The HAIG
REPORT: the EVIDENCE
Clayton UTZ:
Incompetent LAW FIRM, NATIONWIDE.
Use them at your peril.
*
Webletter
dated 8th January, 2007 re FIRST Woolworths
ATTACK and unlawful
Disability discrimination.
*
my_PSP
email_to_Woolworths_dated_8th
January, 2007 advising of web-letter URL
*
WOOLWORTHS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of email of 8th January,2007.
*
WebReport
dated 27th October, 2007 re SECOND Woolworths
ATTACK and unlawful
Disability discrimination.
*
my_PSP
email_to_Woolworths_dated_27th
October, 2007 advising of web-letter URL
*
WOOLWORTHS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of email of 27th October, 2007.
*
Email
thread start 1st November, 2007, of Russell Mathews and Woolworths
* Woolworths email of
2nd November, 2007 requesting repeat advice of URL.
*
Reference
to earlier ATTACK by Woolworths.
*
Our
LEGAL ASSESSMENT of the INCOMPETENT
CLAYTON UTZ REPORT.
*
The
INCOMPETENT CLAYTON UTZ
REPORT
With the irrefutable DOCUMENTED
proof which we will adduce on these pages, we will show that the NATIONAL LAW FIRM of CLAYTON UTZ,
is incompetent, NATIONWIDE. This is especially
so with regard to HR [Human Rights, Disability and Discrimination]
law. This is the inevitable conclusion based upon the document
prepared by Clayton Utz, under the partner auspices of the "National HR
partner" Joseph Catanziriti. In that report he repeatedly
condones serious acts of Disability Discrimination. So whose selection
of tune is this piper playing?
The CLAYTON
UTZ report to which we refer, is online at http://HaigReport.com/20080514ClaytonutzreWoolworthsDDAclaimdocument2008-05-14-144821.pdf
/. The Partner responsible for this incompetent report is J J
Catanzariti, Joseph Catanzariti. His email: is mailto:jcatanzariti@claytonutz.com
/. The Senior associate mentioned on the report is Millen Lo with
Email: mailto:mlo@claytonutz.com
/. The report is incompetent, absolutely, therefore, the
partner
responsponsible for the incompetent report, Joseph (J J) Catanzariti, is incompetent.
On the
last page of that report, is stated that Catanzariti fills the roll of
"National HR Partner". Thus the incompetence is Nationwide.
For him to be incompetent and for the Law firm Clayton UTZ to be
incompetent, it is not necessary that every act and every statement of
all or any partner is incompetent. It is only necessary to show
that some conduct or statement of one or more partners is
incompetent. We shall show by reference to this report, where
some gross errors IN THE REPORT lie. Woolworths should not
be paying
Clayton Utz for this incompetent report. I have "standing"
as I am a shareholder of Woolworths Limited. This could be a
worthy subject for Woolworths' AGM.
Clearly, this incompetent putz from Clayton Utz, thinks he can produce
a statement of the character of a "court pleading", which has no
relevance to evidence, and cannot be the substance of
perjury. This is standard practice for the corrupt legal
"profession".
Of course, "Catanzariti putz" from Clayton
Utz, will have difficulty in his inevitable attempt to counter my proof
of his incompetent, or
worse, corrupt report. HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO SAY WHAT ADVICE
WOOLWORTHS GAVE HIM. There is this other matter behind
which the legal profession takes shelter; Legal Professional
Privilege [LPP]. Lawyers think they can hide behind LPP. Lawyers
think they can conspire with criminals and all will be kept secret by
LPP. Of course, retired High Court Judge Ian Callinan discovered
what happens when one's client enters receivership, as in the case of
George Herscu's Caboolture Park Shopping Centre, and the three million
dollar wasted costs order against another legal firm, Flower and Hart,
resulting from Callinan's improper advice. LPP is also termed
"Client Privilege". That puts it in perspective. "Catanzariti putz" cannot state
anything about the advice, documents or instructions he received from
Woolworths Limited. The privilege remains with Woolworths. I suspect
that Woolworths would not state that they had provided only limited,
and
inadequate information to the Clayton Utz putz.
The objective documentary proof that I have are email communications
with Woolworths. Woolworths use a PHP email form for customer
"feedback".
Quite properly, Woolworths acknowledges
communications and reflects the original
message. This I have. The originals are on a Google
server
in the US. I am unable to edit the originals on the Google
server. Importantly, Woolworths has all this information,
too. The likelihood is that this was provided to the Utz
putz but he was too lazy or incompetent to even assess the information
he had before him.
Importantly, Woolworths have the identical information to
that on the documents I produce
here. Clearly, the Utz putz did not even bother to assess
the information on the documents that Woolworths provided to him.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<==================>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The causal incident occurred on 27th October, 2007.
It was an attack
upon a disabled man by Ms Pauline Mann, [pictured at left] an
employee of Woolworths
Limited, "working" at the Buranda Store of Woolworths. The
attack was upon our principal, Russell Mathews, when he entered the
store with his two
wee assistance dogs. Russell has multiple disabilities, and has
a number of "Special Needs" resulting from those
disabilities. His basic
disabilities or
reasons for the Special Needs, are not readily apparent, but are very much objectively provable.
Fortuitously, Russell is fully
trained to be a lawyer, with an LLB, and is presently undertaking his
PhD. He has experience in all courts from the Queensland Magistrates
Courts to the High Court of Australia, and all courts in between. His
greatest success in Law to date has been his unanimous win in the
Queensland Court of Appeal. Being disabled, Russell has a
detailed understanding of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 [DDA].
The practice of disability law is much further advanced in the
US. It seems that, in Australia, people put in a position to
"control access to premises", see a disabled person with an assistance
dog as a "challenge" to them to be able to"prove" that other people
"cannot put one over on them".
Contrary to what the Clayton Utz putz states, it is not reasonable to
continually challenge a disabled person with an assistance animal, in
an attempt to justify refusing that disabled person, access to
premises. In fact,
the present stance of Woolworths and Clayton Utz in pursuing this
matter, against the publicly available information, is further
disability discrimination.
There is a big problem for the "keeper of premises". If a
person with a dog appears, there are two possibilities with regard to
disability: the person is either disabled or not disabled.
If the person states he is not disabled, the animal is not therefore
his assistance animal. [There is the situation where an assistance dog
in training is with a trainer and not a disabled person but still it is
disability discrimination to refuse the person with the dog, entry to
premises.]
It could be said, that it is reasonable for the controller of access,
to ensure that a person with a dog, does not enter when they are
lying, that they are disabled and the dog is an assistance
dog. If the controller of access pursues that line when the
person is in fact disabled and the dog is an assistance dog, then
that is plain and simple disability discrimination.
If the controller of access, continues with attempting to prove that
the animal is not an assistance animal, after being told by the person
that he is disabled and the animal is an assistance animal, they do not
just run the risk of discriminating against a disabled person. THEY ARE
ALREADY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A DISABLED PERSON. There is no
justification.
In the US, this situation has evolved to the present accepted
practice. Only two questions are asked, if the information is not
volunteered: "Are you disabled?" "Is this your assistance
dog/s?" If the answer is affirmative in both cases, the person is
permitted access. Depending on the truth of those answers,
the keeper of premises, risks the alternatives: permitting an
unauthorised person entry with the more probable risk of discriminating
against a disabled person.
So much for this "woman" Ms Pauline Mann. Her ability and
training by Woolworths seems very much deficient.
However, although I am not required to supply that information then or
at all, I had provided that information, PUBLICLY, via my website.
ADDITIONAL TO THAT, AGAIN, ALTHOUGH I AM NOT REQUIRED BY LAW OR
PRACTICE TO DO SO, I
HAD SPECIFICALLY ADVISED WOOLWORTHS OF THE EXISTENCE OF THAT
INFORMATION much earlier in 2007, on 8th January, 2007.
There is no excuse for Woolworths.
I will now specifically counter the points in the Clayton
Utz, Joseph Catanziriti putz, Report for Woolworths . This
should be unnecessary, as my case is so clear. However, if I do
not specifically counter each point, some rogues will try to claim that
I agree with them. The objective documented evidence
clearly counters each substantive point he raises.
Complete annihilation of the
"argument" in the Clayton UTZ per Joseph Catanziriti, Report:
Para 2: The Complaint
Woolworths is familiar with the detail
of my complaint per
our communications and the parts of my website [
I have made a complaint to HREOC. The complaint is at
http://HaigReport.com/woolworthsattackdiscriminateagainstdisabledcallpolice.html] referenced in those
communcations. see http://HaigReport.com/20071031WOWfeedbackGmail-REWoolworthsLimitedFeedbackEdited.html
/.
Para2.3:
Although I am not required to give Woolworths details of my disability,
[and it is discrimination on their part to attempt to elicit that from
me and to then contemplate if I am sufficiently disabled: ie for them
to be a Star Chamber, and ARGUE WITH ME AS TO MY DISABILITY], I have
given all that information
publicly on my website. I have also advised the
way in which my assistance dogs alleviate the effects of my multiple
disabilities, with THIRD PARTY EXPERT EVIDENCE. That is a PUBLIC NOTICE. Additionally,
I have drawn their attention to it, and they have acknowledged that
advice and repeated the advice that I had given them.
Woolworths had that advice and so their AGENT CANNOT CLAIM NOT TO ALSO
HAVE IT, AS THEIR AGENT IS DEEMED TO HAVE IT. Clearly, the
Clayton Utz putz is prevented from commenting in the negative by
"CLIENT PRIVILEGE".
Additionally, I cannot be expected to continue to give them that
advice, neither every day, every week, every month or every year
or on any basis. I have a PERMANENT DISABILITY. That is
obvious from its very nature. Woolworths are required to act on
that advice. They have not. It is not my job to give that advice
to every Woolworths employee. That is the responsibility of
Woolworths. To assist
Woolworths, I had requested
Woolworths to give me a Document recognising my rights within their
store, and produced
a pro-forma with explanation that I was NOT requesting PERMISSION
as the right was given me by the DDA. I was merely asking them
for RECOGNITION IN WRITING OF MY
LEGAL RIGHTS. That would have been the civil and responsible
[and smart, for Woolworths management] manner for Woolworths to
act. Had Woolworths acceded to my request, this whole problem caused by
Ms Pauline Mann's ignorance and poor training, would hve been
averted. Heads should now roll at Woolworths Limited.
Para. 3: RESPONSE
3.1
The date
of the attack was definitely 27th October, 2007. as shown in the
copy of my complaint to Woolworths as was reflected to me on 31st
October, 2007. As stated elsewhere, the original of that is on the
Gmail Server of Google in the US, and CANNOT BE EDITED BY ME. The
confusion by the Clayton Utz goose, could be due to any myriad of
reasons. It is worthless my guessing.
I have already stated
elsewhere the exchange that occurred on the 27th October, 2007.
Para3.1(e) re
alleged 10 to
20 photos.
This has to suggest what a goose the Clayton Utz putz really is.
You see, digital photos are automatically numbered by the
camera. Only I can PROVE the actual number of photos.
[It was not 10 to 20.] This just adds to the stature of the
report as incompetence and wild exaggeration. That was a NO
WIN allegation for the Utz Putz to make.
Now I am aware that Woolworths has tried to say that I was not refused
entry for having assistance dogs but for my taking photos. Well,
I refer all and sundry to:
DDA Section 10
Act done because of disability and for other reason
If:
(a) an act is done for 2 or more
reasons; and
(b) one of the reasons is the
disability of a person (whether or not it is the dominant or a
substantial reason for doing the act); then, for the purposes of
this Act, the act is taken to be done for that reason.
Now, my disability was definitely on the agenda at that time due to my
assistance dogs who alleviate the effects of my disabitity. For
what reason was Ms Pauline Mann asking me for a certficate
"authorising" my having assistance dogs. As I was entering the
store with my assistance dogs, Ms Pauline Mann was yelling at me, not
to "enter with those dogs".
Para. 3.2
Woolworths already had more
clarification from me than they are permitted to require from me,
in both my
website and my
directing them to it. It was clear discrimination for
Woolworths to persist after I had given them more information than I am
required to give, and when they had failed to provide me with the
requested written recognition of my legal rights per the DDA, so I
could show their staff if Woolworths had, in fact, not properly advised
their staff, or the staff had not taken the full advantage of the
"training" re disability, that they receive.
Para 3.3 & 3.4
I have been precluded from entering Woolworths store. I was
refused entry on that day. I did nothing illegal, even if I had
not provided my website informaton and my direction to Woolworths to
it. I did far more than I am required to do.
