The following is sourced from The Daily Telegraph - Sydney



•Cunneen: ‘I can never forgive or forget the torment of ICAC’
•ICAC paid more than $180,000 fighting Margaret Cunneen
•ICAC Commissioner Latham ’acted illegally’ in botched investigation


CROWN prosecutor Margaret Cunneen told a tow truck repairman she gave a message to her son’s girlfriend to fake chest pains to get her in an ambulance and buy her time at the scene of a car accident, ­according to secret phone intercepts received by a parliamentary committee.


Tapes of the exchange also include Ms Cunneen expressing concerns about her insurance liability if her son Stephen Wyllie’s girlfriend Sophia Tilley was found to have been drinking prior to the accident in Ms Cunneen’s car.

Parliamentary sources have told The Daily Telegraph the telephone intercepts appear to contrast with earlier explanations that the comments which led to the controversial ICAC investigation are a “joke” or a “play on words”.


Ms Cunneen was the subject of an ICAC investigation into allegations she instructed her son’s girlfriend to fake chest pains to avoid a breathalyser after a crash. Picture: Justin Sanson

The sources said the ­insurance issue was mentioned “multiple times” on the tapes.

ICAC commissioner Megan Latham tabled the intercepts yesterday to a parliamentary committee in a bid to clear her name and protect her job after ICAC Inspector David Levine found she acted improperly over the Cunneen investigation. Now Ms Latham is threatening to take Mr Levine’s report for “judicial review”.

The parliamentary committee, which had been all set to grill Ms Latham on her conduct, adjourned for a week yesterday to seek legal advice on whether they could ­release the telephone intercepts. ICAC has legal advice that they can.

It is understood when the recordings were played, the “tone” of the conversation placed serious doubt on prior claims from Ms Cunneen that her taped comments amounted to nothing more than a “joke”.

Now the committee is considering calling Ms Cunneen to hear her side of the story on the incident.

Ms Cunneen was the subject of an ICAC investigation into allegations she instructed her son’s girlfriend to fake chest pains to avoid a breathalyser after a crash.





It is alleged Ms Cunneen told Ms Tilley to fake chest pains to avoid being breathalysed. At hospital, Ms Tilley registered a zero blood alcohol reading.


Independent Commission Against Corruption Commissioner Megan Latham yesterday/ Picture: AAP

The High Court has since ruled ICAC acted outside its power in investigating Ms Cunneen.


Ms Latham yesterday attempted to publicly release the phone conversations, but after a one-hour adjournment, ICAC committee chair Damien Tudehope said the hearing would have to be delayed until next Friday to give the committee enough time to get legal advice.

Before the adjournment, Ms Latham argued the telephone intercepts should be made public to allow ICAC to show faults in the Levine report and ­respond to public criticism.

Ms Cunneen has previously denied any wrongdoing. Last night she said she had “no recollection” of the taped conversations and maintained there may have been a “joke” about Sophia’s “fake chest” or breast implant.


Ms Tilley has denied receiving such advice from Ms Cunneen.

.

“The best prosecutors in Australia have said there’s no criminality against my son, his girlfriend or me,” Ms Cunneen said.

“I think there was a joke on the fake chest and the fact remains I never got a chance to speak to Stephen or Sophia afterwards (the accident).

“There’s no obligation not to make a joke like that (after the accident).”


Comment from Red Baron: There appears to be A HYSTERICAL WITCH HUN T against Commissioner Megan Latham about her pursuit of Margaret Cunneen

Seems to me like the Legal Fraternity are closing ranks against what they perceive to be a crusade against Margaret Cunneen.

However.........the calls have been leaked which is a dreadful state of affairs. However Cunneen has not disputed the content of the calls.

I have read the contents of those calls which Cunneen passes off as 'a joke'.

Cunneen has hung herself with her own words.

is this story still going?  boy things move slow around here sometimes

Mr Baron, can you post a link so we can make sense of all that mad woman's breakfast of a Post?

Aussie all I have are the newspaper article which I have reprinted straight from the tele site and the television broadcasts on today's and tonight's news.

Still researching but this is too interesting not to put up.

Why can't you do this?

Link.

So why did you need to ask?

You're as pedantic as Peccarhead ::)

Aussie I have posted the Daily Telegraph story Feb 16 2016 verbatim.

If you want to read it then freaking well Google it. I haven't edited it!

The bloody link is  a mile bloody long!

Ive met Sophia Tilley a few times....bloody hawt girl.

red baron wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 7:59pm:

Aussie I have posted the Daily Telegraph story Feb 16 2016 verbatim. If you want to read it then freaking well Google it. I haven't edited it! The bloody link is  a mile bloody long!

Mr Baron.....there will be a zillion Posters here who will assure you that I am the most www challenged person in the Universe.  If you cannot post a link, as I have now done for you, they need to take that gong off me and hand it to you.

Why do you want a link when I have posted the story verbatim from the Daily Telegraph site.

You are not getting a link when the story has been handed to you on a plate.

I am not going to debate your precocious demands any further.

Debate the subject!!!!

And yes Aussie ... you being more pedantic is certainly challenging Peccarhead.

red baron wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 8:04pm:

Why do you want a link when I have posted the story verbatim from the Daily Telegraph site. You are not getting a link when the story has been handed to you on a plate. I am not going to debate your precocious demands any further. Debate the subject!!!!

Which is what exactly.

Mr Baron, you posted:


Quote:

I have read the contents of those calls which Cunneen passes off as 'a joke'.

Where?  How did you access that?  Where is the public link?

Here's dickhead No.3

I don't know what really happened here but I find it interesting that the Judge has requested for ICAC to release the tape and they refuse.

The Tele putting a significant slant on the story is neither surprising nor informative ?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 8:36pm:

I don't know what really happened here but I find it interesting that the Judge has requested for ICAC to release the tape and they refuse. The Tele putting a significant slant on the story is neither surprising nor informative ?

Dunno why the Judge would do that when our resident retired telephone tapping Copper has:


Quote:

...... read the contents of those calls which Cunneen passes off as 'a joke'.

Mr Baron, where are you????   ^^^^^^ ????

The real question is, why were Cunneen's telephone calls being recorded and who authorized such recordings.

If the calls were being illegally recorded, they could just as easily be illegally tampered.

It appears somebody in ASIS/ASIO doesn't like Cunneen.

The crooked spooks need to be weeded out and jailed.

Cunneen's mistake was in leaving a trail when she sought to pervert the course of justice... you and I know, Red, that this sort of thing happens all the time and is usually not caught or the attending officers are too smart to let it happen.

Cunneen committed the cardinal folly - it seems - of involving a third party and telephone....

People with a 'position' have gotten away with this kind of thing for years.. decades.. centuries.... and it would be nice to see one caught - with the proviso that the evidence is there, of course.

"The High Court has since ruled ICAC acted outside its power in investigating Ms Cunneen.


Ms Latham yesterday attempted to publicly release the phone conversations, but after a one-hour adjournment, ICAC committee chair Damien Tudehope said the hearing would have to be delayed until next Friday to give the committee enough time to get legal advice."

That seems to cover it pretty well.  It appears there IS a tape....... the pursuit of justice should mandate that it be released and made public, even if it costs someone a penalty for doing so.

Anyway - how would this 'illegal tape' business go under the metadata idea?   Isn't that what's it's for - to catch people out in criminal activities?

She is just another member of the judiciary who has a false sense of superiority & entitlement.

She's bent .... sack her.

Listening device warrants are not granted lightly. The informant in this case the I.C.A.C. must convince a Federal Court Judge that all normal avenues of investigation have been exhausted.

ALSO the offences must be high level offences, those that require as trial by Jury should the offences be found to have been committed.

I don't know what the brief was handed to the Federal Court Judge who signed the warrant granting approval to go after Margaret Cunneeen but they must have been serious offences.

Like I have said, the tapes have been 'leaked' most probably from someone within the I.C.A.C. who would have carried out the operation.

In my time at the NSW Police Telephone Intercepts there was never a 'leak' of material gathered.

The level of security of Telephone Intercepts is extraordinary in the NSW Police Force and the Ombudsman regularly visits the Police and goes over everything and I do mean everything.

There ,must be some very sloppy work going on in the I.C.A.C. but then again they are cardboard cut outs and not real Police.

Having said that I believe that Margaret Cunneen has hung herself if those words printed as coming from the tapes are true. She has not challenged their veracity, rather passing them off as a joke.

I can tell you this much. If those calls were played before a Jury they would be treated as anything but a joke.

Cunneen has committed the ultimate sin, she has believed herself to be too clever for the authorities, she believes her own publicity. Ego is such a bitch and such a hard taskmaster.

I have personally been involved with trials in which Margaret Cunneen has represented the NSW Police Force and found her performances to be stellar.

I honestly believe that I.C.A.C. has a grudge against Cunneen it is unfortunate that she has been found out in the most common of crimes, covering up for the stupidity of a much loved daughter.

I'm afraid they have her in a corner and I don't like her chances. The I.C.A.C. most probably couldn't believe its good fortune when she transgressed and they had it on tape.

PS Margaret Cunneen is 'not bent' she is one of the most forthright, intelligent and diligent QC's I have ever seen in a Courtroom. She made an error of judgement - yes. But like hell is she bent. If one of our own kids were going down the gurglar it is highly likely that you as a parent would bend the rules to save them. So don't go getting too bloody high and mighty about it all. She made a huge error of judgement but she is not 'bent'

The real criminals are the people who recorded the conversations and released them publicly.

The criminal spooks should be exposed and prosecuted.

Cunneen has upset the police and criminals who are associated in the Freemasons. The Freemasons is a secret society that should be disbanded and prohibited.

Get your hand off it Laugh you are embarrassing yourself ;)

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

Get your hand off it Laugh you are embarrassing yourself ;)

You'll have to excuse him, he was pack raped by British soccer hooligans and hasn't been the same since.  :'(

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

Get your hand off it Laugh you are embarrassing yourself ;)

Sorry darling. I wasn't aware it was your turn. Pucker up.

Where do you get that 'daughter/family' stuff from?

And:

I'll ask again, Mr Baron.  How did you access that stuff?  Where is the public link to it.

Oh O.K. Aussie, you wanted  Linc

well here 'tis


The incredible Linc ;D ;D ;D

---

Cute.

Where is the public link to this material you say you've read?

This is for Aussie, only took me five minutes to type it out

http:www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/secret-tapes-recordings-of-margaret-cunneeen-delay-icac-hearing/news-story/a73e908e6b17d1f30c3604d470f01ee3

Whewwwwwwwwwww!

Now please Aus stop breaking my balls will you? :D

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 2:38pm:

This is for Aussie, only took me five minutes to type it out http:www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/secret-tapes-recordings-of-margaret-cunneeen-delay-icac-hearing/news-story/a73e908e6b17d1f30c3604d470f01ee3 Whewwwwwwwwwww! Now please Aus stop breaking my balls will you? :D

So, when you posted this:


Quote:

I have read the contents of those calls which Cunneen passes off as 'a joke'.

~

You were not being candid.  You meant to say you've read the same third hand generalisations about what she actually said everyone else has read in a newspaper report.

And when you posted this ~


Quote:

I can tell you this much. If those calls were played before a Jury they would be treated as anything but a joke.

~

You were pretending you had heard them.

The bit I dont know is why were her calls were being monitored in the first place.

Has she got some other dodgy dealings under investigation?

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 2:54pm:

The bit I dont know is why were her calls were being monitored in the first place. Has she got some other dodgy dealings under investigation?

Agreed.  Especially when the Courts had told ICAC to piss off.

The only people who know that are the Judge who signed the Listening Devices warrant and the I.C.A.C.

Last time I checked the people who are investigating the I.C.A.C. do not have right to the information in that Warrant.

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 2:57pm:

The only people who know that are the Judge who signed the Listening Devices warrant and the I.C.A.C. Last time I checked the people who are investigating the I.C.A.C. do not have right to the information in that Warrant.

Confess Red Baron. You are receiving stolen and illegally obtained information from your Freemason mates.

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 2:57pm:

The only people who know that are the Judge who signed the Listening Devices warrant and the I.C.A.C. Last time I checked the people who are investigating the I.C.A.C. do not have right to the information in that Warrant.

So, if I have this correct...............someone is investigating Latham of ICAC.  In her defence, she has thrown up these tapes.  Do I have that correct?

It is news to me that Megan Latham has the authority to release those tapes to anyone but the Court who will hear as prosecution coming out of th tapes and any other evidence they have to proceed with.

The Listening Devices Act may have been changed since I was in the job but the amount of people who have access to those tapes is very, very limited indeed. The defence is given a copy of the brief including tapes once the prosecution launches the court case.

Don't forget those tapes were 'leaked' to the media. Cunneen has not disputed their veracity but rather that they were said 'as a joke' or similar.

This doesn't say much for the I.C.A.C.s control of sensitive information and it is about as water tight as the Titanic, that is the difference between real Police and the cowboys of the I.C.A.C.

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 3:22pm:

It is news to me that Megan Latham has the authority to release those tapes to anyone but the Court who will hear as prosecution coming out of th tapes and any other evidence they have to proceed with.

That makes sense to me.


Quote:

The Listening Devices Act may have been changed since I was in the job but the amount of people who have access to those tapes is very, very limited indeed. The defence is given a copy of the brief including tapes once the prosecution launches the court case.

Well, whatever control there ought to be in just not there, it seems.  Surely, this will be bad for Latham, and not Cunneen.


Quote:

Don't forget those tapes were 'leaked' to the media. Cunneen has not disputed their veracity but rather that they were said 'as a joke' or similar.

Leaked to the schmedia or to whatever Court is looking at Latham/ICAC?


Quote:

This doesn't say much for the I.C.A.C.s control of sensitive information and it is about as water tight as the Titanic, that is the difference between real Police and the cowboys of the I.C.A.C.

If Latham has released recordings of taps made lawfully while ICAC was looking at Cunneen (it failed in its attempt to 'get' her) it just beggars belief that she can legally present them to some other Court/Tribunal which is looking into her/ICAC conduct.

This has turned into a Legalistic 'minefield' in New South Wales. A Parliamentary Inquiry is looking  into the whole sorry mess. Megan Latham from the I.C.A.C is after Cunneen's blood and who knows how many factions are after Megan Latham's blood.

Alan Jones is baying at the moon for Latham's blood. This is getting a tad messy.

Regarding why her phone was being tapped at the time of this recording, I cant see anything obvious in this Wikipedia summary of her that would suggest she was under investigation.

Crown Prosecutor

Cunneen is a Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor in the NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and has held a commission as a Crown Prosecutor since 1990. She came to prominence when she prosecuted a series of highly publicised pedophiles and several notable gang rape and murder trials.

In October 2007 Cunneen was appointed as Senior Counsel and her peers at the Bar elected her as one of 21 members of the Bar Council of New South Wales.[5][6] She is a Bar Councillor, having received the second highest number of votes in the 2014 Bar Council elections.[7]

Between 1995 and 2009 Cunneen was a lecturer in child abuse and neglect, focusing on the court system, at the Faculty of Social Work at the University of New South Wales.[2]

In April 2007 The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Cunneen had been removed as prosecutor in the trial of an alleged gang rapist after the court found there would be a perception of unfairness if she acted in the case.[8] Cunneen had referred to the case, although without naming it and speaking only in reference to the deleterious effects on the victim arising from the seven–year delay in concluding it, during the Sir Ninian Stephen Lecture in 2005 at Newcastle University. Cunneen's lecture was described by Justice David Levine as "the most articulate commentary on the criminal justice system, in my opinion". The decision to remove her was criticised by the New South Wales Bar Association,[9] however it was not appealed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.[10] John Marsden wrote to the Legal Services Commissioner, calling Cunneen "a disgrace to our profession".[1] His complaint was dismissed.

