Home > Current Affairs, Human Interest, Novel - General Posts, Politics - Domestic, The EYE-BALL MediaZone, The EYE-BALL NovelZone -, The EYE-BALL Opinion > EYE-BALL’s Human Evil Exposed – John O’Neill (CEO-ARU) … Part 9 – The Regulatory Investigation begins …

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 …

  1. Tony Ward
    March 16, 2012 at 9:20 am

    Hi,
    I am the ex General manager IT for State Building Society (onetime CIO of State Bank under Nick Whitlam & founder of FNS (the State Building Societies IT Department)
    Interesting expose’ on the events around the sale of SBS.
    If you want to know more, follow the money trail – especially who got paid what and what were they paid for?

  2. March 16, 2012 at 9:43 am

    Hello Tony,

    I know you, met you several times – you set me up with the portable Compac 386’s that we ran all Treasury systems from …

    I recall our meetings and discussion on Management reporting macros off the Symphony spreadsheets …

    One of your guys was in our dealing room for weeks fine tuning the macros … I know what he looks like but cannot figure on a name …

    As regards to the money trail – St George and Westpac won’t let me have any access to SBS documents … CBA are still making up their mind … but I do know about the $5 million Ken Sweeney made off the St George float – the $500k Greg Bartlett received as a bonus after the SBS merger …

    Paul Kearns played ‘snake in the grass’ for a few months a year or so back trying to get why I had discovered – when I hit him with a series of bombs he ran away and won’t respond anymore – O’Neill wanted to know who my published and Lawyer was – and Greiner walked up and said – I have absolutely no recollection of or anything to do with the SBS … but he did block my e-mail post outs about this expose …

    Glad you touched base … happy to talk about it if you want – I’m sure you have plenty to contribute …

    e-mail address: mailto:blogcomment@bigpond.com

    If you want you can sign up to the SBS employee database and go on a mailing list for all future updates …

    Use this link here: https://bleyzie.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/eye-ball-novelzones-zombie-leaks-sbs-registeration/

    EYE-BALL

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: