All references to man X and man Y being directors, shareholders, owners or operators of CASACIR relate to a time period prior to 14 February 2024 at which time CASACIR was sold to unrelated parties. Nothing said in this website involves the new directors, owners, operators or shareholders.
Man X and man Y were the joint directors (and two of the three shareholders) of CASACIR (man Y’s son Heath was the third shareholder). Man X was also the operating manager: overseeing the Neerim North quarry, the Mt Speed quarry, the Granite Rock quarry and the Mt Speed asphalt plant[1]. Man Y also had the financial oversight of CASACIR and its subsidiaries, as well as being in charge of the Stabil-Lime Group and its subsidiaries. Man Y swore under oath that: “I have in our head office of the Stabilime Group we have a dedicated bookkeeper and we handle the financial requirements of [CASACIR, as well as myself and man X][2]… I am the second applicant herein and, as such, have access to the books and records of [man X and myself]”[3].
In great disregard for the demands of the law, honesty and ethics, and their own (false) claims to doing everything with integrity, I have known man X and man Y to have commenced their fraudulent conduct in 2005 (as it relates to me (and my related parties)), and it has continued to date (25 July 2024).
Man X and man Y criminally obstructed justice in many forms to accomplish their goals of: *having no enforcement orders handed down as a result of the VCAT hearing; *obtaining costs of the actions at VCAT; *not just having some very specific words from my former website amended as claimed by them, but rather, to have my former website removed from the internet in its entirety; *intimidating, harassing, defaming and belittling me; *gaining access to whatever of my assets that they had not yet obtained (and they specifically sought the means to do so), and specifically gaining significant damages, interest and costs in relation to some of the publications on my former website; *by their actions forcing me to sell our land so that I could not stop the quarry; *making me officially bankrupt; *having my application to set aside the bankruptcy procedures they had initiated against me dismissed; and *by deceitful diversion, basing the outcome of each case on matters other than the core issues central to the cases themselves.
Man X and man Y’s ultimate goal was their absolute and desperate need to have the VCAT members and the judiciary so swayed by the methods they used to criminally obstruct justice that the members and judiciary therefore didn’t look at man X, man Y and CASACIR’S own multitude of failures, including the ignoring of man X’s giving (and man Y’s acknowledged approval and authorisation) of prolific false testimony at VCAT, and man X and man Y both giving considerable false testimony at court – instead, looking where they pointed, i.e. at me, just as they did before Ryan R when they instructed Green to actively and deliberately lie about the payments made to them. Instead of pointing at the true reason I[4] had taken action against them (i.e. for (1) trying to protect the pre-existing legislated rights I and my related parties had had prior to man X and man Y’s arrival on the scene and (2) by trying to accept the offer to buy (our land[5]) made by man X in 2005), they used their own methods of trying to make me out to be the liar to their advantage when it was them who lied, not me. Man X and man Y’s ultimate goal was to get me to the point where, for whatever reason, I had to sell our property so that I could no longer stop their quarry (by objecting to their illegal destruction of Kookaburra Creek and its catchment, watertable and spring) – accomplishing that goal meant a win of well in excess of $100m (making their wins at VCAT and court insignificant to them, but devastating to me).
The success of their goals is exposed by the outcomes, particularly by the way they each personally operated, and by their approval and authorisation of the work and conduct others on their behalf – each of their goals was accomplished by the use of criminal obstruction of justice in many forms and by many means, including by false testimony at both VCAT and court, and the blatant abuse of the court’s processes.
In relation to the VCAT enforcement hearing
Man X and man Y’s further conduct at VCAT was such that man X gave false testimony after having: (1) sworn to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth with his hand on the Bible, (2) in the affidavits he swore that were true and accurate – but he was knowingly and deliberately lying under oath, and (3) by man Y and CASACIR’s approval and authorisation of man X’s false testimony.
This oath and assurance indicated that man X expected everyone to believe that he took his oath seriously, and that he would be honest in his testimony and written and verbal evidence and, except for me[6], they did believe him and that impacted and swayed the members into granting him a judgment for no enforcement orders, and an award for significant costs (which is unusual for VCAT).
Part of the problem at the basis of the VCAT actions is revealed to be the fact that man X clearly expressed his belief that at least some of the breaches were actually compliance (just a few are provided, but there are many more): *In relation to dust: he swore that, in his opinion, not having dust data to retrieve for over 11 months was actually complying with the permit condition that demanded “real-time” monitoring. *In relation to working on a public holiday, that he was actually complying with the conditions by knowingly and deliberately working on a public holiday. *Then, in response to my cross-examination at court: “There are posts that are on corners with big trees in the way, there are posts that have a hill in between the next one. I’m questioning x-ray vision here because to be able to see the next one from some locations, you have to actually have x-ray vision, so how can you say that you can see the next one from every one, and I have photos if you would like me to present them to the court?” he testified under oath that: “They are a requirement of the Act that posts have to be put in as per the Act, as per conditions set down by VCAT. They were done under the instructions and knowledge of the DPI who, since you’ve brought them up a dozen times, have checked it and are happy with what is on the ground. Whether trees have grown over and the site line over 100 metres has changed, I’m happy with the condition of the site lines and the white posts”[7]. Although he falsely blamed trees growing for some of the loss of sightlines, he failed to address the fact that there were hills and bends in the road that blocked anyone from seeing the next post from the last (but then, following his logic, perhaps the hills and bends have “grown” or “appeared” and are new too!) So, he was happy that the posts failed to meet the conditions.
Man X and man Y were part of the previous assurance to VCAT in 2008, as absolute fact, that there would be absolutely no detrimental impacts from their quarry if given a permit, and then once they had their permit and commenced the quarry, inter alia: *they allowed the emitting of significant dust levels on frequent occasions – dust that impacted me and others on our land; *they allowed the emitting of noise louder and more intense on many occasions than that allowed – noise that impacted me and others on our land; *they allowed the pollution of Kookaburra Creek (the waterway entering and providing the main water source for our land) – in spite of my strong objections and complaints from me on behalf of my related parties; *they authorised the illegal removal of the flow of Kookaburra Creek from flowing into and through our land; *then, after legal action was commenced, and just before the case was heard, man X signed, and man Y and CASACIR authorised and approved of man X signing, a binding terms of settlement agreement (“Terms”) on behalf of themselves, to restore the flow and not interfere with it again, then they refused to restore the flow until further legal action was threatened; *then provided a document which proved that they intended to permanently remove the flow regardless of the Terms they had personally signed and/or authorised signing, in spite of what I and my related parties said and did (including by ongoing ardent objections); and *revealed that the signing of the binding document meant absolutely nothing to them – the fact was that they had absolutely no intention of complying with the Terms in the long-term, and only signed/authorised the signing of it in order to avoid the legal action set to commence the following day – it was a case of pure, simple, unmitigated and collaborated fraud.