Woolworths has been extremely derelict. That has resulted in
discrimination of me by Woolworths. I did nothing illegal,
yet this precious darling, Ms Pauline Mann called the police to
me. The police then threatened me with being charged with
committing a "public nuisance". "Public nuisance" is yet another
way for the Corrupt Queensland labor government and corrupt police
force to assist criminals against the innocent people who criminals
attempt to defraud. It is a pernicious implement for the corrupt
QueEnsland Police force.
Para 4: 4.1 to 4.4
Clearly, if Woolworths does in fact "fully train and induct all staff"
and if all "employees and contractors are required to undergo training
on Woolworths' anti-discrimination and equal opportunities policies and
procedures", then clearly it is totally ineffective, on the example of
Ms Pauline Mann on the occasion of 27 Octoberr, 2007 when she ATTACKED
and discriminated against Russell Mathews.
Woolworths is not honouring its obligation to ensure that all staff are
familiar with the Anti-discrimination statutes. If, as
appears the case, the Woolworths staff are lacking the motivation to
learn the material made available to them, Woolworths has failed
in its obligation. It is the responsibility of Woolworths to not
employ staff who cannot implement the conduct required by the
Anti-discrimination statutes.
It is not enough for Woolworths to just conduct the training, if their
employee takes no notice of it, or as probably in the case of MsPauline
Mann, is too dumb to even understand it. Woolworths is
responsible to ensure that all employees understand the training and
are proficient to implement the policies of Woolworths. All
responsible staff must be EXAMINED on their knowledge of Woolworths
policies, or Woolworths policies are WORTHLESS and a con on our society.
Woolworths should have had in place a procedure to "pick up the pieces"
when an employee acts so inappropriately as here in the case of Ms
Pauline Mann. It is most inappropriate for Woolworths to
continue the attack, discrimination and fraud initiated upon Russell
Mathews by this dummy Ms Pauline Mann. This they are doing
by contracting Joseph Catanziriti of Clayton Utz to so incompetently,
continue this attack upon Russell Mathews.
When Russell Mathews was provided with this Clayton Utz incompetence by
HREOC, he was asked, by HREOC,
"Please also provide an
outline of how you consider that this matter may be resolved."
Russell responds that he has already provided an indication of a
partial remedy in his original
Online complaint dated 27 October,2007, on this website at http://HaigReport.com/woolworthsattackdiscriminateagainstdisabledcallpolice.html#The_resolution_I_propose
/. Clearly, Woolworths is in need of such a training
program.
Additional to that, Russell advises that he requires monetary
compensation for the original attack upon him by Ms Pauine Mann, plus
compensation for the humilitiation and embarrassment of her reporting
Russell to police and all the time and effort Russell and others
have had to devote to answering Woolworths' attempted "defence" with
the incompetent Clayton Utz report prepared by the incompetent Joseph
[the 'putz'] of Clayton Utz. Russell advises that he also
requires manyfold those damages in punitive damages.
WOOLWORTHS
via
Ms Pauline Mann, [see the bully parasite's photo below] ATTACK and DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
DISABLED MAN and she CALLs POLICE:: WITH PHOTOS
on 27th October, 2007.
Woolworths, IGNORED our
web-letter
of 8th January, this year, 2007. We
now OPEN it to public scrutiny [on 25 Nov.2007].
Importantly, WOOLWORTHS [Woolworths], do not release their email address
but rely upon a PHP Contact form. Fortuitously, Woolworths respond to
one's
PHP contact message with an acknowledgement and reflection of the sent
message. This proves Woolworths received my advice, and the
precise
nature of that advice. That produces a conclusive case against
WOOLWORTHS, in its own right and vicariously for
Ms Pauline Mann.
Inserted in this "communications to
Woolworths" 20071027
The
purpose of this page is to make complaint to the HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION [HREOC], about the Queensland Police Service
[QPS], and about WOOLWORTHS [Woolworths] and also a complaint to Woolworths. [I
would have just sent an email complaint to HREOC and
Woolworths
but, although I have an email address for complaints to HREOC, I do not
have an email address for Woolworths, or QPS, just a php email
form for Woolworths. So Woolworths can have this exposure,
and I will
send a
reference to the URL on their php form, or maybe I will just leave it
up online, so someone else can alert them to it. If Woolworths
expedite
resolution of this matter, I may be able to publish those resolution
details too.
