Archive

Archive for January, 2012

EYE-BALL’s Herman on: Democrazy Part XIII – Thought Broker Conference – Battle of the Think Tanks

January 30, 2012 5 comments
Herman O'Hermitage
Title:
Democrazy Part XIII –
Thought Broker Conference – Battle of the Think Tanks.
By: Herman O’Hermitage
Herman O'HermitageOn September 13, 2011 I posted the article 2012 Overture A Crappy New Year linked here.

As we end the first month of 2012 it is interesting to review.

Qld is now committed to holding a state election on March 24, 2012. The USA is desperately seeking anyone to hold a candle to the incumbent president, just a flicker of hope. China has decreased the helter skelter pace of economic growth, but in the Australian mining industry you would not know it. Australia’s Federal Government is looking for a miracle, wanting to highlight the Australian economic story, rather than deal with the real hardships of every day Australians. The Christmas sales and post Christmas sales numbers slowly filter out showing little prospect of employment growth in the retail sector,more like contraction, while both headline employment and job ads are in reverse, and the resultant drop in CPI is seen as hope for further rate cuts in official interest rates.

In the previous post I highlighted how the Australian mining industry has a history of getting in front of itself. The rapacious need to extract the resource and sell as fast as possible, is at the essence of this. No real value added for the Australian community.

Early last December I met with a director of a recruitment firm, an old friend. He was telling me how the European banks based in Australia, are simply not hiring at all. They have critical specialist roles to fill, but as their appetite for risk, is nil, those positions remain unfilled. The Australian banks are saying only rationalisation can maintain their growth targets and profit share and lending figures and building stats are up marginally from relatively low bases. Auction stats are simply miserable, with real estate agents promoting price stability as a good time to upgrade, downsize etc. Tightly focused only on volumes.

In USA politics, the republican contenders are now down to 3. Romney, Gringrich and possibly Paull. Never in American history has the incumbent won a second term with such woeful economic stats against them. But this year, it looks like it will happen. Obama has achieved so little, yet the opposition have simply lost the plot. They can not find a representative of middle America amongst them.

In Australia, it is the governments who have no traction. Campbell Newman only needs to wait 54 sleeps until he is announced the new Member for Ashgrove, and the first LNP Premier of QLD. It looks like a re run of the NSW state election last March. It doesn’t really matter if Campbell is good for the job, he is the only other candidate against Anna Bligh. All attempts at trying to show Campbell as authoritarian or not transparent, do not catch such is the need to affect change. Anna Bligh can add to her resume the first Australian elected female Premier and then also elected out.

At the Federal level, Julia Gillard has similar problems, however she doesn’t go back to the polls for beyond 18 months, despite what the electorate might think or feel. The odds are against the PM being in that job when the next Federal election comes around. The Murdoch press is constantly highlighting the low popularity of Ms Gillard, and if the source was credible, of course it is a natural conclusion.

The 2 biggest stories of the last fortnight tell enough. Firstly the back-flip on mandatory pre commitment and loss of support of the government by Andrew Wilkie and the the sacking and investigation of Prime Ministerial press secretary Tony Hodges. The government has no vision, accuses the opposition of negativity, and uses only opinion polls to make policy decisions. As things stand, the opposition will have a majority of at least 40 in the House of Reps after the next election. They will struggle to get anything through the upper house. What hope is there? Another parliamentary term of playing the man and not the ball.

Anthony Albanese plagiarising a speech from a Michael Douglas movie simply sums it all up. What was I saying about dud plots? At university any student caught plagiarising so badly would receive a 6 month suspension from university for their cheating.

I have barely mentioned Europe. Nothing has really changed since last June when we saw the first civil disobedience in Athens. Germany with their Scandinavian allies will save the Union when there is a commitment to a European Government.

All of this culminates in continued excessive volatlity in financial markets. Firstly currencies suffer, then the individual stocks, that comprise the various indices. The Australian mining houses and the 4 major banks have particularly attractive price to earnings ratios on an historical basis. Moreover I wouldn’t need to look hard to find another dozen. But the uncertainty simply does not go away. What happens if the Greens get their way and a super tax is imposed on the Australian banking sector. Maybe the miracle the Prime Minister needs is widening the tax base of the mining royalty resource tax.

Today on radio there was comment on going back to the gold standard. It won’t happen because of the power imbalance that occurs between Moscow and Washington. The new standard could be capping government debt at 50% of national GDP.

Recently the Murdoch press ran a headline quoting the PM, “lend me your ideas”. Could the contributors to this web site start something special?

Believing in sanity is insanity itself.

________________________________

Herman …

Advertisements
Categories: The EYE-BALL Opinion

EYE-BALL Opinion on – Title: Separation of Religion and State – …

The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2
Title:
Separation of Religion and State –
One of the hottest topics in the world today is the Anglo-Saxon response and mix with Muslim integration.  I received an e-mail from a subscriber – K.O. – on this topic and its content prompted this post.The events of 9/11 have made this issue more real and then followed Bali – and for Australians it is now as real as any other day-to-day threat we all face to a way of life we have come to enjoy.

‘Islamic Extremism is to Islamic as the K.K.K. is to Christianity’ – a famous analogy out of ‘The West Wing’ TV political series – [Series 3 Ep -1 Titled Isaac and Ishmael] –  and an example of how Political Leaders view the TERRORIST tag.

Religion is at the heart of most of history’s horrific crimes against humanity – ‘burning witches at the stake’ – ‘the Pope’s armies waging wars for plunder’ – ‘the Crusades’ – the ‘Jewish genocide’ during WWII – and the list is endless and all in the name of religious faith and someone else persecuting others for having different beliefs and faith.

Makes you wonder whether GOD truly has a plan – how could any GOD from any religion believe and preach hatred toward other religions?   If there is a ‘heaven’ or a ‘hereafter’ – surely common ground would be that all who have faith in any religion would believe that all other faiths would also have a right to ‘enter the kingdom of GOD’ …  Unless that can be taught and believed then bridging the gap on religious extremism will never happen.

Whatever good comes from Religion – and for many recent decades ‘pedophilia’ exposures have the Church’s creditability at all time lows – faith does offer people with a religious soul a central belief in a higher order that can bring peace and understanding to troubled lives.

To non-believers any sense of right and wrong rests within their ‘conscience’ – and they all struggle with it  when they know they have done a wrong.   Those without a ‘conscience’ are the ‘evil’ doers walking this planet.

The story sent to me appeared on Channel 7’s Today Tonight – and the replay can be viewed using the linked below:

The link came with the following text:

On Wednesday 5th of October, on Channel 7, in the “Today Tonight” program, it was revealed how some councils from Melbourne, like Darebin Council in Melbourne’s North (and soon other councils will follow suit) is doing the hiring, using a grant from the Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland’s Counter Violent Extremism Fund.

So far the Gillard government spent more than 9.7 million dollars to promote the Islam religion in Australia, also”developing and implementing activities that assist the Islamic Society of Victoria to dispel myths and misconceptions about Islam and Muslims”
The government also is funding overseas religious workers paying them a salary of $66,000 dollars per year to spread Islam in this country. My greatest concern is that the government wants the Islamisation of Australia.
The following Muslim communities were helped with huge amounts of taxpayers’ money:

  • – Auburn Community Development Network
  • – Australian Somali Community Association Inc. (ASCA).
  • – Bali Peace Park Association
  • – Burwood Council
  • – Centre for Multicultural Youth
  • – City of Darebin
  • – Federation of Ethnic Communities
  • – Council of Australia (FECCA)
  • – Football United – Fairfield
  • – Footscray Football Club
  • – Forum on Australia’s Islamic Relations
  • – Horn of Africa Development Agency (HARDA)
  • – InterAction Multifaith Youth Network
  • – Islamic Council of Queensland
  • – Islamic Council of Victoria
  • – La Trobe University
  • – Lebanese Muslim Association
  • – North Melbourne Football Club
  • – Pace e Bene Australia
  • – University of Melbourne
  • – Victorian Arabic Social Services
  • – The Youth Centre
  • – Youth Development Australia -$45,000 pool curtain installed by the Monash Council to shield Muslim women from public view while they swim.

NO program like this, for any other religious group has ever been run before, and NO other religion has ever received a penny from the government, so the question that remain unanswered is: “why now”, and “why only to Muslims”?????

THIS IS DISCRIMINATION ALL OVER THE COUNTRY !!!

This means the rest of us, who are not Muslims, are going to be “second class citizens” of Australia.
If you are a Muslim in this country ONLY you will benefit, To see the whole story, please click on the link or “copy-paste” the website below:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/10406568/spreading-the-word

I hope Channel 7 will not take this story off air… it is pretty scary to watch, believe me !!!
WHAT AN INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT, WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS !!!

RAISE YOUR VOICE AGAINST THIS MINDLESS SPENDING, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE !!!
AND DON’T FORGET TO PASS IT ON – THANK YOU !!!

Now whilst I cannot support some of the rough and tumble opinions – or the red-neck quantifications … there is accuracy in the ‘discrimination’ claims.

This is the point of the story – as soon as religion enters the political arena – the world goes ga-ga … there is no right or wrong – it is a person’s private beliefs and if they want to chant it from someone else’s street corner, then that is where the crime lies.

Democracy is about freedom and the freedom to choose – and that includes religion – but when that religion becomes unfairly targeted – or yields extremists in the name of religion then everybody has to take a step back and let sanity prevail.

Modern Terrorism as we know it grew out of the PLO movement – plane hijacks, Munich, and the PLO’s Asser Arafat and his extremist beliefs.  All a result of a dispute still being waged today – the Jewish State after the WWII genocide, and the World wanting to establish a separate State for Jewish pilgrims displaced because of the War.   The Palestinians were themselves displaced in that transaction – and that is the dispute that is now deeply entrenched in a generational hatred between both sides.

Acts of terror have been around for millennium’s – they are generally crimes based on extremist religious or political views.

Governments all around the world have got their responses to this problem all wrong.   As a Nation we have our Laws – amending those laws to suit one particular sector of society is wrong – majority rules in any democratic society – the rule of law states that you cannot offer one discriminated sector aid whilst ignoring another discriminated sector.  

The story told on ‘Today Tonight’ is told from a commercial perspective – Channel 7 want ratings and the revenues that come from those ratings – yet the story they aired has much more to offer other then the ‘hit-and-run’ version they offered up.

Immigration policy is controlled by the Government of the Day – it is not generally the will of the people – in any election campaign the Immigration debate is hardly ever raised. It’s too hot an issue – Howard did in in 2003 – remember the ‘children overboard’ lies … it does inflame the emotiveness of the electorate and therefore campaigning political leaders don’t go there because it is the ‘third-rail‘ – to use another ‘West Wing’ quote – if you go there you die in political terms.   Just recall this Governments ‘boat’ people policies and the flip-flop’ responses trying to appease an angry electorate.

The ‘Immigration’ and ‘Muslim’ issues are linked as one – and until the education of red-neck Australian’s – the same ones with Aboriginal issues – die off and the newer generation’s accept the integration factor – this will always remain a problem.   Aging population’s find it hard to adjust or accept change – and so it is when they see non Anglo-Saxon’s moving into their street and shopping at the same mall’s.  It’s confronting and there is nothing they can do about it except bottle up the frustration at the changes to their society happening around them.

The ‘immigrant’ populations have tried their best at integration policies – street days – food festivals – and for the most it all works, and our society is diversifying and integrating – but there will always be pockets of hold-outs on both sides.

A friend told once told me about his solution to a lot of these issues – if you enter Australia – you must first accept and sign a declaration to uphold Australian Law and culture.  He also suggested that their children must be allowed to marry outside their race and culture if they wanted to.

As a Nation we embrace our multiculturalism – and it is a mainstream fabric of where our society comes from.  When our immigrants came after the 1st and 2nd World Wars – and before that the convict exports from our Queen’s lands – they all adopted the Laws of the land and helped form its culture.

When did this get ‘Muslim’ and ‘Racial’ profiling get lumped into the politicking of immigration policy and integration.   If they don’t want to sign the declaration as mentioned above – then they don’t get to live here. If they are genuine in wanting to start a new life – embrace them and give them every opportunity to integrate and feel welcome.  But if they want to import their hard-line fanaticism then the waterline along our coastline is as far as they should be allowed to come.

We are 22 million – in a land larger in size that the USA and Indonesia combined – a billion or so people live in those Nations – so we have room – and we have opportunity.

As another friend once said during one of our debate sessions – Central Australia could become the food-bowl for the world – pipe water from the ORD and Burdekin river systems into central Australia – pump the effluent from all the major cities to fertilise the land – and then you have a new industry employing 1-2 million people living and farming the land in Central Australia … where those people come from potentially solves the immigration problem for 2 million displaced people.

It’s a massive project – but doable with some forward thinking – the infrastructure would not cost as much as the NBN – but the global rewards would have Australia as first choice with every other Nation when it comes to food aid and trade …

It’s about time this Nation became part of the World in a bigger way than Peace Keeping – and Aid handouts – our Resources give us wealth beyond most Nations – let us use it to give something back to the World … and as for the Muslim thing – crime is crime and if it is done in the name of religion – then it is the same as any other motive to commit a crime – hatred – envy – greed – and the many other mitigating excuses used to commit a crime.

Education is the key – exposure to another culture should always be a rewarding experience – it should never be about discrimination – or keeping a distance – but about learning and growing as a society – that is the message – and red-neck idiots should be made to wear shame collars to weed out the silent minority … now that might also be discrimination …

_______________________________________

To have your say where it counts:  – contact your Local Federal Representative and have your say  – please use the links below to find your Local Member and let them know how you feel about this – of you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Link to Previous EYE-BALL Posts.

 ________________________________________

The EYE-BALL Opinion …

EYE-BALL’s Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU) … Part 11 – The SBNSW Response continues …

January 29, 2012 Comments off
The-EYE-BALL-NovelZone Header
Title:
Human Evil Exposed –
John O’Neill (CEO-ARU) … Part 11


Link to all Posted Chapters for –

“Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU)” – The SBS Story

The “Human Evil Exposed” – John O’Neill story link above takes you to a new page where all the chapters to this story are listed and linked.

All the documents that form a part of this story as evidence is linked here. These documents form the evidentiary trail collected as a part of the research undertaken during this project.