In 2010, Cunneen as a private citizen, gave character evidence for Brett Stewart, referring to his having campaigned in New Guinea against violence towards women, in Sydney's District Court in his trial after an allegation of sexual assault. Stewart was found not guilty by the jury in under an hour's deliberation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Cunneen

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 3:47pm:

This has turned into a Legalistic 'minefield' in New South Wales. A Parliamentary Inquiry is looking  into the whole sorry mess. Megan Latham from the I.C.A.C is after Cunneen's blood and who knows how many factions are after Megan Latham's blood. Alan Jones is baying at the moon for Latham's blood. This is getting a tad messy.

I don't know enough about it given the paucity of schmedia reporting on it, so my understanding is at a very superficial level.  I'd say Latham is in very deep poo, and she has made that worse (compounded it) by handing over these tapes of recordings of Cunneen's private phone calls which were authorised for a specific purpose (long ago dealt with, and in my view, they then ought to have been destroyed) to some Court/Tribunal she was not legally able to.

Still begs the question......why was the bugging of her phone authorised in the first place?  It could not have been over that incident involving the girl-friend of her son, as no-one would have forseen she would have been up to anything over that at the time.  The tap must have already been in place before that incident.

I wonder if it had anything to do with that Royal Commission Cunneen got embroiled in?

Link.

Aussie wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 4:12pm:

red baron wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 3:47pm: This has turned into a Legalistic 'minefield' in New South Wales. A Parliamentary Inquiry is looking  into the whole sorry mess. Megan Latham from the I.C.A.C is after Cunneen's blood and who knows how many factions are after Megan Latham's blood. Alan Jones is baying at the moon for Latham's blood. This is getting a tad messy. I don't know enough about it given the paucity of schmedia reporting on it, so my understanding is at a very superficial level.  I'd say Latham is in very deep poo, and she has made that worse (compounded it) by handing over these tapes of recordings of Cunneen's private phone calls which were authorised for a specific purpose (long ago dealt with, and in my view, they then ought to have been destroyed) to some Court/Tribunal she was not legally able to. Still begs the question......why was the bugging of her phone authorised in the first place?  It could not have been over that incident involving the girl-friend of her son, as no-one would have forseen she would have been up to anything over that at the time.  The tap must have already been in place before that incident. I wonder if it had anything to do with that Royal Commission Cunneen got embroiled in? Link.

Yes Aussie i wondered about that as well, though wouldnt the RC have been in charge of any phone taps realated to child sex abuse.

Then again there is nothing to say that is not where the tapes came from to the iCAC.

The plot thickens

Therein  lies the conundrum

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 4:25pm:

Therein  lies the conundrum

I reckon that is the understatement of the decade.  Maybe I'm over reading it but this has potential to perhaps even hit a sitting Royal Commission.

Someone mentioned Alan Jones up there ^^^^^.  I hope he is onto a likely very serious issue and keeps at it like a dog at a bone.

There is a lot of jealousy in the upper echelons of the Legal Fraternity in Sydney and always has been since Cunneen's stunning rise to prominence as a Lawyer.

This has simply been common knowledge here for years. Now the bomb has really gone off.

Lets see if the ICAC release where the recordings came from and  who authorised them!

Maybe the whole thing will all go quiet and be shut down!

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 4:43pm:

There is a lot of jealousy in the upper echelons of the Legal Fraternity in Sydney and always has been since Cunneen's stunning rise to prominence as a Lawyer. This has simply been common knowledge here for years. Now the bomb has really gone off.

There is nothing particularly spectacular about the career of Cunneen.  It looks pretty mundane to me, (all within the NSW Public Service) but that really is beside the point which I assume will become clearer as time passes.

A note of procedure Aussie, the recorded evidence is NEVER destroyed. It stays in highly secure lockup for perpetuity.

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 4:57pm:

A note of procedure Aussie, the recorded evidence is NEVER destroyed. It stays in highly secure lockup for perpetuity.

Quite obviously, and self evidently not.

It is with the NSW Police Force security facilities for Interception material.

I can't speak for I.C.A.C. perhaps they store it in the shitter.

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 5:08pm:

It is with the NSW Police Force security facilities for Interception material. I can't speak for I.C.A.C. perhaps they store it in the shitter.

What is the position with the Australian Crime Commission?  Do you know?

The only crimes committed are those by the spooks who recorded and then publicized the telephone conversations of Cunneen, who must now be sitting back smiling as the unlawful activity against her has exposed perpetrators to legal action as well as criminal action.

CORRECTION:

I previously stated that all Telephone Interception Records held by the NSW Police Force are held in perpetuity.

I apologise that I was incorrect in stating this. Case material is destroyed by incineration after it has been satisfied that all grounds for appeal have been exhausted in cases.

Usually this takes a number of years depending on the circumstances of the case.

I apologise over my error and hope this sets the record straight.

PS Aussie the way the Crime Commission run their Intercepts is as much of a mystery to me as you.

The NSW Police Force was the first to set up a professionally run Telephone Interception Section. The Crime Commission, the I.C.A.C.'s involvement came after the NSW Police Force's success in running such a facility. In fact in the early days we used to run Intercepts for the afore mentioned bodies  and the Federal Police before they set up their own.

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 5:47pm:

CORRECTION: I previously stated that all Telephone Interception Records held by the NSW Police Force are held in perpetuity. I apologise that I was incorrect in stating this. Case material is destroyed by incineration after it has been satisfied that all grounds for appeal have been exhausted in cases. Usually this takes a number of years depending on the circumstances of the case. I apologise over my error and hope this sets the record straight.

Indeed, Grasshopper.  This tap was made by this mob ~ Australian Crime Commission.

LTYC
Quote:

The only crimes committed are those by the spooks who recorded and then publicized the telephone conversations of Cunneen, who must now be sitting back smiling as the unlawful activity against her has exposed perpetrators to legal action as well as criminal action.

Cunneen is bent ... just like you.

If Australia was an honest corruption free society the spooks who illegally recorded phone conversations would already be in the oxcart on the way to the guillotine.

Aussie wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

red baron wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 5:47pm: CORRECTION: I previously stated that all Telephone Interception Records held by the NSW Police Force are held in perpetuity. I apologise that I was incorrect in stating this. Case material is destroyed by incineration after it has been satisfied that all grounds for appeal have been exhausted in cases. Usually this takes a number of years depending on the circumstances of the case. I apologise over my error and hope this sets the record straight. Indeed, Grasshopper.  This tap was made by this mob ~ Australian Crime Commission.

What do you base that claim on Aussie!

You are a certifiable el stupido Laugh, I have gone to great length to explain exactly how hard it is for an Interception to be started. It can't happen without the precise authority of a Federal Court Judge.

You are printing absolute shite.  Still....that's nothing new for you is it?

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 5:52pm: red baron wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 5:47pm: CORRECTION: I previously stated that all Telephone Interception Records held by the NSW Police Force are held in perpetuity. I apologise that I was incorrect in stating this. Case material is destroyed by incineration after it has been satisfied that all grounds for appeal have been exhausted in cases. Usually this takes a number of years depending on the circumstances of the case. I apologise over my error and hope this sets the record straight. Indeed, Grasshopper.  This tap was made by this mob ~ Australian Crime Commission. What do you base that claim on Aussie!

Right here, Mr. R. Neck............

Link.


Quote:

The Australian Crime Commission recording and its transcript were made available to state MPs on a parliamentary committee on Thursday after being tendered by Independent Commission Against Corruption chief Megan Latham. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-icac-tapes-margaret-cunneen-said-she-had-sent-a-message-to-sophia-tilley-about-chest-pains-20160211-gms5dj.html#ixzz402Cg0yI2 Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

You are a certifiable el stupido Laugh, I have gone to great length to explain exactly how hard it is for an Interception to be started. It can't happen without the precise authority of a Federal Court Judge. You are printing absolute shite.  Still....that's nothing new for you is it?

You sure of that Mr Baron?

So still begs the question why were they tapping her phone?

YES I AM SURE

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:30pm:

So still begs the question why were they tapping her phone?

True......and people somewhere will be very concerned about exactly that...........not including Cunneen.  Someone, somewhere has been extremely naughty, and perhaps this might cost a Royal Commission some serious blood, as well as ICAC and the ACC.  Authorised clandestine phone taps just cannot be made public in this fashion.  Sure, if Cunneen was under some charge which was the result of the tap......but that is just not the case.

This is pretty serious stuff.

red baron wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

YES I AM SURE

You are wrong.

Link.

Yes Aussie, I have done some hunting of the Act myself and was most surprised that it now includes an eligible Judge being a Federal Court Judge or an eligible Magistrate. I have poured through the Act and cannot find in Definitions or elsewhere what exactly construes
an eligible Magistrate?

Section 5 refers to Section 4 and neither seems to clear up who is 'an eligible Magistrate' I would really like to know.

It has been well over a decade since I was in the job and obviously the Act has changed in that time. Now it seems 'eligible Magistrates'  get a Guernsey as well, whoever the hell they are.

One thing that would not have changed Aussie are the circumstances in which such a Warrant can be applied for. That is, that normal Policing methods have failed to succeed in a major investigation. Under such terms an eligible Judge (federal) and apparently an eligible Magistrate can authorise a Listening Devices Warrant.
They don't nor have they ever given these warrants out like lollies. It is a major deal to get an Interception Warrant up.

Found this:

Surveillance Devices Act 2007 No 64 Section 5


Preliminary Part 1
5 Eligible Judges and Magistrates
(1) In this Act:
eligible Judge means a Judge in relation to whom a consent under
subsection (2) and a declaration under subsection (3) are in force.
eligible Magistrate means a Magistrate in relation to whom a consent
under subsection (2) and a declaration under subsection (3) are in force.
Judge means a person who is a Judge of the Supreme Court.
(2) A Judge or Magistrate may, by instrument in writing, consent to being
the subject of a declaration by the Attorney General under subsection
(3).
(3) The Attorney General may, by instrument in writing, declare Judges or
Magistrates in relation to whom consents are in force under subsection
[/b[b][b](2) to be eligible Judges and eligible Magistrates, respectively, for the
purposes of this Act.
[/b](4) An eligible Judge has, in relation to the exercise of a function conferred
on an eligible Judge by this Act, the same protection and immunity as a
Judge of the Supreme Court has in relation to proceedings in the
Supreme Court.
(5) An eligible Magistrate has, in relation to the exercise of a function
conferred on an eligible Magistrate by this Act, the same protection and
immunity as a Magistrate has in relation to proceedings in a Local
Court.
(6) A Judge or Magistrate who has given consent under this section may,
by instrument in writing, revoke the consent.
(7) The Attorney General may, by instrument in writing, amend or revoke
a declaration under this section.
6 Act to bind Crown
This Act

Eligible Magistrate = any dickweed brought in from the bank or the real estate agency to hold court for a day.... should simply not be permitted... we need a professional magistracy, not an assemblage of clowns...

Best still - no magistracy at all and only duly appointed and qualified judges answerable to the Law and not above the Law - not ex-coppers, car salesmen with a JP qual, or whatever.

Latham is a stooge acting for others to 'get' Cunneen. The recorded conversation is moot because the accident victim was not intoxicated.

Cunneen has upset a high level Freemason.

It will be most interesting to see the reasons for the phone tap exposed if indeed it was approved.

The spooks should be in the ox cart to the guillotine.


Quote:

Ms Tilley, who was not at fault for the accident, tested negative for alcohol at hospital after the crash. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3442429/Crown-prosecutor-Margaret-Cunneen-s-claim-joking-car-crash-challenged.html#ixzz40767zIxu

Quote:

In April 2015 the High Court blocked an ICAC investigation into whether Ms Cunneen, her son Stephen Wyllie and his girlfriend Sophia Tilley attempted to pervert the course of justice after a traffic accident in May 2014, when Ms Tilley, who was driving Ms Cunneen's car, complained of chest pain. OPPRESSIVE MALADMINISTRATION In December the ICAC Inspector, David Levine, called the investigation unlawful and oppressive maladministration. Commissioner Megan Latham faces questioning by the ICAC parliamentary committee on February 11 over the report. ICAC launched its investigation in July 2014, after the Crime Commission provided tapes of telephone intercepts from an unrelated operation, on which Ms Cunneen says she made joking references to a car repair man about Ms Tilley faking chest pain. Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/legal/destroy-icac-prosecutor-margaret-cunneen-says-20160204-gmllll#ixzz4078KKzN2

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 2:33pm:

Latham is a stooge acting for others to 'get' Cunneen. The recorded conversation is moot because the accident victim was not intoxicated. Cunneen has upset a high level Freemason. It will be most interesting to see the reasons for the phone tap exposed if indeed it was approved. The spooks should be in the ox cart to the guillotine. Quote: Ms Tilley, who was not at fault for the accident, tested negative for alcohol at hospital after the crash. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3442429/Crown-prosecutor-Margaret-Cunneen-s-claim-joking-car-crash-challenged.html#ixzz40767zIxu [quote]In April 2015 the High Court blocked an ICAC investigation into whether Ms Cunneen, her son Stephen Wyllie and his girlfriend Sophia Tilley attempted to pervert the course of justice after a traffic accident in May 2014, when Ms Tilley, who was driving Ms Cunneen's car, complained of chest pain. OPPRESSIVE MALADMINISTRATION In December the ICAC Inspector, David Levine, called the investigation unlawful and oppressive maladministration. Commissioner Megan Latham faces questioning by the ICAC parliamentary committee on February 11 over the report. ICAC launched its investigation in July 2014, after the Crime Commission provided tapes of telephone intercepts from an unrelated operation, on which Ms Cunneen says she made joking references to a car repair man about Ms Tilley faking chest pain. Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/legal/destroy-icac-prosecutor-margaret-cunneen-says-20160204-gmllll#ixzz4078KKzN2

[/quote]

This really is not relevant to the current issue of Latham using these clandestine tapes in proceedings other than in support of why they came into existence but:

The driver may have been buying time to allow whatever little alcohol she may have had in her system to dissipate, so that when they were able to take blood or a breath test, the result was zero.

From recollection, the driver was a P plater?

I believe that Megan Latham has corrupted due process.

I'm sure you have heard about the separation of the Politicians and the Police; Separation of Powers that is.

Who gave Megan Latham permission to cross that line. If she has given those Politicians the tapes then she has well and truly crossed that line.

This is the exact problems with bodies like the I.C.A.C. they think they know the law but really they know f...k all.

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 2:46pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 2:33pm: Latham is a stooge acting for others to 'get' Cunneen. The recorded conversation is moot because the accident victim was not intoxicated. Cunneen has upset a high level Freemason. It will be most interesting to see the reasons for the phone tap exposed if indeed it was approved. The spooks should be in the ox cart to the guillotine. Quote: Ms Tilley, who was not at fault for the accident, tested negative for alcohol at hospital after the crash. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3442429/Crown-prosecutor-Margaret-Cunneen-s-claim-joking-car-crash-challenged.html#ixzz40767zIxu [quote]In April 2015 the High Court blocked an ICAC investigation into whether Ms Cunneen, her son Stephen Wyllie and his girlfriend Sophia Tilley attempted to pervert the course of justice after a traffic accident in May 2014, when Ms Tilley, who was driving Ms Cunneen's car, complained of chest pain. OPPRESSIVE MALADMINISTRATION In December the ICAC Inspector, David Levine, called the investigation unlawful and oppressive maladministration. Commissioner Megan Latham faces questioning by the ICAC parliamentary committee on February 11 over the report. ICAC launched its investigation in July 2014, after the Crime Commission provided tapes of telephone intercepts from an unrelated operation, on which Ms Cunneen says she made joking references to a car repair man about Ms Tilley faking chest pain. Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/legal/destroy-icac-prosecutor-margaret-cunneen-says-20160204-gmllll#ixzz4078KKzN2

This really is not relevant to the current issue of Latham using these clandestine tapes in proceedings other than in support of why they came into existence but:

The driver may have been buying time to allow whatever little alcohol she may have had in her system to dissipate, so that when they were able to take blood or a breath test, the result was zero.

