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

About Me

Basic Information

  • Gender

  • Birthdate

  • About me

    Charles Ponzi sent me.

Contact Information



    No friends yet


No joined groups.
Charles Ponzi

Charles Ponzi

  • Karma
  • Member since
    Sunday, 30 August 2015 04:33
  • Last online
    2 days ago
  • Profile views

About Me

Basic Information

  • Gender

  • Birthdate

  • About me

    Charles Ponzi sent me.

Contact Information



    No friends yet


No joined groups.
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' 5 years jail for shadow director' in the forum.
    Australia: TGIF: Out of the shadows: ASIC investigation of insolvent trading results in prison sentence for shadow director
    19 February 2020
    by Cameron Cheetham , Mark Wilks and Craig Ensor
    Corrs Chambers Westgarth
    0 Liked this Article

    This week's TGIF considers ASIC's efforts to pursue enforcement action against three former directors of the Kleenmaid group, resulting in the first sentence of imprisonment for a 'shadow director'.
    What happened?

    The Kleenmaid group was a whitegoods distributor, founded in 1980.

    Administrators were appointed to the group in April 2009, at which point the group's debts amounted to approximately $96 million.

    Shortly after, ASIC commenced an investigation into the group's affairs, focussing on three individuals who were or had previously served as directors: Andrew Eric Young, his brother Bradley Young, and Gary Collyer Armstrong.

    In 2014, the three individuals were indicted on charges of fraud and insolvent trading in breach of section 588G(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

    Notably, while Armstrong and Bradley Young were directors for all or part of the period during which the conduct occurred, Andrew Eric Young resigned as a director prior to November 2007. Regardless, he was an equal focus of ASIC's investigation, and was ultimately found by a jury in the District Court of Queensland to be a 'shadow director' within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).1

    This marks the first occasion on which a shadow director has been convicted and sentenced to prison for insolvent trading charges.
    The District Court proceeding

    ASIC's case against Andrew Young culminated with him being found guilty of nineteen offences, including:

    seventeen counts of criminal insolvent trading in relation to debts exceeding $4 million (incurred after he had resigned); and
    one count of fraud arising from dishonestly removing $330,000 from a company bank account, to an account of an unrelated entity from which he stood to benefit, two days prior to the appointment of administrators in April 2009.

    Last week, Mr Young was sentenced to nine years with a non-parole period of four years in relation to the fraud offences and an additional three years for the insolvent trading offences to commence from his parole eligibility date, of which he must serve at least 12 months.

    He will now join the other Kleenmaid directors who are serving similar lengthy sentences for fraud and insolvent trading offences.

    ASIC's 'why not litigate'? mantra has been the subject of numerous headlines in the aftermath of the FSRC. Whilst those under the regulatory microscope have included the banks, financial planners & advisers, the pursuit in this instance serves as a warning to directors, executives and their advisors of the reach & 'new-found' conviction of the regulator.

    Typically, a breach of the duty to prevent insolvent trading can lead to significant civil liability. The corporate veil is lifted, personal assets are at stake and reputations are on the line. However, it should not be forgotten that, should the incurring of the debt be considered dishonest, criminal penalties can apply under s588G(3).

    Mr Young will now serve the next five years (at least) in prison.

    3 days ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic John Cain Jr and the Mokbel Scandal in the forum
    Government's top lawyer knew about Gobbo's informer role in 2010, inquiry hears
    Tammy Mills
    By Tammy Mills
    January 31, 2020 — 5.28pm

    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Send via Email

    Today's top stories
    Parliamentary trip to UK cancelled after High Commissioner pens angry letter over Huawei leak
    Huawei ban
    Parliamentary trip to UK cancelled after High Commissioner pens angry letter over Huawei leak
    Dubious friends and a big legal claim: Questions raised in spy case
    China's Spy Secrets
    Dubious friends and a big legal claim: Questions raised in spy case
    The important High Court judgement this week that 'has been vastly overlooked'
    The important High Court judgement this week that 'has been vastly overlooked'
    'We woke up to the shot': Man injured in drive-by shooting near Chapel Street nightclub
    'We woke up to the shot': Man injured in drive-by shooting near Chapel Street nightclub

    The Victorian government’s head lawyer and the son of a former premier knew gangland barrister Nicola Gobbo was a police informer years earlier than he claims, Victoria Police’s chief lawyer has told a public inquiry.

