dont forget the justice bit

home
crimes vs humanity 1
AU human rights 2
AU law & order 3
AU university 4
dont forget the justice bit
nsw government 6
AU insurance system 7
nsw political culture 8
AU voters 9
nsw organized work 10
links 11
Independent Club Against Corruption

                JUSTICE NICHOLAS SUPREME COURT SYDNEY NSW

DUE TO EMOTIONAL ABUSE, DISCRIMINATION, LUCK OF DUTY OF CARE AND VICTIMIZATION (BOTH OF MY YOUNGER DAUGHTER AND MYSELF), I DECIDED TO CLOSE MY CASE IN THE SYDNEY’S SUPREME COURT

The..Hon..Justice..William..Henric..NICHOLAS IN WIKIPEDIA

Judge in the Supreme Court of NSW - SYDNEY

Tuesday, October 28, 2006       PROCEEDINGS 20372 / 04

Justice NICHOLAS, I ask you to rise and to take the oaths of office, the oath of allegiance and then the judicial oath

I’m told that as long as my case is ‘active’ in the Supreme Court in Sydney, I cannot lodge the same case to another Supreme Court. The same matter cannot be heard in two different courts in the same time. As it was obvious how much power Phillips-Fox has in the court and the way they run ‘Hearings’ or however they call that process, I decided to close my matter.

Firstly I could not proceed in this Court, as I found extremely difficult to be FORCED to witness disrespect towards the Court and the Judge at every Hearing.  Phillips-Fox was in charge – not the Judge. When innocent people come to the court to address injustice (despite the possible outcome that we might agree with or not) we need to feel SAFE. Judge is there to make that happen. How secure I was, that was up to the Philips-Fox. Judge could not protect me.

Secondly my health was the barrier as that was CLEARLY the card Phillips-Fox were playing. I could not go along accusing the Defendant of the crimes they did and in the same time witnessing the defendant legal Rep to do the same. It was extremely stressful. 

I knew how court proceedings look like. I knew it would be difficult without legal presentation to go against the most powerful legal firm in Australia but I was ready for that. If they are that smart, good for them, I was in peace with that. However the Hearings were not opportunity for Phillips-Fox to use their skills to win this case - their strategy was based on felony, perjury, and breach of any Policy that stands in the Supreme Court. I did not know that those things can happen and did not know how to deal with this.

Maybe the hardest part were complains to the Chief Judge and his passive approach towards my case.

I did not wish to attend any more Hearings.  Despite letter to Judge Spigelman informing him of my decision, Phillips-Fox would not let me go. When I stop coming to Hearings they would set-up the next Hearing in a month or so, so my case was active. I did not have the choice.

After 25 months in this court I was given opportunity to have the Hearing in front of the JUDGE. I did not know that every person introduced to me as the Judge actually was Ass or Master. Even when the direction was made for the Judge and the Jury the ‘Judge’ put in charge of my case was the Master. For those 25 months I was kept in belief that I had a Judge in front of myself. That was never the case. I found this detail from the barrister I was just chatting in the waiting room, before my case was heard.

My case was on the Hearing list - wrongly spelled but it was there. The courtroom was full of clients, lawyers and Plaintiffs. I could not believe that I would have the chance to speak to the Judge.

Defendant legal side arrived – this time it was 3 of them. The new lawyer I have meet last time, the Councilor I raised allegation against and the third person who was of great concern to me.

As I was waiting to be called this man would come closer and just gaze at me. It was frightening. Councilor and the lawyer were in the Courtroom, but this man was in waiting room. He did not approach me nor said a single word to me nor was intimidatory-close, but he was looking intently at me. He was very tall, huge man, his presence was disturbing and all the fears about Authority, abuse, just made me panicky.

The Judge called my case at 10 am. The Councilor replied on Uni behalf than I told the Judge that although I am closing this matter I would like to tell the Court why I am taking this action – you can not JUST lodge the case than out of blue moon decide to withdrew. This is the court.

Judge felt uncomfortable about my statement.

JUDGE How about if you let me to finish few things than I will hear you later. 

PLAINTIFF Your Honor I will be brief there are few issues

JUDGE Don’t go far, I will call you soon. 

I did not understand what his Honor meant by “few things” I thought I’m one of those ‘things’ so I ask 

PLAINTIFF Your Honor when that would be? You mean today or…

JUDGE Yes, today, just little bit later. Don’t go far, I will call you soon.

                DLA PHILLIPS FOX

WAITING ROOM  I took the seat in the waiting room. I did not know that “the soon” would be after 1pm. Every  now and than Councilor and the lawyer on the way out for breakfast or brake briefly told me what’s happening in the Court. I did not wish to have any contact with the Councilor. My understanding was that if you have criminal record you cannot be in the Court in the role of barrister. I accused this Councilor of serious breach of Law, despite my accusation Phillips-Fox sent him to this Hearing, like ‘nothing happen’. But it did happen and his edgy attendance, desperately trying to be ‘cool’ told me how serious Phillips-Fox took my allegation.

The man of concern would join the ‘Team’ from time to time. Three of them would go behind the corner out of my eyesight whisperings, than this man would peek at me than again three of them would hide behind the corner in the waiting room whispering.

After the lunch the ‘Team’ went into the courtroom and I was waiting in the waiting room for the Judge to call, as it was only one case left. But this man stood opposite of me and was looking firmly right in my eyes. I was alone with him, everyone else went out as the last case was in front of Judge and there were nobody except two of us in the waiting room.

I tried to avoid his glare, felt so uncomfortable in my skin and he knew how I felt. It was obvious. He was not ‘into’ Hearing that was crystal clear, BUT was with the Phillips-Fox and I was the subject of their interest. I finally look straight in his eyes. To me, at that moment, this man looked exactly like Contract Killer from the murder mystery. I was craving to tell him that when you lose your children there is nothing else to live for. And if his job was to remove me – can he do that quickly?  Don’t let me suffer I have had enough. That’s how much I cared about my life right there. .

As his presence made me anxious, I went into the Courtroom.

DEFAMATION HEARING     JUDGE had finally call

JUDGE So, there is some email of concern…

I could not believe what I was hearing. For those 2 years, nobody ever asked me about defamatory email, how that affected me, what it did to my husband, the trauma that my older daughter went through when accidentally read the defamatory email left open on my desk, my younger daughter distress and trauma of divorce, separation of our family, financial difficulties we went through and the sell of our house, place where we were so happy. I could not believe that although the Court room was empty – only the 2 people and the courtroom staff with the Judge were there – I will finally tell all of that to someone who is an expert in defamation and understand the consequences.

Everyone in university knew about the truth, about abuse of students, about my case – but when email were sent to reach as much staff as possible many academics could not believe that the department might possibly go that far, none of them knew for sure that the email was defamatory

DLA PHILIP-FOX Your Honor, yes the email sent to Judge Spigelman dated..

PLAINTIFF What email?  

DLA PHILIP-FOX  email sent to Judge Spigelman dated Tuesday, September 26, ‘06 where you stated that you wish to close this case

PLAINTIFF I sent a few emails, please read the email in full so I would know what email

JUDGE you cannot make an orders here or to tell Councilor what to do

PLAINTIFF  I apologize

JUDGE email of concern is addressed to Judge Spigelman dated Tuesday, Sept 26, '06

PLAINTIFF O, those emails. Can you read it please?

JUDGE you cannot ask the questions here. I’m the one who asks

PLAINTIFF I apologize your Honor. May I read the email in full?

JUDGE No, because that is not my concern

PLAINTIFF So, I wish to close this matter in your court and you do not wish to know why?

JUDGE Yes

PLAINTIFF Why?

JUDGE As I said you are not one who asks the questions

PLAINTIFF  

JUDGE There is no point to read it,

PLAINTIFF  

JUDGE Well. even if you read it would not make any difference.

PLAINTIFF

JUDGE It will not change a thing…is that obvious to you?

I did not know how to ask without asking but I knew I had to ask.

PLAINTIFF Yes your Honor however it would make me feel much better, I would be grateful to be given opportunity to read this email'

JUDGE NO.

PLAINTIFF I understand it will not change what you have already decided however I would feel much, much better it would mean a great deal to me Your Honor?

JUDGE Ok

I took the email in front of the Councilor and read it very slowly. After every sentence I would look at the Judge but his head was dow

Judge Spigelman on Law and Order

Sack them: Opposition seeks legal advice  THE NSW Opposition is seeking legal advice from Judge Spigelman to call an early election ... Mon Sep 2008 08:09

Top judge need for rights bill

Push for judges to exchange benches

Top judge takes Government to task

Rights chief backs limits on judges'say

 
 
 
 

                TERMINATION OF SUPREME COURT LEGAL PROCESS

To HON JUDGE Mr. SPIGELMAN

1.  Decision

Due to lack of trust re; Court Proceedings, Confidentiality, Duty of Care and Credibility of the Supreme Court in Sydney I have decided to close my matter 20372 / 04

2.  Court Expenses

I refuse to pay any Court expenses due to the breach of the Policy and the Contract between the Court and the Plaintiff I believe that you, Your Honor, President of the Supreme Court, owe me reimbursement for the breach of agreement. However being aware ‘how system works’ and ‘who system protects’ I expect that I will never see the Justice in your Court. I will take this matter somewhere else On the other hand - money is money and someone has to pay the bill. I am sure that you will take some actions in an effort to force me to repay the huge costs that University acquires So, Hon Mr. Spigelman – do me a favor, take me to Court with the Judge and the Jury. Please involve Police and allow that this crime that happen in your Court be fully investigated

DLA PHILIP-FOX  Your Honor we wish to pay all legal expenses for the Plaintiff

PLAINTIFF Your Honor I have made serious allegation and statements in this email. I ask for your response towards allegation I have raised

JUDGE That email is not my concern.

DLA PHILIP-FOX Your Honor we wish to pay everything. About the defamatory email from Jo Gaha it happened 6 years ago, long ago it is status barred out of time

PLAINTIFF  Your Honor would you please respond?

JUDGE If defendant wishes to pay legal costs I will allow that

PLAINTIFF I refuse that offer and University do not have any right to do that without my consent. The bill should be forward to my address and when and how I’ll pay it is between the Court and me

JUDGE Ok, if you do not wish defendant to pay your bills, than, I will not make any order regardless court fees

PLAINTIFF Who will pay the bill? Don’t you think your Honor that I should be punished; as it looks like that Phillips-Fox won this case?

JUDGE In this court we do not punish people. 

PLAINTIFF Councilor I need to ask you what is the outstanding amount that you wish to pay for me

JUDGE You do not need to know that and the Councilor do not need to respond. However I need to say to you that you should be grateful

PLAINTIFF To whom and what for?

JUDGE To the University for their willingness to pay the fees for you

PLAINTIFF Your Honor, those people are criminals – they are supposed to pay.

JUDGE MAYBE THEY ARE, BUT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. The statement Judge made stunned all of us. The Judge kept talking but everyone in the Court were in shock of what he has said. Everyone. I looked at the Councilor – even he picked up

PLAINTIFF Your Honor, the crime had happen, you cannot make me silent, and you cannot silent the truth.

JUDGE So you wish to close this case. Do you understand the consequences of that?

PLAINTIFF Your Honor I wish to close this case in your Court. But case is not finished. I will reopen this case in another state. The case is closed but not completed. I have received the information that the PM Howard instructed every state to ignore my case, every Judge is instructed to NOT reply to me, but I’ll not gave up. I’m not giving up.

JUDGE Ms Simundic, that is not my concern. What I’m asking is to confirm that your decision is to close this case? Is that correct?

PLAINTIFF so, you are part of this injustice. Your Honor I tried so hard to talk to you with respect you deserve, but it’s very difficult. 

JUDGE I know

I suddenly got a horrible headache. I have never experience pain like that before. It was simply reaction – culmination of all the injustice and the crime I had to put up with. It was just too much. I press my head and felt that I was crying actually, the pain was so strong that I even did not noticed that I was in tears. There was nothing else to say. I did not wait any orders, anything; I thank the Judge and left the Court.

                INVESTIGATION INTO CRIMES OF MS MEEGAN GREENWOOD

INVESTIGATION

MARTIN PLACE - SYDNEY - NSW - AUSTRALIA

REGISTRAR MS MEEGAN GREENWOOD

Two days after the Hearing, on the 25th October I went to Registry and requested to see my file. If nobody WAS keen to tell me how much money is outstanding than I will find out myself. The only person in that Registry I raised allegation against was Ms Greenwood the Principal Registrar. However, whenever I made complain about her, she would cover herself with: “I am aware that you made allegation against my staff and me”. But it was obvious to everyone what she is doing. The staff that works in the registry always were very professional and behaving strictly by the law. Ms Greenwood was only person who did not care about policies, what she was supposed to do or not. She made her own Law and she acted accordingly

So the staff behind the reception desk told me that I have to “seek permission and after 24 hours I could come to inspect the file. That is the law – I cannot breach the law.”

If nobody else want to breach the law than I requested to see Ms Greenwood. She is the Registrar who breached every single policy that exist so I thought if she breached one more what difference would it make? When she met me I told her;

PLAINTIFF   I wish to inspect my file but the staff behind the counter ‘make problems’. Would you be able to do something?

Ms Greenwood went to see the staff I was talking with, exchange few words than returned to me saying

Ms Greenwood Can you wait 10 or 15 minutes till they brought your file?

PLAINTIFF   I’m deeply grateful for you actions

She did not make light of it; she breaches the law every single day.

Ms Greenwood  “Your welcome”.

After 15 minutes I was given the huge file. I asked the staff who was with me when I made inspection few months ago; is she sure that this is my file?

STAFF  Probably not, as far as I remember your file was all mess and very thin. Let me check. Yes, Vesna this IS your file, but that is not possible, did you add more documents?

PLAINTIFF   I was not here from March. I gave Judge James few documents. Rest of the documents he included from the family Court file – but this is enormous. Can you investigate this...

Again staff acted professionally

STAFF  Vesna I am not allow to inspect your court file and I cannot make any comment.

PLAINTIFF    I understand that but you need to tell me who had access to my file

STAFF According to document in front of me -only you

She did not make any remark but she was taken aback as well as me. When I open the folder, inside was few folders, properly marked, dated, with the stamp of the registry, the date when it was lodged and inside every folder was every single document I ever handed in. Every single document was there, even the ‘cuts’ from newspaper that I included related to change of policies. The folder was neat as neat as it could be; now when my case was closed.

PLAINTIFF   Can you tell me how much are the legal fees?

STAFF No, I’m not allowed to do that also. You have to talk with duty Registrar and he will instruct you or me what to do. Or you can go to see finance manager and ask her if she can assist you.

I told her that I would return

                 REGISTRAR MEEGAN GREENWOOD
 

CRIME IN THE SUPREME COURT REGISTRY

MARTIN PLACE - SYDNEY - NSW - AUSTRALIA

Finance Manager SUPREME COURT SYDNEY

I asked the Manager what is outstanding amount and her reply was that only 2 bills are not paid added that she couldn’t give me further information. She instructed me to see the Duty Registrar and told me that in my file on every bundle of documents, should be stamp with date of payments and costs. I told her that nothing is paid, as Judge did not make any order regardless the fees

FINANCE MANAGER  That is strange. There are only 2 outstanding amounts, but that is all I can say.

                 INVESTIGATION  -  EVIDENCE

CRIME IN THE SUPREME COURT REGISTRY

MARTIN PLACE - SYDNEY - NSW - AUSTRALIA

Duty Registrar SUPREME COURT SYDNEY

DUTY REGISTRAR has the same approach. I was not told about the invoice and how much, instead I was told that is very hard to obtain that info, it would take ‘years’ to collect all the bills…

I asked the Manager what is outstanding amount and her reply was that only 2 bills are not paid added that she couldn’t give me further information. She instructed me to see the Duty Registrar and told me that in my file on every bundle of documents, should be stamp with date of payments and costs. I told her that nothing is paid, as Judge did not make any order regardless the fees

I returned to see the folder and to my surprise I found that every few months university paid outstanding bills, MY BILLS. They paid on a regular basis just last two bills were not paid. However on the top of one folder was Ass Harrison’s statement that outstanding fees are ‘held in reserve’ until final order. Under her statement was application filled by me ‘seeking that the cost be reserved on the basis on my financial situation and paid by the party who’s defeated.’ My signature was there.

The Judges knew that the fees were paid – but they continue to threaten me with the bills.

Finally the folder that Councilor had tried to put forward to the Judge James and me  (the offer we rejected on the basis that it was not properly handed through the registry) was right in front of me. There were no stamps, no signature of any staff behind the Registry – no evidence that it was lodged properly according to the law and the policy of the Supreme Court.

PLAINTIFF   I’m sorry, I need to ask you who put this folder in here, there is no stamp of the Registry, and I did not do it, than who  had an access to my file?

STAFF  Everyone who want to include document have to lodge over the counter have to be sign by JP, have to be stamped by S.C. stamp. Judge has right to see your file anytime.

PLAINTIFF  Cannot be. Every document that Judge took on the Hearing date was stamped with his signature. There is nothing on this folder. I need an explanation.

But this was hard to explain so she returned to her desk.

So all of this what happened in the S.C. was a game for the Judges and Masters. I was never supposed to be given Judge and the Jury. Those 25 months of my life was ‘fun’ for the Court and the University was paying regularly ‘the ticket’ to attend this Game. Everything that happen was fake, the Court knew and almost certainly planed with the Phillips-Fox all of this. For them I was not a person. I was simply mentally ill migrant and the subject of ridicule. Nothing else.

CRIME IN THE SUPREME COURT REGISTRY 

                 ALLEGATION SENT TO CHIEF JUDGE SPIGELMAN

2006 MARCH 2

ALLEGATION SENT TO NSW CHIEF JUDGE HON SPIGELMAN

SUBJECT: 20372 / 04 VS v Newcastle Uni - FOLDER TAMPERED - DOCUMENTS MISSING
ATTENTION  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar: Megan Greenwood
 

As you may recall I had contact you a few times. As you could not help me I wrote a letter of complain asking you and the Registrar to forward it to the Justice Spigelman. I had a serious concern about the progress of my matter, the way Phillips-Fox behave towards me and ignore any order made by the Court. I asked Justice Spigelman to overlook this case as many statements made by Registry Officers and Ass Justice Harrison did not seem professional and correct, something I have confirmed by solicitor/s when asked for independent advice. I assume that Justice Spigelman never received my letters

As you know Phillips Fox stated once that they will not respond on any of my allegation and so far they are true to their promise. I have made complains about this too (none of those complaints were in my folder)

Their behavior towards me is absolutely inappropriate and unprofessional. In the beginning I would respond to their emails and letters out of courtesy – but I have stopped doing that. As Hearing on 11 May is closer, documents, folders, emails and affidavits that never were hand in to the registry bombard me. Affidavit is sworn in presence of another lawyer at Phillips Fox and sent to me. I asked them to cease doing this and stated clearly that only documents proper handed in to Supreme Court will be read by me. It did not help. I received more than 300 copies so far (all of that are my letters and emails sent to University) 

I am told that those documents are documents on what Defendant will rely and the same (that’s what they claim) will be handed in to the Judge one day before Hearing. It appears that all of this will never be proper handed to the Registry and what will be given to the Judge will not be investigated. I have never heard something like this before nor I have ever heard that any Court allowed this to happen. I assume that the Judge will seek an extension to read all of this, so the next Hearing might be postponed for the next year

I was left with an impression that all of that was done in an attempt to destruct me from something and as the only thing what is left is my folder in the Supreme Court I decided to inspect

On Friday 24th January ’06 I went to the Registry and asked for an access to my file. I did not wish to send fax prior this request as I had some uneasiness about my matter in general. I told the staff there that I refuse to go until my folder is brought to me for inspection. I left my folder with the documents that I brought with myself on the counter. I had mobile and keys only.  

My folder was bunch of papers, out of order, chaotic, mixed, pages were missing, my letters to Justice Harrison with crucial evidence that relates to out of time matter were not there. Nothing was the way it was handed in – numbered and sorted by the date. For this accusation you might find some explanation and protect whoever did this. 

However, the most concerning issue were 2 Notice of Motions with attached documents. One was my affidavit with the papers of how my matter was handle by Mr. Puplick, Mr. Barbour, Mr. Debus, and Mr. Rice and finally Ass Justice Hennessy. Those attachments are important and I intended to rely on it at the Hearing. Affidavit is gone, some of the attachments were missing and only one document was there – re-typed and submitted as mine.

Another document was my letter directly to Justice Harrison, the proof that I have contacted Supreme Court years ago seeking advice and was rejected. Since I am seeking extension of time that document was the basis of my argument.  I printed this emails (2 of them) in format 14, as emails were short and I wanted the Judge to see clearly on what I based my request for an extension of time. That was missing either

In the same time bunch of documents were added, copied 2 – 3 times and placed inside the folder to make it bigger and more difficult to understand

I asked who had an access to my folder and was told; except me – nobody else. When I express my concern to the staff - I was told: “That is not possible, if someone wanted any documents from your folder they would sign in here and take all folder – documents cannot be moved from here”. Before I left I have tried to put the documents in some order without much success

By the end I asked the staff to confirm that I did not take anything with me

On Tuesday 28 Jan ’06 I went to the Registry again. This time I have send the fax, previous day, with request for an access to my file

As I expected, SOME of the missing documents were returned. My affidavit was there, some attachments still missing.

The most disturbing issue was the Transcript that was submitted by Justice Harrison. that I consider DEFAMATORY

                 ALLEGATION AGAINST JUSTICE HARRISON 
 

At the Hearing I asked Justice Harrison:

PLAINTIFF   "I handed in Notice of Motion in May or March for Hearing in front of the Judge and the Jury and so far you did not noticed that at all”
JUSTICE Harrison replied: I DIDN’T SEE IT

I have raised concerns about Justice Harrison’s response, as I found hard to understand that her job is to prepare herself for the Hearing and yet, overlooked something so crucial. I made written complain to the registrar.

On the TRANSCRIPT 28/11/05 Page 6 / point 20
PLAINTIFF “I handed in Notice of Motion in May or March for Hearing in front of the Judge and the Jury and so far you did not noticed that at all

JUSTICE Harrison: “I SAW THAT BUT" I don’t have to make an order in relation to that unless you get an extension

What I am saying and what is written in the Transcript make one of us incorrect. Transcript is based on the Hearing that was recorded and you have an access to it. If that is missing (that can happen in the Court) please let me know.

This quote is just one of many incorrect statements that I found. On top of everything my English is presented as very poor one, words were twisted, sentences cut in half to sound “bizarre” and the entire document I found very ‘premeditated’ act. All allegation I have made that involves many powerful individuals, were not there and the name of The Attorney General, The Honorable Mr. Bob Debus is changed into Bob Davies. To attend the Hearing with what was there – I do not have the chance.

I believe that you in your role as a Principal Registrar have let me down for not acting on my very first complaint. I do not need to tell you how this act made an impact on my emotional health. Although I learned and experience wrongdoing of the Courts through ADB and ADT and this time was more prepared than before – it did upset me till the point that the staff at Registry were concern how will I travel all the way to Newcastle “after this”.

I am financially disadvantaged. I cannot come to Sydney on a weekly basis to make sure that my folder is in order and that something is missing or that Transcript is not “interfered”. I believe that you should address those concerns. I see this ACT as an attempt to obstruct course of justice. I cannot make more serious allegation than this one. People are taken to Court and sentenced for similar acts. However we both of know, nobody will ever take responsibility for this.

I have asked you to respond to my concerns and you did not, so I will not ask again. To ask you to protect me from this, to give me advice of what to do when the Law is breached or to ask you to let know The President of the Supreme Court what has happening in His Court – I was rejected before – You will reject me again.

This letter is sent to the Justice Spigelman – not to his secretary – but to Him. It will reach the President of the Supreme Court this time with or without your help

Thank you in advance

CC  High Court -  PM Howard  -  Att Gen.

                RESPONSE FROM CHIEF JUDGE SPIGELMAN

2006 JULY 7

CRIME IN THE REGISTRY - RESPONSE FROM REGISTRAR MS GREENWOOD

RE;  FOLDER TAMPERED - DOCUMENTS MISSING

I am writing in response to your letter received by the Chief Justice on 15 May 2006. The Chief Justice asked me to write this reply on his behalf. You had written to the Chief Justice requesting that he comment on a number of issues pertinent to your proceedings 20372 of 2004.

It would not be appropriate for the Chief Justice to comment upon these issues or to try and intervene in any way on your behalf. Judicial officers may only consider the cases they are currently hearing and comment upon those cases in the presence of all parties. This ensures that the judicial officer is not accused of showing bias to a particular party and that the courts administer justice transparently and fairly.

Although it may be inappropriate for the Chief Justice to comment upon your concerns, there are a number of organisations, independent of the Court, which should be able to assist. For instance, I believe you have concerns about the conduct of judicial officers in the Supreme Court. The Judicial Commission of New South Wales is an independent body, part of whose charter is to investigate these types of complaints. I have attached material outlining the Commission's complaint procedures and contact details for your convenience. I also understand that you believe the defendant's legal representative conducted themselves unprofessionally during your proceedings. The Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC) can assist with this complaint. Information regarding the OLSC's operations is also enclosed.

You had also asked the Chief Justice to respond to your allegations that I have been corrupt and unprofessional in my dealings with you. I feel it necessary to clarify that I am an employee of the New South Wales Government not the Chief Justice. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) investigates allegations of corruption within the public sector. I suggest that you contact ICAC regarding you to lodge a complaint with them. ICAC's contact details are attached. In relation to your concerns about my professional conduct, you may wish to raise these with the Director General of the New South Wales'Attorney General's Department, whose contact details are also attached for your convenience.

Yours faithfully Megan Greenwood

Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar   (Of WHAT and WHERE?)

                FEDERAL COURT SYDNEY
FEDERAL COURT HEARING 

HON JUDGE MOORE

all about J Moore IN WIKIPEDIA 

WAS THE ONLY JUDGE

HON JUDGE MOORE Defendant / DLA Phillips Fox

WHO WAS NOT CORRUPT

F C HEARING 3.30 - 4.PM    Solicitor Jasmina Price, and Counsel for the Respondent Robert Glasson 

---

HON JUDGE MOORE Plaintiff IN PERSON

---

STATEMENT OF CLAIM visit my case @ FC for 'full details (yep its not published)

---

 

JUDGE     I received response from the Plaintiff and the University I read both responses. Is there anything else either party wish to add to what you submitted?

DLA PHILLIPS FOX  3.30pm – 3.45pm  Your Honor, I will relay on Mr. Crittenden affidavit and as he said everything is out of time even defamation matter that Plaintiff had - she decided to withdraw from the S C. Now DEFAMATION is out of time Than  Counsel went to details about this issue for 15 min His closing argument was 'spiced up' with very clever statement "Finally the Plaintiff made an accusation related to the Court proceedings  She accused the Supreme Court and the Phillips Fox for discrimination.  If is that what she is saying she should take us to Court, Uni is separate issue."

JUDGE     Is that all? All right   I received response from the Plaintiff and the University I read both responses. Is there anything else either party wish to add to what you submitted?

PLAINTIFF   Your Honor, may I respond to this please?

JUDGE    If you have something new to add to your response, than yes

PLAINTIFF   I need to make an introduction of what has happened to me that brought me to the Supreme Court in '94. That’s important because it’s related to “Out of time matter” I will be brief

PLAINTIFF   3.45pm – 4.00pm 

 NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   As you know, your Honor, after the event with Ms Flynn I did not receive any help from Uni, instead they did everything possible to make me leave DEFAMATION  (email)  VERBAL ABUSE in front of students, discrimination just to name the few. Their “professional attempts” to harm me PSYCHOLOGICALLY I found most frightening. In the same time my marriage and my family went to crisis, I was DETERIORATING everywhere. When abuse went to EXTREME  (at the Gosford Placement) I LOST BABY   and after that I was bleeding for 3 months. When that stopped, at the age of just 39 I lost my period completely and cannot have children any more

ANTIDISCRIMINATION BOARD CHRIS PUPLICK     I lodged my case with ADB & Mr. Chris Puplick, I will not go in details, but the way he VICTIMIZE me I cannot put into WORDS Whoever I asked for advice I was told as long as my case is in ADB – I cannot lodge the same issue somewhere else. In the end – after 3 years of delay – I went SO LOW that I beg Mr. Puplick, to close this case, or to send somewhere. I BAG him. Only when his staff confronted him, my matter went to ADT.  Uni were aware of THIS ABUSE but they didn’t intervene

ADMIN DECISION TRIBUNAL - SIMON RICE    ADT and Mr. Rice? Again the same, just this time it went even further. Mr. Rice behavior was extremely UNPROFESSIONAL He and Ms Beach had private email correspondence discussing my case. Ms Beach AFFIDAVIT was defamatory statement and when I cross-questioned her, every response was perjury. Your Honor Ms Beach is pathological liar. Mr. Rice accepted Ms Beach ‘criminal act’ as credible, and delayed this case for 18 months. Only after complains to Ms HENNESSY Judge O’Connor and the Registry officer Mr. Rice published his decision To make things even better for Uni His decision was DEFAMATORY statement.

SUPREME COURT JUDGE JAMES   Now Your Honor it’s clear why I lodged my statement at the Supreme Court in Sep ‘04.  The injury happened in ‘98 however when on my 2nd placement in ’99 I displayed all signs of being TRAUMATIZED my behavior was alarming for Social Work Dep. and DVC ENGLISH had sent me to counseling service to confirm what all of them already knew. Abuse was ‘professionally done’ and it was Trauma. I was left with PTSD. If I could think clearly and could manage my affairs I would go to psychiatrist, ask for diagnosis and would take Ms Flynn to the Supreme Court. But I was lost, I could not think clearly – everything was COLLAPSING around me and I was blamed for everything.

DLA PHILLIPS FOX  At the Supreme Court, Fox acted for the Uni I think that they SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED in my case at all due to CONFLICT OF INTEREST This firm and Att Gen Mr. BOB DEBUS are the same Authority who changed all policies related to my legal matter. They knew my case; they knew what they have to do. They changed the policies and delayed my case with the help of the S.C.  In the same time everyone in the NSW I complained about Uni and the legal process put me on the blocker list. All of that was ORGANIZED. I came across the biggest legal corruption in the history of NSW. PhillipsFox, Att Gen, ICAC, NSW Ombudsman, all of them are part of this. It goes right to the top of the Court. EVERYONE IS INVOLVED All of this was known to University - but they did not wish to ended this matter. Who's responsible? University is responsible.

And this man here, the Counsel - he was part of corruption as well, part in DISAPPEARANCE of my family FOLDER that 'vanished' from registry, He also lied under the Oath, in front of Judge. He is liar, the same like MS SUE BEACH  She is pathological liar ...

JUDGE     Your accusations are very ‘personal’ and ‘personal attacks’ I don’t allow here

PLAINTIFF  you mean about the words I'm using? Well- when someone lies, what can I say? If I lie how would you tell me that?      

JUDGE     I cannot say that, however I said ‘personal attacks’ I don’t allow here .

PLAINTIFF    Liar is liar. However I do apologize if you think that it was inappropriate. As I said the Counsel was incorrect many times and Ms Beach is pathologically incorrect. The Judges, Phillips-Fox and the University assumed I would be an easy prey – because I was a migrant who cannot speak properly and have PTSD. I was a perfect victim. My children were affected by all of this and my younger daughter, she almost had nervous BREAKDOWN All of us are victims. And NOW after all of that - this person here, the Counsel has THE DIGNITY to come here to face me and say to you that this Hearing is  “abuse of process”  after    he abused all legal processes  that could be abused. I do not wish to even stand close to him, after the Hearing I do not wish to talk to him or sit next to him I don’t wish that people think that we are friends. To lie to Judge, to steal, to be part of emotional torture of the mentally ill women - he does not deserve to be in my company. I don’t socialize with people like him.

In regard to Counsel’s comment that I should withdraw my case against Uni and take S.C. and the PhillipsFox to court-battle for another 8 years, that will not happen Your Honor, from the beginning, this case was about University. I took University to Court, not Ms Lynch, PhillipsFox nor Judges from the S.C.  How PhillipsFox behave that’s Uni’s responsibility. How Judges BEHAVE that’s Uni’s responsibility too. They knew what I’m going through and how NSW Government treated me. If they wished to stop abuse and take responsibility - they had 8 years to do that. They did not. University is accountable - rest is different issue.

PERSONAL INJURY IS "OUT OF TIME"?   All of this, event by event, from Court to Court was a traumatic experience– with intention to harm.  What about psychological injury when I was faced with the Judge who looked in my eyes saying defamation after defamation? Is that out of time? Or the shock when I attend the Hearing where Jury was removed, or stress when the half of the Hearing went to fixing my "folder that was mess". My marriage breakdown, my inability to be proper mother and the wife for the last 8 years?  Is that out of time Your Honor? Despite knowing all of this, University did not wish to stop this abuse and settle the matter properly. I want University to be forced to take responsibility for the crimes they did.

JUDGE     It is clear that you were traumatized All right can you tell me what do you wish to happen? It’s almost 4 pm and I have Hearing at 4pm
PLAINTIFF    I WANT JURY. THAT’S ALL I WANT.
JUDGE     Well I have to decide that

PLAINTIFF      I also wish to ask you why am I the only person in Australia who is not allowed to have a Jury?

JUDGE     As I said I have to decide

PLAINTIFF     You Honor I beg you, please just give me a Jury, please I beg you - nothing else. PLEASE

JUDGE     There's no need to beg I have heard your allegation and defendant response I now need time and I will advise both sides about my decision

PLAINTIFF     Your Honor if you decide against the Jury, I will go further. I will go to every Court in Australia, until this abuse is addressed appropriately. NSW or somewhere else, I will not stop  

                WEBSITE ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT EVIDENCE

My web site was established firstly TO PROTECT MY DOCUMENTS FROM BEING STOLEN.This Policy respected  in every Court in the world- is something that was violated many times in my case. It cause a great stress to me on top of my psychiatric injury– that University denies, and secondly To help Judge to access the evidence in the time that suits his HONOUR To help Judge to determine the right decision based on MY evidence NOT dlaPhillips-Fox folder that is nothing else than the ‘Trojan Horse’ To help Judge decide who is responsible for this delay BASED on what I submitted that would automatically allow me to have a Jury To relief the stress of constantly checking my folder in the Registry (Ms Greenwood works just few levels lower and dlaPhillips-Fox is only a few hundred meters away from F.C. building) Finally to save money (traveling ‘to F.C. and from F.C.’ financially exhausted me)

EVEN THIS DIDN’T WORK - IF UNI WANT BREACH THE LAW UNI WILL DO IT - NOBODY CAN STOP THEM - NOT EVEN THE COURT

BRAINLESS DECISION  After my case was finished I personally inspected my file in S.C. Registry Ms Lynch and Ms Greenwood together with Ms Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW Sue Beach did something brainless; the documents and the folder stolen were returned. I asked Judge Moore to order that my file – now complete – be transferred to F.C. Registry as finally everything was there. I was told that there should not be problem about this request 

On the 16 April 07 my Internet Provider had informed me that Ms Lynch (who was taken from the case) and Ms Sue Beach made threats that if my website is not removed they will take legal action against Zoomshare Internet Provider. The USA Internet provider (who gave me unlimited space for free due to impressive number of hits that ‘the Truth’ attracted) and is very familiar with this case – did not wish to have any contact with NSW legal system - so she removed ‘the Truth’

EVIDENCE REMOVED AGAIN  

FROM ZOOMSHARE    Thanks you for contacting zoomshare your site was removed pending an investigation regarding defamatory statements on your web site regarding a Ms. Beach and a Ms. Lynch I have received a complaint threatening further action and must investigate these claims. If your site is found to be in violation it will be removed.

