Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media is part of t...



In late 2008 we became vi...

Banking In Australia Today

Banking In Australia Today

Visit Banking in Austra...

Donate Please

Donate Please

We need your support. ...

Prev Next

Members Login

Get Connected!

  • Connect and expand your network
  • View profiles and add new friends
  • Share your photos and videos
  • Create your own group or join others


No Groups added.


No public photos available.


No public videos available.

Recent activities

  • Westpac's pedo and terror law scandal could breach US Sanctions too. Do you think McGarvie's legal services board led by APRA's executives knew? Yes, say victims: Claire Marshall's file notes at the SEC say she knew about US Treasury's Elliot Ness anti Al Capone Unit , OFAC.

  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Shirley Joseph's Mokbel Jordanou Files' in the forum.
    GW Bush's friends relatives in Victoria Australia weren't happy with the Legal Services Board's Shirley Joseph handling of the William Jordanou case or the Commonwealth Bank's delays with compensation. Is it true they got compensated after the FBI and Nevada Gaming Commission were asked to look into it?

    Bikies, petrol bombs and the disputed $73 million land deal
    By Cameron Houston and Chris Vedelago
    November 3, 2019 — 4.45pm

    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Send via Email

    Today's top stories
    Builders call for cladding amnesty as danger list grows
    Cladding crisis
    Builders call for cladding amnesty as danger list grows
    'Horrendous and savage': British man jailed for murder of Australian fiancee
    'Horrendous and savage': British man jailed for murder of Australian fiancee
    Is the deregulation of the taxi industry behind Melbourne's traffic gridlock?
    Is the deregulation of the taxi industry behind Melbourne's traffic gridlock?
    Labor figures took donations from a man who'd been front-page news. Had they never heard of Google?
    Labor figures took donations from a man who'd been front-page news. Had they never heard of Google?

    The past two years have been eventful for property developer Nick Bochrinis after he purchased a prime development site in Melbourne's west for $73 million in November 2017.

    The Alphington home of Mr Bochrinis was fire-bombed last year, which destroyed his Mercedes C63 AMG and was investigated by Victoria Police's anti-bikie Echo taskforce.
    Bill Jordanou (left), Nick Bochrinis and the Mercedes that was torched at Mr Bochrinis' Alphington home.

    Bill Jordanou (left), Nick Bochrinis and the Mercedes that was torched at Mr Bochrinis' Alphington home.

    And the 42-year-old developer and money-lender was recently refused bail after being charged by police with extortion, aggravated burglary and assault charges.

    Now on remand, Mr Bochrinis must mount a legal battle from behind bars for control of the 60-hectare site in Mount Cottrell, while also defending serious criminal charges.

    The high-stakes dispute also involves a notorious silent partner - former professional poker player and convicted conman Bill Jordanou, who was sentenced to a 12-year prison sentence last year over his role in a $76 million fraud.

    Mr Bochrinis bought the land with a downpayment of just $100,000 from long-term owner John Portelli. His company Champion Investment Group placed two caveats on the title in 2017 after agreeing to settle the multimillion-dollar deal in several instalments over almost five years.

    The fate of the prime land, near Tarneit, has remained in limbo for almost two years but its value has soared since new A-League franchise Western United announced plans to build its stadium nearby.

    Several sources familiar with the deal said Mr Bochrinis had worked closely with Jordanou during negotiations on the property.

    The pair had agreed the property would be onsold or "flipped", with Jordanou's share of the proceeds to be paid to a relative.

    At the time of the deal, Jordanou was on bail but would eventually plead guilty in June 2018 to using fraudulent loan documents in the name of clients to obtain funding for property developments.

    However, their plan fell over when Mr Bochrinis failed to make the first payment of $7.2 million by June 2019 and was served with a notice of rescission, according to a sworn affidavit by Mr Portelli filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

    By then, Mr Portelli had already done a "side deal" to sell the land to rival developers Mark Casey and Mario Salvo, who also agreed to pay $73 million on the same terms.

    Mr Casey and Mr Salvo formed a company called 1228 Leakes Road Land Pty Limited and paid a $7.3 million deposit to a trust account on May 17, which can be accessed by Mr Portelli only once the caveats are removed by Mr Bochrinis.

    But Mr Bochrinis claims in an affidavit that his company had not been provided with the contract and vendor's statement on May 17. He said he would have made "immediate arrangements to organise payment of the deposit and to execute those documents".
    Former professional poker player Bill Jordanou leaves court in 2014.

    Former professional poker player Bill Jordanou leaves court in 2014.Credit:Joe Armao

    He claims in an affidavit that he could have stumped up the $7.2 million within 14 days after entering into an agreement with another company called Pramana Capital Pty Ltd owned by lawyer James Podaridis.

    Mr Bochrinis' company refuses to remove the two caveats on the property, leaving the future of the site at an impasse.

    The dispute has been further complicated by Mr Bochrinis' arrest on serious criminal charges.

    Court records show Mr Bochrinis and a former member of the Mongols outlaw motorcycle gang were both charged with aggravated burglary, extortion, and intentionally causing serious injury. Mr Bochrinis is also charged with committing an offence while already on bail.

    The fire-bombing of his Fulham Road property last year is unrelated to the legal dispute over the Mount Cottrell land, but has been linked to members of the Comanchero bikie gang.

    His Mercedes, worth more than $150,000, was destroyed by a petrol bomb, while three bricks were also hurled through the front window of his property on February 11.

    Mr Bochrinis has also run afoul of Horty Mokbel – brother of jailed drug kingpin Tony Mokbel – after a luxury car he provided a finance guarantee over for Mokbel was repossessed, embarrassing the noted underworld figure.

    Russell Kennedy lawyer Leonard Warren declined to answer questions on behalf of Mr Bochrinis.

    "We have acted for Champion Investment Group Pty Ltd in Supreme Court proceedings. We have never acted for Mr Bochrinis," Mr Warren said.

    Mr Portelli's lawyer Peter Darrer declined to comment while the matter was before court.

    Mr Salvo also declined to comment.

    Correction: an earlier version of this story incorrectly used an image of land at 1135 Leakes Road, Mount Cottrell.

    1 week ago
  • Hetty Johnson: AFP reports that 50% of children in child exploitation material they find are in fact Australian. This does not just happen to little kids in other countries. It is happening across Australia. Please be vigilant with your children to online predators.…/…/2c2f20f0d94e4a9dc884b0ca11fd1869

    1 week ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Matt Norman supporter says:' in the forum.
    "One System of Laws for Us, Same Set of Laws for the Lawyers." (site managed by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
    Skip to content

    The People are Speaking
    Victim Impact Register

    The People are Speaking

    … ☞☞☞ … Lawyerocracy On Trial: PM Gillard, AG Roxon, MHR Turnbull, 9 MPs, 16 Judges, 10 Govt Agency Heads &more Summoned for @21May12 Hearings #auspol … ☞☞☞ …

    I am encouraged and enheartened by the positive messages of encouragement and support I have received from victims and survivors of Australia’s genocidal family courts, our ruling lawyerocracy and debtocracy, over the past 24 hours.

    Over 100 members of the public and media turned up at short notice to the start of the hearings on Monday 21 May 2012. Their responses, and the responses from several public meetings held so far (with more than 100 people at every meeting) and via my radio interviews to date have been overwhelming. There is every reason to expect many more than a 100 members of the public (and many more in the press gallery) when the hearings resume at 10 am on 6 July 2012.

    More importantly, a better informed public is now gathering momentum to lobby State and Federal Government to “turn back the clock” to 2004, to reintroduce ethical and legal standards of conduct for the legal profession, to clean up the mess that a frightfully conniving pair of Victorian publicly-funded, lawyer-dominated government agencies created when they contrived to have the High Court of Australia affirm the absence of legal standards of care for (7,000) Australian barristers and to abolish legal standards of care for (77,000) Australian solicitors – making Australian the only country since 2000 to retain such “special lawyers” for barristers, and the only country ever, and only since 2004, to create the same “special laws” for solicitors.

    I am endeavouring to respond personally to everyone who writes to me to offer good wishes and support.

    And, while I cannot hope to reproduce every goodwill message here on this blog, I shall from time to time over the next fortnight be publishing some of the more encouraging and remarkable survival stories that people are kind enough to share with me.

    Every one who endures, every one who survives the horrific genocidal practices of our unconstitional, killer family law courts, and every one who survives the aboriginating greed and abuse of our debtocracy laws, every one of you is a hero in my books, every one who survives being arrested for “tresspassing” in a “public space” [the modern reincarnation of the 1200s and 1800s enclosure laws ?], every one of you is a hero, a Gandhi and a Martin Luther King, a List full of Schindlers, no matter how bad the scars you carry from the maulings unjustly and unlawfully inflicted on you.

    The following is just one message I have received over the past 24 hours. With my next blog post, I will post a copy of my thank you letter in reply to “Strawman”, along with a few of the other amazing messages of encouragement:

    James Johnson, Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

    STRAWMAN (6:14 PM (17 hours ago)
    James Johnson – a Lawyer/Barrister is putting Lawyerrocracy on trial… .. All Melbournians – put it in your diary 21st May at 10am @ 55 King St Melbourne… Not To Be Missed

    Hi James,

    I am a friend of Matt Norman’s & we too are fighting to hang onto our home through the illegal practices of the banks. There are so many of us now in this situation.

    We had our 5 hour appeal in December last year in Supreme Court Melbourne – when not one shred of our evidence was looked at, the banks did not provide one single document that was subpoenaed and we were ambushed and railroaded by corrupt lawyers & judges beyond anything most people can even imagine.

    We are now in the process of the banks trying to evict us….. it is not fun at all.

    Do you take on any new cases?

    If so, I would love to talk to you as I have a few ideas on how to save our home and would love to set a precedent in this country as there has not been one single win for a defendant fighting “foreclosure” in Australia, yet other countries have stopped the process very successfully.

    Our problem has always been trying to find an ethical lawyer to help us who would not sell us out – and up until now – I thought that they did not exist…..

    We started a class action last year – only to have the lawyer run off with all the $$ & only ever represent one person (of the 100 in the action) and was obviously told by the powers-to-be to stop the action & disappear – which he did. Most of us are exhausted, almost bankrupt & scathing of the legal profession and judicial system. It would be so nice to have our faith restored in finding a lawyer who gives a damn & prepared to go the hard yards to expose the truth.

    2 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Natalie Mouat Ombudsman and Pedophiles' in the forum.
    Complainants to US law enforcement aren't happy Ms Natalie Mouat - your website says you're investigating WorkSafe's IMEs and "Assoct Prof Dr Peter Doherty" is one of them (and is not to be confused with the Nobel Prize winning Professor Dr Doherty.).

    From: "Ombudvic (VO)" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
    Subject: Your complaint about Professor Peter Doherty - File No: C/19/21224
    Date: November 21, 2019 at 8:14:24 PM HST
    To: "Email:" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

    22 November 2019

    File No: C/19/21224

    Dr Eugene Warner
    Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    Dear Dr. Eugene Warner

    Your complaint about Professor Peter Doherty

    Thank you for your online complaint dated about Worksafe accredited Independent Medical Examiner Professor Doherty.

    While this office can consider complaints about most Victorian government authorities, we cannot deal with complaints about private individuals.

    You may wish to contact the The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) at:

    Telephone: +61 3 9275 9009

    For further information about the Ombudsman, visit our website at

    I hope this information helps you. If you have any questions, contact us on +61 3 9613 6222 or via reply email.

    Yours sincerely

    Natalie Mouat

    Investigation Officer


    Level 2, 570 Bourke Street
    Phone: +61 3 9613 6222 | Regional Callers (excl. mob.): 1800 806 314
    Fax: +61 3 9602 4761 | DX: 210174 Melbourne

    2 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' REMIC Case Beverley v Bank New York Mellon' in the forum.