I am a shareholder of Woolworths. Immediately below, is a line
from my
E*Trade Portfolio Screen [I have a Major in Business Finance in my
BCom.]
|
Trade
|
Woolworths
|
700
|
17.190
|
18/11/05
|
32.910
|
0.410
|
1.26
|
11,004.00
|
91.45
|
23,037.00
|
I am placing this complaint
online as I believe I have been subjected to this humilitation and cost
as a consequence of POOR MANAGEMENT, at Woolworths. Maybe
Woolworths and
I can have this resolved BEFORE HREOC call a compulsory conference with
Woolworths. My site and pages come very high in Google searches,
I am
pleased to say. This gives my Site the affect of my having my
very own newspaper, or current affairs show. I am also the Editor of
the Australian
Disability Law Journal [ADLJ]
ISSN 1835-9609 /. The chances are that you came
to this site from a google search or the referral from someone
who found this page with a google search.
I will relate below, on this page, the incident that occurred
today 20071027 about 1045aest at the Buranda Store of Woolworths,
but first, I will suggest some important matters.
[STOP PRESS:As of
20080514, I have just discovered the name of this Woolworths'
incompetent parasite and bully. She is Ms Pauline Mann. Ms Pauline Mann is a Woolworths' incompetent parasite and
bully.]
The Staff of
Woolworths are
ignorant of the consequences of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992
(Cth) [DDA].
I obtained my first Assistance Dog named Pyosik [or Pyos for short] on
12 November, 2002 as a 12 week old pup. It has been obvious to me for a long time,
since then
in fact, that ignorance of the impact of the DDA is widespread in the
Australia community. Many people, including many lawyers who read
it, misinterpret it.
The interaction since then of myself with Pyosik, has been wonderful
for me. I have
advertised to the world that I am disabled. I have also
advertised to the world that I
have assistance dogs. People cannot know that they should
treat me in special way as determined by the DDA, if they do not know
of my disabilities. I wish I did not have to bear my soul to the
world, but, what are my options. The DDA has been in effect for
approximately 15 years, but still so many are ignorant of the import of
it. The Recent case of Forest
v Queensland Health with decision
given the Federal Court in Brisbane by Collier J, on 22 June, 2007
online at AustLii at Forest
v Queensland Health, [free online at AustLii] exemplifies this.
I have done my part by advertising the relevant matters about my being
disabled and my having assistance dogs. Because so many are
ignorant of the impact of the DDA, I am still attacked and
discriminated against. I have even published the relevant law on
the matters, so people do not have to go and find it themselves.
That still is not effective. They need someone to DRUM it
into them.
I do not for a moment believe that I am the only peson who is attacked
like this. I have concluded that most disabled people suffer
immense discrimination and bullying, but they have to just accept it as
they cannot fight back. I can assure you that it is very
difficult and stressful, having to resist bullying. I believe the
majority of disabled people just take the bullying and go away to where
they will not be bullied. This accounts for much of the
homelessness in Australia. The impoverished state of a large
proportion of indigenous Australians, can be traced back to the same
type of bullying.
The resolution I propose.
I
am disabled. I have had experience in my own Accounting and Tax
practice, for over a decade, dealing with clients. I have been a
full time High School Teacher in mainly Mathematics. I have
tutored Full time in Accounting and Commerce at James Cook University
in Townsville. I have trained to be a lawyer with an LLB.
Being disabled and having an LLB, I have a special interest in, and
understanding of, the DDA.
I suggest that Woolworths seriously consider having me
employed/contracted to
train Senior Woolworths staff, Australia wide, in the ramifications of
the
DDA, and the Federal Court case Forest
v Queensland Health. This is all Commonwealth
Legislation so is consistent across Australia.
THE ATTACK UPON ME BY WOOLWORTHS.
That woman in the above photo, attacked me this morning at precisely
1045aest [the time recorded on that photo], at the Buranda Store of
Woolworths. I told her the
detail of my disability and referred her to my website, as I have done
here above.
The know-all knew it all, she knew the law, chapter and verse; [maybe
her LLB is more recent than mine, but if she has an LLB, what is she
doing serving behind a counter], and that I needed to have a "letter"
stating the legal situation, and "authorising" my having assistance
dogs . [If I had it in writing, - a barristers opinion, or even
just the decision in Forest
v Queensland Health, - would she understand
it?] She was, this morning and always will be a know nothing
no-body The letter she demanded is not required by the DDA. It is
impossible to deal with morons when the little darlings get something
in their heads, which they think is an "idea", Woolworths. My
website is
also not required, but I provide it to simplify the process and to
assist other people obey the law. It is far more than I am
required
to do.
Because I intended to make a complaint to the HREOC, I took her photo,
as above, for evidence. Again she "knew it all" and that I was
not entitled to take her photo without her permission, she
reckoned. I guess that sounds good to a moron, but it is simply
not the law, especially when I am taking the photo for evidence
purposes, to conclusively identify her to HREOC, Woolworths, and the
Australian Community. When I took her photo it was as her being a part
of Woolworths. She apparently thought she could be
outraged. She
rang the police and told me she would sue me for taking her
photo.
Any solicitor would be had up for malpractice for taking her money to
sue me for taking
her photo as a part of Woolworths harassment of, and discrimination
against of
me.
THE ATTACK UPON ME BY Qld
Police Service [QPS]
I was accosted
outside in Ipswich Road when I was going about my business, by a Snr
Constable Paul Andrews, solely because I am disabled. He wasted
my time. I had done nothing
wrong. After wasting half an hour of my time, he advised that
Woolworths
had banned me from their store. I wonder if that means all
stores. He told me that were I to take more photos in
Woolworths,
I would be committing an offence, of Public Nuisance. He has by
that, made a legal action, illegal. Police really think they are
powerful when they can harass and discriminate against disabled people.
My website [this website HAIG
REPORT HaigReport.com/] is in effect a
"PUBLIC NOTICE". It declares that I am disabled. By law,
then, people, as specified in the DDA, must treat me in accord with the
DDA. For the QPS, I can prove that they have in fact been viewing
this website. I have documented proof. Their IP addresses
are 164.112.0.0 - 164.112.255.255 /. With a newspaper
"Public Notice", it can be only presumed that it has been noted. With
websites on the internet, that also applies, but it can more readily be
proven that a particular person, or a person at a particular machine,
has accessed the site.
with full URL ie http://haigreport.com/ ie for alert letters
OPEN LETTER [20061218] Sir Llew Edwards,
Chancelor, University of Queensland re St Johns College.
There is much CORRUPTION in Australia
but the majority
of it is concealed. THIS HAS MAJOR CONSEQUENCES FOR AUSTRALIA
POLICICALLY ON the WORLD STAGE. Australia attempts to
pontificate from the HIGH MORAL GROUND and be the “BULLY
OF THE PACIFIC”. America [USA – Bush] is
attempting to diminish its INTERNATIONAL crimes by seeming to
associate with a densizen of the “high moral ground”
[Australia], whereas in fact, AUSTRALIA IS RIFE WITH
CORRUPTION. The hidden corruption is spread across layers of
government, [elected and “public service”], POLICE,
[Queensland and Federal], the judiciary, legal profession, EDUCATION,
UNIVERSITIES and business. It occurs in many dimensions. Much of the
corruption is for the “cover-up” of incompetence, and
other corruption. Some members of my “family” have gained
some “inspiration” from some of this corruption,
utilising corruption in the legal profession and
judiciary.
The www is the ideal medium to present The
EVIDENCE
of this corruption when
that evidence is documented and the statements of others where those
statements are public records. I
WILL PUBLISH THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE HERE. My
purpose with this site is to assemble that evidence and the logical
linkage for the UNCHALLENGABLE CONCLUSION.
I have special skills in this respect. I am first and foremost a
MATHEMATICIAN with maths majors in my BSc and BA. As well, I am fully
trained to be admitted as a lawyer. I have practical experience in
many courts over many years and as an accountant and tax agent.
Quick Access
Who
is "HAIG"?
HAIG
concerns:
Contents/Sitemap SEARCH
this site
Opt-In
Emails/ SIGN UP.
Contact
HAIG
The
"Judges are Corrupt" [WorldWide] Network
Tertiary
Education in Australia Recycling
to save the Earth Water stupidity in Australia.
English
as a Second Language for Chinese.
Interests
for Chinese People
Coaching/Consulting
CORRUPTION EXPOSED
fffffff
ggggg
hhhhh
eeeeeee