CORRUPTION IN THE VICTORIAN POLICE AND MAGISTRATE'S COURTS - AUSTRALIA

by Raymond Hoser.

A dishonest Victoria Police officer with a stated vendetta against me, decided to falsify some traffic charges against me. But before I get that far, I suppose I should detail how they arose.

On 2/7/95, I was involved in a motor vehicle accident when driving a taxi, hitting a man/pedestrian who jumped in front of my moving taxi at the last minute.

Following the accident, Police attended the scene and all witnesses at the scene, including the man I had hit agreed that it was the pedestrian's fault. That was never in dispute. (By the way, it was me who called the Police and ambulance on my mobile phone and who was the first to offer assistance to the injured man before bystanders came to help - the passengers in the taxi were too drunk to do anything!).

The Policemen who arrived at the scene were named Stephen Talbot and John Anderson. Both were immediately extremely aggressive and stated that in spite of the fact that all the witnesses present stated that I was blameless for the accident, they were going to find something to charge me with. I was also threatened with assault. Talbot, the more aggressive of the two also repeatedly swore at me and reminded me of a previous encounter with me, which I hadn't recalled, (he stated he'd pulled me up in my taxi in Caulfield).

Talbot later fabricated charges against me of 'Dangerous driving' and 'speeding', both of which were disproved by witness statements made to him. (I had been stopped seconds earlier, having dropped off two of five passengers, so wasn't even going anywhere near the 60 kph speed limit!).

These charges were set to be heard at Prahran Court in early 1996. However before these were heard, Talbot was allegedly involved in another assault, or perhaps it may be more accurate for me to say, he was called to account for an assault. This one was at Frankston.

On February 11th 1995, Stephen Talbot was alleged to have punched another man after a traffic dispute while he was off-duty. He appeared at Melbourne Magistrate's Court charged over the incident.

It was alleged that Talbot had parked his car and then approached the driver of a car that was attempting to park in the same spot. The victim of the attack, Mr. Anthony Scott McKenzie later stated that Talbot approached him while he was sitting in the car and punched him twice through an open window.

McKenzie noticed that Talbot was the same man who had held up traffic earlier and made offensive gestures at him when asked to move his car. McKenzie stated that he had done nothing to provoke the attack by Talbot. McKenzie later reported a bruised eye, chin and cheek as well as a cut lip.

The above description of road rage by Talbot was in line with my encounters with him, noting his extremely aggressive demeanor.

Magistrate John Myers committed Talbot to stand trial at the County Court on the charges of intentionally causing injury and recklessly causing injury. However at the time of committal a number of observers noted that the odds of a Melbourne County Court Judge convicting a Policeman of anything was effectively nil, based on well documented corruption in that court. (Refer to 'The Hoser Files - The Fight Against Entrenched Official Corruption' for just a few of many examples).

Because Talbot was temporarily suspended from duty, control of the brief against me was handed to his offsider, John Anderson. He phoned me before the due hearing date and informed me that he was withdrawing the Talbot charges and laying a fresh charge of 'careless driving'.

At the set date, (3/6/96) Police sought an adjournment in front of Magistrate Mr. Cousins (spelling may be incorrect), which was granted. They also formally withdrew the first two charges, and lodged the new one.

At the next set hearing date, Police again sought an adjournment. The claim by Police this time was that Talbot was absent with a broken foot. One can only speculate that this arose from yet another violent outburst or altercation.

Police were granted this adjournment by Magistrate Harley Harbour in spite of my readiness to proceed on that date. Notable is that Police had given me no prior warning of their intention to adjourn the matter. If they had done so, I could have at least saved lugging my materials to court and even more likely avoided a trip to the court at all.

The next hearing date was in January 1997. This time, the Police side had the decency to tell me in advance that they wanted an adjournment. I did not object and this time the court set a date for April 25th for the matter to be heard, (no attendance was required at court).

Noting that this new date clashed with long standing prior engagements at the Inverell Forum and with a legal meeting in Sydney, I wrote to both court and informant seeking an adjournment.

The court clerk, Ms. Marita Dunbar said that as Police opposed my wish for an adjournment, the matter would have to be heard before a Magistrate. The date for this brief application was set down for 17th March 1997.

For those who have read my book, The Hoser Files - The Fight Against Entrenched Official Corruption, the following scene of corruption in a Victorian court is all too familiar.