2007 TUE 17 FROM ZOOMSHARE    Dear Vesna, Unfortunately, it appears that we will have to remove the web site by the end of business today. Please make arrangements regarding this matter. I apologize for the inconvenience.  Regards Director of Customer Care

It was unclear to me why would evidence be removed again – as I already made accusations about documents being stolen from the S.C. and on basis of that justified allegation Ms Lynch was taken from my case and eventually in April boot-out from dlaPFox. I requested to see the folder in the F.C. Registry. The folder transferred from S.C. to F.C. was not the folder that I have seen on neither visit nor it was mess-up bunch of paper presented to the Judges in S.C. It was new bunch of documents, in better shape, but not MINE and NOT how I submitted. The Folder given by S.C. to F.C. was interfered before it arrived

Finally everything made sense. I told Judge Moore and the Registry staff about this – and left the matter at that.

Why hassle? AGAINST WHO? and TO WHOM?

                DLA PHILLIPS FOX RESPONSE
UNIVERSITY RESPONSE            Federal Court proceedings no NSD 2344 of 2006
RESPONDENT'S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS
These proceedings should be dismissed for the following reasons:

(a)  On the face of the Application, these proceedings are frivolous, vexatious and disclose no arguable cause of action. They are also an abuse of process given the previous applications made by the applicant on the same grounds to the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal (the "ADT") and the Supreme Court of New South Wales which were both ultimately dismissed.

(b)  To the extent that a claim is made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), the proceedings cannot be maintained by reason of section 13(4) of that Act as the applicant has previously taken proceedings in the ADT claiming discrimination against the University including on the grounds of race, disability (both presumed ‑mental illness ‑ and actual ‑ stress disorder) and for victimization. After four days of hearing, those proceedings were dismissed: see Simundic v University of Newcastle [2004] NSWADT 206.

(c)  To the extent that a claim is made under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the Federal Court has no jurisdiction as the applicant has not previously made a complaint to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and no such complaint has been terminated by the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: see section 46PO of that Act. Indeed, because of her previous application to the ADT she would be prevented from making any such complaint by reason of section 13(4) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

(d)  To the extent that a claim is made for personal injury, negligence and breach of contract the proceedings are statute barred: see Simundic v University of Newcastle [2006] NSWSC 563. It is also an abuse of process to attempt to bring the same claims in the Federal Court which Court has no jurisdiction to hear such claims.

(e)  To the extent that a claim is made in defamation concerning an email sent in Ausgust 1999, the proceedengs are statute barred. The Federal Court also has no juridistinction to hear any such claim. On 23 October 2006, the applicant consented to the Supreme Court defamation proceedings being dismissed and Nicholas J so ordered.

12 December 2006  Robert Glasson  Counsel for the Respondent

there you go ... 8 YEARS FROM COURT TO COURT THIS WAS UNIVERSITY RESPONSE TO ALL THE ALLEGATION I HAVE MADE
               FEDERAL COURT SYDNEY NSW

Honourable Justices Branson QC

all about J Branson IN WIKIPEDIA 

has been President of the Australian Human Rights Commission since Oct '08.

former Federal Court Judge

 

 

 

 

QC Catherine Branson

APPEAL   - FEDERAL COURT - HONORABLE JUSTICE BRANSON QC
V S -v-  UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE  Branson J  
July 7, 07 Federal Court File No:  NSD 982/2007

Attendance:  Plaintiff  in person 

Defendant: DLA PhillipsFox Solicitor Jasmine Price / Counsel/Barrister Robert Glasson

MARKED IN BLUE ARE HON BRANSON DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS

The first thing that caught my eye was the Councilor who appeared very relaxed. Not a single worry in his appearance. He was too relaxed for someone who by all means lost this case. I did not understand what kind of further humiliation he was ready to go through? But I gave up long ago on this smart barrister, I simply ceased to listen his arguments and that was what troubled me. I am good listener, patient, but this Councilor was difficult to understand. On top of that he was untouchable - except Judge nobody could question him. And for some reason none of the Judges ever challenged him

Judge BRANSON   Counsel what’s your response to Plaintiffs statement re; Appeal?

Counsel Your Honor, there is no problems about Appeal books, Plaintiff had agree with what we proposed. About panel of 3 Judges, my client oppose to that. The only concern we have its her affidavit lodged for the Appeal Proceedings because

Judge BRANSON   Well my decision is that the Plaintiff should have panel of 3 judges,

Counsel All right. We did not agree how long the Hearing should be, I propose 1 hour.

Judge BRANSON   What do you think how urgent the matter is? We are booked for the August...

Counsel  It’s not urgent.

Judge BRANSON  All right Ms Simundic how urgent this matter is for you?

Plaintiff Very urgent. Your Honor the Councilor makes living on delaying my case, that’s his job. However, this is my life, I want this to be dealt with and move on. But all of that is explained in my affidavit. May I ask have you read my affidavit?

                JUDGE BRANSON PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
 

Judge BRANSON  No

Plaintiff You did not?

Judge BRANSON   Well I can do it now if you wish.

I did not see what her Honor was reading so I asked her

Plaintiff Your Honor that is 10 pages affidavit is that what you have in your hands?

Judge BRANSON No. What I have is very short statement.

I took copy of the affidavit and told Judge that this document is my affidavit for the Court of Appeal

Judge BRANSON Ok, if you wish I can read it.   Judge took my affidavit, fliped few pages and returned to me.  No, its not here I did not see it and I did not read it

Plaintiff My experience with the Registry staff is that those people would not tampered with documents. My affidavit was included in front of me by Registrar Farrell and I trust her. Staff in this FC registry doesn’t steal the documents.

I did not understand how her Honor could make orders and decisions if she did not read my Appeal statement? The most concerning was the thought that she might not know what I am appealing against and on basis of what. But how we proceeded further it was clear that this Judge did not need evidence

Counsel  Your Honor, that affidavit should not be there on the basis that NOTHING NEW should be included, that affidavit is new, and as you know only documents presented to judge Moore could 'proceed'

Again this barrister had outsmart all of us. I knew he was too clever even for the Judge. I should Appeal before Judge Moore made his decision. In that case my appeal would be presented to Judge Moore and it would not be struck out, Yap, that’s it. That was my mistake and I was so embarrassed for being so stupid. I started to laugh at myself. I was looking at Judge how she will handle this statement but she was impressed how smart Councilor was. I turn around and looked at the response from everyone present. People were laughing.

Plaintiff That’s my appeal your Honor, That’s the only document I ask the Court to accept, everything else I am not allowed to submit. Everyone should have right to submit an affidavit

Judge BRANSON  Well, nothing new should be submitted and  affidavit is not here

It was clear that this was neither the court nor the judge I could raise my concerns. Ms Solicitor had threatened this Judge, that was clear, the same like in case of Ass Justice Harrison at the SC. She was threaten as well

Plaintiff I need to request 3 days Hearing I wish to cross-question witnesses

Counsel  Your Honor again that is new proposal, something we did not discuss with Judge Moore. My client objects to this ABUSE

Judge BRANSON   So the case is not urgent - than we can hear it in October, as August is booked. It will be 1 day Hearing in front of the full Court (3 Judges).

Plaintiff That’s strange

Judge BRANSON  What’s strange?

Plaintiff I was told from the staff at the Registry that there would be no problem for the August Hearing and that August is not booked.