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITPATRICIA BEVERLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, FKA The Bank of New York, a New York corporation, as Trustee for the Certificate-holders of the The CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-16; DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, FKA Green Tree Servicing; DOES, 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.No.17-55557D.C. No. 8:16-cv-01928-DOC-KESMEMORANDUM*Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Central District of CaliforniaDavid O. Carter, District Judge, PresidingSubmitted October 10, 2018**Pasadena, CaliforniaBefore: HURWITZ and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and PRESNELL,***District Judge.*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).***The Honorable Gregory A. Presnell, United States District Judge for FILEDOCT 17 2018MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERKU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    2Patricia Beverly bought a house in 2005, executing a promissory note (the “Note”) andadeed of trust (the “Deed of Trust”) secured by the property. Her complaintalleges thatin 2011the Note and Deed of Trust were purportedly transferredto Defendant Bank of New York Mellon (“BONY”) as trustee for a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”) trust.In 2014, she further alleges, BONYpurportedto substitute MTC Financial, Inc.,d/b/a Trustee Corps (“Trustee Corps”),for itself as trustee under the Deed of Trust. After Beverlydefaulted,BONY instructed Trustee Corpsto initiate foreclosure proceedings, whichresulted in the November 2015 sale of her house(to BONY) at public auction.A REMIC trust is defined in the Internal Revenue Code asan entity“substantially all of the assets of which consist of qualified mortgages and permitted investments.” 26 U.S.C. §860D(a)(4). The Code defines “qualified mortgage” as any obligation principally secured by an interest in real property and which is transferred to or purchased by the REMIC trust within certain specified time frames. 26 U.S.C. § 860G(a)(3). In 2016, Beverly filed a putativeclass action, arguing that the 2011 transfer failed because it occurred years too late for the Deed of Trust to meet the requirements to be a“qualified mortgage,” and therefore its transfer into the the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    3REMIC trust was precluded both by the terms of that trust’s Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) and by the Internal Revenue Code. Because the transfer failed, her argument continues, BONY never hadauthority to initiate the foreclosure proceedings.In the alternative, she argues that the foreclosure was improper because of various problems with foreclosure-related documents, such as notary signatures and notices of default that (wrongly, in her view) showed BONY as the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. She asserted one claim for wrongful foreclosure and anotherforviolation of California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights, Cal.Civ.Code §§2920-2924(the “HBOR”).1BONY and its co-defendant, Ditech Financial LLC, f/k/a Green Tree Servicing (“Ditech”),filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, arguing that Beverly’s claims were barred by res judicatabased on an earlier unlawful detainer actionand that she lacked standing to challenge the 2011 transfer to BONY. The district court rejected theres judicata argumentbutfoundthat Beverly lacked standingand therefore dismissedher claims with prejudice. Beverly timely appealed.We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review a dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) de novo. We affirm.1Beverly also asserted claims under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal.Civ.Code §§1788-1788.32, and California’s unfair competition statute,Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200-17210,but she does not challenge the dismissal of these claims on appeal.
    4After the foreclosure but before the filing of this action, BONY filed an unlawful detainer action against Beverly. She stipulated to an entry of judgment in favor of BONY on October 26, 2016. The districtcourtfound thatres judicatadid not apply becausethe issues resolved in the unlawful detainer action did not encompass Beverly’s failed-transfer theory.SeeVella v. Hudgins, 572 P.2d 28, 30(Cal. 1977) (noting that unlawful detainer action “is summary in character,” that “ordinarily, only claims bearing directly upon the right of immediate possession are cognizable,” and that,as a result, “judgment in unlawful detainer usually has very limited res judicataeffect”). As an additional ground for affirmance on appeal, the Defendants argue that res judicatashould have applied. However,they have made no showing that the failed-transfer issue wasactually addressedin the unlawful detainer action. See Vella, 572 P.2d at 31(finding exception to general rule of limited res judicata effect where essential issues of later action were “fully and fairly disposed of” in the unlawful detainer action). We find no errorinthe district court’s resolution of the res judicata issue.The district court did not err in finding that Beverly lacked standing to pursue her wrongful foreclosure claim. In Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 365 P.3d 845, 859(Cal. 2016),a wrongful foreclosure case,the California Supreme Court held that where a home loan borrower is not party to a transaction (such as the transfer of a deed of trust), she has standing to challenge itonly where
    5the transaction at issuewas void, rather than merelyvoidable. Relying on Yvanova, the district courtfound that Beverly lacked standing because her allegation that the transfer occurred too late to satisfy both the requirements of the PSAandthe Internal Revenue Code’s definition of a “qualified mortgage” would resultat mostin a transaction that was voidable, rather than void.See, e.g., Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’lTrust Co., 757 F.3d 79, 88-89(2d Cir. 2014) (holding that under New York law only the intended beneficiaries of a private trust may enforce its terms and that unauthorized actsby trusteesare generally subject to ratification by its beneficiaries, making them voidable rather than void).2On appeal, Beverly has not citedany case law suggesting that the district court misconstrued NewYork law. Neither has Beverly, as the district court pointed out, cited any case law showingthat, as a matter of law, only qualified mortgages may be transferred into a REMIC trust (thereby makingsuch an attempted transfervoid rather than voidable).3See alsoMendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 12-14(Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (holding that late transfer of loan to REMIC trust, which might jeopardize trust’s favorable tax treatment, was voidable rather than void).2ThePSA for the REMIC trust here was governed by New York law. 3As noted,the statutory definition of a REMIC trust only requires that it “substantially” consistof qualified mortgages and permitted investments. 26U.S.C. §860D(a)(4).
    6The district courtalso found that Beverly lacked standing to challenge the foreclosure based on the alleged forgery of the notary signature on the 2014 document substituting Trustee Corps as trustee on the Deed of Trust, as that also would result, at most, in a voidable transaction. Beverly offers nothing to challenge this conclusion on appeal.4The plaintiff in Yvanova did not assert any claims under the HBOR. Nonetheless, after finding that Beverly lacked standing under Yvanovato assert a wrongful foreclosure claim, the district court dismissed her HBOR claim as well.The HBOR does not itself provide a private right of action for homeowners to challenge wrongful foreclosures or failed assignments of their deeds of trust. However, §2924.12(b) of the HBOR provides that, after a trustee’s deed upon sale has been recorded, a mortgage servicer or trustee (among others) shall be liable to a borrower for actual economic damages resulting from a violation of enumeratedprovisions of the HBOR. Among those provisionsare§2924.17(a), which requires thatforeclosure-relateddocuments such as notices of sale “shall be accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence,” and §2924.17(b), which obligates mortgage servicers such as Ditech toreview 4Beverly alleged a third basis for the failure of the 2011 transfer –that the previous beneficiary lackedthe authority to transfer beneficial interest in the Note and the Deed of Trust to BONY. This argument wasrejected by the district court, andBeverly does not challenge that decision on appeal.
    7“competent and reliable evidence to substantiate ... the right to foreclose.” Beverly’s complaintalleged that the notices of default and notices of sale recorded in connection with her foreclosure were not “accurate, complete, or supported by competent and reliable evidence” because they identified BONY as the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. Beverly based this allegation on her contentionthat,because the Deed of Trust was not a “qualified mortgage,” it could not have been transferred into theREMICtrust, meaning that BONY could not have gained a beneficial interest in it. Based on this same reasoning, Beverly alleged that Ditech failed to review competent and reliable evidence to substantiate BONY’s right to initiate a foreclosure. The district court did not specify the basis for its dismissal of Beverly’s HBOR claim. But as the preceding discussion makes clear, the gist of Beverly’s HBOR claimis that the Deed of Trust and Note were not transferredinto the REMIC trust. She cannot raise theseallegedproblems with the foreclosure procedure –or, more precisely, she cannot establish that they caused her to suffer economic damages –without first challenging the 2011 transfer of the Deed of Trust and Note. Based on the reasoning of Yvanova, her lack of standing to attack the transfer in connection with a wrongful foreclosure claim is also fatal to her ability to attack that transfer in connection with an HBOR claim. As such, the district court did not err in dismissing theHBOR claim.

    2 weeks ago
  • How can a bank and its lawyers refuse a cheque from the accountant for American homebuyers for the full payout figure as agreed at the bank mediation?

    How can Judges with shares in the bank tell the barrister over and over that he "abandoned" a legal ground

    Why was the legal services board 'spying' on self represented litigants who were seeing reporters?

    Why were the FBI investigating transfers from the Clinton's expert in IT Eric Pulier to the NZ account of the Commonwealth Bank's Mr Jon Waldron, and how did the legal services board know about the Clinton expert before 7News said the arrests were a sting?

    Can the bank legal team run a case where they were witnesses?

    Dear Judicial Commission
    C\- Richard Besley

    Please find attached the transcript excerpts in which Paul Hayes refers to in his submissions, and the specific judgment excerpt of Justice Whelan and Justice Santamaria where they at some point heard Mr Hayes ‘expressly abandoning’ the core ground to our case.

    Now, if these Judges potentially heard things that weren’t there, and therefore this void and severable ground wasn’t abandoned, thus litigated as it ought to have been, then what would have been the result?

    Well, Justice Whelan actually zoomed straight to this pertinent question/matter at the commencement of the hearing (see exhibit AP16 attached). Stating that – Clearly the payment was made to NAB (on 20 March 2013) so therefore this case is simply about whether the NAB deed was available at that time when the payment was made.

    Now, see attached NAB’s counsel, Mr Segal’s opening statement to the court in trial – exhibit EDS3, which was filed to Justice Whelan and Justice Santamaria.

    So where NAB state in court that their deed was available, but no payment was made, and then it was determined by Justice Whelan and Justice Santamaria that payment was in fact made, then what do you think the result would be if the void and severable ground wasn’t ‘expressly abandoned’ and that Justice Whelan and Justice Santamaria actually considered the ground and evidence as they should have?

    Simply, the void and severable ground was to merely prove that a condition NAB had imposed in their deed that we had to show them that we can pay them the $299,000 by 25 February 2013, which we did do, was in any event null and void, thus severable.

    The deed was available on 20 March 2013 when payment was made as the parties (NAB and us) affirm, therefore this clause obviously is rendered void and severable.

    So, to simplify –

    The court has determined that the $299,000 payment was made to NAB on 20 March 2013, despite that NAB had submitted under oath it never happened.
    Both NAB and us confirm that the deed was available when the payment was made.

    So, what would the result be if the judges actually didn’t mishear, misunderstand, miscomprehend or just miss Mr Hayes’s expressly expressed expressions?

    Or could there have been some distraction around Justice Whelan stating that he had approx. $80,000 in NAB shares, thus interactions between the legal participants were not being received with the utmost of attention, i.e. minds were clouded and switched into self-preservation and defending ones’ position mode?

    Wouldn’t it be that we save our house and livelihoods?

    Wouldn’t it be that NAB pay us loss and damages for all of this?

    Wouldn’t it be that NAB faces criminal charges for knowingly lying (submitting false evidence) to our courts by stating they never received payment?

    Hence the controversary of the finding that Mr Hayes ‘expressly abandoned’ pivotal ground.

    Therefore because of the misconduct of the judges not thoroughly and diligently paying attention, or perceiving things that didn’t get expressed (which Mr Hayes states the transcripts clearly prove) then it is the judiciary that is responsible for our damages suffered, aren’t they?

    Wouldn’t a fair-minded layman find that justice in this situation wasn’t done or seen to be done, and this conduct and/or behaviour falls well below community standards?

    We look forward to the Judicial Commission’s responses/findings and an outline of the next stages of this investigation.



    4 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Tess Lawrence Matt Norman' in the forum.

    Two incidents in the Victorian Court of Appeal yesterday have raised grave concerns about the independence and integrity of the Victorian court system. Contributing editor-at-large Tess Lawrence reports.


    The sooner that Court sessions are televised, the better — for the protection of we, the people.

    Two extraordinary events took place inside Practice Court No 10 of the Victorian (Supreme) Court of Appeal yesterday that reflected the insidious power and influence of the National Australia Bank over Court staff, and what can only be described as outrageous defamatory imputations and questions put to self-representing litigant Matt Norman by his Honour Judge Judd.

    Both events were shameless and shameful examples of the bullying and intimidation the Courts repeatedly direct towards self-represented litigants. There is little doubt that neither incident would have taken place had Mr Norman been a lawyer.

    One does not need to have a law degree to know that what happened to Matt Norman and his co-defendant and wife had nothing to do with Justice, but everything to do with perverting the course of Justice by threatening and thereby destabilising the Normans in their appeal pleadings.
    [Read why Matt Norman was in court by clicking here.]

    Matt described what happened in his own words on his website yesterday afternoon.The following is an excerpt:

    “The Lawyers acting for NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK, Mr Kevin Pringle of GADENS LAWYERS in Sydney sent a burly thug to threaten Matt and Wife Rebecca before his Honour Judge Judd entered the Supreme Court today. What made this so much more of a mistake was he did it in front of a PACKED court Audience who were all there watching proceedings. I should mention that all those who came to my appeal party were absolutely no threat to the court and who remained professional throughout the hearing.
    Kevin Pringle sent this message through the Supreme Courts head of security Mr Graeme Spurr:
    GRAEME SPURR – I am an associate of Kevin Pringle (to my wife Rebecca) I have had recent discussions with Kevin Pringle this morning and wanted to deliver my business card to inform you that I am here at his request.
    MATT – Is Kevin Pringle here
    GRAEME SPURR – No, he’s in Sydney. He asked that I pass on this message to you.
    At this time GRAEME SPURR (Manager Facilities, Security and Contracts) Supreme Court of Victoria threw down his card on the table in front of me and one to my wife.
    GRAEME SPURR – I want you to take a very hard look at this card….
    Using his Pen, he leaned over my wife and I (I was sitting at the Bench going through the case and my wife was next to me) and said:
    GRAEME SPURR – Look very carefully and closely here…. (Underlining the word SECURITY on his business card)

    The card, with “Security” clearly underlined, that a court officer used to send a message to Matt Norman, apparently from the NAB, Matt’s opponents in the case.
    MATT – Fuck off idiot, are you serious?!
    GRAEME SPURR – You’ve been warned!
    As soon as Judge Judd came into the court and proceedings started I stood up and told the Court what had just happened. Spurr just sat there looking like an idiot. Nothing was done about it. I should say this gorilla did this right in front of “The Age Newspaper reporter Chris Vedeiago” and a packed court both on ground level and in the top wings. I consider this a direct threat from National Australia Bank personally.
    Then came incident two
    The Honourable Judge Judd then said …

    Read the full story, with full links on Independent Australia, HERE


    Prominent Australian actor and international award winning filmmaker Matt Norman tells the story of his battle to save the family home from the clutches of the National Australia Bank.

    I was recently invited to write my story exclusively for Independent Australia, which to me was a great honour. The first thing I could have done was tell you my story by starting with rage, ending in threats and on the way losing the attention of readers by sounding like someone who is desperate. Instead, I will write something that is truthful, factual and as a clear celebration of my own Independent Australian voice.

    I think it best I start at the beginning.

    My name is Matt Norman. I am a proud international award winning filmmaker. My last film SALUTE, a full feature documentary about my Uncle Peter Norman, was number one at the Australian box office for an Aussie doco feature in 2008 and, finally, after nearly 4 years, will be released around the world before the London Olympics.

    My story started like most who are dealing with any type of commitment to the arts. I made a film from nothing, got federal and state government funding to the tune of $2 million to finish the film, got ripped off blind by the system and then, when the financial bubble hit after the U.S financial meltdown, I literally got taken out in one very overwhelming blow. That has been difficult, but worse was to come.

    During this horrible time, I also had a mortgage with the National Australia Bank. Like most people in this country, I just knew that I borrowed money and had to pay a certain amount off the money owed to eventually and hopefully own my own home. What I didn’t know was that my loan was sold so quickly to Wall Street that the ink hadn’t dried on the mortgage contract.

    Read the full story on Independent Australia, HERE

    All about Matt:

    Watch on YouTube:

    Earlier on Tasmanian Times: The Victorian Injustice System

    1 month ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Dodgy director caveat case' in the forum.
    Debt management case hanging by a thread
    James Frost
    James FrostFinancial Services Writer
    Oct 21, 2019 — 12.00am

    A court stoush between a consumer action group and a debt advocacy firm is on the verge of falling apart after the star witness and supposed victim was revealed to be a dummy director of four companies that is being chased by the ATO for $1.3 million.

    The development disrupted the momentum of the hearing and placed the outcome of the seemingly straightforward case into limbo, potentially adding it to the roll call of poor showings in Federal Court by those trying to hold financial services companies to account.

    The case between Brenda Maree Wade and J Daniels & Associates was triggered after the firm placed a caveat on her home to recover a $9000 debt and has yielded claims of deception and boiler room tactics amid counterclaims of indiscriminate spending and doctored documents.

    The case is the third to be funded by the Consumer Action Law Centre (CALC) against debt advocacy company J Daniels & Associates. J Daniels is one of as many as 100 unregulated companies that offer debt consolidation or debt advocacy services in Australia.

    Consumer Action Law Centre CEO Gerard Brody: "The promise is that they [debt advocacy companies] will save people’s homes but in most cases they fall well short of that." Dominic Lorrimer

    CALC CEO Gerard Brody says that many of these companies' customers end up in a worse financial position than they started in.
    Related Quotes
    NABNational Australia Bank
    1 year
    1 day
    27.50 at 1/8/19
    Oct 18Feb 19Jun 19Oct 1923.0025.0027.0029.00
    Updated: Oct 21, 2019 — 11.48am. Data is 20 mins delayed.
    View NAB related articles

    “The promise is that they will save people’s homes but in most cases they fall well short of that, they charge very large fees and the services they offer do not stop repossession,” Mr Brody said.

    A representative of J Daniels rejected this characterisation, saying it helps people in distressed circumstances explore their options and protect their credit ratings.
    Gambling revealed

    Ms Wade alleges the firm made promises to help her refinance following a bout of depression and the death of her father but instead just dragged out the process and racked up thousands in fees.

    She is alleging unconscionable conduct, misleading and deceptive conduct and services that were not supplied with due care or skill.

    Ms Wade was “sick as a dog” and in “panic mode” when she was issued with a notice of default from the bank.

    In her evidence she found it difficult to recall precise details through the fog of depression and did not have a sophisticated understanding of the process or a strong grip on the chronology of events.

    “Everything was hurry hurry hurry, we are racing against time. I just put my full trust in them. It was just hurry, just sign this and send it back today,” she said.

    J Daniels argues that it never promised to help her refinance but merely act as an advocate for her with her dealings with NAB. Lawyers acting for J Daniels submitted taped recordings of phone calls between Ms Wade and its employees as evidence and argued she had a gambling problem.

    Under cross-examination by lawyer Shaun Clement it emerged Ms Wade was regularly making unexplained cash withdrawals inside and nearby poker machine venues when she was behind in her mortgage payments. Ms Wade accepted she gambled but never more than $50 at a time.

    “Over the space of four days you’ve withdrawn $1300 in cash. That’s more than your monthly home loan. You could have afforded your home loan payments,” Mr Clement said.
    Pokies in Brimbank may help fund a new $58 million leisure centre in St Albans

    Ms Wade accepted she played the poker machines but did not believe she had a problem. Brendan Esposito

    Ms Wade said she didn’t know what she spent the money on but was sure she didn’t gamble the lot.

    “So it’s your evidence that over this period you had cash funds to pay for your home loan but chose to spend it on something else?” Mr Clement put to her.
    'High-risk case for modest reward'

    A damaging exchange took place soon after where Ms Wade admitted to acting as a shareholder, director and secretary for a company named Asset Protective Services.

    Under protection of a certificate that gave her privilege from self-incrimination, Ms Wade admitted to acting as a dummy director for four companies, of which three had been placed into administration.

    Ms Wade said she signed a number of documents supplied to her by an accountant named Anthony, including one that was undated.

    “I was asked if I wanted to take the money and I said yes, I was going bankrupt, I couldn’t pay my rent and I was going to be evicted,” she said.

    She admitted the ATO had filed a writ against her and was seeking $1.3 million in unpaid liabilities and penalties, which she will most likely escape because of the bankruptcy proceedings.

    Ms Wade alleges she was buried in paperwork by the company when she gave them authority to act on her behalf. Supplied

    J Daniels director Robert Mancy was in court for the proceedings but did not appear. Mr Mancy – who has previously worked as a debt collector at Telstra – declined to comment to questions about his relationships with other companies mentioned in the case.

    At the conclusion of the hearings, Justice Michael O’Bryan stood closings over for two weeks and recommended both parties do their best to arrive at a settlement, suggesting they had more to lose than gain.

    “This case remains, in my view – and I say that for both parties – a high-risk case for modest reward,” Justice O'Bryan said.

    Two months after Justice Nye Perram’s now famous responsible lending judgment, the drama playing out in Melbourne’s Federal Court is more kitchen sink than high stakes.

    2 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' ATO Duty of Care Negligence' in the forum.

    TAXATION – interlocutory application – application for leave to amend pleadings to include claims in negligence arising from the Commissioner of Taxation’s performance of his duties or responsibilities under ss 8AAZLF(1) and 8AAZLH(2) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) regarding refunds of RBA surpluses – consideration of statutory duties and history and purpose of ss 8AAZLF and 8AAZLH of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) – consideration of whether it was reasonably arguable that the Commissioner of Taxation owed the applicant a common law duty of care – consideration of whether the proposed claim in negligence raised a reasonably arguable case that the applicant suffered loss or damage arising from the alleged breach of duty by the Commissioner of Taxation – where Commissioner of Taxation disputes any common law duty of care exists.

    5 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Inflammable Cladding Bailleau Thwaites Opie' in the forum.
    Dodgy builders could be 'immune to prosecution' in cladding crisis
    Clay Lucas
    By Clay Lucas
    July 17, 2019 — 12.09pm
    Apartment owners still face huge challenges pursuing builders for the costs of removing flammable cladding, despite changes proposed by the Andrews government to tackle the crisis.

    The Andrews government is looking into legal reforms that would allow the state to pursue builders for costs on behalf of owners, alongside its $600 million fund to remove flammable cladding from high-risk buildings across Melbourne.

    Victorian government announces fund to fix cladding crisis

    Victorian government announces fund to fix cladding crisis

    The Victorian government has announced a $600 million fund to repair residential buildings deemed a serious risk.

    In a report written by former premier Ted Baillieu and former deputy premier John Thwaites identifying the buildings in urgent need of repair, the government was encouraged to “seek to offset the costs of the rectification program from wrongdoers”.

    The ex-MPs said owners who wanted the state to pay to swiftly repair their building might be asked as a condition of getting funding to “transfer their legal recovery rights to the state” to pursue.

    On Wednesday, speaking from a Fire Safety and Cladding Summit in Melbourne, building expert Phil Dwyer said there was “very little chance” the government would attempt to change laws so they could pursue builders and developers responsible for problem buildings.

    “They haven’t done it in the past, so to now go out and say ‘hey we are going to do what we should have done 20 years ago’ is going to make them look stupid,” he said.
    South Yarra residents Jennifer and Kevin Opie live in a building with flammable cladding. The government has told them they will help pay for their building repairs.

    South Yarra residents Jennifer and Kevin Opie live in a building with flammable cladding. The government has told them they will help pay for their building repairs. Credit:Simon Schluter

    He said it was likely Planning Minister Richard Wynne and his Victorian Building Authority would “find some reason not to pursue and then the taxpayer will simply foot the bill for the whole repair [program]”.

    Mr Dwyer asked why developers appeared “immune to prosecution” when so often cost-cutting had driven the widespread use of unsuitable materials.

    “The developers are the ones that sit in an office and say ‘We have to shave $10 million off this job’, and that’s what leads directly to cost cutting,” he said.

    There are at least 481 extreme or high-risk buildings around the state with cladding that needs to be removed. But with an audit of cladding not yet complete this could rise dramatically – taking the bill to fix them far beyond the government’s initial $600 million in funding.

    Premier Daniel Andrews said on Tuesday that the government was looking “at all possible steps to get as much money out of those wrongdoers as possible”.

    “So many of these apartment buildings have been built by phoenix companies, and almost as the last nail is driven in, the company folds up and there's no one to go after,” Mr Andrews said.

    He said there needed to be discussion of changing company laws at a national level to make it harder to simply dissolve companies in this way.

    Melbourne University construction law lecturer Matthew Bell said the cladding taskforce’s proposal, for the government to take on the rights of owners to pursue builders, could likely be achieved via straightforward legal agreements.
    The Neo building caught fire in January this year.

    The Neo building caught fire in January this year.

    However, Opposition planning spokesman Tim Smith said the Andrews government's response to rogue builders to date had lacked teeth, and the best example of this was the developers who illegally demolished Carlton's Corkman Irish Pub in 2016.

    "As of today, the two cowboys who knocked over the Corkman, who also built an apartment block in Hawthorn that is [covered in flammable cladding] – those characters can still practice in the state of Victoria. So that shows you how much effort they’ve put into prosecuting rogue builders,’’ Mr Smith said.

    There is a meeting of the nation’s building ministers in Sydney on Thursday, at which the issue of cladding and who will pay for its removal will be the main topic.
    Related Article
    Flammable cladding fuelled London's Grenfell tower blaze in 2017, in which 72 people died.
    Combustible cladding crisis
    Insurers hit back at government as building dispute deepens

    The government on Tuesday established a new agency, Cladding Safety Victoria, which will work with homeowners to help get buildings covered in flammable cladding repaired.