I appeared at Prahran Magistrate's Court at 10 AM and was directed to court room 1, where I went and took a seat. The room was full of people as it was the mention court for mention matters, adjournment applications, etc. The Magistrate in the room was Cousins (again).

While waiting to be called, Talbot barged into the court room and grabbed me by the arm and dragged me from the room. When I struggled with him a fellow Police officer asked 'Is he under arrest', to which Talbot replied 'not yet'. I then asked to be let go (as he was now by his admission assaulting me).

The Magistrate stopped speaking but did not intervene in any way.

I was then dragged from the court room and Talbot then started to take my clothes off. I handed him a micro-cassette recorder stating 'Here's what you want, now let me go'.

Another Police officer then asked Talbot, 'What's going on' to which Talbot responded with a barrage of comments among which were, 'he's got three of them, I know he has', etc. He then went through both bags I was carrying, throwing papers all over the floor of the court foyer, again in view of the public and eventually gave up, failing to find any further tape recorders. He then handed me back my tape recorder which I put in my pocket (again).

(Talbot had wanted me led to a room at the rear of the Court Complex, but I had refused, telling Police to do it (the search) in view of independent witnesses (members of the public), as clearly if I was out of public view, the scope for attacks on me and fabricated allegations against me would have increased).

The search by Talbot was both an act of gross intimidation and more importantly a search for my taping equipment. You see Victoria is unusual in that court cases are NOT TAPED as a matter of course, meaning that for most cases there is NO INDEPENDENT RECORD of what is said in court. This defect in the system is relied upon by corrupt Police to perjure themselves without fear of ever being taken to task for it, as at the end of the day there is no indisputable record of what is said. It also allows corrupt Judges and Magistrates to railroad innocent people without fear of being made to account for their 'decisions' again because no outsider can accurately scrutinize evidence given.

In my case here (and other cases) the need to make sure that nothing is taped is paramount, due to the obvious defects in the Police case and the similar bias (predetermined decisions) by many Magistrates. Just days before this incident, Barrister, Joye Elleray had remarked that it was impossible for Raymond Hoser to ever get a fair trial in a Victorian Court. Similar remarks had been made previously by (now retired) Magistrate Brian Clothier as well as (now retired) court Clerk, Dave Barden.

After resuming my seat in Court room 1, my name was called and I was directed by Magistrate Cousins to the bar table. His opening comment was "Are you taping me?"

This sort of comment typifies the paranoic fear of the truth by corrupt elements of the Victorian Judiciary and Police. The logical answer would be that if the Magistrate was above board and honest, then he'd have nothing to fear from being taped. I replied that I'd already been searched and placed the single micro-cassette recorder on the bar table. The Magistrate then spent the next few minutes repeatedly questioning me if there were any others. There weren't.

All this for a five minute application!!

It had been unusual for Talbot to return me the recorder immediately after taking it. Normally, Police hang on to them when they get them. I can only assume that this relatively unusual act on his part was just more of his generally erratic and irrational behavior.

I then asked for my adjournment, citing several reasons, well established case law (which in theory Magistrates should follow), tendered letters from various parties, including from Robert Balgarnie of the Inverell Forum dated August 1996, showing how the date clashed with long pre-existing commitments. I also noted how the Police side had asked for and been given three adjournments and me none. I further noted that as a matter of course, protocol in Magistrates courts is that either side can usually get a single adjournment without question, only later applications are usually needed to be justified. One of my reasons was also that I had a Barrister to defend me, but the Barrister could not attend on that date, meaning I would be disadvantaged by having to represent myself against the Police legal team.

The Police prosecutor opposed the application , but gave NO reasons.

Magistrate Cousins summed up saying, he refused to grant the adjournment and that 'If you don't come here tomorrow week, then you'll be convicted'. I suppose that in effect sums up the Victorian justice system. At best it means 'guilty until proven innocent' - NOT the other way around. And that assumes no other bias in the judiciary.

That wasn't the only thing that was wrong with this adjournment application. Talbot chose to reinstate the original two charges, the very charges that had been withdrawn in front of Cousins, almost a year earlier. I drew this to the attention of Cousins, to which he replied he had no recollection of the charges being withdrawn. I asked him to check his notes, to which he responded that the only thing he had on the file was that I wanted the case taped! He then allowed all three charges against me to proceed at the next hearing date.

