Hit Me Davey One More Time ±
Enter more text here
“Oh Davey, Davey, how was I supposed to know… that service wasn’t right here?
Oh Davey, Davey, you should have just let me know, your frauds are in plain sight yeah!
Show me how you want to sue me, tell me Davey, cause I need to know now, oh because…
Your legal docs are missing me… I must confess I need to see, need to see…
With your Dim Lankans ‘I lose my mind’, give me a sign…”
“HIT ME DAVEY ONE MORE TIME!”
After an almost 200-page rebuttle affidavit was filed by my attorneys, the hearing that was scheduled for August 2017 has been adjourned to February 2018. MSL needed more time to deal with it, or some crap such as that!
Sadly for the Brown Puppy and MSL, their obvious jurisdictional defect is the same regardless of when the matter is heard.
Notwithstanding that an entirely separate team from me is contacting parties this week to resolve matters independently for me – it is unfair for people who are genuinely owed money to lose out because of the Melbourne Fraudsters!!
This morning my attorney and two barristers, one of whom is a QC opposed the creditor’s petition by The Brown.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, my QC identified that there was arguably a significant jurisdictional defect in the creditor’s petition, in that the petition merely stated that Joe “owned property in Australia”, whereas the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Act relating to property ownership require that at the time of the act of bankruptcy, the debtor “had a dwelling-house or place of business in Australia“.[As parties know I do not have a place of business in Australia presently, and I am in the process of regularising things. This means that no business is presently being transacted naturally and no handover has occurred between the old guard and the new team. My sister took things over in August 2016 in any event and I have not spoken to Joanne Cochrane since July 2016. As such I have no idea what she is doing and she is not my agent either.
In relation to a ‘dwelling-house‘ the context is ‘the place where a person is habitually resident’. ‘Dwelling-house’ does not mean ‘a residential property’. In the Bankruptcy Act the context is defined in Section 40:-
if, with intent to defeat or delay his or her creditors:
(i) he or she departs or remains out of Australia;
(ii) he or she departs from his or her dwelling-house or usual place of business;
(iii) he or she otherwise absents himself or herself; or
(iv) he or she begins to keep house;
As such to ‘depart from the usual home in Australia or usual place of business in Australia’ in an attempt to thwart creditors is the issue. I do not live in Australia although I own assets in Australia.
However I have not been in Australia since October 2010. And the irony is that the intention of resolving issues in Australia means that investment will be inward, and there will be a usual place of business eventually. It is the only way to regularise matters with good Australian folk in any event!! I want to have ‘skin in the game’ and am afraid of no-one 🙂
Additionally I have taken no steps to dispose of assets or engage in fraudulent conveyance. The reason is simply because I am obviously solvent and the theatrical crap and theories from the Melbourne Fraudsters exists in their own minds and those of their cabal. Health issues and data exfiltration has delayed me but the strategy is unaffected, only its timing.]
Upon this issue being pointed out to them, The Brown’s barrister quickly moved from wanting to press ahead with the application, to instead agreeing to an adjournment.
A timetable was therefore negotiated which provides The Brown with an opportunity to file an amended creditor’s petition, and for me to file evidence in response, following which the matter will be listed for a further hearing in August 2017.
My QC made it clear to the Court that although we do not oppose The Brown being allowed the opportunity to attempt to rectify his creditor’s petition, we are by no means conceding that the amendment should ultimately be allowed, or that it will cure any underlying defect.
Depending upon what evidence is filed, the matter will either be heard and determined in August 2017 or, more probably, adjourned to a further hearing at some later date thereafter.
Trying to make a solvent person bankrupt by deliberately lying about me, refusing to communicate and then getting substituted service apparently because they have not communicated (which means it is I that is being evasive), is the most ridiculous thing ever that I have seen from these Melbourne Fraudsters.
The Bottom Line
As can be seen my legal team are more than reasonable and accommodating whilst The Brown’s is vexatious and has been petty throughout, from the evidence below. They need the cover of darkness to fabricate matters whereas we are open and transparent.
Unfortunately this is nothing new and running cases involving MSL is more akin to:-
“PLAYING CHESS WITH A PIGEON”
Joe has strategies, the cool moves and a solid underlying case
MSL is the pigeon, that comes along, shits everywhere and then struts around afterwards 🙂
the case continues…
Creditor’s Petition by David Andrew Brown
As LinkedIn is a Business Forum, it is vital that my/our information, impressive and also adverse, is communicated openly and expediently. I always take prudent steps to ensure that clients and suppliers are aware of issues which may impact upon them and to allay any fears.