Man X and man Y approved and authorised the fraudulent claims that resulted in the spotlight being turned onto me, claiming that I had been vexatious in trying to protect my pre-existing legislated rights so that they could try to avoid the consequences of their actions and their failures to comply with permit and work plan conditions, with legislation, and with their own undertakings.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of their then solicitor, Ken Smith (“Smith”) ignoring the orders and directions of VCAT. For example, but certainly not limited to, the ignoring of the directions as to the timing of filing and serving documents; and discussing and agreeing to times with me.
Man X and man Y provided to VCAT various private letters I had sent them, including those marked “in confidence” and/or “without prejudice”, and they did so without prior discussion or request for, or grant of, permission[8]. Those letters were used to fraudulently convince the members that I was vexatious in offering our land for sale when I was simply trying to accept the offer made by man X in 2005 (man X presumably made the offer with man Y’s authorisation).
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the deliberate concealment and the subsequent deliberate delay in the production of a document that they then made critical to, and foundational in, the case – which document was part of the success of their win.
They authorised and approved bills of costs containing and claiming a significant number of improper items such as items, inter alia, for other matters entirely unrelated; duplicate costs; costs of compliance with the conditions relating to the quarry.
By all this criminal obstruction of justice, man X and man Y won this case, and costs.
In relation to the appeal of the VCAT costs (the “VCAT costs appeal”)
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of their barrister, Anthony Southall (“Southall”)’s, conduct and how he ran the appeal, inter alia: *by way of authorising and approving the defaming, and attempts at shaming and belittling of me in submissions and addresses made by Southall[9] – including by the fraudulent claim that I had been evicted by the police from the CASACIR quarry land when it had never happened[10]; *by way of authorising and approving of Southall’s misuse and misquoting of the VCAT documentation; *by authorising and approving of Southall’s misleading and deceptive claims that the testimony at VCAT was not “viva voce”[11] evidence – in spite of both man X and me having given testimony sworn with our hands on the Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth[12]; *by way of authorising and approving of Southall’s fraudulent claims that I had taken the action at VCAT so as to achieve commercial superiority[13]; *by authorising and approving submissions outside points of law; and *by way of authorising and approving of Southall’s veiled intimidation of the judge[14] – by the implication that the judge would be irrational if she handed down a different result that that submitted by Southall and found by VCAT member Byard (his determination was found as a result of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s criminal obstruction of justice).
By all this criminal obstruction of justice, man X and man Y won this case, and costs.
In relation to the their claims against me in the Supreme Court (the “SC”)
Man X and man Y have admitted to having authorised and approved of prolific amounts of fraudulent claims in the letter of 19 August 2011. They knew that there was virtually no truth in the letter, and certainly no truth in the accusations – yet chose to have it sent to me as truth and fact in order to bully, intimidate and coerce me into removing my entire former website from the internet. The details of that letter and their subsequent approval and authorisation of its gross misuse [15], criminal obstruction of justice and abuse of process are elsewhere in this website.
Man X and man Y did not plead VCAT matters in this proceeding but nonetheless authorised and approved the introduction of the VCAT outcomes that were themselves gained through man X’s false sworn written and verbal testimony (and man Y’s acknowledged authorisation and approval of that false testimony), and other obstructions of justice, thereby causing the “snowball effect” [16].
Man X and man Y were both in court when Southall and Pagone J both said that to lie under oath was a criminal offence, that it could be deemed to be perjury and that it was a jailable offence. Having heard and understood[17] that, man X and man Y then both elected to swear an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then gave false testimony – including by gross exaggeration, pre-planned and collaborated false testimony between them, as well as hearsay and twisting of facts – nothing that could reasonably be deemed to a mistake or unintentional error.
Man X and man Y’s oaths were meant to tell the court that they again expected everyone to believe that they took their oaths seriously, and that they would be honest in their testimony and written and verbal evidence and, again, except for me[18], they did believe them. In fact, man X and man Y separately put on a very convincing act for the court that they were upright, ethical and honest men who took their oaths seriously and would not lie under oath … and then they gave repeated false testimony. The false testimony and lies under oath were not mistakes: they were deliberately (and in some cases, collaboratively) planned, calculated to have the maximum effect they wanted, and was done with a distinct purpose and to cause the utmost harm to me and my credibility – they wanted to have the court look away from what they had done and look at the fact that I had been trying to sell our land (so as to be able to get away from man X, man Y and CASACIR), and they particularly determined to put undue pressure on me so that I would get to a point where I just had to sell our land and move away – giving them free reign to do what they liked, including destroying Kookaburra Creek and the spring, watertable and catchment area that fed it (upon which our property relied).
Man X and man Y’s criminal obstruction of justice by false testimony included “mistakes” and gross exaggerations for the purposes, and with the deliberate intent, of: *making a point (even when the point was fraudulent); *attempting to make the judge believe that everything man X and man Y swore was the absolute truth; *attempting to make the judge believe (a) that I was vexatious, (b) that I had tried everything in my power to stop or interfere with the quarry, (c) that I only wanted to sell our land for an exorbitant amount, and (d) that I was an extortionist – rather than being a person who (i) was simply trying to take up man X and man Y on their offer[19] made at the community meeting in 2005, and (ii) since man X and man Y had reneged on the offer, was simply trying to maintain or re-gain the pre-existing legislated rights we had prior to the arrival of man X, man Y and CASACIR and their severe detrimental impacts; and *making Pagone J believe that above all else, he must be focussed on what man X and man Y said about me rather than their own fraudulent conduct and false testimony.
Man X and man Y were witnesses when in the witness box and swore on oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – thereby swearing that they would not exaggerate, twist, or in any way manipulate what they testified to. By swearing falsely, they each knew that, if any action for their lies was taken out against them, under the law there was the strong probability that a determination of perjury would be made against them, along with possible jail time and heavy fines – and they each willingly and knowingly took that risk.
Man X and man Y each went well beyond the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unless action is taken by the court for false testimony, it sets a precedent for anyone to claim that they just “exaggerated to make a point” or “made mistakes” and that there was “no harm meant”. Take a look at the following “exaggerations”, deliberate “mistakes” and outright lies – each of which caused harm and contributed to the awards granted by their criminal obstruction of justice.
While none of the false testimony listed below may seem important to you, it is critically important to realise that man X and man Y lied under oath and did so repeatedly and deliberately and with an ulterior motive – thereby proving that it is endemic conduct and covering the grounds proving that it should be considered to be perjury. In addition, each of those lies (“the false testimony”) swayed the court into making orders and judgments that it would not have made if the truth had been present instead of their false testimony.
Man X testified as absolute and unassailable truth that that he was a Christian man with a strong faith whose beliefs were strong and that he adhered to them; that it all related back to his faith and beliefs and how he conducted himself in life as well as business: i.e. in a fair, honourable and honest way; that honesty and truthfulness was the essence of his life and beliefs and how he conducted himself. He swore that it was the backbone of his life and how he raised his kids; that his family had a reputation where it was known that they were good to do business with, honest, reliable and that their standing in the community was impeccable:
Mr Southall: When you gave your evidence on oath at the enforcement proceeding, what importance did you place upon that?
Man X: This is the essence of our lives and our beliefs and what we – how we conduct ourselves and that is something in my life – it’s the backbone, it’s how we bring up our kids.[20]
Man X: It all relates back to our faith, our beliefs and what we – how we conduct ourselves in life as well as business.
Mr Southall: What do you mean “how we conduct ourselves”?
Man X: In a fair and honourable honest way.[21]
Man X additionally testified: “I have strong religious faith. Am I a big church goer, no, but my beliefs are strong and I adhere to them, yes.[22] … My grandparents as well as my parents were very religious, church going people.[23]…Someone is questioning my belief, faith and I’ve taken exception to that. It’s not something that she knows anything about or has any knowledge of it, let alone any of her business.[24] [25] …“It all relates back to our faith, our beliefs and what we – how we conduct ourselves in life as well as business. … In a fair and honourable honest way[26] … Our family had a – it was known that our family were good to do business with, honest, reliable. The standing in the community was impeccable” [27], and then he gave false testimony.
Also in an attempt to give self-serving fraudulent claims about some of his own honesty and ethics, man Y swore that: (1) he was a man whose word could be trusted; (2) other people were right in taking his word for things; (3) he was concerned about his reputation; and (4) that he had built a reputation over many years so that people relied on his integrity and on the way he conducted stabilising works in particular, and that was very important to him: “I was really concerned that we were going to have a great reputation with a fairly strong tarnish on it.[28] … My concern is more about my reputation and the fact that I value my word in the industry I’m in and I value that other people take my word for things[29]… We built a reputation over many years so that people rely on our integrity and on the way we conduct stabilising works in particular, it’s very important[30] [31]” and then he, too, gave false testimony.
Man X and man Y’s blatant and false testimony was given in order to set the fraudulent scene that they purportedly had consistently high principles, and that their belief systems were impeccable. They tried to set the fraudulent scene that, as an absolute, unequivocal and irrefutable fact, that they could absolutely be completely trusted to be honest, and that they would unwaveringly tell the truth at all times. Because their testimony about their self-serving commendations was believed, their other false testimony was also believed. This severely tainted the view the judges took on the issues and evidence and grossly swayed them from the truth – as was the intention.
Having set the false scene of complete trustworthiness and integrity, in addition to having created a fraudulent document by signing the Terms which they had no intention of complying with on any lasting level, man X and man Y then gave the following lies under oath as additional absolute, unassailable and irrefutable fact – thereby proving that they were certainly not the men of high integrity, ethics and ideals that they testified themselves to be.
False testimony regarding what happened in a closed mediation
One of the many examples is where man X gave false testimony was when he knowing fraudulently testified about what happened in a closed mediation session at VCAT. This testimony was suborned [32] by Southall, with man X’s agreement: “Considering it went most of the day and it was backwards and forwards a lot, in the end she wasn’t prepared to sell … It was put to her we had offered an amount and she wasn’t prepared to accept that” [33]. … [her husband] wanted to take it up and [she] didn’t.”[34] Firstly, man X intentionally and consciously broke the law by revealing what he claimed happened in a mediation session [when, at the time of giving his testimony under examination, no permission has been sought and no permission had been given to reveal anything at all about the mediations], and secondly, and very importantly, my husband (who was not present at the mediation) did not want to accept their offer (he and I had had some private telephone contact (not on speaker phone) while I was in an entirely separate (closed) room from man X, man Y, CASACIR, and their legal team), some 20m down and on the opposite side of the passage. This was a closed mediation and man X would not have had any way of knowing what discussions took place within my room let alone any private telephone conversation between my husband and me. Man X’s testimony was knowingly fraudulent and misleading, because, for man X to have purportedly “known” what took place in a closed meeting was to testify that, either: *he had planted an illegally concealed microphone in my closed room to which neither he nor man Y, nor any of their legal team had entry, and gave fraudulent information about what he heard, and/or *he claimed that my barrister was corrupt and revealed [inaccurate] information that he had no right to reveal, and/or *he claimed that the mediator had breached his fiduciary duty and had revealed [inaccurate] information that he had no right to reveal.
Whichever way he chooses to say it happened, it did not happen – and therefore is was fraudulent and was false testimony by lying under oath. In addition, he was claiming that my husband was at the mediation – he was not at the mediation, and I have his time-sheets (signed by his boss) proving he was at work, not at the mediation. Further, again, my husband and I had conversations over the phone – and the phone was not on speaker. Man X could not have had any idea of what conversations took place between my husband and me, and he gave deliberate and knowing false testimony about it. Man X’s false testimony was not a mistake and was made with the clear, fraudulent, and deliberate, intention of trying to make me appear unreasonable.
False testimony by gross and deliberate exaggerations that he knew to be untrue
Man X again perverted the course of justice when he fraudulently exaggerated his testimony by the swearing that I had contacted the authorities on a daily basis by making “daily” requests [emphasis mine]: “We also use [Kraan] today in the ongoing letters that have to be written to the authorities answering your daily request for whatever it might be.”[35]There were no “daily” requests and he cannot prove there were daily requests. This was, yet again, deliberate exaggerated false testimony by man X in order (1) to deflect from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with their permit, work authority, legislation and their own undertakings, and (2) to try to move the focus on to me to try to make it appear that I was vexatious and just trying to stop or interfere with the quarry rather than the fact that I was trying to re-gain the pre-existing legislated rights we had enjoyed prior the severe detrimental impacts forced on me by man X, man Y and CASACIR.
Man X again perverted the course of justice when he grossly exaggerated when he fraudulently testified that I had updated my website daily [emphasis mine]: “The web page is one of those things that seem to evolve daily so it wasn’t something you read one day and it was going to be the same in a month’s time, it was updated a lot of the time, every day or every second day so it was ongoing of what was being – – –.[36] … this website on a daily update …”[37
Man X again presented to the court as absolute fact that my website had been updated daily (or every second day). The fact is that the website had been updated a few times a month, but not daily or even every second day – man X’s sworn testimony was unfounded, absolutely untrue and a further gross exaggeration, making it further false testimony. In addition, the unnecessary 309-page folder deliberately belatedly produced by man X, man Y and CASACIR and served on me together with their second statement of claim (dated 20 February 2012), contained the entire website and proved that the website was not updated daily. This false testimony was deliberate and made in order (1) to deflect from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with their permit, work authority, legislation and their own undertakings, and (2) to try to move the focus on to me to try to make it appear that I was vexatious and just trying to stop or interfere with the quarry rather than the fact that I was trying to re-gain the pre-existing legislated rights we had enjoyed prior the severe detrimental impacts forced on me by man X, man Y and CASACIR.
Man X fraudulently testified that [emphasis mine]: “[T]he world can see [the website] and the world are telling me they have seen it and industry wise, everybody knows about it, they have heard about it…”[38] and “everyone seems to know fairly quickly.[39]” Remembering their oaths to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (i.e. not exaggerate or twist matters or issues), these claims are simply extraordinary: The world can see it? Everybody in the industry knows about it? Everybody in the industry has heard about it? Everyone seemed to know fairly quickly? If that was so, surely they could have brought in some strangers, some consultants, some customers, some friends, and/or some family, to testify on their behalf – but they did not – not one person out of any of those categories was a witness[40]; in fact, In fact, even though man X’s wife was in court each day, she was not asked to testify, and man Y’s own son, Heath, refused to come and testify on man Y’s behalf[41] – Southall made the following excuse in spite of Heath being fully aware of when he was to testify: “…Heath … was intended to be our final witness, he’s the son of [man Y]. He’s managing director of the road companies. He simply can’t make it today [42]”. Further, they were grossly exaggerated claims and therefore further knowingly false testimony given in order (1) to deflect from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with their permit and work authority conditions, with legislation, and with their own undertakings, and (2) to try to move the focus on to me to try to make it appear that I was vexatious and just trying to stop or interfere with the quarry rather than fighting for the pre-existing legislated rights we had held prior to the arrival of man X, man Y and CASACIR and their severe detrimental impacts.
False testimony regarding the value of our land compared to man X and man Y’s land
Man Y committed fraud by deceitfully and dishonestly testifying, in order to try to mislead the court into believing that my related party’s land was much less valuable than the quarry land, and to try to substantiate his and man X’s fraudulent claim for aggravated damages, that [emphasis mine]: “[S]uffice perhaps to say that our 288 acres with all that rock under it we paid $1.35 million for and she’s talking about a much smaller property with no rock on a slip plain and we had a lot of prime pastoral land and she was talking about [$]1.2 or whatever the figure is, which to my mind is ridiculous.[43] … The point I was making was that you wanted $1.2 million for land on a slip plain that was barely pasture when we paid $1.3 million for about five times the area and most of which was good pasture and had beneath it a massive quantity of high-grade basalt. It to me points to the fact that your pricing is ridiculously high.[44]” However, there are a number of issues that show that man Y’s sworn testimony was knowingly fraudulent and that he lied under oath: *the land bought by man X and man Y was approximately 288 acres and our land was approximately 107 acres – that makes the man X and man Y’s land about 2.7 times the size of our land, not the grossly exaggerated 5 times claimed as fact under oath – man Y had documents which revealed the size of our land, and he knew the size of his own land – therefore he knew what he testified to was fraudulent; *over two-thirds of the quarry land (man X and man Y’s land) is in the same erosion management overlay as our land – neither were in a “slip plain” as fraudulently claimed under oath – man Y either had documents which revealed the overlays on our land and therefore knew he was lying, or he did not know in which case he knew he was lying because he could not make such a blatant unequivocal claim without knowing the truth – therefore he knew what he testified was fraudulent; *two-thirds of our land was excellent grazing (the remainder being fenced off revegetation), while only approximately 100 acres of the man X and man Y s land (i.e. only 37%) was reasonable to good pasture, not the “most” as knowingly and fraudulently sworn to as fact by man Y under oath – he had the responsibility to discover the facts about our land, and he knew the lack of quality of most of his own land given that geologists had produced reports for him; *man X and man Y paid $1.3 million in mid 2006 and we were asking $1.2 m in 2010, 4 years later (after prices had risen markedly, and after my husband and I had built a new home), and that price was based on other land for sale in the area at the time – man Y knew the timeframes and prices, yet deliberately made false testimony as fact; *our land had a house, extensive track-work and excellent fencing, and man X and man Y’s land did not – man Y knew all these facts by observation and documents in his care and control, which proved that he knowingly gave false testimony by having lied under oath; *our land had good water reticulation and for the most part man X and man Y’s land did not – if man Y did not know this about our land, he had the onus of discovery but did not to do so, thereby choosing to give false testimony by having lied under oath; * our land had electricity, telephone and internet and, according to man X and man Y’s own work plan, man X and man Y’s land did not – man Y knew these facts from documents in his care and control yet he deliberately chose give false testimony by having lied under oath; *the quality of the rock under our land had never been explored, but over two-thirds of man X and man Y’s land, if there is rock there (of whatever quality), cannot be quarried due to the steepness, tree density, and the proximity to the Latrobe River – man Y knew these facts, yet chose to give false testimony by having lied under oath.
False testimony regarding facts that man X knew to be untrue because he was in charge of the documents
Man X again obstructed justice when he fraudulently testified that they had had their work authority unendorsed and had not been able to get another for 18 months [emphasis mine]: “We had our work authority disendorsed, unendorsed whatever you want – the only time ever. It took another year and a half to get another work authoritylisted in our name again.”[45] This was further false testimony, fraudulent misrepresentations, negligent misstatements, and exaggerations: *man X was deliberately misleading in his mixed use of the terms “work plan” and “work authority”. I think he is probably an intelligent man and is both the person in charge of the quarries and the person in charge of the documents governing them – he knew and understood the distinct roles of the work plan (the document that described what he said they would do) and the work authority (the document that gave permission for them to do the work described in the work plan). The document that was unendorsed was a work plan. The time from unendorsement of the first work plan (unendorsed in September 2007, due to the fraudulent information contained within it[46]) until the endorsement of a second work plan (endorsed in December 2007) was 4 months, not the grossly exaggerated claim of an 18-month purported time period. This grossly exaggerated, deceptive and deliberately misleading interchange of the terms “work plan” and “work authority” cannot be excused as a misunderstanding by a person not aware of the differences – again: the obfuscation of terminology has been made by man X (the quarry general manager and the person with direct responsibility for, and the oversight of, the creation, the content of, and the dealings with each of these two distinctly separate documents). *The testimony of man X as to having the work authority unendorsed is clearly and undisputedly fraudulent. The timeframe for the said “unendorsement” does not align with that of the work authority as man X, man Y and CASACIR did not have a work authority at any time at that quarry until 20 July 2009. Further, under legislation a work authority could not be unendorsed – it would have to be cancelled (and I argue that it should still be cancelled given their failure to comply with legislation, their permit and their work authority, as well as their own undertakings). *man X assigned the responsibility for the unendorsement to me rather than the authorities: it was the then Department of Primary Industries (DPI), together with Baw Baw Shire Council (“council”), who jointly made the decision to unendorsed it, and it was DPI who unendorsed it. I had had nothing to do with it [47] and had absolutely no power over it or over those who made the decisions.