Because witness statements to Police and the tape recording made by myself at the time of the accident proved emphatically that I am innocent of any charges, it would be fair to think that I'd have nothing to fear from a court hearing of the 'alleged' Police charges. However, noting that it is likely that the presiding Magistrate will probably prohibit taping of the hearing and that a 'decision' will have been made long before I even step into the court room, it is fair for me to be worried about the whole fiasco.

You see, in order to get a corrupt decision through a court, both Police and Magistrate are best off making sure that their dishonesty and corruption is not in any way recorded. So therefore on the 25th of March 1997, it is likely that again, I will be undressed before going into the court room, I will be prohibited from taping another court case and I am liable to be convicted of something I haven't done.

This article has been written on 18th March 1997. If all goes well, 25th March will be the end of this sorry saga and I will at least be acquitted of all charges. More likely (based on knowledge that the Prahran court circuit is known to be one of the more corrupt), there will be an appeal to the County Court and the whole fiasco will be on again.

As a final note, when Talbot was discussing what charges he could falsify against me, he stated he was thinking of charging me with 'theft'. How he came up with that one, I don't know! Which goes to prove that the only thing limiting what a corrupt Policeman can charge someone with is their imagination. The above record is also beyond dispute as the key facts (including scene of the accident following the accident) were tape recorded including Talbot's quoted statements.

Raymond Hoser's three most recent books about corruption Smuggled, Smuggled-2 and The Hoser Files were all illegally banned by named corrupt government officials following publication. While now 'unbanned' they remain hard to obtain. He is now working on two more books about Police and Judicial Corruption in Victoria. They will probably be released in 1997 or 1998. Persons interested in obtaining any of Hoser's books are best off ringing Raymond Hoser direct on 018-588-699 or ordering online - .

Stop Press : - The result of the above case was decided within 60 seconds of the commencement of the case. On 25th March, Presiding Magistrate Scottie McLeod allowed Raymond Hoser to tape record the case at his cost. Police witnesses, including Steven Talbot perjured themselves and were proven to have done so. The case lasted three days and all charges against Raymond Hoser were dismissed. Details of the case will be summarised in a second article published below. Some of the key relevant facts will be repeated.

By Raymond Hoser.

25th March 1997, was a date when Raymond Hoser (myself) was due to appear in court in Melbourne. Over the last several years, I have appeared in court on countless occasions to fight falsified charges. The charges are laid by corrupt and dishonest government officials with the Victoria Police and Vicroads. Their motivation has usually been to discredit me as I have repeatedly exposed corruption by them. You see by getting me labeled as a 'criminal' with 'criminal convictions' they are able to dupe media and others into believing that what I say about corruption is incorrect and that I am a ratbag. Furthermore by directing attention at me and not at those who are corrupt (them), the corrupt are able to continue with their dishonest activities.

A summary of how I came to be at court on 25th March was given above. However to refresh memories of readers, some points are mentioned again.

On 2/7/95, I was involved in a motor vehicle accident when driving a taxi, hitting a man/pedestrian who jumped in front of my moving taxi at the last minute.

Following the accident, Police attended the scene and all witnesses at the scene, including the man I had hit, agreed that it was the pedestrian's fault. That was never in dispute. (By the way, it was me who called the Police and ambulance on my mobile phone and who was the first to offer assistance to the injured man before bystanders came to help - two male passengers in the taxi were too drunk to do anything!).

The Policemen who arrived at the scene were named Stephen Talbot and John Anderson. Both were immediately extremely aggressive and stated that in spite of the fact that all the witnesses present stated that I was blameless for the accident, they were going to find something to charge me with. I was also threatened with assault. Talbot, the more aggressive of the two also repeatedly swore at me and reminded me of a previous encounter with me, which I hadn't recalled, (he stated he'd pulled me up in my taxi in Caulfield).

Talbot later fabricated charges against me and had a summons served on me on my birthday. The charges were 'Dangerous driving' and 'speeding', both of which were disproved by witness statements made to him. (I had been stopped seconds earlier, having dropped off two of five passengers, so wasn't even going anywhere near the 60 kph speed limit!). Talbot was later stood down as a Policeman after he allegedly bashed a man at Frankston and was charged over the incident. The Talbot charges were initially dropped, but later re-instated after another charge of 'careless driving' had been added.

The sequence of events subject to the charges was as follows:-

On 2nd July 1995, I had picked up four fares in my taxi as a multiple hiring from the city (Flinders Street Station rank) and dropped two fares off along Toorak Road. The last was dropped off at the corner of Kooyong Road, before I u-turned and headed towards the city along Toorak road with two remaining fares. These were two males, both of whom were sitting in the front seat. Within 2 blocks of where I had stopped a man standing next to a parked taxi jumped in front of my oncoming taxi and was hit by the taxi.

That man, Rudolf Praxmarer, himself a taxi driver, freely admitted to Police that he had not seen me coming. Upon collision, one of the passengers, Adam Glenn Brown, exclaimed 'fuck this, I'm not paying' and fled the scene. The other passenger, Russell David Lucas, remained at the scene, but did nothing of use. Both men were by their own admissions very drunk.

I assisted the struck man and called ambulance, etc. About 20 minutes later, Talbot and Anderson (Police) arrived at the scene and spoke with me as soon as they stepped out of their car. Talbot and Anderson subsequently canvassed accounts of events from a number of witnesses and all confirmed the above and that I was not in any way to blame for the collision. However, Talbot stated he had no concern with this and along with Anderson discussed in front of me what charges they could fabricate against me.

The entire incident was taped by myself immediately following impact, so the account of events after this time by myself cannot be disputed.

Following the accident and after Lucas and Praxmarer had stated that Praxmarer was liable for the accident, Talbot and Anderson attempted to alter evidence and construct a case to show that I was in fact culpable for the accident. About 7 weeks after the accident, on 22nd August, Praxmarer was induced into writing a letter to me claiming that I was liable for the accident. My reply dated August 25th, rejected the assertion and referred him to his earlier admissions.

Furthermore Talbot took a statement from Brown which was clearly a concocted account which was designed to make me appear liable for the accident. Brown's sworn statement, essentially said that after the collision he had stayed around the scene of the accident looking after Praxmarer's welfare and that I had simply walked around in an aimless manner doing nothing!

This part of his statement could easily have been rebutted by a playing of the tape recording made after impact as well as the statement by Lucas that Brown 'did a runner' immediately after the crash.

Brown's sworn statement also said, I had been driving at 80 kph most of the journey from the city to Toorak and was driving at 80 kph at time of impact. Brown also stated that there was no parked cars anywhere near the scene of the accident and that I could have therefore easily swerved to have missed Praxmarer. Needless to say, the statements by Praxmarer and Lucas confirmed that Brown had lied on these points as well.

When the case came to court, the Police brief included sworn statements from Police, Brown, Lucas and Praxmarer. On face value anyway, the statements tended to show I was innocent of any allegations. Brown's statement which was the only one adverse to me could easily have been proven as false when cross referenced with statements of Lucas and Praxmarer. Police had also taken a statement from myself, but it was not required in any way to prove my innocence.

The commencement of the case was fairly routine. I asked for the matter to be taped, while the Police side opposed the application. I got lucky and the Magistrate allowed the official court recorder to tape the case - AT MY COST.

While taping of court cases is routine in most places, in Victoria it is not. This is not by chance. The reason why there is a fear of being recorded is that the largely corrupt Police and Judiciary, don't want their corrupt and dishonest actions to be made available for scrutiny, and this is what tape recordings would allow. No corrupt official wants a case where an innocent person is convicted of fabricated charges to be scrutinized and so taping must be a no-no.

To be allowed to tape record a Magistrate's court case in Melbourne is relatively rare and as soon as Magistrate Scottie McLeod allowed me to tape record the case, I effectively knew I had won. Before any witness had made a single verbal statement as evidence, I knew that on the written statements alone, I was (in theory) a free man.

In the witness box, three witnesses for the Police side decided to further perjure themselves in a (failed) bid to convict me of the alleged offences.

Because Praxmarer had already repeatedly stated he had not seen my car coming towards him, he really was not in a position to deny liability. However he attempted to do so anyway. Sometime after he'd been giving evidence, he claimed he hadn't seen me coming because my headlights were not on. This assertion was later rebutted by both Lucas and Brown who stated that they had seen Praxmarer in my headlights!

Praxmarer told the court that the letter I had sent him in August in reply to his letter was rude and offensive. I asked him to say in what way and he falsely alleged I had swore at him in the letter. I produced a copy of the letter sent, which showed nothing of what he alleged, and then Praxmarer claimed the letter I had tendered was not that which he had received. This lie by Praxmarer became my next line of questioning. Initially he claimed to have 'lost' the letter, but following direction by the Judge to the Police Prosecutor a copy of the same letter emerged from the Police file.

I asked for an apology from the Police/Praxmarer for falsely asserting that I had faked a letter. Instead no apology was forthcoming, and Praxmarer claimed his 'mistake' was due his being high on drugs! I suppose that's a great excuse if caught for perjury. But what about the poor person who may convicted as a result of such perjury?

Praxmarer in his evidence did confirm a number of key points however, including that he had not seen me, stepped out from next to a parked car and that there was oncoming cars the other way. This meant that because he had stepped in front of my moving taxi and as there was no where for me to swerve (cars on either side), I could not have been liable for the collision.

Brown was the witness the Police had pinned their hopes on. Remember he was the man who ran off at the scene of the accident. I was unable to find out the background of the man (nor did I try), but can safely assume he has some sort of form with the Police. (His attitude and manner was not unlike that of another Police witness against me in another case. That Man, Brett David Winduss, of Kew, falsely claimed that I had assaulted a woman. He later admitted to having been paid cash by Police to lie in court. Furthermore it turned out that he was a child molester who was being protected by corrupt Police. He was eventually jailed for one such a crime).

Brown asserted I had driven at 80 kmh at the time I had hit Praxmarer (in a 60 zone). When I put it to him, how I could have got up to such a high speed after just dropping a fare off just meters earlier, he asserted, 'you were traveling downhill'. That was a lie.

I produced photos of the road at the scene of the accident and asked him to identify the accident site. The photos showed a section of road facing uphill at a fairly steep grade (Toorak Road, between Myora and Irving Roads, before a set of pedestrian lights). He denied this was the spot and said (on oath) that the scene was further along the road, over the crest.

What Brown didn't know, was that before being called into the witness box, the Police themselves had agreed that the photos showed the accident site, as had Praxmarer. (Police had stated the accident occurred 46 metres east of Irving Road). In other words, Brown had falsely asserted I was driving down hill in order to back up his other false assertion that I was doing 80 kph.

Brown asserted that prior to the crash I was being followed by two other taxis which he claimed to have seen in my rear view mirror. When I questioned how he could have seen the mirror and rear view from where he was sitting, he said it was easy and anyone could do it. Magistrate McLeod noted how Brown must have been lying on this one! This claim about the two taxis fitted in with a story fabricated by Brown that he had got into one of them after the crash (after he'd looked after the wounded, etc., which was also a fabrication).

Although in his written statement to Police, Brown said that he had not looked to see if there was oncoming traffic, at the time of the accident, he asserted that there was none, when giving sworn evidence in the witness box. However he dug himself an even greater hole when he asserted that as we were traveling downhill he could see a long way ahead. In fact we were within meters of a crest, a fact specifically measured by the Police! and confirmed by all other witnesses.

When Brown was questioned as to why he fled the scene he stated that although he had been drunk the real reason was that he was scared. He stated that he had watched my speedo hovering around 80 kph for most of the trip and 'I was very, very, scared'. I asked him, what kind of speedo I had in the taxi and his reply was 'a standard speedo'. My response, 'A good answer, but was it a digital one, with numbers, or one with a dial and needle'. His response 'I can't remember'. The real reason was because he hadn't looked!

Brown tried to discredit Lucas (who'd said he'd 'did runner'), by stating that he slept for most of the journey as he was drunk. While Lucas had freely conceded he was drunk, he swore emphatically that he hadn't slept in the taxi.

When Brown claimed I was an erratic and dangerous driver, I put it to him that if I was so bad, why did he freely get into my taxi just two weeks later in another multiple hiring from Flinders Street Station just two weeks later. His reply was 'I have never been in a taxi with you since'. When I asked if he would deny having shared a taxi with at least two other men on Saturday 15th July 1995, he then changed his story to that he had ridden in my taxi since but that my original question had confused him! On that second occasion, he had attempted to jump and run the taxi without paying. I suppose this says something about the sort of people corrupt police use to try to frame innocents of charges.

Brown was clearly a compulsive liar. He would tell lies even when there was no logical reason to, or when there was nothing to be gained by doing so.

In terms of getting into the taxi at Flinders Street Station he said he'd got into the taxi at the same time as Lucas and had expected Lucas to pay his fare (which was an excuse as to why he had run away at the time of the crash). Brown stated that before I had arrived at Flinders Street Station the two men had been standing together and talking and had decided to go in one taxi home together. In fact Lucas had been first to get into the taxi and Brown had been standing some way up the line.

In his sworn evidence, Lucas confirmed that he had never spoken to Brown before getting into the taxi and that neither had ever discussed anything like sharing fares, etc., even when in the taxi and sitting next to one another!

Brown concocted a number of other stories which were systematically rebutted by other crown witnesses. As for what happened after impact, the tape recording by myself wasn't needed to rebut a thing Brown said, as Praxmarer and Lucas did this for me already.

Although Lucas was called as a Police witness he confirmed that everything I did was above board and proper. He confirmed that Praxmarer had asked me to move his taxi and that a few minutes after I had hit Praxmarer, I had saved his life by moving my own taxi into a position in front of him to prevent oncoming cars coming over the crest of the hill from running him over.

Police were originally to call three Police officers as witnesses. Talbot was the first. He swore himself into the witness box and commenced lying almost immediately. His evidence was wrong on most counts and I won't go through all of them here. However he stated that upon arrival at the scene he attended to Praxmarer, spoke to a number of witnesses and then went in search for the driver of the taxi (me). He then stated he eventually found me 'wandering around aimlessly'. He refused to elaborate on what that meant. When I put it to him that he had lied and that he had spoken to me as soon as his car pulled up at the scene, he emphatically denied it. However the tape of the incident proved that to be the case. Talbot's first words were to me! He stepped out of the car and spoke to me, who was standing next to the car waiting for him.

Talbot was shown to have lied about skidmarks allegedly made by my taxi. He claimed I had skidded 14 meters before impact. All witnesses were adamant that I had not skidded. Furthermore at the time of the crash, Talbot and Anderson were frantically running around trying to work out which skid marks were mine. You see the accident occurred in proximity to a set of pedestrian lights and there were skidmarks all over the road. But none were mine!

Talbot lied about a whole host of statements he had made, which he denied making when on oath. The tape proved him a perjurer.

Talbot's evidence was so bad, that two other Police scheduled to appear as witnesses, namely Anderson and another officer by the name of David Taylor, pulled out at the last moment. Prior to this, the Magistrate had repeatedly made comments to the effect that I could put all this in another book. Perhaps this scared them off.

At the conclusion of the three day case, the magistrate noted how Brown and Praxmarer had lied on oath and could not be believed. He cited a whole host of impossible statements made by both men. Lucas had effectively said nothing more than he was drunk as a skunk and could remember hardly anything. However virtually everything he remembered further proved the faults in the fabricated Police case.

The Police case/charges were dismissed and I was acquitted. I then asked for my costs as a result of me having to defend the matter. I sought witness costs as well as other costs incurred, such as time not spent selling books, writing books, fauna consulting, etc. I also sought the $700 dollars spent by Robert Balgarnie at the last moment to fly me to Inverell for a conference due to the refusal by Police to adjourn the case, which had been improperly scheduled to clash with the earlier commitment, noting it had earlier been planned for me to be driven there by Ray Platt of 'The Strategy' Newspaper, who was going to the same venue.

The Magistrate gave me a total of $150 in costs. My losses as a result of proving my innocence was at least an estimated $4,000. In other words, although I had a clear unequivocal win in the legal sense, I was in fact the loser. All the Police, and their witnesses were fully paid for their time spent in court. I was the only one who wasn't. Perhaps this says something about our system of justice.

As we were packing up our files to leave the court, Talbot said to me 'I am going to come after you and next time I'll get you properly'. Leaving the court room a female officer said 'we'll get you next time!'.

There is another side to this whole sorry saga. What about the men who were proven to have committed perjury. Perjury is supposedly a serious offence, carrying a maximum of many years jail. The Magistrate stated quite freely that Brown and Praxmarer had lied. He said this repeatedly. He went on to state he placed no weight on what Talbot said. But yet no charges will be laid against any of them. The result of this is obvious. While it is unlikely that Praxmarer will be rushing back into court, Talbot and Brown will no doubt be back again at later times. Both men now know that they can lie in court and get away with it. Talbot as a uniformed Police officer, quite probably lies on court on a near daily basis! In the case of Talbot, not only has he got away with lying in court, but after he'd been caught red-handed in a way that cannot be disputed. The message for all is obvious. If employed by the Victorian government, you can lie in court as you wish, because even if you get caught out, no Magistrate or Judge will ever have you charged! However it would be safe to say that this leniency will not be afforded to those who defend themselves against corrupt government officials.

A third and important thing needs to be noted. At the time of the accident I tape recorded what happened and what was said immediately following the accident. At the time there was no question as to who was liable (at fault). However after adverse influence (police), Praxmarer attempted to force liability to me (at my cost). The use of a tape recorder to covertly tape any incident that may later end up in court is a vital aid to honest people who go to court and expect the truth to be heard. The mere fact that a person steps into a witness box and undertakes verbally to tell the truth, does not mean they will in fact tell the truth. Their failure to tell the truth may cost the innocent party dearly. A judiciously used tape recorder by an innocent party, may ultimately lead to the difference between a person being declared 'innocent' or 'guilty' (convicted).

Raymond Hoser's three most recent books about corruption 'Smuggled', 'Smuggled-2' and 'The Hoser Files' were all illegally banned by named corrupt government officials following publication. While now 'unbanned' they remain hard to obtain. He is now working on two more books about Police and Judicial Corruption in Victoria. They will probably be released in 1997 or 1998. Persons interested in obtaining any of Hoser's books are best off ringing Raymond Hoser direct on 0412-777-211 (within Australia).

To obtain copies of Hoser's books it is best to order online -

STOP PRESS: Corrupt Policeman STEVEN TALBOT (see above) was found against in December 1999 in a Victorian Magistrates Court of having unlawfully taken a motor vehicle. According to Colman Francis Moloney, the lawyer representing the man who had the 1983 Holden Jackaroo Station Wagon taken, Talbot was found guilty of the unlawful removal of the vehicle and ordered to return the car and as co-defendant, to pay costs of $592.50. The court orders are reproduced in the pdf file at the link here. Notwithstanding this adverse court finding, his job within the Victorian Police force remains safe.

STOP PRESS -2: Corrupt Policeman STEVEN RAYMOND TALBOT (see above) has been up to more questionable activities. Late in 2001 he bludgeoned and intimidated a couple (Roxanne Marciarti and Greg Basinski) into pleading guilty to a series of improperly laid indictable assault charges arising from a fracas at a Chinese Restuarant in Mitcham. The case was heard in front of Magistrate Bill O'Day in late 2001, whereupon he convicted the pair of assault and fined them a total of $4000 in late 2001. It was quite a turn of events considering that the pair had been set-upon and attacked at the restuarant and left in the back of an ambulance whereafter they were patched up at hospital and Greg got several stitches to the skull.
The Herald-Sun newspaper reported the case, complete with photo, but appeared to have omitted numerous and most important salient facts, thereby presenting a very perverse slant on the case that it headlined as "Restuarant Rage".
Meanwhile the conviction and $4000 in fines were appealed to the County Court (result not yet known). Magistrate Bill O'Day is adversely named in "The Hoser Files". Talbot is adversely mentioned in a chapter detailing his nefarious activities in the book "Victoria Police Corruption -2". The relevant chapter is titled "How low can they go?". Roxanne Marciarti and Greg Basinski are both generally regarded as "squares" with no "priors" in relation to the police and/or alleged criminal activity, but their lives have been trashed over this Talbot matter.
Meanwhile, yet, further adverse case material relating to corrupt cop Steven Raymond Talbot in relation to yet ANOTHER incident has also become known and yet the Commissioner, Ms. Christine Nixon steadfastly refuses to sack him, thus indicating that police protection of corrupt officers within the force continues unabated despite a changing of Chief Commissioner in late 2000 - early 2001.

Further Update on another Talbot victim - Oratio Bellofiore who was wrongly charged by Talbot for driving offences - and fronted Ringwood Magistrates court for a "mention" on the matter/charges on 20 November 2001 - see below

Subject: Re: Update
Date: 21 Nov 2001 11:07:01 +1100
From: "Roxanne Marcianti" roxanne@vic.bigpond.net.au
To: adder@smuggled.com
References: 1 , 2 , 3

The Hoser Files - The Fight Against Entrenched Official Corruption is full of graphic details, including, names, photos, etc.. It has 322 pages and costs $22 (U.S. or Australian currency) It's available from Kotabi Publishing, PO Box 599, Doncaster, Victoria, 3108, Australia (add $7 per book for postage).