Judge BRANSON  Well, you can always applied for the early Hearing and if we have any suitable days we might accept your case earlier but I am sure that August is booked

                ALLEGATION AGAINST JUSTICE BRANSON

* JUSTICE BRANSON IS ACCUSED OF

* REFUSAL TO PROTECT ME FROM EMOTIONAL ABUSE IN HER COURT

* ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF DEFENDANT (UNI OF NEWCASTLE)

* HER HONOR EXCLUDED ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT DAMAGE UNIVERSITY 

* HER HONOR GAVE HERSELF LIBERTY TO MAKE DEFAMATORY STATEMENT SAYING; I DID NOT SEE YOUR AFFIDAVIT and in the same time looking strait into my affidavit  

* REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE CRIMINAL ACTION OF NEWCASTLE UNI, MR. PUPLICK AND MR. SIMON RICE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE PRESENT 

* HER HONOR ACTED ON A VERY DISHONORABLE AND INAPPROPRIATE MANNER ABUSING HER POWER OF FEDERAL COURT JUDGE
* HER HONOR IS PART OF NSW JUDICIAL CORRUPTION

                FEDERAL COURT SYDNEY

FEDERAL COURT REGISTRAR

2007 JULY 3 TUESDAY 9.30 

ATTENDANCE -   F.C. REGISTRAR   -    PLAINTIFF   -     DLAPHILLIPS FOX - Ms Jasmina Price 

REGISTRAR  Firstly, we have to settle the Appeal Index. That’s important part of Appeal

PLAINTIFF   I have sent by email documents I asked to be included, cc was sent to dlaPhillips Fox and they received My understanding was that the defendant would come with clear view of where she stands and this part will be finished today

REGISTRAR  I did not receive email, so lets go to settle the Appeal Index.                               

PLAINTIFF  I have read on the Federal Court website instructions regardless this part, I am familiar with this part of the process however can you explain to me what will happen after we finished with this, when we will have The Hearing?

REGISTRAR  Well, we have to come back here again and defendant will have opportunity to object. If we cannot agree what documents will be submitted than we have to do again than came back again. However lets concentrate of what we have to do today,  

PLAINTIFF  I am familiar with that, as I said, can you tell me what will happen after we once agree on what documents will be included

REGISTRAR  Than both of parties will go in front of Duty Registrar and 

PLAINTIFF   why?

REGISTRAR  That’s the process 

PLAINTIFF  Than when we will have the hearing? 

REGISTRAR  That all depends when we will finish this, I believe you will not have time for July Hearing however we have October or early February 2008 

PLAINTIFF  how can we speed up this process?

REGISTRAR  That depends on defendant agreement related to this appeal index, you will put forward your documents than defendant will respond, than 

PLAINTIFF than it can go forever…

DLA PHILLIPSFOX-   Well, this is my proposal We were given small paper with titles of the documents unrelated to any issue I raised: abuse / discrimination / victimization / Corruption  / systematic abuse of students, stealing / lying under the oath etc, etc

REGISTRAR  Ok, however nothing new has to be submitted ONLY what is in this folder.

PLAINTIFF  that folder is not mine … those documents is what is left after Ms Megan Greenwood visit to SC Registry I told Judge Moore about this

REGISTRAR Well that is something you discuss with the Judge. So, you wish to include this and Defendant this, we have problem

DLA PHILLIPSFOX-  She cannot include those documents, none of those documents are in that folder. 

PLAINTIFF  I beg you pardon?

DLA PHILLIPSFOX-  Those documents are not there, so you cannot include it. 

PLAINTIFF  How do you know what is in this folder? How do you know that NONE of those documents are in this folder? 

DLA PHILLIPSFOX- Because I was there 

PLAINTIFF  You was there? 

DLA PHILLIPSFOX- I was there 

PLAINTIFF  You was where? 

DLA PHILLIPSFOX- At the Hearing in front of Judge Moore 

PLAINTIFF  Me too. But how do you know that any of those documents I suggested aren’t here

Defendant legal Rep suddenly became white in the face. I thought she would collapse from the chair. She needed time to come to terms with what she just said.

I gave her time

DLA PHILLIPSFOX-Well nothing of this was discussed at the Hearing …So, that’s how I know .. 

She was not involved in stealing but was part of the Team, she probably was forced to be there when Ms Lynch made decision what she will steal and what she will not. 

PLAINTIFF  Registrar, would be interesting if you confirm in front of the Judge what Solicitor just said, 

REGISTRAR  No, I cannot. We have to work here according to law. 

PLAINTIFF If we obeyed the law, my case would be closed and resolved the moment I raised accusation against dlaPhillips-Fox. What kind of legal process is this, I don’t know. This is professional suicide for all legal parties involved.

REGISTRAR  What  do you think how long its going to take Appeal process?

DLA PHILLIPSFOX-Two hours

PLAINTIFF   Three days

REGISTRAR  Well again we have to agree on this?

PLAINTIFF  I believe that Judges will decide after I presented the case and don’t worry about payments.

THE ISSUE OF LEGAL COSTS    University will pay everything. They paid in ADB, ADT and in the S.C. behind my back No need to stop now. The only thing is that Judge had to make an order for me to pay. Ms Solicitor is attracted to crime. She will pay the fees just to breach the law.

DLA PHILLIPSFOX-  My client didn’t pay any bill 

PLAINTIFF  They didn’t ?

DLA PHILLIPSFOX-   No

PLAINTIFF   For the Federal Court proceedings, your Councilor stated in his affidavit - I will quote: Who pays University bills that’s up to University. Plaintiff should be grateful that we paid the fees...”  What’s your comment now?

DLA PHILLIPSFOX-  

PLAINTIFF  Registrar, as you see, this company has ‘internal’ problems, there is simply too many of them involved and its hard to remember who said what. I have to deal with that as well. All of this is too complicate for us. I would propose something if I may..

REGISTRAR  Ok lets hear

PLAINTIFF  How about if I do the draft and send the copy to you and dlaPhillips-Fox. If dlaPhillips-Fox made objection I will accept their proposal and we will come back with finished job next week, so my matter could proceed in front of Registrar and ultimately head for the Hearing this month. We have to avoid problems. We will have panel Of three Judges. I need to request this time proper courtroom, as Australians were waiting for the real Hearing for years. Some People will come from the Northern Territory, Victoria – Melbourne City, some from Tasmania. All I need is the Hearing I am entitled too. I am Australian citizen, that’s my right. The hearing will include cross-questioning regardless the documents included

REGISTRAR  Ok, so what if you submit – let say next month or in two months?

PLAINTIFF  No, I will submit immediately, DLAPhillips-Fox have to respond immediately. There will be no more discussion about this. When we come next week you will accept Appeal Index. As simple as that. 

REGISTRAR  Can defendant comment on this?   

DLA PHILLIPSFOX-  I agree

                 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL IN FEDERAL COURT

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

TO HON JUDGE BLACK FEDERAL COURT MELBOURNE

JUDGE MOORE STATEMENTS -
QUOTE "THIS APPLICANT HAS BEEN ILL TREATED BY THE UNI AND ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATION’"

              IS CLEAR THAT YOU WERE TRAUMATIZED

1  I SEEK COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURY P.T.S.D.  

2  I SEEK COMPENSATION FOR DEFAMATION

3  I SEEK COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT  

4  GROUNDS OF APPEAL  TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUE OF DISCRIMINATION DURING THE LEGAL PROCESS IN 

ADB 1990 – 1993:    / ADT 1993 – 1994:  / 1994  - PRESENT

5  I SEEK COMPENSATION FOR MY YOUNGER DAUGHTER  

                APPEAL   -   HON JUDGE ALLSOP (former Supreme court judge)
APPEAL HONORABLE JUSTICE ALLSOP
21 August 07   FEDERAL COURT - PANEL OF 3 JUDGES

Although it was full court-Hearing none of the Judges had their names displayed in front of them so I did not knew who’s who and how to ask particular Judge a question. Panel of 3 Judges

Judge 'A' on my left was observer – nothing his eye had fail to notice. He would ask question from time to time but mostly he looked – not absently – but actively. If you breach the Law this Judge is the last thing you wish to see in the Court. No doubt why the Councel was quite. When I spoke Judge A would gave me a full attention

Judge 'B' in the middle did most of the speech. I assume he was JUDGE FROM THE SYDNEY  Justice James ALLSOP (i was right)

Judge 'C' on my right was mostly ‘into’ evidence that was in front of him, those 2 poorly presented Books of Appeal submitted by Fox.solicitor However, whenever I spoke he would look directly at me leaving an impression of a Judge who really was interested what I have to say.

I was tired, emotionally exhausted, under pressure ‘what will happen if those judges take Uni side to’. I put too much on myself for too long and it finally came back to me. I understood what they meant saying:  'You will not last'. 

I knew that any single document I put across Counsel would object. I thought I have to be original about what to present to Judges, as I did not have any energy in me to argue my case or debate with Councilor It had to be document that Counsel would not object. I came with the big bag and only few documents were in front of me. Big bag was under the table out of Judges eyesight

Counsel made an entry point, however he was very brief and unusually quite. He firmly stood by his argument but he was different. Than the Judge B gave me opportunity to respond

As I felt sick and was hardly standing on my legs, I told Judge that so far I was not allowed to present any evidence, argue my evidence nor Uni legal Rep ever responded to any accusation I made. Even when evidence was hand in it was stolen and ..

