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     Follow @HaigReport

 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 about your Personalized Alert Notice [IMMEDIATELY BELOW] 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 3:


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 your advice:  Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay. 

Corrupt Police Rantala, Brisbane Magistrates Court, 28th 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.

MenuAnchorsDay3

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 28th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

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

Magistrates Paul M Kluck's 'housekeeping':

  1. http://HaigReport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100628Day3CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php
  2. Start
  3. Magistrate Paul M Kluck says if my Assistance Dogs cause a Disturbance they Have To Go
  4. I_AdviseAssistanceDogsAwareWhenI_AmFailing
  5. MyAdvice is that My Assistance Dogs are like the Canary In The Coal Mine
  6. KluckAdviceIfI_FailDogsAwareDogsGoButI_MustReturn
  7. Magistrate Kluck Advises He Will Railroad Me
  1. Call Julie Marie Dick
  2. BusinessNameJDsChildCare
  3. JulieDickSaysJDsPlacePlaqueIsIdentifyingMarkOnHouse
  4. HunterLeadingHisWitnessJulieDick
  5. ArrowIsPointingToTheHouseNextDoor
  6. #Cross-Examination Julie Maree Dick
  7. #Poor Julie Dick Thought It Wrong To Have Maps Of Her Home On Internet
  8. #Poor Julie Dick Has Not Complained To Google For Having Map Of Her Home On Internet
  9. #Poor Julie Dick Did Not Know Google Had Maps Of Her Home On Internet
  10. Julie Dick Knew It Was A Google Map As Has Google Written On It
  11. #JulieDickWould_MakeComplaintToGoogleForHavingHerHouseOnTheInternet
  12. #PoorJulieDickBelievesGoogleMapsImagesOnInternetAreAnInvasionOfHerPrivacy
  13. EarlyInDayMyMindWentBlank
  14. EarlyInDayI_ToldKluckMYMindHadGoneBlank
  15. Julie Dick Did Not Know Google Car Had Taken Photos of All Houses in the Street
  16. KluckHarassedMeForMyDisability
  17. KluckRidiculedMeAndMySpecialNeeds
  18. KluckBadgeringMeOverMyDisability
  19. KluckCannotUnderstandLogicOfSpeculation
  20. KluckAnsweringForWitnessJulieDick
  21. Magistrate Kluck Continues His Systemic Abuse Of Me Due To My Brain Damage Disability
  22. KluckTakingAdvantageOfMyDisabilities
  23. KluckUnfairlyRestrictingMe
  24. JulieDickNotUnderstandGoogleAndSearches
  25. KluckAndJulieDickNotUnderstandSimpleQuestionReGoogle
  26. Kluck Restricting My Cross Examination Of Julie Dick
  27. KluckUnfairlyRestrictingMeAgain
  28. KluckStatesThatSimpleQuestionReGoogleIsConfusingNotAllowed
  29. JulieDickDescribesHyerlinks
  30. JulieDickAnswerNotComprehensible
  31. JulieDickDescribesWebSearches
  32. HUNTERForTheRecordTheyWereImagesOf73HawbridgeStreet
  33. HunterExplainsHowHeHasGivenMeIrrelevantStatementsToWasteMyTime
  34. HunterMakesStandingApplicationAdmitsHisFraudMisleadingDisabledDefendant
  35. HunterExcuseForWastnigMyTimeWithIrrelevantStatement
  36. HunterDeliberateFraudToGrosslyDiscriminateAgainstMe
  37. CourtOfAppealReasonableManTestReMenacingHarassingOffensive
  38. HowPoliceMisleadTheDickWitnesses
  39. KluckFalselyStatesMcKenzieFriendCannotAskQuestions
  40. HunterMoreDetailOfExcuseForMisleadingStatementsToMe
  41. I_KnowI_AmNotRequiredToHaveLegalRepresentatives
  42. NotMyIntentionToWasteTheCourtsTime
  43. I_AskKluckWhyProsecutionInChargeOfExhibits
  44. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsHeDoesNotKnowWhyTheCDPP_HaveControlOfTheExhibits
  45. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsItWasNotHisDecision
  46. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsHeIsNotInChargeOfThisCourt
  47. ItAppearsThatTheCDPP_HaveControlOfTheCourtAndExhibitsSoShaneHunterRemoved_StoleTheExhibitsToPreventTheirBeingConsidered
  48. KluckTellsMe I_Have The Witness Statements To Structure My Cross Examination
  49. This Was After CDPP's Shane HunterAdvisedMost of each of the Statements is Irrelevant, but just to waste my time:
  1. Call John Edward Dick
  2. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar01
  3. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar02
  4. Clever Dick John Dick is Proud They Gave Their Two Kids Names Beginning With J so All Four Are JDs
  5. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar03
  6. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar04
  7. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar05
  8. Clever Dick John Dick asks: Do You Want Me To Spell It?
  9. CleverDickJohnDickWhyItWasNotA_Mistake
  10. CleverDickJohnDickItDefinitelyWasNotA_Mistake
  11. CleverDickJohnDickToTellYouTheTruthI_CanNotActuallyRemember
  12. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar06
  13. ShaneHunterHowCleverDickJohnDickFeelsIsIrrelevant
  14. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar07
  15. Copper Brendan Scott Read Sent Many Emails To And From Julie Marie Dick
  1. Call piglet Monica Louise Antony
  2. Call Dumb Corrupt Police Piglet Monica Louise Antony: BigA_Brainwashed With a Bidet
  3. MonicaLouiseAntonyStationedAtCaboolturePoliceStation
  4. MonicaAntonySaysA_KeepThePeaceTypeJob
  5. MonicaLouiseAntonyOrderFromTheHealthDepartment
  6. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesUnderOath
  7. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesUnderOathAgain
  8. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatI_WasTryingToStopBrisbaneCityCouncilCleaningYard
  9. MonicaLouiseAntonyRecitesLieInventedByRantalaForPublicNuisance
  10. MonicaAntonyLieThat i was Arrested for Public Nuisance
  11. MonicaLouiseAntonyWatchHouseBailConditions
  12. My Cross-Examination Of Corrupt Police Piglet, Monica Louise Antony: BigA_Brainwashed With a Bidet begins
  13. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBrisbancCityCouncilWorkersWereActuallyInTheYard
  14. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheCannotRememberThatFarBack
  15. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBrisbaneCityCouncilHadWarrant
  16. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheHasNoIdeaAboutTheEvidence
  17. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBCC_HadCourtOrder
  18. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheSawA_PieceOfPaper
  19. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesSheKnowsThereWasA_HealthDepartmentWarrantToCleanUpTheYard
  20. DummyFemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheCannotRecallBasicFacts
  21. DummyKlutzMagistrateKluckDeniesMeEvidenceForMyDefence
  22. DummyKlutzMagistrateKluckRailroadsDisabledOldManDefendant
  23. ShaneHunterCDPP_LiesThatNoEvidenceOfFabrication
  24. YouWereYellingAndScreamingAtTheCouncilToStopTakingThingsOutOfYourYardAndNotToThrowThatAway
  25. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyIsSeriouslyDumb_WasSheThereAtAll
  26. ItFeelsLikeItWasLike About An Hour That We Were There But I'm Not Sure
  27. FemiPigMonicaLouiseAntonySaysSheCouldFindNoTruthOnWebsite
  28. FemiPigMonicaLouiseAntonyImmediatelyRetracksHerDumbStatement
  29. KlutzKluckGetsConfusedRepeatedly
  30. HunterHasToCorrectKlutzKluckClanger
  31. KlutzKluckWasWrongAndThatWasNotWhatHeMeant
  32. ArticleAboutMonicaLouiseAntonyAtThePCYC_DoingAllThisGoodCharityWork
  33. Now, Check this doozie Monica Antony Logic: If That's What I_Said, It Must Be True
  1. Call Henri Elias Rantala
  2. HenriRantalaRegisteredNumberIs10865
  3. Henri Rantala Is Sergeant At Brisbane Police Prosecution Corps
  4. Rantala Admits & Sets Firmly Date of Armed Robbery 20041129_29th November, 2004
  5. HenriRantalaSaidOwenBenvenutiInMiddleOfThree was in Charge At Scene
  6. RantalaStatesHeSatisfiedHimselfOfLawfulReasonForTheirEntering
  7. Rantala Speaks Of Council Workers Removing Material From My Yard
  8. RantalaBeginsToDetailTheOldLadyInventedForPublicNuisanceCharge
  9. HunterSaysHeWasAboutToShutRantalaDown
  10. NowTheEvidenceOfRantalaLyingUnderOath
  11. HenriEliasRantalaLiesAboutHowHeArrestedMe
  12. RantalaWasWrongAgainThisTimePublicNuisanceChargeNotResolved
  13. PublicNuisanceChargeWasFinallyResolvedThreeWeeksLater, after this appearance of his, In Court of Appeal
  14. MagistrateWalterHarveyEhrich_akaMagistrateTopsyTurvy
  15. Corrupt Cop Rantala Calls Corrupt Magistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich, "Wally"
  16. AnotherLieByRantala
  17. MoreLiesInFactByRantala
  18. YetMoreLiesByRantala
  19. RantalaLiesReStealingMyCarryingDisabilityAids
  20. Rantala Admits His Prosecuting Me For University of Queensland on 2004/11/26
  21. My Cross Examination Of Corrupt Police Parasite Henri Elias Rantala
  22. RantalaHasPreviouslyAdmittedThisButNowLies
  23. SquirmingParasitePigHenriRantalaTriesToWeaselHisWayOut
  24. ParasiteRantalaHasToAdmitHeShouldHaveReturnedMyPropertyToMe
  25. LowLifeRantalaProvesHeIsAlsoA_Dummy
  26. RantalaTriesToDeflectHisResponsibilityOntoColes
  27. HenriRantalaLiesThatHeHadReturnedThemToColes
  28. AnotherRantalaLieAboutWhenSectionOfFenceRemoved
  29. RantalaStatesHeArrivedAtIndooroopillyStationInSeptember2003
  30. RantalaStatesHeLeftIndooroopillyStationInJanuary2005
  31. RantalaStatesHeHadRelievingArrangementAtStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  32. MoreEvidenceExRantalaAsToHowComeHeChargedMeWithUniversityQldWilfulDamage3DaysPrior
  33. MoreCrapFromCorruptCopHenriEliasRantala
  34. RantalaFalselyStatesThatPublicNuisanceChargeDiscontinuedForMyHealthBunkum
  35. CorruptCopHenriRantalaImplicatesSuperintendentDalePointon
  36. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From Ethical Standards Command
  37. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From Security Intelligence Branch
  38. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From State Crime Operations Command
  39. RantalaAdmitsTheBrisbaneCityCouncilDidNotHaveCourtOrder
  40. RantalaAttemptsToEstablishMistakeOfLawForIllegalEntry
  41. RantalaStatesThatTheEntryWasAuthorizedPursuantToTheHealthAct
  42. ARB_Page388_41_RantalaNominatesNoticeBrisbaneCityCouncilSentToMeRegardingEntryToMyHome
  43. Rantala Identifies Letter Coram Court From Brisbane City Council Re Ruse For Entry
  44. I_DirectRantalaToTheBCC_LetterToMeSayingTheyIntendedToEnterMyProperty
  45. RantalaLiesThatTheStatuteGivesTheBCC_AuthorityToEnter
  46. RantalaStatesHeWasShownCopyOfStatute
  47. Corrupt Cop Henri Elias Rantala Admits He Was Armed With Glock Gun
  48. RantalaAdmitsHeWasThereToForceEntryForBrisbaneCityCouncil
  49. RantalaForcedToAnswerQuestionsReRankOfOfficersConcernedWithWebsites
  50. RantalaLiesThatHeSawExcavatorAtMyProperty
  51. RantalaLiesByIdentifyingDiggingEquipmentThatArrivedAfterHeLeft
  52. RantalaRequiredToDrawMudMapOfSceneAndLocation
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, 28th 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.

MenuAnchorsDay3

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 28th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

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

Magistrates Paul M Kluck's 'housekeeping':

  1. http://HaigReport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100628Day3CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php
  2. Start
  3. Magistrate Paul M Kluck says if my Assistance Dogs cause a Disturbance they Have To Go
  4. I_AdviseAssistanceDogsAwareWhenI_AmFailing
  5. MyAdvice is that My Assistance Dogs are like the Canary In The Coal Mine
  6. KluckAdviceIfI_FailDogsAwareDogsGoButI_MustReturn
  7. Magistrate Kluck Advises He Will Railroad Me
  1. Call Julie Marie Dick
  2. BusinessNameJDsChildCare
  3. JulieDickSaysJDsPlacePlaqueIsIdentifyingMarkOnHouse
  4. HunterLeadingHisWitnessJulieDick
  5. ArrowIsPointingToTheHouseNextDoor
  6. #Cross-Examination Julie Maree Dick
  7. #Poor Julie Dick Thought It Wrong To Have Maps Of Her Home On Internet
  8. #Poor Julie Dick Has Not Complained To Google For Having Map Of Her Home On Internet
  9. #Poor Julie Dick Did Not Know Google Had Maps Of Her Home On Internet
  10. Julie Dick Knew It Was A Google Map As Has Google Written On It
  11. #JulieDickWould_MakeComplaintToGoogleForHavingHerHouseOnTheInternet
  12. #PoorJulieDickBelievesGoogleMapsImagesOnInternetAreAnInvasionOfHerPrivacy
  13. EarlyInDayMyMindWentBlank
  14. EarlyInDayI_ToldKluckMYMindHadGoneBlank
  15. Julie Dick Did Not Know Google Car Had Taken Photos of All Houses in the Street
  16. KluckHarassedMeForMyDisability
  17. KluckRidiculedMeAndMySpecialNeeds
  18. KluckBadgeringMeOverMyDisability
  19. KluckCannotUnderstandLogicOfSpeculation
  20. KluckAnsweringForWitnessJulieDick
  21. Magistrate Kluck Continues His Systemic Abuse Of Me Due To My Brain Damage Disability
  22. KluckTakingAdvantageOfMyDisabilities
  23. KluckUnfairlyRestrictingMe
  24. JulieDickNotUnderstandGoogleAndSearches
  25. KluckAndJulieDickNotUnderstandSimpleQuestionReGoogle
  26. Kluck Restricting My Cross Examination Of Julie Dick
  27. KluckUnfairlyRestrictingMeAgain
  28. KluckStatesThatSimpleQuestionReGoogleIsConfusingNotAllowed
  29. JulieDickDescribesHyerlinks
  30. JulieDickAnswerNotComprehensible
  31. JulieDickDescribesWebSearches
  32. HUNTERForTheRecordTheyWereImagesOf73HawbridgeStreet
  33. HunterExplainsHowHeHasGivenMeIrrelevantStatementsToWasteMyTime
  34. HunterMakesStandingApplicationAdmitsHisFraudMisleadingDisabledDefendant
  35. HunterExcuseForWastnigMyTimeWithIrrelevantStatement
  36. HunterDeliberateFraudToGrosslyDiscriminateAgainstMe
  37. CourtOfAppealReasonableManTestReMenacingHarassingOffensive
  38. HowPoliceMisleadTheDickWitnesses
  39. KluckFalselyStatesMcKenzieFriendCannotAskQuestions
  40. HunterMoreDetailOfExcuseForMisleadingStatementsToMe
  41. I_KnowI_AmNotRequiredToHaveLegalRepresentatives
  42. NotMyIntentionToWasteTheCourtsTime
  43. I_AskKluckWhyProsecutionInChargeOfExhibits
  44. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsHeDoesNotKnowWhyTheCDPP_HaveControlOfTheExhibits
  45. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsItWasNotHisDecision
  46. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsHeIsNotInChargeOfThisCourt
  47. ItAppearsThatTheCDPP_HaveControlOfTheCourtAndExhibitsSoShaneHunterRemoved_StoleTheExhibitsToPreventTheirBeingConsidered
  48. KluckTellsMe I_Have The Witness Statements To Structure My Cross Examination
  49. This Was After CDPP's Shane HunterAdvisedMost of each of the Statements is Irrelevant, but just to waste my time:
  1. Call John Edward Dick
  2. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar01
  3. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar02
  4. Clever Dick John Dick is Proud They Gave Their Two Kids Names Beginning With J so All Four Are JDs
  5. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar03
  6. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar04
  7. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar05
  8. Clever Dick John Dick asks: Do You Want Me To Spell It?
  9. CleverDickJohnDickWhyItWasNotA_Mistake
  10. CleverDickJohnDickItDefinitelyWasNotA_Mistake
  11. CleverDickJohnDickToTellYouTheTruthI_CanNotActuallyRemember
  12. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar06
  13. ShaneHunterHowCleverDickJohnDickFeelsIsIrrelevant
  14. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar07
  15. Copper Brendan Scott Read Sent Many Emails To And From Julie Marie Dick
  1. Call piglet Monica Louise Antony
  2. Call Dumb Corrupt Police Piglet Monica Louise Antony: BigA_Brainwashed With a Bidet
  3. MonicaLouiseAntonyStationedAtCaboolturePoliceStation
  4. MonicaAntonySaysA_KeepThePeaceTypeJob
  5. MonicaLouiseAntonyOrderFromTheHealthDepartment
  6. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesUnderOath
  7. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesUnderOathAgain
  8. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatI_WasTryingToStopBrisbaneCityCouncilCleaningYard
  9. MonicaLouiseAntonyRecitesLieInventedByRantalaForPublicNuisance
  10. MonicaAntonyLieThat i was Arrested for Public Nuisance
  11. MonicaLouiseAntonyWatchHouseBailConditions
  12. My Cross-Examination Of Corrupt Police Piglet, Monica Louise Antony: BigA_Brainwashed With a Bidet begins
  13. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBrisbancCityCouncilWorkersWereActuallyInTheYard
  14. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheCannotRememberThatFarBack
  15. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBrisbaneCityCouncilHadWarrant
  16. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheHasNoIdeaAboutTheEvidence
  17. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBCC_HadCourtOrder
  18. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheSawA_PieceOfPaper
  19. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesSheKnowsThereWasA_HealthDepartmentWarrantToCleanUpTheYard
  20. DummyFemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheCannotRecallBasicFacts
  21. DummyKlutzMagistrateKluckDeniesMeEvidenceForMyDefence
  22. DummyKlutzMagistrateKluckRailroadsDisabledOldManDefendant
  23. ShaneHunterCDPP_LiesThatNoEvidenceOfFabrication
  24. YouWereYellingAndScreamingAtTheCouncilToStopTakingThingsOutOfYourYardAndNotToThrowThatAway
  25. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyIsSeriouslyDumb_WasSheThereAtAll
  26. ItFeelsLikeItWasLike About An Hour That We Were There But I'm Not Sure
  27. FemiPigMonicaLouiseAntonySaysSheCouldFindNoTruthOnWebsite
  28. FemiPigMonicaLouiseAntonyImmediatelyRetracksHerDumbStatement
  29. KlutzKluckGetsConfusedRepeatedly
  30. HunterHasToCorrectKlutzKluckClanger
  31. KlutzKluckWasWrongAndThatWasNotWhatHeMeant
  32. ArticleAboutMonicaLouiseAntonyAtThePCYC_DoingAllThisGoodCharityWork
  33. Now, Check this doozie Monica Antony Logic: If That's What I_Said, It Must Be True
  1. Call Henri Elias Rantala
  2. HenriRantalaRegisteredNumberIs10865
  3. Henri Rantala Is Sergeant At Brisbane Police Prosecution Corps
  4. Rantala Admits & Sets Firmly Date of Armed Robbery 20041129_29th November, 2004
  5. HenriRantalaSaidOwenBenvenutiInMiddleOfThree was in Charge At Scene
  6. RantalaStatesHeSatisfiedHimselfOfLawfulReasonForTheirEntering
  7. Rantala Speaks Of Council Workers Removing Material From My Yard
  8. RantalaBeginsToDetailTheOldLadyInventedForPublicNuisanceCharge
  9. HunterSaysHeWasAboutToShutRantalaDown
  10. NowTheEvidenceOfRantalaLyingUnderOath
  11. HenriEliasRantalaLiesAboutHowHeArrestedMe
  12. RantalaWasWrongAgainThisTimePublicNuisanceChargeNotResolved
  13. PublicNuisanceChargeWasFinallyResolvedThreeWeeksLater, after this appearance of his, In Court of Appeal
  14. MagistrateWalterHarveyEhrich_akaMagistrateTopsyTurvy
  15. Corrupt Cop Rantala Calls Corrupt Magistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich, "Wally"
  16. AnotherLieByRantala
  17. MoreLiesInFactByRantala
  18. YetMoreLiesByRantala
  19. RantalaLiesReStealingMyCarryingDisabilityAids
  20. Rantala Admits His Prosecuting Me For University of Queensland on 2004/11/26
  21. My Cross Examination Of Corrupt Police Parasite Henri Elias Rantala
  22. RantalaHasPreviouslyAdmittedThisButNowLies
  23. SquirmingParasitePigHenriRantalaTriesToWeaselHisWayOut
  24. ParasiteRantalaHasToAdmitHeShouldHaveReturnedMyPropertyToMe
  25. LowLifeRantalaProvesHeIsAlsoA_Dummy
  26. RantalaTriesToDeflectHisResponsibilityOntoColes
  27. HenriRantalaLiesThatHeHadReturnedThemToColes
  28. AnotherRantalaLieAboutWhenSectionOfFenceRemoved
  29. RantalaStatesHeArrivedAtIndooroopillyStationInSeptember2003
  30. RantalaStatesHeLeftIndooroopillyStationInJanuary2005
  31. RantalaStatesHeHadRelievingArrangementAtStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  32. MoreEvidenceExRantalaAsToHowComeHeChargedMeWithUniversityQldWilfulDamage3DaysPrior
  33. MoreCrapFromCorruptCopHenriEliasRantala
  34. RantalaFalselyStatesThatPublicNuisanceChargeDiscontinuedForMyHealthBunkum
  35. CorruptCopHenriRantalaImplicatesSuperintendentDalePointon
  36. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From Ethical Standards Command
  37. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From Security Intelligence Branch
  38. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From State Crime Operations Command
  39. RantalaAdmitsTheBrisbaneCityCouncilDidNotHaveCourtOrder
  40. RantalaAttemptsToEstablishMistakeOfLawForIllegalEntry
  41. RantalaStatesThatTheEntryWasAuthorizedPursuantToTheHealthAct
  42. ARB_Page388_41_RantalaNominatesNoticeBrisbaneCityCouncilSentToMeRegardingEntryToMyHome
  43. Rantala Identifies Letter Coram Court From Brisbane City Council Re Ruse For Entry
  44. I_DirectRantalaToTheBCC_LetterToMeSayingTheyIntendedToEnterMyProperty
  45. RantalaLiesThatTheStatuteGivesTheBCC_AuthorityToEnter
  46. RantalaStatesHeWasShownCopyOfStatute
  47. Corrupt Cop Henri Elias Rantala Admits He Was Armed With Glock Gun
  48. RantalaAdmitsHeWasThereToForceEntryForBrisbaneCityCouncil
  49. RantalaForcedToAnswerQuestionsReRankOfOfficersConcernedWithWebsites
  50. RantalaLiesThatHeSawExcavatorAtMyProperty
  51. RantalaLiesByIdentifyingDiggingEquipmentThatArrivedAfterHeLeft
  52. RantalaRequiredToDrawMudMapOfSceneAndLocation

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.

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, 28th 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.