    Though John Cain, the son of the former Labor premier and the current state coroner, says he was “astounded” when he found out about Ms Gobbo’s secret role in 2015, Victoria Police’s legal services director Fin McRae has told a public inquiry Mr Cain would have found out in a series of high-level meetings years earlier.
    Victoria Police legal services director Fin McRae arrives at the royal commission on Friday.

    Victoria Police legal services director Fin McRae arrives at the royal commission on Friday. Credit:AAP

    Mr McRae, in his second day giving evidence to a royal commission into Ms Gobbo’s use as Informer 3838, said it was an open secret among lawyers that one of their own was a registered informer.

    Speculation was rife in 2010 because Ms Gobbo sued Victoria Police over their handling of her as a witness in a failed murder case against former drug squad detective Paul Dale.

    Ms Gobbo had secretly taped a conversation with Mr Dale and that became the centrepiece of the prosecution's case.

    “The whole of the criminal, legal community knew of her status by then,” Mr McRae said.

    “The gossip around the bar and through connections was rife, an open secret that she was assisting police.”

    His evidence shows the inquiry is focused not only on police, but the legal fraternity. Though it appears some of the state’s most experienced lawyers knew, it would take another eight years for the scandal to come out that Ms Gobbo had given police information about her own clients.

    Mr McRae met with Mr Cain, then head of the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office, and Michael Strong, the director of the now defunct Office of the Police Integrity, in a briefing ahead of a settlement for the civil lawsuit with Ms Gobbo in 2010.

    Lead Counsel Chris Winneke asked Mr McRae if at the meeting "it was discussed openly that she was an informer".

    "Oh yes," Mr McRae replied.

    In his statement to the commission, Mr Cain said he did not find out Ms Gobbo was an informer until 2015.

    "I was completely astounded. I did not have any knowledge of this during my time as VGS [Victorian Government Solicitor]," Mr Cain said.

    Mr McRae said Mr Cain must have forgotten he was told she was an informer, with the meeting focused on the mediation with Ms Gobbo for the case that is understood to have settled for just under $3 million.

    “I’d spoken to John Cain – because this is a matter of such high public importance, that we’re proposing to settle a matter that involves a defence practitioner who has been a human source and it involves the government,” Mr McRae said.

    He said the former Labor police minister Bob Cameron was briefed about Ms Gobbo and the settlement in 2010, but he didn’t know if he was told the lawyer was an informer.

    Mr McRae backed away from his claim on Thursday he worked “relentlessly” to expose the scandal, but maintained on Friday that he did not find out Ms Gobbo gave up her own clients until 2012 and helped to kick-start a review into her use.

    Lead counsel Chris Winneke QC said he had an “ample basis” to find out from the moment he knew she was an informer in 2010 and there had been suggestions the civil settlement was an attempt to hide Ms Gobbo’s role.

    The public hearings continue next week with Ms Gobbo expected to give her highly anticipated evidence from Tuesday.

    Ms Gobbo – whose current location is unknown – is arguing she should be able to give her evidence over the phone, and not over video, despite appearing in a recent television interview with the ABC’s 7.30.

    An unimpressed head of the inquiry, Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, asked her lawyer Rishi Nathwani on Friday to find out from his client whether she planned to give any more interviews before she decides on Monday how Ms Gobbo will give her evidence.

    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Send via Email

    License this article

    Informer 3838
    Melbourne gangland

    Tammy Mills
    Tammy Mills


    Tammy Mills is the legal affairs reporter for The Age.

    1 week ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Alexander Downer's ex parent corp & RICO' in the forum.
    33 Case 1:18-cr-00457-AMD Document 126 Filed 02/13/20 Page 33 of 56 PageID #: 1381 response to the investigation, HUAWEI and HUAWEI DEVICE USA made efforts to move witnesses with knowledge about HUAWEI’s Iran-based business to the PRC, and beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and to destroy and conceal evidence in the United States of HUAWEI’s Iran-based business. By impeding the government’s investigation, HUAWEI and HUAWEI DEVICE USA sought to avoid criminal prosecution with respect to HUAWEI’s Iran-based activities, which would subject HUAWEI and its U.S. affiliates and subsidiaries, including HUAWEI DEVICE USA, to the threat of economic harm. COUNT ONE (Racketeering Conspiracy) 88. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 87 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

    1 week ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic Helen Edwards on A Current Affair in the forum
    please be advised that former Chairman David Turner was advised personally of their failure since 2011 in my case Re money laundering, potential terrorist financing, fraud, counterfeit cheque's etc.

    15th August 2015 - email from #CBA - part of:

    Dear Ms Edwards

    Financial Ombudsman Service (#FOS) Case No 406723 #CBA Case No CF-2957013C

    Ms Edwards, the Bank #does #not have an obligation to monitor and verify each #transaction that is made on a #customer’s #account.

    #FOS renamed to #AFCA #AUSTRAC covered up for them to date.

    #CBA also published & signed the #WOLFSBERG #AML Checklist in July 2016 - answering “YES”

    That their legal compliance program was approved by the board etc


    The clean-up of the bank also has a way to go, and the regulatory scrutiny won’t stop.

    But #Comyn has the bank in the right shape to weather this storm.

    Another big positive for #Coymn was that #CBA’s remediation bill ticked up only $30 million in the half year, to $2.2 billion.

    You won’t hear #Comyn say this pain has now peaked, but surely the worst is now well behind the bank.

    Still, there are plenty of other issues for #Comyn to sink his teeth into.

    Link to article -

    2 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Helen Edwards Global Counterterror Council' in the forum.
    In Australia the most disturbing thing is that there is ‘NO VOICE for the ‘PUBLIC’ on ‘CORRUPTION’.

    I raised a National and International Security Problem in 2014 relating to fraudulent transactions since 2011 and all those responsible look the other way.

    All avenues to be heard are currently blocked. For myself I had to take a huge risk for my reputation and step up to make my stand to be heard via social media on Linked In in 2017 and that has not been easy with them often stopping my posts, but I have forged on determined to be heard.

    The most disappointing thing for me is to not be heard by my own Government or Media. After finally going public in 2017 I have found an extraordinary number of others also ‘VOICELESS’.

    We still have no Bill on Human Rights and no Whistle-blower program in place and it is 2019.

    Certainly not the example of a “first world” country.

    Although we have many regulatory agencies, I personally have exhausted I feel every avenue to seek help or justice and hence why I seek international intervention to help myself and fellow Australians.

    Since early 2015 I have reached out to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and received an auto-reply, his then Treasurer Joe Hockey – passed me off to my local Member of Parliament Andrew Broad, he too passed me off to our Justice Minister Keenan – who also acknowledged then ignored, he has recently resigned.

    After a change in government in 2015 I contacted another now former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull who acknowledged and then passed me off to his then Treasurer Scott Morrison.

    As I could not find anyone to step up, I started preparing my report to go to our Regina Queen Elizabeth II, as I could not find anyone that was functioning per their paid role and responsibility.

    I raised with our Governor General Peter Cosgrove who in writing advised me to contact LIFELINE. I am still shocked until this day as to why he never escalated to relevant authorities. Not that I had any action from them since 2014.

    We had another change in government in 2017 and now Scott Morrison is Prime Minister – he still ignores me.

    The Opposition leader Bill Shorten also acknowledged me in 2016 and continues to ignore. Even our Senate Standing Committee on Economics will not meet with me.

    We have a Rogue out of control Government that does not listen to its people. Regulators and Law Enforcement who do not act.

    Our Media failed us long ago.

    As not one of the abovementioned will still acknowledge the people who pay their wage and they are sworn to serve.

    I believe we the public must seek to have them removed and have honest, trustworthy people who will stand for the betterment of our country, that is serious about our National and International Security and cares and loves its people as I do.

    There is Always an Audit Trail | The Truth will Not be Hidden | The Ability to Lie is a Liability

    Helen M Edwards – Australia 12th February 2019

    3 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic Natalie Mouat Ombudsman and Pedophiles in the forum
    The Patriots Act is refered to a lot in this case against Westpac and its top level executives. Don't they jail people in military jail for supporting terrorists?

    3 weeks ago
  • Ask Tina Stagliano and her friends about these US laws.

    3 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic Westpac pedophile abuse scandal in the forum
    Westpac Hit With Class-Action Suit in U.S. Linked to Money-Laundering Case

    By Reuters

    Feb. 1, 2020

    (Reuters) - Australia's No. 2 lender Westpac Banking Corp said on Saturday a class-action lawsuit, naming former Chief Executive Brian Hartzer and interim CEO Peter King as defendants, has been filed in a U.S. court on behalf of its shareholders.

    The lender said the lawsuit represented purchasers of Westpac's shares on the New York Stock Exchange between Nov. 11, 2015 to Nov. 19 and sought to recover damages related to disclosure issues with its financial crime monitoring and a recent money laundering scandal.

