Home > Current Affairs, Human Interest, Novel - General Posts, Politics - Domestic, Politics - International, The EYE-BALL CommunityZone, The EYE-BALL MediaZone, The EYE-BALL NovelZone -, The EYE-BALL Opinion, The EYE-BALL PoliticalZone > EYE-BALL’s Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU) … Part 8 – The Regulatory Response to the SBS Boardroom Coup …

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 …

  1. Walker Pflugradt
    February 26, 2012 at 3:10 am

    Good blog! I truly love how it is easy on my eyes and the data are well written. I am wondering how I might be notified whenever a new post has been made. I have subscribed to your feed which must do the trick! Have a nice day! “If you are going to do something wrong at least enjoy it.” by Leo C. Rosten.

  2. lovey
    August 22, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    heya I’m Sarah I’m such a air head but I still really appreciated your blog

  1. July 20, 2012 at 9:18 pm
    Greatful
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: