANT: With concentrating?

BENCH: With assisting you in running your case. But you've told me on the review that you don't trust solicitors so we can take it that you're not going to be legally represented ever in these proceedings, at least. So, you have got no one to take notes with you and prompt you - take notes for you and prompt you?

[Editorial: This would be a real circus, with me looking the subject of derision for me to have to have one more matter to consider being some other person taking notes and "prompting" me. Suppose that I did "have" such a person, would Kluck force me to use that person?  So, why did yhe ask that question in that way?  Magistrate Paul M Kluck clearly believed that he could FORCE me to continue when my disability prevented me.]

DEFENDANT: Well, no, I don't, your Honour.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: I     


BENCH: All right, then. Mr Read, upon the application of Mr Hunter, we're going to interpose some witnesses on Monday. So, I understand that you'll be back on     


MR HUNTER: No. Unfortunately, your Honour, his situation has changed since I spoke to him and the     


BENCH: I see.


MR HUNTER: Perhaps he can explain to the Court where we're going to, what his situation is but     


BENCH: Well, you're fully appraised, are you?


MR HUNTER: Yes, I am.


BENCH: What's the situation?


MR HUNTER: He's supposed to be in Canberra all week next week.


BENCH: All right.


MR HUNTER: So, we were hoping to finish him today.


BENCH: Well     


MR HUNTER: But it would seem     


BENCH:      ideally that would be     


MR HUNTER: It would seem that     


BENCH:      the case.


MR HUNTER:      even if we interposed the - Mr and Mrs Dick, Senior Sergeant Bignell who was - effectively now the case officer.


DEFENDANT: Yes.


MR HUNTER: If the cross-examination of Mr Read is any indication, we won't finish in the six days.


BENCH: Well, that's possible and it was always going to be an issue. And - but all of your remaining witnesses are available though     


MR HUNTER: Yes.


BENCH:      till - for the next four days?


MR HUNTER: For the next four days.


BENCH: All right.


MR HUNTER: I'll undertake to have him back at - to have Mr Read back at some later time     


BENCH: Yes.


MR HUNTER:      if Mr Mathews has any further questions for him which he'll have all weekend to work out and then the following four days, particularly, after the cross-examination     


BENCH: Well     


MR HUNTER:      of Senior Sergeant Bignell who will no doubt fill in the gaps that, as has been pointed out by this witness     


BENCH: All right. Well, it's something we won't know. You're telling me now, Mr Mathews that you cannot further proceed this afternoon?


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour. I'm     


BENCH: All right. Now - okay. Well, thank you, Mr Read. Good. Stood down. You're not formally excused from giving evidence     ?   Yes.


     in the proceedings, so you - but that may well be the case, probably not. But you're     ?   Thank you, your Honour.


You can step down.

WITNESS STOOD DOWN

BENCH: So, what we're going to do, Mr Mathews, is     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      proceed with some other witnesses on Monday.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And     


DEFENDANT: Would that be Sergeant Bignell first to     


MR HUNTER: No, it'll be Mr and Mrs Dick first and     


BENCH: Mr or Mrs first?


MR HUNTER: Mrs first, Mr second, then probably Rantala and Antony, given that Rantala's a police Prosecutor now; Anthony, a police officer and then, Bignell after that.


BENCH: All right. But over the weekend, Mr Mathews, I want you to be in a position next week, on Monday, to advise the Court whether you do need Mr Read any further.


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


BENCH: I want you to direct your mind     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      to any further questions     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      that you have for Mr Read.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And also, I want you to direct your mind - you have - you have the evidence of what Mr and Mrs Dick     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      are going to say     


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH:      I want you to direct your mind to your cross-examination.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Have it in - you know, have it some - in some structure.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: I mean, things can happen. Witnesses can say something which will     


DEFENDANT: Yeah.


BENCH:      may lead a cross-examiner off on a different direction but the main structure of your cross-examination.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Okay. I want you to do that. I want you to try and do that because no person has a right to an unending committal or an unending trial.


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour. Yeah.


BENCH: No person     


DEFENDANT: Yeah.


BENCH:      whatever the circumstances     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      has that right. It's not a right. So - but you have a right to a fair hearing - a fair committal     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, yes.


BENCH:      with that rider that we just can't go forever. You understand that?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Regarding if I call any witnesses     


BENCH: Well, look, we - we're not even close to that point and you are only required to consider that if the evidence is sufficient.


DEFENDANT: Yes but     


BENCH: You understand that?


DEFENDANT: Yes. So     


BENCH: You don't even have to think about that until all of the prosecution evidence is in and the Court decides that it's sufficient. Up to that point, you don't have to call any evidence.


DEFENDANT: But can I call evidence in this committal hearing, as opposed to if it's committed as that - then, okay, you call them in the District     


BENCH: You will have the opportunity but only if     


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH:      the evidence is sufficient. Right.


DEFENDANT: But even before the Court decides, can I call witnesses?


BENCH: Well, no, you're not required to.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, but I     


BENCH: And I advise you against it.


DEFENDANT: And so, we wouldn't be able to call them? Okay.

BENCH: You're not required to, by law. Until the prosecution have established a prima facie case, you don't have to give - you don't have to say a thing.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, I know I don't have to say anything, your Honour, but - so     


BENCH: But we're a long way from that.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, I just     


BENCH: It's only when this Court decides the evidence is sufficient that     


DEFENDANT: Would I then have an opportunity to call     


BENCH: You'll have the opportunity.


DEFENDANT: Okay. That would be in - not in this Court though, would it?


BENCH: Yes, in this Court. You will have the opportunity.


DEFENDANT: So, there's - it - they're on the record, then they would then go up to the District Court if that was the case, if it was being     


BENCH: But I would have thought though that the only reason you'd want to call evidence in this Court would be to lead the Court to having heard prosecution evidence and what your evidence will be that there isn't sufficient evidence. You see?


DEFENDANT: My evidence? I     


BENCH: That's the only reason     


DEFENDANT: I won't be giving any evidence.


BENCH: No, you're not required to     


DEFENDANT: No. That's right.


BENCH:      and you don't - and you don't have to call any evidence either.


DEFENDANT: That's right. But you said "my evidence". You mean the evidence I would call.


BENCH: Sorry. I thought you were talking about yourself.


DEFENDANT: What's that?


BENCH: Giving evidence.


DEFENDANT: No, I wouldn't be giving evidence, no.


BENCH: No, you're not required to.


DEFENDANT: No, be calling other witnesses.


BENCH: And also, you're not required to call evidence.


DEFENDANT: That's right. But I mean, I'm wondering if I can call evidence.


BENCH: You can. I've just told you that.


DEFENDANT: Yeah. But only after that     


BENCH: That's right. Only after this Court decides whether the evidence is sufficient. Up to that point, you don't have to say a thing.


DEFENDANT: That's right. And I wouldn't be prevented from - I wouldn't be - I wouldn't be - said, okay, you can call them when you go to the District Court.


BENCH: Look, we're getting far ahead of ourselves here.


DEFENDANT: Okay. No. Okay. IF that's     


BENCH: I don't think I can put it any clearer than what I have.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Thanks, your Honour. So, that's fine.


BENCH: But what I want you to do over the weekend is have your - the structure of your cross-examination ready for Mr and Mrs Dick.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Right. So, you're not winging it. You're not - that would help you, won't it - wouldn't it?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Yes.


BENCH: To have a structure. You know what their evidence is going to be.


DEFENDANT: Yes.


BENCH: Right.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. I     

KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunterQuoteYou have their statements dont you

BENCH: Because you have their statements, don't you?


DEFENDANT: Yeah, I do, yes, your Honour, yeah.

BENCH: Yes, that's basically what they're going to say.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And if they say something different, well, then you can cross-examine them on it but     


DEFENDANT: And I can still cross-examine them on that too.


BENCH: But what you've got there, that is their evidence, so have your structure     


DEFENDANT: Yeah, I can cross     


BENCH:      of your cross-examination ready.


DEFENDANT: Cross-examine on that, yeah, was it?


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Yeah.


BENCH: That's right. Although those statements won't be handed up     


DEFENDANT: No.

BENCH:      they'll give evidence. Presumably, it will be evidence consistent with