I put the true facts to man X when I cross-examined him [emphasis mine]: “The old plan was unendorsed in August/September of 2007, the new work plan was endorsed December, 20 December 2007. I put it to you that’s only about three or four months. …” and he swore in reply [emphasis mine]: “Yes.”[48] So, when absolutely pushed, by having to confirm the truth, man X finally effectively admitted to having deliberately exaggerated and having given knowingly false testimony. Man X also orchestrated and therefore knew, that their 2008 planning report[49] acknowledged that the work authority was the “operational approval” and must be issued prior to commencement, and that the work authority cannot be issued until the work plan had been endorsed, and the planning approvals that were required had been obtained [emphasis mine]: “Pursuant to the Extractive Industries Development Act 1995, the Work Authority, which is the “operational” approval for extractive industry, must be issued by the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) prior to any extractive industry activities occurring on the site. … An ’endorsed’ Work Plan must accompany an application for a planning permit. Upon the receipt of the planning approvals sought, the Work Authority can be issued by the Department of Primary Industries. … In accordance with section 19(2)(c) of the Extractive Industries Development Act 1995, the Work Authority cannot be issued until the planning approvals required have been obtained.”[50] This above false testimony was deliberate and man X gave it in order (1) to deflect from his, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with their permit, work authority, legislation and their own undertakings, and (2) to try to move the focus on to me to try to make it appear that I was vexatious and just trying to stop or interfere with the quarry rather than the fact that I was trying to gain assistance to re-gain the pre-existing legislated rights we had enjoyed prior the severe detrimental impacts forced on me by man X, man Y and CASACIR.
Man X grossly exaggerated and lied under oath when he fraudulently testified that my actions had held up man X and man Y and CASACIR for a further 9 months from being allowed to commence operations and had caused additional conditions [emphasis mine]: “With your help, you held up the DPI back from awarding – allowing us to start operations for another 9 months…. The conditions that were imposed at VCAT were actually extended by the DPI after VCAT had made the decision for us to open a quarry and it took them nine months to write the new conditions over and above the VCAT conditions and the shire conditions, nine months before we could start work and the whole time you were talking to the DPI, talking to the catchment authority, talking to the shire saying that the place will never open, you were sending letters to us…”[51] It must be remembered that man X (and man Y) had taken the defamation action to try to instil in the court’s mind that I was doing whatever I could to stop the quarry – in spite of the action actually being as a result of the revelations in my former website of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s gross failures to comply with legislation, and their permit and work authority conditions, and their repeated breaking of the law and the severely detrimental and almost constant impacts on me and my related parties of the offending conduct. The real facts, contrary to man X’s fraudulently sworn testimony, are that discussions were held between DPI and council to ensure that the DPI conditions did not contradict the planning permit conditions [52]. I had no part or input into any of those discussions or decisions, and I did not have anything to do with any conditions or requirements. Further, there are a number of issues that were of critical importance, all of which man X was fully aware of in his role as the quarry general manager: *on 19 January 2009 the VCAT grant of permit issued – man X, man Y and CASACIR could not commence works at this point, as proved by their 2008 planning report (quoted above); *on 3 March 2009 the council planning permit issued, held up by a couple of amendments under the “slip rule” needing to have been performed (i.e. not in any way related to me) – man X, man Y and CASACIR could not commence works at this point, as proved again by his 2008 planning report; *on 12 May 2009 man X, man Y and CASACIR created a new (third) work plan[53] – they could not commence works at this point, as proved again by their 2008 planning report – again another delay not in any way related to me (and in fact, this delay was entirely caused by man X, man Y and CASACIR themselves); *on 6 July 2009, council, having taken the time to read, understand and approve the new (third) work plan, then endorsed it as part of the planning permit – man X, man Y and CASACIR still could not commence works at this point, as proved again by their 2008 planning report; * on 20 July 2009 DPI issued the work authority (which should not have issued given that it did not meet the requirements of the MRSDA) – man X and man Y could now and only now commence works, as proved again by their 2008 planning report; *on or prior to 4 August 2009, man X, man Y and CASACIR commenced work on the site[54]and that was confirmed by them in a letter on the CASACIR letter-head to me, dated 10 August 2009. To fraudulently claim a 9-month delay, and to attribute that delay to me, is an extraordinary exaggeration, was deliberate, and man X gave it in order (1) to deflect from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with their permit, work authority, legislation and their own undertakings, and (2) to try to move the focus on to me to try to make it appear that I was vexatious and just trying to stop or interfere with the quarry rather than the fact that I was trying to gain assistance to re-gain the pre-existing legislated rights we had enjoyed prior the severe detrimental impacts forced on us by man X, man Y and CASACIR. The fact is that work commenced: *less than 7 months after the VCAT decision was handed down; *5 months after the council permit issued; *3 months after the creation of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s new (third) work plan; *one month after the endorsement of their new (third) work plan into the planning permit, and *only 14 days after the very first day that they could commence – that is not the grossly exaggerated 9 months claimed – and the 14-day delay was their choice. For man X to claim that he was unaware of this process is ludicrous, fraudulent and was a further deliberate attempt to sway the court from the truth (revealing his clear criminal obstruction of justice) – man X’s sworn testimony was, yet again, deliberately fraudulent and knowingly so but was also deliberate and made in order (1) to deflect from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with their permit and work authority conditions, with legislation, and with their own undertakings, and (2) to try to move the focus on to me to try to make it appear that I was vexatious and just trying to stop or interfere with the quarry rather than fighting for the pre-existing legislated rights we had held prior to the arrival of man X, man Y and CASACIR and their severe detrimental impacts.
Testimony which he knew to be untrue, and which was proved false by Southall
Man X gave false testimony that was thoroughly and decisively contradicted by his own barrister, Southall. Man X fraudulently testified under oath that he, man Y and/or CASACIR had been forced into 8 years at VCAT and/or court by me [emphasis mine]: “Mr Kraan is the consultant we have used for the past seven or eight years in the application pursuing court appearances, VCAT five, six, seven cases or whatever it might be ….[55] …For eight years you’ve been taking us to court…”[56] Firstly, at the point of man X’s sworn testimony, he and man Y had not owned their property (“the quarry land”) for quite 7 years, let alone 8 years – and there had been no action up until the review hearing at the end of 2008 (of which I was only one of 28 objectors – and that was a VCAT action, not court action). Secondly there had only been 1½ days that my related parties had initiated in court at that time[57] (I had not initiated any court action on my own behalf). If man X was referring to VCAT (rather than “court”), my related parties first took action in August 2009 and the last action finished on 26 November 2010 – just over one year in total, and with the first action being only 3½ years earlier than man X’s false testimony – hardly the 8 years fraudulently exaggerated and claimed by man X under oath. Further, in direct conflict with man X’s sworn testimony, the true VCAT timeline was confirmed by Southall: “[C]ommencing 2009 through to 2010 are the VCAT proceedings …”[58] Southall’s correct dates prove that man X grossly exaggerated and knowingly and deliberately lied under oath – man X’s sworn testimony was, yet again, deliberately fraudulent and knowingly so but was also made in order (1) to deflect from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with their permit and work authority conditions, with legislation, and with their own undertakings, and (2) to try to move the focus on to me to try to make it appear that I was vexatious and just trying to stop or interfere with the quarry rather than fighting for the pre-existing legislated rights we had held prior to the arrival of man X, man Y and CASACIR and their severe detrimental impacts.
