The Tribunal Evidence Of Ex-Cop Steven John Dimery

Steve John Dimery

In early November 1988 the brothers had taken action against the receivers of Lew Holdings Limited, Ferrier Hodgson. The firm had brought corrupt ex-cop/repo agent Steven Dimery to give evidence on their behalf. It was to prove to be a boon for the brothers, they were not so much interested in the eventual out come of that particular hearing. They were more interested in getting Dimery in the witness box. This enabled the brothers to question Dimery on his behaviour. The Tribunal adjudicator was confused as to the necessity of the line of questioning as it did not appear to have any bearing on the matters at hand. The brothers pushed and eventually succeeded in having Dimery re-called for cross examination.

Dimery was a little surprised at the brothers knowledge of his actions, which of course were meant to have been concealed by his co-conspirators. On the back foot, naturally he tried to avoid the questions, he knew however that he was on oath. The following is an extract from the transcript of Dimery’s cross examination by the brothers.

Brother: What month did you start acting for RSL?

Dimery: It may have been September (August before the Jenni McManus’s NBR campaign around the same time that Malcolm Thomas had telephoned Hi-lite and told them to go in and grab the gear, at the same time offering his own personal assistance with the repossessions)

Brother: Did you contact Hi-Lite industries in September?

Dimery: I may possibly have.

Brother: Well, did you?

Dimery: Possibly

Brother: No I want to know whether you did contact them?

Dimery: You want to know if I contacted Hi-Lite industries?

Brother: Yes?

Dimery: Yes I did!

Brother: What was the content of that conversation?

Dimery: I was trying to obtain a forced sale value of items

Brother: And that was on behalf of who?

Dimery: On behalf of RSL

Brother: What did Hi-Lite inform you in that conversation?

Dimery: They said they’d get back to me.

Brother: They didn’t say anything else?

Dimery: Not that I recall

Brother: Did they tell you that they had a retention of title clause in their contract?

Dimery: I received a letter some time later, some weeks later to say that they had an interest in the property.

Brother: And what was the content of that? Just that they had an interest in the property?

Dimery: More or less along the lines of instructions for me not to take possession on behalf of anybody but themselves.

Brother: Did you inform Hi-lite that your intention was to go in and get the gear on behalf of RSL?

Dimery: I might have

Brother: Where you entitled to enter the premises at that stage and get the gear on behalf of RSL?

Dimery:  I wasn’t acting in the capacity of an agent, a repossession agent, at that time.

Brother: So you didn’t have the ability to enter the building and repossess the gear?

Dimery: Not to my knowledge.

Brother: So RSL instructed you, prior to them being ………..(able to act under there property law act notice which did not take effect until between the 2nd and 4th November 1988; three month later, the court later held this notice to be invalid)

Dimery: Well lets clarify this. I received my instructions from Solicitors who had been instructed from other solicitors, who had been instructed by receivers the official liquidator of RSL.

Brother: So RSL instructed you, through many agents if you can believe that, to………..(unlawfully act in the property)

Dimery: I can believe it!

Brother: In your own experience, is it normal procedure, for example,  for Mr Thomas (a police officer) to contact Hi-Lite Industries and advise him to go in and get the gear and that he would open the restaurant. Is that normal police proceedure?

Dimery: I can’t comment!

Brother: If I say in my evidence, and I prove it in evidential tapes, that I took the gear, the hi-lite industries gear from the restaurant to protect the gear from a false claim by a creditor and that in fact Mr Malcolm Thomas and yourself were trying to incite that creditor, had phoned him with the specific intention to incite that person to go in and take the gear………..have you got written instructions from RSL to value the gear?

Dimery: No!

Brother: You said that Solicitors acting for RSL gave you instructions to value the gear.

Dimery: Yes!

Brother: Who was that Solicitor?

Dimery: Woodward Isles (corrupt Crown Solicitors)

Brother: Which Solicitor?

Dimery:Mr (Denys) Barry. (we here at laudafinem believe that the very same solicitor representing John McLaughlin and Gisborne glass falsely claimed  that Gisborne Glass had dealt with the brothers personally and not the company, the true debtor so as to, by  fraudulent means (listening to the various other tapes, they yet again lied on oath), obtained  judgement and payment of  that debt. (Denys Barry, like his bent Woodward Isles mate Phillip Cooper, is now a district court judge)

Brother: So Mr Barry supplied you with the chattels (list), I think thats what you said? (the very same chattels list that Thomas attached to the falsified warrant he used to search a truck on the 1st  November 1988, click to read that story)

Dimery: Yes!

Steven John Dimery had just lied on oath in an attempt to cover up what he and Thomas had really been up to. He, however, admits on oath that he had absolutely no right to enter the building and repossess anything, he had to it was documented and he knew it.

Neither Dimery nor Woodward Isles had received instructions from RSL in August 1988 to value any equipment, ex bent cop Steven John Dimery was lying, having committed more than one crime, it was nesessary. He used Woodward Isles as his cover, knowing that they were very much a part of the same conspiracy and would fabricate whatever it took to cover for Dimery and his bent mate Detective Malcolm John Thomas’s criminal offending.

The truth was that Dimery and Thomas had stolen keys after illegally drilling out the locks then secreted them away with another ex-cop mate Brian Francis McBreen and all were actively involved in inciting the attempted theft and thefts of thousands of dollars worth of chattels that were in fact owned by the brothers and or their Companies.

Thomas, Willcox and Dimery had been working in tandem, like three mangy old cattle dogs they had cornered Pearce and Hi-lite (and as the tapes evidence, every other alleged creditor), pressured him into dealing with Thomas personally and facilitated the thefts (disguised as repossessions); then Pearce co-operated with Thomas in laying the false complaints to cover their tracks, which Thomas in-turn used to falsely charge the brothers and their mother.

Categorised in:

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: