The "No Media Hype" Version about About Steve Hourmouzis & The Rentech Case (The TRUTH)

You probably arrived at this page after doing a search on Steve Hourmouzis or the genuinewinner.com roulette system. Chances are you'd also now be aware I have a criminal record. This page if you are interested in the TRUTH about the Rentech case. Yes, every "criminal" proclaims their innocence and it's sickening, right?... Irrespective of what you currently may believe, I am and have always been an honest person. The media never gets the full story -- they only get snippets before making it more entertaining to read.

Most of my clients already know about all this, but they don't care because they know very well I'm an honest person, and I'll everything possible to ensure their success - I'm confident any authentic player of mine (not an envious competitor pretending to be a player) will tell you this. As one of my own players said, "it shouldn't matter what others think as long as your own players believe in you..."

And I do not attempt to hide details of my case. If I wanted to hide it, I would not be using my rather distinct name "Hourmouzis".

To learn more about me I suggest visiting www.genuinewinner.com/aboutme.htm (Steve Hourmouzis)

and:

RouletteWars.com: Genuinewinner.com system and people trying to discredit it

 

Before you read on, consider the following: Most people are only concerned with whether or not my system is what I claim. What happened with one of my company promotions approximately 10 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with my roulette systems and roulette computers. If you want proof of effectiveness, see www.roulettecomputers.com and www.genuinewinner.com/proof.html - also consider that casinos themselves widely acknowledge my system is effective. You can even see parts of my wheel analysis software above in the headline background. Unfortunately a competitor is responsible for largely distorting the facts of my case solely to boost his own sales. See www.genuinewinner.com/markhowe.htm for details. I am not taking private legal action against Mark Howe as simply he has no wealth to make action viable. Instead, I have had many of his websites shut down.

This issue continues to pop up throughout my life. The actual alleged infringement of the Australian Corporations act occurred approximately a decade ago when I was about 21 years old. I am not a dishonest person and never have been. Below is sent to those who ask: It is frustrating that most people jump to conclusions with ignorance without ever knowing the facts. Although I can appreciate that before my case, I most likely would have reacted the same way if the roles were reversed. Some people think they're pretty smart and think they know I'm a scammer -- I really don't have time for such ignorant people. You either believe what I'm going to tell you, or reject it. You either believe what the media wrote, or take the time to look into it deeper. But what you really want to know is if my roulette system is what I claim, right? Nevertheless, here's the truth about the Rentech case:

I own multiple online promotion companies, therefore have a considerable promotional ability. Two of my networks are www.site-promotion.com and www.leadwhiz.com. My company Site Promotions PTY LTD is one of the Internet's longest established companies. I have promoted countless companies in my time and as such I am responsible for the accuracy of promotional content. One particular promotion I was to promote a company called Rentech by dissemination of emails to my mailing lists at a time when SPAM was still widely accepted as legal. Some of the mailing lists were wholly owned by my company, and some were what is termed safe or in-house lists. They are are considered "safe" as the recipients have not opted-out from mass mailings, or requested removal from the list. Any removal requests are honored although the lists were "unsolicited" (UCE - Unsolicited Commercial Email, aka SPAM). Sending of the SPAM was one of two main charges. I partially went to jail for sending junk mail - not a horrific crime.

The information in the email that was disseminated was sourced from the company's press releases. I had obtained the following THREE SIMPLE FACTS from the company's press releases:

  1. Rentech generates revenue by licensing patented technology

2. Rentech was facing delisting from NASDAQ (as their stock fell below the minimum price requirement), but had asked NASDAQ for a time extension that would allow Rentech to complete and make several important announcements via press release

3. Rentech had pending patent(s)

When I put the three above facts together, I came to the logical assumption (although incorrect) that Rentech had developed new patented technology that they believed was revolutionary enough to increase their stock price following announcement - this is the core information that was disseminated via SPAM - it is the core of the information that brought charges against me. The authorities argued I knew the information was false. Of course they'd want to believe that - it makes their case easier. I had been told directly by the company's representative (Mark Koenig) that the company did have imminent news that they considered to be very positive and important, although it could not yet be discussed due to SEC and legal restrictions. Furthermore, he verified that Rentech did have pending patent(s). This was further proved by Rentech press releases, and Rentech's statements to the SEC of which I have transcripts. So you can understand why my assumptions and beliefs were reasonable, although they were inaccurate. Does my misunderstanding and the publishing of my misunderstandings make me a criminal? Apparently so. Does it make me dishonest? NO.

