Michael Siejka "warned off"

Quote:

Originally Posted by clumsy

Steve I enjoy reading most of what you write, however you have come up with the biggest load of rubbish I have read for a while. Once you become licensed or a member with any organization you are obliged to follow the rules of that organization, this applies not only to sport but also trades eg. builders plumbers etc.
As for TAB accounts, second phones and bank accounts don't you think that these are some of the records being requested by HRNSW.

OK, let us clearly delineate the issue that remains........firstly, I am quite happy with the HRNSW request for any information they want from it's registered persons, that is fine........however, if the registered person decides not to provide that information for whatever reason, (privacy, religion, previous experiences, conceal a relationship, criminal activity etc), HRNSW has then got the right to decide to terminate their registration.........if those are the rules in place to be allowed to do so! At this point we still have an "innocent" person, I hope you agree? To then be able to "warn them off" forever, is going too far! To warn them off, HRNSW should then lay a charge based on the information or suveillance it has at hand, if the person then chooses to defend the matter and it relates that the evidence required to defend the charge can be related directly to the bank statements and/or phone records and they refuse to provide them.........."warn them off" for 10 years! This is the point I am trying to make. To warn off completely is without foundation of a prima facie case............HRNSW should have advised these people, they are warned off until further notice, until the records are supplied or an acceptable reason is provided! Don't forget this matter has arisen from corrupt HRNSW staff being the the instigators of all the criminal activity.......and I don't condone the actions of the registered persons in being involved........"it is like putting a lolly in front of a baby, they will take it!" At the end of the day, they would be just "Joe Public" attending a race meeting! They probably wouldn't show their faces on course anyway!!

Steve

Clearly we will need to agree to disagree the Harness Rules are worded a little different from the Gallops which from memory I think uses the term "proper direction", in relation to having to comply that is it must be proper.

Having said that your example about sending the letter to all and then warning some off would not happen because they, that is HRNSW, would not have a prima facie case to ask for the documents in the first place. Therefore it is not proper and would be over at that point.

However, in this case it is a long running investigation to which these licensed persons because of other evidence like the phone records of the stewards involved, have become persons of interest they have been given weeks if not months to comply.

Two people had already been warned off for failure to comply, one was lifted when that person agreed to comply that being "Vallender". Byrnes took his chances at appeal which as I understand it, remains unresolved.

Clearly if it was as you think so unfair the judge would have said to Vallender " mate your sweet do not worry welcome back do not comply" that did not happen or the same to Byrnes.

Michael Siejka is not a green kid, he has many many run ins with officials over the years, he knew the probability of what would happen from looking at those who chose a similar path before him, so at the end of the day he chose his own penalty, do not comply and be warned off or comply and see where the facts left him, I will not speculate as to why he chose the first avenue, I will leave that to others.

[QUOTE=Thevoiceofreason;19465]Having said that your example about sending the letter to all and then warning some off would not happen because they, that is HRNSW, would not have a prima facie case to ask for the documents in the first place. Therefore it is not proper and would be over at that point.-QUOTE

VOR, your comments are noted, but from the quote above you say that HRNSW would not ask every registered person to supply the information, it just wouldn't happen, as they don't have a prima face case to ask for them!..........if that is the case, where is the prima face case stated against these warned off registered persons??? So if a prima facie case hasn't been established or detailed........it goes without saying that any registered person at any time could be asked to provide any information HRNSW requests......and if they don't they are warned off,. I hope that HRNSW deals with all that are involved to the maximum extent, but you can't have your cake and eat it too! The answer to HRNSW is "Put Up OR Shut Up!.........charge the persons with something! These people are now considered "lepers" however, innocent or guilty they may be! If the police charge you with an offence, they must provide evidence in support of the charge........if not the charge is thrown out! HRNSW now needs to have the resolve to put their cards on the table!

[QUOTE=The Form Student;19466]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Having said that your example about sending the letter to all and then warning some off would not happen because they, that is HRNSW, would not have a prima facie case to ask for the documents in the first place. Therefore it is not proper and would be over at that point.-QUOTE

VOR, your comments are noted, but from the quote above you say that HRNSW would not ask every registered person to supply the information, it just wouldn't happen, as they don't have a prima face case to ask for them!..........if that is the case, where is the prima face case stated against these warned off registered persons??? So if a prima facie case hasn't been established or detailed........it goes without saying that any registered person at any time could be asked to provide any information HRNSW requests......and if they don't they are warned off,. I hope that HRNSW deals with all that are involved to the maximum extent, but you can't have your cake and eat it too! The answer to HRNSW is "Put Up OR Shut Up!.........charge the persons with something! These people are now considered "lepers" however, innocent or guilty they may be! If the police charge you with an offence, they must provide evidence in support of the charge........if not the charge is thrown out! HRNSW now needs to have the resolve to put their cards on the table!

Steve

It is a matter of what comes first the chicken or the egg clearly NRNSW do not have sufficient evidence to lay a charge that is why they want the documents to continue the investigation, I am sorry but in my view it would be inappropriate of HRNSW to lay a charge on anyone without the required proof.

Anyway as I said earlier we will just have to agree to disagree Siejka like Byrnes before him has his right of appeal with an independent judge, we will see where that leaves him, shoveling concrete is my tip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Form Student

If I were handing over my personal and private documents, I would want to know who exactly is going to be looking at them, and that a signed confidentiality agreement made as a minimum...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Form Student

When someone becomes a 'registered person", I am sure they don't realise they could be expected to hand over their banking details or phone records at any time!.

I agree about the confidentiality agreement I would ask for that too. But regarding registered people handing over phone records.....fair enough if there is no logical industry-related reason......can't just do random checks as if you are everyone's big brother......but if it's as part of an ongoing investigation related to maintaining the integrity of the sport I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for phone records and hit em with a hammer if they don't comply.

I don't think an excuse such as concealing a relationship is enough to warrant not handing over your records.

Although maybe Gillard's Fair Work Australia might have something to say to the contrary?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ardvark

Ron Coote, I am not a licenced person so I dont have the misfortune of being subject to such draconian rules. If an allegation is levelled against you, you must answer it, other than that licenced persons should not have to be the bait in fishing expeditions by HRNSW or any other authority!

No participant has to supply any information if they don't wish to. They are free to hand in their licences if they don't like the rules of the game. They knew the rules when they took out their licence. That applies to everyone, not just Michael Siejka.

Totally agree william

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE&ob=av2n

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE&ob=av2n

I'm beginning to be concerned for you VOR...that sort of thing is more in tune with the forum's most frequent/potent?/superfulous? contributor.

C'mon your VOR not JVVV!

gotta laugh!

Cheers,
Dan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno

I'm beginning to be concerned for you VOR...that sort of thing is more in tune with the forum's most frequent/potent?/superfulous? contributor.

C'mon your VOR not JVVV!

gotta laugh!

Cheers,
Dan

Jamie has been trying with little success to educate me since I joined the forum ... I wanted to let him think he had at least been able to teach me something .... having said that I bet the words were the sentiment at HRNSW after the board made the decision.