Complaint Review: EBM Computers Zangl Family Trust - Canberra Nationwide

Mr Zangl, I have discussed this matter with you shortly after the accident. , and all you wanted to do was to go running off to Police officer Regent complaining about receiving harassing phone calls. At that point I suggested that if your son was a passenger and was injured he would be entitled to file a compensation claim for his injury, however to this date there has been no claiim made in relation to this accident which indicated to me that your son was not a passenger but the driver. I have investigated this accident quite extensively, which involves speaking with witnesses, inspecting the accident scene, speaking with householders around the accident scene, interviewing both the then teenage boys involved, inspecting the car wreck and obtaining a copy of the court transcript of this case. When I interviewed your son all I got back from him was abuse and threats. When I interviewed Mr Philip P. he stated that he was in the passengers seat and was knocked unconscious when his head hit the support behind the front passenger door. When the car hit the left kerb sideways just before hitting the tree. The imprint of his front teeth were embedded in the soft padding above the glove box. He later regained conciousness in hospital. Around the centre of the car was a small hole in the shattered windscreen. which matches the injury on your sons forehead, thereby putting him in the drivers seat without question. The police accident officer J regent asked me if I knew why the car had turned into Scottsdale street when Mr P. lives in Devonport Street and I was unable to answer this at that time. A check of the electoral roll in 1997 shows your son was living in 11 Scottsdale Street several houses up from the accident scene so it is possible that as he was the driver they were going to leave the car there out of sight from the passing police vehicles in Devonport street. In relation to this "court case" I did not lose it. How can I lose something that I was not part of.. The case you are referring to is (87/18687 Regent vs Zangl) This case was set up by the Police accident department and handled by police accident officer J Regent (I have already proven that he was a friend of yours )and this case was set up to fail right from the start. Mr Regent refused to take my statement because it used the word " stolen." Mr Regent supressed this from the court hearing thereby in favouring your son. This is an example of the police officer interfering with the evidence. Another example of interfering with the evidence was to bring in Miss (RED) Herring as a witness. Absolutely nothing she stated in court (and I have read the court transcript) was truthful and my investigation proves this. 1 --- She did not know what make the car was. My comment :- Where has she been living - under a rock?, every true Australian knows what a holden looks like. 2 --- She stated that she put her car in for service at the nearby service station . My comment :- The service station has no record of this on that day or at anytime in the following 3 years. 3 --- She stated that she saw the car racing up and down Devonport street several times, It caught her attention My comment:- The statements given by the boys in court was that the car went up Devonport Street ONCE and once only. I believe the boys to be telling the truth on this one. Besides Philip P. does not hoon around in his own street, a street that has a 10 minute frequency of Police vehicles in both directions. In fact Mr Philip P. is very reluctant to drive in Devonport street, preferring someone else to do the driving in that street due to the high police presence. 4 --- She stated that "the drivers side door could not be opened". This was supported by J Regent however in court he said that he did not try to open the door himself thereby allowing this outright lie to go unchallenged. I found that the door was easily opened and closed and that included all doors and windows in the car. This lie played a major part in your son getting off. Again why would she open the drivers door to get to the passenger and lean across a seat covered with broken glass., why not open the passenger side door, its closer and more logical and ultimately that was what she did. given that the drivers seat was empty and the driver had already got out of the car and was sitting on the kerb holding his head after having gone through the windscreen. As far as a defamation case against myself I suggest you read the defamation ordinance before doing so .(I already have) Also I suggest that you obtain a copy of the court transcript, In summing up ,the magistrate stated that he has no doubt that your son was in fact the driver of the car and a conviction would have been successful if it was a civil case, however as it was a criminal case the quality of evidence tendered by police officer J Regent was not sufficient for a criminal conviction. EDITOR All I can say is god bless you for starting a site like this. It gives a say to the little guys, who are kicked around by bullies like this amd who have the protection of thief protecting corrupt brawling thugs like the AFP (Australian Federal Police) who do nothing to fight crime.