MenuAnchorsDay3

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 28th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

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

Magistrates Paul M Kluck's 'housekeeping':

  1. http://HaigReport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100628Day3CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php
  2. Start
  3. Magistrate Paul M Kluck says if my Assistance Dogs cause a Disturbance they Have To Go
  4. I_AdviseAssistanceDogsAwareWhenI_AmFailing
  5. MyAdvice is that My Assistance Dogs are like the Canary In The Coal Mine
  6. KluckAdviceIfI_FailDogsAwareDogsGoButI_MustReturn
  7. Magistrate Kluck Advises He Will Railroad Me
  1. Call Julie Marie Dick
  2. BusinessNameJDsChildCare
  3. JulieDickSaysJDsPlacePlaqueIsIdentifyingMarkOnHouse
  4. HunterLeadingHisWitnessJulieDick
  5. ArrowIsPointingToTheHouseNextDoor
  6. #Cross-Examination Julie Maree Dick
  7. #Poor Julie Dick Thought It Wrong To Have Maps Of Her Home On Internet
  8. #Poor Julie Dick Has Not Complained To Google For Having Map Of Her Home On Internet
  9. #Poor Julie Dick Did Not Know Google Had Maps Of Her Home On Internet
  10. Julie Dick Knew It Was A Google Map As Has Google Written On It
  11. #JulieDickWould_MakeComplaintToGoogleForHavingHerHouseOnTheInternet
  12. #PoorJulieDickBelievesGoogleMapsImagesOnInternetAreAnInvasionOfHerPrivacy
  13. EarlyInDayMyMindWentBlank
  14. EarlyInDayI_ToldKluckMYMindHadGoneBlank
  15. Julie Dick Did Not Know Google Car Had Taken Photos of All Houses in the Street
  16. KluckHarassedMeForMyDisability
  17. KluckRidiculedMeAndMySpecialNeeds
  18. KluckBadgeringMeOverMyDisability
  19. KluckCannotUnderstandLogicOfSpeculation
  20. KluckAnsweringForWitnessJulieDick
  21. Magistrate Kluck Continues His Systemic Abuse Of Me Due To My Brain Damage Disability
  22. KluckTakingAdvantageOfMyDisabilities
  23. KluckUnfairlyRestrictingMe
  24. JulieDickNotUnderstandGoogleAndSearches
  25. KluckAndJulieDickNotUnderstandSimpleQuestionReGoogle
  26. Kluck Restricting My Cross Examination Of Julie Dick
  27. KluckUnfairlyRestrictingMeAgain
  28. KluckStatesThatSimpleQuestionReGoogleIsConfusingNotAllowed
  29. JulieDickDescribesHyerlinks
  30. JulieDickAnswerNotComprehensible
  31. JulieDickDescribesWebSearches
  32. HUNTERForTheRecordTheyWereImagesOf73HawbridgeStreet
  33. HunterExplainsHowHeHasGivenMeIrrelevantStatementsToWasteMyTime
  34. HunterMakesStandingApplicationAdmitsHisFraudMisleadingDisabledDefendant
  35. HunterExcuseForWastnigMyTimeWithIrrelevantStatement
  36. HunterDeliberateFraudToGrosslyDiscriminateAgainstMe
  37. CourtOfAppealReasonableManTestReMenacingHarassingOffensive
  38. HowPoliceMisleadTheDickWitnesses
  39. KluckFalselyStatesMcKenzieFriendCannotAskQuestions
  40. HunterMoreDetailOfExcuseForMisleadingStatementsToMe
  41. I_KnowI_AmNotRequiredToHaveLegalRepresentatives
  42. NotMyIntentionToWasteTheCourtsTime
  43. I_AskKluckWhyProsecutionInChargeOfExhibits
  44. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsHeDoesNotKnowWhyTheCDPP_HaveControlOfTheExhibits
  45. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsItWasNotHisDecision
  46. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsHeIsNotInChargeOfThisCourt
  47. ItAppearsThatTheCDPP_HaveControlOfTheCourtAndExhibitsSoShaneHunterRemoved_StoleTheExhibitsToPreventTheirBeingConsidered
  48. KluckTellsMe I_Have The Witness Statements To Structure My Cross Examination
  49. This Was After CDPP's Shane HunterAdvisedMost of each of the Statements is Irrelevant, but just to waste my time:
  1. Call John Edward Dick
  2. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar01
  3. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar02
  4. Clever Dick John Dick is Proud They Gave Their Two Kids Names Beginning With J so All Four Are JDs
  5. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar03
  6. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar04
  7. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar05
  8. Clever Dick John Dick asks: Do You Want Me To Spell It?
  9. CleverDickJohnDickWhyItWasNotA_Mistake
  10. CleverDickJohnDickItDefinitelyWasNotA_Mistake
  11. CleverDickJohnDickToTellYouTheTruthI_CanNotActuallyRemember
  12. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar06
  13. ShaneHunterHowCleverDickJohnDickFeelsIsIrrelevant
  14. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar07
  15. Copper Brendan Scott Read Sent Many Emails To And From Julie Marie Dick
  1. Call piglet Monica Louise Antony
  2. Call Dumb Corrupt Police Piglet Monica Louise Antony: BigA_Brainwashed With a Bidet
  3. MonicaLouiseAntonyStationedAtCaboolturePoliceStation
  4. MonicaAntonySaysA_KeepThePeaceTypeJob
  5. MonicaLouiseAntonyOrderFromTheHealthDepartment
  6. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesUnderOath
  7. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesUnderOathAgain
  8. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatI_WasTryingToStopBrisbaneCityCouncilCleaningYard
  9. MonicaLouiseAntonyRecitesLieInventedByRantalaForPublicNuisance
  10. MonicaAntonyLieThat i was Arrested for Public Nuisance
  11. MonicaLouiseAntonyWatchHouseBailConditions
  12. My Cross-Examination Of Corrupt Police Piglet, Monica Louise Antony: BigA_Brainwashed With a Bidet begins
  13. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBrisbancCityCouncilWorkersWereActuallyInTheYard
  14. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheCannotRememberThatFarBack
  15. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBrisbaneCityCouncilHadWarrant
  16. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheHasNoIdeaAboutTheEvidence
  17. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBCC_HadCourtOrder
  18. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheSawA_PieceOfPaper
  19. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesSheKnowsThereWasA_HealthDepartmentWarrantToCleanUpTheYard
  20. DummyFemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheCannotRecallBasicFacts
  21. DummyKlutzMagistrateKluckDeniesMeEvidenceForMyDefence
  22. DummyKlutzMagistrateKluckRailroadsDisabledOldManDefendant
  23. ShaneHunterCDPP_LiesThatNoEvidenceOfFabrication
  24. YouWereYellingAndScreamingAtTheCouncilToStopTakingThingsOutOfYourYardAndNotToThrowThatAway
  25. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyIsSeriouslyDumb_WasSheThereAtAll
  26. ItFeelsLikeItWasLike About An Hour That We Were There But I'm Not Sure
  27. FemiPigMonicaLouiseAntonySaysSheCouldFindNoTruthOnWebsite
  28. FemiPigMonicaLouiseAntonyImmediatelyRetracksHerDumbStatement
  29. KlutzKluckGetsConfusedRepeatedly
  30. HunterHasToCorrectKlutzKluckClanger
  31. KlutzKluckWasWrongAndThatWasNotWhatHeMeant
  32. ArticleAboutMonicaLouiseAntonyAtThePCYC_DoingAllThisGoodCharityWork
  33. Now, Check this doozie Monica Antony Logic: If That's What I_Said, It Must Be True
  1. Call Henri Elias Rantala
  2. HenriRantalaRegisteredNumberIs10865
  3. Henri Rantala Is Sergeant At Brisbane Police Prosecution Corps
  4. Rantala Admits & Sets Firmly Date of Armed Robbery 20041129_29th November, 2004
  5. HenriRantalaSaidOwenBenvenutiInMiddleOfThree was in Charge At Scene
  6. RantalaStatesHeSatisfiedHimselfOfLawfulReasonForTheirEntering
  7. Rantala Speaks Of Council Workers Removing Material From My Yard
  8. RantalaBeginsToDetailTheOldLadyInventedForPublicNuisanceCharge
  9. HunterSaysHeWasAboutToShutRantalaDown
  10. NowTheEvidenceOfRantalaLyingUnderOath
  11. HenriEliasRantalaLiesAboutHowHeArrestedMe
  12. RantalaWasWrongAgainThisTimePublicNuisanceChargeNotResolved
  13. PublicNuisanceChargeWasFinallyResolvedThreeWeeksLater, after this appearance of his, In Court of Appeal
  14. MagistrateWalterHarveyEhrich_akaMagistrateTopsyTurvy
  15. Corrupt Cop Rantala Calls Corrupt Magistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich, "Wally"
  16. AnotherLieByRantala
  17. MoreLiesInFactByRantala
  18. YetMoreLiesByRantala
  19. RantalaLiesReStealingMyCarryingDisabilityAids
  20. Rantala Admits His Prosecuting Me For University of Queensland on 2004/11/26
  21. My Cross Examination Of Corrupt Police Parasite Henri Elias Rantala
  22. RantalaHasPreviouslyAdmittedThisButNowLies
  23. SquirmingParasitePigHenriRantalaTriesToWeaselHisWayOut
  24. ParasiteRantalaHasToAdmitHeShouldHaveReturnedMyPropertyToMe
  25. LowLifeRantalaProvesHeIsAlsoA_Dummy
  26. RantalaTriesToDeflectHisResponsibilityOntoColes
  27. HenriRantalaLiesThatHeHadReturnedThemToColes
  28. AnotherRantalaLieAboutWhenSectionOfFenceRemoved
  29. RantalaStatesHeArrivedAtIndooroopillyStationInSeptember2003
  30. RantalaStatesHeLeftIndooroopillyStationInJanuary2005
  31. RantalaStatesHeHadRelievingArrangementAtStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  32. MoreEvidenceExRantalaAsToHowComeHeChargedMeWithUniversityQldWilfulDamage3DaysPrior
  33. MoreCrapFromCorruptCopHenriEliasRantala
  34. RantalaFalselyStatesThatPublicNuisanceChargeDiscontinuedForMyHealthBunkum
  35. CorruptCopHenriRantalaImplicatesSuperintendentDalePointon
  36. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From Ethical Standards Command
  37. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From Security Intelligence Branch
  38. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From State Crime Operations Command
  39. RantalaAdmitsTheBrisbaneCityCouncilDidNotHaveCourtOrder
  40. RantalaAttemptsToEstablishMistakeOfLawForIllegalEntry
  41. RantalaStatesThatTheEntryWasAuthorizedPursuantToTheHealthAct
  42. ARB_Page388_41_RantalaNominatesNoticeBrisbaneCityCouncilSentToMeRegardingEntryToMyHome
  43. Rantala Identifies Letter Coram Court From Brisbane City Council Re Ruse For Entry
  44. I_DirectRantalaToTheBCC_LetterToMeSayingTheyIntendedToEnterMyProperty
  45. RantalaLiesThatTheStatuteGivesTheBCC_AuthorityToEnter
  46. RantalaStatesHeWasShownCopyOfStatute
  47. Corrupt Cop Henri Elias Rantala Admits He Was Armed With Glock Gun
  48. RantalaAdmitsHeWasThereToForceEntryForBrisbaneCityCouncil
  49. RantalaForcedToAnswerQuestionsReRankOfOfficersConcernedWithWebsites
  50. RantalaLiesThatHeSawExcavatorAtMyProperty
  51. RantalaLiesByIdentifyingDiggingEquipmentThatArrivedAfterHeLeft
  52. RantalaRequiredToDrawMudMapOfSceneAndLocation
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, 28th 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.

MenuAnchorsDay3

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 28th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

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

Magistrates Paul M Kluck's 'housekeeping':

  1. http://HaigReport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100628Day3CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php
  2. Start
  3. Magistrate Paul M Kluck says if my Assistance Dogs cause a Disturbance they Have To Go
  4. I_AdviseAssistanceDogsAwareWhenI_AmFailing
  5. MyAdvice is that My Assistance Dogs are like the Canary In The Coal Mine
  6. KluckAdviceIfI_FailDogsAwareDogsGoButI_MustReturn
  7. Magistrate Kluck Advises He Will Railroad Me
  1. Call Julie Marie Dick
  2. BusinessNameJDsChildCare
  3. JulieDickSaysJDsPlacePlaqueIsIdentifyingMarkOnHouse
  4. HunterLeadingHisWitnessJulieDick
  5. ArrowIsPointingToTheHouseNextDoor
  6. #Cross-Examination Julie Maree Dick
  7. #Poor Julie Dick Thought It Wrong To Have Maps Of Her Home On Internet
  8. #Poor Julie Dick Has Not Complained To Google For Having Map Of Her Home On Internet
  9. #Poor Julie Dick Did Not Know Google Had Maps Of Her Home On Internet
  10. Julie Dick Knew It Was A Google Map As Has Google Written On It
  11. #JulieDickWould_MakeComplaintToGoogleForHavingHerHouseOnTheInternet
  12. #PoorJulieDickBelievesGoogleMapsImagesOnInternetAreAnInvasionOfHerPrivacy
  13. EarlyInDayMyMindWentBlank
  14. EarlyInDayI_ToldKluckMYMindHadGoneBlank
  15. Julie Dick Did Not Know Google Car Had Taken Photos of All Houses in the Street
  16. KluckHarassedMeForMyDisability
  17. KluckRidiculedMeAndMySpecialNeeds
  18. KluckBadgeringMeOverMyDisability
  19. KluckCannotUnderstandLogicOfSpeculation
  20. KluckAnsweringForWitnessJulieDick
  21. Magistrate Kluck Continues His Systemic Abuse Of Me Due To My Brain Damage Disability
  22. KluckTakingAdvantageOfMyDisabilities
  23. KluckUnfairlyRestrictingMe
  24. JulieDickNotUnderstandGoogleAndSearches
  25. KluckAndJulieDickNotUnderstandSimpleQuestionReGoogle
  26. Kluck Restricting My Cross Examination Of Julie Dick
  27. KluckUnfairlyRestrictingMeAgain
  28. KluckStatesThatSimpleQuestionReGoogleIsConfusingNotAllowed
  29. JulieDickDescribesHyerlinks
  30. JulieDickAnswerNotComprehensible
  31. JulieDickDescribesWebSearches
  32. HUNTERForTheRecordTheyWereImagesOf73HawbridgeStreet
  33. HunterExplainsHowHeHasGivenMeIrrelevantStatementsToWasteMyTime
  34. HunterMakesStandingApplicationAdmitsHisFraudMisleadingDisabledDefendant
  35. HunterExcuseForWastnigMyTimeWithIrrelevantStatement
  36. HunterDeliberateFraudToGrosslyDiscriminateAgainstMe
  37. CourtOfAppealReasonableManTestReMenacingHarassingOffensive
  38. HowPoliceMisleadTheDickWitnesses
  39. KluckFalselyStatesMcKenzieFriendCannotAskQuestions
  40. HunterMoreDetailOfExcuseForMisleadingStatementsToMe
  41. I_KnowI_AmNotRequiredToHaveLegalRepresentatives
  42. NotMyIntentionToWasteTheCourtsTime
  43. I_AskKluckWhyProsecutionInChargeOfExhibits
  44. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsHeDoesNotKnowWhyTheCDPP_HaveControlOfTheExhibits
  45. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsItWasNotHisDecision
  46. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsHeIsNotInChargeOfThisCourt
  47. ItAppearsThatTheCDPP_HaveControlOfTheCourtAndExhibitsSoShaneHunterRemoved_StoleTheExhibitsToPreventTheirBeingConsidered
  48. KluckTellsMe I_Have The Witness Statements To Structure My Cross Examination
  49. This Was After CDPP's Shane HunterAdvisedMost of each of the Statements is Irrelevant, but just to waste my time:
  1. Call John Edward Dick
  2. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar01
  3. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar02
  4. Clever Dick John Dick is Proud They Gave Their Two Kids Names Beginning With J so All Four Are JDs
  5. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar03
  6. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar04
  7. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar05
  8. Clever Dick John Dick asks: Do You Want Me To Spell It?
  9. CleverDickJohnDickWhyItWasNotA_Mistake
  10. CleverDickJohnDickItDefinitelyWasNotA_Mistake
  11. CleverDickJohnDickToTellYouTheTruthI_CanNotActuallyRemember
  12. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar06
  13. ShaneHunterHowCleverDickJohnDickFeelsIsIrrelevant
  14. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar07
  15. Copper Brendan Scott Read Sent Many Emails To And From Julie Marie Dick
  1. Call piglet Monica Louise Antony
  2. Call Dumb Corrupt Police Piglet Monica Louise Antony: BigA_Brainwashed With a Bidet
  3. MonicaLouiseAntonyStationedAtCaboolturePoliceStation
  4. MonicaAntonySaysA_KeepThePeaceTypeJob
  5. MonicaLouiseAntonyOrderFromTheHealthDepartment
  6. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesUnderOath
  7. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesUnderOathAgain
  8. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatI_WasTryingToStopBrisbaneCityCouncilCleaningYard
  9. MonicaLouiseAntonyRecitesLieInventedByRantalaForPublicNuisance
  10. MonicaAntonyLieThat i was Arrested for Public Nuisance
  11. MonicaLouiseAntonyWatchHouseBailConditions
  12. My Cross-Examination Of Corrupt Police Piglet, Monica Louise Antony: BigA_Brainwashed With a Bidet begins
  13. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBrisbancCityCouncilWorkersWereActuallyInTheYard
  14. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheCannotRememberThatFarBack
  15. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBrisbaneCityCouncilHadWarrant
  16. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheHasNoIdeaAboutTheEvidence
  17. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBCC_HadCourtOrder
  18. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheSawA_PieceOfPaper
  19. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesSheKnowsThereWasA_HealthDepartmentWarrantToCleanUpTheYard
  20. DummyFemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheCannotRecallBasicFacts
  21. DummyKlutzMagistrateKluckDeniesMeEvidenceForMyDefence
  22. DummyKlutzMagistrateKluckRailroadsDisabledOldManDefendant
  23. ShaneHunterCDPP_LiesThatNoEvidenceOfFabrication
  24. YouWereYellingAndScreamingAtTheCouncilToStopTakingThingsOutOfYourYardAndNotToThrowThatAway
  25. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyIsSeriouslyDumb_WasSheThereAtAll
  26. ItFeelsLikeItWasLike About An Hour That We Were There But I'm Not Sure
  27. FemiPigMonicaLouiseAntonySaysSheCouldFindNoTruthOnWebsite
  28. FemiPigMonicaLouiseAntonyImmediatelyRetracksHerDumbStatement
  29. KlutzKluckGetsConfusedRepeatedly
  30. HunterHasToCorrectKlutzKluckClanger
  31. KlutzKluckWasWrongAndThatWasNotWhatHeMeant
  32. ArticleAboutMonicaLouiseAntonyAtThePCYC_DoingAllThisGoodCharityWork
  33. Now, Check this doozie Monica Antony Logic: If That's What I_Said, It Must Be True
  1. Call Henri Elias Rantala
  2. HenriRantalaRegisteredNumberIs10865
  3. Henri Rantala Is Sergeant At Brisbane Police Prosecution Corps
  4. Rantala Admits & Sets Firmly Date of Armed Robbery 20041129_29th November, 2004
  5. HenriRantalaSaidOwenBenvenutiInMiddleOfThree was in Charge At Scene
  6. RantalaStatesHeSatisfiedHimselfOfLawfulReasonForTheirEntering
  7. Rantala Speaks Of Council Workers Removing Material From My Yard
  8. RantalaBeginsToDetailTheOldLadyInventedForPublicNuisanceCharge
  9. HunterSaysHeWasAboutToShutRantalaDown
  10. NowTheEvidenceOfRantalaLyingUnderOath
  11. HenriEliasRantalaLiesAboutHowHeArrestedMe
  12. RantalaWasWrongAgainThisTimePublicNuisanceChargeNotResolved
  13. PublicNuisanceChargeWasFinallyResolvedThreeWeeksLater, after this appearance of his, In Court of Appeal
  14. MagistrateWalterHarveyEhrich_akaMagistrateTopsyTurvy
  15. Corrupt Cop Rantala Calls Corrupt Magistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich, "Wally"
  16. AnotherLieByRantala
  17. MoreLiesInFactByRantala
  18. YetMoreLiesByRantala
  19. RantalaLiesReStealingMyCarryingDisabilityAids
  20. Rantala Admits His Prosecuting Me For University of Queensland on 2004/11/26
  21. My Cross Examination Of Corrupt Police Parasite Henri Elias Rantala
  22. RantalaHasPreviouslyAdmittedThisButNowLies
  23. SquirmingParasitePigHenriRantalaTriesToWeaselHisWayOut
  24. ParasiteRantalaHasToAdmitHeShouldHaveReturnedMyPropertyToMe
  25. LowLifeRantalaProvesHeIsAlsoA_Dummy
  26. RantalaTriesToDeflectHisResponsibilityOntoColes
  27. HenriRantalaLiesThatHeHadReturnedThemToColes
  28. AnotherRantalaLieAboutWhenSectionOfFenceRemoved
  29. RantalaStatesHeArrivedAtIndooroopillyStationInSeptember2003
  30. RantalaStatesHeLeftIndooroopillyStationInJanuary2005
  31. RantalaStatesHeHadRelievingArrangementAtStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  32. MoreEvidenceExRantalaAsToHowComeHeChargedMeWithUniversityQldWilfulDamage3DaysPrior
  33. MoreCrapFromCorruptCopHenriEliasRantala
  34. RantalaFalselyStatesThatPublicNuisanceChargeDiscontinuedForMyHealthBunkum
  35. CorruptCopHenriRantalaImplicatesSuperintendentDalePointon
  36. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From Ethical Standards Command
  37. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From Security Intelligence Branch
  38. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From State Crime Operations Command
  39. RantalaAdmitsTheBrisbaneCityCouncilDidNotHaveCourtOrder
  40. RantalaAttemptsToEstablishMistakeOfLawForIllegalEntry
  41. RantalaStatesThatTheEntryWasAuthorizedPursuantToTheHealthAct
  42. ARB_Page388_41_RantalaNominatesNoticeBrisbaneCityCouncilSentToMeRegardingEntryToMyHome
  43. Rantala Identifies Letter Coram Court From Brisbane City Council Re Ruse For Entry
  44. I_DirectRantalaToTheBCC_LetterToMeSayingTheyIntendedToEnterMyProperty
  45. RantalaLiesThatTheStatuteGivesTheBCC_AuthorityToEnter
  46. RantalaStatesHeWasShownCopyOfStatute
  47. Corrupt Cop Henri Elias Rantala Admits He Was Armed With Glock Gun
  48. RantalaAdmitsHeWasThereToForceEntryForBrisbaneCityCouncil
  49. RantalaForcedToAnswerQuestionsReRankOfOfficersConcernedWithWebsites
  50. RantalaLiesThatHeSawExcavatorAtMyProperty
  51. RantalaLiesByIdentifyingDiggingEquipmentThatArrivedAfterHeLeft
  52. RantalaRequiredToDrawMudMapOfSceneAndLocation
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.

MenuAnchorsDay3

Brisbane Magistrates Court, 28th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Paul M Kluck:

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

Magistrates Paul M Kluck's 'housekeeping':

  1. http://HaigReport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100628Day3CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php
  2. Start
  3. Magistrate Paul M Kluck says if my Assistance Dogs cause a Disturbance they Have To Go
  4. I_AdviseAssistanceDogsAwareWhenI_AmFailing
  5. MyAdvice is that My Assistance Dogs are like the Canary In The Coal Mine
  6. KluckAdviceIfI_FailDogsAwareDogsGoButI_MustReturn
  7. Magistrate Kluck Advises He Will Railroad Me
  1. Call Julie Marie Dick
  2. BusinessNameJDsChildCare
  3. JulieDickSaysJDsPlacePlaqueIsIdentifyingMarkOnHouse
  4. HunterLeadingHisWitnessJulieDick
  5. ArrowIsPointingToTheHouseNextDoor
  6. #Cross-Examination Julie Maree Dick
  7. #Poor Julie Dick Thought It Wrong To Have Maps Of Her Home On Internet
  8. #Poor Julie Dick Has Not Complained To Google For Having Map Of Her Home On Internet
  9. #Poor Julie Dick Did Not Know Google Had Maps Of Her Home On Internet
  10. Julie Dick Knew It Was A Google Map As Has Google Written On It
  11. #JulieDickWould_MakeComplaintToGoogleForHavingHerHouseOnTheInternet
  12. #PoorJulieDickBelievesGoogleMapsImagesOnInternetAreAnInvasionOfHerPrivacy
  13. EarlyInDayMyMindWentBlank
  14. EarlyInDayI_ToldKluckMYMindHadGoneBlank
  15. Julie Dick Did Not Know Google Car Had Taken Photos of All Houses in the Street
  16. KluckHarassedMeForMyDisability
  17. KluckRidiculedMeAndMySpecialNeeds
  18. KluckBadgeringMeOverMyDisability
  19. KluckCannotUnderstandLogicOfSpeculation
  20. KluckAnsweringForWitnessJulieDick
  21. Magistrate Kluck Continues His Systemic Abuse Of Me Due To My Brain Damage Disability
  22. KluckTakingAdvantageOfMyDisabilities
  23. KluckUnfairlyRestrictingMe
  24. JulieDickNotUnderstandGoogleAndSearches
  25. KluckAndJulieDickNotUnderstandSimpleQuestionReGoogle
  26. Kluck Restricting My Cross Examination Of Julie Dick
  27. KluckUnfairlyRestrictingMeAgain
  28. KluckStatesThatSimpleQuestionReGoogleIsConfusingNotAllowed
  29. JulieDickDescribesHyerlinks
  30. JulieDickAnswerNotComprehensible
  31. JulieDickDescribesWebSearches
  32. HUNTERForTheRecordTheyWereImagesOf73HawbridgeStreet
  33. HunterExplainsHowHeHasGivenMeIrrelevantStatementsToWasteMyTime
  34. HunterMakesStandingApplicationAdmitsHisFraudMisleadingDisabledDefendant
  35. HunterExcuseForWastnigMyTimeWithIrrelevantStatement
  36. HunterDeliberateFraudToGrosslyDiscriminateAgainstMe
  37. CourtOfAppealReasonableManTestReMenacingHarassingOffensive
  38. HowPoliceMisleadTheDickWitnesses
  39. KluckFalselyStatesMcKenzieFriendCannotAskQuestions
  40. HunterMoreDetailOfExcuseForMisleadingStatementsToMe
  41. I_KnowI_AmNotRequiredToHaveLegalRepresentatives
  42. NotMyIntentionToWasteTheCourtsTime
  43. I_AskKluckWhyProsecutionInChargeOfExhibits
  44. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsHeDoesNotKnowWhyTheCDPP_HaveControlOfTheExhibits
  45. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsItWasNotHisDecision
  46. MagistrateKluckTheKlutzAdmitsHeIsNotInChargeOfThisCourt
  47. ItAppearsThatTheCDPP_HaveControlOfTheCourtAndExhibitsSoShaneHunterRemoved_StoleTheExhibitsToPreventTheirBeingConsidered
  48. KluckTellsMe I_Have The Witness Statements To Structure My Cross Examination
  49. This Was After CDPP's Shane HunterAdvisedMost of each of the Statements is Irrelevant, but just to waste my time:
  1. Call John Edward Dick
  2. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar01
  3. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar02
  4. Clever Dick John Dick is Proud They Gave Their Two Kids Names Beginning With J so All Four Are JDs
  5. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar03
  6. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar04
  7. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar05
  8. Clever Dick John Dick asks: Do You Want Me To Spell It?
  9. CleverDickJohnDickWhyItWasNotA_Mistake
  10. CleverDickJohnDickItDefinitelyWasNotA_Mistake
  11. CleverDickJohnDickToTellYouTheTruthI_CanNotActuallyRemember
  12. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar06
  13. ShaneHunterHowCleverDickJohnDickFeelsIsIrrelevant
  14. We Wonder If Clever Dick John Dick's Spelling Is As Good As His Grammar07
  15. Copper Brendan Scott Read Sent Many Emails To And From Julie Marie Dick
  1. Call piglet Monica Louise Antony
  2. Call Dumb Corrupt Police Piglet Monica Louise Antony: BigA_Brainwashed With a Bidet
  3. MonicaLouiseAntonyStationedAtCaboolturePoliceStation
  4. MonicaAntonySaysA_KeepThePeaceTypeJob
  5. MonicaLouiseAntonyOrderFromTheHealthDepartment
  6. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesUnderOath
  7. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesUnderOathAgain
  8. MonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatI_WasTryingToStopBrisbaneCityCouncilCleaningYard
  9. MonicaLouiseAntonyRecitesLieInventedByRantalaForPublicNuisance
  10. MonicaAntonyLieThat i was Arrested for Public Nuisance
  11. MonicaLouiseAntonyWatchHouseBailConditions
  12. My Cross-Examination Of Corrupt Police Piglet, Monica Louise Antony: BigA_Brainwashed With a Bidet begins
  13. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBrisbancCityCouncilWorkersWereActuallyInTheYard
  14. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheCannotRememberThatFarBack
  15. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBrisbaneCityCouncilHadWarrant
  16. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheHasNoIdeaAboutTheEvidence
  17. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesThatBCC_HadCourtOrder
  18. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheSawA_PieceOfPaper
  19. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyLiesSheKnowsThereWasA_HealthDepartmentWarrantToCleanUpTheYard
  20. DummyFemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyAdmitsSheCannotRecallBasicFacts
  21. DummyKlutzMagistrateKluckDeniesMeEvidenceForMyDefence
  22. DummyKlutzMagistrateKluckRailroadsDisabledOldManDefendant
  23. ShaneHunterCDPP_LiesThatNoEvidenceOfFabrication
  24. YouWereYellingAndScreamingAtTheCouncilToStopTakingThingsOutOfYourYardAndNotToThrowThatAway
  25. FemiCopMonicaLouiseAntonyIsSeriouslyDumb_WasSheThereAtAll
  26. ItFeelsLikeItWasLike About An Hour That We Were There But I'm Not Sure
  27. FemiPigMonicaLouiseAntonySaysSheCouldFindNoTruthOnWebsite
  28. FemiPigMonicaLouiseAntonyImmediatelyRetracksHerDumbStatement
  29. KlutzKluckGetsConfusedRepeatedly
  30. HunterHasToCorrectKlutzKluckClanger
  31. KlutzKluckWasWrongAndThatWasNotWhatHeMeant
  32. ArticleAboutMonicaLouiseAntonyAtThePCYC_DoingAllThisGoodCharityWork
  33. Now, Check this doozie Monica Antony Logic: If That's What I_Said, It Must Be True
  1. Call Henri Elias Rantala
  2. HenriRantalaRegisteredNumberIs10865
  3. Henri Rantala Is Sergeant At Brisbane Police Prosecution Corps
  4. Rantala Admits & Sets Firmly Date of Armed Robbery 20041129_29th November, 2004
  5. HenriRantalaSaidOwenBenvenutiInMiddleOfThree was in Charge At Scene
  6. RantalaStatesHeSatisfiedHimselfOfLawfulReasonForTheirEntering
  7. Rantala Speaks Of Council Workers Removing Material From My Yard
  8. RantalaBeginsToDetailTheOldLadyInventedForPublicNuisanceCharge
  9. HunterSaysHeWasAboutToShutRantalaDown
  10. NowTheEvidenceOfRantalaLyingUnderOath
  11. HenriEliasRantalaLiesAboutHowHeArrestedMe
  12. RantalaWasWrongAgainThisTimePublicNuisanceChargeNotResolved
  13. PublicNuisanceChargeWasFinallyResolvedThreeWeeksLater, after this appearance of his, In Court of Appeal
  14. MagistrateWalterHarveyEhrich_akaMagistrateTopsyTurvy
  15. Corrupt Cop Rantala Calls Corrupt Magistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich, "Wally"
  16. AnotherLieByRantala
  17. MoreLiesInFactByRantala
  18. YetMoreLiesByRantala
  19. RantalaLiesReStealingMyCarryingDisabilityAids
  20. Rantala Admits His Prosecuting Me For University of Queensland on 2004/11/26
  21. My Cross Examination Of Corrupt Police Parasite Henri Elias Rantala
  22. RantalaHasPreviouslyAdmittedThisButNowLies
  23. SquirmingParasitePigHenriRantalaTriesToWeaselHisWayOut
  24. ParasiteRantalaHasToAdmitHeShouldHaveReturnedMyPropertyToMe
  25. LowLifeRantalaProvesHeIsAlsoA_Dummy
  26. RantalaTriesToDeflectHisResponsibilityOntoColes
  27. HenriRantalaLiesThatHeHadReturnedThemToColes
  28. AnotherRantalaLieAboutWhenSectionOfFenceRemoved
  29. RantalaStatesHeArrivedAtIndooroopillyStationInSeptember2003
  30. RantalaStatesHeLeftIndooroopillyStationInJanuary2005
  31. RantalaStatesHeHadRelievingArrangementAtStateCrimeOperationsCommand
  32. MoreEvidenceExRantalaAsToHowComeHeChargedMeWithUniversityQldWilfulDamage3DaysPrior
  33. MoreCrapFromCorruptCopHenriEliasRantala
  34. RantalaFalselyStatesThatPublicNuisanceChargeDiscontinuedForMyHealthBunkum
  35. CorruptCopHenriRantalaImplicatesSuperintendentDalePointon
  36. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From Ethical Standards Command
  37. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From Security Intelligence Branch
  38. Rantala Implicates Senior Officers From State Crime Operations Command
  39. RantalaAdmitsTheBrisbaneCityCouncilDidNotHaveCourtOrder
  40. RantalaAttemptsToEstablishMistakeOfLawForIllegalEntry
  41. RantalaStatesThatTheEntryWasAuthorizedPursuantToTheHealthAct
  42. ARB_Page388_41_RantalaNominatesNoticeBrisbaneCityCouncilSentToMeRegardingEntryToMyHome
  43. Rantala Identifies Letter Coram Court From Brisbane City Council Re Ruse For Entry
  44. I_DirectRantalaToTheBCC_LetterToMeSayingTheyIntendedToEnterMyProperty
  45. RantalaLiesThatTheStatuteGivesTheBCC_AuthorityToEnter
  46. RantalaStatesHeWasShownCopyOfStatute
  47. Corrupt Cop Henri Elias Rantala Admits He Was Armed With Glock Gun
  48. RantalaAdmitsHeWasThereToForceEntryForBrisbaneCityCouncil
  49. RantalaForcedToAnswerQuestionsReRankOfOfficersConcernedWithWebsites
  50. RantalaLiesThatHeSawExcavatorAtMyProperty
  51. RantalaLiesByIdentifyingDiggingEquipmentThatArrivedAfterHeLeft
  52. RantalaRequiredToDrawMudMapOfSceneAndLocation
http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

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

Corrupt Police Rantala, Brisbane Magistrates Court, 28th June, 2010 Coram Magistrate Mr Paul M Kluck:

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

MAGISTRATES COURT


KLUCK, Magistrate


MAG-00171907/09(8)


THE CROWN

Complainant


and



RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS

Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 28/06/2010


..DAY 3


THE COURT RESUMED

BENCH: Yes. I take the continuation of committal proceedings involving the defendant, Russell Gordon Haig Mathews. And, yes, Mr Hunter?

MR HUNTER: If it please the Court, I call Julie Marie Dick.


DEFENDANT: If I could just say something first, your Honour, just by way of     


BENCH: Yes, before we call that witness. She's     

MR HUNTER: I'll just stop them at the door.


DEFENDANT: Oh, your Honour     


BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT:      you commented the other day about the dogs just being a disturbance at some time, maybe. In fact, it's similar to the - you know, the canary in the coal mine. They are aware of my sensitivities.

[Editorial:    Consider the reality, to which both Kluck and Hunter later, on 9th July, 2010, freely agreedBoth Shane Hunter And Magistrate Paul M_Kluck Agreed My Assistance Dogs Have Not Disrupted Proceedings.     Both Shane Hunter And Magistrate Paul M._Kluck Mutually Agreed How Wonderful They Have Been.]

BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: And, so, if sometime they may seem to be disruptive, it's because they realise that my - I'm failing in - because they - they sense - because we're together all the time, they - they sense how I am.


BENCH: Well, whatever the cause     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      I won't allow them to disrupt the proceedings.


DEFENDANT: Well, what I'm saying, your Honour, is if they do seem to be disrupting the proceedings, it's because I really shouldnít be able to continue, because I'm - I'm becoming - my abilities are declining to such an extent they become aware of it.


BENCH: Mmm. But whatever the cause, they will not disrupt these proceedings.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Sit down.


BENCH: Is there anything else?


DEFENDANT: Well, what I'm saying, your Honour, is that if that was the case, then, you know, we shouldnít continue because of     


BENCH: Oh, so are you saying that their disrupting the proceedings means we should stop?

DEFENDANT: Because - well, because my - my - because I am     


BENCH: Yes, I understand what you're saying. But what I'm saying is     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      those animals are only allowed in this Court     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      if they do not disrupt the proceedings.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. But all I'm - yeah, what I was saying is, if they do, it's because     


BENCH: And if it happens regularly enough, they'll have to go.


DEFENDANT: They are indicating that I am     


BENCH: I understand what you're saying.


DEFENDANT: Well, I - I should not really be continuing, and I would be making a submission at that point.


BENCH: Yes, I - I understand that. I understand that.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Okay. I'd be making that submission at that time. That's all I'm saying, your Honour. Thank you.


BENCH: But if - look, simply because the dogs are disrupting, it means that they have to go, but you'll have to come back.


DEFENDANT: But, if - at that point, they do - they - it would be because I would not be able to continue, at that     


BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT:      point in time.


BENCH: Is there anything else?


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour.


BENCH: Okay. Yes, Mr Hunter.


DEFENDANT: I just want to make that point clear.


BENCH: Call your next witness.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


MR HUNTER: Yes, thank you. I call Julie Marie Dick.



JULIE MARIE DICK, SWORN AND EXAMINED:




BENCH: Thank you. Please be seated. Yes, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Thank you, your Honour. Can you tell the Court your full name, please?   Julie Marie Dick.


And what's your occupation, Mrs Dick?   Family day-care.


Okay. And what's your address?   12 Leopard Court, Warner.


Who else resides at that address?   My husband and my two children.


Okay. Is Dick your maiden name?   No.


What's your maiden name?   Brooker.


Okay. How old are your two children?   Nineteen and 17 and a half.


And what's your husband's occupation?   Printer.


And what sort of hours does that require him to work?   He does night shift, so he leaves home at 8.30 in the evening and gets home about 5.30 in the morning.


Okay. And are your two children always at home when your husband's at work?   No.


Okay. Now, you say you run a family day-care centre. How many children do you look after?   Four children under four.


Four children under four. Okay. Now, do you recall an event around about the middle of 2008, which has resulted in you being here today?   Yes, I do.


Okay. Can you tell us - tell the Court what happened on that particular day?   It was roughly round August/September '08, I was hanging out some washing with my husband, and I didnít - I heard noise - 'cause our dogs were barking, running up and down barking, and     


Mmm?        didnít pay much attention. But they constantly barked and barked and barked. So, then, as we were going out to do the washing, told them to shut up, blah, blah, blah. Then my husband went charging over to the back fence.


Can I just stop you there? Can you describe the fence?   It's a seven foot fence. We     


Can you see through it?   No. No. It's double pailed.


Okay. So he's gone over to the fence. What happened then?   He stood up on the one of the rails     


Mmm?        and I heard him talking to someone, and I thought it was just kids mucking around.


Okay. Well, we donít need to go into it?   Oh, sorry.


Okay. Now, as a - did your husband subsequently have a conversation with you about that exchange he had at the back fence?   Yes.


He did. Okay. And, as a result of that, what did you do?   I called the Petrie Police.


Okay. And you had a conversation with police?   Yes, I did.


Now, does your business have a particular business name?   Yes, I have as business name.


What's that?   JD'S Child Care.


Right. And is there any identifying mark on your house?   Yes, we've got a plaque that says JD's Place.


Right. Okay. So, after youíve spoken to the police the first time, what transpired after that?   Nothing else really - like     


On the day?        on the day.


But subsequent?   No.


But subsequent - subsequent to the first conversation with the police, what happened after that?   Well, then it just - no, we didnít think anything else of it.


Right?   And then my daughter was on the computer with her friends.


When was that with respect to the earlier event?   Yes, about November of '08.


So some months later?   Some months later. And her friends were inviting her to a party. And then they said to her     


Well, we donít need to go into what they said?   Oh, sorry.


As a result of that conversation youíve had with her     ?   Yes.


     what happened then?   Well, then she showed me the internet on - 'cause there is a picture of the house, and     


What house?   Of - of my house on the internet.


Your own house?   Yes, of my house.


And do you know the name of the website that you saw that on?   It was the Haig Report.


Okay. And in what context was your house referred to?   I personally took it as I was being accused of being the Judge at first, because everything that was about her was all of my details, my house     


Okay?        everything.


Are you related in any way to Judge Dick?   No.


Okay. Might the prosecution have Exhibit 3 momentarily? Just while that's being loaded in - so, you say you look at this website called, "Haig Report"     ?   Mmm-mmm.


     I'll just bring up if we can, firstly, file 20080513 in the Haig Report. You see that - that particular graphic     ?   Mmm-mmm.


     did you see that on that particular internet site you were looking at?   Yes.


And can you identify that map, so to speak?   Yes.


DEFENDANT: Thatís leading the witness, your Honour.


BENCH: I'll allow the question.


MR HUNTER: Can she identify the map?


BENCH: I'll allow the question.


WITNESS: Yes. Yes.


MR HUNTER: Where the green arrow is pointing?   Yes.


And how can you identify that?   Because that's my house.


Thatís your house?   That's my house.


Okay. Just go to the next image. And the same again. Can you identify that map?   Yes.


Now, where the green arrow is pointing?   Yes, that's my house.


Right. And was that on the site that you saw?   Yes.


Okay. Go to the next image. Similarly, can you identify that photograph?   Yes.


Now, what about the property to which the green arrow is pointing there?   No, that's not my property.


Is your property in that     ?   Yes.


     photograph?   Yes, it is.


Whereabouts?   Next to it, next to the alleyway on the other side.


So, right or left of the green arrow?   Left.


Okay?   Left.


And to the next photo. Can you identify that one?   Yes.


Was that on the Haig Report as well?   Yes.

And, similarly, the  arrow is pointing to the house next door?   Yes.


Okay. Right. Can we go then to Haig Report, file entitled Judge Julie, or commencing "Judge Julie." Okay. Are you familiar with this particular document?   Yes.


Is this, in any way, referable to the document you referred to the document you referred to first in your evidence?   Yes.


Is it similar, or is this the one?   Exact one, sorry.


Okay. So, as we just scroll down to that then, please? All right. Can you identify that particular entry on the screen at the moment?   Yes.


Yes. And how can you do that?   'Cause that's - that's my address and my name.


From what appears to be the electoral roll?   Yes.


Okay. Was that on the document you saw     ?   Yes.


     on that particular     ?   Yes, it was.


     day? Okay. Scroll down a bit. Now, the photos we saw earlier that you identified     ?   Mmm-mmm.


     were - and you see there's a blank space there?   Yes. Yes.


Can you say which photograph was - or any of them     ?   Yes.


     in that     ?   Those - yes, the photo was there.


Okay.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour     


BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews? Keep going. Do you have anything - an objection?


DEFENDANT: It doesnít matter, your Honour.


BENCH: All right. Yes, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Okay. I'll just stop you there. Was this - what you see on the screen there, there seems to be an extract from the White Pages. Was that on the internet the day that you're     ?   Yes.


     talking about? It was?   Yes, it was.


And whose details are they?   They are my details.


Okay. Scroll down. And do you recognise the person in this photograph?   Yes.


Who's that?   Thatís my husband.


Okay. Thank you. Now, as a result of seeing all that on the internet, what did you do then?   My husband and I went to the Petrie Police Station.


Right?   And explained what we had seen, and spoke to someone there.


Right. Subsequently, did you go back and look at the - that particular website again?   Yes.


And what did you find?   Well, all the information was still there.


Right?   And then we didnít hear anything from the police for a - for a little while.


Mmm-mmm?   And, then, we kept searching, and everything had gone from the internet site.


And how long after you spoke to the police was that?   I'd say probably a month.


Okay. All right. So, the material disappeared?   Mmm-mmm.


Did you, at any time after that, Google search yourself again?   Yes.


And what did you find?   I found in - I think it was January '09, it was all back on there again.


Right. And what did you do as a result of that?   I contacted Petrie Police again.


Right?   And they said that they would forward it on to someone else, and     


Okay. But - and then, subsequently, you made the statement?   Made a statement. Went down and made a statement to Petrie Police.


Okay. Okay. Thank you, your Honour. Thatís the evidence-in-chief of this witness.


BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews.




CROSS-EXAMINATION:




DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour. Good morning?   Morning.


Now - yes, now, did you - did you think it was wrong to have any of those images that we saw before, separately, images of different maps and such like that on the internet?   Yes.


You thought it was wrong?   Yes.


Did you realise they are Google Maps?   Yes.


Okay. Did you know Google was - so have you explained to Google about this?   No.


Well, Google has maps up on the web of your house. Did you know that Google has a map of your house up on the web?   No.

You didnít know that? But you said that's a Google Map?   Yeah, 'cause it has Google written on it.


Okay. So, would you - okay. Did you realise that Google - Google has pictures of your house on the web?   No, I didnít.


And, so, were you to find - were you to discover that, would you make a complaint to Google?   Yes, I would.


Okay. And - okay. And did you see that - that map with the arrow, you said the arrow was pointing to the house next     ?   Next to it.


     to your house?   Yes.


That - that was a - that was a actual photograph image, wasnít it - was it?   Yes.


Okay. That - did that show your back yard? If we could - could we make that larger, please? Enlarge that for the - for the witness. Okay. Can you see where your house is there?   Yes.


Okay. Now, you find that offensive that that's up on the web?   Yes.


Okay. And is there a photo of your house on the web? Can we could have a look at that, if there's a house - photo of a house on that page at all, or is there a page that have - photo of the house on the page? You recognise that photo there?   Yes, that's my house.


Okay. Do you find that offensive?   Yes, I do.


That photo?   Yes.


The photo. The Court notes, your Honour, that those photos are not in context, because those photos are not     

BENCH: You can make submissions on that.


DEFENDANT: Well - so that - well, just so it's noted, your Honour. That the evidence today donít show those photos on the web page, do they?   No, not today, they donít. No.


No. No. On the evidence before the Court, it doesnít show those in the page. And - mmm. Is there a sign anywhere on your property indicating that you run a child care business?   No.


So Jodie's Child Care's not mentioned anywhere?   No.


Okay. Okay. Now, you mentioned the day when your dogs were barking, your husband was hanging over the back fence talking to someone?   Mmm-mmm.


What day of the week was that?   Oh, I couldnít tell you what day of the week it was.


But you're hanging out washing?   I was hanging out washing. Yes.


Okay. Where were the children you were looking after at that time?   They had gone home.


They'd gone home. They'd been there that day, had they?   Yes, they had.


Okay?   Yes.


Do you look after children on Saturdays?   No.


Sundays?   No.


So that wasnít a Saturday or Sunday     ?   No.


     you're saying?   No, it wasnít.


Okay. Very well. But you can't say what day it was?   No.



How can you say that it wasn't a Saturday or Sunday then?   Because we do soccer on Saturday and Sundays, so washing, in my house, normally doesnít' get done till Monday till Friday.


Okay, so your husband was helping you hang out the washing, was he?   Yes.


You weren't taking in the washing at that time?   Well, we could have been taking it in. Could have been taking in, taking out. I think we might have been bringing it in.


But you say in your statement that you were hanging out the washing, as opposed to bringing in the     ?   Okay, well I was bringing in the washing, then. If that's - that's what I was doing, I was bringing in the washing. I just got confused, because I am a bit nervous, I'm sorry.


And you were nervous at the time you were making the statements, were you?   No. No, I was quite clear in that.


When you were making the statements?   Yes.


The written statements?   Yes.


Do you say in your written statement that you were hanging out your washing?   I think we were bringing in the washing. I'm not     


MR HUNTER: Perhaps the witness should be shown her statement, your Honour.


DEFENDANT: Well, she made the statement, your Honour. And she's     


BENCH: Well, put it to her what she did say in her statement.


DEFENDANT: I was about to, your Honour. I was hanging washing out on the clothes line in my back yard?   Yeah, well thatís what I was doing then, hanging washing out.


Okay. So. You sure now?   Yes.


Okay. "I recall that about August or September I was at home with my husband." I - yeah, okay. Okay. Was your husband upset about having his photograph - no, did he say he was having - no, that's - you say in your statement, "Told me someone had been taking pictures of our back yard"?   Yes.


Anything wrong with that?   Yes.


Mmm. Can we have a look at that image we just had - saw before, with the arrow? The landscape one, that one there. can we enlarge that please, as much as possible. To the maximum. Now, is that your house and backyard?   Yes. Not where the arrow is, though.


No, not where the arrow is, but     ?   Yes.


     yeah, okay. On the other side of that common way?   Yes.


Is that offensive to you?   Yes.


That that is there?   Yes.


Okay. Does it surprise you that that is a Google map? On the Internet, for everyone to see?   Yes, it does. Does surprise me.


That offends you quite substantially that     


BENCH: You've asked her that, and she's answered it numerous times, Mr Mathews. Don't ask it again.


DEFENDANT: Okay. What was your husband doing at this time while you were hanging washing out on the clothes line, in the back yard?   He was helping me, and then he heard some ruckus at the back.


So he was helping you hang out washing? Or he was taking it in, while you were hanging it out? So you are hanging it out, and he's taking it in? Was he?


MR HUNTER: How is this relevant to any issue?


BENCH: I don't know. Is it leading to something, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Well, it's as     


BENCH: If it is, get there quickly.


DEFENDANT:      it's relevant to the     


BENCH: Just - I'll give you the benefit of whatever doubt there may be, about it's leading to something. But you'd want to get to the point, in a hurry.


DEFENDANT: Now, you have said in your statement that you also thought council were taking - might have been taking photos of your dog?   Yes, yes.


Or dogs, plural?   Yes, got two dogs.


Okay. So that would be a reason to complain to the police, would it?   No, actually, I complained to the police because, doing day care, I have to have the best interests of the children that I look after at the present time.


Okay. But you've said in your statement tht you also thought that it might have been the council taking photos of your dogs?   Yes.


And that - so was that a reason to complain to the police? It seemed to be that you mention that straight after you mention the Petrie police?   No, I called the Petrie police first off, before I thought of anyone ringing about my dogs.

Oh, okay, okay. Fair enough. Okay, then you mentioned about the Judge?   Mmm-hmm.


What name does she go by, publicly? That     ?   Judge Julie Marie Dick.


Julie Marie Dick. Which happens to be your name, is that the case?   Yes.


That's right, okay. Now, you knew about her existence, prior to this matter arising?   Yes.


Yes. How did you know of her existence?   Because my husband's a printer, and he prints the paper, and her name would come up, from time to time, in articles.


How do you know that, because he's at work at the printers?   Well, I read the paper.


Oh, okay. So you read the paper?   Yes.


Okay. So I'm just wondering the relevancy, you're saying your husband was a printer, when you just said you saw it in the paper?   Well, he - his friends at work would make comments, "Oh, your wife's in the paper".


Oh I see. And so - and he would refer you to it, and that's why you'd see it?   Yes.


Okay. You wouldn't see it otherwise. Ever any mention on television, of Julie Marie Dick?   No. I've never     


Or radio, or - no other mention? You'd only ever seen her in the newspaper?   Oh, yes, yes. I've never seen her - I've never seen her.


Okay. And what no picture of her in the paper, even?


BENCH: Well, she just said     ?   Not to my understanding, no. There's only been little snippets.


DEFENDANT: Okay, okay. And had that ever concerned you?   No.


That a Judge had your name?   No.


Would it concern you that her real name is not Julie Marie Dick?   No.


MR HUNTER: What's the relevance of this line of questioning?


BENCH: I don't know, Mr Hunter.


MR HUNTER: I object to it.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour     


BENCH: Well, he's cross-examining a witness, and there is a little bit more latitude given, but it must lead to something, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour it definitely does.


BENCH: And if it's going to lead to something, you'd better get to the point. All right. Just keep - can you ask any questions?


DEFENDANT: Well, yes. And um - so you don't read the paper, as a rule?   Yes, I do read the papers.


You do read the papers as a rule?   Yes.


But you wouldn't have seen Julie Marie Dick in the paper unless your husband referred you to it?   Sometimes he showed me, sometimes I flicked through and found it.


Okay. So really it was just that you saw her in the paper?   Yeah.


Okay. I'm just wondering the relevance of your mentioning that the - that your husband had worked as a printer?


BENCH: Well, she's answered that.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Move on.


DEFENDANT: You say the site made reference to you as being the actual Judge? Could that be a mistake?   At the time I didn't think it was a mistake, because everything there was my details. None of them were her details, they were all mine.


Did it say that - did it have a photo of you?   No.


And so what - what did you think it was, if it wasn't a mistake?   I don't know what I thought. I just - it was just someone who - personally I thought it was just someone who was out after the Judge, and got me instead.