Man X fraudulently testified that the VCAT cases were continuing [emphasis mine]: “Mr Kraan is the consultant we have used for the past seven or eight years in the application pursuing court appearances, VCAT five, six, seven cases or whatever it might be and it continues.”[59] The reality is that there had been no VCAT action taken by me or any of my related parties after the end of the hearing in November 2010 (as agreed by man X’s own barrister, Southall, above) – again proving man X’s sworn testimony to be knowingly fraudulent. To make the claims that it was “ongoing” was further knowingly false testimony, and was, yet again, deliberately fraudulent and knowingly so but was also purposeful and made in order (1) to deflect from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with their permit and work authority conditions, with legislation, and with their own undertakings, and (2) to try to move the focus on to me to try to make it appear that I was vexatious and just trying to stop or interfere with the quarry rather than fighting for the pre-existing legislated rights we had held prior to the arrival of man X, man Y and CASACIR and their severe detrimental impacts..
Man X and man Y each fraudulently and collaboratively testified that I had personally forced them into 40 days at VCAT [emphasis mine]: “… 40 days in VCAT …”[60], “… during the 40 days at VCAT …[61] … and the 40 days at VCAT …[62]” There were no more than 24 days in VCAT in total (12 of which were the original review hearing (of which I was only one of 28 parties) and, of the other 12 days: I had only been the spokesperson for our companies where the company took action against man X, man Y and CASACIR (I had not taken any action personally against them at VCAT); 1½ days were initiated by man X, man Y and CASACIR themselves), and a further 1½ days were VCAT ordered mediation – in other words, nothing like the grossly exaggerated 40days claimed repeatedly by man X and man Y. Man X and man Y knew that there were not 40 days in VCAT – they knew because they were not only parties to each of the matters but man X was in attendance on each occasion and, if they did not know, they had the responsibility to ensure that their testimony was accurate. It must be noted again that man X and man Y had meetings with Southall and Smith to nail down their testimonies. Further, this was not an arbitrary number that was “it feels like” or any number that could be “he said” / ”she said” – this 40 days was a very precise number that appears to be specifically, dishonestly, colluded and collaboratively chosen in a pre-planned manner to go beyond the truth and exaggerate by both man X and man Y – and that should meet the perjury test. This false testimony was, yet again, deliberately fraudulent and knowingly so but was also purposeful and made in order (1) to deflect from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with their permit and work authority conditions, with legislation, and with their own undertakings, and (2) to try to move the focus on to me to try to make it appear that I was vexatious and just trying to stop or interfere with the quarry rather than fighting for the pre-existing legislated rights we had held prior to the arrival of man X, man Y and CASACIR and their severe detrimental impacts.
Man X fraudulently testified by lying under oath that [emphasis mine]: “[W]e never seem to win anywhere”[63] Again, in direct contradiction to man X’s false testimony, Southall repeatedly submitted that my side had lost every application and that man X, man Y and CASACIR had won every case[64] at VCAT. There is a clear and absolute conflict of reality between man X and Southall. In one of his submissions Southall said [emphasis mine]: “none of the VCAT proceedings brought by [her], succeeded.”[65]Regardless of the rightness or otherwise of the VCAT applications, the results are that man X did give provably false testimony, as proved by Southall: *an application to stop them blasting into the aquifer that fed Kookaburra Creek – this application was won by man X, man Y and CASACIR, at least in part because they, unlawfully, did not wait for the determination of the VCAT before blasting. Costs were awarded to them. * Application to cancel the planning permit, and which contained the multiple breaches of the planning permit and work authority – this application was won by man X, man Y and CASACIR, because the multitude of their breaches were removed from that application under the repeated advice of VCAT member Byard (and the new application became the enforcement application). Costs were awarded to man X, man Y and CASACIR. *The original water claim against them for the water that had been deviated in an illegal and unauthorised manner. This application was replaced by a different water claim. *This application was the replacement water claim in relation to the flow of water that was Kookaburra Creek that had been deviated in an illegal and unauthorised manner by man X, man Y and CASACIR. This application settled in our favour under terms of settlement [66] – thus we technically won. However, subsequent to signing the Terms, man X, man Y and CASACIR showed their firm, clear and deliberate intention to, without any discussion or agreement, abandon and ignore the very the terms[67] they signed (and/or authorised the signing of), and to do so in spite of my continued, repeated and clear objections and strong opposition – thus revealing their fraud in having signed a document they had no intention of complying with on any long-term basis. *An application that was an attempt to obtain an extension to object to a works on waterway permit because it did not cover the unlawful and unauthorised deviation of the flow of Kookaburra Creek and there had been no application for a works on waterway permit for those works – this application was won by man X, man Y and CASACIR and costs awarded to them because the evidence of the illegal works they had done was fraudulently denied by them, and ignored by VCAT member Byard. *The enforcement application (this application was the result of member Byard advising no less than 5 times that the breaches be removed from the initial application and commenced in this application) – this application was won by man X, man Y and CASACIR because they provided fraudulent and misleading evidence and testimony both written and verbal, and man X, man Y and CASACIR claimed that I and my related party were vexatious[68] in taking out the action to try to protect ourselves by trying to protect our pre-existing legislated rights. And, in spite of the application only existing because of VCAT member Byard’s repeated recommendations that this was the appropriate avenue, and in spite of man X, man Y and CASACIR breaching confidentiality, and in spite of my related party providing 200 pages of photos and Freedom of Information proofs against man X’s lies on behalf of himself, man Y and CASACIR, and the use of man X’s considerable and false hearsay – costs were awarded to man X, man Y and CASACIR. The first 3 iterations of man X’s own statements of claim at court also proved his above testimony fraudulent and that he had deliberately lied under oath. His statements of claim stated as absolute fact that [emphasis mine]: “Enforcement proceedings instituted at VCAT by [her] and her related companies against Casacir have been unsuccessful, and VCAT has found in favour of Casacir (and thereby its directors, [man X and man Y]) in such proceedings.[69] … Enforcement proceedings brought by the defendant in respect of the Casacir quarry operations at Neerim North were dismissed by the VCAT, and cost orders have been made against [her] in other VCAT proceedings.”[70]
So, we have man X fraudulently testifying to one thing, namely that they “… never seem to win anywhere”, and Southall, together with man X’s own statements of claim, submitting to the exact opposite and proving man X’s testimony to be fraudulent and that he had again deliberately lied under oath with the intention of pretending to be the victim when he (together with man Y and CASACIR) was the predator, perpetrator, and the outright victor.
Testimony, he knew to be false regarding the authorities
Man X falsely testified that [emphasis mine]: “The government regulatory authorities have been so tied up in this for so many years, that this website on a daily update was a warning to us that probably the following day every regulatory authority will have had a notice saying there was too much dust, too much noise or there was water running out the front gate and we would have to have letters produced from our consultant or site visits or there were site visits conducted because of the website which just was an ongoing – we, Neerim North quarry is the most highly inspected quarry in Victoria”[71] Firstly, as shown earlier in this page, there were no “daily” updates and therefore no daily responses. Secondly, this testimony was about the website as a whole, not about the words he purportedly complained of, and when the whole website had not been pleaded. Thirdly, under cross-examination on the frequency of visits to the site Ms Bignell of the then DPI testified, in direct contradiction to man X’s sworn testimony [emphasis mine]:
Me: How many times have you visited, actually visited the site, you or one of your colleagues since August 2011?
Ms Bignell: Without our detailed records in front of me, I would be talking generally. … But I would say on an average between six to eight times a year since the quarry started, averaged over that period.
Me: Okay, but I’m talking specifically – say in the last year, so you say six to eight times?
Ms Bignell: In the last year probably three to four times.
Me: So less than – – -?
Ms Bignell: Less in the last 12 months.
Me: So less than average after the website started?
Ms Bignell: As I said, without our detailed records in front of me, I couldn’t say when but I wouldn’t attribute any change to the actual website.[72]
So there were less visits due to the website than before the website, and none of the visits were attributable to the website. In fact, man X, man Y and CASACIR’s answers to my request for further and better particulars[73] proved that man X knew that there were less inspections because they gave the dates as: 16 November 2009, 16 December 2009, 6 January 2010, 9 March 2010, 8 April 2010, 6 May 2010, 21 July 2010, 13 August 2010, 24 August 2010, 2 October 2010, 11 October 2010, 3 November 2010, 4 February 2011, 7 November 2011, 19 December 2011, 6 January 2012 and 21 May 2012. That is 2 times in 2009 (remembering that the quarry commenced works in August 2009 and the website was not in print at that time), 10 times in 2010 (and the website was not in print at that time), 3 times in 2011 (and the website was not in print when the first attendance occurred in 2011), and 2 times in 2012 (when the website was in print). So, out of the 17 inspections listed, we can see a marked decrease in attendances after the commencement of the website – again, man X clearly gave further false evidence and lied under oath[74] in order (1) to deflect from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with their permit and work authority conditions, with legislation, and with their own undertakings, and (2) to try to move the focus on to me to try to make it appear that I was vexatious and just trying to stop or interfere with the quarry rather than fighting for the pre-existing legislated rights we had held prior to the arrival of man X, man Y and CASACIR and their severe detrimental impacts.
Testimony he knew to be false regarding the buffers and my house
Man X fraudulently testified about my house [emphasis mine]: “[S]o you could build a house on a boundary to try and impact buffer zones.”[75] This is blatantly and knowingly false on a number of fronts: *man X knew that there was an existing house already on our land many years prior to his and man Y’s purchase of the quarry land, and in fact man X and man Y had previously identified that the existing house was 140m from the southern edge of the proposed quarry site; *man X also knew, when giving his fraudulent testimony above that my new house was in fact further away from the quarry than the existing house, and if the old house did not impact the buffer, the new one certainly would not; *man X also knew, when giving his fraudulent testimony above that there was the legal requirement set by the planning scheme that he, man Y and/or CASACIR had to own or control the entirebuffer – since they did not own or control any of our land, by law the buffer had to be entirely on the quarry land and could not therefore be affected by wherever my house was located; and *Ms Bignell from DPI had either been fooled by man X, man Y and CASACIR, or was scheming with them, and had previously told me that man X, man Y and CASACIR owned or controlled the entire buffer and that the buffer was contained within the work authority boundary. This again proved that, if man X was obeying the law, the house had absolutely no bearing on the buffer. Therefore, for man X to testify that the reason for the location of the dwelling was to impact the buffer was yet further knowingly false testimony and given in order to hide the truth. Further, it was a grossly exaggerated claim and therefore further knowingly false testimony given in order (1) to deflect from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with their permit and work authority conditions, with legislation, and with their own undertakings, and (2) to try to move the focus on to me to try to make it appear that I was vexatious and just trying to stop or interfere with the quarry rather than fighting for the pre-existing legislated rights we had held prior to the arrival of man X, man Y and CASACIR and their severe detrimental impacts.
Man X knowingly and fraudulently testified that: “[She] did not have a house”[76] – this is in spite of his own first work plan having identified that there was a dwelling in the shed[77], but then he subsequently contradicted himself under oath by testifying that: “I knew you had a weekender in the shed there, yes.”[78] Regardless, the house we had was not a “weekender” – it was a one-bedroom dwelling that was fully insulated, with double glazed windows and a solar hot water system, wood heater, with full kitchen and bathroom/laundry, lounge and study, and my husband and I lived in it full time as our sole residence for a number of years. So man X testified that I didn’t have a house but then he testified that he knew that I did: man X has absolutely no problem in giving contradictory and false testimony by lying under oath and changing his story as the mood moved him in order to give the sworn testimony he wanted at that time. He has proved that his word simply cannot necessarily be trusted.
Testimony he knew to be false regarding purported impacts
Man X further lied under oath and fraudulently testified, as absolute truth and fact, that: “Health wise it has certainly affected me…. Some people starve themselves when they are under stress, other people might eat more. I’ve certainly put a lot of weight on in the last couple of years. I’ve also had blood pressure tablets, I don’t sleep, an hour here or an hour there. It affects my family. I’m certainly not as easy going as I used to be” [79]. This is clearly another case of fraudulent testimony, lying under oath, and gross exaggeration. If this really had been the case over months if not a year or more, it is suggested by experts that such lack of sleep would have major medical and psychological impacts – for example, road safety messages to the public have warned that such sleep deprivation over merely a number of days can adversely impact driver ability worse than a 0.05 blood alcohol level. One has then to absolutely doubt the veracity and truthfulness of his testimony because he was obviously not concerned enough or severely affected enough to have obtained medical treatment for the claimed sleep deprivation. Further, man X gave this unsupported and self-serving testimony in relation to other purported health issues. In spite of his self-serving claims [80], man X was not hurt enough to get assistance in any manner that could have helped him or supported his claims; neither did he call any dietary, psychological or medical witnesses, or provide any dietary, psychological or medical evidence. Further, I had noticed in mid-2005 (8 years earlier) that man X was a very large man at that point [81], and I continued to observe that he steadily gained weight from then on – so nothing changed in his habits that could be attributable to the website or any of its publications in, or from, mid-2011. Further, he did not call any personal witnesses, including his wife, Caroline, or his friend Kraan, or Kraan’s wife Anne, who were all in court each and every day, and he provided no proof of his claim to blood pressure tablets or health impacts. Further, he gave the false testimony that it affected his family – as stated, his wife, Caroline, was in court each and every day, but he did not ask her to testify to substantiate his fraudulent testimony.
Man X (and man Y) had (each) overtly dropped the claims of injurious falsehood[82] and had not pleaded any financial losses in relation to defamation. Therefore, Man X was testifying fraudulently when he testified that [emphasis mine]: “This … has affected us financially [83]… Other people made notices about – they were aware of the Quarry Fight website and the ongoing disruption to our business.”[84] This testimony was fraudulent and, even if it was true, was not relevant to the defamation case as it had not been pleaded and was not substantiated by way of any details or evidence. Further, there was no disruption to the business and certainly no “on-going” disruption given that the words complained of had been removed from the website 14 months earlier, and the entire website had been removed from the internet some 6 months previously (removed as a result of their intimidation, harassment and bullying). Obviously, man X wanted this claim to be a covert part of their claims without the need for substantiation because if any of those loses claimed had been real losses, the loses (according to man X, man Y and CASACIR) would have been considerable on their own, and combined together, would have amounted to multi-millions of dollars – and the discarded claims would have been maintained. In addition, he brought yet more hearsay into his false testimony and lies under oath.