    The move for the state to partly fund repairs to private buildings follows the state government’s alteration of rules last week in Victoria to avert a crisis in insurance coverage for building surveyors.

    Almost no insurers were willing to offer coverage to surveyors in Victoria because of issues around cladding – meaning most surveyors stood to lose everything in the event of one of their buildings catching on fire or needing significant repairs.

    Building surveyors and inspectors in Victoria had needed professional indemnity insurance without any exclusions, but the government created a provision allowing building surveyors and inspectors to be covered by personal indemnity insurance with an exclusion for non-compliant and high-risk cladding.

    Some planners questioned the wisdom of allowing this exclusion.

    The move to partly fund building repairs follows a plan released by the government last year allowing residents with cladding problems to pay off their repair bill via a low-cost loan attached to their council rates.

    But not one single rectification agreement was ever signed.

    Combustible cladding crisis

    Clay Lucas
    Clay Lucas

    Clay Lucas is a senior reporter for The Age. Clay has worked at The Age since 2005, covering urban affairs, transport, state politics, local government and workplace relations for The Age and Sunday Age.

    5 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Notary Case' in the forum.
    CaselawReferencedSharpe v. Drew, 9 Ind. 266

    Supreme Court of Indiana

    June 6, 1857, Filed

    No Number in Original
    9 Ind. 266 * | 1857 Ind. LEXIS 571 **

    Sharpe v Drew.

    Prior History:

    [**1] From the Vanderburgh Circuit Court.


    The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent . damages and costs.

    Core Terms

    presentment, notice of protest, post-office, protest, notified, drawee, notary, notary's certificate, personal notice, demanded, indorser, parties, resides, lived, mile

    Case Summary

    Procedural Posture

    Appellee indorsee brought a suit on a bill of exchange against appellant indorser. The indorsee won a judgment in a municipal proceeding. The indorser appealed to the Vanderburgh Circuit Court (Indiana), which, after a trial, also rendered judgment for the indorsee. The indorser sought review.


    On appeal, the indorser argued that (1) there was insufficient evidence that the bill had been presented to the drawee for acceptance, and (2) the notice of protest was insufficient. The court disagreed. The evidence of presentment consisted of a notarized certificate of protest which showed that the draft had been presented to the drawee, acceptance was demanded of the drawee , and the drawee refused. Pursuant to Ind. Rev. Stat. ch. 2, p. 91, the notarized certificate was evidence of the facts it contained; therefore, the evidence of presentment was sufficient. Further, the record showed that notice of protest was mailed to the indorsee at his out-of-town address. Because the indorsee lived out of town, personal notice was not required. Mailing notice to his address satisfied the requirement of reasonable diligence and good faith efforts to notify the indorsee of the protest.


    The court affirmed judgment .

    Hide sectionLexisNexis® Headnotes

    Contracts Law > Types of Commercial Transactions > Negotiable Instruments > General Overview

    HN1 Presentment of a bill of exchange for acceptance should be to the drawee himself, if he can be found. If to an agent or other person authorized to accept, the fact should appear. More like this Headnote
    Shepardize - Narrow by this Headnote (0)

    Evidence > Topic Summary ReportAuthentication > Self-Authentication

    View more legal topics

    HN2 Self-Authentication
    Notarial certificates are evidence of the facts therein stated. Ind. Rev. Stat. ch. 2, p. 91. More like this Headnote
    Shepardize - Narrow by this Headnote (0)

    Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Negotiable Instruments > Dishonor & Presentment > Protests

    View more legal topics

    HN3 Protests
    The law requires only reasonable diligence and efforts, made in good faith, to notify the parties to a bill of its protest. Where the parties live in the same city, the practice of notaries is to give personal notice. Even there, personal notice is required only where the transaction to be notified occurred in the same place in which the party to be notified resides. But where the party whose liability is to be fixed by notice, resides out of town, it is different. More like this Headnote
    Shepardize - Narrow by this Headnote (0)

    Hide sectionHeadnotes/Summary


    Bills of Exchange -- Presentment -- Notice. -- Draft drawn by Wetmore on Peters, in favor of Sharpe, who indorsed it to Drew. Peters lived in Troy, N. Y.; the other parties in Evansville, Ind. The draft was presented by a notary who certified "that on etc., I did present the annexed draft of T. C. Wetmore on W. W. Peters, at the store of Silliman and Gardiner, and demanded acceptance of the same, which was refused" etc. The draft was protested at Troy on the 16th of April; notice of protest directed to the indorser was deposited in the post-office at Evansville on the 23d of April. It was shown that the usual course of mail from Troy to Evansville was six or seven days, and that Evansville was the nearest post-office to the indorser's residence which was a half mile out of town.

    Held, that there was sufficient evidence of presentment to Peters, the drawee .

    Held, also, that there was no lack of diligence in giving notice of protest to the indorser.

    Counsel: Andrew L. Robinson and Conrad Baker, for appellant.

    John J. Chandler, for appellee.

    Judges: Stuart, J.

    Opinion by: Stuart


    [*267] Stuart, J.--Suit on a bill of exchange by Drew, indorsee, against Sharpe, the indorser. The action was instituted before the mayor of the city of Evansville, where the plaintiff had judgment for the bill and interest. Sharpe appealed to the Circuit Court, where it was tried with the like result. Sharpe excepted to the rulings of that Court, and now appeals to this.

    Two points are made and argued--1. The evidence of presentment to the drawee for acceptance. 2. The evidence of notice of protest to Sharpe.

    1. It is correctly contended that the HN1 presentment for acceptance should be to the drawee himself, if he can be found. Chitty on Bills, 278. If to an agent or other person authorized to accept, the fact should appear.

    In the present case the only evidence of presentment is the certificate of protest. The notary certifies "that on, etc., I did present the annexed draft of T. C. Wetmore on W. W. Peters, at the store of Silliman and Gardiner, and demanded [**2] acceptance of the same, which was refused," etc. It is contended that this is not evidence of a presentment to Peters for acceptance.

    HN2 The statute makes notarial certificates evidence of the facts therein stated. 2 R. S. p. 91. The notarial certificate is clear as to the fact of presentment, the place of presentment, the demand of acceptance, and the refusal. To whom was it presented? who refused to accept? It cannot admit of doubt that Peters himself was the person. The plain English of the protest is that [*268] the notary found Peters at the store of Silliman and Gardiner, Troy, N. Y., and there demanded of him acceptance, which Peters refused. The form here used seems to be the common one prescribed by the books. Chitty on Bills, 333; Byles on Bills, 191.

    The language is not even obscure. The presentment, the demand, the refusal, all clearly mean, that it was the drawee who was the object and the actor. We are not at liberty to doubt the sufficiency of the evidence that the bill was duly presented for acceptance.

    2. The notice of protest to Sharpe. The bill was protested on the 16th of April. The notice of protest was deposited in the post-office at Evansville, directed [**3] to Peter Sharpe, Evansville, Indiana, on the 23d of April. It was shown that the usual course of the mail from Troy to Evansville was six or seven days. Sharpe lived half a mile from the post-office out of the city. But he had a box at that office, and that was the nearest post-office.