From recollection, the driver was a P plater?[/quote]

A zero reading is just that, Z-E-R-O. It takes a long time for alcohol level to get down to zero from levels of 0.08 or 0.05. Takes more than 24 hours to get to zero.

Piss off Laugh you are way out of your league on this one.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 3:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 2:46pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 2:33pm: Latham is a stooge acting for others to 'get' Cunneen. The recorded conversation is moot because the accident victim was not intoxicated. Cunneen has upset a high level Freemason. It will be most interesting to see the reasons for the phone tap exposed if indeed it was approved. The spooks should be in the ox cart to the guillotine. Quote: Ms Tilley, who was not at fault for the accident, tested negative for alcohol at hospital after the crash. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3442429/Crown-prosecutor-Margaret-Cunneen-s-claim-joking-car-crash-challenged.html#ixzz40767zIxu [quote]In April 2015 the High Court blocked an ICAC investigation into whether Ms Cunneen, her son Stephen Wyllie and his girlfriend Sophia Tilley attempted to pervert the course of justice after a traffic accident in May 2014, when Ms Tilley, who was driving Ms Cunneen's car, complained of chest pain. OPPRESSIVE MALADMINISTRATION In December the ICAC Inspector, David Levine, called the investigation unlawful and oppressive maladministration. Commissioner Megan Latham faces questioning by the ICAC parliamentary committee on February 11 over the report. ICAC launched its investigation in July 2014, after the Crime Commission provided tapes of telephone intercepts from an unrelated operation, on which Ms Cunneen says she made joking references to a car repair man about Ms Tilley faking chest pain. Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/legal/destroy-icac-prosecutor-margaret-cunneen-says-20160204-gmllll#ixzz4078KKzN2 This really is not relevant to the current issue of Latham using these clandestine tapes in proceedings other than in support of why they came into existence but: The driver may have been buying time to allow whatever little alcohol she may have had in her system to dissipate, so that when they were able to take blood or a breath test, the result was zero. From recollection, the driver was a P plater?

A zero reading is just that, Z-E-R-O. It takes a long time for alcohol level to get down to zero from levels of 0.08 or 0.05. Takes more than 24 hours to get to zero.[/quote]

Nah, you lose .015 per hour and I theeeenk that commences at 60 mins since your last drink.  Long time since I knew that stuff pretty well.

red baron wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 3:04pm:

Piss off Laugh you are way out of your league on this one.

You should be in the oxcart with Latham and the spooks.

What are talking about Aussie, I have issued a Correction, as the Listening Devices Act has been changed since I left the job.. You have re printed that I am wrong...,.how now?  Do you dispute that the Judge has to be a Federal Judge?

I dont understand why her calls were being recorded in the first place.....

what were they investigating her for when they picked up this call about her sons girlfriend..

why would  the girl friend  be against being breathalysed if she hadnt been drinking?.

it doesnt make sense..

SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 2007 - SECT 5
Eligible Judges and Magistrates
5 Eligible Judges and Magistrates


(1) In this Act:

"eligible Judge" means a Judge in relation to whom a consent under subsection (2) and a declaration under subsection (3) are in force.

"eligible Magistrate" means a Magistrate in relation to whom a consent under subsection (2) and a declaration under subsection (3) are in force.

"Judge" means a person who is a Judge of the Supreme Court.

*

red baron wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 3:52pm:

What are talking about Aussie, I have issued a Correction, as the Listening Devices Act has been changed since I left the job.. You have re printed that I am wrong...,.how now?  Do you dispute that the Judge has to be a Federal Judge?

I haven't 're-printed' anything.  You were wrong when you insisted it had to be a Judge as you now know.  I have not repeated that at all.

This side show started here:


Quote:

You are a certifiable el stupido Laugh, I have gone to great length to explain exactly how hard it is for an Interception to be started. It can't happen without the precise authority of a Federal Court Judge.

cods wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 3:56pm:

I dont understand why her calls were being recorded in the first place..... what were they investigating her for when they picked up this call about her sons girlfriend.. why would  the girl friend  be against being breathalysed if she hadnt been drinking?. it doesnt make sense..

That is the real question.

Who was tapping her phone and for what purpose?

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 4:05pm:

cods wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 3:56pm: I dont understand why her calls were being recorded in the first place..... what were they investigating her for when they picked up this call about her sons girlfriend.. why would  the girl friend  be against being breathalysed if she hadnt been drinking?. it doesnt make sense.. That is the real question. Who was tapping her phone and for what purpose?

Best way is to ask her.  I now have.

The I.C.A.C. were tapping her phones. Megan Latham has blown it by No: 1 releasing the tapes to the Parliamentary Inquiry thereby crossing the lines of Separation of Powers which separate Parliament and the Police.

No 2. Someone, almost certainly in the I.C.A.C. has leaked the contents of the tapes to the media.

No 3. Margaret Cunneen QC has not denied the veracity of the contents of the tapes. She has stated that what she said was a "joke'.

She must be bloodywell fuming at the ineptness of the I.C.A.C.s handling of his.

No 4 This has now turned into a media circus and irregardless of whether Margaret Cunneen is guilty or not of perverting the course of Justice; she is in many ways a victim of a huge struggle  between Megan Latham and the powers that be.

How bloody convenient for Megan Latham to have these tapes made public, she is desperately trying to shore up her position under an avalanche of criticism be it warranted or not.

I repeat what I have said earlier Margaret Cunneen is not 'bent' she is a victim of bending the rules to get an errant daughter out of a jam. In other words, she behaved like a parent. That doesn't make it right..it was so bloody stupid. But, Margaret Cunneen is a woman of great honour and she has done great good in her job as a QC. and also in her work for women victims of sexual abuse.

ICAC was not doing the recording, and if I had read a link I found all the way, I would have realised it was not Cunneen's phone being tapped.  The tapping was done by the Australian Crime Commission, and they were listening to calls to and from a tow truck driver they were investigating.  Presumably, it was that tow truck driver Cunneen contacted to pick up her damaged car,

Link.


Quote:

The ACC passed details from the telephone conversations on to the ICAC, stating: "DPP Prosecutor possibly involved in corrupt conduct." Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-icac-tapes-margaret-cunneen-said-she-had-sent-a-message-to-sophia-tilley-about-chest-pains-20160211-gms5dj.html#ixzz407c8238g Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Still, the ACC releasing it to ICAC is questionable, just as the release by ICAC is questionable.

That's the answer to your question Mr R Neck.

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 4:05pm: cods wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 3:56pm: I dont understand why her calls were being recorded in the first place..... what were they investigating her for when they picked up this call about her sons girlfriend.. why would  the girl friend  be against being breathalysed if she hadnt been drinking?. it doesnt make sense.. That is the real question. Who was tapping her phone and for what purpose? Best way is to ask her.  I now have.

Bugger me!  Cunneen has just responded to my enquiry!  I have now sent her a request for her permission to post it here, and if she gives that, I will do so.  Otherwise, I will just generalise what she has told me.

Aussie where are you getting that the Australian Crime Commission recorded the tapes?

Secondly if they did record the conversations, it is likely that they may have done on behalf of the I.C.A.C. I  draw this parallel because when I was in the NSW Police, we did phone taps on behalf of the Federal Police and also the Crime Commission which did not have those facilities at that stage.

red baron wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 4:50pm:

Aussie where are you getting that the Australian Crime Commission recorded the tapes? Secondly if they did record the conversations, it is likely that they may have done on behalf of the I.C.A.C. I  draw this parallel because when I was in the NSW Police, we did phone taps on behalf of the Federal Police and also the Crime Commission which did not have those facilities at that stage.

I can answer all that right out of the horse's mouth.  I'm just giving Margaret Cunneen the courtesy of a request that I can post, word for word, what she emailed me about 20 minutes ago.

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 4:55pm:

I can answer all that right out of the horse's mouth.  I'm just giving Margaret Cunneen the courtesy of a request that I can post, word for word, what she emailed me about 20 minutes ago.

If she gives approval, what she says will be in the public domain.

Okay. Margaret Cunneen has now given me permission to post this, which is an email she sent me.


Quote:

Dear Mr. Xxxxxx. It was the tow truck driver's phone being tapped by ACC because his boss was a drug dealer. He handed me his phone to speak to the smash repairer, well after the event. My phone was not tapped - and did not send any messages or make any calls at the relevant time. This has all been taken into account by Silbert QC, Sexton SC and Levine QC who found no case to answer. No notice of the tender of this phone call was ever given to my solicitor or me and we have never been showed a transcript or played any part of it. Levine QC put it well in his Report. It is an exquisite irony that this has only been brought out (without the exculpatory evidence to show it was impossible) because ICAC earned a bad Report necessitating a Parliamentary Committee Inquiry. Let us hope they soon get on to ICAC's dreadful procedures, and off their attempted justification of what they did to my family and me, which has all been adjudicated on (High Ct, Sol Gen and ICAC Inspector) before. I very much appreciate your interest and I would be most grateful of your support, Sincerely, Margaret Cunneen

This clarifies the matter. However as I am sure you will realise, that during the course of a Telephone Intercept if other crimes are revealed albeit unwittingly, those crimes must be pursued in accordance with the law.

red baron wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 5:30pm:

This clarifies the matter. However as I am sure you will realise, that during the course of a Telephone Intercept if other crimes are revealed albeit unwittingly, those crimes must be pursued in accordance with the law.

Well, there's a statement of the bleeding obvious.  But.......Cunneen had the relevant conversation on the tow truck driver's (tapped) phone well after the event, so it is just pure smoke and mirror rubbish.

I hope it shakes up Latham/ICAC and the ACC big time.  I have also received other emails from Cunneen in which she refers to how much the last year or so has impacted on her and her Family.  'We' often forget that.  While it  provides 'entertainment' for us and grist for the 24/7 schmedia Mill, it all does have a huge impact on those who have done nothing, but still have to go through the process.  Nasty poo.  You know, Margaret Cunneen has today clocked up 39 years of service to the State of NSW.  All that just gets forgotten when the vested interest knives and personal vendettas come out.  Nah.  Latham and that entire process has to be taken down, not Cunneen.

If Margaret Cunneen had the phone call well after the event, it would have to depend on just how long after the event.

Her public statement that what she had said, "was a joke." sounded incredibly lame to me for someone as astute as she is. No one knows better than Cunneen the power of recorded calls in a Courtroom.

I should know because as I have said, I did a couple of trials with Cunneen in Court where Telephone Intercepts were relied on as part of the evidence.

There are a lot of things 'just not right' with this.

I have all the respect in the world for Margaret Cunneen but frankly this thing smells.

Quote:

If Margaret Cunneen had the phone call well after the event, it would have to depend on just how long after the event.

You are missing the point.  She used the tapped phone of the tow truck driver.  Who knows when that was, could have been days.  The point is that no matter what she said, it could not have been relevant to what was happening at the time.  There is no record of anything she said on her own phone and she says her phone records show she did not use her own phone around when the incident occurred.

This is going way off relevance.  Cunneen is not the target here.  She is the victim of some ICAC/Latham propaganda thing and they are obviously mightily pissed off that the High Court told them to piss off.

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

Who knows when that was, could have been days.

Why would she use the phone of the tow truck driver, days after it had been towed? I assume in NSW they remove damaged vehicles quite quickly.

No you are missing the point Aussie. If Cunneeen made the phone call, then it will be easily identifiable the time and date and length that call went down. It will be on the network provider records which ALWAYS accompany telephone intercepts to court.

Cunneeen has already agreed that the calls are correct in content therefore it is critical as to when she made that phone call.  You said that Cunneen had stated that it  was 'well after the event.' What constitutes 'well after' ?When we are talking about an inferred interference in the course of events, as to whether her daughter was affected by alcohol at the time of the accident. And the alleged non compulsory breath test because of the alleged breathing problems allegedly suffered in the accident by the driver (Cunneen's daughter). Did Cunneen's talk with the Tow driver change the normal course of events in Police investigation at a motor vehicle accident?

This goes to the heart of the matter.

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 4:39pm:

ICAC was not doing the recording, and if I had read a link I found all the way, I would have realised it was not Cunneen's phone being tapped.  The tapping was done by the Australian Crime Commission, and they were listening to calls to and from a tow truck driver they were investigating.  Presumably, it was that tow truck driver Cunneen contacted to pick up her damaged car, Link. Quote: The ACC passed details from the telephone conversations on to the ICAC, stating: "DPP Prosecutor possibly involved in corrupt conduct." Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-icac-tapes-margaret-cunneen-said-she-had-sent-a-message-to-sophia-tilley-about-chest-pains-20160211-gms5dj.html#ixzz407c8238g Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook Still, the ACC releasing it to ICAC is questionable, just as the release by ICAC is questionable. That's the answer to your question Mr R Neck.

Thanks Aussie, maybe they were monitoring her phone due to her legal dealings with someone else entirely that they were interested in and just picked up the call to the tow truck driver. Didnt she have some cases involving child abuse could even be that

lee wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 6:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 6:21pm: Who knows when that was, could have been days.  Why would she use the phone of the tow truck driver, days after it had been towed? I assume in NSW they remove damaged vehicles quite quickly.

I don't know.  I can logically conject because she went to the tow truck guy after the event to find out where her car had been taken.  While/after talking to him, she then (using his tapped phone....unknowing it was tapped) contacted the place/repairer where the tow truck dude took the car.  That would have been way after any relevant period to the blood alcohol level of the driver (in Qld...two hours maximum.)

red baron wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 6:38pm:

No you are missing the point Aussie. If Cunneeen made the phone call, then it will be easily identifiable the time and date and length that call went down. It will be on the network provider records which ALWAYS accompany telephone intercepts to court. Cunneeen has already agreed that the calls are correct in content therefore it is critical as to when she made that phone call.  You said that Cunneen had stated that it  was 'well after the event.' What constitutes 'well after' ?When we are talking about an inferred interference in the course of events, as to whether her daughter was affected by alcohol at the time of the accident. And the alleged non compulsory breath test because of the alleged breathing problems allegedly suffered in the accident by the driver (Cunneen's daughter). Did Cunneen's talk with the Tow driver change the normal course of events in Police investigation at a motor vehicle accident? This goes to the heart of the matter.

Come on Mr Baron!!!!  Of course the date and time of that call will be known.  What are they?

Do not verbal me or Cunneen Mr ex copper Baron.  I have posted word for word what she sent me.  Take greater care here.

You are posting garbage Mr Baron.  You were going okay until you decided to make a mug of yourself.  The driver was not Cunneen's daughter, as you have falsely asserted now over several posts. 

I wasn't there so I don't know. But the investigating Police were there and if the driver refused a breath test on the grounds of breathing problems then was she taken to hospital where a mandatory blood test would have been carried out? If she did not attend hospital, why not? If she had breathing problems it would have been absolutely necessary. Further, if she refused a breath test then the investigating officer would have had to have recorded the time date and place and reasons why a breath test was not conducted.

So...did she go to hospital, if not why not, given her breathing problems?

See what I mean this is as sticky as treacle and I am only scratching the surface here.

red baron wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 7:05pm:

I wasn't there so I don't know. But the investigating Police were there and if the driver refused a breath test on the grounds of breathing problems then was she taken to hospital where a mandatory blood test would have been carried out? If she did not attend hospital, why not? If she had breathing problems it would have been absolutely necessary. Further, if she refused a breath test then the investigating officer would have had to have recorded the time date and place and reasons why a breath test was not conducted. So...did she go to hospital, if not why not, given her breathing problems? See what I mean this is as sticky as treacle and I am only scratching the surface here.

Jesus wept.  I don't know, but it seems she was taken to Hospital, and never refused a road side test.  Where do you get this crap from Mr Baron?  I reckon it is best you stick to those facts we know, not your wild (to be polite) conjecture which is as reliable as your many posts that the driver was her daughter.  Come on Mr Baron.  You are just not relevant now.

What breathing problems?

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 6:53pm:

I can logically conject because she went to the tow truck guy after the event to find out where her car had been taken.