A few days ago on 22 June 2017 I was completely shocked to find out about a Federal Court hearing MLG716/2017 and a Creditor’s Petition via the Australian Financial Security Authority (“AFSA”) National Personal Insolvency Index (“NPII”).
At the time I had engaged new lawyers to handle a number of regularisation matters, and they were undertaking a number of searches in any event. Unlike the previous firms, I know this firm very well and they have undertaken work for me previously face to face from 2009. I even had paid all their invoices (just like HK Clifford Chance) – surely a bonus for them!
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE ARE CLEARING ALL KNOWN LIABILITIES WITH ALL PARTIES IN ANY EVENT. BUT THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DAMAGE THAT DAB AND MTC HAVE CAUSED OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS MEANS THEY DESERVE SPECIAL TREATMENT 🙂
As such there is absolutely nothing to worry about and a hardcore barrister will be attending on my behalf.
The issue as usual, relates to David Andrew Brown, and his fraudulently-obtained judgment, which every man and his dog is preventing me from setting aside. The grounds are usually ‘but you have no evidence’ or ‘the appeal process is completed’. In relation to the latter ‘there is no statute of limitations on fraud in Australia and the appeal process is irrelevant’ and in relation to ‘evidence’ read this article and the rest of them:-
And there is also a massive set-off, which needs to be considered and fleshed out:-
And then there are the usual issues of Subornation of Perjury and general Perversion of the Course of Justice by McDonald Slater & Lay:-
Notwithstanding that a deficient judgment and a legal set-off / cross-claim can also set aside a Creditor’s Petition, today’s article is actually about Deficient Service, or in this case the Fraudulent Defeating of my Rights.
Opposing a Creditor’s Petition
The Creditor’s Petition is issued when a Bankruptcy Notice has not been complied with or set aside.
“Where a creditor can show that a debtor failed to comply with a bankruptcy notice or commence proceedings to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice, within 21 days of being served with the notice, they may commence bankruptcy proceedings by presenting a petition with the Court. A debtor fails to comply with a bankruptcy notice if she/ he does not pay the amount referred to in the notice or come to a payment arrangement agreed by the creditor.”
As above the burden of proof rests with the issuer of the Bankruptcy Notice to demonstrate failure to comply after the respondent debtor has received it.
Over the last year we have provided a wealth of information via e-mails (over a million of them) as well as public notices on Social Media and LinkedIn in particular. A few named articles about e-mails alone are:-
And more specific ones:-
Legal Procedures on 06 June 2017:-
Deficient Service on 17 June 2017:-
Tania also published this on 08 March 2017:-
and a massive e-mailshot about the Melbourne Fraudsters on 26 March 2017:-
which I sent to MSL themselves. It contains the e-mail access procedure:-
Clearly the presence of so many articles about the Melbourne Fraudsters would have led them to LinkedIn and their knowledge of the procedures would have been unavoidable even if they had not received the e-mails.
In fact the first page of my LinkedIn profile says:-
In the above, the operative text is:-
“Use [email protected] for matters of a financial nature and [email protected] for legal issues. Contractors are responsible for handling e-mail and there are specific terms that need to be accepted first otherwise your e-mails will be rejected automatically at server level.
You may apply for access to the e-mail system using https://secureform.luxsci.com/forms/16808/7779/Bh7B/form.html .”
So the e-mail addresses have been clearly defined as well as the process even on the old system, referenced here:-
“And furthermore, whilst the e-mail terms confirm that the actual service of legal process is not accepted by e-mail, there is nothing in the terms that prevents any party who has accepted terms and has been approved, SIMPLY ASKING how service may be effected 🙂
Depending upon that answer they could legitimately obtain substituted service – unfortunately they prefer to run the usual themes (to their obvious detriment) and then get others to join the cabal to somehow legitimise their flawed position.”
In the new system referenced here:-
Service of Process is accepted by e-mail – the date of this article is 17 June 2017. So from this date the system was operational AND there was public notification of the same.
Obtaining a Norwich Pharmacal Order against LinkedIn to unmask the identities of the parties reviewing my articles from Melbourne is not rocket science, and we would could provide them with narrower criteria should it be required.
Specific Correspondence to Brown and MSL
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the litigants have been informed directly by e-mail in relation to service and we should have the server logs.
On 26 April 2016 I wrote the following letter in relation to their fraudulent obtaining of the actual judgment, the fraudulent obtaining of substituted service and their destruction of my evidence, which was data they had in their possession.
Key text is:-
“I am mindful of course, of another one of your perjurious affidavits for Substituted Service in which you deliberately sent a Writ of Summons to a Casino in Singapore (despite knowing full well that I had never resided there) and then lied deposing that I had evaded service.”
The above demonstrates a propensity for perjury and substituted service via vexatious proceedings.
“Should it be your intention to pointless attempt to enforce your fraudulently obtained judgment despite the foregoing, then please let me know immediately by e-mail and I will be more than willing to provide the name and address of a law firm who can accept physical service within 10 days of your e-mail.”
The above confirms that e-mail notification is acceptable, and a willingness to participate in judicial proceedings.
“Should it be your contention that.. I have somehow been served or are evading service then please immediately provide me with the Affidavit of Service or the Affidavits relating to Attempted Service. I will immediately be challenging the veracity of the same.”
This confirms that I am well aware of their antics and specifically require such documents to ‘shut the door’ on their nonsense.
Further Specific E-mails
There are many e-mails. On 04 December 2016 I sent Brown and Ian Slater of MSL the following e-mail, which specifically contained a PDF of the e-mail procedures, drew their attention to my LinkedIn profile and the url for white-listing http://forms.sendpulse.com/e29f03f106 (sendpulse was superseded in March 2017).
The text of “Please ensure that you are white-listed before communicating with Rhodium e-mail addresses, otherwise your e-mails will be automatically rejected at server level and Rhodium will be unable to process your e-mail further. The attached pdf explains how you may apply for access.”
Tania also sent them a PDF by e-mail inviting communication and resolution, 20170323 TDS Limited Authorisation.pdf which also appears here:-
but MSL chose not to communicate despite the e-mail to Calvin Clark:-
On 05 April 2014 I wrote a further e-mail:-
but nothing happened from MSL’s end and there was no application for access.
Eversheds-Sutherland as well as Mishcon de Reya accepted the terms and obtained e-mail access, so the terms are nothing too worrisome. But MSL failed to do so as is their evasive style.
On 11 May 2017 I sent yet another e-mail to MSL expressing my dissatisfaction with their continual refusal to communicate. I also drew their attention to various LinkedIn articles:-
Letter to David Brown and Ian Slater of 21 June 2017
Having heard nothing from them, I decided to write, setting out the position and openly offering a payment plan. It is clear that I had no idea that the enforcement of the judgment had already commenced. This letter is similar to the 26 April 2016 one.
On 22 June 2017 I FINALLY received an e-mail from Sarah Rickard of MSL to [email protected], with a number of attachments. Service had finally been effected for the first time.
On 22 June 2017 I FINALLY received an e-mail from Sarah Rickard of MSL to [email protected], with a number of attachments. Service had finally been effected for the first time.
In the above letter I sent to MSL, I did ask them to specifically:-
“As such in the interests of natural justice and procedural fairness please confirm the present position. Please IMMEDIATELY provide ALL materials in relation to the foregoing should 7 or 8 apply.”
One of the attachments was a Bankruptcy Notice that I was seeing for the first time ever, as well the the Creditor’s Petition and related material. Key affidavits used in the substituted service applications were conveniently not provided by MSL and so could not be challenged, as is MSL’s modus operandi.
IN ALL MATTERS INVOLVING THESE PARTIES EVERY SINGLE AFFIDAVIT HAS CONTAINED FALSE STATEMENTS AND IN MANY OF THEM THERE ARE PERJURIOUS STATEMENTS WHICH IMPACT UPON THE EVENTUAL DECISION.
Also MSL had messed up with the amounts, and I believe their interest calculation in the original Bankruptcy Notice is incorrect, as well as their Creditor’s Petition. A deficient interest calculation is also a ground for setting aside both aside.
Compare the Pair
MSL asking on 22 June 2017 for AUD 358,597.19 to be paid before 27 June 2017:-
MSL asking on 23 June 2017 for AUD 385,255.77 to be paid before 27 June 2017:-
Having reviewed the documents I found that the Bankruptcy Notice had been e-mailed to Katarina Klaric, a lawyer previously acting for me. MSL were aware that I had terminated the engagement with Stephens so their e-mail was sent to an obsolete lawyer and address.
Furthermore, I just happened to call Katarina on the previous day 22 June 2017 and she mentioned nothing about the Bankruptcy Notice in the call. The following day (with the knowledge of her e-mail address being used) I called her again and specifically asked her.
