Why would you have a problem with being gay? I don't understand why you would feel you need to deny that. No one suggested you were. Most strange. If you are you should be proud of it.
I have no faith in a leftwing financial media that seems to be more motivated by social justice (revenge?) issues than actual financial fraud. Interesting to know you're a fan of the AFR though.
Unlike you (and most people here) I actually did my own research instead of going with the pack. I went and found the original source.
View attachment 1159008
I am a barrister of the Supreme Court of NSW. It pays to be thorough in offering my opinion, and that means doing my own devilling - sometimes. I don't make wild assertions like you, at any rate.
Therefore I submit a clear reading of the original article (Johnson, Philip, "Police impersonator blackmailed men in public toilets"
The Age [Melbourne],16 December 1994, in which aforementioned I refer you to the second paragraph) would render no other meaning to his late (of course you know his Honour Joseph O'Shea QC passed into eternity yesterday, also published in
The Age) Honour's words, at least to one person on this forum. His Honour clearly states that Richard Evertz had estranged from his family and become "mixed up" in a religious group. I feel quite satisfied in making the small and logical assumption that that group would be one which most reasonable individuals would classify... as a right wing one. So much for your "first fact”…”not in the public domain".
Perhaps, we should say the uninformed public domain you so richly seek to encourage... evidently? I digress though.
With respect to your second baseless assertion, which continues your colourful and reckless theory that I am "personally close" or have a connection of some manner to the Evertz family on the basis of my possessing, gasp, *insider information* ("you refer to two facts that are not in the public domain... 2) That he spent time on remand"), I refer you to the Return of Prisoners document dated 19 December 1994, which I produce below, which was fully published in the recent (and rather public) article: Ashton, Joe, "The proof Big Un CEO Richard Evertz did prison time for blackmail"
Rear Window, Australian Financial Review, 19 March 2018, whereupon the sentence section of that document clearly states the following:
View attachment 1159011
“To be imprisoned for a period of eight months on each count.
Direct that all but one month of the sentences imposed by suspended.
Specify the period of twenty-four months from this date is the period during which the offender must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment.
Declare the period of twenty six days is the period was held in custody in relation to proceedings for these offences and for no other reason and that period be reckoned as a period of imprisonment already served under these sentences and must be deduced administratively from the sentences passed”
A cursory reading of this document reveals that Evertz was indeed held in custody prior to his trial - otherwise known as remand to those involved with the justice system - or would you disagree? Further intrepid detective work reading
The Age on my part uncovered the public fact that Richard was not sentenced to any imprisonment at his trial. He was given a one year good behaviour bond.
A single years bond of good behaviour. I have seen many young men under the effects of alcohol engaged in fighting on the public streets get more that a one year behaviour bond, up to and including custodial sentences. Should that bar them from public company officership in their 50s? Harping over a fulfilled good behaviour bond over 25 years old does your argument, whatever remains of it now, small service. It seems, one could possibly assume, the constant allusion in your posts to such a small and relatively petty misdemeanour, goes counter to the principle that this forum is a place of insight and substance, speaks more to your (base) motive overall.
Speaking of which, you’ve questioned my mine. What is yours? Prima facie it appears you are either ill informed of publicly available information, or something else. Perhaps you're part of some slytherin conspiracy reaching the grand heights of Australian hedge fund management. Maybe Bronte is involved. Good luck to them. They've made enough out of BIG's takedown. Or perhaps you just share more in common with Ashton and Shapiro than a mutual and passionate love of great
Australian Financial Review journalism. Sadly Occams Razor assumes the least assumptions leads to the correct answer. Whoever said gay men aren't catty.
