The words of Jan Barham former Greens Mayor of Byron Shire Council
From pages 5 and 6 of the transcript of the trial in matter No.202204771 (Crown versus Anderson)..;
BARHAM: I think the point of my presence is that I have a long history of knowIng MrAnderson and what he just related to was the fact that we had worked closely together and the point being that I’m someone that’s openly commented previously, I don’t find him threatening or violent or intimidating….In my – in my opinion I have not found him – I’ve found him incredibly annoying but I don’t find him threatening, violent or malicious.
First a bit of history…
“Happy Campers”, my last Pink Pamphlet, came out in December 2020, it was designed to explain satirically how the Greens were led up the garden path by Byron Council’s corrupt senior staff.
At that time Mayor Simon Richardson was duchessed into thinking that the staff were good people who could be trusted, leaving Simon free to strut around as though he were a rock star.
Note that councillor N’Dyaiye was not important enough to even rate a mention by name. However not long afterwards she purported in court that as deputy Mayor she was in charge of Greens policy and she alleged that I had harassed her because I disagreed with those policies – which were supposedly her responsibility.
In reality the Greens didn’t have any policies. More importantly, I never once harassed Sarah in any way; she was simply irrelevant to the political process, and I ignored her.
Clearly the claims she made in court were not designed merely to discredit me but to build up her own supposed importance, specially among women. She is a pathological liar, at best a mentally ill person with a delusional sense of entitlement.
Relevantly I now quote former Greens Mayor Jan Barham as per the transcript of the hearing;
Happy Campers – How The Byron Greens Were Led Astray- December 2020
The liar from hell is named Sarah
Sarah Ndiaye is not the first woman Ive encounter who is a compulsive liar. Years ago I married such a person but she was an amateur compared to Sarah.
Sarahs lies were designed to destroy me politically to assonate my character and to destroy my legacy of 40 years of council commentary.
Her lies were not personally motivated; I was just an obstacle to her driving ambition to be Mayor. Just like Simon Richardson before her she quickly allied herself with corrupt staff who were and still are stealing millions of dollars of rate payers funds. Council staff always need patsies like her and Micheal Lyon to project. Democratic front that amounts to a smokescreen. These staff and their lawyers have prepared not only Sarah and Michaels election tactics but every press release they issued over the pas two years. Now that Michael Lyon, their favourite bumboy, is a lame duck those very staff must be nervous about Sarah becoming Mayor; she’s too obviously unintelligent and unstable. Meanwhile her main competitor now Asren Pugh is too honest and is unlikely to bend to the staff will.
A challenge to Sarah…
Most people are aware that what a politician says in parliament is ‘privileged’ i.e they can’t be sued for deformation over what they say. Sometimes however you hear of an accused person challenging a parliamentarian to repeat their allegations publicly so that the accused can then sue the arse off them.
A person making a complaint to the Police is similarly in a privileged position I.e there is no limit to what they may allege that be necessary to protect themselves and obtain justice. However I as the accused also have the right to challenge Sarah to repeat any of her allegations in a public place were there are witnesses. In particular I challenge here to repeat that I deliberately blocked her exit from IGA in Mullumbimby, that I made hissing noises at her as she entered the council chambers – something she said I did several times – and that I called her a ‘fat slug’. These allegations constitute about 10% of her lies. It’s worth pointing out that in court she did not produce a single witness to any of these supposedly intimidatory statements. That’s because it’s difficult enough to get someone to testify to something that they did witness without trying to get them to testify to events which did not occur. Note that neither did Sarah provide a date for any of the supposed statements, nor did she produce a diary recording these supposed traumatic events.
Leave a Reply