Katarina advised me that she had informed MSL that they were no longer acting and the Ceasing to Act notice that Stephens would have also filed would have reconfirmed the same.
Notwithstanding that MSL had been informed by Stephens, the former still relied on that deficient service, despite being unable to demonstrate that I had received it or even knew anything about it!
Furthermore, it is extremely interesting that in the Sealed Creditor’s Petition dated 17 May 2017, Paragraph 4 states that the ‘act of bankruptcy’ was committed by the respondent debtor by:-
“The respondent debtor failed to comply within the 21 days after 18 November 2016 (that is, by 9 December 2016) with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice served on him on 17 October 2016…”
NO BANKRUPTCY NOTICE WAS SERVED ON ME ON 17 OCTOBER 2016
Additionally 9 December 2016 is 5 days AFTER the e-mail I wrote to David Brown AND Ian Slater of MSL (see above) asking them to communicate any matters to me. So they were waiting for 9 December 2016 to come around instead of responding to me on 04 December 2016 – disgraceful!
As such Brown and MSL
undertook a course of action which would obviously:-
DENY ME NATURAL JUSTICE
FRAUDULENTLY DEFEATED MY RIGHTS
Actual Date of Service
I sent the document 20170617 Entities Domains E-mail.pdf to Brown and Ian Slater of MSL on 21 June 2017.
One of the specific phrases referenced is “Please read this document in its entirety” and one of the early paragraphs referenced states:-
“Service can only be effected by the litigant or its lawyer – no third party service (howsoeveer associated) is accepted and service attempted in this manner supersedes any prior attempts and/or methods used.”
On Page 10 under 20170615 LEGAL RESOLUTION E-MAIL TERMS, the following paragraphs state:-
“1 Your use of our e-mail system for communication of legal matters confirms your consent to receive e-mail from any use and irrevocable acceptance of our terms as updated periodically, including but not limited to those below, to the exclusion of all others. As such please do not communicate legal matters with us via e-mail if you do not want to be bound by our terms. [20170615 LEGAL RESOLUTION E-MAIL TERMS].”
Part of Paragraph 9 states:-
“9 Service can only be effected by the litigant or its lawyer – no third party service (howsoever associated) is accepted. Service attempted in this manner supersedes any prior attempts and/or methods used.”
MSL’s e-mail of 22 June 2017 after the e-mail I sent to them on 21 June 2017 binds MSL to my terms irrevocably.
The Fundamental Position
Notwithstanding the foregoing in relation to deliberate denial of rights, the position is absolutely clear in relation to Terms for Service.
This means that once an e-mail is sent to [email protected] then the Server confirms that the e-mail (and of course its date) replaces any previous methods. There is absolutely no confusion here and previous dates cannot therefore be relied upon.
The Bottom Line
As it happens I am sending my lawyers and a barrister to the hearing and no doubt there will be a big group of ‘victims’ who want ‘justice’ or something… all part of the theatrics to give the Melbourne Fraudsters credibility.
Notwithstanding every else, I am solvent in any event, so there are numerous avenues open to my legal team. We are already regularising matters:-
But the bottom line is that the actions of the Melbourne Fraudsters are demonstrably designed to prevent me finding out about the matter at all, or maybe the last possible moment if I was lucky.
The really weird thing, is that I thought something was going on over the last two months, merely from reviewing traffic analysis on websites. The misleading and obviously defamatory google articles went above my own site JSRDS listing – usually a bad sign!
No-one told me of course which I am quite annoyed about as it is clear that various people I was communicating with knew the position and said nothing.
Ironically I wrote a number of articles, about the Federal Court in relation to deficient service in the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Rhodium Australia Pty Ltd (“RHOAUS”), which was an unlawful Winding Up Petition as well as various ones on service of process. Of course RHOAUS won the ATO case!!
Perhaps so many people thinking about me and these matters helped me subconsciously – MSL clearly told everyone else in good time except me. I suggest people should along to the hearing to see the antics.
Anyway remember to camp outside the court overnight and wear warm clothes. Only buy tickets from official outlets. Get there early, because I am sure there will be a massive herd of sad people with some axe to grind or another.
Food will be provided because by the time my legal team finishes with them there will be more mincemeat than a butcher’s shop 🙂
The case continues…
PS I am so irritated by these antics that I/We are happy to CLEAR LIABILITIES with all other parties who are not them, subject to settlement terms !!
Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)