Defence Statements Charge H62294944
- Constable Minehan held me in custody while he prepared his CAN and arrest documentation. I was given a copy to take with me when released.
- The date it is created is 22 October 2016, at 9.01 pm. It confirms I was apprehended at my property at 7.45 pm that same evening.
- In the details of Offences, Number 3, he states I resisted arrest on 19 October 2016, at 12.25pm. I had no contact with police on that day, and was not arrested.
- The same details allege I again resisted arrest on 21 October 2016, at 8.20 pm. I had no contact with police on that day either, and was not arrested.
- CJC MEDIATOR made her complaint to police on 21 October 2016. Did she and Minehan conspire to take me into custody that night, and charge me with resist arrest regardless of what really happened?
- I am charged with sending two emails to CJC MEDIATOR on 20 October 2016, one after the other at 12.23 and 12.24 pm, as per the sequence 1 and 2 of the statement of facts, pages 2 and 3.
- The CAN cites the dates of two alleged criminal offences, in Numbers 1 and 2, as having been committed between 19 October 2016, at 12.25 pm and on 21 October 2016, at 8.20 pm.
- I had no contact with CJC MEDIATOR on either of those dates.
- My internet usage for 21 October 2016 shows I sent two emails in the morning only.
- I took my cousin shopping that day and stayed at his house until around 11pm.
- Therefore, I was not accessing or using the internet, and was not at home when Minehan came to arrest me on the evening of 21 October 2016 and charges for for an offence on that same date.
- This charge must be dismissed, based on the inaccuracies contained in the CAN.
- In all instances, Minehan fails to record the correct date of either allegation of criminal conduct, and pretends there were another two instances of the same crimes, on separate dates where none occured.
- I believe that to charge me with a telecommunications offence the police must prove the IP address from which the offences occurred, and prove an account with the carriage provider in my name, which matches that IP.
- Can the police provide a record of the telecommunications account name, and details of the carriage provider?
- In the bail documentation, Sargent Stephen Bosch claims that I have a criminal history. Attached print out of the police records of my criminal history disprove that statement, being two incidents over thirty years ago.
- He claims I have been put on bail due to the serious nature of the offences. Sending two emails, containing two words each only, is considered serious enough for jail?
- He claims they have a strong case against me, particularly due to the victim’s account of the offence she experienced upon reading those two emails. I have yet to see the victim’s witness statement, and cannot continue to defend the matter until it is provided to me, along with the police brief.
- He acknowledges ongoing allegations of breach of COMPLAINANT’s ADVO are just that, allegations, and not one has been proven in court.
- He claims I show no remorse, but continue to believe that I have been framed by CJC MEDIATOR, using Albury Police, to assist her personal friends to win what was initially a family argument, and involved no criminal allegations, in court, despite her friends’ applications disproven by evidence. Court transcripts from hearings in February 2016 confirm my claims.
- CJC MEDIATOR was not officially involved in the ADVO matters, as no mediation was involved at the outset. When the chance did come up, by way of a court order, CJC MEDIATOR ensured that did not happen, and resorted to using police and false allegations of breach to protect her own credibility after that.
- CJC MEDIATOR’s friends ADVO applications had both been disproven by evidence and dismissed to mediation between the parties involved.
- CJC MEDIATOR should have left it at that, instead she inflamed the situation and it continues today, and is a demonstration of why there are laws forbidding involvement in matters of personal friends before a court.
- The fact that COMPLAINANT provides the print out of the ‘evidence’ on behalf of Bradley to police, again shows and proves this collusion.
- Bradley forwarded both of the emails at 9am on 20 October 2016 to COMPLAINANT. would have been at work that day, so they would not have been able to discuss them until that evening. Together they decided on CJC MEDIATOR’s response, to pretend offence, so they can claim the emails to have been a criminal act. Yet it is against the law for CJC MEDIATOR to use her influence and working relationship with local police, to bring a charge against me for lodging complaints about both her and themselves.
- COMPLAINANT’s interest in these matters is that the contents of the emails refer to the questionable charges bought against me, and in unlawful manners, by Albury police on behalf of COMPLAINANT. CJC MEDIATOR and police should have been angry at COMPLAINANT, since she was the person who created those complaints by her own behavior.
- Sgt Bosch claims I had to be put on bail to protect the victim from my conduct. Yet two and a half weeks later, CJC MEDIATOR used her own carriage service to menace/harass and offend myself.
- She instructs me to plead guilty to the allegations of breach bought against me by her friend and neighbor COMPLAINANT, listed for hearing on the same day as this charge.
- I have prepared an application for a private prosecution in relation to charging CJC MEDIATOR with the same offence she seeks to have me convicted of, along with intimidation of a witness and other offences.
- I have made application to the Albury Local Court to have all of the hearings of all of the allegations of breach of an illegally gained and unserved ADVO moved to another venue, where CJC MEDIATOR can no longer affect the outcome of same.
- I had to have those same hearings postponed due to injuries received by way of CJC MEDIATOR instructing Minehan to create a situation where they could rough me up, and then claim resist arrest. My GP can confirm that he documented those injuries.
- I believe that bail should be lifted, since CJC MEDIATOR has violated the conditions of same, by way of approaching me herself and trying to generate more conflict.
- I believe bail was never required anyway, and was a ploy for police to be able to take me into custody prior to the hearing of the breach charges, to deny me the ability to prepare a defence.
- The following weekend this arrest, Constable Paul Evans and Sheridan Mifsud came to my property to serve a brief. Evans appeared very agitated and Mifsud tried to start an argument with me. I lodged complaints with the Police Commissioner’s Office about that.
- Constable Minehan deliberately listed the hearing of this charge for the same date as allegations of breach relating to an ADVO held by COMPLAINANT in what I believe was yet another attempt to affect the outcome of same, by CJC MEDIATOR.
- Again, this shows that Minehan was aware of the matters between myself and COMPLAINANT going through the court. Police were not able to bring any more charges against me on behalf of COMPLAINANT, to punish me for lodging complaints about them, due to lack of service of the ADVO being questioned by then.
- I have been lodging complaints about CJC MEDIATOR for all of 2016, within the justice department and other agencies, about her involvement in COMPLAINANT’s matters before the court. This charge is in retaliation for all of those complaints, and she has no right to charge me for using an online complaints process, to complain about her. In fact, it is illegal for her to have done so, while I have continued to lodge complaints about her, and will continue to do so until all of these false convictions, are overturned.
- Constable Minehan stated that I was under arrest, and had to come with him, upon arriving at my property. I asked why I couldn’t drive to the station in my own car, so that I had it to drive home in. He refused, stating that he would call the Sargent to kick down my front door, if I didn’t agree to go with them immediately.
- I replied that the Police would have to pay for the damage. Minehan replied that he would claim I was resisting arrest, and would be responsible for the cost of any damage they caused.
- While waiting for the Sargent to arrive at my home, Minehan stated I could bring any documents with me that I might want to discuss during questioning. I packed a brief case with all of the defence briefs for the five allegations of breach made by CJC MEDIATOR’s neighbor and friends COMPLAINANT, and other associated documents.
- The Sargent arrived at my home so quickly I had only just finished gathering up the documents, and things I would take in my handbag, put on a jumper and shut down my computer. I believe I should have been entitled to reasonable time to do those things, and that I did not hinder or delay arrest in doing so.
- Once on the footpath, I took my phone out of my bag to take a photo of this waste of police resources, two cars on a Saturday night, over two emails sent two days prior.
- Minehan grabbed my hand with the phone in it, and refused to let go. I asked to be allowed to put the phone back into my hand bag. He then grabbed my bag as well, and Constable Mifsud grabbed the brief case I had in my other hand. Both officers started pulling my arms in different directions, jarring my spine repeatedly.
- The Sargent, who had been walking behind us, grabbed the end of my scarf, and pulled it tight around my neck. It broke my necklace, then both came off.
- I instinctively gripped my bags when the officers tried to take them. I felt like I was being bag snatched, and it didn’t occur to me that it was police who were doing it, and not to try to keep hold of my belongings.
- I relaxed when the necklace had come off, and asked if they would to let go of me so I could pick it up off the ground. Minehan refused, and the Sargent did that, putting both into my handbag. The list of my possessions confirms that both the necklace and scarf were in the handbag, before I arrived at the police station.
- Minehan then explained that I would not be allowed to have the bags on my person in the police car, nor in the cell. I let go of them, once that had been explained to me.
- They started to lead me to the police van, and I was walking calmly with them. Minehan and Mifsud both still had hold of me by each arm at shoulder level.
- They had given my bags to the Sargent, who took them in the police car.
- Minehan then started applying undue pressure to my left wrist, bending it hard, and appeared to be trying to break it.
- I told him a number of times that he was ‘hurting my wrists’, and asked him to ‘stop hurting my wrists’ several times. Finally I stared him in the eyes and said it in a deep and menacing voice. He finally let go of the pressure then.
- Once in the police van, Minehan went around the block first, and then the long way to the police station. We arrived at 7.40 as noted by both police and myself.
- The document given to me to sign upon release, acknowledging the contents of my bags, was created 7.38 pm. Proving that the Sargent had taken my bags and searched them before I arrived at the station. I was not informed that they would be searched, nor was that done within my sight.
- I was charged by Minehan at the station at 9.01 pm. He did not finger print me, or photograph me, but states that he did.
- I was released on bail at 10.55 pm, and forced to walk home.
- Sargent Stephen Bosch was the supervisor on duty during my time at the police station.
- Constable Minehan now reveals in his brief, that the ‘Sargent’ who attended my premises on the evening of 22 October 2016, was not a Sargent at all, and claims that it was an Senior Constable Quiring. Therefore, they had no authority to force me into custody that night.
- I will make application for a private prosecution against CJC MEDIATOR for this charge, and the other five false allegations of breach of an unlawfully gained and unserved ADVO. COMPLAINANT and Con Minehan will be named in that, as co-conspirators.
- The fact that COMPLAINANT provides the evidence for this charge, finally proves my allegations of collusion between her and CJC MEDIATOR. The fact that COMPLAINANT has tampered with that evidence, by printing it out in a way that it only shows the addresses of the sender and the receivers, without showing any of the complaint about police, again shows that COMPLAINANT has to deceive the court, to make any of her allegations appear to be valid.
- I will be lodging a new application for motion, asking for a change in venue, after making the above discovery just recently.
- Also, Magistrate Murray has committed perjury on the bench, on 12 December 2016, in an attempt to cover up for that same collusion between Bradley, COMPLAINANT and her XXXXXX COMPLAINANT 2. I was given the evidence of that while the applications for motion regarding CJC MEDIATOR and COMPLAINANT were still I progress. I believe it is ground to insist once again, that there is no chance of myself receiving a fair hearing at the Albury local court, due to CJC MEDIATOR being a regular employee, and enjoys a close working relationship with the Magistrates.
Fortunately for Magistrate Murray, number 61 went over onto one page on its own. So I simply deleted it, from what has been submitted to the court. I might leave it in place for the re-lodging of the document, after I have made a couple of changes to the brief.
Should be allowable, since the court can change decisions, and police can change all the facts, after hearings.
I had a thought today about the two emails they showed me at the station. I identified one as being to the Ombudsman and one the NSW Attorney General. But in putting in the emails for the evidence for defence, I see that they were both to the AG. Which means they have showed me a different one on the night, to what they actually charged me with. That should discount another of their false charges against me. However, I have all three to show as exhibits, in court, so the one to the Ombudsman will still be mentioned, and its contents.
Turns out the evidence submitted to police for this charge, was not supplied to them by the complainant, but by someone else. Very questionable that. Especially since it had been tampered with, and deliberately omits information which is incriminating for Albury Police.
Another interesting point is, that in failing to submit the text of the complaint contained in the emails about Albury police, the arresting officer then fails to prove his allegations that I refer to court staff as ‘fucking wankers’, or even police as being cunstables.
He only proves that I forwarded two emails to the home email address of the court employee, who then forwarded them to her next door neighbour.
The police evidence against me, three email addresses. I won’t bother to post the second page of their evidence, it is identical to this one, apart from the time stamp of when it was sent. The diferences are on the second page, the one they don’t submit into evidence. Why? Because they outline unlawful actions by police, in relation to three of the charges bought against me, by CJC mediator’s co-conspirator.
Conspiracy to bring false allegations. I don’t know why the Department of Justice can’t see that is illegal, and criminal charges need to be bought against the complainants, not me.