Mr Zangl, I have discussed this matter with you shortly after the accident. , and all you wanted to do was to go running off to Police officer Regent complaining about receiving harassing phone calls. At that point I suggested that if your son was a passenger and was injured he would be entitled to file a compensation claim for his injury, however to this date there has been no claiim made in relation to this accident which indicated to me that your son was not a passenger but the driver. I have investigated this accident quite extensively, which involves speaking with witnesses, inspecting the accident scene, speaking with householders around the accident scene, interviewing both the then teenage boys involved, inspecting the car wreck and obtaining a copy of the court transcript of this case. When I interviewed your son all I got back from him was abuse and threats. When I interviewed Mr Philip P. he stated that he was in the passengers seat and was knocked unconscious when his head hit the support behind the front passenger door. When the car hit the left kerb sideways just before hitting the tree. The imprint of his front teeth were embedded in the soft padding above the glove box. He later regained conciousness in hospital. Around the centre of the car was a small hole in the shattered windscreen. which matches the injury on your sons forehead, thereby putting him in the drivers seat without question. The police accident officer J regent asked me if I knew why the car had turned into Scottsdale street when Mr P. lives in Devonport Street and I was unable to answer this at that time. A check of the electoral roll in 1997 shows your son was living in 11 Scottsdale Street several houses up from the accident scene so it is possible that as he was the driver they were going to leave the car there out of sight from the passing police vehicles in Devonport street. In relation to this "court case" I did not lose it. How can I lose something that I was not part of.. The case you are referring to is (87/18687 Regent vs Zangl) This case was set up by the Police accident department and handled by police accident officer J Regent (I have already proven that he was a friend of yours )and this case was set up to fail right from the start. Mr Regent refused to take my statement because it used the word " stolen." Mr Regent supressed this from the court hearing thereby in favouring your son. This is an example of the police officer interfering with the evidence. Another example of interfering with the evidence was to bring in Miss (RED) Herring as a witness. Absolutely nothing she stated in court (and I have read the court transcript) was truthful and my investigation proves this. 1 --- She did not know what make the car was. My comment :- Where has she been living - under a rock?, every true Australian knows what a holden looks like. 2 --- She stated that she put her car in for service at the nearby service station . My comment :- The service station has no record of this on that day or at anytime in the following 3 years. 3 --- She stated that she saw the car racing up and down Devonport street several times, It caught her attention My comment:- The statements given by the boys in court was that the car went up Devonport Street ONCE and once only. I believe the boys to be telling the truth on this one. Besides Philip P. does not hoon around in his own street, a street that has a 10 minute frequency of Police vehicles in both directions. In fact Mr Philip P. is very reluctant to drive in Devonport street, preferring someone else to do the driving in that street due to the high police presence. 4 --- She stated that "the drivers side door could not be opened". This was supported by J Regent however in court he said that he did not try to open the door himself thereby allowing this outright lie to go unchallenged. I found that the door was easily opened and closed and that included all doors and windows in the car. This lie played a major part in your son getting off. Again why would she open the drivers door to get to the passenger and lean across a seat covered with broken glass., why not open the passenger side door, its closer and more logical and ultimately that was what she did. given that the drivers seat was empty and the driver had already got out of the car and was sitting on the kerb holding his head after having gone through the windscreen. As far as a defamation case against myself I suggest you read the defamation ordinance before doing so .(I already have) Also I suggest that you obtain a copy of the court transcript, In summing up ,the magistrate stated that he has no doubt that your son was in fact the driver of the car and a conviction would have been successful if it was a civil case, however as it was a criminal case the quality of evidence tendered by police officer J Regent was not sufficient for a criminal conviction. EDITOR All I can say is god bless you for starting a site like this. It gives a say to the little guys, who are kicked around by bullies like this amd who have the protection of thief protecting corrupt brawling thugs like the AFP (Australian Federal Police) who do nothing to fight crime.