I purchased the Rentech stock, and commenced promotion and dissemination of what I believed to be accurate information. Mid-promotion, various message board postings appeared throughout the Internet - some praising my information and validating its contents, and some claiming the content was inaccurate and will warrant an SEC investigation. Partly in a panic, I sold my stocks for well below my original intention, realizing only a small profit of $17,000, out of which I paid an associate $7,000 which was owed to him for various completely unrelated services. His work for me was very well documented which shows the payment to him was due. He was considered my co-accused, although he played virtually a non-existent role in the promotion. There was someone that did assist me, and I gave full details although he was never charged. Still we don't know why not.

At the time I was not certain I had done anything illegal - more specifically I was unaware the information was inaccurate. Although my company had still been operating successfully for some time, I was relatively new to the stock market and knew only promotional methods - not complex SEC laws. If I had done anything wrong, it was sending unsolicited email (SPAM) and using relaying servers which are required for use of the bulk emailing software. It was said I "hacked" servers which is far from the case. Use of relaying servers, to the uneducated, makes it appear as though the emails originate from a source other than myself - however this us unintentional, and is only a consequence of using the bulk email software (it is called Mach 10, so you can verify it for yourself). In other word the software required the use of relaying servers, which is why I used them. If I didn't, the mail simply wouldn't send with any significant volume. The only other thing I believe I potentially did wrong was selling my stock after inflating the price - known as stock price touting. I'm still not entirely sure if this is illegal though - after all, touting has nothing to do with misleading people. As I understand it, promotion of stocks is perfectly legal and common if press releases, which are screened by solicitors to ensure accuracy, prior to official release. As solicitors must review press releases, it gives you an idea how important the flawless accuracy of statements must be to conform to SEC regulations. Did you know if you don't have an investment advisor license, you have committed a felony if you post on a message board saying you think a particular stock will go up in price? You can literally go to jail for that. However I was not charged for touting, most likely as the SEC and ASIC know it even occurs at the highest levels, is very common, is not a priority, and would not get them the news headlines they needed for the first case of its kind - they called my case "general deterrence", meaning they had to make an example of me. This was no ordinary case - it involved cooperation between international authorities for specific offences.

My charges were originally "intentionally disseminating false and/or misleading information", and "abusing a telecommunication device" (by sending spam). Spam was widely accepted as a legal form of promotion. This is no longer the case, and although I no longer spam, many others still do irrespective of my case. Later, after a voluntary interview with the Australian Authorities and explaining my actions, the more serious charge of "deliberately disseminating false/misleading information" was downgraded to "recklessly disseminating false/misleading information". The interviewer (as read in transcripts), Simon Rubenstein, prompted me several times to agree to the statement that my dissemination of the information was "reckless". In his exactly words: "It was reckless, wasn't it?". Arguably it was at the least "reckless", but it was certainly not intentional.

Furthermore, my funds were frozen, so I was unable to even pay my solicitors to defend myself. My solicitors misrepresented me and did not present evidence to the court - more specifically the full information which explained every line of the email I compiled, and why it was written. I couldn't access my funds to pay him anyway, and he knew this. But because I had too much income from my corporations, I was not allowed legal aid. But during this time, as per the advice of my solicitors I temporarily suspended my companies and their incomes, so I was stuck either way without revenue to pay my solicitors. Furthermore, evidence that would have been vital in proving my intentions were not to deliberately disseminate false/misleading information was not recovered from my computer - specifically major chunks of my correspondence with Rentech's representative Mark Koenig were not retrieved, and I believe the Authorities deliberately failed to include this evidence in the brief of evidence, as it would not have been favorable to their case against me. Only part of the correspondence with Mark Koenig was retrieved where I had emailed Rentech to verify information to be compiled in my email. Conveniently, Koenig's computer was completely wiped clean. Mine wasn't because I was not expecting a knock at my door. The authorities simply wanted to paint a pretty picture of me - a person who they claim intentionally broke the law but was caught. Why? Because it was the first case of its kind in the world, and they wanted to set precedence - they referred to it as "general deterrence" which means they needed to make an example of me.

In a nutshell, all that happened was I misunderstood press releases for reasons explained, and published my misunderstandings to the public. My beliefs were reasonable, although incorrect. But the prosecution would rather have the judge and media believe this was some huge scam that the "feds" busted, so no-one else should even think about doing it too because you'll get caught by our competent law enforcement agencies. It was the first case of it's kind in Australia, and arguably the world, so I certainly had the book thrown at me, so to speak. I was made an example of. Somewhere down the lines, the truth of what really happened was lost in the name of a test case and using me as an example. No-one was interested in the proof because it was not as simple and believable than me having deviously planned everything and intentionally sending inaccurate information.

And if you think my guilty plea was an admission of guilt, you are so very wrong. The plea was due to the fact my funds were frozen in Lloyds Bank (UK) so I had no option as I couldn't afford to defend myself, plus it would have been difficult to prove my dissemination of the false/misleading information was not at the very least "reckless". Any jury member would have known it was not intentional, but reckless is another thing.

Besides sending junk email (which is certainly not uncommon) and potentially touting stocks (which is something that happens every day with every stock at especially the highest levels), I know I did nothing wrong. I have always been, and still remain, an honest person. If you ask me a straight question, you get a straight answer.

For years I have been defending myself against people who read an article about me, and are quick to judge thinking I'm some dirty dishonest criminal. I am sick of explaining myself to ignorant people that have only distorted information presented by the media that like to paint a pretty picture and interesting story. It doesn't help having dishonest competitors such as Mark Howe (Mark Anthony Howe) twist and distort facts to try and discredit me and boost his sales. I have no interest to continue to explain what really happened which is why this page was created. The fact that I have a criminal record is no secret - it is widely known and easily discovered when you search for my name. But those who actually have had dealings with me know and often comment that I am indeed an honest person.

Consider the following facts:

1. The contents of my "misleading" email were all based on simple facts obtained from Rentech representatives and official company press releases.

2. My beliefs were based on facts and reasonable, although incorrect. Whether misleading others was intentional or not, the authorities only needed to prove the dissemination was at the very least "reckless". "Reckless" is easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and since my funds were frozen, I couldn't pay my lawyers to defend me.

3. I made no attempt to hide my identity from government authorities - the mailings were conducted from my old residence, my stock broker knew my full contact details and identity, and I paid for the Internet access with my own bank cards (when I could have so easily paid cash). This is not hiding! If I wanted to hide I would have paid cash or money order for the internet access (instead of my bank card), and used an anonymously purchased laptop and logged in through an acoustic modem from a public phone - this would be untraceable. And my stock broker had my full contact and bank account details - they were not numbered or anonymous offshore accounts which would have been easy to set up. Yet the media make it seem like I took elaborate steps to hide my identity. For example, they were led to believe my use of relaying servers to send the mail was an attempt to hide my identity, when relaying servers were just a basic requirement for the mailing software.

In closing, believe what you want. But on my life, I swear I truly believed in the accuracy of the information contained in my email. I never intended to mislead anyone. Today I continue to run my businesses and have many products and established clients. For each of my web sites, especially due to the experience of this case, I am constantly reviewing the sales material to ensure utmost accuracy. If I am ever told my information is in any way inaccurate, and if legitimate feedback is provided, I take it very seriously and make amendments where due. My family went through hell over this case, and I want to ensure it NEVER happens again. If I for one second believed material on my web sites like genuinewinner.com did not accurately represent my products, I would no way be trading as a corporation (as I do). Why? Because the regulators of corporations (ASIC) have a mandate to pursue corporations who misrepresent their products. So if my web sites contained inaccurate information and a client complained to ASIC, and if the client made accurate accusations, I would be out of business. If I were dishonest, it would be imperative that I do NOT trade as a corporation. This is exactly why scammers never trade as a corporation - it would be suicidal.

Based on the news articles about my case, of course I understand concerns about my credibility but you need to know the whole story before you come to conclusions. Ever since I started offering my system, I've been attacked by countless completely ignorant people - mainly forum posters and competitors who serve their own interests. There is so much deliberate malicious mis-information circulating. Why?... What have I done to wrong them? Is it just they've been scammed by other system sellers and assume I'm the same? Competitors like Mark Howe (Mark Anthony Howe) twist facts to serve their own purpose - see http://www.roulettesystemreviews.com/r-markhoweroulettecomputer.htm and www.genuinewinner.com/markhowe.htm to see what type of person he is. He even posts false information to discredit me under aliases and even does this to other competitors. That's what he does to compete, and I'm confident the authorities will catch up with him soon.