I see. That would be mistake, would it?   Well, my personal opinion, I thought if you're going to put something up like that, it would have to be the truth. Before you put someone's information on the computer.


I see. Now, we saw - could we see again, please, the references to your phone. Is there a reference on there with a phone number, J M Dick, address and phone number?


BENCH: Is that what you were looking for, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: To refer the witness to?


DEFENDANT: Now, can you see that - does that offend you that that image is there, with J M Dick, 12 Leopard Court, and your phone number?   Yes.


Now, is that a public record, do you know?   I don't know.


If that was public, would it offend you?   Yes.


Well, I'll put it to you that that is a public record from the - can we just go up a little bit, please, and we'll see what that is. White pages?   But I     


That's White Pages from the Internet?   Yes, but I     


Go on, yes?        I don't think it is being used in the right text, if someone is just trying to find out where you are, to make a phone call to you. To call you.


But is that the only reference for a public listing, I mean has the details - doesn't matter why it's there, for people to use it, if it's public it's public, isn't it?   Yeah, I suppose so, yes.


Okay. So, how was your husband when - now you say you found it on the Internet, in November or something, did you? How     ?   In August/September we found it.


Okay?   Oh no, sorry. The photos were taken over the fence in August/September and we found it in November.


Okay?   Sorry.


Okay. And then did you put together the reason the pictures were taken over the fence?   Yeah, 'cause when we scrolled down, we found the pictures.


You found the pictures of     ?   My husband.


     okay, and that's when you guessed, and you saw - well, the picture of the front of the house, too?   Yes.


Had you realised prior to that, the picture had been taken of the front of the house?   No.


Okay. And who was more offended, you or your husband, that someone had taken a photo     


BENCH: Well, she can't answer that.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Was your husband upset?   Yes.


He was upset? You smile for the record - the witness smiles. He was upset? And - how upset would you say?


MR HUNTER: Again, I object to that question.


BENCH: You can ask - is Mr Dick giving evidence?


DEFENDANT: Yes, he is.


BENCH: You can ask him that.


DEFENDANT: Mmm. Okay.


BENCH: Only he would know how upset he was. There could be some manifestation of that upset. How did it manifest itself, his upset? Your husband's upset?   Just the ongoingness of it.


But how did he     ?   How he was really - really mad. Really cranky.


DEFENDANT: Really cranky. How did - did he yell, or scream, or curse?   He cursed, a lot.


Cursed a lot?   Mmm-hmm.


At the pictures being there, or at the person taking them?


BENCH: Well look, I'd simply ask this witness how her husband's upset manifested itself. She's answered that, and if you want to know any more, you can ask him. So move on from that, with this witness.


DEFENDANT: But it's how the witness observed it too, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, she's just answered it.


DEFENDANT: Yes, yes.


BENCH: So move on.


DEFENDANT: And that was it, that was it. He was very upset. Okay. Do you think anyone had any malice directed towards you, personally? Did you feel that any malice was directed at you,

JD's Childcare?   At the time? I didn't know what to think.


You didn't know what to think?   I didn't know if it was to my business or to me, personally.


Yes. But you were aware that the Judge was involved? You say in your statement that it was at this time that my husband and I realised the two photos were taken of him by the editor of the Haig Report.com?   Yes.


How did you realise that What was the process you followed, to realise that?   Well, we'd seen the Haig Report, and then we Googled Haig Report and my husband said that was the man at the back of the fence.


I see, okay. But now, how would you know that he was the one who took the photos?   He's seen the camera. My husband's seen the camera. I don't - I don't know - I didn't see any of it, so I can't comment on     


Okay. Okay. So it was your husband who realised?   We realised that the person taking photos over the fence, because he had a red shirt on that day, and I know because his shirt had a rip in the sleeve - and we noticed that it was coincidental that it was the same - same shirt, and we just put two and two together.


Okay. Is it wrong to take his photo, of the person taking that photo, was it wrong to do that?   Yes.


It was wrong to take his photo?   Yes.


Why?   Because they were invading our privacy. Putting hands up the back of our fence, and he was just searching, and he didn't know those photos were taken either.


Okay. And so the concern too, with that photo we saw previously, of your back yard, with the arrow     ?   Mmm-hmm.


From vertically, above, would that be an invasion of your privacy?   Yes, if it's used in the wrong way, yes.


That is, if it's published?   Yes.

On the Internet - is that an invasion of your privacy?   Yes, it is an invasion of my privacy.


Okay. And you mention a Constable Lindeberg in your statement?   Mmm-hmm.


In your own words, tell me your associations with Constable Lindeberg?   When we went to the Petrie Police, first off, he was the policeman that we seen.


What date was that, you went to the Petrie Police?   It was a Sunday, I can't remember what date it was.


A Sunday?   It was a Sunday, yes.

And - okay. What month - you saw Constable Lindeberg?   I don't remember.

Okay. And you did say that you thought someone was - now, I'm surprised, too, that in your evidence you mentioned that regarding a subsequent discovery of Internet content on a - on an additional website.

BENCH: Is that a question?

DEFENDANT: Yes. Well, did you subsequently - that the prosecution did not take you to in your evidence-in-chief - any further references to this matter on the Internet?   Yes, there was - I think it was called a self-help or something like that and then the Australian law dot com or something like that.

Yeah. Okay. But after - subsequent to your reporting it to Sergeant Mathiou in February in 2009; did you have discussions with any police officers?   What - what do you mean?


Well, did you have any discussion with a police officer - police officers?


BENCH: This is after a particular date?


DEFENDANT: After - yes, after you reported this to Mathiou?   Yes. Then they - they passed in on to someone else and then Brendan Read contacted me.


Mmm. And you had a number of phone discussions with him, did you?   Yes.


Did you phone him or he phone you on these occasions and     ?   He would phone me; I would phone him.


Okay. Why were you phoning him?   Just an update to see what was going on.


Mmm?   That's all.


Did you subsequently discover another site, website?   Yes, I found other websites.


This one was related to Peter Dutton, was it?   Yes.


Okay. And did you advise - and that was new at that time, was it, the first - when was that, that you discovered that?   Oh, I couldnít tell you what - when I discovered it but I called Brendan and told him that I found it.


Yeah. And what was your concern about that?   That someone had said that in Peter Dutton's electorate there was someone possibly - there was a Julie Marie Dick at 12 Leopard Court, Warner and they were possibly involved in electoral fraud and possibility tax fraud.


Okay?   And that concerned me.


Okay. And did it make any reference there to Judge Julie Marie Dick?   No.


No reference at all to that?   To - no, because it had - it didnít have Judge Julie Marie Dick; it had Julie Marie Dick which is me at 12 Leopard Court, Warner and I live in that electorate so     


Okay. Is possibly     ?        it wasnít her.


Is possibly involved, you say?   Yes. Yeah, it said possibly.


Could we have a look at that website, please. Yep. Is this it? Just     ?   Yes.


     stay - stay, can we go back, stay there, yeah. And did you consider, it's got "E-Contact us", you see that on the blue?   Yes.


Did you consider contacting the website?   No.


Why not?   Because I didnít - it didnít enter my mind to contact.


Yes. But youíve made reference to the fact that Julie Marie Dick is a Judge and she has your name?   Yeah.


Or there is a Judge Julie Marie Mellifont, in fact; she goes under the name of Julie Marie Dick and this is your name and that you can be - they'd been after her, you said in your evidence, and yet they wrote you?   Yes.


Why didnít - that would send - would that no be a mistake?   I didnít take it as the person who'd done this, it was a mistake, no, I didnít. The person who - who did this website; no, they'd - was no mistake.


No mistake; they did it to get you?   From my understanding, yes.


Okay. Okay. So - okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Now - okay, let's go down there a little way, can we please? Oop, can we go back to that?


BENCH: Is there something you want to refer the witness to there, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, I'm reading. Sorry, your Honour. Can we go down - there is another e-mail there, I think. Oop. Would it concern you to know that in Friday August the 8th Peter Dutton's office was aware of the fact that Julie Dick at 12 Leopard Court was not the same as Judge Julie Dick, who is actually Julie Marie Mellifont? Would it concern you that the member for the area knew?   Probably, yes.


MR HUNTER: Well, again, I object to this line of questioning. How's it anywhere relevant?


BENCH: I'm not sure whether that - would it concern this witness - this is what you're asking this witness - would it concern this witness if she knew that somebody else knew something     


DEFENDANT: Yes. And did nothing     


BENCH:      about something.


DEFENDANT: And did nothing. Yes. Would it concern you that     


BENCH: Do you understand the question?   No.


She doesnít understand     


DEFENDANT: Would it concern you     


BENCH:      the question. Rephrase it.


DEFENDANT: Would - okay. Rephrase the question. Would it concern you that - well, can we go down to the next e-mail?


BENCH: So, you're not asking that question?


DEFENDANT: Well - well, we can refer back to this e-mail too.


BENCH: Well, just make it - ask a question that makes sense to the witness.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Is there something there that     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, yes.


BENCH:      on the screen that you want to ask?


DEFENDANT: Would it concern you that Peter Dutton the - who's Peter Dutton?   He is a member from my electorate.


Federal member for your electorate?   Yep.


Would it concern you that he was aware of this website?   Well, I assumed he was aware because he would have read it as well.


Okay. And that he would be aware that     


MR HUNTER: Well, I object to this line of questioning. She said she assumes so we can't go any further than that.


BENCH: I donít think     


MR HUNTER: She's only speculating.


BENCH: This is not leading anywhere.


DEFENDANT: Well, it is, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, get - if it is     I


MR HUNTER: Well, it's speculation.


DEFENDANT: It's not speculation, your Honour.


BENCH: It must not - you must ask questions that really donít require this witness to speculate.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: And it seems to me that you're just asking her to speculate, to guess at certain things.


DEFENDANT: Youíve been concerned - you were concerned?   Yes.


You were concerned?   Yes.


Did you think - you were concerned about the website?   Yes.


Thank you. Happy? You were concerned about the website?   Yes.


Did you report it to your Federal member?   No.


Did you think to?   No.


Did you see this on the website?   Yes.


That Federal member?   Yes.


Did you think to report that to him; report the error?   No.


Were you encouraged to proceed down the line of going to Court as we are now?   No, wasnít encouraged.


Weren't encouraged?   No.


Did the police say to you that it is very difficult to have content removed from the Internet?   Yes, they did.


And so what did they suggest to you?   They said it was up to me what - if I wanted to pursue it any further to - to get the - hopefully get the things removed off the Internet.


includedTextKluckAbuseRed

[The 'On the Record' PROOF that the magistrate Mr Paul M. Kluck ABUSED ME, and my Brain Damage [aka Acquired Brain Injury (ABI)] in hearing coram him in a committal hearing on bogus charges by Qld police and Commonwealth DPP aimed at supporting Queensland Government ARMED ROBBERY and litany of episodes by government to cover up the criminal fraud.

Because it is impossible to simply point to a single comment by the magistrate mr Paul M. Kluck, to show the systematic abuse by him of me and my disability, [this is additional to the RIDICULE of my disability and of me for being disabled,  I have adopted an alternative process.  Throughout the transcripts for each of the three days, for the text that is relevant to showing the pattern of abuse, I have highlighted the text by making the print, bold, larger and highlighted in bright yellow.  The abuse extended over the three days, until I could not continue on the fourth day due to mental exhaustion.  I could not get out of bed.]



Okay. Did you consider - did you consider - minds just gone blank, your Honour, sorry. Did you discuss with the police other ways of getting this removed?   They said that they could ask the person who put them on to take it down but it was up to that person if they wanted to take them down or not.


And what did you say about that?   I said that would be fine.


Okay. And do you know if they did ask the people involved to take it down?   I believe they did ask the people involved.


To take it down. Did they advise that there was an error on there?   No.


That you were not the Judge?


MR HUNTER: Is he asking the witness to comment about the conversation between the police and web hosts?


BENCH: Is that what you're asking?


MR HUNTER: Because this witness can't answer that.


BENCH: This is what you're asking?


DEFENDANT: Well, it's asking what she knows from her own personal experience. What she - how she investigated rectifying an error.


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: If she had - you know, done anything     


BENCH: Well, she's answered then. She's answered those questions. I think you should move on.


DEFENDANT: Well, in detail, your Honour, I'm asking for detail.


BENCH: Detail of what?


DEFENDANT: Of how - of the what occurred.


BENCH: Well, unless she was involved directly in trying to get them removed, you can't ask this witness.


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH: Were you involved directly in trying to get them removed?   No.


She wasnít. So donít ask her any questions about that.


DEFENDANT: Why were you not involved?   Because that was after the statement that I'd made to the police, they were dealing with it.


Okay.


BENCH: So, ask the police - ask the police officer witnesses, police witnesses those sort of questions, which I believe you have already done so.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, it's     


BENCH: So, just move on Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH: Donít ask this witness any more questions about having things removed from the website. She's given evidence that she wasnít directly involved in that process. So, donít ask her any more questions about that.


DEFENDANT: You say in your statement, "This website caused me to be concerned that someone was continually coming to our house and taking photos or for that matter stalking us"?   Mmm-hmm.


How; in your own words, tell me how you felt that?   Well, I didnít know who was taking photos of my house, I didnít know how many times they had been to my house; I didnít know how many times they were going to come back to my house and as I said before, I do day care, so having someone come to my house while I have children in my care, is a great concern. And also sometimes being at home at night time by myself is also concerning and knowing that there's someone out there taking photos of your house without your consent.


How - but you're saying you donít know these things. You're saying you were concerned that they were doing this but then you're saying now, you didnít know these things?   I donít know how many times these people come around to my house. They could have come once, they could have come 100 times; I donít know.


Did you see the Google car go past your house taking photographs of all the houses in the street?   No.


You didnít see that?   No.


No. Okay. And does that concern you that they did?


BENCH: She's answered that. She's answered questions about Google and that it's offended her. Now, move on.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: It's been some while since your last question, Mr Mathews. If you donít ask a question soon I'll take your cross-examination to be at an end.


DEFENDANT: It's not, your Honour. I'm     


BENCH: Well, ask a question.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, I     


BENCH: We're not going to sit here all day without     


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, I do     


BENCH:      in silence.


DEFENDANT: I know, your Honour. But I - I am disabled, your Honour, and I do have difficulties with this.


BENCH: I understand that.


DEFENDANT: My difficulties extend, your Honour, and this is taking me out of my routine that I'm used to having to do this, and I have - I     


BENCH: Well, the witness is out of her routine I would imagine. So ask a question.


DEFENDANT: I'm disabled, your Honour.


BENCH: Ask a question. Or if you don't ask a question soon     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      I'll treat your cross-examination to be at an end.


DEFENDANT: Um - Uh, how long have you been in the phone book - you're - you're name is J M Dick been in the phone book at 12 Leopard Court?   12 Leopard Court, um just short of 10 years.


Ten years, okay. Now, is - in the phone book - is it in the phone book too as J E Dick, your husband's initials?   No, it's just mine.


Just yours, okay. Because it's your business?   No, it's my - my business isn't in the white pages.


No, but your name is - in case people - people would know it's Julie Dick who runs J D Child Care, would they?   No.


No-one? Not even the people who come to you?   Yes.


Yeah, they would know?   Yes. But they - I've worked through the Moreton Bay - Moreton Bay Shire Council and they - people get my number from the Moreton Bay Shire Council.


Okay?   They don't get through advertising J D's Child Care.


Referral from other - your present clients or other clients get - would other clients come     ?   They have to get the number through Moreton Bay Shire Council.


So people who come to you can't refer other people to you?   No. They all have to go through the Moreton Bay Shire Council.


Okay. So if someone's friend came along to you     


MR HUNTER: Well, I object to this line of questioning too. How is it relevant to whether or not the material is offensive? It's just not relevant.


DEFENDANT: It's     


MR HUNTER: How she gets her clients, how is it relevant?


DEFENDANT: It's all to do with - well, the phone book listing. What's in public, your Honour.


BENCH: I think you've exhausted that avenue of inquiry there, Mr Mathews. Move on to another topic.


DEFENDANT: Uh, okay. Um, now your concern - what was your - what was the predominant concern you had? What an overriding concern. You had a number of concerns?


MR HUNTER: She's answered     


BENCH: I'll let her sum-up her concerns?   Um, my concerns were, one, my safety, my children's safety. The children I look after safety and predominantly if someone has a beef about the Judge, that they will actually find my address and my phone number.


DEFENDANT: I see. Um, now, prior to this website     ?   Mmm-hmm.


     could there have been a possibilty - could that have been a possibility?


MR HUNTER: Well, again, speculation, your Honour.


DEFENDANT: Well - well it's all speculation about this website, your Honour, that what was just stated.


BENCH: No, well, you said prior to - prior to the website.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, but even with this website that's speculation.


BENCH: It's asking her to - it's asking her to speculate.


DEFENDANT: And regarding the website too, your Honour.


BENCH: No, no. You asked the question about prior to the website.


DEFENDANT: That's right. But then prior to my asking that question, the question was, what - how does this website concern you.


BENCH: No. Well,      


DEFENDANT: That's speculation.


BENCH:      your question was     


DEFENDANT: That someone speculation - it was speculation that someone wanting     


BENCH: This is prior to the website     


DEFENDANT:      the Judge could find this     


BENCH: No, this is prior to the website you asked her.


DEFENDANT: But prior to that question, your Honour. Prior to that question I said, "How does this website concern you?"


BENCH: And she's answered that.


DEFENDANT: Is someone who - who - speculation that someone may - maybe looking for the Judge and find this lady.


BENCH: This was whilst the website was up she answered that question in that way.


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


MR HUNTER: It's not speculation, your Honour. She was giving evidence as to her concern     


BENCH: That's right, but your next question calls for speculation.


MR HUNTER:      not speculating about another fact.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Were you concerned prior to this website     


BENCH: No.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Prior to this website were concerned that someone looking for the Judge, Julie Marie Dick, may find your phone number or your entry on the electoral roll and think that was the Judge Julie Marie Dick?   No, prior to the websites, no.


You weren't concerned prior to the website?   No.


Okay. And - and you have said prior to the website you were aware of Julie Marie Dick?   Yes.


Okay, the Judge. Um, was there any trespass?


MR HUNTER: Again, your Honour, asking a witness to comment on an issue of law.


BENCH: Yes     


DEFENDANT: Was any infringement of your rights involved?


BENCH: She's answered that anyway. She already answered that as an invasion of privacy. She answered it.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Invasion of privacy.


BENCH: This is - you're talking about the photograph over the fence, you're talking about? Is that what you were going to ask about?


DEFENDANT: Well you've commented, your Honour, you've stated     


BENCH: Okay. Well, move on.


DEFENDANT:      you've stated the answer and now you're asking what I was going to ask about, your Honour     


BENCH: Move on.


DEFENDANT:      and I mean, you understand what I'm saying.


BENCH: Ask another question and make it     

includedTextKluckAbuseRed

[The 'On the Record' PROOF that the magistrate Mr Paul M. Kluck ABUSED ME, and my Brain Damage [aka Acquired Brain Injury (ABI)] in hearing coram him in a committal hearing on bogus charges by Qld police and Commonwealth DPP aimed at supporting Queensland Government ARMED ROBBERY and litany of episodes by government to cover up the criminal fraud.

Because it is impossible to simply point to a single comment by the magistrate mr Paul M. Kluck, to show the systematic abuse by him of me and my disability, [this is additional to the RIDICULE of my disability and of me for being disabled,  I have adopted an alternative process.  Throughout the transcripts for each of the three days, for the text that is relevant to showing the pattern of abuse, I have highlighted the text by making the print, bold, larger and highlighted in bright yellow.  The abuse extended over the three days, until I could not continue on the fourth day due to mental exhaustion.  I could not get out of bed.]



DEFENDANT: Well, you understand what I'm     


BENCH:      relevant, and make it one you haven't already asked. And if you're just going to go over old ground I'll treat your cross-examination at an end.


DEFENDANT: Oh, no, your Honour, I'm - I have difficulties, your Honour and I mean     


BENCH: You've told me you have difficulties, yes.


DEFENDANT: And, your Honour, I would - I'm being taken advantage of because of my disabilities.


BENCH: I'm not taking advantage of you. As I indicated to you last week, you have a right to a fair committal, you don't have a right to an unending one. You have no right to waste this Court's time by asking questions you've already asked. Now, move on.


DEFENDANT: I - my - I'm being - I haven't finished, your Honour, but I've - I'm in the situation now my mind's


BENCH: What we're going to do, Mrs Dick, we're going to have a short break?   Yes.


And when we come back Mr Mathews here is going to ask some new questions on different topics, and if he doesn't ask questions on a different topic I'm going to treat his cross-examination as being at an end. So we're going to have a break. You can leave the witness stand?   Okay, thank you.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.



THE COURT ADJOURNED

THE COURT RESUMED




BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews.




JULIE MARIE DICK, CONTINUING:




CROSS-EXAMINATION:




DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour. All right. Yes, now, in your evidence-in-chief you stated you were accused of being the Judge?   Yes.


Now, is that defamatory? Is that putting you in a bad light?   But that's not who I am.


But that's not the question I asked. Is that putting you in a bad light?   No.


It's not putting you in a bad light?   No.


Okay. Fair enough. Now, you had mentioned about searches of the internet?   Mmm-hmm.


Now, you do a lot of work on the - a lot of - spend a lot of time on the internet?   The normal amount.


Well, what is a normal amount     ?   Um     


How much time do you spend on the internet please?   Maybe one or two hours a day.


Every day?   Yeah, probably, yes.


And what is involved in your internet usage?


BENCH: Relevance, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Well, this is all about internet, your Honour.


BENCH: What's the relevance though?


DEFENDANT: It's all - well, it's mentioned so often about searching the internet. I'm just     


BENCH: And how is it relevant to these proceedings, and these charges?


DEFENDANT: Well, these proceedings are alleged to do about internet websites.


BENCH: Yes. But how is it relevant to the charges?


DEFENDANT: And that it's mentioned time and time again about searching the internet, your Honour.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: I'm - I'm just being restricted here by     



BENCH: How is it being - how is it relevant to the charges before the Court, and this     


DEFENDANT: Well, it's not because     


BENCH:      witness' evidence?


DEFENDANT:      the charges are relevant to - supposedly a website and     


BENCH: But how is it what this witness searches the internet for relevant?


DEFENDANT: Well, because she's mentioned she searched the internet wanting to find out that in context how - how that has occurred.


BENCH: That's not relevant.


DEFENDANT: Well, it's - it's relevant as to whether this client is merely - this witness is merely reacting to other people's pressure, or whether she's doing things herself; finding things herself and such.


BENCH: No.


DEFENDANT: I mean I'm - I'm just being so restricted here, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, I'm not restricting you in questioning the witness if the questions are relevant.


DEFENDANT: I mean, I would've thought, your Honour, when there's mention here of so often of searching the internet and     


BENCH: Well, she's given evidence of that.


DEFENDANT: Now, you've stated you continued to search - check the websites?


BENCH: You can answer that?   Yes. Yes, I did.


DEFENDANT: How did you do that?   I just put in Julie Marie Dick.


Mmm?   I just put in Julie Marie Dick and     


Well, explain where - where - put it in where; to the computer?   Yes.


Where into the computer?   Into Google.


Into Google?   Yeah.


Right, okay. And the Google searches. Well, okay. And so you did - that's the only way you'd check the websites?   Yes.


So you didn't actually go to the websites themselves?   Oh, yes, yes. I clicked on to put my - put my name into Google Search and then I would click on individual ones and read them.


Okay. Okay. But did you actually put in the URL of the websites?   Well, no.


BENCH: She's - look, it's quite clear what this evidence - what this witness' evidence is. You asked her if she searched. She's told you how she's searched and she clicked on the     


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH:      results of the search.


DEFENDANT: And is that the only way     ?   Yes.


     you searched     ?   Yes.


     through Google?   Yes.


You don't use any other search     ?   No only Google.


Only Google. Okay. And so providing - Google didn't refer you to the site, it wouldn't matter if the site was still there?   Yes, it would bother me if the sites were still there.


How would you know?   Because you can - you just put in Julie Marie Dick and it comes up.


In Google? Yeah. But if Google didn't have it - if Google didn't refer you to the site?   Mmm.


Would it matter - would it worry you that it was still there?


MR HUNTER: Well, I'm going to object to this too.


BENCH: What     


MR HUNTER: He's talking a situation in the     


BENCH: I donít understand the question I must     


MR HUNTER:      in the abstract for a start.


BENCH: It's a confusing question, Mr Mathews.


MR HUNTER: But the issue here is - excuse me     


DEFENDANT: Well, it's not, your Honour, I can explain    


MR HUNTER:      the issue here is that the material that was on the website between the dates in the charges are relevant. Right? He's asking a question now about would she be concerned now if the Google search didn't show up Julie Marie Dick. It's utterly irrelevant.


DEFENDANT: No, it wasn't the     


BENCH: Well, see, I don't know if that's what he's asking.


DEFENDANT:      that wasn't the question, your Honour.


BENCH: That's what I'm saying, it's a confusing question as well     


DEFENDANT: Would it be concerned     


BENCH:      as well as those other things you mentioned.


DEFENDANT:      wouldn't it have concerned you     


BENCH: Mr Mathews, don't talk over me.


DEFENDANT: Sorry. Yes, sir.


BENCH: As well as the other things Mr Hunter mentioned, but are you asking this witness if it concerns her if she does a search and Google doesn't have it there? What's the question?


DEFENDANT: Yes, yes, at that time, at that you were searching you are relying on Google.


BENCH: That's - she's answered that.


DEFENDANT: That's right. Now, Google doesn't have to have the - the - doesn't have to have every website listed on Google.


BENCH: Well, are you asking me, or the witness?


DEFENDANT: No, no, I'm     


BENCH: If you're asking the witness that's something she probably can't     


DEFENDANT:      I'm asking the witness     


BENCH:      can't answer.


DEFENDANT: I'm asking - no, and that wasn't the question. I'm asking the witness     


BENCH: Well, ask a question.


DEFENDANT:      if there - if Google didn't refer you to the website, but the website was still there.


BENCH: Do you understand that question?   No. No.


I don't either. What do you mean? Put that question in a     


DEFENDANT: If the website is still on the internet     


BENCH:      compensable form.


DEFENDANT: Well, that was, your Honour. But I     


BENCH: If it is possible.


DEFENDANT:      shall explain again - I shall explain again. The website - the website can still be on the internet, but Google doesn't have to have it     


BENCH: Look, you don't have to answer that.


DEFENDANT: Well, Google     


BENCH: That's a confusing question. Move on.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, Google doesn't have to have     


BENCH: It's an improper question.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, Google doesn't have to have it.


BENCH: It's an improper question.


DEFENDANT: What I'm asking is     


BENCH: It's an improper question because it's confusing.


DEFENDANT: Well, it's not confusing, your Honour, if I     


BENCH: Well, it may not be confusing to you, but to everyone else in this courtroom I suggest it is. Now     


DEFENDANT: Well, okay, well this will be on the record, your Honour that I'm - you know that     


BENCH: Yes, you told - it's all on the record.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, okay. Well, then     


BENCH: But you cannot just ask confusing questions like that and expect an answer.


DEFENDANT: Well - well, the thing is it's not confusing, your Honour. Google is merely lists some things but doesn't have to list everything.


BENCH: You can make - you can make submissions on all of this, but this witness     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. But I mean     


BENCH:      but this witness is here to answer questions.


DEFENDANT:      that's right, your Honour. And I mean     


BENCH: Put a question to her.


DEFENDANT: Well, I - I mean I'm being unfairly restricted, your Honour.


BENCH: It's - no, look, it seems to me that you're making submissions.


DEFENDANT: Well, I'm not.


BENCH: You can make all the submissions you like at the end of the evidence.


DEFENDANT: Yeah.


BENCH: But this witness is here to answer questions that are the answers to which are within her knowledge.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Um     


BENCH: And, I might say, relevant.


DEFENDANT: Okay. You mention hyperlinks?   Yes.


What are hyperlinks?   You open one and it goes to other ones.


How do you open one? You say you open one?   Where you click on "A" and then it takes you to "B", "C", "D" and "E", I     


Well, how else? I mean, what is that? I mean how - how - what is "A"?   If I click on a Peter Dutton one and then there's other stuff there, then you click on that and then it takes you to another site and then you click on that and it takes you to another site. I - I'm a bit confused.


On a Peter Dutton one you say     ?   No, I was just using that for as an example.


Yes. What - if - what's a Peter Dutton one?   Peter Dutton website.

BENCH: Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour?


BENCH: You are confusing this witness by your questions.


DEFENDANT: Well, I'm just simply asking what is a hyperlink, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, she's answered that.


DEFENDANT: What's "a, b and c" your Honour? I mean, that's not comprehensible.


BENCH: I took her answer to be an example of hyperlinks. There'd be a, b and c hyperlinks as an example. See, you're confusing the witness, Mr Mathews     


DEFENDANT: Well, I     


BENCH:      and I will ask you, when you cross-examine this witness, to ask relevant questions, questions that aren't confusing, questions that aren't repetitive. Now, move on.


DEFENDANT: You stated in paragraph 12, "After further searches"; they were searches by yourself were they?   Yes.


And how often did you do those searches?   Probably daily.


Daily?   Yeah.


And so, you say after a month - or some time in November or so, was it, that you said they disappeared?   Yes.


Or it was after a month from November that they disappeared. How did they disappear? What do you mean by disappear? You     ?   They were just     


In your own words, tell us how you knew they had disappeared?   'Cause I put in Julie Marie Dick and all the - the sites were gone, the photos were gone, the - everything relevant to me was gone from the web site.


From which web site? From the Google web site you're saying?   Yes. From all the web sites that we were - that I was searching.


So, there - when it came up, when you put in Julie Marie Dick, did it come up and say can't find anything?   No. The - the - some of the stuff would come up but the photos of my house and my name and my address and that had gone. Those - those were gone.


Google no longer had any reference to [indistinct]?   Well, I don't know who - who took it down     


No, no. That - those - what I'm asking you, those web sites, Google - Google web site did not refer you to any you're saying?   Yes, Google did, but when you clicked on them, my details weren't there.


Oh, I see. So, you went to the Google link?   Yes, but my details were gone.


What was there, what did you see?   There was blank squares where my house was and the word "censored" was there where my address was, and things like that. That's what I mean by gone.


"Censored" was there, was it, the word "censored" was there?   The word "censored" was there.


C-E-N-S-O-R-E-D?   Yes.


Okay. And when was this?   It would have been December, I think. December, roughly.


And that - how long did that continue for, censored?   Only - I did a search on the 31st of January and all my details, my house pictures, were back up there so, it didn't last for very long.


So, when had - prior to the 31st of January, when was the previous time you - did you do a search the day before?   I couldn't tell you.


How long before that had you done a search for Julie Marie Dick?   I don't know; it could have been a week, it could have been a day it could have been two weeks. I don't know.


Mmm-hmm. So, okay. Okay. So, now, let's - the photos had disappeared     ?   Mmm-hmm.


     and there were just squares there you're saying     ?   Yes.


     where the photos were?   Yes.


Was it similar to what we - we saw here before?   Yes.


Could we have - could we pull that screen up, please, your Honour? Go back. Go     


MR HUNTER: No, no.


DEFENDANT: Was it, like, where those squares are missing there?   Yes.


Little squares like that?   Yes.


The photos had gone?   Yes.


But the web sites were still there?   The web sites were still there, but my, yeah, my details were gone.


Okay. And where was the word "censored"?   Where 12 Leopard Court is.


Okay?   You still seen Warner 4500.


Okay. It was just Leopard Court was gone, but, okay. And you're saying this was in - prior to January 31?   Yes.


Okay. But subsequent to November?   Yes. In     


November 2008?   No, November they were there.


November - sorry?   In November they were there.


November, yes?   And then in December/January they were gone. And then I did a search on the 31st of January and the house pictures and everything were back up.


Okay. And 12 Leopard Court was there again?   Yes.


But now, could you tell me, please, when you saw the word "censored", was it in capitals, lower case, was it in     


BENCH: Look, does it matter?


DEFENDANT: Yes, it is does, your Honour.


BENCH: How relevant is that?


DEFENDANT: It's very - it matters very much as to how that was - how that came to be put there, the word "censored" came to be put there.


BENCH: Whether it's in capitals or lower case?


DEFENDANT: Whether - and whether it's in the same - or whether it's in black or whether it's in another colour or whether it has a - how it appears, its appearance is very relevant to how it got there, your Honour.


BENCH: How is it relevant?


DEFENDANT: Well, it could have been put there by any number of situations?


BENCH: What, if it's in lower case it means it's been put there by some - some person.


DEFENDANT: No, no, your Honour, but it would     


BENCH: If it's in higher case it's been put there by another person? How is it relevant?


DEFENDANT: Well, it's evidence, your Honour of what     


BENCH: Is it leading anywhere? Are you going to ask any further questions about what the - depending on the answer?


DEFENDANT: Well, the thing is that this - this - this committal hearing [indistinct] to understand what the evidence is     


BENCH: That doesn't seem relevant to me. She said it was censored. The word "censored" was there. Move on; ask another question.


DEFENDANT: Okay. So, "censored" appeared where 12 Leopard Court. Did it appear anywhere else where any other words are on this page?   Everywhere where address did, 12 Leopard Court, the word "censored" was there.


Okay. And was it anywhere else besides the word 12 Leopard Court?   No.


Just there?   Just there.


Okay. And was that image still there?   Yes. Yes. That - that one was there still.


That one was still there?   Yes.


Okay. And okay. Were any other images still there?   What do you mean, are there     


That related to you in any way?   Yeah, the - oh - no, just the - the pictures were gone, the address was censored out.


Okay?   The maps were still.


The maps were still there?   Mmm-hmm.


Was it very similar to what this one is here now?   Yes, except the 12 Leopard Court. Yes.


Okay. Was that image there of the electoral role     ?   Yes.


     what appears to be an electoral role, new search?   Yes.


That was still there, was it?   Yes.


Okay. Can we go up and see - were they - those images were still there, yes.


MR HUNTER: For the record, they were images of 73 Hawbridge Street, I think.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Could we go to the top of that screen now. Okay. Was that - there is a question there, "Is Judge Julie Marie Dick involved in electoral fraud?" Is that question still there, do you know?   Yes, it was.


Okay. "Is Judge Julie Marie Dick", okay. Okay. Can we just go down again please, your Honour. Okay. Okay. Now - and so, were you satisfied with that then, with the way that was?   No.


With the censored and all that?   Yeah. No, I wasn't.


You still weren't satisfied?   No.


Why were you still not satisfied?   Because I want - I wanted the whole thing 'cause my name was still there and my telephone number was still there.


Okay. So, okay now, are you aware that there is now, on the internet, a web site that refers to you as the real Julie Marie Dick and - go on?   Yes.


You are?   Yes.


Okay. And that it refers to Judge Julie Marie Dick, does it?


MR HUNTER: How is this relevant to any - to the charges?


BENCH: Have a look at the charge periods, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. I am     


BENCH: Are you aware of the charge periods? I read them to you.


DEFENDANT: I am, your Honour. Yes, yes, your Honour. Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: It's not     


DEFENDANT: But this is going     


BENCH: What you're asking now is not relevant to these proceedings.


DEFENDANT: It's going to the concern of this - of the witness, your Honour.


MR HUNTER: Well, perhaps I should make a     


BENCH: She's already given her concerns.


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, can I make a standing objection application at this point? Perhaps the witness can go outside?


BENCH: Will you just go outside, Mrs Dick?




WITNESS LEAVES COURTROOM




BENCH: Thanks?


MR HUNTER: As I pointed out at the outset your Honour, the offence provision effectively states that the accused is only guilty of the offence if, uses a carriage service in such a way that in all the circumstances a reasonable person would find that use menacing, harassing or offensive. It's a reasonable person test. The Court of Appeal in a case called Ogawa in September of last year considered evidence of how a "complainant" felt about the threatening content. The Court of Appeal said this, at paragraph 129 of the judgment in the judgment; I believe Keane JA said this: "For the reasons that appear below, I conclude that the evidence of Mr Connard as to the distress caused to Ms Mussett by the number of calls and the content of them was inadmissible."


BENCH: Mr Connard? Who's Mr Connard?


MR HUNTER: Now - okay. Mr Connard was the person who had some standing in the Federal Court. The threats were made to officers of the Federal Court. Ms Mussett was an employee; Mr Connard, I think - don't quote me - was her supervisor. He gave evidence that the distress caused to the complainant, effectively, by the number of calls. The Court of Appeal said "evidence of distress to the complainant" is inadmissible because it's a reasonable person test. Any questions going to how this person felt, what concerns they had, whether they were angry, is totally irrelevant to the proof of the charge in that the reasonable person test applies.


So, the cross-examination of this witness, or any other witness as to how they felt about the content, what concerns they had, is irrelevant and I object to any further questioning along those lines.


BENCH: So, the purpose of calling Mrs Dick     


MR HUNTER: Was to just put it in context as to who she is, is it her house and that's pretty much it.


BENCH: Mmm.


MR HUNTER: That she's not the Judge.


BENCH: Yes. Thank you, Mr Hunter.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour     


BENCH: And Mr Mathews, you have asked her questions about how she felt.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, the point is     


BENCH: And I've allowed you to do that     


DEFENDANT: The point is, your Honour     


BENCH:      because under cross-examination I felt it was a proper question.


DEFENDANT: If I could say, your Honour, please?


BENCH: If you'd just listen to me.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: So, I've allowed you some latitude with that. But what you're doing now is simply, you're wasting the Court's time by staying outside the parameters of the charges; July '08 to July '09 is charge 1; August '06 and July '09 charge 2; February '07 and July '09 charge 3; June 09 and July '09 for charge 4. Asking the witness what the situation today is, is irrelevant.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, if I     


BENCH: Yes?


DEFENDANT: Okay. All the evidence in the statement of witnesses     


BENCH: Yes?


DEFENDANT:      is related to how the felt.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: It's all about how they felt     


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT:      and     


BENCH: And I've allowed you to ask the witness how she felt.


DEFENDANT: Well, the reason I'm suspecting that this is all how they felt in here is it's going to be led to the jury that this person isn't possibly a reasonable person, you see, and that this is     


BENCH: No. No.


DEFENDANT:      [indistinct]. But     


BENCH: No, no, no. That's not     


DEFENDANT: Okay. Well now, if we go to     


BENCH: It won't be the case. As Mr Hunter has clearly pointed out to you in the latest Court of Appeal decision.


MR HUNTER: And as your Honour may have noted, I didn't ask a single question about how she felt in     


BENCH: No.


MR HUNTER:      evidence-in-chief. The statement was put together by a State police officer who was also looking at stalking charges which may explain why that content's there, but that's not     


BENCH: But     


MR HUNTER:      what's being proceeded with.


BENCH:      all I'm simply saying is, if the witness is called and to be cross-examined, I think that is an obvious question that they're going to he asked, and I've allowed it     


DEFENDANT: Mmm.


BENCH:      and she's answered it.


DEFENDANT: Yeah.


BENCH: So, I'm     


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH: And you're not going to ask her any more questions about how she felt, are you?


DEFENDANT: No, well, that's - that's fine, your Honour, if, you know, I mean     


BENCH: And you're not going to ask her any more questions about the present situation of the web site because that's not relevant.


What is relevant, your Honour, if I can - well, now the witness is not here. What is relevant is the fact that these - these people have been kept on tap and kept on     


BENCH: We're talking about this witness.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, the     


BENCH: This witness.


DEFENDANT: This witness and her husband. Obviously, her husband is     


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT:      is a motivator.


BENCH: Who will be called.


DEFENDANT: He'll be called. That's right.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Obviously, the husband is a motivator and he     


BENCH: Well, look, you can't say that. You can ask him that but you can't - you can't make that submission.


DEFENDANT: Well, the thing is, your Honour, that     


BENCH: There's no evidence before the Court as to that, but     


DEFENDANT: Well, the thing is that is getting to how he felt.


BENCH: And - and I might add, it goes back to the point that Mr Hunter raised, that it's the reasonable person test.


DEFENDANT: That's right     


BENCH: It doesn't matter.


DEFENDANT: That's - but it's     


BENCH: It doesn't matter what the - what the witnesses think.


DEFENDANT: Well, that's right, your Honour, but the - the reason these witnesses are - are here is because the police have kept them on tap. As Mr Hunter has suggested, the previous officer was looking at maybe stalking charges so, he was trying to get the evidence up on stalking. They were looking at any way they could attack - attack me.


BENCH: I'm not going to allow you to ask questions that aren't relevant to these proceedings.


DEFENDANT: Well, the thing is why - the motivation of the - of the person to become a witness your Honour     


BENCH: But you've asked her all these questions.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, yeah. What I'm - yeah, I'm explaining - I'm explaining why     


BENCH: You've asked her. You've asked this witness those questions     


DEFENDANT: Okay. But the thing is     


BENCH:      and I've allowed you to do it.


DEFENDANT:      her husband's going to be coming on the witness - in the witness box, your Honour, and he is a motivator to all this and the reason that they are witnesses is because they're wanting their day in Court. As they say, they want - they want content removed and such like this. And they didn't make any effort to do it because the police were

pumping them to say, "Well, look, no you won't be able to get the stuff removed but leave it up to us, we'll get everything"     


BENCH: I'm going to ask you to sit down now and I'm going to recall the witness.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: And I'm going to ask you to ask relevant questions that aren't confusing, annoying and repetitive, and relevant. Thank you.




JULIE MARIE DICK, CONTINUING:




CROSS-EXAMINATION:




BENCH: Yes, Ms Dick, thank you. Mr Mathews, do you have any further questions for this witness?








BENCH: If you don't, I'll excuse her.


DEFENDANT: Um     it takes me a while to work things out, your Honour. And     


BENCH: Well, we haven't got all day.


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour, but in light of what Mr Hunter's just said, I probably need a 10 minute recess to     


BENCH: No, I'm not giving you any - we've just had a break. We've come back.


DEFENDANT: Oh, how long ago, your Honour?


BENCH: Not long.


DEFENDANT: Came back an hour ago.


BENCH: No, we didn't.


DEFENDANT: Yep.


BENCH: You mustn't have any more questions?


DEFENDANT: Well, as I noted, your Honour, that my condition     


BENCH: Well     


DEFENDANT: Is your phone number an unlisted number?   No.


No, it's not? Have you ever received phone calls directed to Judge Julie Dick?   No.


Have you ever received mail for a Judge Julie Marie Dick?   Yes.


You have received mail?   Yes.


At that address, for Judge Julie Marie Dick?   Yes.


When was that?   Just recently, probably a month ago.


A month ago?   Yep.


And what did you do with it?   I just put, "Not at this address, return to sender."


Okay. Did it have any indication of who the sender was, on it?   It had a Scouts sticker on it. The envelope was from Scouts.


From the Scouts?   Yeah.


Okay. And it was addressed to Judge, was it?   Judge Julie Marie Dick. Yes.


Was on the envelope?   Yes.


So you did not open it?   No.


Okay, good. I'm at a bit of a loss now, your Honour, because I did not know that these statements were not the statements of the witnesses, for these charges.


BENCH: You did not know that the statements of the witnesses     


DEFENDANT: Of the witnesses were statements for these charges. These statements were for the witnesses in relation to other charges, as Mr Hunter's just said.


MR HUNTER: No, that's not what I said, at all. And perhaps I should clarify that. The police were conducting investigations. They were broad ranging investigations, they included the charges now before the Court, and any other offence, including stalking, including any offence which might have been raised. These statements were taken before any charges were laid; they were simply a statement taken to exhaust the memory, or at least cover as much material as possible, with each witness, with a view to perhaps using them down the track. No decision had been made in February of 2009, as to the nature of the charges. That's what I said. That's what I meant.


DEFENDANT: So, your Honour, these - we were not prepared for these charges.


BENCH: Well, you've just heard what Mr Hunter said.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. So therefore it was     


BENCH: Do you have any more questions?


DEFENDANT: Well, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Ask them.


DEFENDANT: It's - it - because of my disability, your Honour, it causes me to have to think things through and have     


BENCH: I understand what you're saying.


DEFENDANT: And this is all news to me, that I've - that these statements were not the statements for these charges.


MR HUNTER: Well they are     


BENCH: You've heard what Mr Hunter just told the Court.


DEFENDANT: I know I have, your Honour.


BENCH: They are being used for these charges.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.

BENCH: Whilst the statements were not - whilst the particular wording or the particular nature of the charges were not known at the time, when the statements were taken     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH:      those statements are now being used in relation to the present charges.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. But I understood, these statements were basically for you know, allowing me to know the evidence that these clients will be leading, because I'm unrepresented.


BENCH: Exactly.


DEFENDANT: And had I been represented, this would have gone straight up into evidence.


BENCH: But you've spurned legal representation.


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


BENCH: And you've told me you don't have anybody to sit quietly for you and make notes and prompt you to ask questions, so     


DEFENDANT: How would I be with a Mackenzie friend, your Honour.


BENCH: That's what I've just said. You haven't got one.


DEFENDANT: Would I be able to     


BENCH: Of course you can have a Mackenzie friend.


DEFENDANT: Well, can Mackenzie friends ask questions?


BENCH: No, they can't ask questions. They can sit quietly with you     


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: Make notes for you, and prompt you. but I've asked you that last week, and you said you didn't have anyone like that.


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


BENCH: So I'm trying to keep you on track here, because     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, yes, yes, yes, your Honour. Well these statements, actually were putting me right off track, weren't they?


BENCH: Well, the evidence - they are what they are. They contain evidence     


DEFENDANT: Well, they are what they are. That's right.

BENCH: And they are being used with respect to the present charges.


DEFENDANT: That's right.


BENCH: Okay?


DEFENDANT: Okay. Now     


BENCH: So if you don't have any more questions for Mrs Dick here, I'm going to excuse her.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, so I - the thing is, your Honour, it is relevant how these charges and these witnesses were - have come to be here today. You know, that they     


BENCH: Mrs Dick is sitting patiently in the witness box. She's waiting for a question, and so am I. And if you don't have any for her, after asking Mr Hunter if he wants to ask any questions in re-examination, I'm going to excuse her.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: It seems to me any questions relating to the statements and the charges are more properly put to a police officer. Okay?


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


BENCH: Now, ask Mrs Dick a question. If you haven't got one, like I said, I'm going to excuse her.


DEFENDANT: My condition prevents me from being able to work it through at the moment, your Honour. So I     


BENCH: Well, could it be that you simply donít have any more questions, that you've exhausted the avenues that     


DEFENDANT: I can't say that, your Honour. I can't answer that.


BENCH: Well, I'm asking you to.


DEFENDANT: I can't answer that your Honour.


BENCH: Well     


DEFENDANT: You know, my mind - my condition, your Honour, when I'm stressed in a situation like this, it goes blank, and I can't     


BENCH: Look, you must have known, you know your condition, better than anyone else. And you must have known that Court proceedings would cause stress.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: And you know what happens to you, when you're stressed.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Like I keep going back, you spurned legal representation. You haven't got anyone here, presumably, you haven't asked anyone.


DEFENDANT: I'm not required to     


BENCH: No, you're not required     


DEFENDANT:      to have legal representation, your Honour.


BENCH:      no, you're not required. You've spurned that, you've told me.


DEFENDANT: You know, being     


BENCH: However, in those circumstances, you've chosen to come along here then.


DEFENDANT: I've been forced along here, your Honour. I'm on bail.


BENCH: No, no. You've chosen to come along here, unrepresented, and without assistance.


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH: I can give you assistance, only so far, to ensure you get a fair hearing. But not one - not a hearing where you waste the Court's time. Which you're doing, right now.


DEFENDANT: That is not my intention, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, whether it is your intention or not, that's the result.


DEFENDANT: Well, ah     


BENCH: Of decisions you've made.


DEFENDANT: My dignity is suffering, your Honour, because of - and I am entitled to - even though I am disabled, I am entitled to retain dignity.


BENCH: And this Court is ensuring that, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Um - ah - and now my - an email address that purports to be Russell Mathews is on those websites.


BENCH: Was that a question?


DEFENDANT: No, I'm just - I'm waiting for it to come up, your Honour. And I'll - there is - I saw it the other day, it was shown as being - looked like my the address block of my emails. It had my email address in it. It was actually near the bottom of the page, it had - no, not the contact, not that contact form.

BENCH: But anyway, what's the question? What's the question?


DEFENDANT: No, I want to show the witness the     


BENCH: If there is an email address there, what's the question? We can bring it up while you're asking the question.


DEFENDANT: Well, I need to see it, to point the witness     


MR HUNTER: Do you have any ideas what document that was?


DEFENDANT: No I don't, sorry.


MR HUNTER: Who were you cross-examining?


DEFENDANT: Sorry?


BENCH: Mr Mathews if you say that there's an email address on that     


DEFENDANT: I saw it here the other day. Saw it here the other day.


BENCH: All right. Tell me what it is.


DEFENDANT: It was in the address block of what looked like, was once my address block of my emails.


BENCH: But can you just ask the question, anyway?


DEFENDANT: Well, I need to     


BENCH: Proceed on the assumption that it is there.


DEFENDANT: I know it was there. I saw it     


BENCH: All right. But can you just ask the question?


DEFENDANT: Well I - no, I need to point the witness to it, your Honour.


BENCH: Mmm. And where do you say it is?


DEFENDANT: I don't know, it was on one - it was near the bottom of one of the pages, and it was shown as being my     


BENCH: Is it absolutely necessary that the witness look at it?


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


BENCH: Well, what's the question?


DEFENDANT: I need to     


BENCH: I want to know what the question is you're going to ask.


DEFENDANT: I need to point the witness to it.


BENCH: Mr Mathews - we could be here all day, looking for it.

Do you remember seeing an email address?   No.


That's not it there, is it?


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour, no.


BENCH: That's not it?


DEFENDANT: No, no. It was actually in a - it wasn't the hyperlinked.


BENCH: That's got email, dot dot; email, colon.


DEFENDANT: That wasn't it, your Honour. It was at the bottom of a page.


BENCH: Well, I want to know what the question is, because I want to know whether it's relevant, and if it hasn't already been asked. Can you tell me what the question is?


DEFENDANT: I want to be able to point the witness to it, your Honour.


BENCH: Just tell me what the question is, please, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Has the witness seen that?


BENCH: Is that all it is? Is that all the question's going to be?


DEFENDANT: For a start - whether the witness has seen it or not.


BENCH: I want to know - I want to know if it's there, and - well, what if she says she hasn't seen it? She can see it now, if it's there, I suppose.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. If she hasn't seen it, well, then it'll - but she needs to - needs to have it on the screen to see if she's seen it, or not.


BENCH: And if she says she's seen it, what's the next question going to be?


DEFENDANT: Well, is my email address there.


BENCH: What's the next question going to be?


DEFENDANT: Did she consider sending an email to me.


BENCH: You've asked her that question, about contact.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, no, but well, I need to see if she had seen that email.


BENCH: You asked her a question about contact us.


DEFENDANT: That was a different question, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, it's going to the same thing. It's going to the same issue. About contacting the author of the website.


DEFENDANT: Well, my email address may not be the administrator, your Honour.


BENCH: It's going to the same issue, so.


DEFENDANT: It - it     


BENCH: It's going to the same issue.


DEFENDANT: They are different, your Honour. It's just - it's a matter of exhausting this area, your Honour. This avenue.


BENCH: Well I think you've already been down it. The question is related to this witness contacting - making some form of contact with the author. She said she didn't.


DEFENDANT: In relation to the - the administrator.


BENCH: Move on. Ask another question.


DEFENDANT: Ah     


BENCH: In relation to the same issue that's being canvassed.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, I'm     


BENCH: It does, it relates to the same issue. I'm directing you to move on, to another issue.


DEFENDANT: If I can say, your Honour, that's only because the prosecution cannot find where the     


BENCH: Well, you can make a submission. You can make a submission on that.


DEFENDANT: But there was - and you know, it can be, it will be shown that there was one     


BENCH: But you've asked this witness a question that related to whether she had made contact with the author, and she said, no, she went to the police.


DEFENDANT: That's right, your Honour. But     


BENCH: So that issue has been canvassed. You've asked the questions on that.


DEFENDANT: But not exhaustively, your Honour.


BENCH: Well     


DEFENDANT: And you know, the thing is, the     


BENCH:      the Prosecutor has been looking for this reference and still can't find it, so     


DEFENDANT:      but the thing is - are the prosecution doing this deliberately, your Honour?


MR HUNTER: Oh, look, I utterly object to this. What difference does it make whether this witness saw that email address?


BENCH: Mr Mathews?


MR HUNTER: Can he put on the record what the relevance of that is?


DEFENDANT: It's exhausting the     


BENCH: Mr Mathews, I'm directing you to move on to another topic.


DEFENDANT: That'll be also on the record, your Honour, yes.


BENCH: It's all on the record. It's not a new subject, so move on. Please.


DEFENDANT: Just like it - recorded - that     


BENCH: It's on the record.


DEFENDANT: That I've been prevented from asking it.


BENCH: For the reasons I've given.


DEFENDANT: Because the prosecution cannot find on the     


BENCH: No, because it's repetitive.


DEFENDANT: Could I ask why do we not have Court     


BENCH: I'm not going to enter into an argument with you about this.


DEFENDANT: No, no, I'm not arguing, your Honour. I just want to know why the prosecution are in charge of the exhibits rather than the Court? I think that's probably relevant, very relevant, your Honour.

BENCH: Well, I  think  it's a matter of convenience. And, from what I've seen, they've been doing a very good job.


DEFENDANT: Well, not right now, your Honour.


BENCH: Being done as directed. So move on.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Okay. Well, I think we'll - I'm being prevented there, your Honour. Well, that's fine.


BENCH: For the reasons given.


DEFENDANT: Well, whatever. Yes, your Honour. Okay. Well, your Honour, I mean as far as my being supplied with the statement of the witness - witness's statement, it seems as though it's totally immaterial. It has so much stuff in here which is not evidence, your Honour. And including     


BENCH: Well - well, donít forget, Mr Mathews, I donít have that statement in evidence.


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


BENCH: I donít have that statement.


DEFENDANT: Well, I mean, you know, it's     


BENCH: The evidence the Court has received is evidence from the witness box.


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


BENCH: As a result of examination-in-chief and cross-examination.


DEFENDANT: And - well - and the thing is, you know, I've been     


BENCH: Okay. So that statement is not in evidence.


DEFENDANT: I know, your Honour.


BENCH: Okay.


DEFENDANT: What - what is - it's - it's confusing me.


BENCH: You'd be     


DEFENDANT: Including - with my disability. And, on top of that, being given relevant [mis-transcribed  - should be IRrelevant]  material.


BENCH: Any further questions?


DEFENDANT: Well, this - you signed the statement that was given to me as a statement. But it's stated that it was signed on the 8th day of February, but it mentions, "On the Sunday, the 9th day of February, I attended the Petrie Police Station." So did you attend the Petrie Police Station on the 9th day of February 2009 or was it on the 8th day of February 2009?


BENCH: Any idea?   No.  I know it was a Sunday.


MR HUNTER: Do you want to show her the statement?


DEFENDANT: Yeah, okay.


BENCH: If I could just - yes, just have a look at that     


MR HUNTER: Last page.


BENCH:      copy of your statement?   Yeah, the 8th day of February 2009.


DEFENDANT: You say - but, on the statement above, it says - number 26: "On Sunday the 9th day of February, I attended the Petrie Police Station."


MR HUNTER: Paragraph 26.


DEFENDANT: Paragraph 26, at the top of that page?   Yeah.


And so you signed that statement?   Yes, I did.


On the 9th day of February?   Yes. Well, I - I attended on the 9th, the 9th of February, like I stated there.


And then you signed below     ?   Well, that     


     and that's signed at Petrie this 8th day of February?   Well, that was a mistake on my behalf, not checking it before I signed it. I read it all, but I didnít think to check the date on the bottom. Because I seen Sunday, the 9th day     


Mmm?        which I attended     


Yeah. Okay?        and thatís what I signed.


So mistakes happen, I guess?   Yes, they do.


And things happen. Okay. So, in fact, there's - this witness doesnít have a lot to say really, your Honour.


BENCH: So you have no further questions then?


DEFENDANT: Well, the - this witness - well, apparently, this witness doesnít have a lot     


BENCH: Well, you're making a statement to the Court now.


DEFENDANT: Well, I'm asking, basically, rhetorically, your Honour.


BENCH: No, I donít - you donít ask rhetorical questions of the Court at this point. You do that in submissions.

DEFENDANT: Oh, okay.


BENCH: Youíve got a witness here in the witness box.


DEFENDANT: So     


BENCH: You ask the witness questions. So if you donít have any more, she'll be excused.


DEFENDANT: So this is - because of my circumstances, your Honour, I'm at a loss to     


BENCH: Mr Mathews, do you think it simply means that you just donít have any more questions?


DEFENDANT: I donít know, your Honour.


BENCH: I think it is     


DEFENDANT: I donít know.


BENCH:      the case that you donít have any more questions.


DEFENDANT: I donít know, your Honour. I know that when I'm doing anything at all, and I get to a point - see I cannot structure myself and my routine now     


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT:      when I get to a point like this, I go and do something else.


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: And then I come back and more appears to me.


BENCH: I can understand that.


DEFENDANT: And I can continue going on with things. And I - a bit     


BENCH: But the Court can only accommodate you so far     


DEFENDANT: Well, the thing is     


BENCH:      in that regard.


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH: And we have regular breaks. And I asked you over the weekend to assist you     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Yes. Yes.


BENCH:      to structure your cross-examination, the bare framework of it.


DEFENDANT: Yeah.

BENCH: Obviously, in cross-examination, things can crop up which will lead you down another path. But the bare framework, because you have the statements of the witnesses, to structure your cross-examination.


DEFENDANT: Thatís right, your Honour. But - but     


BENCH: So, you did that, did you?


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: But as the - now, I mean, as - you know, it's irrelevant. So much of - so much of the statement is irrelevant, and can't be even admitted into evidence.


BENCH: It's not sought to be admitted.


DEFENDANT: No, but the thing is it's given to me as being, this is the evidence of the witness.


BENCH: Thatís right.


DEFENDANT: And it, in fact, can't be admitted.


BENCH: Well, no, it can't be admitted because you're not legally represented.


DEFENDANT: No, what I'm saying is, the evidence cannot be admitted, not - not the statement, but the evidence in the statement cannot be admitted.


BENCH: Well, it's in.


DEFENDANT: Sorry?


BENCH: What the witness has said in the witness box is evidence.


DEFENDANT: That's right. But what I'm saying is, I'm given the statement     


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT:      of, you know, the statement of the witness is supposed to be the evidence which is going to be led, and there's no much stuff in here which cannot be led.


BENCH: Well, I'm assuming     


DEFENDANT: I mean that - that has     


BENCH: Without looking at the statement, I'm assuming that, because Mr Hunter didnít lead it, it's not relevant to the charges.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour, but what I'm saying is the procedure that - that I'm given these statements     


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT:      and it's all irrelevant. I mean what would've happened if I'd been legally represented? This would've been handed up, and     


BENCH: We'll never know what would've happened if you were legally represented.


DEFENDANT: And, well, it could've readily been handed up with all the irrelevant evidence in, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, no, a solicitor would've gone over it and consulted with the prosecution. But that's - that's by the way now.


DEFENDANT: And - well     


BENCH: All I'm simply asking you for one final time, if you have any further questions for this witness     


DEFENDANT: But as I said, your Honour, I explained my situation, your Honour.


BENCH: Okay.


DEFENDANT: I     


BENCH: So you have no further questions?


DEFENDANT: At - as I've explained to yourself - yourself, your Honour, I cannot - when I - and as I'm - when I'm in the situation in my - my routine, I will go and do something else. When I come back, I'll be able to continue what I'm doing.


BENCH: Well we donít have the time to do that, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour     


BENCH: We donít have the time to stand these proceedings down while you go and do something different; think up some more questions and come back. It's not possible.


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH: You understand that, donít you?


DEFENDANT: All I'm saying is, your Honour, that     


BENCH: Do you understand that? Do you understand that; that we can't just     


DEFENDANT: No, I donít understand.


BENCH:      wait for you to go and do something else     


DEFENDANT: I donít understand, your Honour.


BENCH:      and come back. We can't do that, and I'm not going to do that.


DEFENDANT: Oh, well, the thing is, your Honour - well, I can't - yeah, I mean I - I've just - I'm stating my situation, your Honour.


BENCH: Okay then. So, it's your cross-examination.


DEFENDANT: Well, you know     


BENCH: I'm going to treat at the end of your cross-examination.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, I can't do anything about it. I mean     


BENCH: Okay. Well, that's     


DEFENDANT:      my disability prevents me.


BENCH: Well     


DEFENDANT: And I mean I've stated what my disability is, your Honour, and - and, you know, I mean - you know, I can provide heaps of evidence, your Honour. You know     


BENCH: I understand that you have some form of disability.


DEFENDANT: And that's how it affects me, your Honour.


BENCH: I can understand that, too.


DEFENDANT: And that     


BENCH: However, we've been having regular breaks, and     


DEFENDANT: And at right this minute, your Honour     


BENCH:      it just seems no end to it.


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, it's     


BENCH: We've had to stand down a     


DEFENDANT:      what I have to live with.


BENCH:      police witness for two days, and you still haven't finished with him.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, it's what I have to live with. I donít like it.


BENCH: Look, I understand.


DEFENDANT: I donít like it.

BENCH: I understand all of that.


DEFENDANT: I would like - you know     


BENCH: I understand all of that.


DEFENDANT:      I - and, I mean     


BENCH: So     


DEFENDANT:      I have disability aids, your Honour, and they get stolen from me. And - by police.


BENCH: But, Mr Mathews     


DEFENDANT: My disability aids, such as this, my disability aids such as camera, or my disability aids such as computer, you know. And, you know - and now I'm hauled into a situation such as this which is not of my making, and - and totally not conducive to my situation.


BENCH: It seems to me that youíve canvassed most of the relevant issues, anyway, with this witness.


DEFENDANT: That may be the case, your Honour.


BENCH: I think it is.


DEFENDANT: Well, I mean - but I - I am not in the position to be able to say that conclusively at this stage, your Honour.


BENCH: But you can't tell me when you will be in that position.


DEFENDANT: Thatís right, your Honour.


BENCH: Exactly.


DEFENDANT: I - I - you know, these - this is - this is what I have to live with, your Honour.


BENCH: All right. I understand that.


DEFENDANT: And that's     


BENCH: But I've got a duty to regulate - to, you know, regulate these proceedings.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Yeah. And I mean     


BENCH: So what I'm going to do     


DEFENDANT: Yeah.


BENCH:      if you donít have any more questions now, I'm going to ask Mr Hunter if he has any re-examination. And then I'm going to excuse the witness.


DEFENDANT: Well, you know - you know, being disabled, your Honour, I just have to take so much.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: I just have to take what's given to me.


BENCH: Thank you.


DEFENDANT: And, you know, there's so much I - so little I can do.


BENCH: All right. Well, the record will show that     


DEFENDANT: So be it, your Honour. Yeah.


BENCH:      you have no questions, and you can't tell me when you will have any more questions. So     


DEFENDANT: And I've explained the situation.


BENCH:      I'm treating your cross-examination as at an end. Yes, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Thank you, your Honour. I have no re-examination. Might the witness be excused?


BENCH: Thank you, Mrs Dick, you're excused.




WITNESS EXCUSED



MR HUNTER: If it please the Court, I call John Edward Dick.

JOHN EDWARD DICK, SWORN AND EXAMINED:




BENCH: Please be seated. Yes, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Thank you, your Honour. Can you tell the Court your full name, please?   John Edward Dick.


And what's your occupation, Mr Dick?   I'm a newspaper printer for Queensland Newspapers.


What hours do you work?   Permanent night-shift.


Permanent night-shift. And what's your address?   12 Leopard Court, Warner.


And are you married?   Yes, I have a wife and two children.


And was your wife the witness that passed you in the corridor just now?   It - she certainly is.


Okay. And her name is, sorry?   Julie Marie Dick.


Okay. Now, do you recall an event round the middle of 2008 when you were in the back yard, and events transpired which subsequently sees you here today?   Yes, I do. On - it was either September/October, mid-week, or during the week, was out the back with my wife, bringing in the washing, around - oh, around 3 o'clock in the afternoon, when I noticed a pair of hands and a camera above my - our seven foot back fence. And     

WeWonderIfCleverDickJohnDicksSpellingIsAsGoodAsHisGrammar01

Sorry, did you say it's a seven foot back fence. Can you see through it, or is it open?   No, it's - it's all - it's lapped and capped so you can't see through it.


Okay?   All I seen was two arms and a camera. After sort of looking at it     


Can I just stop you there for a moment? Just saw two arms and a camera. Is there another property at the back of yours, or is there a street or what's the     ?   No, it's a - it's a main road.


Main Road?   Mmm-mmm.


Okay. Sorry. Continue?   And, on seeing this, I had to look twice. And then I decided to sneak up on - to the fence and jumped on top of the fence and seen a 60/65 year old man, very tanned, with a big Sombrero hat, wearing shorts and a T-shirt and sandals. And I - pardon my French - I asked him what the fuck he was doing.


Okay?   And     


All right. Can I just stop you there for a moment? Your Honour, could we have Exhibit - or the one marked for identification? Can I just take photograph 100 underscore 4162. Okay. Now, can you identify the house in that photo?   Yeah, that's my house; that's my residence.


Okay. Next one. Thatís 4163. Can you identify that?   Yes, that's still my house. Yes.


Okay. 4164. Are you familiar with that scene?   Yeah, that's - runs alongside of my house.


Okay. 4165.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, this is not relevant, your Honour. This is not anything to do with internet.


BENCH: He's just identifying     


DEFENDANT:      websites.


BENCH:      some images. So, I'll allow the question.


MR HUNTER: Thank you. 4165. Do you recognise that?   Yes, I do. It's still my house - front of my house.


Okay. Next one. Same again, 4166?   Yes. Yes.


4167?   Yes, correct.


Your house. 4168?   Yes, that's from the neighbour's house looking to - to my house, the side of my house.


4169?   Yeah, that's the front - front.

There's a sign on the front there?   Yes, JD's Place.


Do you know how that got there?   Yeah, I put it there. I had it made, 'cause all of our - my wife, my two children and myself are all JD's. So that's where the sign came from.


4170?   Yeah, that's the side fence, looking down the - the laneway.


Okay. 71. Same again?   Same again. Yes.


72. Just some grass in this photo. 73. Same again. Okay. It's 4177. Can you identify the dog in the photo?   Yeah, that's my Border Collie. Yep.


Okay. Thank you. Now, the gentleman you saw over the back fence that day, do you see him in Court today?   Can you ask - sorry?


The gentleman you saw over the - over your back fence that day, do you see him in Court today?   I do. Yes.


Whereabouts?   Sitting to your left.


Okay. Thank you. Now     

BENCH: For the record     


MR HUNTER: Record. He's pointed out     


BENCH:      and for what it's worth, the witness identifies the defendant.


MR HUNTER: Yes. So, did you have a conversation, other than the one involving the expletive youíve just described, with Mr Mathews?   Yeah, I - after I asked him what he did, then he asked me what did the sign out the front of my house mean. And he asked me three times - three or four times and kept repeating it three or four times. And I - excuse my French again - I said, "What     


Yes. Okay. We donít need to say what you actually said?   No, well - yeah.


Okay. Can we just play the video 100 underscore 4179?




VIDEO PLAYED




MR HUNTER: Stop there. Can you identify the voices on that video?   Yes. Russell Mathews and myself.


And there was a fleeting image of someone's head over the fence?   That was me.


That was you. Okay. All right. So, as a result of what you saw that day, did you speak to your wife?   Yes. I     


Well, we donít need to say - yes, so you did. And, as a result of that conversation, what did you do?   Well, then my - that afternoon, my wife rang the police.


Okay. So you weren't a party to that conversation?   No.


Right. Okay. Consequently, did you have further conversation with your wife about the internet, perhaps?   Yes. That was a month later, in November. I got up from working the night before, and my wife showed me a printout of a website, or - or a report called the Haig Report.


Yes?   That was printed off a website. And, in it, was photos of our home, a picture of me at the back fence. Google, how to get to our home, maps, satellite maps. And I was - I was amazed.



Okay. Well, we donít need to go into how you felt about it, Mr Dick.


Okay. Can we just bring up the Haig report, the file commencing with the words, "Judge Julie". Okay. Now, you say you saw a printout?   Yes.


Was the printout in colour or black and white?   Colour.


It was in colour?   Yes, it was.


Okay. So, does this look in any way familiar?   Yes, it does.


Okay. So, if we just scroll down, in particular to - you see a reference from the white pages there; was that in the printout that you were shown?   Yes, it was, yes.


Just stop please. And was that in the printout too?   Yes, it was.


And can you identify that photograph?   That's me.


Okay. So, as a result of seeing that, what did you do?   Well, my wife rang the police again.


Okay?   And then we went to the police station to make a report.


Right. Now, subsequent to that report, did you have cause to look at the Internet again?   Yes. After that for - up until Christmas I kept checking - we kept - I kept checking the sites.


Yes?   And it was there for about a month and then it was gone.


Right. Okay. So, you noticed it was gone. Did you check the Internet after it was gone?   Yeah. I did in January, late January. I come home from work one morning and just decided to Google my wife's name.


Yes?   And noticed that it was back again.


Right. In late January. And what did you do as a result of seeing that?   Then we went back and made - reported it to the police.


Okay. In the course of you doing your Google searches, did you have cause to attempt to find out who might have been putting this material on the Internet?   My daughter actually called me to the computer and told me to have a look and came across - she googled Russell Mathews name and I donít know which

website it was but one of the websites had a picture of - two pictures of him when he was younger and a more recently updated picture, which I recognised as the man that I seen over the fence.


Okay. Well, we'll just scroll up a little bit here. Is that the photo     ?   Yes.


     and then the one below?   Yes, correct.


So, youíve seen that too?   Yep.


Okay. And was it in February did you say that youíve given the statement to police?   Yeah, the beginning of February.


Okay. Yes, thank you, your Honour. That's the evidence-in-chief.


BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews?




CROSS-EXAMINATION:




DEFENDANT: Okay. Now, good day?   Hello.


Now, you mentioned in your evidence-in-chief a printout in colour?   Correct.


That's relevant, your Honour. I'd like to have that in evidence.


BENCH: Do you have that printout?


MR HUNTER: Well, you'll have to ask the witness, your Honour.


BENCH: No, I thought it might have been provided. I thought he might have been calling for it.


MR HUNTER: No.


BENCH: Do you have that printout?   You'd have to ask my wife. She would probably know if that's - if we - she still has it.


All right. That's your answer.


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH: Ask another question.


DEFENDANT: Well, I want it in evidence, your Honour.


BENCH: It's not in evidence.


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, perhaps over the break we'll make inquiries to see if we can find it. We'll ask Mrs Dick who's since been excused, but we will do everything we can to see if she even has it still.


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Now, you say that this interaction occurred over your back fence in - what was it September, October?   Yes.


Could it have been in June?   No, I - September, October.


You're sure it was September, October?   Yes.


And how can you be so sure?   Well     


A two - two month period, I mean, how can you be sure it was in that time?   Well, that's when I remember it as September, October.


What - what helps you remember September, October?   Something I haven't forgotten and - and that afternoon, checked - checked the police - 'cause we rang the police that afternoon and I'm sure - I'm positive it was September, October.


Okay. So, you haven't checked that date since with anyone?   No.


Okay. Fair enough. And you said your employment was with - who did you say your employment was with?   Queensland Newspapers.


Queensland Newspapers. Okay. And you're still employed there?   I certainly am.


Mmm. And on that afternoon - well, when was it, September, October, you say - what were you doing?   At the time?


Yeah, at the time?   I was bringing in the washing with my wife.


You were what?   Bringing in the washing with my wife.


Bringing in the washing, not hanging it out?   Bringing it in.


Bringing it in?   Yes.


You're definite on that?   Definite.


Okay. And - okay. And now, it's in evidence, your Honour, but can we refer the witness to the website, the website that     


BENCH: Which one?


DEFENDANT: That was found offensive - well, Haig - yeah.


BENCH: Haig Report?


DEFENDANT: Haig Report, yeah.


BENCH: Any particular part of that?


DEFENDANT: Why did you complain to the police on the first occasion?   Why?


Why, yeah?   Because my wife started family day care and we have young children and she looks after young children and my first thought, seeing a pair of arms and a camera over the back fence, that we had some sort of paedophile taking - trying to take photos of the children.


Mmm?   That's what was my first reaction when I seen the arms and the camera.


Mmm-hmm?   And then I approached the back fence, seen like I said, a 60, 65 year old man that looked very scruffy and my thoughts were still that it was a dirty old man trying to take photos of kids. Then we rang the police. We didnít know whether it was that or someone complaining about the dogs, 'cause we had two dogs at the time, whether they took photos. So, there was - there was two things that wee - it was either the dogs or my first thought was a paedophile, someone taking - trying to take photos of the children.


And so then - and so your wife made the complaint?   Yes, she did.


And you know nothing more about     ?   I wasnít privy to that conversation.


Okay. And so you know nothing more about police complaint?   The first one, no.


No. And then the next time you made a complaint was     ?   When we found out the website in November.


November?   Yes.


Okay?   Yes.


And that's this website here, is it?   Thatís correct.


And what was - what was the substance of your complaint?   My substance of my complaint was that my house was on the net; my - it was alleged that a Judge was living at my house and my house apparently was a Labour corrupt for Labour - hence elections having two - the Judge had two addresses; it was a front for the Labour party as for fraud and also there was a photo of me being - being - and underneath the photo it said that I was the Judge's son who was a belligerent cretin and I took very offence to that and there was a photo of me, which I am not the Judge's son and I'm not a belligerent cretin. So, that - those things I took offence and my biggest worry is that a Judge with - that googled a map to my home and where my wife and I reside, that somebody has a beef with the Judge, depending on what in Court and decides to Google her name; up
s a link to this website and we could have all sorts of trouble. My wife does day care; kids could be in danger, my wife can be in danger, my two children could be in danger, or even myself. I work nights; I work permanent nights and a danger again. I'm not at home, my kids are out, a lot of time my wife's home on her own a fair bit, anything could happen. And that's the main reasons why I - we made the complaint because I find it very offensive that someone can do - do that and not be 100 per cent right, be 100 per cent wrong.


Okay. So, it was a mistake, do you think?   No, I donít think it was a mistake no. I donít think it was a mistake at all. I think for some reason, someone's had it in for the Judge and I donít think it was a mistake because, after the first time and it came off the website, I thought, fine, that person has realised their mistake, but then in January it went back on, I thought, no, they donít - it's not a mistake because he put it straight back on again. So, if it was a mistake and it came off the first time, fair enough, but it came back on. So, I wouldnít call it a mistake, I would call it deliberate.


I see. Okay. Thanks. Now, that's - says, "Is Julie Marie Dick involved in electoral fraud?" - asks a question, does it?   Sorry?


It does - that website does ask a question though, does it; do you agree to that?


MR HUNTER: The evidence speaks for itself, your Honour.


BENCH: Exactly. Mr Mathews, I donít want you to ask this witness to read simply what's on the screen, ask obvious questions like that.


DEFENDANT: Well, the one you saw, was - did it have, "Is Judge Julie Dick involved in electoral fraud"?   Yeah, it's pretty self-explanatory.


Well, the one you saw, the paper copy?   Yes, exactly.


Yeah?   It's a print out of that, yep.


And you have that, okay. And so, your initial suspicions of the person taking photographs     ?   Mmm-hmm.


     were they - were they confirmed or slightly changed when you saw the website?   Well, it changed in the respect of, no I didnít think it was a power pole or anything like that, but I was still alarmed that someone can put my house and after reading this website put my family still in danger.


Yeah?   So, yes - so, my - my thing about the paedophile and the dogs had changed but it went to completely to, "Oh, my God, we could be in trouble here because it puts my family in danger".


Yeah. And you said that you thought possibly a mistake; you had mentioned that a possibility of a mistake?   I mentioned that it was a mistake if - when it was taken off the first time.


Okay?   But when it was put back on the second time, no, it wasnít a mistake, it was deliberate.


Okay. So, when you first saw it?   Yes.


You might have thought it was a mistake?   Well, I - I donít know about being a mistake, I just couldnít believe it.


Yeah?   So     


But when did you think it was a mistake? You didnít think it was a mistake until it     ?   When it came off     


     had disappeared?   When it came of the internet after police were involved, I thought okay, it could have been a mistake. But when it went back on in January     


Yeah?        it definitely wasnít a mistake.