    We think this sufficient. HN3 "The law requires only reasonable diligence and efforts, made in good faith, to notify the parties to a bill of its protest." Pate v. State Bank, 3 Ind. 176. Where the parties live in the same city, the practice of notaries is to give personal notice. Ireland v. Kip, 10 Johns. 490. Ireland v. Kip, 11 Johns. 231. Even there, personal notice is required only where the transaction to be notified occurred in the same place in which the party to be notified resides. Eagle Bank v. Hathaway, 5 Met. 212. But where the party whose liability is to be fixed by notice, resides out of town, it is different. The case of Fisher v. State Bank, 7 Blackf. 610, is directly in point. Taylor, one of the indorsers, lived a mile from Fort Wayne. The notice of a protest was addressed to him at the Fort Wayne post-office. This was held sufficient. So, also, [**4] Timms v. Delisle, 5 Blackf. 447; Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet. 578 1Link to the text of the note.

    [**5] Per Curiam.--The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent . damages and costs.

    Filed June 6, 1857.

    1Link to the location of the note in the document

    See, also, Bell v. State Bank, 7 Blackf. 456; Bank of the United States v. Carneal, 2 Pet. 543; Reid v. Payne, 16 Johns. 218; Bank of Geneva v. Howlett, 4 Wend. 328; 3 Kent's Com. 107; Curtis v. State Bank, 6 Blackf. 312; Ohio Life Ins. and Trust Co. v. Mc Cague, 18 Ohio 54; Turner v. Rogers, 8 Ind. 139; Beveridge v. Burgis, 3 Camp. 262; Bank of Utica v. De Mott, 13 Johns. 432; Hill v. Varrell , 3 Me. 233; Stuckert v. Anderson, 3 Whart. 116; Story on Prom. Notes, sec. 316; Harris v. Robinson, 4 How. 336; Lambert v. Ghiselin, 9 How. 552; Jenks v. Doylestown Bank, 4 W. & S. 505; Bell v. Hagerstown Bank, 7 Gill 216; Sheldon v. Benham, 4 Hill, 129; Cayuga Co. Bank v. Bennett, 5 Hill, 236; Laporte v. Landry, 5 Mart. (La.) 359; Louisiana State Bank v. Rowell, 6 Mart. (La.) 506; Brindley v. Barr, 3 Harr. (Del.) 419; Jones v. Lewis, 8 W. & S. 14. See Edwards on Bills and Notes, from 601 to 614, where nearly all the cases are cited; Van Vechten v. Pruyn 13 N.Y. 549; Ransom v. Mack, 2 Hill 587; Carroll v. Upton, 3 N.Y. 272; Bank of Utica v. Bender, 21 Wend. 643.

    5 months ago
  • Gobbo snitched on other underworld lawyers, royal commission told
    Tom Cowie
    By Tom Cowie
    July 2, 2019 — 6.47pm

    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Send via Email

    Today's top stories
    Melbourne auction clearance rates hit highest for a year
    Property market
    Melbourne auction clearance rates hit highest for a year

    2 hours ago

    Can the much vaunted Nordic welfare model survive immigration?
    Can the much vaunted Nordic welfare model survive immigration?

    2 hours ago

    'Strong businesses are frightened': Empty-shop tax push amps up
    'Strong businesses are frightened': Empty-shop tax push amps up
    The traffic solution politicians should stop running away from
    The traffic solution politicians should stop running away from

    Supergrass barrister Nicola Gobbo provided police with information about a "small cadre" of underworld lawyers that led to raids over the alleged payment of legal fees through proceeds of crime.

    Former Purana Taskforce detective Stuart Bateson told the royal commission into police informers on Tuesday that Ms Gobbo started giving him information in 2005 about the potential criminal behaviour of defence lawyers, which included allegations of money laundering.

    He said it was his belief that a barrister and solicitor were accepting proceeds of crime as payment.

    "We had every asset of [an underworld figure] restrained ... there's no possible way they could be getting paid," he said.
    Police informer and barrister Nicola Gobbo.

    Police informer and barrister Nicola Gobbo.Credit:Joe Armao

    Police executed a warrant on the barrister's chambers based on Ms Gobbo's information and discovered two cheques of $100,000 paid by a bookmaker, he said.

    When asked if the barrister was charged, he said: "No, much to my chagrin. I made recommendations that weren't acted on."

    Commander Stuart Bateson.

    Commander Stuart Bateson.

    Commander Bateson, who investigated murders at the height of Melbourne's gangland war and was portrayed in the Underbelly series, said Ms Gobbo played an "insignificant role" in breaking the underworld's code of silence.

    Ms Gobbo has previously claimed credit for her "pivotal role" in convincing a key witness to snitch on drug lord Carl Williams, which ultimately led to his conviction for three gangland murders.

    But Mr Bateson said the key witness had "no choice" but to roll on the notorious drug lord in 2003 after he was secretly taped talking about gangland killings during rides in a police car to and from prison.

    "He was always going to make that deal," Mr Bateson said.

    "Her involvement in him becoming a Crown witness compared to everything else that got him there, in my view, is insignificant."

    Mr Bateson said that he believed Ms Gobbo had acted in the best interests of her client, despite being a known Williams associate herself.

    He said that Ms Gobbo had expressed fear for her safety while acting for the witness and that police had redacted her name from court documents to prevent Williams from finding out her role.

    "What I believed is that Mr Williams and his crew would find it objectionable that Nicola Gobbo had facilitated the instructions of [the witness] because he believed she was part of their crew," Mr Bateson said.
    Related Article
    Police informer and barrister Nicola Gobbo.
    Victoria Police
    'Not a delicate flower': Nicola Gobbo recruiter lashes out at royal commission

    On Monday, the Andrews government released a six-month progress report written by the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, which revealed it had uncovered evidence that the conviction of a former client of Ms Gobbo may have been corrupted by her work as an informer.

    The Age understands more than 20 former clients have now been notified by authorities that their convictions could have been corrupted by Ms Gobbo’s actions, which include violating legal professional privilege and breaching client confidentiality.

    The royal commission estimates Ms Gobbo acted for more than 1000 people as a solicitor or barrister during the time she worked as a registered informer between 1995 to 2009.

    The report also labelled its work as a "mammoth, Janus-like task" that had been impeded by slow disclosure of information by Victoria Police.

    "Delays in the provision of this material in a form that can be made public have hampered the commission’s progress, a concern I have raised expressly with Victoria Police in public hearings," Commissioner Margaret McMurdo wrote.

    "I remain cautiously optimistic that the difficulties encountered to date will lessen as the inquiry continues."

    with Chris Vedelago

    5 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Epstein and Prince Andrew Flights' in the forum.

    US Judge unseals files in case of girl, 17, ‘forced to have sex with Andrew’
    Prince Andrew with Virginia Roberts, then 17, in 2001.
    Prince Andrew with Virginia Roberts, then 17, in 2001.

    By Tom Harper and Michael Bilton
    The Times
    24 minutes ago July 14, 2019

    Britain’s Prince Andrew faces further embarrassment from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal after a judge ordered thousands of secret documents relating to an alleged “sex slave” of the tycoon to be released.

    About 2000 files from a defamation case involving Virginia Roberts, an alleged trafficking victim, are due to be unsealed following a ruling by the US court of appeal this month.

    Ms Roberts, now 35, claims she was forced by Epstein to have sex with the Duke of York in London, New York and the Caribbean. Prince Andrew has strongly denied the claims.
    Read Next

    WA quake
    6.9 magnitude quake hits
    Paige Taylor

    In 2015 Ms Roberts, a mother of three, claimed she had been ­recruited as a “sex slave” by Epstein, a billionaire financier who was charged last week with trafficking girls as young as 14. Ms Roberts alleged that she had been “procured for sexual activities” by Ghislaine Maxwell, who worked as a personal aide to Epstein and had been a friend of the duke.

    In 2001, Ms Roberts, then aged 17, was photographed in Maxwell’s London flat with Andrew’s arm around her waist. A judge later threw out her allegations against Andrew because they were “immaterial and impertinent to the central claim” against Epstein.

    Ms Maxwell gave an interview in 2015 calling Ms Roberts a “liar”. Ms Roberts then sued Ms Maxwell for defamation in the US and the case was settled. Most of the court documents remained under seal following legal representations from Ms Maxwell, who is a daughter of the late disgraced media tycoon Robert Maxwell.

    In a ruling this month, Jose Cabranes, a US appeals judge, said the public’s right to know outweighed the privacy rights of people who wanted to keep secrets.

    Days later Epstein, 66, was charged in New York with trafficking a “vast network of underage victims” between his homes in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida. Epstein denies the charges.

    Last weekend FBI agents found thousands of graphic photos, many of underage girls, and a safe filled with CDs labelled “nude girls” during a raid on Epstein’s $110 million Manhattan house.

    The charges have raised questions about how Epstein avoided prosecution before. In 2008 he ­negotiated a secret plea on similar accusations in a separate case in Florida. The deal, which allowed Epstein to avoid sex-trafficking charges, also handed his associates immunity from prosecution.

    Alexander Acosta, a former federal prosecutor in Florida, ­negotiated the deal. On Friday he resigned as Donald Trump’s ­labour secretary amid criticism of his handling of the case.

    Mr Trump described Epstein as a friend in 2002, adding: “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

    Bill and Hillary Clinton are also known to have been associates.

    However, none of the investment banker’s friendships has raised more eyebrows than his ­relationship with Prince Andrew. Epstein attended the Queen’s birthday party in 2000 and visited Sandringham, Balmoral and Windsor Castle.

    Prince Andrew’s ex-wife, the Duchess of York, accepted £15,000 from Epstein in 2010 to help her pay off debts. She later apologised. By that time, Epstein was a convicted sex offender. Yet the same year, Epstein and ­Andrew were photographed walking through New York’s Central Park together. The duke was later dropped as British trade ­ambassador.

    When Ms Roberts made her claims in 2015, the duke issued a strong denial, with Buckingham Palace saying “any suggestion of impropriety with underage ­minors is categorically untrue”.

    Ms Roberts claimed that she had been “forced” by Epstein to have sex with the duke in London, in Epstein’s New York mansion and on Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands.

    Public records and flight logs for the black Gulfstream jet owned by Epstein, obtained by The Sunday Times, suggest Andrew was in the same place as Ms Roberts on the three occasions she claims they had sex. Ms Roberts went on a six-day tour of Europe before reaching London on March 9, 2001. The photograph of Ms Roberts with the duke is dated March 2001.

    One month later, on April 9, the court circular records that ­Andrew began an official visit to the US. The same day Ms Roberts flew from Palm Beach to New Jersey. According to Ms Roberts, it was around this time that she was ordered to Epstein’s mansion in New York where she allegedly had sex with Andrew on a massage table. Flight logs show that Ms Roberts and Epstein left New York on April 11 for St Thomas in the US Virgin Islands.

    Ms Roberts alleges that she had sex with Andrew on Epstein’s ­island. Gwendolyn Beck, a financial adviser who knew Epstein and Andrew, said the duke spent two nights on the island at that time.

    “He was in the bungalow next to me,” she said. Andrew arrived in the Bahamas on April 15 to join a holiday with his ex-wife and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, then aged 12 and 11.

    The palace said on Saturday: “It is emphatically denied that (Andrew) had any form of sexual contact or relationship with ­Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false.”

    Sunday Times

    5 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Henry Kaye again' in the forum.
    BusinessCompaniesCommercial real estate

    Land-banking scam ends up in Supreme Court
    Simon Johanson
    By Simon Johanson
    July 13, 2019 — 12.00am

    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Send via Email

    A city law firm and two of its principal lawyers were allegedly at the heart of one of Australia’s largest land-banking schemes that fleeced mum-and-dad investors of at least $24 million, Supreme Court documents claim.

    Melbourne firm Evans Ellis Lawyers and its solicitors Darren Eliau and Benjamin Skinner acted for a company, Midland Hwy Pty Ltd, and engaged in a complex web of transactions between 2011 and 2013 that ultimately lost the investors money, a writ filed by the liquidators of the failed land-banking company claims.

    The liquidators of Midland, mid-tier business services firm BDO and global powerhouse PwC, are claiming unspecified damages and costs alleging the firm and its lawyers were negligent, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and breached contracts and their fiduciary duties.
    Henry Kaye, Jamie McIntyre and another associate at a fancy dress party.

    Henry Kaye, Jamie McIntyre and another associate at a fancy dress party.

    Evans Ellis Lawyers did not return calls for comment. Neither Mr Skinner nor Mr Eliau could be contacted.

    Company records show the law firm trades as WD Legal Holdings Pty Ltd and that Mr Skinner is a director. Mr Eliau is a secured creditor of the business.

    The firm lists its office at 455 Bourke Street in Melbourne and was tipped into administration by the Tax Office in 2016 when the courts appointed liquidator Andrew Poulter, documents show.

    "I am investigating and considering undertaking public examinations against both the director and the secured creditor," Mr Poulter said.

    Individuals who fail to attend liquidator-initiated public examinations face potential arrest proceedings.

    Midland Hwy was used to run the Hermitage Bendigo land-banking scheme and was the subject of a long-running investigation by The Age and Herald.
    Jamie McIntyre speaking at a public hearing for scrutiny of financial advice in September 2015 in Melbourne.

    Jamie McIntyre speaking at a public hearing for scrutiny of financial advice in September 2015 in Melbourne.Credit:Wayne Taylor

    That probe revealed get-rich-quick property spruikers Jamie McIntyre and Henry Kaye were targeting hundreds of vulnerable and financially unsophisticated Australian investors with the lure of huge rewards from high-risk “options” on yet-to-be-developed land projects.

    The investigation sparked a Senate committee hearing into land banking and an investigation by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, which resulted in Queensland-based McIntyre, and his brother Dennis, being banned for 10 years from providing financial services and managing corporations.

    McIntyre, Kaye and their associates flogged the high-risk "options" over yet-to-be-developed empty farms and rubbish dumps to gullible real estate investors. None of the missing millions has been returned.

    Belarus-born Kaye amassed a fortune from get-rich seminars in the early 2000s before his wealth education empire collapsed in 2003 owing 3500 investors up to $60 million.

    A Federal Court judge in 2016 found the McIntyre brothers' land-banking schemes were unlawful, unregistered managed investment schemes and labelled the pair “at the very least, completely financially incompetent”.

    The Midland writ alleges Evans Ellis and its lawyers negotiated a complex land sale with multiple transactions to Midland while at the same time also acting for all other parties in the deal, including another liquidated business Bilkurra Investments.

    “Following the execution of transaction documents, all the plaintiff’s assets were transferred to Bilkurra, leaving the plaintiff with the liability to repay option holders approximately $24 million but no assets with which to do so,” the liquidators allege.

    "In advising or acting for other parties to the relevant transactions, and failing to warn the plaintiff of the consequences ... the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the plaintiff not to act when in a position of conflict," they allege.

    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Send via Email

    License this article

    Commercial real estate
    Land banking

    Simon Johanson
    Simon Johanson


    Property Editor at The Age and BusinessDay journalist for Fairfax's,, and

    5 months ago


Major Topics

Helpful Resources


About Us