I've had numerous people pay me with stolen credit cards and try to deceive me to get my system for free - these are the dishonest ones. Those who don't even have my system are quick to call me dishonest. And they are quick to state my system is worthless when they don't even have my system.

And just a note about the prison system (losing system) - it's an utter disgrace. To call it "correctional" is an enormous lie. It serves more as a means to satisfy the public than to "rehabilitate" criminals. Only if you go through the "justice" system yourself will you fully comprehend what it's like. You cannot "rehabilitate" someone by locking them with rapists, murderers and junkies - you only encourage crooked behavior. I spent 3 months in there, but I stayed true to myself and did not change - this resulted in numerous death threats. I was advised to blend in and not be noticed, but I could not blend in with a crowd like that - it was too far removed from myself. I can see that 6 or more months in there can seriously and permanently damage a weaker mind. 90% of the inmates come from poor backgrounds, without education, have a lesser intelligence, and are driven to crime to support themselves - this is the issue that needs to be addressed. Poor education and upbringing does not excuse criminal activity, but it is an underlying reason for much of it. Very few of the inmates are actually malicious people that should be locked away. Furthermore every second cell has their own stash of drugs. One even had a gun. This may sound unbelievable, but it is not uncommon and was recently in the Australian news. It's a very different and distorted world behind the walls.

 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
Q. What about the statement allegedly made, "This is illegal but I like it. Just don't mention anything to anyone about anything until we purchase the stock and always keep our true identity very concealed."?

Firstly the emails retrieved from my computer were incomplete, fragmented and very old. Putting together fragments to make coherent sentences is largely guesswork. I don't ever recall having made that statement and it was pieced from fragmented words that could easily have been from multiple emails that had no relevance to each other. If you see the fragments, you'd know any statements can be made. The ASIC interviewer even commented on how the fragmented emails had dates that were way out of what they should be. But if this was a legitimate statement, it was in reference to the sending of SPAM specifically to promote stocks. I had sent SPAM before without a problem, and I had promoted press releases of other companies and other stocks before without a problem. Specifically with other promotions I presented just press releases. This time, I stated my beliefs which were part of the problem. Representatives from the company I first promoted said www.sec.gov has the regulations about stock promotion there. So still as a young kid, I went into the complex world of SEC regulations and all I could find and understand was some guy had been fined $10k for sending SPAM to promote stocks. So I assumed that although sending SPAM and promoting stocks independently of one another was not illegal, the combination WAS illegal, although I was still a bit unsure of this for reasons explained: I assumed doing what the guy did was potentially illegal, although the problem was he had not actually been charged, only fined... so how could it be literally illegal? I thought maybe he did something differently - like not including a disclaimer in his emails including encouragement to do due diligence to verify the information - this is what I included in my emails because I believed the content was accurate. More precisely, he was sued - no criminal charges were made. So whether or not sending spam to promote stocks was legal was not clear. What I didn't know at the time is the SEC cant afford to prosecute sometimes, so they just sue them as its much easier, although no criminal charges are made. Understand although my company had been running for some time, I had never been exposed to SEC laws in my life - I was still quite young. At this time, it had never occurred to me that the information I was sending was false/misleading - yet this is what I was charged for. This is the main things the authorities were concerned about.

And understand IF the statement is legitimate and complete, consider I also said "don't say anything until we purchase the stock". Very importantly, why is it ok after, but not before? This is a critical point for consideration. Because at that time I was into promoting stocks, had already promoted another company with great success, and once word gets out my company is going to promote stocks, a lot of people buy them because they know my experience with promotions means they are going to be effective. And if I was to buy stocks, I need to buy low so profits are maximized. In actual fact, Rentech was only one of many companies I promoted, but I only had legal trouble with one of them (Rentech).

So, if the statement retrieved from my computer was legitimate, it would accurately reflect what I believed to be true prior to sending the emails. And that would be I didn't know whether or not for sure "sending spam to promote stocks" was illegal. This was nothing about the accuracy of the e-mail's content. As for all I know there could have been other circumstances involved in the other guys case. In actual fact, there is no such law that states "you can't send spam to promote stocks". And if I believed I was doing anything wrong, then this was it (plus potentially touting stocks). But really there was no such law, and I was not charged for anything but "recklessly disseminating false/misleading information", and "abusing a telecommunications device to send spam". The primary charge against me was sending false/misleading information, but as already stated I did not believe my information to be false when sending it. It is important to understand I was barely out of my teen years when all this happened, and although I had done very well in business for myself, I was still very new to the stock market.

The only reason the prosecution raised the issue of this statement was because I instructed my lawyer to give the judge a written document fully explaining the content of the spam emails, and why I believed my content to be accurate. But instead my lawyer refused saying it's better to keep it simple, and amended my instructions without my consent simply stating to the judge that his client maintains he didn't do anything wrong and that I didn't believe I was doing anything illegal. The prosecution simply retaliated. But that was not my instruction to my lawyer - and I could so easily sue him for this misrepresentation. When the prosecution heard this they raised the issue of the statement in question which completely distorted the judge's view of me. Understand I thought I might have been doing something illegal, which I know was stupid, but what I thought may have been illegal was actually not illegal at all! It was the inaccurate information that really made it illegal, but I didn't know this at the time. I was of the view that if I'm telling the truth, why should it be illegal?... so I did it anyway which was a mistake. I was too young and naive and therefore willing to break laws I didn't agree with. After all, isn't free-speech our right as long as we don't mislead or harm others? This is how I saw it.

And because I was unsure of whether or not what I was doing was illegal, I did not include my name in emails because I own promotional companies and didn't want to be known for spamming. I didn't include my name in my email for these reasons, but no other attempts to hide my identity were used. I even used my residential phone lines and purchased ISP access kits with my bank cards. I may have been young and stupid, but I was not that stupid. If I truly thought and knew I was doing something illegal that would warrant jail rather than potentially being sued, I would have SPAMMED from a laptop with acoustic modem on a public phone. This is all the truth. Understand I was still young and cocky. I was very successful especially for my age when the promotion was done, although I was too young to realize and understand the impact of what I planned to do.
Q. One of your competitors has asked "Why if you have working gambling systems and computers did you commit acts of fraud?

This question has been asked by a competitor, Mark Howe, who asked it as a rhetorical question. It shows his ignorance, although I have no problems answering the question. As a promoter and owner of www.leadwhiz.com and www.site-promotion.com I have done many promotions -- this is my primary source of income and I have been operating my company (Site Promotions PTY LTD) for longer than most Internet companies have existed. The answer is I never intended to disseminate inaccurate information.

Q. One of your competitors claim you live at home, so it is unlikely I have a working roulette computer or system. Is this true?

Nope, I'm a big boy now and live with my wife and two children. This rumor has been spread by Mark Howe (competitor). Mark is a deceptive and manipulative liar and has twisted truth to deceive people and serve his own interests - he has been trying to harm me ever since I exposed his roulette computer as a fraud (as many others have). Basically he found my court transcript which says I lived home with my parents. That was true at the time because after the ASIC investigation begun, my funds were frozen and my solicitors suggested I suspend my online company (www.site-promotion.com) until the investigation was over. So my assets and funds were frozen, and I had no ongoing income from my company while I suspended it so I lived with my parents. And keep in mind I was about 21 years old when all this happened. Also keep in mind as my site states, my wealth was not created with my roulette system or computers - my wealth was created by my online companies but this does not at all mean my systems and computers are not effective. Mark knows I never claimed to have earned my wealth playing roulette, but he twists any point he can to harm me. If I wanted to defraud people with a losing roulette system, I would claim I made my millions from playing roulette. The truth is I am wealthy but as my site states, I was wealthy before I developed effective systems and computers so never needed to use them. If you are every in doubt, visit me for a personal demonstration.

More about Mark Howe and his antics are at www.genuinewinner.com/markhowe.htm

 

Now for more things the newspapers DON'T tell you . . . After my sentence, I had a hearing with the judge regarding the Pecuniary Penalty Order (PPO). The PPO was basically a hearing to arrange paying back the "ill-gotten profits". During this hearing, I told the judge exactly what happened, as I've explained it here. He told me it should have been brought up in court, although I responded by telling him my solicitor misrepresented me and my funds were frozen so at the time I couldn't even afford to pay him. He said I could have easily appealed the sentence, but that wouldn't have changed the fact that my funds were still frozen in Llords bank. Furthermore, prior to compiling the SPAM email's content, I contacted Rentech's representative - Mark Koenig. I verified the 3 simple facts from which I compiled the information. This was further supported by Rentech's CEO's statement to the SEC. In simpler terms, I had verified the information with Rentech to ensure accuracy of my email. But all this did was verify the 3 facts. As I assumed all 3 were connected, they led to incorrect statements. The correspondence with Koenig were conveniently only partially retrieved. But there was ample evidence to support my claims that I did do my due diligence to ensure accuracy of my e-mail's statement, and that dissemination of the information was certainly not false, are potentially not even reckless - my statements were made based on fact, and it was reasonable for my to assume the 3 facts were connected. The judge couldn't do anything as the opportunity had come and gone, and after the judge said it was irrelevant now, I was quick to respond stating "I know, but this is a place of justice". It didn't change the past, but relieved me to finally have the full story heard in court.

I'm really done with all this, but if you want to question my credibility before buying my products, then don't bother. You either read this page and believe it, or disbelieve it. I truly do not care either way.

IF YOU ARE TRULY SERIOUS ABOUT MY ROULETTE SYSTEMS OR COMPUTERS, THEN VISIT ME FOR A PERSONAL DEMONSTRATION.

PS - If you've really done your research, you may have also found several years ago I put my company up for sale (Site Promotions PTY LTD) for US$1.1M. This was because it drained too much of my time and I needed to scale-down my business interest. However, this issue was remedied by having custom automated software created that now does most of the work for me, so I've kept site-promotion.com. Presently I run numerous companies, most of which are online.

 

NOTE 1: My barrister was Andrew Tierney. He is now a federal prosecutor. I believe he deliberately misrep resented me in order to gain favor with government authorities, to pave the way for his promotion to become a federal prosecutor. After all, would he win favor with the prosecutor selection board if he defended me and refused to cooperate with the federal prosecution? Or would it be much better for him to just play along with the government at my expense, so the government could successfully prosecute someone for the first case of its kind in the world? Yes, the first of its kind - so they wanted to set precedence. I believe this is why he refused to present information that was critical to my case - specifically:

   
  1. That there WERE INDEED PENDING PATENTS: This was so critical to note, and even the judge specifically asked the prosecution IF there were any pending patents. He asked this because if there WERE, then there would be potential that I simply misunderstood the patents, which is exactly the case. In the court transcripts, the judge asked if there were pending patents, to which the prosecutor responded "no, your honor". When I heard this, I sat up in my chair and literally waved to my solicitors to call them over, and they completely ignored me. In the brief of evidence, even the directors of Rentech clearly stated there were pending patents! Later my solicitors and I had a huge argument about this point, and I explained very clearly I want them to correct the prosecutor so the judge knows there most certainly were pending patents! My solicitors flatly refused, claiming arguing this point would only make me look less remorseful, which would worsen my sentence. My solicitors gave me the option of getting different representation if I wanted to correct the prosecution. But as I explained earlier, the government had seized my funds and my corporation had ceased business until the case was over, so it was not possible to hire different solicitors. I believe I was clearly railroaded by a dishonest barrister, Andrew Tierney. The government was also aware the clamping of my funds (even though they had NOTHING to do with the case) reduced my ability to defend myself.

2. A full written report I had prepared which gave precise details of why I wrote what I did in the email which promoted the stock: My solicitors flatly refused to give this to the judge, claiming it wouldn't be in my best interests because it would make me look "less remorseful", and that I had to obtain different solicitors if I wanted the judge to receive my report. I believe it was clear case of misrepresentation of my barrister Andrew Tierney, who merely wanted to agree to the government's case without reservations, in order to obtain his promotion to federal prosecutor. If the judge had received my report, he would have kn ow EXACTLY why I wrote what I did in the email - including that there were indeed pending patents, and that instead of completely fabricating information about non-existing pending patents, I merely misinterpreted a Rentech press release about pending patents that even the directors confirmed existed.

 

NOTE 2: This case was the first case of its kind in the world, so it attracted significant media attention, but mostly on the internet as they wanted to stop spam. Due to the laws at the time, I could have easily taken the issue to Australia's high court, and have the case thrown out completely. There is many reasons for this, but it was specifically because of contradictions between constitutional and corporate law. But to take matters to the high court, you need a QC which is a very expensive barrister. Generally you need about $100,000, which I had. The government knew this could happen, which is why they clamped my funds - even though they they had absolutely nothing to do with the Rentech case.