Okay?   Because if it was a mistake, it would have stayed off. It would have been, "Sorry, my mistake, it's not you; I'll take everything down". But it lasted probably a month and then it was back up again. So, I'm - I am definitely sure it wasnít a mistake. I donít know whether playing silly buggers, I donít know, but it wasnít a mistake.


Okay?   It was deliberate.


Now, okay, when you say it was taken off     ?   Yes.


     how - can you explain how you knew it was taken off?   Well, I clicked on it and it went to nothing.


Clicked on what?   On the link, typed in my wife's thing and it went to the Haig Report but nothing came up.


Typed in what?   "Julie Marie Dick".


Where?   On Google.


On Google, on the Google site?   Correct.


Okay. And what happened then?   Then it went - linked to this Haig Report.


So, what happened when you put in Julie Marie Dick and you pressed "Enter", right?   Correct.


Can we go through the steps?   Okay.


Okay?   You donít want me to spell it?


If you like?   You want me to go through the steps?


Go through the steps?   Okay. I typed in my wife's name, Julie Marie Dick, in Google, out  come links to different websites. The Haig Report was one of them which I clicked on, it came up nothing. It didnít have anything - the report didnít come up.


What came up?   Something that - to tell you the truth, I can't remember actually what did come up. I donít know what the wording was, but the report wasnít there. Then as I said, I said to my wife that it's not there, it's been taken off. We assumed the police had told the person that put it on there to take it off, which they did. Then as I said, in January, late January I googled exactly the same; I googled my wife's name in, exactly the same again; it went to the Haig - the links  come up on the Google page; went to the Haig Report again, it was back again. Everything was still there.


Okay. So, when you say you went to the Haig Report did it go to?   It just from the start, the Haig Report.


Is that all the Haig Report is, is that     ?   Well, the - it went to the Judge Julie Dick. I'm assuming - I donít know how big the Haig Report is, but it went to the link "Judge Julie Marie Dick electoral fraud".


It went to this page, did it?   Yes, it did.


And that's what it had gone to every time you     ?   Except when it had come off.


Except when it  come off?   Yes.


And what came up then, you can't     ?   I can't remember word for word, no, I cannot remember. But that didnít come up.


This didnít come up, none of it came up?   That didnít come up at all.


Nothing came up at all?   No.


Okay. And you're sure of that?   I'm positive.


BENCH: I think his evidence is quite clear on that, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Okay. Well, I donít want it being questioned later, your Honour. Okay. Now, I was going to ask something - my mind just does go blank, your Honour and it's happening now.


BENCH: Well, what we might do; we'll have a short break, we'll come back and then go through to 1 o'clock and then have a break.


DEFENDANT: Okay, your Honour.


BENCH: All right then? So, we're just going to have a short break there, Mr Dick.




THE COURT ADJOURNED





THE COURT RESUMED




JOHN EDWARD DICK, CONTINUING:




CROSS-EXAMINATION:




BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Yes, now, continuing on. Can you see that - that - were there any incorrect facts on that - incorrect statements on that page?   Facts or statements?


Any incorrect statements?   Yes, there were.


Okay. Can you point to the incorrect statement please?   Down the - well, the picture of me, and that I'm her son under     


Okay. Fair enough?        and that's - I'm Michael Francis Mellifont. Also my house is not - my house is not used as a Labor Party election - for election fraud.


Yeah?   The statement about JD's place     


Yeah?        is incorrect again.


Okay?   So there's     


Okay. Any other incorrect statements on that page?   Uh, actually the - the Google map is pointing to the wrong house; the satellite map is pointing to the house next door, not to our house, actually. So that's wrong.


Okay. Okay? Now, there are - there is a contact form mentioned on some of those pages, like one of those pages where there's a contact form, and near the top of the page - just under the top of the page there'd be a blue strip I think which I'd seen on a few pages here. There. Have you seen this website before?   Yeah, only briefly. I didn't - my wife brought it up. I only seen it briefly. I didn't actually     


Okay?        only in passing. So     


Okay. Did you see that these websites have a contact form on? So you can see a, "contact us" there - contact us, and you've noted there are errors on that page     ?   I noticed     


     and you offended - you were offended by some of those errors?   Correct.


Had you thought of advising the - the administrator of the sites of the errors?   No, didn't.


Okay. Okay. Um, what did you want to happen?   Excuse me?


What did you want to happen?   What did I want to happen?


Mmm?   I wanted it off - off - off the internet completely, and an apology to my wife and myself and my family for - for all the undue stress that it's put us under.


Mmm?   Um, that's - that's what I wanted, but that's what we haven't got.


So - so what are you wanting since you haven't got that?   Sorry?


So what are you wanting since you haven't got that?


MR HUNTER: How is this relevant to any issue that's got to be decided by this Court? As I said, I have a standing objection how this gentleman     


BENCH: Yes.


MR HUNTER:      feels is irrelevant. It's not what     


BENCH: Mr Mathews     


DEFENDANT: It's not what he - but what he wants as opposed to, well     


MR HUNTER: Well, it's still irrelevant.


BENCH: Yes, it's not relevant.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Why are you here today?   To give evidence.


And now can we take you to that - that page of that ex-police - Peter Dutton MP. Can we go down that page please? Now, you've seen this page you did say?   Only briefly. I didn't - like I said only in passing. My wife seen the page.


Sorry?   My wife had the page - only walked passed the computer.


I see. So you are no longer interested in the matter?   Excuse me?


You're no longer interested in this matter?   Uh, that's Peter Dutton. I'm John Dick.


Yes?   He doesn't interest me, no.


Okay, even though it referred to Julie Marie Dick and Julie Marie Mellifont?   Well, I didn't read it down further, so I wouldn't have known.




Okay. Okay. So when you found at the end of January 2009, "I arrived home early from work one morning and decided to type in my wife's details"     ?   Uh     


     what was - can you describe that please, in your own words?   Uh, I typed in "Julie Marie Dick"     


Into?        into Google - into the Google search engine and up came "Corrupt Judge - Haig Report". I clicked on that; it was back.


Okay. So what did you do?   Well, when my wife woke - when my wife woke up I told her     


What time was this, sorry?   Oh, I was - it must've been     


BENCH: Is it relevant what time his wife woke up?   I came home from work, so it might've been five in the morning.


All right.


DEFENDANT: Five in the morning, okay.


BENCH: Things like that aren't relevant, surely, Mr Mathews. Just keep going?   And when my wife woke up I told her that it was back, and I thought to myself, "here we go again". And we proceeded at the beginning of February to go to the police and we made a report.


DEFENDANT: Okay. So how did that occur? What - okay, when did you - how did you proceed to go to the police?   How?


Yes. I mean did you phone them first?   We rang - well, my wife rang the police first.


When was that?   It could've been at the beginning of February     


Okay?        the first couple of days. I'm not - I can't be a hundred per cent sure what date     


Okay?        but I do know the date that we went and had the interview was the 8th of February.


Okay. And what day of the week was that?   That day - I couldn't even tell you. Don't even know.


Was it one of your - you do soccer?   Football.


Do you play soccer - football, yeah?   I coach, yes, I do.


Coach?   Yes.


Okay?   And it would've - no, and     


BENCH: Was it a week day?   To tell you the truth, your Honour, I can't remember.


All right, he doesn't know what day it was, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Okay?   All I know it was the 8th of February, I know that, but I don't know what the actual day - calendar day was.


Okay. Okay. Um, you can be sure of the date though? You can?   I can, yeah.


Okay, that's good     ?   Yeah.


     we've got that now?   Because it's on the witness     


Uh?   It's on my - the copy of my witness statement.


Oh, okay. So you have a copy of that?   I certainly do, yes.


Okay. And you've - you've researched that - you've read that recently?   Yes, I have.


Okay. Has Mr Hunter talked to you about what to say in the witness box?   No he hasn't actually. No.


And he hasn't - hasn't     ?   Just all he's told me is to tell the truth.


Mmm?   Simple as that.


Good?   Which I have done.


Good. And now - do you coach soccer in February?


MR HUNTER: Your Honour, how is this relevant?


DEFENDANT: It's relevant to the     


MR HUNTER: Well, how is it relevant?


DEFENDANT: The dates - to dates     


BENCH: Well, how is it relevant, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Dates     


BENCH: How is it relevant?


DEFENDANT: It's relevant to dates and recollections of the witness, your Honour. The credibility of the witness and reliability of the witness, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, his evidence is that it's the 8th of February     


DEFENDANT: That's right.


BENCH:      he gave the statement.


DEFENDANT: Okay. So - and well     


BENCH: Is there any questions surrounding dates? The witness says he remembers the date because that's the statement is dated.


DEFENDANT: On his statement, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: That's right. So     


DEFENDANT: And that's the reason you remember it?   Correct.


That's right. And so you can - you've refreshed yourself on a lot - lot of facts from what's in your statement?   Over the last six months I've read it every so often, yes.


Okay. So, your Honour, there was mention before that regarding the prosecution would consider that statement - finding the statement where it might be.


BENCH: Print out you're talking about?


MR HUNTER: Inquires have been - inquiries have been made     


BENCH: Print out we're talking about?


MR HUNTER: The print out, yes. Inquiries have been made.
Ms Dick - Mrs Dick thinks that she should be able to locate it, but that it's at their home Warner. That's as far as I can take it.


DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour. Thank you, Mr Hunter. And     


BENCH: Just on that print out, Mr Dick, what can you say that's on that print out as     ?   Excuse me?


What can you say that's on the print out as it relates to the images you've seen today ?   Exactly the same.


All right?   Exactly the same.


DEFENDANT: Okay. The - how many times did you attend the Petrie Police Station?   How many times?


Mmm?   Twice.


Twice. And the first occasion was     ?   The first occasion was the - can't remember now - the first occasion was after we first came across the - on the internet, which would've been in November.


Okay. And did you - and what occurred on that occasion?   We made a report to an officer, and they said they would get back to us.


Okay. And did you know that officer's name?   Uh, off hand, I think it was Lindeberg, I think.


Okay, very well. Now in your statement as you've - you have eluded to and you've read recently, you've stated on a number of occasions that you were pissed off, or annoyed with that     


MR HUNTER: I'm going to renew that objection.


BENCH: Not relevant now. Not relevant     


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH:      I'm not allowing you to ask anymore questions about how this witness feels.


DEFENDANT: I'm about to, your Honour.


BENCH: Well     


DEFENDANT: I'm about to ask him does he realise that it is not relevant how he feels.


BENCH: Well, it's good that you realise that now. So don't ask him any questions now.


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH: No, move on.


DEFENDANT:      he can     


BENCH: Move on.


DEFENDANT: We can't ask him whether     


BENCH: No. Move on.


DEFENDANT:      he realised that - okay, it doesn't matter how he     


BENCH: Move on.


DEFENDANT: Okay. And - okay, what was the progress of this matter from your - from your perspective after you'd made your report to Mathiou on the 8th day of February. I think you said 8th day of February?   Mmm-hmm.


What happened after that, in your own words?   Well, we put it in their hands and he was going to investigate it, and he sent it on to someone else.

Mmm?   And I forget the gentleman's name. And he called my wife, and my - actually emailed my wife, and as progressed, my wife would email him and he would keep her up to date with what was going on.


By email?   By - and a couple of times on the phone.


Okay. Your Honour, I ask for those emails to be entered in evidence.


MR HUNTER: Well     


DEFENDANT: They've been mentioned, your Honour.


MR HUNTER: They are irrelevant. They - the fact that they exist might be relevant, but their content is hearsay It's irrelevant. Thatís my submission.


DEFENDANT: It's     


BENCH: They're not his emails.


DEFENDANT: Sorry?


BENCH: They're not his emails.


DEFENDANT: But he's aware of them, your Honour.


BENCH: He hasnít got them. Do you have access to them?


DEFENDANT: Do you have access to them?   I donít even know if my wife's kept them. Couldnít even tell you.


BENCH: All right. No further questions on that, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Okay. So what - how else have you been involved? Did you receive any contact     ?   With who?


     regarding this investigation?   With who?


With anyone?   My wife did.


Your wife did it all?   She did.


Okay. And     ?   'Cause she is Julie Marie Dick.


Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. So you had no part in anything further?   Well, only my run-in with you at my back fence. Anything to do with this investigation, my wife was     


Except you made - yeah, go on. But you made a statement?   Yes, correct.


So you went along to make a statement?   Correct.


And on both occasions?   Correct.


Yeah. Okay. And     

BENCH: It's been sometime since you asked your last question, Mr Mathews. Do you have any further questions?


DEFENDANT: Your Honour, I had the same problem as I've explained to you before, your Honour. And I think my - my disability's permanent. I'm told it's permanent, and it's not going to get better anytime soon, if it's going to get better. And I donít think it is somehow, your Honour. And it - I've explained the whole situation to you before, your Honour,

that -


BENCH: Well, if you have no further questions, I would     


DEFENDANT: I donít know, your Honour.


BENCH:      I'll excuse Mr Dick.


DEFENDANT: As I've said before, your Honour, I get to the situation where I donít know.


BENCH: Could it be that youíve simply run out of questions, and that you would not have any further questions?


DEFENDANT: I could not say, your Honour.


BENCH: And you can't tell me when you will be in a position to say?


DEFENDANT: No, your Honour, I can't. As I     


BENCH: I know what youíve said.


DEFENDANT: I can't control my - I can't control my disability, your Honour.


BENCH: I know that. Well, I accept what you say.


DEFENDANT: Yeah.


BENCH: I accept that.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Okay.


BENCH: However, as I've said, we can't sit here all day waiting for you to think up a question, or we can't just go away for you to do something else to think up a question. The Courts can't operate like that.


DEFENDANT: So be it, your Honour. But, as I say, I     


BENCH: All right. So you have no further questions?


DEFENDANT: I'm not saying that, your Honour.


BENCH: All right. Well, I'm going to treat it as if you have no further questions.


DEFENDANT: Well, I - I donít know, your Honour.

BENCH: Well, it seems to me youíve canvassed most of the issues. Youíve cross-examined Mr Dick on the images.


DEFENDANT: Do you think     


BENCH: The statements he's made to     


DEFENDANT: You think, your Honour?


BENCH: Well, thatís just what I think.


DEFENDANT: Mmm.


BENCH: I'm just raising that as maybe some sort of prompt     


DEFENDANT: Oh, I see.


BENCH:      to you.


DEFENDANT: Okay. But I can't rely on that, I gather?


BENCH: You can rely on it. I'm just     


DEFENDANT: Hey? Beg your pardon?


BENCH: You can do whatever you like.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: But what I said to you, on many occasions, I can't sit here just waiting for you to think up a question.


DEFENDANT: Yes, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: The longer it takes - giving due regard to what you say is your problem - the longer it takes to think up a question - well, suggestion is that it's not an important question. It's not a relevant question.


DEFENDANT: Well, that's     


BENCH: And it's not a question youíve already asked     


DEFENDANT: Well, I donít think that's     


BENCH:      or youíve already not asked.


DEFENDANT: I donít think that's the case, your Honour. It's - I mean when my mind goes blank, it goes blank, your Honour. I can be in the middle of a sentence and middle of a thought, and I - I think that's a great idea. Then I think, now what was that thought?


BENCH: Mmm.


DEFENDANT: Now     


BENCH: But you can't tell me when you'll get your thought back?


DEFENDANT: It's - it's my disability, your Honour.


BENCH: I know that. So do you have any more questions?


DEFENDANT: Probably, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, now?


DEFENDANT: My mind's a blank at the moment.


BENCH: All right. Well, I'm treating your cross-examination as an - do you have any re-examination, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Yes, just one matter, your Honour.




RE-EXAMINATION:




MR HUNTER: Mr Dick, you've given evidence and were cross-examined about your altercation about - over the back fence     ?   Correct.


     with Mr Mathews?   Correct.


Is that the only time youíve spoken to him at your house?   Correct.


Okay. Thank you, your Honour, I've got nothing further.


BENCH: Yes, thank you. You're excused Mr Dick.




WITNESS EXCUSED




BENCH: So, now how many other witnesses do you have?


MR HUNTER: Several. Police Officer Monica Antony is outside. I intend to call her at resumption. Police Officer Henry Rantala is a police prosecutor, and should be close handy. Will only need a few minutes to get here. So they, I suspect, will take up the afternoon.


BENCH: All right. So     


MR HUNTER: And there are a number of police witnesses involved in the investigation, and the computer evidence as well.


BENCH: All right. So 2.15, Mr Mathews?

DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


BENCH: Thank you. We'll adjourn to that time.




THE COURT ADJOURNED




THE COURT RESUMED




BENCH: Yes, Mr Hunter?


DEFENDANT: Your Honour     


BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: Just on the matter of previously on my cross-examinations     


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT:      I've been restricted on elucidating evidence     


BENCH: Well, you say you've been restricted. I think a fair reading of the transcript will reveal that youíve been given much latitude.


DEFENDANT: Well, what I'm saying; in relation to being able to only cross-examine the - the two witnesses this morning, in relation to the actual elements of the charges, rather than on matters which would be relevant to my defence.


Now, my - I donít have to disclose my defence at this stage. But it can be wide-ranging. And there's - you know, there's so much which is relevant evidence which can be - go towards my case, not only my defence to the charges, but in raising other matters by way of submission. And I can't do that if I'm not - if I'm prevented from being able to inquire of the evidence.


This was in relation, in particular, to the - because the charges are of what a reasonable man would view, a reasonable man test. And, therefore, whatever their impressions were or their feelings were, were not relevant. And, in fact, maybe the     


BENCH: But I allowed you to ask questions on that     


DEFENDANT: Sorry?


BENCH:      over the objection. I allowed you to ask questions on that     


DEFENDANT: Yeah. But - but you upheld the objection     


BENCH:      of the witnesses.


DEFENDANT:      when I - whenever I'd ask on something on the sentiment     


BENCH: But I allowed you to ask some questions on it. As Mr Hunter pointed out, citing the authority this morning, it's the reasonable person test     


DEFENDANT: That's right. That's right.


BENCH:      not - not what any particular witness     


DEFENDANT: That's for the charge, your Honour.


BENCH:      or complainant might think.


DEFENDANT: But not in relation to my - what my defence may be. My defence, it may not - may be far more reaching than merely on - on the narrow definition of what is a reasonable man test?


BENCH: But all you can do is ask the witness what their feelings were, and I allowed you to do that.


DEFENDANT: But where's the     


BENCH: You can't ask - you can't frame your question of - if I understand what you're trying to say - is, you want those - those witnesses to express an opinion on what a reasonable person would.


DEFENDANT: No, no, no, no. I wasnít asking that at all, your Honour.


BENCH: So what are you - so what sort of question     


DEFENDANT: I wasnít asking that at all.


BENCH:      were you thinking of asking?


DEFENDANT: I was asking them what their sentiment - their feelings were at times. And, basically     


BENCH: Well, you did. You did ask that.


DEFENDANT: But I was prevented from doing it. I - I - they'd     


BENCH: No, no, I     


DEFENDANT:      be objected.


BENCH: You did - but, Mr Mathews, you did ask it, and I let you.


DEFENDANT: But that was prior to Mr Hunter objecting this morning and     


BENCH: Yes, but you still continued to ask some - some questions, and I allowed it. But, eventually, I had to pull you up     


DEFENDANT: Oh, your Honour, there is     


BENCH:      because it was becoming repetitive. And     


DEFENDANT: If only I - I reasoned that there was so much there that I could not ask on, because what Mr Hunter had said and Mr - and     


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT:      in framing the objection, and upholding the - your Honour upholding the objection. You didnít overrule his objection.


BENCH: The point is, I allowed you to ask questions going towards what each of the witnesses felt.


DEFENDANT: But     


BENCH: And you did ask questions.


DEFENDANT: But not     


BENCH: So I donít understand what you're going on about.


DEFENDANT: But not after that had been raised. And like with     


BENCH: But it was then becoming repetitive     


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH:      in any event.


DEFENDANT:      the thing is that the     


BENCH: In any event, it was repetitive.


DEFENDANT: Why the people became witnesses and why they were was relevant; why they became witnesses.


BENCH: You did canvass that.


DEFENDANT: But the point is     


BENCH: You cross-examined them on that.


DEFENDANT:      I was restricted from doing that, and I - I want that on the record, your Honour. And I hope the record     


BENCH: Well, it's on the record. Everything's recorded.


DEFENDANT: I hope the record doesnít get changed. But, you know, it's - I am entitled - and I was restrict - I was - because of that, I did not ask John     


BENCH: You say you were restricted. I say I was regulating the proceedings. And I     


DEFENDANT: And I was - yeah.


BENCH:      expressed my reasons for that. They are recorded.


DEFENDANT: Yes. And     


BENCH: So, without any further ado     


DEFENDANT: But - but I want to - I just want - I mean I was restricted from     


BENCH: What are you raising this now for?


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH: What's your point?


DEFENDANT: Well, I just donít want it - this being brought up again, that I can only ask questions in relation to the very narrow definition of what the reasonable man test is. And that's what the charges are and that's all the reasonable man     


BENCH: Well, you won't be asking the police officers what their opinion of the reasonable man test is.


DEFENDANT: No, and I wasnít asking these people either     


BENCH: Reasonable person, I should say.


DEFENDANT:      what they thought of the reasonable man test. My - my - my impression of - my reason for asking them of their - their emotions were other than directed at the

actual charges. Thatís why they became witnesses. Why they prosecuted. Why - why     


BENCH: Well, they gave evidence of that, and you cross-examined them on that.


DEFENDANT: Prior to Mr Hunter then making the objection that I could only ask on - on the very narrow definition.


BENCH: Are you ready to call your next witness, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: I am, your Honour. Yes.


BENCH: Thank you. Could you call that witness?

MR HUNTER: If it please your Honour, I call Monica Antony. Might I just momentarily     


BENCH: Yes.



   Police Constable Monica Louise Antony aka 'Big A for Antony' 

DCP_0517 Big Big Big A
            Constable Antony.jpg
We will build into this caption here, the detail that is relevant to this twit brainwashed with a bidet .  Whereever this photo appears on new pages on our websites, this caption will accompany the image of Corrupt cop Monica Louise Antony aka BigA for Antony, SUPER DUMB FEMALE Just consider her answers in my cross-examination of her, now that the police hierarchy has shuffled her out of the way, so she can do no harm to police corruption by her inability to lie convincingly.   This caption will be progressively added to all previous representations of the photo of Corrupt cop Monica Louise Antony aka BigA for Antony, SUPER DUMB FEMALE Just consider her answers in my cross-examination of her, now that the police hierarchy has shuffled her out of the way, so she can do no harm to police corruption by her inability to lie convincingly. 

MR HUNTER:      leave the Bar table?


DEFENDANT: Could I ask the     


BENCH: Just - Mr Mathews - yes, the witness.




MONICA LOUISE ANTONY, SWORN AND EXAMINED:




BENCH: Thank you. Please be seated. Yes, Mr Hunter? Oh, sorry, before you do, what were you going to say, Mr Mathews? I cut you short there.


DEFENDANT: Mr - just as with the previous witnesses, your Honour, the statements I was given was not going to be relevant. The - much evidence in there could not be introduced.


BENCH: I would - no, look, just     


DEFENDANT: I just want to know whether that's going to be the case or not.


BENCH: Just - just sit down and listen to the evidence, and then you can cross-examine the witness, and refer to statements, if you wish; previous statements of the witness. Yes, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: Thank you. Can you tell the Court your full name, please?   My full name is Monica Louise Antony.


Okay. And what's your occupation, Ms Anthony?   I'm a constable of police with the Queensland Police Service.


Where are you currently stationed?   I'm currently stationed at Caboolture Police Station.


Okay.


BENCH: Sorry. For the record, your name is Anthony or Antony?   Antony, A-N-T-O-N-Y.


Thank you.


MR HUNTER: Sorry, your Honour, I did mispronounce that.


BENCH: That's fine.


MR HUNTER: In November of 2004, where were you stationed?   I was stationed at Indooroopilly Police Station.

And do you re  an event on the 29th of November 2004 being rostered on that day?   Yes, I was rostered 7 to 3. It was a Monday, and I was working with Henry Rantala.


Okay?   He was a Senior Constable at the time.


Thank you. And, as part of your duties that day, did you attend an address at St Lucia?   I did. About 9 o'clock we were called to attend 254 Hawken Drive at St Lucia, in relation to a "keep the peace" type job.


Okay. And when you got there, were there any people there?   There was trucks and a number of workers from the Brisbane City Council.


Okay?   And they were - the had an order from the Health Department.


Okay. Can we just pull up the Haig Report? Okay. For the record, this is Haig Report, Proof of BCC Multiple CRIM. There's three gentlemen depicted in that photograph. Are you familiar with those three gentlemen?   Yes. Those three gentlemen were at that address that day.


Okay. And can you describe the events as they transpired after you arrived, please?   Henry and I arrived at the house. There were - these three gentlemen remained mainly outside.


Right?   There were workmen from the Brisbane City Council, and they had an order to clean up the yard, under the Health Act.


Right?   So we were there just to keep the peace.


Okay?   I     

Did you have a conversation with - well, I'm sorry, was Mr Mathews there at the time?   Mr Mathews was there. He was walking around. He had a camera round his neck. He was trying to stop the Brisbane City Council people from cleaning the yard.


Okay. And did you have a conversation with him yourself - with Mr Mathews?   If I did, I donít recall it.


Okay. Did you see Senior Constable Rantala have a conversation with Mr Mathews?   Yes, I did.


Okay, so what transpired after that conversation between Mr Mathews and Senior Constable Rantala?   I don't understand the question.


What transpired after you saw the police officer and Mr Mathews conversing     ?   Mmm-hmm.


     what transpired after that?   After that I saw Mr Mathews walking around, taking stuff off people; yelling and screaming on the footpath. There was a lady who apparently crossed over the other side of the road to - away from where we were.