Mr Zangl, I have discussed this matter with you shortly after the accident. , and all you wanted to do was to go running off to Police officer Regent complaining about receiving harassing phone calls. At that point I suggested that if your son was a passenger and was injured he would be entitled to file a compensation claim for his injury, however to this date there has been no claiim made in relation to this accident which indicated to me that your son was not a passenger but the driver. I have investigated this accident quite extensively, which involves speaking with witnesses, inspecting the accident scene, speaking with householders around the accident scene, interviewing both the then teenage boys involved, inspecting the car wreck and obtaining a copy of the court transcript of this case. When I interviewed your son all I got back from him was abuse and threats. When I interviewed Mr Philip P. he stated that he was in the passengers seat and was knocked unconscious when his head hit the support behind the front passenger door. When the car hit the left kerb sideways just before hitting the tree. The imprint of his front teeth were embedded in the soft padding above the glove box. He later regained conciousness in hospital. Around the centre of the car was a small hole in the shattered windscreen. which matches the injury on your sons forehead, thereby putting him in the drivers seat without question. The police accident officer J regent asked me if I knew why the car had turned into Scottsdale street when Mr P. lives in Devonport Street and I was unable to answer this at that time. A check of the electoral roll in 1997 shows your son was living in 11 Scottsdale Street several houses up from the accident scene so it is possible that as he was the driver they were going to leave the car there out of sight from the passing police vehicles in Devonport street. In relation to this "court case" I did not lose it. How can I lose something that I was not part of.. The case you are referring to is (87/18687 Regent vs Zangl) This case was set up by the Police accident department and handled by police accident officer J Regent (I have already proven that he was a friend of yours )and this case was set up to fail right from the start. Mr Regent refused to take my statement because it used the word " stolen." Mr Regent supressed this from the court hearing thereby in favouring your son. This is an example of the police officer interfering with the evidence. Another example of interfering with the evidence was to bring in Miss (RED) Herring as a witness. Absolutely nothing she stated in court (and I have read the court transcript) was truthful and my investigation proves this. 1 --- She did not know what make the car was. My comment :- Where has she been living - under a rock?, every true Australian knows what a holden looks like. 2 --- She stated that she put her car in for service at the nearby service station . My comment :- The service station has no record of this on that day or at anytime in the following 3 years. 3 --- She stated that she saw the car racing up and down Devonport street several times, It caught her attention My comment:- The statements given by the boys in court was that the car went up Devonport Street ONCE and once only. I believe the boys to be telling the truth on this one. Besides Philip P. does not hoon around in his own street, a street that has a 10 minute frequency of Police vehicles in both directions. In fact Mr Philip P. is very reluctant to drive in Devonport street, preferring someone else to do the driving in that street due to the high police presence. 4 --- She stated that "the drivers side door could not be opened". This was supported by J Regent however in court he said that he did not try to open the door himself thereby allowing this outright lie to go unchallenged. I found that the door was easily opened and closed and that included all doors and windows in the car. This lie played a major part in your son getting off. Again why would she open the drivers door to get to the passenger and lean across a seat covered with broken glass., why not open the passenger side door, its closer and more logical and ultimately that was what she did. given that the drivers seat was empty and the driver had already got out of the car and was sitting on the kerb holding his head after having gone through the windscreen. As far as a defamation case against myself I suggest you read the defamation ordinance before doing so .(I already have) Also I suggest that you obtain a copy of the court transcript, In summing up ,the magistrate stated that he has no doubt that your son was in fact the driver of the car and a conviction would have been successful if it was a civil case, however as it was a criminal case the quality of evidence tendered by police officer J Regent was not sufficient for a criminal conviction. EDITOR All I can say is god bless you for starting a site like this. It gives a say to the little guys, who are kicked around by bullies like this amd who have the protection of thief protecting corrupt brawling thugs like the AFP (Australian Federal Police) who do nothing to fight crime.

Mr Zangl, I have discussed this matter with you shortly after the accident. , and all you wanted to do was to go running off to Police officer Regent complaining about receiving harassing phone calls. At that point I suggested that if your son was a passenger and was injured he would be entitled to file a compensation claim for his injury, however to this date there has been no claiim made in relation to this accident which indicated to me that your son was not a passenger but the driver. I have investigated this accident quite extensively, which involves speaking with witnesses, inspecting the accident scene, speaking with householders around the accident scene, interviewing both the then teenage boys involved, inspecting the car wreck and obtaining a copy of the court transcript of this case. When I interviewed your son all I got back from him was abuse and threats. When I interviewed Mr Philip P. he stated that he was in the passengers seat and was knocked unconscious when his head hit the support behind the front passenger door. When the car hit the left kerb sideways just before hitting the tree. The imprint of his front teeth were embedded in the soft padding above the glove box. He later regained conciousness in hospital. Around the centre of the car was a small hole in the shattered windscreen. which matches the injury on your sons forehead, thereby putting him in the drivers seat without question. The police accident officer J regent asked me if I knew why the car had turned into Scottsdale street when Mr P. lives in Devonport Street and I was unable to answer this at that time. A check of the electoral roll in 1997 shows your son was living in 11 Scottsdale Street several houses up from the accident scene so it is possible that as he was the driver they were going to leave the car there out of sight from the passing police vehicles in Devonport street. In relation to this "court case" I did not lose it. How can I lose something that I was not part of.. The case you are referring to is (87/18687 Regent vs Zangl) This case was set up by the Police accident department and handled by police accident officer J Regent (I have already proven that he was a friend of yours )and this case was set up to fail right from the start. Mr Regent refused to take my statement because it used the word " stolen." Mr Regent supressed this from the court hearing thereby in favouring your son. This is an example of the police officer interfering with the evidence. Another example of interfering with the evidence was to bring in Miss (RED) Herring as a witness. Absolutely nothing she stated in court (and I have read the court transcript) was truthful and my investigation proves this. 1 --- She did not know what make the car was. My comment :- Where has she been living - under a rock?, every true Australian knows what a holden looks like. 2 --- She stated that she put her car in for service at the nearby service station . My comment :- The service station has no record of this on that day or at anytime in the following 3 years. 3 --- She stated that she saw the car racing up and down Devonport street several times, It caught her attention My comment:- The statements given by the boys in court was that the car went up Devonport Street ONCE and once only. I believe the boys to be telling the truth on this one. Besides Philip P. does not hoon around in his own street, a street that has a 10 minute frequency of Police vehicles in both directions. In fact Mr Philip P. is very reluctant to drive in Devonport street, preferring someone else to do the driving in that street due to the high police presence. 4 --- She stated that "the drivers side door could not be opened". This was supported by J Regent however in court he said that he did not try to open the door himself thereby allowing this outright lie to go unchallenged. I found that the door was easily opened and closed and that included all doors and windows in the car. This lie played a major part in your son getting off. Again why would she open the drivers door to get to the passenger and lean across a seat covered with broken glass., why not open the passenger side door, its closer and more logical and ultimately that was what she did. given that the drivers seat was empty and the driver had already got out of the car and was sitting on the kerb holding his head after having gone through the windscreen. As far as a defamation case against myself I suggest you read the defamation ordinance before doing so .(I already have) Also I suggest that you obtain a copy of the court transcript, In summing up ,the magistrate stated that he has no doubt that your son was in fact the driver of the car and a conviction would have been successful if it was a civil case, however as it was a criminal case the quality of evidence tendered by police officer J Regent was not sufficient for a criminal conviction. EDITOR All I can say is god bless you for starting a site like this. It gives a say to the little guys, who are kicked around by bullies like this amd who have the protection of thief protecting corrupt brawling thugs like the AFP (Australian Federal Police) who do nothing to fight crime.

This is the first that the 'TRUST' has heard of this. No contact has been made or received by the Trust regarding this matter in the so called 'decade' that is being refered to. It is (now) my advice that CRAIG has lost a court case in relation to the accusation of SEAN Zangl having stollen his car... no proof was tendered .. no evidence was supplied to the court. CRAIG's pratlings are 'sour grapes' that he lost his compensation case, and is out to make himself look the poor hurt innocence in this matter and drag any 'name related entities' down to his pathetic level. If there was any truth in the matter his Lawyer/Solicitor would by now have contacted the 'Trust' to seek recompenses.... within some 'decade' prior to his listing on this website. If he wishes to make unfounded accusations in the matter of how this business was created and who's and what finances was used... bring it on CRAIG. I will gaurantee that we will be assisting him in a defemation case against him. Stay anonymous CRAIG ... the AFP will also be interested in your maunderings and palaverings now that you have exercised your right to accuse this company ( by virtue of association 'name' ) in this public arena without proof. EDITOR. Maybe your USA based (non Australian) organisation should seek facts, such as documentry evidence, before allowing disaranged persons to make unfounded/blasphemous accusations and placing my (or any Company/Business) in an undefendable situation. Surely you can get accolades in another way !! Then maybe not. And your Arizona cuntry laws are of no consequnce in this country. NOTE: You have put this creature in the correct category..."Dead Beat" Include the above in my rebuttal if you dare S Zangl The Trust