    Australian financial crime watchdog AUSTRAC hit Westpac with a lawsuit in November, accusing it of 23 million breaches of anti-money laundering laws and facilitating payments between known child abusers.

    After the bank's two top executives stepped down following charges by the regulator, it appointed former Barclays boss John McFarlane as chairman to steer it through the seething scandal.

    Continue reading the main story

    The class action, filed by U.S.-based Rosen Law Firm, is for an unspecified amount, the company said, and cautioned that other similar lawsuits may follow.

    In December, Australian law firm Phi Finney McDonald filed a court case over market disclosure issues connected to the bank's monitoring of financial crime and the AUSTRAC proceedings.

    You have 4 free articles remaining.

    Subscribe to The Times

    (Reporting By Rushil Dutta in Bengaluru; Editing by Arun Koyyur)

    3 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Crown Casino Investigation by Integrity Comm'n' in the forum.
    Law Enforcement Integrity Commission Lacks Independence
    21/01/2020 by Sonia Hickey & Ugur Nedim
    Australia government logo

    Well before the creation of the ‘Super Ministry’ – the Department of Home Affairs – headed up by Peter Dutton, the government created a key anti-corruption body. The problem is that not many have heard of it until recently.

    Despite being set up in 2006, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) remains one of the country’s best kept secrets. In fact, most Australians wouldn’t even know it exists, let alone what it’s primary function is.
    What is ACLEI?

    According to the organisation’s website, the ACLEI’s primary role is to support the Integrity Commissioner in providing independent assurance to government about the integrity of prescribed law enforcement agencies and their staff members.

    But, since its inception, the body has suffered a great deal of criticism for its lack of openness and transparency.

    The creation of the Department of Home Affairs put the Australian Federal Police (AFP) under the same departmental umbrella as the people and agencies it is meant to be investigating in partnership with the integrity commission.

    As such, there have been widespread concerns that this arrangement not only compromises the independence of the ACLEI and potentially tainting the outcome of the investigations it undertakes. More worryingly, it also meant that the outcome of investigations could be kept well hidden, behind the closed doors of the department.
    Investigating the Department of Home Affairs

    Currently the ACLEI is investigating allegations of corruption surrounding interactions between the Crown Resorts VIP high-roller programme and the Department of Home Affairs.

    Information published by mainstream media including The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and 60 Minutes claimed that Crown Resorts had partnered with tour companies backed by organised crime syndicates implicated in drug running, money laundering and human trafficking, in order to attract wealthy Chinese gamblers.

    Leaked emails also suggested that Australian visa and consulate officials in China often fast-tracked visas for wealthy gamblers to come to Crown venues in Melbourne and Perth, despite some posing potential security risks or being persons of interest to law enforcement. Allegations have also been levelled against Border Force official, Andrew Ure, who it’s alleged was able to provide private protection for an international fugitive and Crown high-roller recruiter, known as a junket agent, and in doing so, potentially breach strict professional standards as well as the law. Media reports also revealed that Mr Ure worked at least once for junket agent, a man named Tom Zhou, who is wanted by Interpol for serious crimes.

    One of the original criticisms of the ACLEI was that it never conducted investigations in public forums, so many were surprised when it took the unprecedented step late last year of holding public hearings in Melbourne. At the time, head of the agency, Michael Griffin said he believed there was significant public interest in these matters and the investigation would be best served by hearing matters in public. It has been proven time and again that corruption investigations which involve public hearings are far more successful at exposing and prosecuting corruption.

    Undoubtedly, given the severity of the allegations and the interest accompanying the investigation, this is an opportunity for ACLEI to prove itself as a credible, professional and independent oversight body, capable of thoroughly investigating corruption and misconduct.

    1 month ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic Natalie Mouat Ombudsman and Pedophiles in the forum
    Assoc Professor Dr Peter Doherty is referred to in Exhibit J in the filing at the 9th Circuit with the terror/pedophile agency AUSTRAC whose chief is now on Westpac's Panel as result of the pedophile scandal.

    And the CBA "spies" on anti-pedophiles,G4S, are also sued under the Antiterrorism Act by Wilkie Farr (Ravelo's old firm) representing hundeds of US citixens harmed by the 'protection money' paid to the terror organization designated prior to 9/11 namely the Al Quada-Taliban Coalition. The case cites the US Constitution war powers provisions.

    1 month ago
  • 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.

    3 months ago
  • 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.

    3 months 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.

    3 months 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

    3 months 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.

    3 months 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 months 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

    4 months ago


Major Topics

Helpful Resources


About Us