[LINK] Truthiness, Google and The State of NSW!

Adam Todd link at todd.inoz.com
Wed Jan 31 13:41:01 AEDT 2007


I thought, now that a Criminal proceeding has been completed and judgement 
is awaited, I'd share with Link some extracts from my closing submission.

Given the submission is 22 pages long and took 45 minutes to present, I'll 
just extract the specific points of interest.  Hope you enjoy them :)  If 
you want to read the whole submission let me know :)  There are some great 
quotes in it!  The entire proceeding and documents will be put online 
eventually, probably at the time Austlii publishes the judgement.  As some 
telephone calls were also part of the proceeding, and are now a matter of 
public information they too will be published - probably to the 
embarrassment of the other parties and the State.

First the GOOGLE reference :)

The prosecution has failed to corroborate any evidence that there are 
employees or waged ever paid by the company through the myriad of records 
that would be available, including searching for and interviewing alleged 

Given the profile of the Defendants, that being film makers, and given that 
the Policy and Injuries were related to the conduct of film making, surely 
a simple "google" search on the Internet could have lead the Prosecution to 
hundreds of people who have worked with the defendants and who might have 
independent inside knowledge.

Now the one where Truthiness was used.

Mr Jefferies from GIO gave great detailed evidence.  Although none really 
applied to the question of the Defendants complying with the orders of Mr 
Hickey, one thing was apparent.  In Mr Jefferies role, a great deal of 
protocol was apparent within GIO.  The hand off of the files from his 
claims processing role to the GIO Investigation role was clear, and not 

Unlike the truthiness which Mr Hickey attempted to imply, that being there 
was no communications within the GIO Departments.  There may well be no 
communications, however Mr Jefferies made it clear that there was no need 
as the file had changed hands and his role had ceased.

Mr Hickey also started his involvement in March 2004.  At this time he 
attended GIO's office.  Twice in fact.  But he didn't involve himself with 
the claims department, as it was no long involved.  So Mr Hickeys evidence 
that GIO has two non communicate departments is a truthiness, not an actual 

Me Hickey went on to say that over 6 months he did nothing more than send 
two sets of notices, by registered mail, which were both returned to him, 
unopened, he has no proof and was not able to give any evidence that was 
corroborated, that the mail was no unopened.  He merely created yet another 
truthiness that the letter was opened and a document was removed.  Mr 
Hickey is the only person to put on such evidence yet Mr Hickey was not the 
person who handled the mail after he sealed the envelope by his own 
admissions in his own office.  There was no evidence tendered to show a 
confirmation that he even included the cover.  It is merely his own 
statement, which appears doubtful after hearing the rest of his evidence.

Next, Mr Hickey attempted to say that for nearly 6 months he did nothing 
more than send two registered letters and a personal service of the 
notices.  This may be the only truth and fact that Mr Hickey gave in evidence.

It is hard to believe, even for one moment, that the Erst & Young/GIO team 
were not acting for and under the instructions of WorkCover itself.  The 
only evidence that is corroborated between the Crown witnesses and the 
Defendants is that of the telephone calls between Erst & Young wherein Ms 
Meyer and Ms Hugh clearly give the impression they are in regular contact 
with WorkCover, and working under contract or instructions of WorkCover.

Just because Mr Hickey isn't, by his own admission actively communicating 
with these persons doesn't mean that in March 2004 he or a delegate of his, 
did not give them the instructions to carry out there actions as they did 
from June 2004.  Remembering Mr Hickey did not gain a copy of the file 
until AFTER Erst & Young had commenced an investigation at the, what 
appears to be an electronic trigger, by the authority of WorkCover.

None of the witnesses denied communicating with WorkCover during the period 
of March to November 2004.  In fact Mr Meyer specifically said on a number 
of occasions that she and her supervisor had regular contact with WorkCover.

It appears if Mr Hickey is to be believed, that he had no idea what was 
happening between the "other department" within workcover and that of the 
Erst&Young/GIO team,  then we must also draw the conclusion that the 
Authority upon which so much safety and legislative protocol is impressed 
upon the community by, is inefficient, cumbersome, duplicitous, lazy, 
legislatively oppressive, and acting far outside the intents of the 
legislation, in Mr Hickeys case, for his own self gratification of 
prosecuting innocent people in a court room.

Mr Hickey has complied a lot of documents and statements, mostly irrelevant 
to the one question of importance, did the Defendants comply to the Order 
to produce wage and employee records and the order to produce tax returns 
from 1999 to 2004.

Mr Hickey has used the convenience of the material provided by 
Erst&Young/GIO to create an inference and cover up his failings and his 
laziness, and to create in his mind a truthiness that is undeniably not 

We submit that Mr Hickey is the only witness who's oral evidence did no 
corroborate with any other persons evidence and in fact he attempted to 
accuse Erst & Young and the Departmentalisation of GIO as an ezcuse as to 
why he was no "on top of the investigation", an investigation he started in 
March 2004.

We submit that the evidence of Mr Hickey should be rejected outright as 
there is no basis in Law for Truthiness to be considered as fact.

More information about the Link mailing list