In that case a phone call to him would have sufficed. Normally they will take a vehicle where you direct them. Call the insurance company and they tell you.

lee wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 6:53pm: I can logically conject because she went to the tow truck guy after the event to find out where her car had been taken. In that case a phone call to him would have sufficed. Normally they will take a vehicle where you direct them. Call the insurance company and they tell you.

Yeas, you could do all of that.....or just rock up to the tow truck dude 'well after the event" and ask him.  How weird would that be?

Why are you using this irrelevant side show to distract attention to an old already debunked horsehit issue, when the real issue is the tapping of phone calls for one authorised purpose and then attempting to use them for an unauthorised purpose?

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 7:37pm:

Yeas, you could do all of that.....or just rock up to the tow truck dude 'well after the event" and ask him.  How weird would that be?

It would be bloody weird if he wasn't out on the road, cruising for work.

lee wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 7:37pm: Yeas, you could do all of that.....or just rock up to the tow truck dude 'well after the event" and ask him.  How weird would that be? It would be bloody weird if he wasn't out on the road, cruising for work.

I'd go to his Office/place of business.  Where would you go?

I'd be wanting to make sure he was there. No point going there if he is in Wollongong.

lee wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 8:55pm:

I'd be wanting to make sure he was there. No point going there if he is in Wollongong.

Come on!  I'm assuming this incident occurred in Sydney where it is hardly likely you'd find a Wollongong tow truck mob without a place of business in Sydney.  What is your beef?   Why are you pushing this irrelevant barrow?

So Aussie, she didn't refuse a roadside breath test. Are you saying that the Officer attending the accident did not do his uty and demand a breath test of her? That is bullsh.t!

Further if she did attend hospital and there was no roadside breath test it would have been compulsory for her to have a blood test.

You are the one twisting the facts with your lawyer speak but it is not cutting any ice with me Aussie.

There is something very wrong with this and I'm certain it isn't because of some slack arsed Police Officer not doing their duty.

It stinks to high heaven.

if Cunneen used a tow truck drivers phone..
to tow her car after an accident...

WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH I.C.A.C.?...


why was her phone being tapped.?..

if my phone was tapped and I found out.. I would want to know why and on whos authority...

wouldnt most people??>.

cods wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 8:01am:

if Cunneen used a tow truck drivers phone.. to tow her car after an accident... WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH I.C.A.C.?... why was her phone being tapped.?.. if my phone was tapped and I found out.. I would want to know why and on whos authority... wouldnt most people??>.

many blessings cods

keep voting for your elected officials

yet either way be at peace

namaste

We need a Royal commission on this!

Who's phone was being tapped.

Why?

Was the daughter roadside tested ? Was she hospital tested?

She tested 0% so whats the whole fuss about anyway ?

Did she claim chest pains at all? bearing in mind she tested 0% somewhere

Why was Cuneens call given to ICAC ? unless they were conducting the tap which councellor Aussie QC claims is not the case.

Who leaked the call?

and further

the QC and all magistrates are paid to repeat lies and statutory law every day

this should come as no great revelation

the whole construct is by fraud

many continue to vote for as much

so be at peace

namaste

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 8:08am:

We need a Royal commission on this! Who's phone was being tapped. Why? Was the daughter roadside tested ? Was she hospital tested? She tested 0% so whats the whole fuss about anyway ? Did she claim chest pains at all? bearing in mind she tested 0% somewhere Why was Cuneens call given to ICAC ? unless they were conducting the tap which councellor Aussie QC claims is not the case.

many blessings

the royal commission will cost you dearly

and all that will come are ' findings '

many repeat the same limp wristed remedies that keep them enslaved

this is forgiven

namaste

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 8:08am:

We need a Royal commission on this! Who's phone was being tapped. Why? Was the daughter roadside tested ? Was she hospital tested? She tested 0% so whats the whole fuss about anyway ? Did she claim chest pains at all? bearing in mind she tested 0% somewhere Why was Cuneens call given to ICAC ? unless they were conducting the tap which councellor Aussie QC claims is not the case.

why was Cunneen brought into it if the driver hadnt been drinking????>.....



its weird..... I still dont understand where ICAC comes into it.

I wish the experts would explain it all...I dont care about who did or didnt do what

cods wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 8:11am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 8:08am: We need a Royal commission on this! Who's phone was being tapped. Why? Was the daughter roadside tested ? Was she hospital tested? She tested 0% so whats the whole fuss about anyway ? Did she claim chest pains at all? bearing in mind she tested 0% somewhere Why was Cuneens call given to ICAC ? unless they were conducting the tap which councellor Aussie QC claims is not the case. why was Cunneen brought into it if the driver hadnt been drinking????>..... its weird..... I still dont understand where ICAC comes into it. I wish the experts would explain it all...I dont care about who did or didnt do what

Well if Aussie is correct and it wasnt ICAC doing the tapping of whoevers phone, is it legal to hand over the call to iCAC?

The only thing I wondered is if they may have been tapping her phone on behalf of the RC into child sex abuse as she has had legal involvement in that area in the past and may be in contact with someone involved. Not suggesting she personally is involved it that scandal.

Of course the tow truck driver's phone may have been tapped for all sorts of reasons, drugs, corruption who knows

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 8:21am:

cods wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 8:11am: Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 8:08am: We need a Royal commission on this! Who's phone was being tapped. Why? Was the daughter roadside tested ? Was she hospital tested? She tested 0% so whats the whole fuss about anyway ? Did she claim chest pains at all? bearing in mind she tested 0% somewhere Why was Cuneens call given to ICAC ? unless they were conducting the tap which councellor Aussie QC claims is not the case. why was Cunneen brought into it if the driver hadnt been drinking????>..... its weird..... I still dont understand where ICAC comes into it. I wish the experts would explain it all...I dont care about who did or didnt do what Well if Aussie is correct and it wasnt ICAC doing the tapping of whoevers phone, is it legal to hand over the call to iCAC? The only thing I wondered is if they may have been tapping her phone on behalf of the RC into child sex abuse as she has had legal involvement in that area in the past and may be in contact with someone involved. Not suggesting she personally is involved it that scandal. Of course the tow truck driver's phone may have been tapped for all sorts of reasons, drugs, corruption who knows

it doesnt explain ICACs interest and Lathams intent on getting Cunneen...

Ah here is a bit more info

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/margaret-cunneen-partner-claims-chest-pain-phone-comments-were-puffery/news-story/4e7eadb917a1f44ffba6bfc4156e364b?nk=cbbfc9511073d3fc9839da9467d7abee-1455489924

"ICAC was looking at whether there were grounds for a charge against Ms Cunneen of perverting the course of justice. The phone tap was picked up by the Australian Crime Commission in an investigation not involving Ms Cunneen. “She was just having a private ­conversation with a tow-truck driver,” Mr Wyllie said."

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 3:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 2:46pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 2:33pm: Latham is a stooge acting for others to 'get' Cunneen. The recorded conversation is moot because the accident victim was not intoxicated. Cunneen has upset a high level Freemason. It will be most interesting to see the reasons for the phone tap exposed if indeed it was approved. The spooks should be in the ox cart to the guillotine. Quote: Ms Tilley, who was not at fault for the accident, tested negative for alcohol at hospital after the crash. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3442429/Crown-prosecutor-Margaret-Cunneen-s-claim-joking-car-crash-challenged.html#ixzz40767zIxu [quote]In April 2015 the High Court blocked an ICAC investigation into whether Ms Cunneen, her son Stephen Wyllie and his girlfriend Sophia Tilley attempted to pervert the course of justice after a traffic accident in May 2014, when Ms Tilley, who was driving Ms Cunneen's car, complained of chest pain. OPPRESSIVE MALADMINISTRATION In December the ICAC Inspector, David Levine, called the investigation unlawful and oppressive maladministration. Commissioner Megan Latham faces questioning by the ICAC parliamentary committee on February 11 over the report. ICAC launched its investigation in July 2014, after the Crime Commission provided tapes of telephone intercepts from an unrelated operation, on which Ms Cunneen says she made joking references to a car repair man about Ms Tilley faking chest pain. Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/legal/destroy-icac-prosecutor-margaret-cunneen-says-20160204-gmllll#ixzz4078KKzN2 This really is not relevant to the current issue of Latham using these clandestine tapes in proceedings other than in support of why they came into existence but: The driver may have been buying time to allow whatever little alcohol she may have had in her system to dissipate, so that when they were able to take blood or a breath test, the result was zero. From recollection, the driver was a P plater?

A zero reading is just that, Z-E-R-O. It takes a long time for alcohol level to get down to zero from levels of 0.08 or 0.05. Takes more than 24 hours to get to zero.[/quote]

Incorrect ... variable because of a few factors ... age, weight, health, gender.

bloke has 10 schooners 6 pm to midnight BAC 0.17
will take 11 hrs to get back to zero.

woman has 6 mixer drinks 10pm to 2 am BAC 0.24 will take 16 hrs to get back to zero.

So from 0.08 (no longer the limit anywhere) will be much less

and 0.05 even less again.

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

Quote: If Margaret Cunneen had the phone call well after the event, it would have to depend on just how long after the event. You are missing the point.  She used the tapped phone of the tow truck driver.  Who knows when that was, could have been days.  The point is that no matter what she said, it could not have been relevant to what was happening at the time.  There is no record of anything she said on her own phone and she says her phone records show she did not use her own phone around when the incident occurred. This is going way off relevance.  Cunneen is not the target here.  She is the victim of some ICAC/Latham propaganda thing and they are obviously mightily pissed off that the High Court told them to piss off.

Why would she be in any position to be talking to the Tow Truck Driver days after the event?

Once they pick up the car from the scene & deliver the car to nominated repairer that's the last you see of them.

So that smells on it's own.

Gnads wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 9:18am:

Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 6:21pm: Quote: If Margaret Cunneen had the phone call well after the event, it would have to depend on just how long after the event. You are missing the point.  She used the tapped phone of the tow truck driver.  Who knows when that was, could have been days.  The point is that no matter what she said, it could not have been relevant to what was happening at the time.  There is no record of anything she said on her own phone and she says her phone records show she did not use her own phone around when the incident occurred. This is going way off relevance.  Cunneen is not the target here.  She is the victim of some ICAC/Latham propaganda thing and they are obviously mightily pissed off that the High Court told them to piss off. Why would she be in any position to be talking to the Tow Truck Driver days after the event? Once they pick up the car from the scene & deliver the car to nominated repairer that's the last you see of them. So that smells on it's own.

Look its was her car towed away after an accident where her sons girlfriend was the driver

She asks the girl "where did they take my car?"

she say I dont know but it was Joes Towtrucks that took it

Caneen rings Joes.................. simple really!

Hardly a conspiracy imo!

They don't "just tow it away"

a place of delivery has to be nominated

& tell me this ..... is Cunneens son a deaf mute?

He should have rung his mother there & then

every one has a mobile phone these days

especially young people ... they live on them

Many Tow operators don't have holding yards

there's more holes in the story than a seive

Gnads wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 9:55am:

They don't "just tow it away" a place of delivery has to be nominated & tell me this ..... is Cunneens son a deaf mute? He should have rung his mother there & then every one has a mobile phone these days especially young people ... they live on them Many Tow operators don't have holding yards there's more holes in the story than a seive

SO WHAT?


what  has any of this   got to do with ICAC.

is it against the law to speak to a tow truck driver????.

is it a crime to want to know where your car has been taken too?>..


whats it got to do with ICAC.

Her calling the TTD conspiracy is a lot of nonsense.

She may have never had an accident herself and thought she had to pay for the towing herself

Put your tin hat away Gnads

And of course another thing is she may have been trying to quiz an independant person on what his observations were of the accident scene, who was at fault etc in case the GF got charged.

cods wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 10:00am:

Gnads wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 9:55am: They don't "just tow it away" a place of delivery has to be nominated & tell me this ..... is Cunneens son a deaf mute? He should have rung his mother there & then every one has a mobile phone these days especially young people ... they live on them Many Tow operators don't have holding yards there's more holes in the story than a seive SO WHAT? what  has any of this   got to do with ICAC. is it against the law to speak to a tow truck driver????. is it a crime to want to know where your car has been taken too?>.. whats it got to do with ICAC.

No ... but do you know what she said?

Something must have triggered an alert for whom ever was tapping "the tow truck drivers phone".

So rightly or wrongly that's where the ICAC involvement came in
-----------------------------------------------------------
Redneck ...no conspiracy .... someones leaving shyte out & telling porkies.

Come on Go Gnads!  This is what Margaret Cunneen says:


Quote:

It was the tow truck driver's phone being tapped by ACC because his boss was a drug dealer. He handed me his phone to speak to the smash repairer, well after the event. My phone was not tapped - and did not send any messages or make any calls at the relevant time.

She was not attempting to provide me with a detailed explanation as is quite clear.  It clarifies the position as to whose phone was being tapped (not hers) and she used the tapped phone of the tow truck driver to speak to the repairer.  It is unclear where that took place.  It may well have been at the scene of the accident before the TTD took the car to the repairer.

Point is ~ it was not her phone under observation, and whatever she said to the repairer was 'well after the event.'

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 10:44am:

Come on Go Gnads!  This is what Margaret Cunneen says: Quote: It was the tow truck driver's phone being tapped by ACC because his boss was a drug dealer. He handed me his phone to speak to the smash repairer, well after the event. My phone was not tapped - and did not send any messages or make any calls at the relevant time. She was not attempting to provide me with a detailed explanation as is quite clear.  It clarifies the position as to whose phone was being tapped (not hers) and she used the tapped phone of the tow truck driver to speak to the repairer.  It is unclear where that took place.  It may well have been at the scene of the accident before the TTD took the car to the repairer. Point is ~ it was not her phone under observation, and whatever she said to the repairer was 'well after the event.'

Where did that quote come from Aussie?

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 10:44am:

Come on Go Gnads!  This is what Margaret Cunneen says: Quote: It was the tow truck driver's phone being tapped by ACC because his boss was a drug dealer. He handed me his phone to speak to the smash repairer, well after the event. My phone was not tapped - and did not send any messages or make any calls at the relevant time. She was not attempting to provide me with a detailed explanation as is quite clear.  It clarifies the position as to whose phone was being tapped (not hers) and she used the tapped phone of the tow truck driver to speak to the repairer.  It is unclear where that took place.  It may well have been at the scene of the accident before the TTD took the car to the repairer. Point is ~ it was not her phone under observation, and whatever she said to the repairer was 'well after the event.'

Read my post!!!! I did not say her phone was tapped in fact I highlighted that the TTD's phone was tapped

"He handed me his phone to speak to the smash repairer".


F/FS Aussie if the car is already at the smash repairer then the Tow Truck Drivers job is finished.

He would not have been a witness to the accident so why was she visiting him "days later".

She should have been at the repairer talking to them

or she maybe should have spoken to the Police Officers who attended.

Smells of fish.

...or she might still have been at the scene with the TTD and there, using the TTD's phone, spoke to the repairer where the damaged car was to be taken, to make necessary initial arrangements.  As someone has already commented, get your tin foil hat off.

The whole issue is Cunneen was not under investigation and her conversation was recorded illegally because she was not subject to any warrant.

Furthermore, the public release of the transcript broke the law and the spooks who released it should be exposed and prosecuted.

These bonehead spooks have now tipped off the original target that it is under surveillance. They should be fired for incompetence.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

The whole issue is Cunneen was not under investigation and her conversation was recorded illegally because she was not subject to any warrant. Furthermore, the public release of the transcript broke the law and the spooks who released it should be exposed and prosecuted. These bonehead spooks have now tipped off the original target that it is under surveillance. They should be fired for incompetence.

True on all points!

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

The whole issue is Cunneen was not under investigation and her conversation was recorded illegally because she was not subject to any warrant.

Wrong. The warrant was for the truck drivers phone to be tapped. Therefore recording of the truck drivers phone was legal. She used the phone that was subject to a legal warrant.

Let me clear something up for you I know a little bit about.

Margaret Cunneen's conversation was not recorded illegaly, a Warrant had been issued for Telephone Interception to be made on that phone.

Margaret Cunneen used that telephone of her own free will. The information that she discussed was recorded and in my experience her own words condemned her.

If a second or third party uses a phone that is the subject of a telephone intercept and illegalities are revealed by the caller or the person to whom they are speaking, those illegalities  are subject to the terms of the warrant.

The authorised body listening to the conversations has a legal responsibility to investigate whatever may be revealed.

Scenario: You are investigating a drug dealer and someone else uses the drug dealer's phone and orders a hit on someone who hasn't paid up for drugs.

Do you think that second party is absolved because it wasn't their phone?   O.K....got it now?

Redneck you haven't been paying attention, the body listening to the calls will know exactly the time date and length of the telephone call that Margaret Cunneen made. Records are kept both by the carrier) (Optus etc) AND the Interception agency carrying out the intercept.

This following serntence, it starts the response Aussie says Margaret Cunneen sent to him.

Dear Mr. Xxxxxx.
It was the tow truck driver's phone being tapped by ACC because his boss was a drug dealer. He handed me his phone to speak to the smash repairer, well after the event.

O.K., now read that sentence very carefully because the whole wagon train is riding on that sentence.

As I have said and said, the time, date and length of the conversation will have been recorded both by the Interception agency recording the call and also the carrier (Optus etc).

These documents will be freely available in any Court proceeding to the defence.

Everything hinges on the time Cunneen made that call. And if it is around the time of the accident then I wouldn't like to be Margaret Cunneen.

red baron wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 1:42pm:

Let me clear something up for you I know a little bit about. Margaret Cunneen's conversation was not recorded illegaly, a Warrant had been issued for Telephone Interception to be made on that phone. Margaret Cunneen used that telephone of her own free will. The information that she discussed was recorded and in my experience her own words condemned her. If a second or third party uses a phone that is the subject of a telephone intercept and illegalities are revealed by the caller or the person to whom they are speaking, those illegalities  are subject to the terms of the warrant. The authorised body listening to the conversations has a legal responsibility to investigate whatever may be revealed. Scenario: You are investigating a drug dealer and someone else uses the drug dealer's phone and orders a hit on someone who hasn't paid up for drugs. Do you think that second party is absolved because it wasn't their phone?   O.K....got it now?

That was the Australian Crime Commission, not ICAC.  The ACC's legal capacity to reveal it to ICAC and ICAC then in turn to some public Inquiry not involving Cunneen, is what is questioned.  Logically, some boundaries have been crossed.  I assume the legalities are yet to be determined.

I'd love to see one of these Warrants.

As I have said Aussie, it is not uncommon for one law enforcement agency to carry out work for another. In other words the I.C.A.C. may well have used the Australian Crime Commission to carry out the physical interception because the I.C.A.C. may not have the facilities to do just that.

It is not uncommon for Law enforcement agencies to do work on behalf of other agencies.

This is totally legal and quite common. The NSW Police Force regularly carried work out for the Federal Police and the A.C.C. before they got their own facilities in the early days of Telephone Interception.

red baron wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 2:18pm:

As I have said Aussie, it is not uncommon for one law enforcement agency to carry out work for another. In other words the I.C.A.C. may well have used the Australian Crime Commission to carry out the physical interception because the I.C.A.C. may not have the facilities to do just that. It is not uncommon for Law enforcement agencies to do work on behalf of other agencies. This is totally legal and quite common. The NSW Police Force regularly carried work out for the Federal Police and the A.C.C. before they got their own facilities in the early days of Telephone Interception.

That's why I want to see one of these Warrants.  It will authorise someone to do something for a specific purpose.  Gathering information on Cunneen could not possibly have been that specific purpose.

Further, from your OP.


Quote:

“I think there was a joke on the fake chest and the fact remains I never got a chance to speak to Stephen or Sophia afterwards (the accident).

That too is capable of independant objective corroboration, and if it is true (I have no reason at all to doubt Cunneen,) "there endeth the Lesson," and this crap attempt by Latham and ICAC to get themselves off the hook.

red baron wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 1:52pm:

Redneck you haven't been paying attention, the body listening to the calls will know exactly the time date and length of the telephone call that Margaret Cunneen made. Records are kept both by the carrier) (Optus etc) AND the Interception agency carrying out the intercept.

I am not sure what you are on about Red, where wasnt I paying attention?

Of course they will know when and where the call was made from and to whom and how long it lasted etc. If I missed a couple of the 133 posts stating something my apologies!


BTW I know more about setting up and tracing phone taps than you will ever know Red, I too had a former life of some 36 years in the technical side of the Telecom Industry!

Yes Redneck and I was at the very beginning of Telephone Interception both in recording of the calls and later presenting evidence on behalf of the New South Wales Police Force in Court batting questions from the Defence in the dock all day long if necessary, about how, why, when and where of the Interceptions.

Incidentally we never once had Interceptions thrown out of court whilst I was working there because of sloppy police work.

You on the other hand are a techie.

You know enough to put on your littler fingernail about the legalities of telephone interception. So you know how to set up the lines big freaking deal!!

red baron wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 2:28pm:

Yes Redneck and I was at the very beginning of Telephone Interception both in recording of the calls and later presenting evidence on behalf of the New South Wales Police Force in Court batting questions from the Defence in the dock all day long if necessary, about how, why, when and where of the Interceptions. Incidentally we never once had Interceptions thrown out of court whilst I was working there because of sloppy police work. You on the other hand are a techie. You know enough to put on your littler fingernail about the legalities of telephone interception. So you know how to set up the lines big freaking deal!!

I wasnt suggesting you werent a gun copper and didnt know more than I about legalities of the subject.

I was just letting you know I knew how the eggs were sucked and from far more sources than the local coppers!

You arent related to Aussie are you?

red baron wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 2:28pm:

Yes Redneck and I was at the very beginning of Telephone Interception both in recording of the calls and later presenting evidence on behalf of the New South Wales Police Force in Court batting questions from the Defence in the dock all day long if necessary, about how, why, when and where of the Interceptions. Incidentally we never once had Interceptions thrown out of court whilst I was working there because of sloppy police work. You on the other hand are a techie. You know enough to put on your littler fingernail about the legalities of telephone interception. So you know how to set up the lines big freaking deal!!

Can you show us what one of these Warrants looks like, or the words contained in them, Mr Baron.

No, sorry Aussie, if I had that information at home I would be charged with revealing information under The Official Secrets Act or similar. And I am not bloody kidding. They are paranoid about keeping it clean in the NSW Police Force.

I had to sign a formal undertaking before I took up duties there in the then fledgling branch.

I can talk about certain aspects but I can't discuss what you want me to.

PS Your friend Margaret Cunneen most probably can, she is not bound what I am. Not being funny here. She knows a lot about Telephone Intercepts

I am suggesting Red Baron was not a gun copper that's why he had to spend so much time in the dock, by his own admission, 'fending' questions instead of telling the truth.

If coppers always told the truth a lot of trials would be shortened or would never occur. I once witnessed a magistrate throw out a case against an Aboriginal for drunken driving when it was evident by the copper's testimony they hadn't followed the process stipulated by law. The defendant didn't even turn up and his lawyer told the court he had no information because his client hadn't consulted him. The Magistrate acted on the statement by the arresting copper and dismissed the case.

There is no doubt that Cunneen's recorded conversation has been wrongfully released to the public. Latham will most likely suffer some retribution.

Cunneen is probably allowing this to run on for some time to embarrass the perpetrators.

red baron wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 2:52pm:

No, sorry Aussie, if I had that information at home I would be charged with revealing information under The Official Secrets Act or similar. And I am not bloody kidding. They are paranoid about keeping it clean in the NSW Police Force. I had to sign a formal undertaking before I took up duties there in the then fledgling branch. I can talk about certain aspects but I can't discuss what you want me to. PS Your friend Margaret Cunneen most probably can, she is not bound what I am. Not being funny here. She knows a lot about Telephone Intercepts

Horseshit.  It'll be in the Act which is very public.

By the way Mr Baron, I have never met Cunneen in my life and the first contact I had with her was yesterday when I sent her an email to an address which is in the public domain.  I was very pleasantly surprised she responded as quickly and candidly as she did.  She obviously is not hiding anything having given me permission to quote that response word for word.

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 2:57pm:

red baron wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 2:52pm: No, sorry Aussie, if I had that information at home I would be charged with revealing information under The Official Secrets Act or similar. And I am not bloody kidding. They are paranoid about keeping it clean in the NSW Police Force. I had to sign a formal undertaking before I took up duties there in the then fledgling branch. I can talk about certain aspects but I can't discuss what you want me to. PS Your friend Margaret Cunneen most probably can, she is not bound what I am. Not being funny here. She knows a lot about Telephone Intercepts Horseshit.  It'll be in the Act which is very public.

then look it up.

ian wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 3:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 2:57pm: red baron wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 2:52pm: No, sorry Aussie, if I had that information at home I would be charged with revealing information under The Official Secrets Act or similar. And I am not bloody kidding. They are paranoid about keeping it clean in the NSW Police Force. I had to sign a formal undertaking before I took up duties there in the then fledgling branch. I can talk about certain aspects but I can't discuss what you want me to. PS Your friend Margaret Cunneen most probably can, she is not bound what I am. Not being funny here. She knows a lot about Telephone Intercepts Horseshit.  It'll be in the Act which is very public. then look it up.

Have you seen the size of it?  Mr Baron will/should have the contents at his fingertips.  It'd take me days to trawl through it.

Like I said Aussie, I have nothing but respect for Margaret Cunneen. She did and always will have my utter respect  no matter what happens out of this sad shambolic episode.

In many, many ways she is the ultimate victim.

There is a lot of hostility in New South Wales regarding the way the I.C.A.C. operates.

The way I see it Megan Latham is playing the Margaret Cunneen card for all it is worth.

I will categorically state that in my humble opinion Megan Latham has erred at law in a major, major way by imparting confidential information to Parliamentarians and in doing so transgressing the most basic play in the book.

The separation of power between Parliament and the Police.

You would know more of this than I but my belief is that it comes from Common Law.

Okay....I have not read all this, but I will shortly.  This is what pissed Latham and ICAC off.  It is critical of Latham and ICAC, threatens the career of Latham and the public perception of ICAC.  It sets out the facts we have been speculating about.

Link.

And Cunneen rightly ups the anti.  Good on her!

Link.

Christ, she's been taken through enough mud over what is at worst a trivial traffic matter...even to the High Court which backed her.

Mr Baron is probably right....there are probably some deeply rooted grievances at play here and Cunneen just happens to be the bunny.

Can you imagine the emotional strain and pressure on her?  She is still doing her job as a Prosecutor, in fact, was back in Court today for the continuation of a murder Trial, and all this crap is going off in the back-ground.

Thanks Aussie, I will read all of this report before any further comment

Thanks Aussie,

I, cods, LTC and the other plebs on here will also read it before giving our considered opinions.

But bear in mind we haven't faced the court  for hours on end questioned by the best QC's like Red Baron.

But we have never lost a case either.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hi Redneck neither did the NSW Police Force but we are talking cardboard cut outs here...read I.C.A.C.  :D

Tell you what Redneck, you are a wanna be. You're most probably a brilliant tech, not knocking you for that but you in your own words set yourself up as some sort of expert on Telephone Intercepts.

As Edward De Bono the father of lateral thinking once said, "you don't need to know how an engine works in order to drive a car."

red baron wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 3:40pm:

Thanks Aussie, I will read all of this report before any further comment

Well, it has taken me more than an hour and at best I have just 'sped read' it, but it as Report by the bloke given the job of keeping ICAC and its Officers on the straight and narrow.  It examines and reports upon this entire affair, and is very damning of Latham and ICAC.  'Operation Hale' (Cunneen) was an abuse of ICAC powers and resources over what was a trivial matter never proven to have even happened.

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 3:46pm:

Thanks Aussie, I, cods, LTC and the other plebs on here will also read it before giving our considered opinions. But bear in mind we haven't faced the court  for hours on end questioned by the best QC's like Red Baron. But we have never lost a case either. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

this is the whole point red.... we are all GUILTY as charged,..unless that is you are a real crook.. then you are given all the protection/understanding  in the world..

this womens name is right out there.. no protection at all...

now if she was a miserable little kiddy fiddler she would never have been outed..and Latham wouldnt have been in the slightest interested...

so much for the LAW being honest ....at any price. ::)

>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 4:54pm:

red baron wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 3:40pm: Thanks Aussie, I will read all of this report before any further comment Well, it has taken me more than an hour and at best I have just 'sped read' it, but it as Report by the bloke given the job of keeping ICAC and its Officers on the straight and narrow.  It examines and reports upon this entire affair, and is very damning of Latham and ICAC.  'Operation Hale' (Cunneen) was an abuse of ICAC powers and resources over what was a trivial matter never proven to have even happened.

sounds all very well....

but isnt the DAMAGE DONE?.....

the whole thing seems bizarre and Latham seem almost untouchable..

cods wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 5:05pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 4:54pm: red baron wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 3:40pm: Thanks Aussie, I will read all of this report before any further comment Well, it has taken me more than an hour and at best I have just 'sped read' it, but it as Report by the bloke given the job of keeping ICAC and its Officers on the straight and narrow.  It examines and reports upon this entire affair, and is very damning of Latham and ICAC.  'Operation Hale' (Cunneen) was an abuse of ICAC powers and resources over what was a trivial matter never proven to have even happened. sounds all very well.... but isnt the DAMAGE DONE?..... the whole thing seems bizarre and Latham seem almost untouchable..

No doubt there will be some impact on Cunneen, but she is coming out of this smelling like roses, unlike Latham and ICAC who are certainly being 'touched.'

This bloke ~ the author of the Report ~ Levine (the 'Inspector' and also a highly credentialed Lawyer) is the independant overseer of ICAC/its Officers and he has slammed them.

Not a whiff of payback for ICAC ousting all those Lib politicians?

I understood there was a tape and the issue was whether or not legal advice would say it could be publicly shown.  I say show and be damned..... the public is entitled to know even if it costs somebody a penalty.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 5:18pm:

Not a whiff of payback for ICAC ousting all those Lib politicians? I understood there was a tape and the issue was whether or not legal advice would say it could be publicly shown.  I say show and be damned..... the public is entitled to know even if it costs somebody a penalty.

I'm not sure private conversations recorded in a clandestine way under very strict legislative limitations can be so dismissively made public when the person who is part of the conversation is not under a charge or even current investigation.  This is ICAC in front of a Parliamentary Committee investigating whether it acted properly, trying to make public those tapes, even though the content has never been used in support of a charge or prosecution of anyone.  What is being looked at is the complete mismanagement by ICAC of Operation Hale (Cunneen) and ab/ use of its extensive powers and limited resources over what at best is a trivial matter, totally unsupported by relevant cogent evidence......that Cunneen advised the driver of her car to fake chest pain when, at all times, that driver was totally innocent of any wrongdoing and denies ever being so advised by Cunneen, who had zero opportunity to access her to tell her anything (unless it was done telepathically!)

Red Baron has got tangled up in words as if he was rehearsing for an interrogation by a Barrister in court. Poor Red has dozed off in the dock and is dreaming.

Its not Cunneen who is in trouble, it is Latham who has been pilloried for her offences.

Wake up Red Baron the judge is banging his gavel.

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 5:12pm:

cods wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 5:05pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 4:54pm: red baron wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 3:40pm: Thanks Aussie, I will read all of this report before any further comment Well, it has taken me more than an hour and at best I have just 'sped read' it, but it as Report by the bloke given the job of keeping ICAC and its Officers on the straight and narrow.  It examines and reports upon this entire affair, and is very damning of Latham and ICAC.  'Operation Hale' (Cunneen) was an abuse of ICAC powers and resources over what was a trivial matter never proven to have even happened. sounds all very well.... but isnt the DAMAGE DONE?..... the whole thing seems bizarre and Latham seem almost untouchable.. No doubt there will be some impact on Cunneen, but she is coming out of this smelling like roses, unlike Latham and ICAC who are certainly being 'touched.' This bloke ~ the author of the Report ~ Levine (the 'Inspector' and also a highly credentialed Lawyer) is the independant overseer of ICAC/its Officers and he has slammed them.

you know what they say about ' mud sticking'...

what will it take to get rid of latham???>..who should have gone from the word go by the look of things......just about every man and his dog has condemned her for this and still she hangs in there..on some fantastic pay I am sure.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

The whole issue is Cunneen was not under investigation and her conversation was recorded illegally because she was not subject to any warrant. Furthermore, the public release of the transcript broke the law and the spooks who released it should be exposed and prosecuted. These bonehead spooks have now tipped off the original target that it is under surveillance. They should be fired for incompetence.

No it wasn't you bonehead ... she was on someone elses phone that had a legal warrant to be tapped

she should have nowt to worry about unless she was talking about something that may relate to the reason why she is now being investigated for attempting to pervert the course of justice ...

it's her bad for not covering her arze in the position she holds.

The fact that she would email Aussie thanking him for his support is enough to determine she is a desperate woman  ;D

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 11:28am:

...or she might still have been at the scene with the TTD and there, using the TTD's phone, spoke to the repairer where the damaged car was to be taken, to make necessary initial arrangements.  As someone has already commented, get your tin foil hat off.

Ok so know it isn't days later it's just after the crash & the car is still on the truck?

Make up your mind ... you change it more often than you do your underpants.

BS

Quote:

you know what they say about ' mud sticking'...

I hope not in this case.  This matter has made it all the way to the High Court, so it went through all three prior Appeals in the lower Courts before the High Court sorted it out.  Cunneen won them all.  ICAC came second in all.


Quote:

what will it take to get rid of latham???>..who should have gone from the word go by the look of things......just about every man and his dog has condemned her for this and still she hangs in there..on some fantastic pay I am sure.

That is why Latham/ICAC is fighting 'dirty.'   Trying to get through the back door what they have not been able to do so far, and it matters not one jot what Cunneen said in that secretly recorded conversation which took place after the event........she simply did not advise the driver to fake chest pain.  She had zero physical opportunity to do so, and her phone made no calls, received no calls or sent messages at the relevant time.

Gnads wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 6:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 11:28am: ...or she might still have been at the scene with the TTD and there, using the TTD's phone, spoke to the repairer where the damaged car was to be taken, to make necessary initial arrangements.  As someone has already commented, get your tin foil hat off. Ok so know it isn't days later it's just after the crash & the car is still on the truck? Make up your mind ... you change it more often than you do your underpants. BS

Only you said it was days after.  No-one else.

Latham has perverted the law and perverted her standing in the law. She no longer has credibility and should be fired.

Latham's sponsors need to be exposed to reveal who is behind this farce.

Deleted.

That Aussie is untrue

I never made any statements as to when it occurred

I was responding to the comments on here

in the main the conversations between you & Baron

the "days later" remark about her using the TTD phone
was made either by you or he

or someone else

If you're gonna tell porkies you better be real good

so far it looks like you've fallen down in that dept.

Gnads wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 6:15pm:

That Aussie is untrue I never made any statements as to when it occurred I was responding to the comments on here in the main the conversations between you & Baron the "days later" remark about her using the TTD phone was made either by you or he or someone else If you're gonna tell porkies you better be real good so far it looks like you've fallen down in that dept.

Oh, it was you Go Gnads.  Check your post # 124.  Prior to that, I had posted ~ "Who knows when that was, could have been days."

We now know it obviously was not.  Cunneen got to the scene after the Ambos had taken the driver to Hospital, and logically, it was there 'well after the event' she used the TTD's phone to sort out the details of the repairer to which the TTD would take the damaged car.

You did however keep trying to push the meme of why it might have been "days later".

lee wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 6:44pm:

You did however keep trying to push the meme of why it might have been "days later".

I did not, but if that's what floats your boat, I really don't care.  It is irrelevant.

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 6:50pm:

I did not,

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 6:53pm:

I can logically conject because she went to the tow truck guy after the event to find out where her car had been taken.

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 7:37pm:

.or just rock up to the tow truck dude 'well after the event" and ask him.  How weird would that be?

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

I'd go to his Office/place of business.

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 9:07pm:

Come on!  I'm assuming this incident occurred in Sydney where it is hardly likely you'd find a Wollongong tow truck mob without a place of business in Sydney.

lee wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 6:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 6:50pm: I did not, Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 6:53pm: I can logically conject because she went to the tow truck guy after the event to find out where her car had been taken.  Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 7:37pm: .or just rock up to the tow truck dude 'well after the event" and ask him.  How weird would that be? Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 8:11pm: I'd go to his Office/place of business.  Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 9:07pm: Come on!  I'm assuming this incident occurred in Sydney where it is hardly likely you'd find a Wollongong tow truck mob without a place of business in Sydney.

You are wasting your time.  Nowhere there do I refer to what Go Gnads stated which was "days later."

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 6:57pm:

You are wasting your time.  Nowhere there do I refer to what Go Gnads stated which was "days later."

They follow on from your "days later" comment. They are all to do with it.

lee wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 6:57pm: You are wasting your time.  Nowhere there do I refer to what Go Gnads stated which was "days later." They follow on from your "days later" comment. They are all to do with it.

Read all of what I said, (which did not include 'days later,') and why are you hell bent on derailing this?  You related to Latham?

I am no relation to M(ark) Latham. or the other one. ;D ;D

[urlhttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/margaret-cunneen-phone-conversation-taps-wont-be-released-for-two-weeks/news-story/2181959f08fac1f9c786db0efcfb110b][/url]

wont be released for two weeks...


yet they tell us what was in them???>.

this is getting more strange...

just supposing this is all true..

what is SO BAD ABOUT IT>..a mum giving her boyfriends girlfriend advise...[supposedly]

what did she do thats so terrible to cause not only headlines but the cost must be outrageous.

what is Lathams agenda??>.....

I'm still reading your link Aussie but I have got to pull you up on what you stated about nothing being recorded on "her phone". It doesn't matter that the conversation was recorded on the towie's phone. Once a Telephone Interception warrant is issued, everything that is spoken on that phone counts and it doesn't matter by whom.

The warrant is on the phone calls on that phone.

Now...as I have said consistently Margaret Cunneen said that she spoke 'well after' to the towie. The phone records will indicate how long after.

Those records will either vindicate or vilify her.

It's all about the timing.

cods wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 7:38am:

what is Lathams agenda??>.....

She cant accept the umpires decision!

The High Court threw it out, get over it!

She really needs a boot up the ass for releasing the tape in my opinion.

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 6:50pm:

lee wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 6:44pm: You did however keep trying to push the meme of why it might have been "days later". I did not, but if that's what floats your boat, I really don't care.  It is irrelevant.

You did .... that's why I asked the question as to .... why would she be on the TTD's phone days later?

You're a bloody liar.

Just curious, why do people care so much for someone who gave advice to the daughter of one of Vaucluses most elite families on how to avoid a breath test?

This is a good topic!

FFS there is some crap going on here!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

red baron wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 7:48am:

I'm still reading your link Aussie but I have got to pull you up on what you stated about nothing being recorded on "her phone". It doesn't matter that the conversation was recorded on the towie's phone. Once a Telephone Interception warrant is issued, everything that is spoken on that phone counts and it doesn't matter by whom. The warrant is on the phone calls on that phone. Now...as I have said consistently Margaret Cunneen said that she spoke 'well after' to the towie. The phone records will indicate how long after. Those records will either vindicate or vilify her. It's all about the timing.

so you are saying that although they were investigating the towie....if anyone spoke on his phone they could be dobbed in??..

from what I know if a search warrant is issued it has to be explicit to what and where they can search...?

can they search any person on said property for instance?

it seems to me.. that someone talking on a phone....someone who has nothing to do with this tow truck driver..... should in fact have some protection....if the conversation had anything to do with his business    then so be it.. but a private conversation     shouldnt be thrown out there......should it?..

GordyL wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Just curious, why do people care so much for someone who gave advice to the daughter of one of Vaucluses most elite families on how to avoid a breath test?

I have asked that several times... what has it got to do with ICAC...

the whole ICAC  thing has been about shady money deals...crooked pollies... then suddenly it turns into a get her at all costs saga..

Gnads wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 9:18am:

Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 6:21pm: Quote: If Margaret Cunneen had the phone call well after the event, it would have to depend on just how long after the event. You are missing the point.  She used the tapped phone of the tow truck driver.  Who knows when that was, could have been days.  The point is that no matter what she said, it could not have been relevant to what was happening at the time.  There is no record of anything she said on her own phone and she says her phone records show she did not use her own phone around when the incident occurred. This is going way off relevance.  Cunneen is not the target here.  She is the victim of some ICAC/Latham propaganda thing and they are obviously mightily pissed off that the High Court told them to piss off. Why would she be in any position to be talking to the Tow Truck Driver days after the event? Once they pick up the car from the scene & deliver the car to nominated repairer that's the last you see of them. So that smells on it's own.

You want to go back & quote posts Aussie here ya go

exactly where I got the inference about "days later"

As I said you want to tell porkies you better be good at it ...

so far you're a monumental fail

speaking of irrelevance non credibility  ::)

GordyL wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Just curious, why do people care so much for someone who gave advice to the daughter of one of Vaucluses most elite families on how to avoid a breath test?

That's what the whole situation is about.

cods wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 7:59am:

GordyL wrote on Feb 16th, 2016 at 7:55am: Just curious, why do people care so much for someone who gave advice to the daughter of one of Vaucluses most elite families on how to avoid a breath test? I have asked that several times... what has it got to do with ICAC... the whole ICAC  thing has been about shady money deals...crooked pollies... then suddenly it turns into a get her at all costs saga..

Cods  ::) she used a tapped phone, she must have said something that off alarm bells/wasn't kosher to those doing the tap ...

Gnads wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 8:00am:

Gnads wrote on Feb 15th, 2016 at 9:18am: Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 6:21pm: Quote: If Margaret Cunneen had the phone call well after the event, it would have to depend on just how long after the event. You are missing the point.  She used the tapped phone of the tow truck driver.  Who knows when that was, could have been days.  The point is that no matter what she said, it could not have been relevant to what was happening at the time.  There is no record of anything she said on her own phone and she says her phone records show she did not use her own phone around when the incident occurred. This is going way off relevance.  Cunneen is not the target here.  She is the victim of some ICAC/Latham propaganda thing and they are obviously mightily pissed off that the High Court told them to piss off. Why would she be in any position to be talking to the Tow Truck Driver days after the event? Once they pick up the car from the scene & deliver the car to nominated repairer that's the last you see of them. So that smells on it's own. You want to go back & quote posts Aussie here ya go exactly where I got the inference about "days later" As I said you want to tell porkies you better be good at it ... so far you're a monumental fail speaking of irrelevance non credibility  ::)

Go read Post #166 in which I set that out.

red baron wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 7:48am:

I'm still reading your link Aussie but I have got to pull you up on what you stated about nothing being recorded on "her phone". It doesn't matter that the conversation was recorded on the towie's phone. Once a Telephone Interception warrant is issued, everything that is spoken on that phone counts and it doesn't matter by whom. The warrant is on the phone calls on that phone. Now...as I have said consistently Margaret Cunneen said that she spoke 'well after' to the towie. The phone records will indicate how long after. Those records will either vindicate or vilify her. It's all about the timing.

Find an 8 year old child and ask it to explain the information to you.

You have been totally done over on this topic including the misleading title which has nothing to do with the real issues which involve the usual bent cops and bent ICAC Megan Latham.

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news/17984-icac-s-authority-diminished-post-cunneen

Gnads wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 8:05am:

GordyL wrote on Feb 16th, 2016 at 7:55am: Just curious, why do people care so much for someone who gave advice to the daughter of one of Vaucluses most elite families on how to avoid a breath test? That's what the whole situation is about.

interesting case.  She should have just said she flapped up and all would have been forgiven. I bet she regrets trying to help out Tily's twonk silver spoon daughter. You'd think she had little sympathy for drink drivers given her line of work

Or she could have told the truth and said she did not give the son's girlfriend any such advice.  But......this is not about that.  This is about Latham and ICAC being arrogant, and inept arseholes.

Laugh - meaning: A dickhead who is so far put of his depth water wings couldn't save him.

red baron wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 10:50am:

Laugh - meaning: A dickhead who is so far put of his depth water wings couldn't save him.

You exposed yourself Red Baron and are now an object of ridicule for your support of bent spooks.

Got anything of forensic value to add to this post Laugh or as usual are you just taking up space?

red baron wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

Got anything of forensic value to add to this post Laugh or as usual are you just taking up space?

I don't have to add because Red Baron is a self-incriminator who babbles and blathers ceaselessly and carelessly incriminating itself.

Does anybody else think that there is a slight resemblance between Sophia Tilley and Simon Gittany's girlfriend, Rachelle Louise?  ;D

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/11/14/31182E3100000578-2828063-image-a-33_1455201445890.jpg


http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2013/11/28/1226770/559924-294e4ad0-57a4-11e3-8974-69a7d7a3124c.jpg

Aussie I have read your Link report in total. There is a hell of a lot of 'he said" "she said" and argy bargy between Latham and the Inspector of the I.C.A.C.

A fact I found fascinating was that Margaret Cunneen's husband/partner was a Tae Kwandoe instructor who lived next to Latham for six years and during that time conducted martial arts lessons with Latham.

Further to that Cunneeen and Latham go back 25 years in personal and professional relationships.

I find it incredulous that Latham did not immediately distance herself  any involvement in the Investigation her Agency carried out in relation to Cunneen.

Surely Latham should have appointed one of her Assistant Commissioners to handle the inquiry.

This is unbelievable but there it is in black and white in the report.

Neferti wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 12:33pm:

Does anybody else think that there is a slight resemblance between Sophia Tilley and Simon Gittany's girlfriend, Rachelle Louise?  ;D http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/11/14/31182E3100000578-2828063-image-a-33_1455201445890.jpg http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2013/11/28/1226770/559924-294e4ad0-57a4-11e3-8974-69a7d7a3124c.jpg

You evidently rely on the belief that particular classes of people look the same.

There is no resemblance.

red baron wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 12:44pm:

Aussie I have read your Link report in total. There is a hell of a lot of 'he said" "she said" and argy bargy between Latham and the Inspector of the I.C.A.C. A fact I found fascinating was that Margaret Cunneen's husband/partner was a Tae Kwandoe instructor who lived next to Latham for six years and during that time conducted martial arts lessons with Latham. Further to that Cunneeen and Latham go back 25 years in personal and professional relationships. I find it incredulous that Latham did not immediately distance herself  any involvement in the Investigation her Agency carried out in relation to Cunneen. Surely Latham should have appointed one of her Assistant Commissioners to handle the inquiry. This is unbelievable but there it is in black and white in the report.

Did you read his conclusions especially those at pages 62/3/4?

Yes Aussie, there are several points I want to bring up but I'm pressed for time right now.

Stand by for a few considerations.

Will say this though, I believe due process got lost somewhere in this legal morass, Like I say I will give a p.o.v. most likely tomorrow.

Re conclusions by the Inspector of the I.C.A.C. Yes - especially some of those.

red baron wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 2:56pm:

Yes Aussie, there are several points I want to bring up but I'm pressed for time right now. Stand by for a few considerations. Will say this though, I believe due process got lost somewhere in this legal morass, Like I say I will give a p.o.v. most likely tomorrow. Re conclusions by the Inspector of the I.C.A.C. Yes - especially some of those.

Personal vendetta 'got in the way.' 

Apart from tapes made clandestinely by an authorised body and for one purpose being handed over to an organisation not authorised to do the tapping and for some other purpose, the whole thing was always trivial, and ought have gone nowhere.  But, Latham/ICAC ego took it to the High Court and even when they lost there, they did not accept the decision.  Even now, they seek to justify their pathetic arrogance in front of a Parliamentary Committee.

Aussie wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:

red baron wrote on Feb 16th, 2016 at 2:56pm: Yes Aussie, there are several points I want to bring up but I'm pressed for time right now. Stand by for a few considerations. Will say this though, I believe due process got lost somewhere in this legal morass, Like I say I will give a p.o.v. most likely tomorrow. Re conclusions by the Inspector of the I.C.A.C. Yes - especially some of those. Personal vendetta 'got in the way.'  Apart from tapes made clandestinely by an authorised body and for one purpose being handed over to an organisation not authorised to do the tapping and for some other purpose, the whole thing was always trivial, and ought have gone nowhere.  But, Latham/ICAC ego took it to the High Court and even when they lost there, they did not accept the decision.  Even now, they seek to justify their pathetic arrogance in front of a Parliamentary Committee.

I think that pretty well sums it up.

Will Latham pay? I personally think she should be sacked!

The question is still not answered on what was it that was said by Cunneen on this tapped phone

that gave Latham the ammo she thought she had

to carry out this so called personal "vendetta"?

Gnads wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 4:02pm:

The question is still not answered on what was it that was said by Cunneen on this tapped phone that gave Latham the ammo she thought she had to carry out this so called personal "vendetta"?

Go and read the other 199 replies it is on there I can assure you!    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You think?

GGFDTS

Gnads wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

You think? GGFDTS

I think I figured the first three letters, not sure of the rest!

Not nice I suspect.

Down The Street  :P

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

Gnads wrote on Feb 16th, 2016 at 4:16pm: You think? GGFDTS I think I figured the first three letters, not sure of the rest! Not nice I suspect.

red if you have the answer please tell us about it... it isnt in the first anything in this 14 page thread...

who cares about who said what?..

why did ICAC end up with the tapes????>.......



what and how did Latham think this was anythign to do with ICAC... even the High Court threw it out..

is she.. [latham] above the High COurt?..

I wouldnt think so.. but the way these people think they are the B all and end all of everything.. nothing would surprise me.

I am surprised we havent seen gweggy in here telling us what a wonderful women Latham is and how much he adores her and how much we owe her.. for being a women. ::) ::) ::)

cods wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 4:30pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 16th, 2016 at 4:19pm: Gnads wrote on Feb 16th, 2016 at 4:16pm: You think? GGFDTS I think I figured the first three letters, not sure of the rest! Not nice I suspect. red if you have the answer please tell us about it... it isnt in the first anything in this 14 page thread... who cares about who said what?.. why did ICAC end up with the tapes????>....... what and how did Latham think this was anythign to do with ICAC... even the High Court threw it out.. is she.. [latham] above the High COurt?.. I wouldnt think so.. but the way these people think they are the B all and end all of everything.. nothing would surprise me. I am surprised we havent seen gweggy in here telling us what a wonderful women Latham is and how much he adores her and how much we owe her.. for being a women. ::) ::) ::)

A general description of it cods is in the very first post, as are other general comments:


Quote:

CROWN prosecutor Margaret Cunneen told a tow truck repairman she gave a message to her son’s girlfriend to fake chest pains to get her in an ambulance and buy her time at the scene of a car accident, ­according to secret phone intercepts received by a parliamentary committee. Tapes of the exchange also include Ms Cunneen expressing concerns about her insurance liability if her son Stephen Wyllie’s girlfriend Sophia Tilley was found to have been drinking prior to the accident in Ms Cunneen’s car. Parliamentary sources have told The Daily Telegraph the telephone intercepts appear to contrast with earlier explanations that the comments which led to the controversial ICAC investigation are a “joke” or a “play on words”.

The facts, as we know them are that whatever Cunneen said, she had zero opportunity to tell the driver of her car anything because:

(a)  The driver had left the scene in an Ambulance before Cunneen got there, and

(b)  Cunneen's own phone shows she made no calls, sent no texts at the relevant time.

Aussie wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 4:37pm:

cods wrote on Feb 16th, 2016 at 4:30pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 16th, 2016 at 4:19pm: Gnads wrote on Feb 16th, 2016 at 4:16pm: You think? GGFDTS I think I figured the first three letters, not sure of the rest! Not nice I suspect. red if you have the answer please tell us about it... it isnt in the first anything in this 14 page thread... who cares about who said what?.. why did ICAC end up with the tapes????>....... what and how did Latham think this was anythign to do with ICAC... even the High Court threw it out.. is she.. [latham] above the High COurt?.. I wouldnt think so.. but the way these people think they are the B all and end all of everything.. nothing would surprise me. I am surprised we havent seen gweggy in here telling us what a wonderful women Latham is and how much he adores her and how much we owe her.. for being a women. ::) ::) ::) A general description of it cods is in the very first post, as are other general comments: Quote: CROWN prosecutor Margaret Cunneen told a tow truck repairman she gave a message to her son’s girlfriend to fake chest pains to get her in an ambulance and buy her time at the scene of a car accident, ­according to secret phone intercepts received by a parliamentary committee. Tapes of the exchange also include Ms Cunneen expressing concerns about her insurance liability if her son Stephen Wyllie’s girlfriend Sophia Tilley was found to have been drinking prior to the accident in Ms Cunneen’s car. Parliamentary sources have told The Daily Telegraph the telephone intercepts appear to contrast with earlier explanations that the comments which led to the controversial ICAC investigation are a “joke” or a “play on words”. The facts, as we know them are that whatever Cunneen said, she had zero opportunity to tell the driver anything because: (a)  The driver had left the scene in an Ambulance before Cunneen got there, and (b)  Cunneen's own phone shows she made no calls, sent no texts at the relevant time.

she spoke on the tow truck drivers phone not her own...

they have printed the conversation....she is alleged to have had......its been leaked.

but its got nothing to do with ICAC..

Quote:

she spoke on the tow truck drivers phone not her own...

Correct, but that was after the driver of her car was taken off by ambulance before Cunneen got there, and the call was to a repairer.


Quote:

they have printed the conversation....she is alleged to have had......its been leaked.

Of course they have.  They'll have the actual tapes as well.  And if a transcript has been leaked, God help the bastard who leaked it.


Quote:

but its got nothing to do with ICAC..

Correct.  The High Court agrees with you.

This is the decision of the High Court of Australia regarding Margaret Cunneen. For those unfamiliar with Court cases, 'it can't go any higher'. This is the Court of the last resort.


INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION v MARGARET CUNNEEN & ORS
[2015] HCA 14
Today the High Court held, by majority, that the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") has no power to conduct an inquiry into allegations that were made against the respondents, because the alleged conduct was not "corrupt conduct" as defined in s 8(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) ("the ICAC Act").
The first respondent is a Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor of the State of New South Wales. In late 2014, ICAC summoned the respondents to give evidence at a public inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry was to investigate an allegation that the first and second respondents had, with the intention to pervert the course of justice, counselled the third respondent to pretend to have chest pains in order to prevent police officers from obtaining evidence of the third respondent's blood alcohol level at the scene of a motor accident.
The respondents commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking, amongst other orders, a declaration that ICAC did not have power to conduct the inquiry. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceedings. But the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and declared that ICAC did not have power to conduct the inquiry because the alleged conduct was not "corrupt conduct" as defined in the ICAC Act. ICAC applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court, and the application was referred to a Full Court to be heard as on an appeal.
Section 8(2) of the ICAC Act relevantly provides that "corrupt conduct" is "any conduct of any person ... that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by any public official" and which could involve certain kinds of misconduct listed in the sub-section, including perverting the course of justice.
The alleged conduct did not concern the exercise of the first respondent's official functions as a Crown Prosecutor. ICAC contended that the alleged conduct was corrupt conduct because it could adversely affect the exercise of official functions by the investigating police officers and by a court that would deal with any charges arising from the motor vehicle accident.
The High Court unanimously granted special leave but, by majority, dismissed the appeal. The majority held that the expression "adversely affect" in s 8(2) refers to conduct that adversely affects or could adversely affect the probity of the exercise of an official function by a public official. The definition of "corrupt conduct" does not extend to conduct that adversely affects or could adversely affect merely the efficacy of the exercise of an official function by a public official in the sense that the official could exercise the function in a different manner or make a different decision.
[b]The alleged conduct was not conduct that could adversely affect the probity of the exercise of an official function by a public official. The alleged conduct was therefore not corrupt conduct within...

Section 8(2) of the ICAC Act relevantly provides that "corrupt conduct" is "any conduct of any
person ... that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the
exercise of official functions by any public official" and which could involve certain kinds of
misconduct listed in the sub-section, including perverting the course of justice.
The alleged conduct did not concern the exercise of the first respondent's official functions as a
Crown Prosecutor. ICAC contended that the alleged conduct was corrupt conduct because it could
adversely affect the exercise of official functions by the investigating police officers and by a court
that would deal with any charges arising from the motor vehicle accident.
The High Court unanimously granted special leave but, by majority, dismissed the appeal. The
majority held that the expression "adversely affect" in s 8(2) refers to conduct that adversely affects
or could adversely affect the probity of the exercise of an official function by a public official. The
definition of "corrupt conduct" does not extend to conduct that adversely affects or could adversely
affect merely the efficacy of the exercise of an official function by a public official in the sense that
the official could exercise the function in a different manner or make a different decision.
The alleged conduct was not conduct that could adversely affect the probity of the exercise of an
official function by a public official. The alleged conduct was therefore not corrupt conduct within
the meaning of s 8(2) of the ICAC Act and ICAC has no power to conduct the inquiry.
 This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the High Court or to be used in
any later consideration of the Court’s reasons

This report can be found by Googling High Court decision Maragaret Cunneen, I.C.A.C.

It will appear in the form of a PDF file

The High Court has blown the I.C.A.C. out of the water regarding its investigation and criminal  pursuit of Margaret Cunneen QC

red baron wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

This is the decision of the High Court of Australia regarding Margaret Cunneen. For those unfamiliar with Court cases, 'it can't go any higher'. This is the Court of the last resort. INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION v MARGARET CUNNEEN & ORS [2015] HCA 14 Today the High Court held, by majority, that the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") has no power to conduct an inquiry into allegations that were made against the respondents, because the alleged conduct was not "corrupt conduct" as defined in s 8(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) ("the ICAC Act"). The first respondent is a Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor of the State of New South Wales. In late 2014, ICAC summoned the respondents to give evidence at a public inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry was to investigate an allegation that the first and second respondents had, with the intention to pervert the course of justice, counselled the third respondent to pretend to have chest pains in order to prevent police officers from obtaining evidence of the third respondent's blood alcohol level at the scene of a motor accident. The respondents commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking, amongst other orders, a declaration that ICAC did not have power to conduct the inquiry. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceedings. But the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and declared that ICAC did not have power to conduct the inquiry because the alleged conduct was not "corrupt conduct" as defined in the ICAC Act. ICAC applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court, and the application was referred to a Full Court to be heard as on an appeal. Section 8(2) of the ICAC Act relevantly provides that "corrupt conduct" is "any conduct of any person ... that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by any public official" and which could involve certain kinds of misconduct listed in the sub-section, including perverting the course of justice. The alleged conduct did not concern the exercise of the first respondent's official functions as a Crown Prosecutor. ICAC contended that the alleged conduct was corrupt conduct because it could adversely affect the exercise of official functions by the investigating police officers and by a court that would deal with any charges arising from the motor vehicle accident. The High Court unanimously granted special leave but, by majority, dismissed the appeal. The majority held that the expression "adversely affect" in s 8(2) refers to conduct that adversely affects or could adversely affect the probity of the exercise of an official function by a public official. The definition of "corrupt conduct" does not extend to conduct that adversely affects or could adversely affect merely the efficacy of the exercise of an official function by a public official in the sense that the official could exercise the function in a different manner or make a different decision. [b]The alleged conduct was not conduct that could adversely affect the probity of the exercise of an official function by a public official. The alleged conduct was therefore not corrupt conduct within... Section 8(2) of the ICAC Act relevantly provides that "corrupt conduct" is "any conduct of any person ... that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by any public official" and which could involve certain kinds of misconduct listed in the sub-section, including perverting the course of justice. The alleged conduct did not concern the exercise of the first respondent's official functions as a Crown Prosecutor. ICAC contended that the alleged conduct was corrupt conduct because it could adversely affect the exercise of official functions by the investigating police officers and by a court that would deal with any charges arising from the motor vehicle accident. The High Court unanimously granted special leave but, by majority, dismissed the appeal. The majority held that the expression "adversely affect" in s 8(2) refers to conduct that adversely affects or could adversely affect the probity of the exercise of an official function by a public official. The definition of "corrupt conduct" does not extend to conduct that adversely affects or could adversely affect merely the efficacy of the exercise of an official function by a public official in the sense that the official could exercise the function in a different manner or make a different decision. ...

Red Baron you are now back-pedaling after having been delivered a sound thrashing in this debate.

Why not admit that your original post was wrong?

I truly hope it will be revealed the time, date and duration of the phone call Margaret Cunneen made on the towie's phone in which she allegedly made the remarks already published in the media and here on this post.

I am mystified as to why Maragret Cunneeen has stated  that it was "well after" the said accident. She could have completely withdrawn any shroud of mystery or suspicion that she was trying to 'hide facts'.

Well after accident could mean anything from an hour to you name how long.....

I am, not accusing  Cunneen, she has been cleared by the Court but the question still hovers in the air. "WHEN WAS THAT CALL MADE?"

If it was made, soon after the accident, then that is an entirely different matter altogether and the  serious questions must be made about the whole Judicial process.

Aussie contacted her via email so he is now her Best Friend. She knows his REAL NAME ( or did he call himself "aussie"?)  ;D

red baron wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

I truly hope it will be revealed the time, date and duration of the phone call Margaret Cunneen made on the towie's phone in which she allegedly made the remarks already published in the media and here on this post. I am mystified as to why Maragret Cunneeen has stated  that it was "well after" the said accident. She could have completely withdrawn any shroud of mystery or suspicion that she was trying to 'hide facts'. Well after accident could mean anything from an hour to you name how long..... I am, not accusing  Cunneen, she has been cleared by the Court but the question still hovers in the air. "WHEN WAS THAT CALL MADE?" If it was made, soon after the accident, then that is an entirely different matter altogether and the  serious questions must be made about the whole Judicial process.

It is pretty obvious if you think about it.  At what point in time would she most likely to be in the immediate presence of the actual tow truck driver?

Aussie wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 4:11pm:

It is pretty obvious if you think about it.  At what point in time would she most likely to be in the immediate presence of the actual tow truck driver?

According to you possibly 'days later, but more likely straight after the accident, telling him where to tow the vehicle. Towies tend to arrive before the ambulance, they have good information networks.

Aussie wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 4:11pm:

It is pretty obvious if you think about it.  At what point in time would she most likely to be in the immediate presence of the actual tow truck driver?

When she was using his smacking phone, which was tapped due to something about "drugs".


Where was her Mobile Phone? Why did she use somebody elses phone? Which was tapped?

She is GUILTY of giving advice to her son's girlfriend and now EVERY kid who gets pulled over will fake "chest pains" to "buy time".  Geeze.

The rest of it is bullcrap.

lee wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 4:15pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 17th, 2016 at 4:11pm: It is pretty obvious if you think about it.  At what point in time would she most likely to be in the immediate presence of the actual tow truck driver? According to you possibly 'days later, but more likely straight after the accident, telling him where to tow the vehicle. Towies tend to arrive before the ambulance, they have good information networks.

I'm not going over that old ground.  It is a dry gultch for you.  My earlier comments were made without the better appreciation of what happened that I have now.

Yeas, Towies do get there pretty quickly.  Cunneen says that when she got there, the driver of her car had already been taken away to Hospital by the Ambos, and the Coppers had not yet arrived.  I am assuming the TTD was still there at the scene, probably with Cunneen's car on his tray.  When she got there, for all we know, he may have been actually talking to a Repairer on his phone and handed her that phone to finalise arrangements for the Repairer's receipt of the car.

Neferti wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 17th, 2016 at 4:11pm: It is pretty obvious if you think about it.  At what point in time would she most likely to be in the immediate presence of the actual tow truck driver? When she was using his smacking phone, which was tapped due to something about "drugs". Where was her Mobile Phone? Why did she use somebody elses phone? Which was tapped? She is GUILTY of giving advice to her son's girlfriend and now EVERY kid who gets pulled over will fake "chest pains" to "buy time".  Geeze. The rest of it is bullcrap.

The people who are guilty are the spooks who recorded the conversation and Megan Latham for publicly exposing it.

Red Baron is guilty of being a common dupe and a lawyers victim in the witness box.

A Lawyer's victim huh? Been accused of a lot of things in my life but never being a Lawyer's victim.

Is there a statute of limitations on this? Perhaps I can launch a  damages claim.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 5:20pm:

Red Baron is guilty of being a common dupe and a lawyers victim in the witness box

Careful darkie!

Baron is an old time copper,

He likes giving nig nogs a hiding in the Brewarrina cells if they be too big a smart ass!

Not that there is anything wrong with that some say!

red baron wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 6:11pm:

A Lawyer's victim huh? Been accused of a lot of things in my life but never being a Lawyer's victim. Is there a statute of limitations on this? Perhaps I can launch a  damages claim.

Confess your victimhood and your gullibility. The truth will set you free.

Nothing short of a miracle will save you Laugh and miracles are in short supply just now.

Aussie wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 4:29pm:

My earlier comments were made without the better appreciation of what happened that I have now.

In other words you were making sh1t up, on the fly.

lee wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 3:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 17th, 2016 at 4:29pm: My earlier comments were made without the better appreciation of what happened that I have now. In other words you were making sh1t up, on the fly.

Geezuss, talk about someone determined to derail a Thread!  No, I did not make 'sh1t up, on the fly.'

I used words of generalisation and my language became more specific as more information came to hand.  Is that okay with you General?

red baron wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 3:02pm:

Nothing short of a miracle will save you Laugh and miracles are in short supply just now.

To Red Baron truth and facts are miracles.

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 7:21pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 17th, 2016 at 5:20pm: Red Baron is guilty of being a common dupe and a lawyers victim in the witness box Careful darkie! Baron is an old time copper, He likes giving nig nogs a hiding in the Brewarrina cells if they be too big a smart ass! Not that there is anything wrong with that some say!

"Why do they call them 'boongs'?

"That's the sound they make when they bounce off your bull bar!".

Yo gotta show RESPEC' fo Da Man, Bro.. o' you is behahnd dat eight ball....

red baron wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 6:11pm:

A Lawyer's victim huh? Been accused of a lot of things in my life but never being a Lawyer's victim. Is there a statute of limitations on this? Perhaps I can launch a  damages claim.

You probably should... part of a class action...................

Source: hhttp:www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/icac-luke-foley-accuses-brad-hazard-in-parliament-over-phone-call-to-margaret-cunneen-counsel/news-story/58378e5c45SeObd77c24e7dbbe9a266


NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley / Picture: Jason O'Brien


NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley yesterday risked a jail term by sensationally accusing former attorney-general Brad Hazzard in parliament of an “attempt to pervert the course of justice” over a phone call he made to Counsel Assisting ICAC during the Margaret Cunneen investigation.


Mr Foley attacked Mr Hazzard for a third day over allegations he made repeated contact with a witness to a car accident involving the girlfriend of Ms Cunneen’s son, and that ahead of a public hearing he asked the ICAC Counsel Assisting: “Do you know what you are doing?”

Leader of the House Anthony Roberts warned Mr Foley that he faced jail time if it is proven that his questioning of Mr Hazzard was based on secret documents held by parliament’s ICAC committee.


Former attorney-general Brad Hazzard Brad Hazzard.

“The act places such importance on protecting information of this nature that an unauthorised disclosure under section 70, subsection 4, carries a penalty of up to three months imprisonment,” he said.

Mr Foley denied that he illegally obtained documents and accused Mr Hazzard of breaking the law.

“Let me be very clear, I have received no information from any member of the parliamentary committee into the ICAC,” he said.

“Let the Minister for Family Services (Mr Hazzard) make the same unequivocal denial that he didn’t attempt to pervert the course of justice.”


While Mr Hazzard said he did not “recollect” saying “do you know what you are doing?”, he denied that he would use those words.

“I do not recollect ... but I did actually have a look at the words after Question Time (on Wednesday) and I can say this without a manner of a doubt, there is no way that I would have used those words to anybody,” he said.

The parliamentary committee on ICAC is due to meet next week to consider whether any members have leaked secret documents.

It is awaiting legal advice on whether it can publish explosive phone taps between Ms Cunneen, a senior crown prosecutor, and a tow truck driver, on which she is allegedly heard to say she had “sent a message” to her son’s girlfriend to “have chest pains” to delay a breath test.

Ms Cunneen has insisted she was joking.


COMMENT RED BARON:

I think for the sake of the reputation of the Legal system in this Country the Public has a right to know when that text was sent by Margaret Cunneen, the time and date of the call, to whom it was sent and what was the content of that text.

Until this is revealed a black cloud will forever hang over this whole sorry saga. Many people suspect perhaps unfairly that Margaret Cunneen has received special consideration from the Judiciary.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

This make that link live:

Link.

You will note that the article ends with the sentence about Cunneen joking.  The other bits in bold are the words of Mr Baron.

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 10:39am:

This make that link live: Link. You will note that the article ends with the sentence about Cunneen joking.  The other bits in bold are the words of Mr Baron.

Red Baron is struggling trying to obfuscate his position attacking Cunneen when the evdience and all others are against him.

Truth and facts are miracles to the Red Baron. Its a miracle if he can recognize them.

Sure Aussie, I'll amend that to save any confusion



I don't think I'm asking for much here Laugh, if that text was so innocuous, so much a joke that it didn't matter then why hasn't Cunneen come out and published the damned thing thereby clarifying every bloody thing. As it is the whole mess is shrouded in secrecy.

Obviously she was only joking... it seems that all lawyers with a hefty position make that kind of joke all the time in the most inappropriate circumstances......

I'd say it's a fair cop.....


Downe at Ye Olde Telephone Exchange:-

Lawyer:-  "Can you send a tow truck over and pick up my son's car... been in an accident.  I've told the driver to fake chest pains, so make sure she's doing it right."

Tow Operator:-  "Roight you are, Guv'ness!  Oi'll make sure the droiver knows what ter do!"

Lawyer:-  "Good man!  There'll be an extra C note in it for you and the driver.... but this is only a joke, right?"

Tow Operator:- "Course it is, Guv'ness.. course it is... jest loike all them ovver times.... oh, how youz lawyers loike yer little jokes!"

Grappler that is your fairy tale version of the call is it?

Well there are a huge number of people who want to know exactly what that TEXT comprised of and when it was sent.

Until that happens Cunneen, rightly or wrongly will be a subject of suspicion and so will the Judiciary who have handled this like an Elephant and Include the High Court in that lot.


Justice should be transparent and in this IT AIN'T!

red baron wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 10:51am:

Sure Aussie, I'll amend that to save any confusion I don't think I'm asking for much here Laugh, if that text was so innocuous, so much a joke that it didn't matter then why hasn't Cunneen come out and published the damned thing thereby clarifying every bloody thing. As it is the whole mess is shrouded in secrecy.

Ever think that the answer is the obvious one......she does not have it.  The ACC and ICAC have it.

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:05am:

Ever think that the answer is the obvious one......she does not have it.  The ACC and ICAC have it.

You mean she did not get a copy during the "discovery" phase of the prosecution? Now that is slack.

lee wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:07am:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 11:05am: Ever think that the answer is the obvious one......she does not have it.  The ACC and ICAC have it. You mean she did not get a copy during the "discovery" phase of the prosecution? Now that is slack.

What prosecution?  Was she charged with an offence?

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:08am:

lee wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 11:07am: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 11:05am: Ever think that the answer is the obvious one......she does not have it.  The ACC and ICAC have it. You mean she did not get a copy during the "discovery" phase of the prosecution? Now that is slack. What prosecution?  Was she charged with an offence?

Not yet - the squirming is still going on to try to avoid that.... and it's a political football.... meaning it will get tangled up so much that the truth will become meaningless.

red baron wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:00am:

Grappler that is your fairy tale version of the call is it? Well there are a huge number of people who want to know exactly what that TEXT comprised of and when it was sent. Until that happens Cunneen, rightly or wrongly will be a subject of suspicion and so will the Judiciary who have handled this like an Elephant and Include the High Court in that lot. Justice should be transparent and in this IT AIN'T!

Of course it's the fairy tale version... shows how ridiculous it is that such a highly placed lawyer and person in the public eye would make such a joke to a tow truck operator .... meaning it's no joke (in all likelihood)...

I get my point across differently from you..... but it's basically the same...

This 'tape' if it exists needs to be aired now.  There's already enough wrong with our 'legal' and judicial systems and so forth - the people need to be able to trust that innocence or guilt will hold sway without fear or favour.

When there is a threat of legal sanction against anyone who reveals relevant evidence - that is clearly NOT dealing without fear or favour, but is, rather, an attempt to instill fear of coming forward with truth.

red baron wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 10:51am:

Sure Aussie, I'll amend that to save any confusion I don't think I'm asking for much here Laugh, if that text was so innocuous, so much a joke that it didn't matter then why hasn't Cunneen come out and published the damned thing thereby clarifying every bloody thing. As it is the whole mess is shrouded in secrecy.

Cunneen is not guilty of any crime and doesn't need to explain or defend herself. Its Latham, the ICAC and the bent spooks who are the guilty parties.

Red Baron you are just a bugle for the dark, spooky underbelly of society.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:18am:

red baron wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 11:00am: Grappler that is your fairy tale version of the call is it? Well there are a huge number of people who want to know exactly what that TEXT comprised of and when it was sent. Until that happens Cunneen, rightly or wrongly will be a subject of suspicion and so will the Judiciary who have handled this like an Elephant and Include the High Court in that lot. Justice should be transparent and in this IT AIN'T! Of course it's the fairy tale version... shows how ridiculous it is that such a highly placed lawyer and person in the public eye would make such a joke to a tow truck operator .... meaning it's no joke (in all likelihood)... I get my point across differently from you..... but it's basically the same... This 'tape' if it exists needs to be aired now.  There's already enough wrong with our 'legal' and judicial systems and so forth - the people need to be able to trust that innocence or guilt will hold sway without fear or favour. When there is a threat of legal sanction against anyone who reveals relevant evidence - that is clearly NOT dealing without fear or favour, but is, rather, an attempt to instill fear of coming forward with truth.

You are completely ignoring the history of the matter.  It went through three Courts including the High Court who found that ICAC had crossed the boundary.  The ICAC watchdog, Levine QC, has slammed ICAC's handling of the matter.  The phone conversation etc is an irrelevant, trivial sideshow.

Oh I think she has it alright or at least has knowledge of exactly what she sent in that text and to whom and when it was sent. She's a QC for heavens sake, her 'memory being exhausted' doesn't cut it I'm afraid.


Grappler - Roger that

Yes Aussie it went through three Courts and three courts have failed to examine the fundamental cause of all this.

The TEXT


It is 'not' irrelevant, it is not a sideshow, it goes completely to the heart of the matter.

The Public want to know...did she or didn't she?

If the bumbling legal system can't work that one out then scrap it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:23am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 11:18am: red baron wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 11:00am: Grappler that is your fairy tale version of the call is it? Well there are a huge number of people who want to know exactly what that TEXT comprised of and when it was sent. Until that happens Cunneen, rightly or wrongly will be a subject of suspicion and so will the Judiciary who have handled this like an Elephant and Include the High Court in that lot. Justice should be transparent and in this IT AIN'T! Of course it's the fairy tale version... shows how ridiculous it is that such a highly placed lawyer and person in the public eye would make such a joke to a tow truck operator .... meaning it's no joke (in all likelihood)... I get my point across differently from you..... but it's basically the same... This 'tape' if it exists needs to be aired now.  There's already enough wrong with our 'legal' and judicial systems and so forth - the people need to be able to trust that innocence or guilt will hold sway without fear or favour. When there is a threat of legal sanction against anyone who reveals relevant evidence - that is clearly NOT dealing without fear or favour, but is, rather, an attempt to instill fear of coming forward with truth. You are completely ignoring the history of the matter.  It went through three Courts including the High Court who found that ICAC had crossed the boundary.  The ICAC watchdog, Levine QC, has slammed ICAC's handling of the matter.  The phone conversation etc is an irrelevant, trivial sideshow.

So there's no reason to not allow justice to be seen to be served by allowing the content of the tape to be aired?

This is what I'm talking about - there is a lack of transparency covered up by a massive dust storm built up as a defence - squid's ink - and part of that is inducing fear into people, using the threat of legal sanction, so as to prevent them coming forward and producing the evidence.  That evidence should be viewed for better or worse.....

I think the 'other' side is more at fault here than ICAC... there is a clear attempt to subvert the course of truth.. if not justice... by imposing vilification and threats against the holders of relevant detail - i.e. 'witnesses'.

If you or I did that prior to a hearing, we'd be hung drawn and quartered.. well - at least be under immediate arrest for intimidating witnesses etc....

Does being a government flunkey suddenly give you a position above the Law?  I think not..

Grappler...hear!  hear!

red baron wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:34am:

Grappler...hear!  hear!

I should be forbidden to watch Judge John Deed..... his character cuts to the chase a lot and is no respecter of position...


.. and NO, Mr Aussie.. I have ruled and there will be no further disputation over the matter.... the tape is to be produced in twenty four hours or I will have more to say on the matter....

You are overlooking Mr Grappler, that this tape is the outcome of an authorised tapping of the phone of the tow truck driver.  The authorisation was given to the Australian Crime Commission for a specific purpose ~ to gather evidence of alleged drug dealing by the towie's Boss.

Along comes innocent Cunneen and she casually uses that bugged phone to converse with her motor vehicle repairer.

At that time, the female driver of her damaged car had left the scene in an Ambulance.  Cunneen's own phone made no calls and sent no texts to anyone at the relevant time.

So, it was impossible for her to have given any message to the driver.  She had no opportunity to do so.

The ACC hears the tape, recognises Cunneen and without authority to do so, hands it over to ICAC which is headed by a few people and, among them is  this Latham woman who has had a gripe with Cunneen for years.

She then goes ballistic and her actions have been the subject of scathing criticism by the ICAC Watchdog, Levine QC, the NSW Court of Appeal, and ultimately, the High Court of Australia.  You can't get it any better than that.

This is about ~ in that background ~ a clandestinely recorded conversation made by an innocent third party being made public by ICAC which has been disgraced by the Highest Court in the Land, and is now hauled before a Government Committee investigating ICAC's bungled disaster, and grave abuse of power.

It has nothing to do with inhibiting whistle blowers or intimidating a vulnerable witness.  This is ICAC, arguably the most powerful Government investigative agency in Australia which has been caught out seriously abusing those powers and scant resources over what at best is a trivial matter, and at worst ~ perhaps as part of an ongoing vendetta some ICAC head honcho has against another female.

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:08am:

What prosecution?  Was she charged with an offence?

Ok. It has been through a number of courts. Has she been denied natural justice, with the alleged texts withheld from her?

lee wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:48am:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 11:08am: What prosecution?  Was she charged with an offence? Ok. It has been through a number of courts. Has she been denied natural justice, with the alleged texts withheld from her?

The arguments in the courts have been over whether or not the evidence can be used or even produced..... thus far she has faced no court personally..... nor can it be decided if she should or not without the evidence being produced... something that her allies are pulling out every stop to prevent.

Justice appears to have been denied natural justice here... nobody else...