The “Human Evil Exposed” – John O’Neill story thus far covers events that took place between 1931 – 1995. The final ending is still to be played out. The motives for what took place in the late 70’s and early 80’s happened in 1931 when the then NSW Government owned – ‘Government Savings Bank of NSW’ was forced to close its doors. This set in motion a number of events that were not resolved until Dec 1987. The motives behind this story are steep in history and these grudges were held for a long time.

After they were finally settled – what then took place culminated in a $75 million FRAUD of public monies carried out by the NSW Government(NSWG) and its agent – The State Bank of NSW – (SBNSW) in 1988.

The players involved and connected with this FRAUD include:

  • Three consecutive NSW Premiers, Wran, Unsworth and Greiner,
  • Several Ministers serving in those Governments and their staffers – one of these Ministers is now a Justice with the NSW Land and Environment Court,
  • Regulatory Departments including the Department of Co-Operatives, Office of Business and Consumer Affairs, and the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, (AAPBS) and,
  • Employed State Bank of NSW Executives – the MD was John O’Neill – who all acted in proven ‘conflict of interest’ positions as Directors on the State Building Society Board, and whose intent was to facilitate a FRAUD against the 270,000 SBS members.

It’s a story that crushed the second largest NSW Building Society and at the time it had $1.6 billion in assets, some 270,000 Society members, and 650 SBS staff.

This is a story told by someone who lived through the 87-88 period and is told from his perspective and the evidentiary proof collected from research undertaken to prove the allegations. This story comes from a corrupted base of Corporate greed, corrupt and immoral Director’s, complicit Government representative’s, ego’s driven by historical flawed motive’s, financial market operative’s, drugs, sex, and the brazen Corporate RAPE and THEFT of the $75 million value attached to the State Building Society.

John O’Neill as the MD of the SBNSW destroyed a profitable and functioning Building Society because he could. It was done out of spite and revenge because he lost the 10 year plan to merge the SBS with the SBNSW. In the process he stripped the SBS of its corporate worth and broke all the Corporate and Regulatory rules in doing so. Rules that were put aside by the Administrators charged with the protection of the SBS members and their entitlements. He had help in the NSW Premier Nick Greiner who sanctioned O’Neill’s actions.

The story has many sub-plots and plots within those sub-plots – it is complicated, and to get a full appreciation of these complexities there is much reading to be done.

Please use the comments option below each post for any comments you might want to express – to ask any questions you want clarified – or if you want to make a private comment … please use the e-mail link here – blogcomment@bigpond.com – Enjoy the read …

The EYE-BALL Opinion … [ … where evil lurks – so do friends of the devil … ]

Definitions of Allegations alleged against Mr John O’Neill and his cohorts …

Linked: The Definition of EVIL:

  • morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
  • harmful; injurious: evil laws.
  • characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
  • due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
  • marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Linked: Moral Bankruptcy:

  • Definition: the state of being devoid of morality and ethics, used esp. for business and political entities
  • Example: A complete lack of morals is moral bankruptcy.

Linked: Definition of RABID:

  • – irrationally extreme in opinion or practice:
  • – furious or raging; violently intense:
  • Synonyms – zealous, fervent, ardent, fanatical, bigoted.

Linked: Definition of FRAUD:

  • – deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
  • – a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
  • any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
  • a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

_______________________________________

Part 11 commences … The SBNSW Response continues…

An Update – The Reasons Why!

By now readers of this story will have started to believe that some serious corporate corruption and fraud happened 24 years ago.  Events that changed lives – and within the story being told hereto there are another 1000 or so more sub-plot stories that remain untold.

For example –

  • What happened to Mr Baker – the Co-Operatives Registrar at the time this all went down in 1988,  and the Deputy Registrar when Premier Wran and Minister Sheahan structured the SBS in 1982 – why is he so guarded about the information he has?  His wish that he not be involved or want any further contact in relation to the story – as revealed during recent contact – what story does he have that remains untold?
  • Then there is Mr Gray – the SBNSW Treasurer who did the Audit on the SBS Treasury that set-up the SBS GM Denis Cleary – what can his story reveal having worked and dealt with the duress of a delusional MD in O’Neill – and as part of that ambit having to face the financial pitfalls of a Bank floundering in mounting bad-debts and insolvency for another seven years – all before they were sold to Colonial Mutual in 1995 with a legacy inherited by the NSW Taxpayers to the tune of $1.8 billion?
  • Then there was the St George Treasury staff living off the fat created by the SBS Liquids Portfolio they inherited … and then the 600+ staff of the SBS and how the merger with St George impacted on their careers and lives.
  • There are also the Political stories – of Mr Humphries who worked with Premier Greiner throughout the SBS story –  and by several accounts was as corrupted as they come in the wheeling and dealing within the political thrust and counter thrust of State politics.  He came up from Victoria State Politics to forge his mark in NSW – his take on all this would be most interesting given where he ended up at APRA – Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority.  The skeletons in his closet must haunt him every night and day if he was a man with a conscious, or any moral integrity that was recognisable outside the world of politics.
  • Then there was Mr Sturges and his involvement alongside Mr Humphries – to these political operatives working behind the scenes – the events surrounding the SBS were just the happenings in the normal course of any day in a political operatives life.  The finding of ways to solve escalating problems is their forte – what gives them kudos and reputation … whether they break the rules is not important at the time, it only becomes so if someone finds out.   Their stories would sink Greiner and O’Neill asunder if they were so inclined to tell.

The world is full of these repressed type secrets – just imagine what someone like Rupert Murdoch could do to history and its course if he were to tell all that he knows, and what he did in shaping Government’s and the political careers of those chosen and anointed.

For a century plus – perhaps even from when civilisation began and Adam ate the forbidden fruit – civilisation’s have lived on what people perceive to be the truth and integrity within leadership – all presented to gullible readers and viewers in modern times through the eyes of newspaper editors, and in even more recent times – the TV News and Current Affairs editors and producers.

What people see is the projected image of what politicians, editors and broadcasters want you to see – and the people of the world by and large accept and want to believe it to be so.

You ever think or stop and ponder why it is news when some high-flyer falls to a sex scandal or a corruption claim?  The story breaks and it is news for a brief moment – it disturbs the equilibrium of all that sustains our daily processes – the gossip hour with friends – the work environment idle chatter – the latest news on the train ride home – it becomes an interesting part to our day that is not interesting to begin with.

It’s a reflection of us and the mediocrity we endure and tolerate in our leadership – it is also a base-line acceptance that current leadership is good enough.  The gossip news and ‘did you hear about’ type telling of these stories in ever-increasing degrees of embellishment – makes our lives that little bit more interesting and above the dreariness.

John O’Neill if he is anything or anybody of importance is like Nick Greiner – ‘he does not even remember the SBS and what they did.’   Well they both do now – and like a spooky horror show sneaking up from behind – blinding their eyes and screaming – ‘do you remember what you did 24 years ago … ‘ – their lives might now also be altered.  If there is justice in the world – they will hopefully be waking and thinking about what they did – trying to recall the detail – the conversations – the paper trail – pondering what will happen if this story gains traction and the ‘walls begin to fall down’.

Yet – this story is my story – it is what I have been forced to live with for a very long time – you see not only was O’Neill just after the SBS monetary reserves – he wanted to destroy the people who showed him up – Cleary, Thompson, the SBS Treasurer and anybody else who got in his way.  He did it by leaking information to the press – calculated revelations to a greater aim – discrediting the SBS Management was his way to sway the SBS Members to vote for the St George merger.

He didn’t give a second thought to think what damage his actions might cause – he just blasted away and the people he took down had to try and pick up the pieces and move on.   But even then he wasn’t done – he verbalised the SBS Staff at every opportunity – his own staff heard the stories during in-house rants, boasts and chatter and they also spread the word – his cancerous bile impacted in ways that even he could never imagine.   He sent investigators to find out personal information he could use – he tried to obtain confidential documents by stealth and deception – his actions had ‘evil’ intentions written all over them – this is who John O’Neill was when he served as the MD of the SBNSW.

If you want an answer as to why this story is told – call it motivated revenge – call it retribution – call it trying to get justice for a wrong – or you can simply believe that it is the story of a broken man having given up on life because the struggle to survive in the wake of what he was force to endure – damaged him for life.

This is one life that was irreparable damaged – that damage lay dormant and hidden for a long time – pride and a previous lifetime of success and competitive instincts carried him for many years after the SBS experience.   He never wanted to believe that the events of ’88 did him damage – and now some two and a half decades later, and after a truly honest look at the gradual slide into depressive oblivion – that journey yielded a cause, and a need to understand the ‘why’ and the ‘how’, and a scent of motivation from a long time ago self-belief in his abilities.

With the flickering flame of a life at the point of self-destruction – there has been but one thing that has sustained him – that was to tell this story and what John O’Neill was responsible for and why he did it.  Call it a last stance of defiance to let O’Neill,  Greiner and their ‘henchmen’ know that whilst 24 years have passed – someone knew what they did and was going to tell their story.

No amount of money could make up for the life that was taken away, or compensate the other SBS staff  forced to restart careers and lives from the ruins of the once proud and robust SBS.  What can give some solace is that the authors children now have some answers to why they grew up watching their father never being able to find any sustainable employ – why he existed as half the person they once knew.

This story is as much for them as anything else – to help them understand.  Yet – it is only a single story connected to so many stories that can be told as a result of this FRAUD and CORRUPTED process by a Government, and the staff serving that Government.   It is a similar story to millions of other untold stories that will never be heard.

This story is not all that important in the overall scheme of things – yes, laws were broken and the responsible parties did harm – and a small portion of a bigger community largely went on and lived their lives without ever knowing what really happened.   But multiplied by the millions of similar stories out there – one does not have to look hard to find reasons the world is at the abyss – the cross-over point where realisation becomes an acceptance … that crime does pay.  Everybody starts to believe that living a moral and ethical existence gets you nowhere in this world.  That cross-over point starts and ends with the corruption within Leadership – and Global and Corporate Leadership is and has been found wanting for a very long time.

Greiner is a millionaire many times over – his political career ended by an ICAC investigation – several people connected with this story are similarly endowed.    What if they were all to suddenly face charges arising from this FRAUD – what purpose would it serve?  Would others who replace them stop – or would they look upon it as their time at the ‘pig-trough’ –  to get their own fill and take their opportunity to line pockets?

his is what comes from discovery – a forensic discovery into the world of how our Leaders get away with crime and corruption.   The Murdoch Memoirs – if he were to write them – they would be like the ‘J Edgar-Hoover safe’ – full of information about everybody.  The strange thing about J Edgar was that he taught every generation since how to play the game of politics – and that is where the world is today – ‘dirty secrets’ and the evil they breed.

_______________________________________

The SBS story continues … The SBNSW Response …

By the end of May ’88 the game had changed – O’Neill with his career one flush away from oblivion and his pride served on a platter he now had to face Greiner and tell him he ‘stuffed-up’.   He tip-toed into a meeting with Greiner to ask for another crack at dealing with the SBS problem.    He had Fred Shields from St George on the hook and this was the carrot he was dangling before Greiner.   Greiner took the bait and agreed to do a deal with St George.   Part of the new plan was to keep the Regulatory authorities thinking about the ‘merger’ between the SBNSW and SBS.

O’Neill’s plan was to keep the Regulators distracted and looking at ways to stop a merger between the SBNSW and SBS – whilst the SBNSW game plan re-focused on a sale option to St George.   To keep up the façade – O’Neill engaged in a lengthy process of letter exchanges with the Registrar and the AAPBS Advisory Committee to keep the mis-direction alive.

Below are internal page links to letter exchanges between the SBNSW and the Regulatory authorities to this aim – [return links provided]:

  1. 2nd June – O’Neill and other SBNSW appointed SBS Directors responses to Baker re ongoing ‘conflict issues’ …
  2. 3rd June – Registrar response to O’Neill re matters raised by O’Neill in 2nd June letter …
  3. 6th June – Internal memo from Registrar to Minister
  4. 14th June – O’Neill letter to Registrar re 3rd June Baker Response …
  5. 14th June – O’Neill letter to Registrar re specific matter raised by Baker 20th May & 2nd June …
  6. 15th June – Registrar to O’Neill …
  7. 17th June – O’Neill to Registrar …
  8. 21st June – Registrar to O’Neill …
  9. 22nd June – O’Neill to Registrar …
  10. 23rd June – O’Neill to Advisory Committee  with complete history of SBNSW involvement with SBS … the nail in O’Neill’s coffin …
  11. 24th June – Registrar to O’Neill re outcome of AAPBS Advisory Committee meeting …
  12. 27th June – Registrar to O’Neill

_______________________________________

2nd June:  O’Neill letter to Baker re Advisory Committee meeting …

O’Neill letter to Registrar re Waiver letter sent previously – Page 1:

O’Neill letter to Registrar re Waiver letter sent previously –  Page 2:

Comment:

O’Neill and his fellow Directors first waiver letters were not satisfactory, and the Minister requested new waiver letters.   In the above letter O’Neill refers to the 24th May letter from Baker – this was reviewed in Part 10 and this letter can again be viewed using the links below – [pages will open in a new window.]:

Kearns Waiver Letter take 2 …

Comment:

See below:

Turner Waiver Letter take 2 …

Comment:

See below:

Thomas Waiver Letter take 2 …:

Comment:

These waiver letters have some pretty convoluted wording and structured by some legal mind with intent to allow ambiguity and confusion … too smart by half …

As stated – the intent at this stage was to keep the Regulatory authorities thinking ‘merger’ – whilst all the while O’Neill was still serving as the SBS Chairman and able to control and direct all efforts toward the St George sale …

Return to Top – Date Index of Events:

_______________________________________

3rd June:   Baker response to O’Neill re matters raised by O’Neill in 2nd June letter …

Baker Response to O’Neill Page 1:

Comment:

The Hely/Allsop opinion was the Freehill Hollingdale and Page opinion presented in Part 10 – this can be downloaded from the EYE-BALL NovelZone Zombie-Leaks Uploads page … or here.

Baker Response to O’Neill Page 2:

Comment:

Mr Baker was getting to the heart of the matter – were the SBNSW Directors as nominated owners of ‘fixed-capital’ purely trustees and under some deemed allegiance to continue to vote the way of the SBNSW’s interests else the transfer fo the fixed-capital could be effected by an already held document duly signed and held by the SBNSW.

This goes to the convoluted arrangements the guaranteed the SBNSW held control over the SBS – and this was never raised during the CSB v NSWG and SBNSW court case … nowhere in the judgement transcript are these pre-signed ‘fixed-share’ documents mentioned – when it came to the SBS Chairman Ken Dennewald’s dismissal – the SBNSW were able to accept his share because he had pre-signed the transfer of his shares when he took the Director position.

This is very damning evidence and puts the whole 1985 decision by Justice Lockhart in some doubt if this evidence had of been produced.

Return to Top – Date Index of Events:

_______________________________________

6th June: Internal memo from Registrar to Minister

Internal memo from Registrar to Minister Page 1:

Internal memo from Registrar to Minister Page 2:

Comment:

This is an important document in that it discusses the Takeover Review Committee (TRC) and who was to be appointed how it was to be engaged before any merger/sale of the SBS could be effected.

How the SBNSW and the NSWG negotiated their way out of this is still a mystery.  But as at the date of this letter the 6th June – and already 5 days after the St George deal was ‘done in principal’ – some heavy-duty bargaining had to have take place to get the Minister to change his mind.

Th importance of this document cannot be overstated –

Return to Top – Date Index of Events:

_______________________________________

14th June: O’Neill letter to Baker re 3rd June Registrar Response …

O’Neill letter to Baker re 3rd June Registrar Response Page 1:

 O’Neill letter to Baker re 3rd June Registrar Response Page 2:

Comment:

O’Neill is dancing with Mr Baker – all around his 3rd June letter – note the delay in response – this letter is dated the 14th June – some 11 days after Mr Baker’s letter – and only nine days away from when Mr O’Neill was due to front the Advisory Committee on his ‘show cause’ over his Dual Directorship position.

O’Neill was answering Mr Baker’s questions with more questions – all to the purpose of stringing out the response process to gain more time to put the SBS sale to St George to bed …

Return to Document Index:

_______________________________________

14th June: O’Neill letter to Registrar re specific matters raised by Baker 20th May & 2nd June …

O’Neill letter to Registrar re specific matter raised by Baker 20th May & 2nd June Page 1:

Comment:

More obfuscation …

Return to Top – Date Index of Events:

_______________________________________

15th June: Registrar to O’Neill…

Registrar to O’Neill Page 1:

Registrar to O’Neill Page 2:

Comment:

Notice that Mr F Shield from St George sits on this Committee – the ‘conflicts of interest’ become deeper and entwined with how the deal with St George would remain secret for a while longer.  O’Neill as the SBS Chairman was taking no notice of the said conflict of interest and was dictating proceedings as if no conflict existed – his assurances given in his most recent waiver were concerned with a merger – O’Neill believed that a sale did not fall within his waiver assurances.  It is  a Directors responsibility to serve the SBS members – how O’Neill could think he was doing so is for him to explain.

Return to Top – Date Index of Events:

_______________________________________

17th June: O’Neill to Registrar…

O’Neill to Registrar Page 1:

Comment:

O’Neill is daring the Registrar to bare his knowledge – if the sale to St George was known to the Registrar at this stage – O’Neill’s challenge has him floating down the river face first …

It is now six days to the Advisory Committee hearing and O’Neill has not answered any of Mr Bakers requests … this is standard operating procedure in any corporate takeover move – delay – delay and delay for as long as you can and then try to mis-direct any specific inquiry whilst appearing to answer the questions being asked.

Some 24 years later – all that can be said is that O’Neill’s tactics were those of a 35 yo out of his depth – his integrity had no bottom – his actions and responsibilities as a SBS Director were never toward the interests of the SBS members and this in itself speaks to the character and caliber of the man.

O’Neill to Registrar Page 2:

Comment:

O’Neill is calling a double bluff – with Illawarra and St George represented on the Advisory Committee – O’Neill is claiming they have a ‘conflict’ which they do – but knowing full well that the deal with St George is already done – highlighting this mute point for show and posturing is again mis-direction …

Return to Top – Date Index of Events:

_______________________________________

21st June: Registrar to O’Neill…

Registrar to O’Neill Page 1:

Registrar to O’Neill Page 2:

Comment:

Some of the secrets have filtered out – this last paragraph in confirmation of the SBNSW’s internal memos to try and convert as many SBS customers to SBNSW customers before the sale to St George is leaked or announced.   The Regulatory authorities were operating in a vacume and had no information flow.  O’Neill was not playing by the rules – his actions completely blindsided the Regulatory authority and they never saw it coming.

Return to Top – Date Index of Events:

_______________________________________

22st June: O’Neill to Registrar…

O’Neill to Registrar…:

Comment:

The guy has crocodile skin … he thinks he is untouchable – he is laughing all the way to the SBS reserves and the mounting SBNSW bad-debts are playing second fiddle to what is happening at the moment.

Return to Top – Date Index of Events:

_______________________________________

23rd June: O’Neill to Registrar… letter and Appendix – the nail in O’Neill’s coffin …

O’Neill to Advisory Committee … Letter Page 1:

O’Neill to Registrar… Letter Page 2:

Comment:

O’Neill to Registrar… Letter Page 3:

Comment:

Just one great blow-hard – O’Neill puffs his chest out and dares the Committee to do its worst …

O’Neill to Registrar… Appendix Page 1:

Comment:

Paragraph 2 – O’Neill and all the SBNSW staff before him just don’t get it – the SBS was formed under a flawed arrangement – three legal opinions confirmed that natural ‘conflict of interest’ but the SBNSW had this mental block that arose from their court case victory where the structure of the SBS was upheld under perjured evidence – and the circumstances around the non disclosure of particular evidence.

O’Neill is behaving like a spoiled brat – believing that what he had been told fly’s in the face of contra opinions …

In Paragraph  3 – he is daring anyone to prove the SBNSW Directors have acted inappropriately – nowhere in this letter to date are the rights of the SBS members mentioned – O’Neill as the SBS Chairman exposes his conflict in that very omission.

O’Neill to Registrar… Appendix Page 2:

Comment:

From point 1 on this page O’Neill sets about explaining the history of the relationship between the SBNSW and the SBS according to his understanding –

O’Neill to Registrar… Appendix Page 3:

O’Neill to Registrar… Appendix Page 4:

O’Neill to Registrar… Appendix Page 5:

O’Neill to Registrar… Appendix Page 6:

O’Neill to Registrar… Appendix Page 7:

Registrar to O’Neill re Advisory Review outcome Page 2:

Comment:

O’Neill was never going to front this Advisory Committee personally – this essay on history invoking the Premier and Minster who approved the 1982 SBS formation with the ‘conflict of interest’ in tow demonstrated his time-warp like understanding of what the current Minister and his Registrar were invoking in the 1988 environment.

If this was all O’Neill was offering it is no wonder his pathetic pleas fell on deaf ears – but he was able to have the last laugh because he had given himself the time to oversee the bulk of the St George sale arrangements –

Return to Top – Date Index of Events:

_______________________________________

24th June: Registrar to O’Neill re Advisory Review outcome apologies for the quality of the reproduction –

Registrar to O’Neill re Advisory Review outcome Page 1:

Registrar to O’Neill re Advisory Review outcome Page 2:

Comment:

This Advisory Committee were only considering the ‘conflict’ position as related to O’Neill’s dual Directorships – and the ‘merger’ between the SBNSW and SBS.  This was naive of the Committee – the same conflict had existed and lay dormant ever since 1982 – and given the previous merger intent of the SBNSW and the court case victory – the Authorities remained asleep at the wheel when considering what other steps O’Neill would undertake to bypass the Committee’s focus.

Return to Document Index:

_______________________________________

27th June: Business and Consumer Affairs letter to O’Neill…

Business and Consumer Affairs letter to O’Neill Page 1:

Business and Consumer Affairs letter to O’Neill Page 2:

Comment:

Kicking O’Neill off the SBS Board to only be replaced by another SBNSW appointed Director made no difference to the ‘conflict’.  Having obtained waivers from all four Directors previously – they were indicating that collectively the SBNSW were serving in a ‘conflict of interest’ position.

Why would they think that kicking O’Neill off the Board would change anything.  This was a real sign of weakness on the part of the Co-Operatives Dept and in review when the Takeover Review Committee was structured on the 6th June under memo to the Minister.

It is around this period where the Co-Operatives exhausted themselves and began to cave … now whether that was Greiner getting to Peacocke in the same way that Wran got to Sheahan – is still indeterminable.   But as at the O’Neill dismissal – whilst informed to him on the 24 June his resignation was not advised to the Registrar until the 15th July – some seven days after the letter informed when the resignation took effect – the 8th July.

Return to Top – Date Index of Events:

_______________________________________

Part 12 – 15 continues … there will be a delay in the posting of the next installment – the next installments includes the July – Aug period and up to the sale of the SBS to St George.    The SBS Treasurer is sent on Administrative leave – the sale to St George is announced – O’Neill’s slanderous behaviour targeted at the SBS Management – and the SBS AGM media reporting … see below for links …

_______________________________________

Link to all previous chapters for –

“Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU)” – The SBS Story

________________________________________

The EYE-BALL Opinion … Without Prejudice …

EYE-BALL’s Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU) … Part 10 – The SBNSW Response …

The-EYE-BALL-NovelZone Header
Title:
Human Evil Exposed –
John O’Neill (CEO-ARU) … Part 10


Link to all Posted Chapters for –

“Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU)” – The SBS Story

The “Human Evil Exposed” – John O’Neill story link above takes you to a new page where all the chapters to this story are listed and linked.

All the documents that form a part of this story as evidence is linked here. These documents form the evidentiary trail collected as a part of the research undertaken during this project.

The “Human Evil Exposed” – John O’Neill story thus far covers events that took place between 1931 – 1995. The final ending is still to be played out. The motives for what took place in the late 70’s and early 80’s happened in 1931 when the then NSW Government owned – ‘Government Savings Bank of NSW’ was forced to close its doors. This set in motion a number of events that were not resolved until Dec 1987. The motives behind this story are steep in history and these grudges were held for a long time.

After they were finally settled – what then took place culminated in a $75 million FRAUD of public monies carried out by the NSW Government(NSWG) and its agent – The State Bank of NSW – (SBNSW) in 1988.

The players involved and connected with this FRAUD include:

  • Three consecutive NSW Premiers, Wran, Unsworth and Greiner,
  • Several Ministers serving in those Governments and their staffers – one of these Ministers is now a Justice with the NSW Land and Environment Court,
  • Regulatory Departments including the Department of Co-Operatives, Office of Business and Consumer Affairs, and the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, (AAPBS) and,
  • Employed State Bank of NSW Executives – the MD was John O’Neill – who all acted in proven ‘conflict of interest’ positions as Directors on the State Building Society Board, and whose intent was to facilitate a FRAUD against the 270,000 SBS members.

It’s a story that crushed the second largest NSW Building Society and at the time it had $1.6 billion in assets, some 270,000 Society members, and 650 SBS staff.

This is a story told by someone who lived through the 87-88 period and is told from his perspective and the evidentiary proof collected from research undertaken to prove the allegations. This story comes from a corrupted base of Corporate greed, corrupt and immoral Director’s, complicit Government representative’s, ego’s driven by historical flawed motive’s, financial market operative’s, drugs, sex, and the brazen Corporate RAPE and THEFT of the $75 million value attached to the State Building Society.

John O’Neill as the MD of the SBNSW destroyed a profitable and functioning Building Society because he could. It was done out of spite and revenge because he lost the 10 year plan to merge the SBS with the SBNSW. In the process he stripped the SBS of its corporate worth and broke all the Corporate and Regulatory rules in doing so. Rules that were put aside by the Administrators charged with the protection of the SBS members and their entitlements. He had help in the NSW Premier Nick Greiner who sanctioned O’Neill’s actions.

The story has many sub-plots and plots within those sub-plots – it is complicated, and to get a full appreciation of these complexities there is much reading to be done.

Please use the comments option below each post for any comments you might want to express – to ask any questions you want clarified – or if you want to make a private comment … please use the e-mail link here – blogcomment@bigpond.com – Enjoy the read …

The EYE-BALL Opinion … [ … where evil lurks – so do friends of the devil … ]

Definitions of Allegations alleged against Mr John O’Neill and his cohorts …

Linked: The Definition of EVIL:

  • morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
  • harmful; injurious: evil laws.
  • characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
  • due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
  • marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Linked: Moral Bankruptcy:

  • Definition: the state of being devoid of morality and ethics, used esp. for business and political entities
  • Example: A complete lack of morals is moral bankruptcy.

Linked: Definition of RABID:

  • – irrationally extreme in opinion or practice:
  • – furious or raging; violently intense:
  • Synonyms – zealous, fervent, ardent, fanatical, bigoted.

Linked: Definition of FRAUD:

  • – deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
  • – a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
  • any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
  • a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

_______________________________________

Part 10 commences … The SBNSW Response …

The stakes in this stand-off were getting serious – Premier Greiner was on record as supporting the SBNSW/SBS merger – his Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs Gerry Peacocke was on the opposite side of the fence.

Minister Peacocke was preparing an Amendment Bill to prevent the merger between the SBNSW and the SBS – this Amendment Bill document was uploaded in Part 2 along with the Attorney Generals – John Dowd – response to Premier Greiner on the ramifications of the Peacocke Amendment Bill.

This was resistance the Premier was not expecting – nor was John O’Neill.  Up to this point whatever O’Neill wanted – O’Neill and his predecessor Nick Whitlam were able to have their Premier make happen.

In the continuing NovelZone Zombie-Leaks uploads – the documents highlighted in this Part 10 cover the period from the 17th May through to the 31st May ’88.     There is also commentary to additional events that took place during this period.

_______________________________________

Below are internal Page links to the SBNSW responses and events that led to the change in plans:

  1. 17th May – Memo to Minister re SBNSW/SBS Merger …
  2. 19th – 31st – May The ticking ‘time-bomb’ explodes …
  3. 19th May – Peacocke’s Amendment Bill …
  4. 20th May – O’Neill sends written response to Registrar’s notice of ‘show cause’ hearing … also requesting a 30 day  adjournment for the Advisory Committee meeting set down for 3rd June …
  5. 20th May – SBNSW appointed Directors sign letters re merger ‘conflict of interest’ …
  6. 20th May – Legal Opinion from Freehill Hollingdale & Page for SBNSW …
  7. 23rd May – Minister memo re unsatisfactory waiver wording …
  8. 24th May – Business and Consumer Affairs response to O’Neill’s 20th May response …
  9. 24th May – SBS Secretary response to Mr Baker’s letter …
  10. 25th May – Attorney General’s -[John Dowd] – advice to Premier Greiner on the Peacocke Amendment Bill …
  11. 26th – 31st May – St George Building Society enter the game with an offer for the SBNSW owned ‘fixed-shares’ …
  12. 30th May – Greiner letter to AAPBS – [G Jack] – re SBNSW/SBS merger letter sent 2nd May …

_______________________________________

17th May: Memo to Minister from Registrar re SBNSW/SBS Merger …

Memo to Minister re SBNSW/SBS Merger Page 1:

_______________________________________

Memo to Minister re SBNSW/SBS Merger Page 2:

_______________________________________

Memo to Minister re SBNSW/SBS Merger Page 3:

_______________________________________

Memo to Minister re SBNSW/SBS Merger Page 4:

_______________________________________

Memo to Minister re SBNSW/SBS Merger Page 5:

_______________________________________

Memo to Minister re SBNSW/SBS Merger Page 6:

Comment:

This internal Co-Operatives Dept internal memo fly’s in the face of everything the SBNSW were trying to implement and were now targeting – and all now within their scope since they had regained control of the SBS Board at the 5th May Board meeting.

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

19th – 31st May:   The ‘Ticking Time-Bomb’ explodes  …

You might recall the previous mention of a ‘ticking time-bomb’ awaiting O’Neill is this countdown in previous posts – that bomb went off some time after the 19th May and stopped O’Neill and his agenda in its tracks.  The collateral damage completely derailed the merger agenda and a complete rethink was required.  O’Neill had to go cap in hand back to the Premier and tell him that someone stuffed up.

The damage arose out of the ashes of the 1931 Amalgamation Agreement torn up by the NSWG/SBNSW and the CSB in Dec 1987.

In the victory celebrations, Christmas and New Year –  and the furious forward planning O’Neill had sent his dogs onto – someone forgot to process the Legislation to amend the ‘State Bank Act’.  In its current structure the SBNSW could only operate a Trading Bank operation – and to merge the SBS they had to have the ‘State Bank Act’ amended so as to allow the State Bank to operate a Savings Bank arm.  This meant that in its current form – the SBNSW could not merge with the SBS.

This was a monster of cock-ups … and at the final hurdle in a methodically planned – but still a flawed 12 year plan – and with nobody in second place – the SBNSW fell on their sword at the last hurdle.   This is an example of the style of Bank the SBNSW was – all politics and no real focus on the nitty-gritty stuff that ensure these types of mistakes didn’t happen.

O’Neill was on his knees to Greiner – he had promised Greiner it would all go smoothly when he first courted Greiner’s support when he won Government back in late Mar ’88 – if Greiner was now having second thoughts on the back of Minister Peacocke’s resistance and his proposed Amendment Bill – then he should have listened – but he again backed O’Neill …

By now O’Neill was off his well thought out game-plan – he was making it up as he went along – he couldn’t go back and undo the Cleary and Dennewald sackings – and he couldn’t go forward without Greiner pulling some strings.  This is where the whole saga started to go pear shape and the cover-ups started and only got bigger as they all kept falling off the cliff.

Whether Paul Kearn’s – the SBNSW Legal Counsel made the error or whoever else at the SBNSW is not known. This ‘error’ threw everything into disarray – and on top of that – Greiner’s legal opinion from the Attorney General on Minister Peacocke’s Amendment Bill arrived on the 25th May and inferred that Peacocke’s Amendment Bill would prevent any merger happening between the SBNSW and the SBS.

This opinion was another disappointment for Greiner – his faith in O’Neill and him being able to do what he said he could do had to have been shaken.   Greiner just wanted it to be off his plate – and in that moment his advisory team and strategists all had a brain explosion in how to deal with the problem.

O’Neill was ushered to find out whether he could get Legislation to amend the State Bank Act through in an emergency scenario.

To date he had not endeared himself to the Co-Operatives staff – and this now entailed some humble-pie and ‘egg on face’ posturing to try and get the Legislative staff on side.  There was a female lawyer in the Co-Operatives Dept – J.M. – who was an advisor to the Co-Operatives Minister – she had a sit down meeting with O’Neill to discuss his Legislation requirements and possibilities.  O’Neill was handed a blunt backhander and told in no uncertain terms that Parliament had broken for winter, and he would get no cooperation from the Co-Operatives Dept to push his Legislation requirements.

O’Neill was livid – not so much at the Co-Operatives staff but at himself and the SBNSW staff who got it wrong.

At this point the Illawarra Permanent Building Society had entered the game with an approach to the Premier intimating they were interesting in buying the fixed-capital off the SBNSW – their offer was a serious offer and was fairly targeted at the real value attached to the $3.049m face value of the ‘fixed-capital’ ownership.

But O’Neill was thinking of a much bigger return – he wanted all the SBS retained earnings ($65 million at this stage) – and the ‘good-will’ value attached to the SBS and he convinced his Premier to reject the offer.  The Premier wrote to Mr Jack rejecting his offer.

The story continues …

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

19th May:   Minister Peacocke’s Amendment Bill …  this Bill was presented earlier in Part 2 and – [linked here] – but in the context of the flow of events – it is again posted hereto – comment on this Amendment Bill and the Attorney General’s response can be read using this link to Part 2.

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Cover letter:

_______________________________________

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Page 1:

_______________________________________

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Page 2:

_______________________________________

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Page 3:

_______________________________________

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Page 4:

_______________________________________

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Page 5:

_______________________________________

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Page 6:

_______________________________________

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Page 7:

_______________________________________

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Page 8:

_______________________________________

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Page 9:

_______________________________________

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Page 10:

_______________________________________

Peacocke’s Amendment Bill Page 11:

Comment:

The Attorney General response to this was uploaded in Par 2 – but can be downloaded using this link

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

20th May:  O’Neill’s response to Registrar’s notice of ‘show cause’ hearing …

20th May O’Neill to Baker Page 1:

_______________________________________

20th May O’Neill to Baker Page 2:

Comment:

O’Neill was sticking to his script – he had to have had contingencies in hand to play the Regulatory responses – this letter speaks for the hubris contempt the SBNSW had for due process – O’Neill needed time in the Chairman position to align all he had to do to have all the remaining SBS staff subdued and caged.  The SBS Deputy GM was sent on administrative leave shortly after the May 5th Board meeting – the Head Office staff were well and truly heeled – he was now do the Branch’s and courting their favor.

This back and forth letter exchange with Mr Baker in his role as the Registrar and on the AAPBS Advisory panel – allowed O’Neill to use the system’s process’ to delay his appearance before the Advisory Committee hearing into his ‘conflict of interest’ set down for the 3rd June.

_______________________________________

20th May O’Neill to Baker Page 3:

_______________________________________

20th May O’Neill to Baker Page 4:

Comments:

The above extracts from the ‘special’ 20th May SBS Board meeting make interesting reading – and again point to the hopelessness of the Independents in trying to thwart the SBNSW Directors controlling proceedings.

O’Neill by this stage had to have known he needed a backup plan. All these record of minutes do is confirm the structured and controlled environment the SBNSW was creating – SBS Director Alwyn Thomas was the turncoat – and now he was Chairing all the ‘merger discussion’ committee groups referred to.  The make up of these Committees was included in a letter dated the 1st June and sent to all staff by the new GM – Tony Howarth – that letter is copied below –  [this letter is not a part of the Index return links]

New GM Tony Howarth Letter to SBS General Staff:

Comments:

The committee make-ups in this memo were decided upon way before the 20th May special Board meeting – O’Neill was delaying the public announcement of these Committee structures because he had a lot of other hurdles to overcome during this late May period – his letter dated 20th May speaks of these Committee’s yet they were not made public to the SBS staff until the 1st June.

This memo to staff was all mis-direction – O’Neill knew by now that a merger was impossible due to the State Bank Act not having been amended – but was still giving the illusion to the SBS staff, the media and the Regulatory authorities that he was still pursuing a merger agenda.   This had them all watching ‘left’ whilst his right hand was wheeling and dealing to find ways to still get his hands on the SBS reserves.

There were a number of media reports released during this period – they can be read via the Word and PDF media files uploaded early in this expose – they are again linked below –

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

20th May:  SBNSW appointed Directors sign letters re merger ‘conflict of interest’ …

O’Neill Waiver:

_______________________________________

Turner Waiver:

_______________________________________

Kearns Waiver:

_______________________________________

Thomas Waiver:

Comment:

These waiver letters were more ‘duck and weave’ than compliance – because the Regulatory authorities were focused on the ‘merger’ between the SBNSW and SBS – which was O’Neill’s original agenda – these letters address the specifics of a ‘merger’ – and all the while O’Neill knew that the merger was no longer an option –

Now – if the Regulators had of addressed the ‘conflict of interest’ issue head-on and said that the SBNSW appointed SBS Directors could or should not be involved in any decision relating to the SBS and its either –  ‘sale’ or ‘merger’ – with any third party, then the SBNSW appointed Directors would have been ‘dunny-boys’ carrying out the dirty end of a losing strategy …

O’Neill was clever in a ‘Reggie’ style – but clever is not smart – having throw the scent in a direction he knew they would all follow – he set about trying to right the ship and he now needed a buyer of the SBNSW ‘fixed-capital’ that was prepared to pay a price that reflected the true market value of the SBS – and that was where he blundered badly in judgement.

How could he think that he had the right to determine the fate of the SBS without going to the members?   The value of the SBS was not contained within the ‘fixed-capital’ ownership – that was the belief of the SBNSW and as they believed they had structured when the SBS was first formed.  Yet now – the Regulators were not Messes Wran and Sheehan – but a different breed with a different resolve.

This is where integrity will always trump skullduggery – where and why those with criminal intent always trip themselves up – they see the prize and having tasted it – they’ll think they can do anything to get it.  But to do that you have to get into bed with someone who also wants what you have to offer as badly as you do.  That is when Fred Shields from St George Building Society entered the party.

But first – the SBNSW legal opinion they sent to Mr Baker and as part of O’Neill’s 20th May response …

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

20th May: Legal Opinion from Freehill Hollingdale & Page for SBNSW …

SBNSW Legal Opinion Cover:

_______________________________________

SBNSW Legal Opinion Page 1:

Comment:

Clause 3 – mentions Rule 7 of the SBS Constitution:  to see a copy of this Rule 7 please – click here – to open the page in a different window – no other comment just information …

_______________________________________

SBNSW Legal Opinion Page 2:

Comment:

Clause 7 in this Legal Opinion above is a most interesting interpretation – where the opinion states –

“… However these 4 Directors are elected by all members (being those holding fixed shares and those members of the public holding with-drawable shares) according to the franchise set out in the rules: see rule 85 especially. …”

…there is some conjecture here – actually more then ‘some’ – … [Rule 85 of the SBS Constitution states – click here – to real rule 85 in a different window.]

This Rule in isolation does not carry or cover what this opinion is trying to convey – be it that they got it horribly wrong to begin with – Rule 80 – Proceedings at Meetings begins and goes through to Rule 90.  These rules are covered through pages 18-20 of the SBS Constitution and are presented below: [opens in a new window.]

Further SBS Rules relating to –

  • Board of Directors – Rule 91 a – 101 – Pages 20-27
  • Proceedings of the Board – Rule 102 – 107 – Pages 27-29
  • Duties and Power of the Board – Rule 108 – 120 – Pages 29-31

… can be read in full by downloading a full copy of the SBS Constitution using these links – [PDF – 12.3mb] – [WORD – 14.5mb]

Not to try and distract from the SBNSW Legal opinion being responded to here – and sent with O’Neill’s 20th May letter to Mr Baker – this opinion has a date stamp on it of 19th May 1988.  [see last page below.]

This seemed a bit odd at the time of discovery – surely O’Neill would have sought outside legal counsel well before this juncture – his in-house legal counsel and fellow SBS Board member – Paul Kearns – had been on this case since the late 70’s.  O’Neill would have worked on the initial CSB setup court case through the late 70’s and would have an understanding of what was being put in place.

Yet – this Freehill Hollingdale and Page Opinion differs from that of the Mallesons Stephens Jaques opinion from the AAPBS, the Solicitor General’s opinion for the Dept Co-Operatives and Business and Consumer Affairs, and the Attorney General’s opinion delivered to Premier Greiner on the 25th May in response to Minister Peacocke’s Amendment Bill on the ‘conflict of interest’ issue.

These three opinions generalising and saying that a ‘conflict of interest’ did exist – stacked up against  the SBNSW’s opinion saying they were sweet and were within their rights to do what they were doing – made for an interesting outcome.   Mr O’Neill must like long-shots in a two-horse race … and Premier Greiner was now involved with a ‘wild-card’ nomination for ‘idiot of the decade’ – The SBNSW wanted it to be so – and badly –  they had been so used to having their own way and having the politicians to carve the pathway – the reality of their creation was not being peeled from the inside out and the SBNSW executive were about to hit the panic button.

The SBNSW Legal Opinion continues …

_______________________________________

SBNSW Legal Opinion Page 3:

Comment:

Mainly history and no issues …

_______________________________________

SBNSW Legal Opinion Page 4:

Comment:

Clause 10 – relating to the Macquarie Bank Report (MBR) – is a fanciful interpretation of the wording contained in the report – it has the SBNSW want and slant but in actual fact the Report played down the merger with the SBNSW – the MBR has been uploaded in the past and can be downloaded using this link in PDF format.

Clause 11 – also goes a bit far in presenting factual commentary – reading the Regulatory Investigation report – click here for a PDF copy of the Investigation Report – these comments seem over stated … the comment – ‘unanimously voted…’ – that is more than splitting hairs and the thing right there is that the Regulatory authorities had the investigation report to refer to when these opinions were expressed in the SBNSW opinion – the SBNSW were feeding their Legal advisers the same pitch they had been telling themselves all along.   Where was their objectivity?

_______________________________________

SBNSW Legal Opinion Page 5:

Comment:

This continuing preamble is setting up the pitch to follow – it is again misdirection and its import and relevance at the time had the Regulators drafting responses that were no longer relevant.

The opinion continues …

_______________________________________

SBNSW Legal Opinion Page 6:

Comment:

Clause 15:  Well … the pitch floats ever so slowly up to and over the plate  … the SBNSW Directors already knew that the merger was off the table …and using the words … ‘merger of the Bank and the Society …’  in its blunt honesty gave them all plausible deniable as to their real intentions, and all happening at the same time in the background and out of sight of the Regulators,  the SBS Independent Directors,  and the SBS members and staff.

The Clause 15 … continues

_______________________________________

SBNSW Legal Opinion Page 7:

Comment:

Read on – this gets better overleaf …

_______________________________________

SBNSW Legal Opinion Page 8:

Comment:

The 2nd paragraph above starting … “A further fact …” … appears to do a complete turn around on the earlier point made that the SBNSW Directors were elected by SBS members – see Clause 7 page 2 – which reads in part …

” … However these 4 Directors are elected by all members (being those holding fixed shares and those members of the public holding with-drawable shares) according to the franchise …  “

Suddenly – the opinion becomes a ‘switch-hitter’ –  the comments …

” … none of the Directors of the Society who hold fixed-shares has been appointed by an instrument in writing served n the society …”

These two clauses talk about the same thing – the second relates to …” … represent the Bank … ‘ and then some other ‘limb’ that nominates sub – s 46 (7) of the Act – …

The 1901 – Building and Cooperatives Societies Act reads in part as follows – click the linked pages below to read this section of the Act.  [Click here for a full download of the 1901 Act]

  • Clause 14-2 – Building and Cooperative Societies Act 1901 – [will open in a new window.]
  • Clause 14-5,6 – Building and Cooperative Societies Act 1901 – [will open in a new window.]
  • Clause 19 – Building and Cooperative Societies Act 1901 – [will open in a new window.]

Clause 14-2 makes it very clear and states in part  –

“… that no disolvement of determination of the Society may be made without obtaining the votes or consent of five-sixths in number and value on the them existing members thereof.”

Clause 19 confirms this in another way … just what this SBNSW opinion was referring to or commenting on in relation to the 1923 Act is further expanded on below:

The Co-Operations Act of 1923 s 46 (7) reads as follows – click the linked pages below to read this section of the Act.  [Click here for a full download of the 1923 Act]

Now – several people with Law experience have looked at these documents and come up with the same opinions as the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and the Independent outside Counsel Mallesons Stephens Jaques – a copy of the Schedule 2 amendment was not obtained.

The opinion continues …

_______________________________________

SBNSW Legal Opinion Page 9:

Comment:

The ‘hinges’ relied upon in the 2nd paragraph are a stretch – given the plan from the late 70’s – and it would be interesting if Freehill Hollingdale and Page had the whole history given to them prior to this opinion – but if they did – then the opinion that they could have acted without a ‘conflict of interest’ defies the total effort to structure the SBS the way it was and just plain logic.

That is to say further – if the Premier and Minister were not concerned with Board Control – why then did they structure the Rules of the SBS in such a way that all the control of the SBS rested with the SBNSW except when SBNSW appointed Directors voted in favour with Independent Directors.  In this scenario – the SBNSW had the right to replace those Directors – i.e the SBS Chairman Ken Dennewald –

There is no legal basis for this opinion to exist and survive upon an opinion that – ‘in serving one master’ – you can also serve the best interests of others whilst serving a second master – and given how things were finalised – the SBS members were given no choice to make a decision on how they wanted to survive after the SBNSW sold its fixed capital.

For example –

  • With a view to remaining independent and as a going concern – the SBS could have purchased the SBNSW fixed-capital at a maximum of one-twentieth of their retained earnings – this would have roughly equated to the face value $3.049 million  …
  • The Society could have been put on the open market  and sold as a going concern – this would have exposed the fixed-capital value openly and prevented the SBNSW doing a behind the scenes deal with St George …
  • The SBS members could have been asked to bid on the fixed-capital shares the SBNSW wanted to sell …

In all scenarios – the members must have the vote – yet the only vote they had was an after the fact deal to rubber stamp approval to merge with St George based on a deal where the SBNSW SBS Directors directed all efforts to the St George deal – much of this will be covered in greater deal in future uploads …

_______________________________________

SBNSW Legal Opinion Page 10:

Comment:

The SBNSW opinion was largely ignored by the Regulatory authorities and given no weight on the Advisory Board hearing to adjudicate on O’Neill serving as Chairman of the SBS whilst holding a Director position on the SBNSW board.

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

23rd May: Minister memo re unsatisfactory Director’s Waiver wording …

Minister memo re unsatisfactory Waiver wording:

Comment:

The waiver letters from the SBNSW SBS Directors did not meet with the Minister’s and Registrar’s approval.

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

24th May: Business and Consumer Affairs response to O’Neill’s 20th May response …

Business and Consumer Affairs response to O’Neill’s 20th May response:

Business and Consumer Affairs response to O’Neill’s 20th May response:

Comment:

The Registrar sets out the reasons why O’Neill and his fellow Director’s waivers are not acceptable.  This was part of the cat and mouse game O’Neill was engaging in knowing full well that the merger was no longer the game plan.

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

24th May: SBS Secretary response to Registrar’s letter …

SBS Secretary response to Registrar’s letter:

Comment:

Rubber stamp stuff …

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

20th May: Attorney General’s response to Minister Peacocke’s Amendment Bill …

Attorney General’s response to Minister Peacocke’s Amendment Bill …

Comment:

This letter was previously reproduced in Part 2 of this expose – comments made then –

” …Paragraph (2) clearly gives the Premier reason to question O’Neill’s undertaking and ultimate purpose.  The above legal advice was received some two months after the NSW election – and after a meeting with O’Neill shortly thereafter when the merger agenda between SBNSW and the SBS was first discussed and agreed to by the Premier.   If Greiner was not now concerned at the events unfolding – then his involvement becomes as premeditated as was O’Neill’s purpose.”

This was confirmation that Greiner and O’Neill had to come up with a new plan to get their hands on the SBS retained earnings …

Paragraph 3:  Mr Dowd gives the Premier clear instruction as to the entitlements of the SBS Members – yet in the actions that were to follow – the SBS members were never afforded their entitlements as Mr Dowd so eloquently points out … Greiner helped O’Neill get around the Takeover Review Committee put in place by previous Legislation to protect members – this is clear criminal activity.

This Amendment Bill was listed – but it was never raised – O’Neill backed off the merger and went with O’Neill on a sale to ST George deal – again by passing the SBS members in negotiating this deal on the f$3.049 million fixed-capital ownership,  and not in the interest’s of the $1.6 billion worth of members shares.

Greiner and O’Neill are both tied to this deal … as the evidence highlights.

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

19th – 31st May: St George Building Society enter the game …

Comment:

Without evidence to support the timing of when St George entered the game – it is difficult to be precise of when a deal was struck between the SBNSW and St George to purchase the fixed-capital of the SBNSW.  There is no doubt that such a deal existed as at the 1st June 1988 – and evidence of this is contained in the information document handed out to SBS staff and members ahead of the Aug 22nd AGM.  As Clause from this document is produced below.

[Click on image to enlarge in a new window:]

Extract from SBS – St George Merger Letter:

The face value of these shares was $5 – the $118 being paid was the deal struck with St George valuing the purchase at $118*609815= $71,958,170.  The additional interest payment is the clincher – 12.5% from the 1st June – and paid out of the SBS reserves – which in effect meant St George were making the payment.   This amounted to – $3,049,075*12.5% for 83 days = $86,668.91.  This made the total paid for the fixed capital – $71,958,179 + $3,049,075 + $86,669 = $75,093,914.

The telling in this deal was that St George did not want SBS merging with the Illawarra and the Newcastle Building Societies as suggested by the Minister in his review of the Macquarie Bank report.   In fact the Minister warned against a merger with St George indicating that competition if such a merger went ahead would kill the Building Society industry in NSW.

For the $75 million – St George were getting a $1.6 billion loan book and depositor base – there was $65 million in retained earnings taking into the $5 million provision made in the ’88 accounts – and a floating $3 million that disappeared when the accounts were announced and whatever Treasury profits and revaluation adjustment to the Liquids portfolio.  It is known that the liquids were  prime CGS and with the ‘bull’ market continuing – St George made their purchase price back within two years.

It has been advised that the St George Treasurer received a $500k bonus after the SBS merger was finalised – indicating the healthy state of the SBS Liquids.

No to the 1st June backdate of the deal – why would ST George agree to a backdating of the interest component?  The value of $86k is a pittance in the total construct of the deal – but why pay the face value of the fixed-capital and interest on that value unless a ‘deed or arrangement’ was entered into and dependent on the SBS members voting in favour of the St George merger.

This was O’Neill’s ‘get-out’ after he found out the merger could not happen.  This sale to St George was not reviewed by the Takeover Review Board – it was not put to the members before the SBNSW had arranged the deal – other suitors made approaches and were turned away without any due diligence undertaken to establish the worth of the SBS as a going concern – all those decisions were made by the SBS Board  where 4 SBNSW appointed Directors including Messes, O’Neill, Kearns, Thomas, and Turner – and Mr Ian Fraser from July ’88 who replaced O’Neill when he egregiously accepted his fate and resigned from the SBS Board – only a month out from the sale to St George vote.

This was an orchestrated FRAUD – and in the next installments – more evidence will be produced to confirm these allegations.

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

24th May: Greiner letter to AAPBS – [G Jack] – re SBNSW/SBS merger letter sent 2nd May …

Greiner letter to AAPBS – [G Jack]:

Comment:

This Greiner response to the Illawarra Permanent Building Society boss and also President NSW branch of the AAPBS – Greiner was telling porkies with this response.  The Attorney General letter was already in on the Peacocke Amendment Bill – the revelation of the State Bank Act not having been amended was also known –  the Government never reviewed with any seriousness  offers that were made.

Return Index of Events:

_______________________________________

Part 11 continues … the SBNSW continues to send the Regulatory authorities on a wild goose chase –  and in doing so O’Neill exposes his ‘winger whinny’ persona when things don’t go his way …

_______________________________________

Link to all previous chapters for –

“Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU)” – The SBS Story

________________________________________

The EYE-BALL Opinion … Without Prejudice …

EYE-BALL’s Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU) … Part 9 – The Regulatory Investigation begins …

The-EYE-BALL-NovelZone Header
Title:
Human Evil Exposed –
John O’Neill (CEO-ARU) … Part 9


Link to all Posted Chapters for –

“Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU)” – The SBS Story

The “Human Evil Exposed” – John O’Neill story link above takes you to a new page where all the chapters to this story are listed and linked.

All the documents that form a part of this story as evidence is linked here. These documents form the evidentiary trail collected as a part of the research undertaken during this project.

The “Human Evil Exposed” – John O’Neill story thus far covers events that took place between 1931 – 1995. The final ending is still to be played out. The motives for what took place in the late 70’s and early 80’s happened in 1931 when the then NSW Government owned – ‘Government Savings Bank of NSW’ was forced to close its doors. This set in motion a number of events that were not resolved until Dec 1987. The motives behind this story are steep in history and these grudges were held for a long time.

After they were finally settled – what then took place culminated in a $75 million FRAUD of public monies carried out by the NSW Government(NSWG) and its agent – The State Bank of NSW – (SBNSW) in 1988.

The players involved and connected with this FRAUD include:

  • Three consecutive NSW Premiers, Wran, Unsworth and Greiner,
  • Several Ministers serving in those Governments and their staffers – one of these Ministers is now a Justice with the NSW Land and Environment Court,
  • Regulatory Departments including the Department of Co-Operatives, Office of Business and Consumer Affairs, and the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, (AAPBS) and,
  • Employed State Bank of NSW Executives – the MD was John O’Neill – who all acted in proven ‘conflict of interest’ positions as Directors on the State Building Society Board, and whose intent was to facilitate a FRAUD against the 270,000 SBS members.

It’s a story that crushed the second largest NSW Building Society and at the time it had $1.6 billion in assets, some 270,000 Society members, and 650 SBS staff.

This is a story told by someone who lived through the 87-88 period and is told from his perspective and the evidentiary proof collected from research undertaken to prove the allegations. This story comes from a corrupted base of Corporate greed, corrupt and immoral Director’s, complicit Government representative’s, ego’s driven by historical flawed motive’s, financial market operative’s, drugs, sex, and the brazen Corporate RAPE and THEFT of the $75 million value attached to the State Building Society.

John O’Neill as the MD of the SBNSW destroyed a profitable and functioning Building Society because he could. It was done out of spite and revenge because he lost the 10 year plan to merge the SBS with the SBNSW. In the process he stripped the SBS of its corporate worth and broke all the Corporate and Regulatory rules in doing so. Rules that were put aside by the Administrators charged with the protection of the SBS members and their entitlements. He had help in the NSW Premier Nick Greiner who sanctioned O’Neill’s actions.

The story has many sub-plots and plots within those sub-plots – it is complicated, and to get a full appreciation of these complexities there is much reading to be done.

Please use the comments option below each post for any comments you might want to express – to ask any questions you want clarified – or if you want to make a private comment … please use the e-mail link here – blogcomment@bigpond.com – Enjoy the read …

The EYE-BALL Opinion … [ … where evil lurks – so do friends of the devil … ]

Definitions of Allegations alleged against Mr John O’Neill and his cohorts …

Linked: The Definition of EVIL:

  • morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
  • harmful; injurious: evil laws.
  • characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
  • due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
  • marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Linked: Moral Bankruptcy:

  • Definition: the state of being devoid of morality and ethics, used esp. for business and political entities
  • Example: A complete lack of morals is moral bankruptcy.

Linked: Definition of RABID:

  • – irrationally extreme in opinion or practice:
  • – furious or raging; violently intense:
  • Synonyms – zealous, fervent, ardent, fanatical, bigoted.

Linked: Definition of FRAUD:

  • – deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
  • – a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
  • any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
  • a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

_______________________________________

Part 9 commences … The Regulatory Investigation begins …

The Legal opinions received by the Regulatory Authorities prompted immediate action – [see Part 8 for copies of Legal Opinions].

This post includes copies of exchange correspondence from the 10th May through to the 19th May ’88 – and between The Minister, The Registrar, The SBS Secretary, Mr O’Neill as the Chairman of SBS, and the NSW Solicitor General.

_______________________________________

10th May ’88:

Bakers Submission to the Minister:

Comment:

Mr Baker’s concern as the Registrar were at the events that happened at the May 5th Board meeting – his role was now to put a hold on any progress until the events surrounding the Chairman’s and General Manager’s sacking could be investigated.

_______________________________________

11th May ’88:

Registrar Letter to John O’Neill:

Comment:

This letter clearly outlines Mr Baker’s concerns about any ‘merger’ discussions.   The last paragraph gives clear direction as to Mr Bakers intent.

_______________________________________

12th May ’88:

Minister Peacocke’s letter to Baker authorising request for Legal Opinion:

Comment:

The Minister is responding to his Registrar’s concerns and expresses his own interest in wanting the State Crown Solicitor to weigh in with an opinion.

_______________________________________

13th May ’88:

Registrar’s Letter to O’Neill re Conflict of Interest issues arising from AAPBS Advisory Committee meeting: Page 1

Registrar’s Letter to O’Neill re Conflict of Interest issues arising from AAPBS Advisory Committee meeting: Page 2

Comment:

This letter represents a formal notice to O’Neill – as the new Chairman of the SBS – indicating the AAPBS Advisory Committee wants to investigate the possible ‘conflict of interest’ issues arising from the events of the 5th May SBS Board meeting – as per the recorded minutes.   This letter invites Mr O’Neill to attend an Advisory Committee meeting on the 3rd June ’88 to give his defence to the ‘conflict’ issue.

_______________________________________

13th May ’88:

Registrar’s Letter to Solicitor General – Mr Roberts – seeking further Legal Advice – Page 1:

Registrar’s Letter to Solicitor General – Mr Roberts – seeking further Legal Advice – Page 2:

Comment:

The ‘Legal Opinion’ attached to this letter from MSJ as presented in Part 8 – linked here

_______________________________________

16th May ’88:

The Regulatory Investigation Report into the May 5th Board Meeting – [Page 1 of 6]:

The Regulatory Investigation Report into the May 5th Board Meeting – [Page 2 of 6]:

Comment:

Further evidence is presented here – [highlighter section] – confirming the Macquarie Bank Report was commissioned at the Jan ’88 SBS Board meeting.   Mr Howarth’s comments  entrap him with his ‘quote’ – “SBNSW  had been contemplating the idea of a merger since 1976.”

This is a clear insight into a senior SBNSW staff member and his view on why the SBS was conceived and what was to be done with it after the Court battle with the CSB.   This goes to the inferred and prior understanding that Mr Howarth had this opinion before the outcome of the 1982 – ’87 Court battle between the SBNSW/NSWG v Commonwealth Savings Bank (CSB) over the 1931 Amalgamation Agreement – was known.   His comments on why he would have that opinion would prove very enlightening.

Further on this point – if the NSWG’s and SBNSW’s intent was to always merge the SBS as the Savings Bank arm of the SBNSW whilst the 1931 Agreement was still in force as far back as 1976 – and that Clause 17 of the 1931 Amalgamation Agreement states …

Clause 17 of the 1931 Amalgamation Agreement:

… then much of the testimonial evidence presented during the Court proceedings needs to be reviewed in this context and to whether such evidence may have been perjured, and prejudicial toward a verdict based on truthful testimony.

The research has uncovered several different heresy sources that promote the suggestion that some of the SBNSW evidence presented to the Court was perjured.   Copies of witness’ testimony has thus far not been obtained – yet this Howarth revelation fosters this theory.

Reading this Clause 17 – and understanding that for the past 45 odd years the SBNSW had not been able to conducted a Savings Bank arm – Mr Wran’s election set about a plan to overturn that 1931 Amalgamation Agreement.

This part of the story is still far from complete – what is known is that Mr Wran believed he could have the 1931 Agreement rescinded and he set in motion a plan to that effect.

This is the heart of this matter –  the NSWG and the SBNSW always believed that the SBS was their property and to deal with as they saw fit.   In May ’88 when this all went down – the SBS was a $1.5 billion institution with shareholders/members owning all the issued shares to the same value.  All the SBNSW owned were $3.049 million of fixed-capital shares and now the Regulatory Authorities were stepping in where Minister Sheehan should have been some six years earlier protecting the rights and entitlements of the SBS members.

This was now the ‘game’ in play – a flawed Society structure and determining whether the SBNSW appointed Directors had the right to dictate the fate of the SBS without the SBS members having any say in the matter.

This was Wran’s concept from the outset with help from the SBNSW legal counsel – Paul Kearns.  Premier Wran wanted a State owned Savings Bank and he was doing it through a Building Society in defiance of the intent of the 1931 Agreement and Clause 17.

The 1988 Regulators – were now serving under a new Greiner Liberal Government and Mr Greiner had decided to give O’Neill his approval to pursue with a merger – backing up the Wran Plan.

In what context does Legal Opinion’s alter or change?  Are we to believe that Laws of NSW can be obfuscated  to avoid due process and the rule of Law?

Mr Baker was also serving as Deputy Registrar during the Wran Government when the SBS was first formed.  His views on the original structure have not been disclosed – but for the moment he is indicating in his letter to O’Neill that he is against the merger intentions as declared by the SBNSW.

This was all heading to a ‘blowhard’ showdown … the investigation report continues …

_______________________________________

The Regulatory Investigation Report into the May 5th Board Meeting – [Page 3 of 6]:

Comment:

The comments about the Dennewald sacking cut a little deeper than the context of the resignation letter – previous uploaded in Part 7 – linked here.

Mr Dennewald’s ‘gratuity’ payment was also raised a red-flag and it was noted that such payments are not permitted unless 10 years service has been completed.   It would be most interesting to establish what Mr Dennewald’s payout was and who paid it?   Both Mr Reg Watson – the SBNSW Chairman – and Mr Dennewald – the SBS Chairman are both deceased.

The last paragraph points out the ‘turncoat’ Mr A Thomas – [also deceased – 2011] – was appointment as Deputy Chairman as a formality – this was the first time that a non SBNSW employee or ex SBNSW employee had been appointed to the Deputy Chairman position.  This reward was part of O’Neill’s reward payment for switch his support from Cleary – and largely based on the ‘frame-up’ attached to the Phil Gray Audit Report.

This ‘Director’ vote switch gave O’Neill the numbers for the  SBNSW to regain control over the SBS Board –  and allow the premeditated events – as already given to the Company Secretary before the Board meeting – to unfold as prepared.    Without Mr A Thomas’s support – O’Neill would have been still cooling his heels.

The Regulatory Investigation Report into the May 5th Board Meeting – [Page 4 of 6]:

Comment:

Clause 3:  This confirms the vote of Mr A Thomas and his changed allegiance.

The ’cause’ offered up for dismissing Cleary – “…that Mr Cleary had repeatedly usurped the function of the Board in matters of policy and seemed unable to differentiate between his duties as a Director and those of General Manager …”

… what does this really mean?

Most of us deal in reality and absolutes arising from those realities – i.e. black and white – true and untrue – these words mean something to somebody.

Claims that the rest of the SBS Independent Directors offered only mute support for Cleary during the meeting cannot be confirmed.  Contact with the other Independent Directors i.e. Messes Cribb, Treloar and Osmond was attempted – they were all in their later stages of life – and the initial contact attempts were respectful and tried to find out whether they wanted to or could recall any of the events surrounding this meeting.  Mr Osmond wanted to comment and did.  After initial contact with Mr Treloar’s family his ongoing health issues were disclosed – similar advice was received about Mr Cribb.  Those issues have been respected and pursuit of any direct information from them was abandoned.

However – and in all fairness, when the comments made in the Minutes of the SBS Board meeting relating to ‘Clause 3’ above are truly interpreted – it can only be said that Mr Cleary was acting as the SBS GM and did so in good faith whilst doing his job in representing the SBS members and their best interests.

Cleary’s view that the SBNSW’s intended merger was against the best interests of the SBS Members – flew in the face of the SBNSW appointed SBS Directors and had been for some months.   O’Neill wanted Cleary’s blood for doing so – Cleary stuck by his decision and would not roll over and in the end – this was why he was sacked.

In the world of Directors and their fiduciary responsibilities – O’Neill and his fellow Directors are so far ‘up a creek’ and in the wrong here – it is hard to fathom how they were allowed to do what they ended up doing.

Cleary’s integrity on this issue trumps O’Neill’s ego and ‘evil’ intent by a country mile.   O’Neill’s actions toward Cleary were not just about the merger – it was now personal and vengeful for having wrested Board control from the SBNSW in the first place when Director Treloar replaced Director Knowles at the ’87 AGM.

O’Neill’s own weakness of character and flip-flop integrity was again revealed by his actions at this Board meeting – his ‘evil’ disposition is evidenced further when it was revealed that a member of the appointed SBNSW Directors approach Mr Cleary and gave him prior notice to O’Neill’s intentions as far back as Feb ’88.   The source further revealed the SBNSW had plans to do this at the February ’88 SBS Board meeting and having been forewarned – Cleary went on leave and was absent from the meeting.

This infuriated O’Neill even more – and with the massive March ’88 profit result for the SBS to come on top of his disappointments at his own Bank’s failings – O’Neill was throwing dummy-spit type tantrums …  his vindictiveness then set about making it about discrediting the SBS Treasurer and getting Cleary on the issue that the breath and scope of illegal and mis-reported profits attached to the SBS Treasury activities happened on his watch.

The research has information, and from more than a single source that Mr Phil Gray – in a meeting with Mr O’Neill made a statement to O’Neill and to imply – “… the reported SBS Profits were not real …” – the source’s believed that it was this comment that prompted the switch of the point of the attack to the SBS Treasurer – from which came the SBS Treasury Audit.

To be fair – this does not sound like a statement Mr Gray would make blindly – perhaps he indicated he had his doubts about the profits – that given his own Treasury’s performance the SBS Treasury profits had to be overstated – the comment is for Mr Gray to renounce or correct.

Direct contact was made with Mr Gray some 18 months or so ago – and his selective response’s to a multitude of questions were reproduced in Part 7 – [linked here].

Mr Gray’s Audit Report disproved the SBNSW generated rumours about the SBS’s profits authenticity –  this then meant that for O’Neill had to go out on a limb for ’cause’ to sack Cleary – and that meant the Audit report needed to incriminate Cleary in some way so O’Neill could sack Cleary.

The procedures in O’Neill’s plan for the Board meeting meant he could not get rid of Cleary without first having him sacked as a Director.  Even with Mr A Thomas voting with the SBNSW the numbers still favoured Cleary if Dennewald voted with Cleary – Dennewald was Chairman – this meant getting rid of Dennewald before the meeting was paramount for the whole coup to work.

Like so much of this story – the paper trail can only take you so far – the real story is in what is not in evidence but in the heresy.  Dennewald and Alwyn Thomas are not able to provide factual evidence – nor are Messes Cribb and Treloar  and Mr Osmond who is almost 93 – only has limited recall of events.   That leaved Cleary who had to sit out some of the meeting – and all four of the SBNSW Directors … not the most pleasant prospect if the truth lies in that ratio of 4-1.

This Regulatory Investigation does gives clear evidence that Cleary was sacked because he did not agree with the SBNSW MD – O’Neill on the future course of the SBS – Cleary was representing the SBS Members – who was O’Neill and his three other Directors representing – the SBNSW or the SBS Members – that is the moneyball question.  On this matter – the mock court verdict reads – Mr John O’Neill – guilty – Mr Paul Kearns – guilty – Mr R Thomas – guilty – and  Mr R Turner – guilty.

For O’Neill to sack Cleary for supporting the best interests of the SBS Members – and of the same view being expressed by the Minister, his Registrar, and the AAPBS – you would think O’Neill would be ‘up that creek’, capsized and about to drown.  The manner in Cleary’s dismissal offered him a massive wrongful dismissal suit.  Why he did not fight O’Neill on this is for Mr Cleary to explain further.

Page 5 continues …

The Regulatory Investigation Report into the May 5th Board Meeting – [Page 5 of 6]:

Comment:

Further evidence of the ‘gag’ order Cleary was placed under …

The Regulatory Investigation Report into the May 5th Board Meeting – [Page 6 of 6]:

Comment:

This summary can leave no other impression other than O’Neill’s actions were premeditated.  The full scope of his collusive intent was not in the interests of the SBS members and this report skirts all around that issue.   The function of the SBS Board is to serve the interests of the SBS members – were the SBS members the first priority given the events of this Board meeting?

There were not – and the Regulatory investigation whilst thorough in procedural matters – failed to investigate whether the members interests had been served in any meaningful way.

_______________________________________

17th May ’88:

Solicitor General Legal Opinion re Registrar Letters 13th and 16th May – [Page 1]:

Solicitor General Legal Opinion re Registrar Letters 13th and 16th May – [Page 2]:

Comment:

This opinion given in reference to the ‘proposed merger’ contained in the 5th May Board minutes clearly points out the ‘conflict of interest’ issue.  It also expands the conflict to all the appointed SBNSW Directors.

There is a failing in the opinion – and the SBNSW picked up on it immediately.  The legal opinions only concerned themselves with a ‘merger’ between the SBNSW and the SBS – what would happen if the SBNSW Directors changed the SBS status from SBNSW merger – to a SBS sale to the highest bidder?

This is where we go from here.   The Regulatory Authorities became hell-bent in stopping a merger and when the SBNSW and NSWG had to reconsider their strategy – a whole host of new revelations began to hit the fan.

Things began to move very quickly from this point – not that they hadn’t been at a frantic pace since the May 5th Board meeting.

_______________________________________

17th May ’88:

Registrar submission to Minister re outcome of AAPBS resolution – Page 1:

Registrar submission to Minister re outcome of AAPBS resolution – Page 2:

Comment:

This is a ‘rubber stamp’ issue – Mr Jack – the boss of the Illawarra Permanent Building Society – and President of the AAPBS NSW branch, confirmed the ‘conflict of issue’ matter in relation to the impending merger agenda … this memo refers the matter to the Advisory Committee for a hearing at which Mr O’Neill will be invited to give his views on why the ‘conflict’ does not exist.

_______________________________________

17th May ’88:

Dept Co-Operatives letter to SBS Secretary Re Merger Intentions:

Comment:

More investigative rubber stamping …

_______________________________________

17th May ’88:

SBS Secretary Response to Dept Co-Operatives request:

Comment:

A response that comply’s but gives no real information … everybody is playing a ‘cat and mouse’ game …

_______________________________________

19th May ’88:

Registrar Letter to SBS Secretary re Proposed Merger:

Comment:

Mr Baker is upping the ante in this response – he is trying to heel a ‘rabid’ dog off his leash …

Summation Comments:

This gets the exposé to the 19th May – much was to happen from this point onwards and over the next week or so – most of the documents presented in this upload expose the SBNSW Directors as having fiduciary responsibility conflicts – some 24 years later those conflicts are no less important – Kearns and O’Neill were both Lawyers – yet they came up with this plan whilst serving Directors of the SBS – they will both go for plenty when the time comes.

_______________________________________

Part 10 continues … the SBNSW responds to the Regulatory Investigation …  John O’Neill exposes his ‘winger whinny’  persona when he does not get what he wants … he also gets a womans ‘slap in the face’ – and he gets into bed with Fred Shields from St George Building Society to save his agenda … see below for link …

_______________________________________

Link to all previous chapters for –

“Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU)” – The SBS Story

________________________________________

The EYE-BALL Opinion … Without Prejudice …

EYE-BALL’s Snoop-Poop on – Australian Open Tennis Prizemoney Breakdown …

January 23, 2012 13 comments
The-EYE-BALL- Snoop-Poop - Header
Title:
Australian Open Tennis –
The Prize money Breakdown
The Australian Open Tennis is a world class event – one of the Majors in the ‘Grand Slam’ quartet.   I enjoy the tennis when watching contested matches.  In the men’s draw upsets can happen from Round 1 all the way through.

The prize money breakdown – as posted below and copied from the Australian Tennis Open website– is for both women and men.   It is not political correct to bag women’s tennis – but if you are like me the first week of the women’s draw ain’t worth a pinch of crap – the results are predictable – 6-0 6-0 is often the score.   Even 1st round losers in the Women’s draw get $20k – and in the second week when the matches are still hard to watch – the losers in the 4th round get to keep $109k.

PRIZE Money for Australian Open 2012 Men’s and Women’s Singles
1st Round $20,000
2nd Round $33,300
3rd Round $54,625
4th Round $109,250
Quarter finalist $218,500
Semi finalist $437,000
Runners-up $1,150,000
Winners $2,300,000

The women’s matches struggle to get past the hour or so and when men slug it out for  three + hours – for the same money – this equality of pay thing has gone too far.   TV ratings prefer mens matches – viewers prefer mens matches – they’re real contests and you have to get to the semis before women’s tennis becomes entertaining outside of the eye-candy appeal.

How they ever became equal earners is a mystery – around the time of Navratilova is my best guess …

Common – the winner of the Woman’s final gets $2.3 million – the runner-up $1.15 million – and I want change … if the men are worth the same value – in my book the women aren’t worth half as much – not even a third …

Take advertising dollars on telecast of womans matches – unless their paying twice as much as they are for mens matches how can they hope to earn the same revenue …

This is ridiculous and to continue to pay these women parading as fashion ornaments to sell women’s clothing and accessories – how can they be taken seriously.

The men need to boycott a Slam to make the point – without the Men the advertises would bolt – the individual WTA does not stack up against the Men’s Tour in prize money terms to prove the point.

I tried to watch the Serena Williams match today – with her ass crack all wet from the sweat that must ooze from her body – what else could it be – and on show as purple on black – I can’t imagine any sales for her clothing mounting any fashion challenge …

This is a joke … some women’s sports are the equal of men – surfing, winter skiing, cricket, basketball and the like – but tennis and equal pay for equal work and conditions is a marketing exercise for Women’s sports clothing and fashion accessories and nothing to do with the quality of the tennis.

________________________________________

To see other recent EYE-BALL Snoop-Poop postsClick on this link:

GuruSnoop-Poop …

EYE-BALL’s Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU) … Part 8 – The Regulatory Response to the SBS Boardroom Coup …

The-EYE-BALL-NovelZone Header
Title:
Human Evil Exposed –
John O’Neill (CEO-ARU) … Part 8


Link to all Posted Chapters for –

“Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU)” – The SBS Story

The “Human Evil Exposed” – John O’Neill story link above takes you to a new page where all the chapters to this story are listed and linked.

All the documents that form a part of this story as evidence is linked here. These documents form the evidentiary trail collected as a part of the research undertaken during this project.

The “Human Evil Exposed” – John O’Neill story thus far covers events that took place between 1931 – 1995. The final ending is still to be played out. The motives for what took place in the late 70’s and early 80’s happened in 1931 when the then NSW Government owned – ‘Government Savings Bank of NSW’ was forced to close its doors. This set in motion a number of events that were not resolved until Dec 1987. The motives behind this story are steep in history and these grudges were held for a long time.

After they were finally settled – what then took place culminated in a $75 million FRAUD of public monies carried out by the NSW Government(NSWG) and its agent – The State Bank of NSW – (SBNSW) in 1988.

The players involved and connected with this FRAUD include:

  • Three consecutive NSW Premiers, Wran, Unsworth and Greiner,
  • Several Ministers serving in those Governments and their staffers – one of these Ministers is now a Justice with the NSW Land and Environment Court,
  • Regulatory Departments including the Department of Co-Operatives, Office of Business and Consumer Affairs, and the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, (AAPBS) and,
  • Employed State Bank of NSW Executives – the MD was John O’Neill – who all acted in proven ‘conflict of interest’ positions as Directors on the State Building Society Board, and whose intent was to facilitate a FRAUD against the 270,000 SBS members.

It’s a story that crushed the second largest NSW Building Society and at the time it had $1.6 billion in assets, some 270,000 Society members, and 650 SBS staff.

This is a story told by someone who lived through the 87-88 period and is told from his perspective and the evidentiary proof collected from research undertaken to prove the allegations. This story comes from a corrupted base of Corporate greed, corrupt and immoral Director’s, complicit Government representative’s, ego’s driven by historical flawed motive’s, financial market operative’s, drugs, sex, and the brazen Corporate RAPE and THEFT of the $75 million value attached to the State Building Society.

John O’Neill as the MD of the SBNSW destroyed a profitable and functioning Building Society because he could. It was done out of spite and revenge because he lost the 10 year plan to merge the SBS with the SBNSW. In the process he stripped the SBS of its corporate worth and broke all the Corporate and Regulatory rules in doing so. Rules that were put aside by the Administrators charged with the protection of the SBS members and their entitlements. He had help in the NSW Premier Nick Greiner who sanctioned O’Neill’s actions.

The story has many sub-plots and plots within those sub-plots – it is complicated, and to get a full appreciation of these complexities there is much reading to be done.

Please use the comments option below each post for any comments you might want to express – to ask any questions you want clarified – or if you want to make a private comment … please use the e-mail link here – blogcomment@bigpond.com – Enjoy the read …

The EYE-BALL Opinion … [ … where evil lurks – so do friends of the devil … ]

Definitions of Allegations alleged against Mr John O’Neill and his cohorts …

Linked: The Definition of EVIL:

  • morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
  • harmful; injurious: evil laws.
  • characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
  • due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
  • marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Linked: Moral Bankruptcy:

  • Definition: the state of being devoid of morality and ethics, used esp. for business and political entities
  • Example: A complete lack of morals is moral bankruptcy.

Linked: Definition of RABID:

  • – irrationally extreme in opinion or practice:
  • – furious or raging; violently intense:
  • Synonyms – zealous, fervent, ardent, fanatical, bigoted.

Linked: Definition of FRAUD:

  • – deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
  • – a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
  • any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
  • a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

_______________________________________

An Update to a previous Post:

22nd Jan 2012 – Update:

In the uploaded post titled – Part 6The Phil Gray Audit Report and linked here – the question was raised about why the SBS GM – Denis Cleary did not seek legal opinion in respect to the allegations and intent arising from the Phil Gray Audit Report into the SBS Treasury.

In recent days Mr Cleary has contact the writer of this expose and given a statement that he did seek legal advice and presented such legal opinion at the SBS Board meeting on the 5th May – to wit the SBNSW Directors gave no response or consideration to in the course of actions they were undertaking during the said meeting

This makes the events that transpired during the 5th May even less credulous in how they are presented in the formal record of minutes presented in Part 7 – About the SBS May 5th Board meeting – and linked here.

There were certain other revelations during the conversation prompting further research undertakings.  Further updates are expected.

Part 8 commences … The Regulatory Response to the SBS Boardroom coup …

The media response to the 5th May Board meeting was the first most people got to hear about what had happened.   Both sides – the SBS Independent Directors – mainly Treloar – and the PM machine smoothing the waters for the SBNSW were in full swing.

Fallout was expected – but during the next few days a concentrated effort by the Regulatory Departments swung into action to get to the bottom of events that happened at the 5th May SBS Board meeting.

[The NovelZone ZombieLeaks Index of uploads for documents and comments relating to the Regulatory responses and their efforts are presented in DATE order below.  The links in ‘black’ relate to internal page links  – return links back to the Date Index are provided.]

_______________________________________

6th May:

[The ‘black’ links below are internal Page links with return links to this header … the [PDF] and [WORD] file links are for external files.]

_______________________________________

9th May:

[The ‘black’ links below are internal document Page links with return links to this header …]

_______________________________________

STATE’S COUP SETS SCENE FOR UNION  |

Author: By CATHERINE ARMITAGE |

Date: 06/05/1988 | Words: 703 | Publication: Sydney Morning Herald | Section: Business |Page: 25

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The State Bank of NSW is planning a $13.3 billion merger with the State Building Society.

The move follows a sensational boardroom coup by the bank’s managing director, Mr John O’Neill, which precipitated the resignation of Mr Denis Cleary, the society’s general manager and board member.
The merged group would have a home-lending book of $1.4 billion and a network of some 380 branches.
The move apparently is intended to head off speculation, fueled by NSW Premier Mr Greiner’s comments earlier in the week, that the bank and/or building society would be sold off by the NSW Government.

In a press conference called late yesterday afternoon, Mr O’Neill said the merger was decided on after an independent report commissioned by the society earlier this year. It indicated that “the society cannot maintain its growth and efficiency without merging with the State Bank or with another large financial organisation”.

He said the bank’s existing infrastructural links with the society would result in lower absorption costs, while the fact that their businesses were complementary, their marketing images similar, and they knew each other well, offered advantages over other alternatives.

Talks over an agreement between the bank and society would start”immediately”, and it was hoped the merger would be effected within six months.

The bank had already “taken control” of the society, said Mr O’Neill, having yesterday appointed Mr Tony Howarth, 36, former assistant general manager of the bank’s corporate and financial institutions division, in place of Mr Cleary.

Nevertheless, the merger is far from a foregone conclusion, since it requires approval from a full meeting of the society’s 270,000 shareholders.

Also, an alternative bid for the bank or building society cannot be ruled out, and the ANZ bank, and other banks are indicating they are hungry for a branch network such as the bank or building society could provide.

Mr O’Neill said a price had not been discussed. He said the merger could be achieved “through various means”, and said one of the options to be examined was an amalgamation between the two parties through legislative means such as was recently used to create the Tasmania Bank. “If we did it that way no dollars would actually change hands,” he said.

The bank’s long-range plan of merging with the society first came to light last year with a public fight for the society’s board. The merger was previously precluded by an the amalgamation agreement with the Commonwealth Bank which prevented the State Bank from entering the retail market.

This agreement was challenged successfully in a long-running court case resolved late last year.
The bank’s numbers problem on the society’s board was solved yesterday with the resignation of both Mr Cleary and the society’s former chairman, Mr Ken Dannewald, replaced by Mr O’Neill.

This left four representatives from each institution on the board, but Mr O’Neill has the casting vote.
On the privatisation issue, Mr O’Neill said: “I think that it (the merger)would strengthen the case against in any way diluting the income stream, tax stream and dividend stream that the Government receives from the bank … I’m sure that as we develop a savings bank deposit base you will see a significant improvement in our performance”.

Mr O’Neill said Mr Cleary had resigned “to pursue personal interests because he sees that as the best way to facilitate discussions between the bank and the building society”.

Back to 6th May Headers:

_______________________________________

Comment:

The above story has Catherine Armitage as author – yet Paul Cleary the Sydney Morning Herald Financial Journalist had been covering the story since 1987.  He had written a number of pieces about the ongoing SBNSW and SBS standoff.  As investigative journalism goes – Mr Cleary and other SMH journalists who helped cover this story were mainly dealing in ‘headline’ journalistic credits.  The quality of their reporting only managed to skirt the fringes of what was a really big story at the time given Minister’s Peacocke’s defiance of Premier Greiner’ public position in supporting the SBNSW and SBS merger –  and why Minister Peacocke’s Department rolled over when the sale to St George was announced.

They may have had suspicions – but hard evidence and ‘on-the-record’ disclosures were needed. Anyway – this SMH story is what the 270k+ plus SBS members awoke to on the 6th May after their Building Society began to die a slow death.

Back to 6th May Headers:

_______________________________________

The Australian Financial Review Response:

[Apologies for the quality of these images – they were printed in draft mode on used paper – when I went back to the AFR to get better quality copies – they had started to charge for archival stories … so this is the best quality on offer for free.]

AFR Response Page 1:

_______________________________________

AFR Response Page 2:

_______________________________________

AFR Response Page 3:

Back to 6th May Headers:

_______________________________________

Comment:

Simon Lloyd was one of many Journalists covering this story – as with the SMS comments [above] – the story was not just a space filler at the time – none of the Journalist who covered did the extensive investigative work that a story like this deserves.  They all had their suspicions – but whether was because of their Editors and the additional links up the chain wanting to crimp their slant on the story – the SBS members never got the benefit of the ‘free and independent’ press that the media is so proud to promote themselves as.

Both these publications favoured the SBNSW and NSWG’s PR pitch and ran them accordingly – the SBS side of the story came from SBS Director Bruce Treloar and silent phone calls trying to tip the scales in favour of the SBS and what was happening.  None of those sources were ever given a great deal of creditability.    O’Neill was walking his stage – and loving every moment of his ‘ego on display’.

Generally – Media owners don’t like to make hard enemies within Governments – to take a swipe without factual evidence would not have been a good move – it required Legal expert opinions – and an understanding of the 10+ year plan put in place by Premier Wran in the late 70’s to get a good grip on this story.  The journalists reporting on this story were most likely still at journalism school when all this commenced.

You’ll find this absent and mindless style of Journalism littered all through this story – a half a clue here – an inflammatory comment with some intent there – but in the end it was really just a lame investigation into what was really happening.

The SBNSW Legal Counsel – Mr Paul Kearns called the media reporting – ‘colourful’ – in an e-mail exchange 15 odd months ago.

The Journo’s were always running to O’Neill’s Press Conference calls – any research questions were always off the top of the head – nobody had done any real homework and O’Neill only fed the ‘thundering horde’ crumbs he was happy to sweep off the table to appease any inquiring minds.

[All SMH, AFR and other Media copies of the SBNSW/SBS story through 1987 – 1996 have been uploaded previously, and can be downloaded using this link.]

Back to 6th May Headers:

_______________________________________

The Department of Co-Operatives Registrar’s – Administrations Provision – Co-Operations Act:

Registrar’s response to Minister Peacocke Page 1:

_______________________________________

Registrar’s response to Minister Peacocke Page 2:

Back to 6th May Headers:

_______________________________________

Comment:

Mr Baker – [Registrar] – gave a clear outline of the Legislative requirements for the Minister. His interpretation of the relevant ACT(s) –  and other various connective Legislative hinges gave more than curious thought as to why Premier Wran, and his then Co-Operatives Minister Mr Sheahan,  did not respect this Legislation – of if in the case they were acting out of ignorance – then why the then Registrar Mr Horton, and his Deputy Ron Baker, did not advise the then Minister that this would likely be a problem at some time in the future.

The immediate answer to all that preponderance is obvious – the Premier’s [Wran] intent was to circumvent the Legislative obstacles and re-write the rules for his own personal agenda in looking for a fight with the Commonwealth Bank over the 1931 Amalgamation Agreement.

Mr Horton as the Registrar was all over the back and forth trail of documents – he has named several times in the Judgement decision of 1985 by Justice Lockhart – he and Mr Baker will be star witness’s into this matter when their time comes.   As mentioned previously – when contact was eventually made with Mr Baker some two years ago – and after he became aware what the enquiry was about via a third-party at his request, he made it clear that he wanted no further contact with the researcher. A note from that conversation reads:

This contact with Mr Baker was made through a third-party – Mr Baker had requested a copy of the O’Neill letter he wrote – the Letter in question was the 9th May ’88 letter to John O’Neill – [not yet uploaded].

Notes:
16th Mar 2010:

Spoke to Mr Baker … at the outset he indicated even after reading the letter to O’Neill … he has no recollection of ever writing the letter … he said it was his signature but recalled nothing about what prompted him to write the letter … he said that after the new Government (Greiner) – he was shifted to the city from Parramatta to head up a new Dept that was an amalgamation of three other Dept’s that included the Dept Of Co-Operatives … he was still Registrar but indicated that he was only contacted when he was required …

He vaguely remembers the sale to St George but after he read the O’Neill letter he alluded that he thought its comments only related to the merger and not any future sale … [This is a cover-up as future documents will attest to.]

He mentioned that he really has no interest in any story … When asked if he wanted to be kept informed – he was indifferent … did not want to be rude and say no … but his life has moved on and all this is behind him….

16th Mar 2010: [Later that day] – Mr Baker rang back and requested a number of things:

Upon reflection and after he was offered an alias to keep his name out of the story, he wanted to accept that offer … his hesitation was that he knew the story was going to be critical of some parties, and as such he did not want to be quoted or have his name used as a source … at this point he seemed to become more of the view that he did not want to assist in any way –

He then indicated that he did not want any further contact … he said that I had to do what I had to do … but requested that I think about not using anything that refers to him in the story …

Summary: Very strange 2nd call … he said that he had not spoken to anybody since earlier phone conversation … I asked the question about that …

His demeanor sounded like he wanted to keep himself hidden because he feared what might happen if he was seen to be assisting the story … That suggests a motive to suppress the story …

Indicated that efforts would be made to keep his name out of the story …

Since that phone call – no further attempt at contact has been made with Mr Baker.   In that interim period there has been further documents releases under FOI applications, and quite a number have Mr Baker’s name all over them.   Some of those documents are to do with the sale to St George that have be signed by third parties under his title and name –

Efforts to date to find Mr Horton have been unsuccessful and are ongoing.

It does not matter where you go, or how you weigh the contents of the research documents up –  this forensic investigation has but one conclusion.  Even when trying to disprove the culpability of those involved out of sheer once held respect for who these people are and the positions they held – it is not possible to find error or evidence that can point in any other direction.   There is just no excuses available or on offer.

A lot of time was spent in connecting all the dots – and the Regulatory staff who were knee-deep in trying to covering up this matter exposed their complicity in doing so.  As with any type of Government cover-up,  it can only be truly examined and/or exposed under direct cross-examination by those at the bottom and worked upwards from there.

Unfortunately Mr Baker cannot be left out of this story,  he request for anonymity cannot be complied with.   His testimony will sink Minister Sheahan who he served as Deputy Registrar,  Mr Horton if found will do likewise,  and their collective testimony will give a clearer insight as to why firstly – Minister Sheehan became Premier Wran’s point man in the formation of the SBS, and secondly why Minister Peacocke in Premier Greiner’s Government, withdrew his objections to a SBS merger and allowed the sale of SBS to St George to go through some three months later.

Back to 6th May Headers:

_______________________________________

Registrar’s Submission to the Minister for Co-Operatives – Mr Gerry Peacocke

Registrars ‘ Submission to Minister Page 1:

_______________________________________

Registrars ‘ Submission to Minister Page 2:

_______________________________________

Registrars ‘ Submission to Minister Page 3:

_______________________________________

Registrars ‘ Submission to Minister Page 4:

_______________________________________

Registrars ‘ Submission to Minister Page 5:

Back to 6th May Headers:

_______________________________________

Comments:

Mr Baker again is very thorough in his summarising of the Legislative issues – it again highlights why these matters were never seen as a problem in 1982 when the SBS was first formed.

There is plenty in his summation to suggest Mr Baker did not want to see the demise of the Building Society industry in NSW – and that he saw the demise of the SBS as such a occourance.   There is also plenty of pointy suggestions that outline the entitlements of the SBS members to have their shareholding respected in any decision to merge/sell the SBS to outside suitors.

In the O’Neill end-game play – the members rights to self determine were never offered to the SBS Members – they had no real say in how their Society was to wound – they were corralled into a blind option that disrespected their entitlements and all to suit an expedient exit for the SBNSW,  and a FRAUDULENT heist that saw them rewarded with a negotiated $75 million payment from St George.

This was a payment that the SBS members had better entitlement to under the Legislative Acts – as they also had in their rights to self determine whether they could have purchased back the SBNSW owned fixed-shares according to the Legislative rules available.

Back to 6th May Headers:

_______________________________________

The Department of Co-Operatives Submission for Opinion from the Solicitor General:

Registrar’s Letter to Crown Solicitor Page 1:

_______________________________________

Registrar’s Letter to Crown Solicitor Page 2:

_______________________________________

Registrar’s Letter to Crown Solicitor Page 3:

Back to 6th May Headers:

_______________________________________

Comments:

This request sent to the Solicitor General and signed by Mr Baker – Dept Co-Operatives Registrar –  It clearly outlines Mr Baker’s concerns and points to the Legislative Acts were he thinks a breach has happened.

This initial response by the Dept of Business and Consumer Affairs was not the only response.  The Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies (AAPBS) – also weighed in – one of their member Building Societies was being attacked and it was now all hands to the rescue in thee first days after the Board room coup.  The Solicitor Generals response was dated the 9th May – as was the independent opinion sought by the AAPBS – these appear below.

Back to 6th May Headers:

_______________________________________

9th May:

Crown Solicitor Page 1:

_______________________________________

Crown Solicitor Page 2:

_______________________________________

Crown Solicitor Page 3:

_______________________________________

Crown Solicitor Page 4:

Back to 9th May Headers:

Comment:

The Solicitor General’s response is conclusive in regards to the dual Directorships held by John O’Neill i.e. SBNSW and the SBS – having a ‘conflict of interest’ – this conflict had been in existence since O’Neill was appointed as MD of the SBNSW in July ’87.  Why had this not been an issue then?

Mention is made about the other three SBNSW appointed Directors as well – they were all working staff at the SBNSW – and in any environment one could imagine – who could not think these three other SBNSW appointed Directors were there as ‘lackies in tow’ behind the John O’Neill show and serving in the same ‘conflict of interest’.

How anybody in the Regulatory agencies could think that the ‘conflict of interest’ would still not exist if O’Neill was forced to leave?

When Nick Whitlam was the MD of the SBNSW from 1980 – 87 – he held dual Directorships of the SBNSW and SBS from 1982 – why was this same ‘conflict’ not recognised then?

It is worth bearing in mind that this legal opinion [above] – had to be respectful of any previous Solicitor General opinions on this matter – this was most likely from the period when Mr Wran was Premier.  Those opinions have been asked for – and it was verbally disclosed by ‘Premier and Cabinet’ staff that those documents were not available for FOI release at the time.

Back to 9th May Headers:

_______________________________________

MSJ Page 1:

_______________________________________

MSJ Page 2:

_______________________________________

MSJ Page 3:

_______________________________________

MSJ age 4:

Back to 9th May Headers:

MSJ Legal Opinion Comment:

This was a concise response – refer to Clause’ 3 and 4  [Page 2] – these comments confirm the legal perspective held and the opinions expressed all through this ‘Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill’ upload process.  Examples of these opinions include –

  • The need for ’cause’ to sack Cleary is explained in Clause 4 – and how the Phil Gray Audit Report was used to structure that ’cause’ –
  • the preemptive nature and structure of the O’Neill game-plan is also pointed out in Clause 3 –
  • the disclosures to date as to the events leading up to the May 5th Board room meeting – i.e.
  • the mischief errors included in the Phil Gray Audit Report and their use in framing Cleary for crimes he had no knowledge of –
  • these alleged crimes being the same crimes that applied to every other SBS Director, including the four SBNSW Appointed Directors who were equally guilty –
  • the timing, reasons and method used in sacking the SBS Chairman – Ken Dennewald –
  • the rescinding of the entitled payment of the Treasury Bonus Pool to all SBS Staff as agreed to by the Dennewald/Cleary Management team – and
  • the now exposed ongoing ‘conflict of interest’ issues that were always in effect and evidence since 1982, and right up until the SBNSW sold the SBS to St George.

This was a ‘brazen crime’ – pre-meditated and committed in full view of everybody – the Regulatory bodies, the Legal representatives of the Government,  the SBS members, the media, and the Premier of NSW and his Cabinet –  who collectively knew what was happening and stood by and let it happen – knowing all the time that it was more than a little bit illegal.

What does that say about a State Government and its Ministers, the Department Heads and the legal advisors giving their best advice to their employers?

There is no way possible that these legal minds did not know what was happening – yet – none of them did the right thing.  That has to be a blight on all members of the legal profession employed by this Government.

That accusation is a large step – even if the legal opinions were ignored – to think that a Premier and some of his Ministers ignored the same advice that resulted in a $75 million theft of funds belonging to the SBS members – how could they have imagined they could get away with it?  They had to have friends in positions to sway the debate – or even buy off the resistance in some manner.

In his life – John O’Neill has served in some very high level positions – if his behaviour in those positions was a reflection of his behaviour during his tenure with the SBNSW – it casts so much doubt on the integrity of all the organisations who hired him – these include the Australian Rugby Union and Australian Soccer – and the NSW Government as a Tourism Ambassador.

People have tried to ridicule him in the media and expose his faults – one such exposure ended in a suit when he defended allegations made by Alan Jones of ‘Radio 2GB’ fame,  that O’Neill was a hopeless Banker … why Jones rolled over and settled that case out of court yields further opinions about Alan Jones – and into  how much research he does before he uses his megaphone microphone to cast his ‘doubt net’ as wide as he does.

In any crime there is always a trail of evidence – the documents presented hereto and in other posts in this continuing expose – bare’s testament to the fact that this incriminating evidence had been lying dormant and waiting for someone to put the pieces together for 20+ years.  How many other indiscretions lay similarly unexposed?

By this stage of the research period one just knew this jigsaw was gonna unfold like a banana – the FOI’s just kept coming and the staff doing the searches were very helpful – even notifying discoveries outside the FOI request – prompting more FOI requests – O’Neill will have nowhere to hide by the time this is done – Greiner will be in the paddywagon with him – and the question remains – who’s gonna have the balls to take this matter to court?

There have been three attempts to give this information to the previous NSW Labour Government – they all pushed the ‘too hard’ lever leaving it for the next guy …

The NSW Prosecutor has pursued the Andy Koval case for fraud over events that happened in 1986 – 87, do you think this case would yield a better outcome … Andy Koval was a civilian – Nick Greiner was the NSW Premier, and his Corporate profile these days is huge – can you imagine the fallout if he faced charges relating to his ethics and behaviour whilst serving as Premier?   Hang on – he did face ICAC over allegations he did favours for some mates – cost him his Premiership and Fahey took over for the 2nd term.

He has been down this road before.   How good a job did the investigators do way back then?  Was it a case of letting it slide and accepting the ‘step-down’ as an informal form of self punishment – crime is crime  – and these guys know when they step over the mark.  They also know how to cover their tracks – you would think!!!

Unless they’re made an example of in full public view – it will just keep happening – if our leaders know there is one set of rules that sits above the law for them – what is our justice system really worth?

Can you imagine just what evidence will be uncovered when depositions start happening – everybody will be looking for life jackets – and the ones left on the boat will be left to carry the can.

The 1st Chapter of the new book currently in edit phase tells of a possible ending to this story – it is set in 2017 and you can read this chapter using this link here

At the moment there is a list – a list of possible SBNSW and NSWG names and the criminal charges each party involved in this matter from as far back as the late 70’s could be facing.   The top of that list includes Premier’s, MP’s, MD’s, Lawyer’s, and NSWG staffer’s – some of the involved parties are now deceased – and that may hinder some of the yet unknown facts from being discovered – no matter, 90% is already known and is ready to start burning some of the ‘evil’ scum who made this all happen.

Back to 9th May Headers:

_______________________________________

Part 9 … continues – … Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill – Part 9 – The Regulatory Investigation begins …  John O’Neill hits a speed-bump – the first of many he was to encounter over the next few weeks … read it and see all the evidence in the next installments … see below for link …

_______________________________________

Link to all previous chapters for –

“Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU)” – The SBS Story

________________________________________

The EYE-BALL Opinion … Without Prejudice …

%d bloggers like this: