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