Okay?   And then Senior Constable Rantala arrested Mr Mathews for public nuisance.


Right. And did you play any role in - thereafter - after the arrest?   I looked after his property when we got in - when I put him in the police car.

Mmm-hmm?   We took him to the watch-house. I helped with paperwork. At the end - if I recall, Mr Mathews was given bail conditions.


Right?   That he wasn't to return to the address.


Okay. Well, did you play any other role, other than making your statement     ?   No.


     in respect of that matter. If you just scroll down a little bit further on that document. Can you identify the two people in those two photographs?   On the right is Senior Constable Henri Rantala.


Yes?   And on the left, supposed to me, I think. It says it's Monica Antony, so.


And do you recall back in 2004, any identifying marks to say that it is you, there?


DEFENDANT: Excuse me, your Honour. I didn't hear that?


MR HUNTER: From 2004, I mean it's six - nearly six years after the event     


DEFENDANT: [Indistinct].


BENCH: Sorry, Mr Mathews just didn't hear the question.


MR HUNTER: I'm sorry.


DEFENDANT: Identifying what?


MR HUNTER: Identifying that it is in fact her.


BENCH: Mr Hunter will ask the question again.

DEFENDANT: Oh, okay.


BENCH: Could you ask the question again, Mr Hunter, thank you?


MR HUNTER: Is there anything from that photograph, taken ostensibly nearly six years ago now, that you can say is representative that it is you?   Well, it was probably the way I had my hair, back then, and I do wear my handcuffs at the back there, so.


Okay?   I think it's been stretched, or something, that photo. I don't recall Mr Mathews taking a photo of me, that day, so.


Right. But that's the back of you?   I know, so - I don't remember.


Right. Now, did you have any contact with Mr Mathews between then and being contacted with respect to these proceedings?   No, I haven't.


Okay. Thank you, your Honour. That's all.


BENCH: Mr Mathews?




CROSS-EXAMINATION:




DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Now, you referred to a lady across the road?   That's correct. There was an elderly lady walking up the road.


An elderly lady, was it?   Mmm-hmm.


Okay. Can you describe her, please?   She had grey hair. She had a shopping trolley.


What sort of shopping trolley?   One that you drag along, that's about all I can recall.


Okay. Shopping trolley. Okay, now you said that I was - I'm Russell Mathews, of course - trying to stop the council?   That's correct. I saw you - there were workmen walking out to the truck with things from your yard, and you were trying to drag them off them, and saying, "No, you can't throw that away, no you can't throw that away, no you can't throw that away."


Okay, but now you've said that when you arrived     ?   Mmm-hmm.


     you say these guys were mainly outside, the council workers?   No, the three that were in the photo were outside.


Okay. There were actually other workmen, they were dressed in council working clothes, I donít know what colour it was; I donít recall.


Yes?   But they were actually in the yard     


     they were in the yard, were they     ?   That's correct.


     when you arrived?   As far as I'm aware, I can't remember that far back. But I know during the course of when I was there, that the council workers were in, cleaning up the yard.


Oh, I see. So when you arrived - you can't say whether they were in the yard, or not?   Probably not.


Why were you called? You say a "Keep the Peace" type job?   That's correct. The Brisbane City Council ask police to come along, to make sure that peace was kept at the property while they were able to do their work.


I'll put it to you that they rang you, so they could gain entry?   I have no idea about that. They had a warrant     


You have no idea?        they had a warrant or an order that they could - which gave them the power to enter your yard.


Did they? What order?   Something under the Health Act.


Was it a Court order?   I would say so.


No, was it? Not would you say so - was it, or was it not?


MR HUNTER: Well, ask her if she saw it.


DEFENDANT: Did you see it? That's right. Did you see it?   No, I did not.


So how do you - so it's hearsay? That they had a Court order? That they had any order? That they had any authority to     ?   They did have an order. I did not read it. So I don't     


How do you know they had an order? You didn't see it?   Well, I saw a piece of paper, Henri Rantala read the piece of paper, and assisted the council.


Well you don't know what a piece of paper is, piece of paper is a piece of paper?


BENCH: Well, her evidence is, Mr Rantala read it. She didn't.


DEFENDANT: So you don't know what it was?   I was directed to go with Senior Constable Henri Rantala to assist the Brisbane City Council to - to enact their clean-up order. That's all.


Okay. And so you don't know what it was, so why did you say, "Order from the Health Department"?   Well, it was from the Health Department, as far as I'm aware.


Well you don't know, you didn't see it, you said?  You don't know, do you?   I do know that there was a Health Department warrant to clean up your yard.


How do you know that? You say you didn't see it?   Because Senior Constable Henri Rantala told me.


Ah - so it's hearsay?


BENCH: It would appear to be hearsay, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. So okay     


BENCH: So move on.


DEFENDANT: Well, there's - we donít have anything yet. I'll put it to you that when you arrived, there was no-one in my yard?   I can't recall.


You can't recall? Okay, well now, what I'd like to see is where was this elderly lady? Could we have a - could the witness have a piece of paper to draw just a rough mud map, so she can show where the lady was. Because - what did you say about the lady?


BENCH: How relevant is this, Mr Mathews?


DEFENDANT: It's very relevant, your Honour. The whole thing - why is this witness here?


BENCH: Is that a question?


DEFENDANT: No, the thing is, you're asking me, your Honour, why is this relevant. It's all to do with the witnesses being here. I mean, why is the witness here?


BENCH: Well, it doesn't seem to be relevant but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


MR HUNTER: I can't see it as being at all relevant.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, well of course he won't, your Honour.


MR HUNTER: The witness is called simply to put context to this entry on the Haig Report. There is a photograph of her, ostensibly, distorted, it would appear, using derogatory language about her. I'm simply leading evidence to put her at this particular scene, on this particular day. The events of that day, whether they be a little old lady crossing the street, so as to avoid being run over by the BCC vehicles, is really irrelevant. This witness is here simply to put context to that particular web entry.


DEFENDANT: Your Honour     


BENCH: Where are you going with the question?


DEFENDANT:      well the thing is     


BENCH: The issue of the old lady - where are you going with it?


DEFENDANT: It's veracity of the evidence, your Honour. There is - this witness is already diverging from the evidence     


BENCH: But this is not - this case is not about why police were at your residence, or at the residence of Russell Mathews     


DEFENDANT: Well, the thing is, your Honour.


BENCH:      you being Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: The thing is, your Honour, the     


BENCH: So this case is not about that. Essentially.


DEFENDANT: This case is about comments about police officers.


BENCH: So how is the old lady relevant to that?


DEFENDANT: It's relevant to the veracity     


BENCH: Credibility.


DEFENDANT: Credibility, yes, your Honour.


BENCH: No, well it's not relevant. That issue is not relevant. So move on. Ask another question.


DEFENDANT: Well there is - Mr Rantala can also introduce evidence too about this, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, if you ask him about it, it won't be relevant either. Unless you've come - can come at it - unless you can lay the foundation, as to make it relevant. But you haven't laid any such foundation with this witness.


DEFENDANT: The - um - well, the witness has already started saying - fabricating evidence.


BENCH: Look     


DEFENDANT: A Health Department order     


MR HUNTER: There's no evidence of any fabrication, your Honour.


DEFENDANT:      the Health Department order, your Honour. And of course there was no Health Department order.


BENCH: She said she didn't see it; the order. She was told of it. She was told by Rantala.


DEFENDANT: That's right - she said she was told of it.


BENCH: Okay, so - move on, ask another question not related to the old lady. It's not relevant in these proceedings, not even to credit.


DEFENDANT: Well, um     


BENCH: So ask another question.

DEFENDANT: Your Honour I - I must say I have to be given leeway in relation to my defence.


BENCH: Yes, but it     


DEFENDANT: And what I can raise in defence.


BENCH: Look, there is, in cross-examination, more latitude given. But it still has to be reasonably relevant. The nature of this charge or the charges before the Court     


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour - it is     


BENCH:      the location of a lady, at a site, where police attended, does not seem to be relevant to this charge.


DEFENDANT: But it's been mentioned, your Honour.


BENCH: Yes.


DEFENDANT: Why did the witness mention it? Because Rantala's going to mention it - in case - in fact it was fabricated by them at the time. And when they - when they tried to prefer charges of public nuisance against me.


BENCH: But we're not here about a public nuisance offence.


DEFENDANT: No, no. And your fellow Magistrate denied me a fair hearing and convicted me, but - without hearing from me. But that's - that's Magistrate Ehrich, but anyway     


BENCH: Move on.


DEFENDANT:      that's another matter.


BENCH: Yes. Move on, move on.


DEFENDANT: Yes, okay. Well, now - okay, so you say the council were already in my yard, when you arrived?


MR HUNTER: She's already answered that.


WITNESS: I'm not sure.


DEFENDANT: You're not sure? Okay, you're not sure. So - and you said, I was yelling and screaming?   You were, you were yelling and screaming at the council to stop taking things out of your yard, and not to throw that away.


Okay. So that's your evidence, and that would concur with Rantala, would it?


MR HUNTER: Well, I object to that, too. How can this witness     


BENCH: Just ask this witness.


MR HUNTER:      give evidence about what another witness is going to say?

Big A for Antony: Monica Louise Antony[Editor: This witness would had had a good idea of what Rantala would say,because the two cops, Henri Elias Rantala and this dummy fat piglet Monica Louise Antony concocted the evidence together to attempt to substantiate a charge of 'Causing a Public Nuisance', [albeit that dummy Big A for Antony.  , they must do this type as a regular occurrance, as they.  These two dumb parasite cops did not contemplate that I would have my RESOUNDING VICTORY 20th July, 2010 in Qld Court of Appeal on precisely this matter.  The fact of the matter is that these two parasite pigs did not have authority for themselves nor for the Brisbane City Council to enter my property. Because property of mine was removed, when they should not have been there, it was Robbery.  Because you will see later in this transcript of this day, that Rantala was armed on his own evidence, the ROBBERY IS ARMED ROBBERY, and this dumb piglet Monica Louise Antony is a guilty as sin.  All this evidence she has been giving will haunt her, as will the actions of Kluck haunt him.] 

DEFENDANT: Your Honour I mean this     


BENCH: That's not a proper question.


DEFENDANT: Okay. This was a stitch up at the time.


BENCH: Well look, we're not     


DEFENDANT: And it's a stitch up now.


BENCH:      we're not here about that.


DEFENDANT: Well     


BENCH: It's a background, but it's not     


DEFENDANT: The thing is, if     


BENCH:      it's not the central issue.


DEFENDANT:      well, the point is, your Honour, if there was no Court order     


BENCH: Look, Mr Mathews     


DEFENDANT:      well the thing is, your Honour, it is. If there was no Court order     


BENCH: You can make submissions on all of this. You can make submissions     


DEFENDANT: Well, I can't if you donít allow the evidence, your Honour.


BENCH: Look, you have asked this witness the question about a Court order.


DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: She said she didn't see it, she's just- she's giving evidence about that order, from what she was told.


DEFENDANT: Okay, your Honour     


BENCH: As you rightly pointed out, it's hearsay.


DEFENDANT:      yes, your Honour. This evidence - this hearing now is not merely so you can determine whether there is sufficient evidence, but it's also to allow me to have access to the evidence and to be able to bring in evidence, from the prosecution witnesses, which could be beneficial to my defence.


BENCH: That can be drawn out in cross-examination. But it has to be relevant to the proceedings.


DEFENDANT: And - I mean, I'm unrepresented too, your Honour.


BENCH: I can't see it's relevant.


DEFENDANT: So - and - and disabled as well.


BENCH: Just ask another question.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Okay, so your evidence has been that they were already in the yard when you arrived. Good. Now     


BENCH: Look, Mr Mathews     


DEFENDANT: Sorry, your Honour.


BENCH:      you have already been pulled up once about that. Incorrectly stating what the evidence is.


DEFENDANT: Okay, sorry. Well     


BENCH: No. Her evidence is that she does not know     


DEFENDANT:      oh, you don't know.


BENCH:      whether there were other people


DEFENDANT: You don't know whether there is - okay, fair enough.


BENCH: Whether there were other people in the yard.


DEFENDANT: Whether there is anyone in the yard.


BENCH: And that, Mr Mathews     


DEFENDANT: Okay, fair enough, sorry.


BENCH:      is something that you've been pulled up on, by Mr Hunter.


DEFENDANT: Okay, sorry, your Honour. Okay. So - fair enough.


BENCH: Correct. If you're going to be put something to a witness, correctly state what the evidence is.


DEFENDANT: Okay, sorry, your Honour. Sorry, your Honour. Okay, and - okay, um - in your own words, can you remember anything else that happened on this - at 254 Hawken Drive, that morning?   What do you mean by that?


Well, you've given your evidence within a few minutes. How long were you there at the time?   We were probably there for an hour or so.


You were there for an hour?   Maybe.


And you left just after - well, when did you leave? When did the arrest occur, in the one hour?   I can't recall.

You can't recall when - when arrest?   We were probably there for about an hour.


Yes?   Before the arrest.


Oh, an hour before the arrest? Okay. And how long after the arrest were you there, before - well, did you - how - did you leave what, straight after the arrest, or did you leave - how long were you there after the arrest before you left?   I don't understand the question.


Well     ?   We arrived around 9 o'clock in the morning.


Yes?   I'm not sure when we arrested you, or Mr Mathews.


Okay, you're not sure now, but you said an hour, a minute ago?   It feels like it was like about an hour that we were there, but I'm not sure.


You're not sure how long you were there. And when did the arrest occur in the time - during the time that you were there? Can you recall that?   Can you repeat the question? [Editorial: Is she on


Well, during the time you were there     ?   Mmm-hmm.


     I was arrested, was I?   That's correct.


Okay. When, within that period of time, was I arrested? A t the beginning of the one hour, at the end of the one hour, in the middle of the one hour? Approximately?   In that one hour period, I don't know.


You don't know when I was arrested?   We arrested you, we put you in the police car, and we took you to the Brisbane City watch-house.


What, straight away, after arresting me, was it?   That's correct.


Well that would seem to suggest that the arrest was at the end of the one hour, would it?   Maybe. I would say so, but I'm not sure about whether it is one hour. But it was probably around one hour.


Okay. Okay. Okay, now, was I handcuffed?   I would say you were.


No, I'm not saying what you'd - were - was I? Can you state whether I was, or not?   No.


You can't state whether I was, or not?  Can't state whether I was handcuffed. Can't say. Okay. But first you said you think I would have been. Okay, can't say. Now, regarding the matter of my assistance dogs at the time. Did I have assistance dogs at the time?   I remember when we were at the watch-house and there was mention of your assist dogs, when we - when you were released on bail conditions at the watch-house we drove you back to your home, where we got your assist dogs, and then we drove you to another location with your assist dogs.


Okay?   That's all I know, about your assist dogs.


Okay. You drove me to another location. Whereabouts?   I can't recall, I think it was a park or something. But I'm not sure which one.


And was there any mention of my assist dogs prior to mentioning the watch-house?   Not to me, no.


Or that you can recollect at this stage?   Not that I can recollect.


Okay. Did you enter my yard at all, on that morning?   I remember walking into the gate, and probably about three steps in the gate, and because of the smell of the place, I could not stand being in there, so I turned around and walked out.


Okay. Three steps inside the gate?   That's correct.


So it was inside the yard?   That's correct.


Okay. And did you, yourself, have a warrant to enter the yard?   No, I was acting as an authorised officer underneath this other     


Sorry, you were acting as a?        as a police officer.


Yes?   Fulfilling the duties as a police officer.


Yes, okay. But you didn't have a warrant in your own - of yourselves?   No, I didn't need a warrant; there was an order from the Health Act, apparently .


Apparently?   Mmm.


And if there wasn't - mmm, you didn't have an order of your own?


BENCH: She's answered that. She's answered the question. Move on.


DEFENDANT: Okay, we've got that clear, that you didnít have an order. Or have a warrant, yourself. Okay.


BENCH: She said - her evidence is, she acted under the authority of the order which she was told about.


DEFENDANT: Which she was told of?


BENCH: That's right.

DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. But not saw - but not a witness to.


BENCH: That's exactly right, that's the evidence.


DEFENDANT: Okay, good. So now, Rantala arrested me, you say?   That's correct.


And on what charge did he     ?


BENCH: She's answered that.


DEFENDANT: And that was, your Honour? My memory, I'm sorry, your Honour?   He arrested you for public nuisance.


BENCH: Just - could you just answer it again?   He arrested you for public nuisance.


DEFENDANT: Public nuisance, was it?   That's correct.


He arrested me for public nuisance?


BENCH: That's her evidence, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Did you hear him say that at the time?   Yes, I did.


You heard him say, "public nuisance". Okay. So I was arrested, I was put in the police car, was I?   That's correct.


Okay, and your evidence is that - went to the watch-house?   That's correct.


Which watch-house was that?   Brisbane City watch-house.


Okay. Was I in a cell there?   You were in a holding cell, at the front.


In a holding cell at the front?   That's correct.


Okay. And - okay. Now, for how long was I yelling and screaming?   In the hour period, probably half of the time.


Yelling and screaming? Now, where was I when I was yelling and screaming?   You were in your yard, and you were also on the footpath.


Okay, well now, whereabouts on the footpath?   Outside, near your driveway.


And near the driveway, how near the driveway? Where in particular in relation to the driveway? How far from the driveway - was I on the driveway, in the middle of the driveway, or where?   You were on the footpath part of the driveway. Near where the truck was parked, on the corner.


Yes, but let's get some - there was a gateway, was there?   Yes.

And there was a fence?   There was a six foot high wooden fence.


Okay. And was the gate - what sort of gateway was it?   A big wooden gate, like a driveway gate.


Okay. And this is going to credibility your Honour - Mr Hunter looks as though he's going to stand up and start objecting or something or other, you know, it's all to credibility. This witness doesn't remember very much, and is trying to set up evidence which, you know, is fanciful.


BENCH: We're not dealing with the public nuisance offence; that's been dealt with. From what you say. Right, so we're not dealing with that.


DEFENDANT: No, no, your Honour.


BENCH: This is all background - this is all background, but I don't think you can take that much further, can you? She's given evidence about where you were.


DEFENDANT: Well, it's in relation to what evidence Mr Rantala will say. And in relation to you know, whether any of     


BENCH: Well, you've asked the questions, you've asked her questions.


DEFENDANT: Okay.


BENCH: You can't take that much further, can you? It's pretty     


DEFENDANT: Well, I just want to know     


BENCH:      what are you foreshadowing here, what line of questioning are you foreshadowing?


DEFENDANT: Well, your Honour, I wasn't yelling and screaming; that's what it comes down to. But that's fabricated.


BENCH: Well, put it to her that you weren't yelling and screaming.


DEFENDANT: Well, she's already said I am, your Honour.


BENCH: All right.


DEFENDANT: So I'm wanting to get details of - can you remember what I was saying?   You were yelling for the council workers to take something back, and you didn't want them to throw it out, and it's not rubbish. And words to that effect.


Okay. And - okay.


BENCH: But you donít want to take that any further, do you? That's - that's more relevant to the public nuisance offence.


DEFENDANT: Well, no, it's relevant to     


BENCH: Which has been dealt with, so you say.


DEFENDANT: Well, it hasn't, in fact, your Honour.


BENCH: It hasn't been? What, is it still ongoing?


DEFENDANT: It's on appeal, your Honour. Seeking leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal.

[Editorial:  In fact, about three weeks later, on 20th July, 2010, I had a complete unanimous victory in the Court of Appeal.]

BENCH: All right. Well maybe     


MR HUNTER: Well then, in that event, this is not the appropriate forum to be canvassing issues.


BENCH:      we won't hear any further on that, then, Mr Mathews.


DEFENDANT: Well, I'm not asking about the public nuisance, your Honour.


BENCH: Yes, you are.


DEFENDANT: I'm asking about evidence that the Prosecutor - that Rantala will be giving.


BENCH: Well, if it's about the public nuisance, we won't hear any of that, either. If all of that's presently before the Appeal Court. So, ask another.


DEFENDANT: Well then maybe this matter cannot proceed any further, your Honour, until that matter in the Court of Appeal is finalised.


BENCH: No, we're proceeding with this matter.


DEFENDANT: Well, if     


BENCH: This matter is not contingent upon what happens in the Appeal Court.


DEFENDANT: Well, it is, if I'm going to be restricted from     


BENCH: No it's not.


DEFENDANT:      asking any evidence - regarding matters on that day, your Honour.


BENCH: Well, you've already asked them. It seems there's been enough questioning on that anyway. So move on. Another topic, please.


DEFENDANT: Well, where the yelling and screaming took place, your Honour.


BENCH: Just move on.


DEFENDANT: And     


BENCH: Donít ask any more questions about that.


DEFENDANT: So, okay. So how far in the yard was this yelling and screaming taking place, the yelling and screaming in the yard?


BENCH: Don't ask any more questions about the yelling and the screaming. Right? We're not dealing with the public nuisance.


DEFENDANT: It's not to do with the public nuisance, your Honour.


BENCH: It seems like it's very much to do with the public nuisance.


DEFENDANT: No, no, no, well the thing is, your Honour, the Court has at this stage seemed to dismiss the charges, but the whole thing is, there's been two hearing in this matter by Ehrich     


BENCH: Look, we're here to     


DEFENDANT:      I'm not convicted, there is nothing - so there's no conviction there, and it's been all a matter of     


BENCH: Look, I'm not going into that.


DEFENDANT: Yeah, so there's no     


BENCH: These proceedings - are you going to ask this witness anything about the website? Are you going to cross-examine her on the evidence that's been led, with respect to these offences?


DEFENDANT: Well, the thing is, your Honour     


BENCH: If not, I'll excuse her.


DEFENDANT:      yeah, no, no. Now, okay, well let's go to that website. Let's go to that website. Can we go to that     


BENCH: Which particular one?


DEFENDANT:      is there any other matter on the websites that is relevant to this witness? Any other websites     


BENCH: Are you asking the witness that?


DEFENDANT: Yes.





BENCH: You're familiar wit the evidence of the websites?   I'm familiar - I had a - I've looked at it a couple of times. It says that we're corrupt police,. I find offence with that. It says something about, "Piglets, and a big, big Monica Antony", making it out that I'm huge and fat, saying that I unlawfully entered his yard, and that it's something about a armed robbery with violence or something.


DEFENDANT: Oh?   And that my gun wasnít authorised. I donít know. That's     


Could I - you entered on that - you entered my yard, you said, on three steps?   Thatís correct.


Were you armed at the time?   I was.


You were armed?   Mmm-mmm.


Thank you?   I'm a general duties police officer. We are armed.


Mmm. Okay. Good. I needed you to say it, that's all. So - okay. Now, have you read the text on that website?   I have scanned through it. I haven't read all of it.


Mmm. Okay. Now     ?   I couldn't find anything of truth on there.


Mmm. Okay. So you said - what did you say there about the truth? You     


BENCH: She couldn't find anything of truth     ?   I couldnít find anything.


     on there, she said.


DEFENDANT: Anything of truth on there. Okay?   Thatís correct.


So - okay. Does it mention 254 Hawken Drive there anywhere?   It does, I think.


Is that truthful?   Yes.


Okay?   Well, I take back my "anything of truth."


So     ?   There's a few truthful things.


Okay. Okay. So why did you say it in evidence? So why did you say it in evidence, there's nothing of truth on the page?   Because most of it is not truthful.


Oh, okay. But you were armed.


BENCH: She said that.


DEFENDANT: Okay. Yes, your Honour.


BENCH: Youíve asked that question and she's answered it.


DEFENDANT: Can we go back up there a bit, please, your Honour? Okay. Now, okay, can we go through it, 'cause I can't - I can't scan it - I can't scroll it myself.


BENCH: Well, just advise where you want it to go.


DEFENDANT: Just down a little. Does it say on that page that you - there was no Court order?   I donít know. I haven't read it in full.


So how do you know - well how much have you read? Youíve just scanned it, you say?   I've just scanned it.


So how do you know most on the page is untruthful?   It looked untruthful to me.


How did it look?   Well, the things that I scanned and read.


I see. So when you scan and read, donít you see very much? I mean - I mean you say you scanned it but you can't tell whether there was anything regarding a Court order, or allegations? You didnít     ?   I didnít read it that fully to see whether there was anything about a Court order in there.


So, when you scan you donít really take much in, you say?   I didnít say that.


Well, do you take much in when you scan?   I took in a few points.


You donít take much of the content?   I saw that it looked like a whole heap of rubbish, and I stopped reading it.


Okay. And - okay. So you stopped reading it. So you can't really say on the whole text 'cause you didnít read much you were saying. Okay. So is your evidence - your evidence was that you returned to my property with me after I'd been arrested with the bail conditions?   Thatís correct.


And you said you then took me somewhere else?   We collected your assist dogs so that you wouldnít be parted from them for a long period of time.


Anything else that I collected, or did you want me     ?   I think that you collected water and some food, from recollection.


Okay?   I'm not sure.


And did I - okay. And then you drove me somewhere, did you?   Thatís correct. I think so.


You think so?   I remember a park, but I donít know which one.


Okay. And so my dogs came with me, too, did they?   Thatís correct.


Okay. And did I have my disability aid with me at the time?   I can't recall.


Okay. In your      ?   It was nearly six years ago.


Oh, I know. I know.


BENCH: Do you want to put to her what your disability aid is?   I - I put my hand on my disability aid, which resembles a shopping trolley.


All right.


WITNESS: No, you didnít have a shopping trolley with you.


DEFENDANT: Did you see any disability aids of like shopping trolley in my property?   I did.


You did? Where were they?   Inside the yard.


Inside the yard.


BENCH: Th