Judge B  Is this the affidavit you wish to relay on? 

In his hands was MY affidavit that Justice Bronson  'did not read it and did not see it'  I asked if I could see and when given  my affidavit in the whole entity was there, every single page, nothing stolen, rewritten or added.

Counsel  I object because it was written on 

Judge B  You object?   

Counsel  Yes

Judge B  Ms Simundic, are there any other documents you wish to include

Plaintiff  Your HONOUR If I’m allow, I wish to include this folder?

I took from my bag 'the Trojan Horse' sent to me by Ms Lynch. The folder with 'PhillipsFox' name on the cover and inside were documents, sign by Ms Lynch, Counsel and Mr. Hayden - ALMOST all the documents that were hand in and later stolen. It is true that the naughty Bec enclosed copy of a few documents number of times and the most damaging for University were nowhere to be seen, but...considering who PhillipsFox is it were presumed I’ll be ecstatic about this noble act of kindness 

Judge's job would be to compare what he had in front of himself (documents that Registrar Ms Greenwood sent to Federal Court) prior FC Hearing with the folder I just hand in and the proof of the crime I accused Councilor and his gang was crystal clear. Our Counsel had signed his own destiny. Above all defendant could not object to something that he personally hand in...  or I thought so...

Counsel  I object

Judge B  You object? I assume that you wish to inspect the file that Plaintiff had just given to the Panel of Judges. You are not to leave the Courtroom. Mr. X will stay and assist you with this. Court will return after 20 min brake. 

I believe in evidence. No matter what I said, what Counsel said - evidence was there and it had only one motive - the truth. Two people lost their jobs in an effort to prevent my documents being hand in to the Court. That was statement itself. Our Counsel was pale, I bet this was not planned, and the Hearings of this sort he was not used to. Evidence was never part of his winning strategy

                DECISION OF HONORABLE J ALLSOP 

DECISION HON JUSTICE ALLSOP - LANDER - SIOPIS

2007 AUGUST 31 THE COURT:                                                      - 2 -  

I              On 31 May 2007 the applicant in the proceeding before the primary judge filed a notice of appeal against orders made by his Honour on II May 2007 dismissing her application and ordering her to pay the respondent's costs.

2              The notice of appeal does not particularise any grounds of appeal but merely recites the appellant's complaints about the respondent's conduct and the conduct of other parties. 

3              On 29 November 2006 the appellant commenced proceedings in this Court, purportedly under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (HREOC Act), alleging unlawful Discrimination by the respondent.

The relief sought on the application is for:

2              I ask the Federal Court to accept my case: - to be transferred from S.C. Registry to Federal Court Registry. - my file with all the documents to be moved to F.C. - any additional document to be lodge (sic) by email.

3              My matter with University is about: 

(1) PERSONAL INJURY (2) DEFAMATION  (3) BREACH OF CONTRACT+ during the supreme court proceedengs  (4) CRIMINAL CONDUCT of DLAPhillipsFox that I take UNIVERSITY responsible.

4              The relief seems to have little association with the cause of action under the HREOC Act. 

5              The application was accompanied by a Form 167, required under Order 81 rule 5 of the Federal Court of Australia Rules 1979 (Cth), and an affidavit sworn by the appellant. In her affidavit, the appellant claimed that she withdrew her case from the Supreme Court of New South Wales because of conduct on the part of the respondent's solicitors. She asks that this Court accept her claim. A reading of the application, Form 167 and the affidavit reveals only one cause of action raised,  namely, a claim under the HREOC Act, notwithstanding a reference to defamation and breach of contract in the application.  The application also sought an order transferring proceedings in the Supreme Court to this Court.

6              The respondent, by notice of motion filed on 18 December 2006, sought orders that the application be dismissed and the appellant pay the respondent's costs. Accompanying the notice of motion was an affidavit of a partner in the firm of solicitors acting for the respondent, which exhibited a number of documents which established the history of the appellant's complaints in relation to the respondent in the Anti Discrimination Board  of New South Wales, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, and the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

                7That history was summarised by the primary judge in [2]-[8] of his reasons: 

[2]It is convenient to outline briefly the history of the applicant's grievance with the University and its legal representatives. In 1996, the applicant enrolled in a Bachelor of Social Work at the University of Newcastle. She ceased to be enrolled in 2000. She did not obtain the qualification.

[3]            The applicant lodged a complaint against the University with the AntiDiscrimination Board of New South Wales ("ADB") on 7 November 2000. The complaint concerned, inter alia, things allegedly said and  done by certain University employees, in particular, Lianne Flynn, who was a lecturer in the Department of Social Work, and Jo Gaha, the Head of the Department, between August 1998 and August 2000. One particular incident concerned an email sent by Ms Gaha to the Vice

  - 3 -  

Chancellor in August 1999, and seen by other staff, indicating that she thought the applicant was "clinically disturbed" and posed a risk to staff and students.

[4] The complaint was referred to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales ("ADT") after unsuccessful conciliation in the ADB On 21 September 2004, the ADT dismissed the complaint: see Simundic v University of Newcastle [2004] NSWADT 206.

[5]            On 18 October 2004, the applicant commenced proceedings against the University in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The amended statement of claim filed 7 April 2005 pleaded causes of action in negligence, contract and defamation, the last of which concerned the email  of August 1999. 

[6] On 6 June 2006, Associate Justice Harlison dismissed a motion by the University to have the proceedings  surninarily dismissed or the statement of claim struck out: see Simundic v University of Newcastle[2005] NSWSC 586. The applicant was directed to file an application for extension of time.

[7]            On 22 June 2006, James J considered two applications made by the applicant by notice of motion: see Simundic 1, University of Newcastle [2006] NSWSC 563. One was an application that the trial be  with a jury, and the other an application for an extension of time under the     Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).  

The University conceded that the cause of action in defamation was not statute barred. His Honour found that on any view the other causes of action had accrued by the time the applicant ceased to be a student of the University in 2000 and hence that she was out of time. James J dismissed the application to extend time under the Limitation Act. The application for a jury was dismissed on the basis that the causes of action in negligence and breach of contract were statute barred, and in the case of the defamation action, the applicable statute, Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), left no scope for her application.

[8]            On 23 October 2006, the applicant's defamation claim was listed before Nicholas J. On the basis of the applicant's statements and the documents produced by the University, including a facsimile received from the applicant, his Honour concluded that the applicant no longer intended to proceed with the matter and that  the appropriate order was to dismiss the proceedings.

8              The respondent sought dismissal of the application on alternative grounds. First, on the ground that the proceedings were fiivolous, vexatious and disclosed no arguable cause of action; secondly, that the proceedings  were an abuse of process given previous applications to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and the 'Supreme Court of New South Wales, both of

  - 4 -  

which were previously dismissed; thirdly, that the proceedings were not maintainable under the Disability iscrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DD Act); fourthly, that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the negligence and breach of contract were statute barred; and sixthly to the extent the proceedings were in defamation thev were statute  barred  and, in any event the Court had no jurisdiction to hear such a claim.

9              The pnimar" judge found that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's   proceeding. He said that no proceeding could be brought under the HREOC Act because an application of that kind could only be made after a complaint to the Human Right and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was terminated by the President, and the President had aiven notice under s 46PH(2) of the HREOC Act. No such notice had been given in this case.

10            The appellant complained that she had been discriminated against in the Supreme Court by the solicitors for the University and, perhaps, though it is not clear, by officers,  judicial and non?judicial, of the Supreme Court. The primary judge found that this was not a matter that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain because there had been no complaint to the HREOC and, again, no notice had been given by the President. In any event, these proceedings were against the University and not any other party in the Supreme Court. 

11             Lastly, the primary judge found that the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the claims in negligence, contract and defamation. For those reasons, he dismissed the appellant's proceeding.

12            The appellant's proceeding was dismissed because the primary judge found that the Court lacked jurisdiction, and therefore it followed that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed. The order dismissing the proceedings, however, is not a final order: Weatherall v Satellite Receiving Systems A ust Pty Ltd (1999) 92 FCR 10 1; Dai v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2000) 171 ALR 348. It is an interlocutory order: LashansAy v Bruvecchis Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 64. Section 24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) provides that an            appeal cannot be brought from an interlocutory judgment of the Court constituted by a single Judge unless the Court or a judge gives leave to appeal: s 24(1 A). On 25 July 2007, a Judge of this Court, with the. respondent's consent, granted Ieave

  - 5 -  

13            The appellant, who was unrepresented on this appeal, was invited by the Court to direct her attention to the primary judge's reasons for the purpose of demonstrating to the Court error on his Honour's part. Apart from stating that his decision was an abuse of process, the appellant was unable to articulate any error on his Honour's part. During the hearing of the appeal, the appellant handed up to the Court a number of documents which she invited the Court to receive as evidence. The documents were put before the Court to show that the appellant had been discriminated against by the  respondent whilst attending the respondent's institution and for the further purpose of demonstrating improper conduct by the respondent's legal representatives in proceedings brought by the appellant in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Court indicated that it would read the documents and rule on their admissibility. The documents are not relevant to this appeal and were not relevant in the proceeding before the primary judge. They will not be admitted: s 56(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). An affidavit of the appellant dated 10 July 2007 was read subject to objection. It was equally, and for like reasons, irrelevant and should be rejected.

14            The question before the primary judge and on this appeal, was whether the appellant's proceeding should be dismissed because the appellant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceedings: s 3 1 A of the Federal Court ofAustralia Act.

15            The appellant's cause of action in the application is identified as a claim under the HREOC Act alleging unlawful discrimination. As already noticed, paragraph 2 of the appellant's application seeks the transfer of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of NewSouth Wales (which have been dealt with by that Court) to the Federal Court. She alsoindicates that her claim includes personal injury, defamation and breach of contract.

16            The primary judge construed the application as raising a cause of action under the HREOC Act and further causes of action in negligence, contract and defamation. In our opinion, that was a generous construction of the proceeding. However, the respondent did not argue that his Honour was wrong to conclude that the further common law causes of action were raised.

17            In respect of the cause of action under the HREOC Act, his Honour found that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding

  - 6 -  

18            Section 46PO of the HREOC Act empowers a person who has made a complaint to the HREOC, or on whose ehalf a complaint to the HREOC was made, to apply to the Court alleging unlawful discrimination by the respondent to the complaint. However, there are three conditions precedent to the right to bring such a proceeding: a complaint must have been made; the complaint must have been terminated by the President under s 46PE or s 46PH and the President must have  given notice to the complainant; and the President must have given notice under s 46PH(2) of the HREOC Act. The last condition has not been met.No notice has been given.

19            Moreover, although the appellant claimed before the primary judge and the Full Court that she had made a complaint to the HREOC, s 13(4) of the DD Act provides that a complaint cannot be made under the HREOC Act concerning any discrimination dealt with under the DD Act where a person has made a complaint or initiated proceedings under a law of a State or Territory relating to discrimination dealt with by the DD Act. As the appellant had already lodged a complaint with the Anti?Discrimination Board of New South Wales (which conducted an unsuccessful conciliation) and the  Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales (which dismissed the complaint after a hearing) any purported complaint made to the HREOC was incompetent. Thus the first condition precedent also cannot be made out. 

20            For these reasons, the appellant cannot maintain any proceeding based on a cause of action under the HREOC Act alleging unlawful discrimination. The proceeding is not maintainable under the HREOC Act because the conditions precedent to the institution of the proceeding have not been made out and, indeed, cannot be made out.

21            The primary judge also dismissed the appellant's proceeding insofar as it raised causes of action in negligence, contract and defamation on the basis that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain those causes of action. If those causes of action were raised, as opposed to being the subject of a request for transfer to this Court, the primary judge was correct if it can be concluded that there has been no proper invocation of federal jurisdiction here: Carlton & United Breweries Ltd v Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 543 at 553. We need not decide the  question (in particular in the absence of argument) whether the absence of the satisfaction of the conditions precedent in s 46PO leads to the conclusion that

  - 7 -  

there has been no proper invocation of federal jurisdiction: see Zines L "Federal, Associated and Accrued Jurisdiction"  in Opeskin B and Wheeler F (eds) The Australian Federal Judicial System (Melbourne University Press, 2000) pp 294?95.  This is unnecessary for decision because the Supreme Court of New South Wales has already entertained these causes of action and dismissed the actions in negligence and contract as statute? barred and the action in defamation on the appellant's  own motion. Even assuming these causes of action were raised and even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to hear them  as part of some federal matter, they would be dismissed as an abuse of process. The primary judge was right to dismiss the proceeding summarily

22 The appeal should be dismissed. . The appellant must pay the respondent's costs

       Icertify that the preceding twentytwo(22)numberedparagraphs are atrue copy of theReasons forJudgmentherein of the Hon Justices Allsop ,Lander and Siopis

Dated: 31 August 2007    Judge  C

Solicitor for the RespondentDLA Phillips Fox 

Date of Hearing21 August 2007 -- Date of Judgment: 31 August 2007

Honorable  Justices Allsop

all about J Allsop IN WIKIPEDIA 

was appointed the President of the NSW Court of Appeal  on June 2, 2008

NSW Court of Appeal 

 J BRANSON and J ALLSOP resigned from Federal Court and moved to the NSW SUPREME COURT

 

Judge Allsop’s decision attracted a lot of negative attention, NSW citizens were in panic as it look like that NSW judicial corruption had spread to Federal Court, to another state and got an approval of another Judge; Victorian Chief Judge Black.. It was frightening to witness how powerful Judge Spigelman is and his corrupt-court- values are enforced to every court in NSW, even the courts from different state. This event had triggered the biggest NSW migration; people were leaving everything behind, not just NSW but Australia. Nobody had agree with Justice Allsop’s  decision; not even his Chief Judge Black, so Honorable Allsop turned to Dishonorable and together with Justice Branson (also Dishonorable) resigned from federal court.

Justice Allsop’s and Justice Branson’s approach towards the law impressed Chief Judge Spigelman so much so that he employed Justice Branson to part-time Supreme Court Judge and the full-time NSW Human Rights Commissioner. With Judge Allsop, J Spigelman was even more generous; he had given him his own full-time position and the title of the President of the NSW Court of Appeal. Even this came with that little extra; J Allsop is a member of Judicial Commision of NSW. So, why would anyone choose a respectable life over the misconduct? Crime pays of, is highly encouraged, opens every door and is extremely rewarded amongst the very top of the NSW Government. To all the migrants out there who ask about migration to NSW - "if this sounds like you – WELCOME, you will never look back"

.

don’t forget the justice bit

 

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED ARTICLE BY HONORABLE M. KIRBY

 

TACKLING JUDICIAL

CORRUPTION - GLOBALLY

If you cant access document pls contact Hon M Kirby

                our judges on ....

TACKLING JUDICIAL CORRUPTION - GLOBALLY

But in many countries, especially in the lower judiciary, corruption is sadly a way of life. Insidiously, it has invaded the judicial seat. ...
www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/.../kirbyj_stjames.htm
.htm

Psychological Injuries – No Requirement that A Worker’s Perception of Events Be "Reasonable" (Moray & Agnew)

  Acting President Bill Roche of the Workers compensation Commission of NSW (‘WCC’) dismissed an appeal lodged by an employer against the decision of the Arbitrator to award a worker benefits of weekly compensation and treatment expenses as a result of a psychological injury.

Recording a Meeting? (Clayton Utz)

  Do you have a right to protect yourself by recording meetings you attend? Not according to the South Australian Supreme Court. It has just held that the Chairman of a meeting and the meeting itself can prohibit the use of recording devices at the meeting.

What is the Effect of a Foreign Jurisdiction Clause in Commercial Disputes? (Moray & Agnew)

  The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the effect of a foreign jurisdiction clause on a commercial claim issued in the Supreme Court.

Court of Appeal Confirms When An Occurence Based Liability Policy Responds to a Leaky Building Claim (DLA Phillips Fox)

  Broadform and public liability policies insure liability for property damage occurring during the period of insurance. In Arrow International Limited v QBE Insurance (International) Limited, the Court of Appeal has confirmed how these policies will respond to damage that progressively worsens across several policy periods.

China's Supreme People's Court Issues Rules on Foreign Investment Disputes (Jones Day)

  On May 17, 2010, the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China ("SPC") passed the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Disputes Involving Foreign-Invested Enterprises" (the "FIE Dispute Rules"), which were issued and came into force on August 16, 2010.

Superintendents Wearing Two Hats Risk Abuse Of Power (DLA Phillips Fox)

  Despite the fact that it is now well entrenched in common law that a superintendent must act honestly, fairly and impartially in carrying out its duties, the role of the superintendent remains a complex one, and is often prone to conflict of interest. This is particularly the case when the superintendent is engaged by the principal in a quasi extension of the owner's team. The recent case of Kell & Rigby Holdings Pty Limited vs Lindsay Bennelong Developments Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 777 provides an

Preventing Expert Determination from Becoming a Costly Process (Clayton Utz)

  You should ensure the expert determination clause contains no errors or ambiguity and is consistent with other clauses in the contract.

Assessment of Dependency Damages Where Deceased Died in Domestic Airline Crash (Moray & Agnew)
  The plaintiff was engaged to Ms Sally Urquhart (‘the deceased’) who was killed when the aircraft in which she was a passenger crashed in far north Queensland, in 2005. The plaintiff’s claim for pecuniary loss was brought pursuant to the Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1964 (QLD).

---

---