Testimony he knew to be false regarding site security
Whilst the issue of lack of on-site security (inadequate fencing, unlocked gates …) at the quarry may also appear to be relatively minor, the reason for its inclusion relates to the continued lying under oath and the fraudulent testimony given by man X on this matter. The truth is that, from 4 August 2009 when the quarry works commenced, the quarry site was never secure. In spite of that fact that man X swore at trial [emphasis mine]: “It is secure.[85] …The quarry gates and the quarry surrounds are locked.”[86] When specifically asked when he put a lock on the gate on the corner of Pearce and Neerim North Roads, man X’s sworn testimony was that: “I think probably after you complained about it about two or three years ago.[87] …No-one could drive in there…”[88]When further examined about that gate into the quarry, man X testified that: “The entrance that [she] is referring to is an access to one of the paddocks the farmer leased. It’s since been filled with overburden and some bunds put on it. There’s no access through then in [sic] more.”[89] When cross-examined about how long the overburden and bunding has been in place, man X swore: “Two years.”[90] Further, man X then admitted under oath that photos on the website revealed the lack of security, and that he knew it, thereby proving the truth of the publications, and the falseness of his testimony that the site was secure, and further proved that he therefore knew his testimony had been fraudulent, and that he knew the truth when he swore falsely [emphasis mine]:
Me: I can produce photos here and now.
Man X: I know, they have been on the web page.
Me: That don’t have a lock on the gate.
Man X: All right.[91].
Man X’s lies under oath and false testimony was given well over a year after the VCAT enforcement hearing at which I contended that the site was not secure, and to which man X strongly swore in false testimony that the site was secure. The fact is that I had never seen the site secure – rather, I had seen gates left wide open when no-one was in attendance, other gates unlocked, fencing slack and some of it as little as 3 loose wires. The reality is also that, certainly up until 2018[92] (5 years after man X swore to the security of the site in the SC), anyone could readily and easily access the land in spite of man X having fraudulently testified that it was secure and locked and that the site could not be accessed from that location. My related party was forced to sell its land in February 2014 due to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s fraudulent actions and deceptions, including by lying under oath, so the site is possibly (and I would say probably) still unlocked – in fact, 5 years later (as at mid-2019) the site was still unsecured!
In relation to man X’s falsely sworn testimony of the bunding having been done “two years” prior, this is not true – the construction of the bund area commenced in January 2012, making it a little over one year earlier.
Man X continued his false testimony about the site security [emphasis mine]:
Me: So the gate to the immediate north of the quarry entrance, which I have never seen it locked in the three and a half years – – -.
Man X: But that’s not to the quarry, …That’s your interpretation of the facts again. [93]
Man X: Our block of land is 280 acres. … The quarry sits on about five to eight acres of it. Some of it is bush, some of it is pasture and we lease the land that is pasture to the neighbour, the neighbouring farmer who hasn’t got access to the quarry but he’s got access to the paddocks around the quarry. … He quite often leaves the double gates open into the paddocks after they have been taken out. It doesn’t mean that there’s no security on the quarry. The quarry gates and the quarry surrounds are locked.[94]
The reality is: *man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work plan and planning report clearly identified the size of the quarry (the work authority area) as being 43.72ha, not the 5-8 acres[95] falsely claimed by man X; *the work plan dated 12 May 2009 at sections 1.2 and 4.2 and Figure 4 each defined the work authority area, with the total area being 43.72ha. Further, the planning report dated January 2008 at section 2.1 and its Appendix 4, showed the total area being 43.72ha. Even if you just looked at the operational part of the quarry as it was at the time of man X’s testimony, it was approximately 8.3ha, or 19.5 acres; *The entire work authority area (i.e. the entirety of the 43.72ha) is the expanse that must be kept secure. It is not my “interpretation” as falsely testified to by man X – because man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work authority conditions (which must be complied with) state (remembering that the “Work Authority holder” is CASACIR of which man X and man Y were both directors and that man X iwas the operational manager) [emphasis mine]:
5. Public Safety
4.1 [sic] The Work Authority holder must ensure that public safety is maintained within the Work Authority area at all times, including through the use of fencing, gates and signage as required around the work area.
4.2 [sic] The Work Authority holder must ensure that all fences are maintained to prevent access to the work site and that all gates are locked when the work site is unattended.
Man X: (1) was in charge of the quarry, (2) was there on almost a daily basis, (3) approved the documents identifying the area, expanse and boundary of the quarry, and (4) therefore deliberately and knowingly again lied under oath in order to try to cover for his other false testimony. If man X is so unknowledgeable about the relevant and important facts concerning the quarry (remembering his purported “confusion” over the work plan and work authority), one has to question if he is a fit and proper person to be in charge of the quarry. Southall told the court that: “He will say that in order to be a quarry manager, as he has been for many years, he is required to be a fit and proper person. He has to obtain certificates to that effect through the Department of Primary Industries” [96]. Regardless, I contend that man X’s testimony was knowingly fraudulent and that he deliberately twisted facts and lied under oath, and that he did so for the purposed of trying to hide the fact that he was apparently incompetent, and had lied.
Man X and man Y’s instructions that lying under oath was a trifling or small matter
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of Southall telling their Honours of the 2016 appeal court that lying under oath was a small or trifling matter[97], a matter that the court should not worry about and should not take the time to consider – that it was far more important to finish the case than to assess my allegations regarding their conduct.
Testimony man X knew to be false regarding purported conduct at VCAT
Man X lied under oath by falsely testifying, as fact, that I had mouthed to him at VCAT “liar, liar” while standing behind my then barrister: “[W]hen I was giving evidence at VCAT [she] was standing behind her barrister and [mouthing] the words “liar, liar” as I gave evidence.[98] (1) Whilst I do claim that man X was in fact repeatedly lying under oath at VCAT, I did not actually say or mouth that or anything like it. If he actually thought it was true at the time, why did he not make an objection at VCAT; (2) just as in court, one does not stand in the tribunal, they sit; and (3) and my recollection is that when man X was giving evidence, he seemed to studiously avoid looking at me and therefore would not have seen anything if I had mouthed anything – if he did look at me he may have seen me whispering to my then barrister as I was leaning forward in my seat instructing him. Man X’s testimony is fraudulent and he yet again lied under oath with the clear and determined intention of trying to make the court see me as vexatious and nasty when it was his own testimony that was false.
Man Y wanted to testify that he hadn’t received and did not know about documents he had in his possession
According to Southall, he had instructions that man Y (committed fraud by stating that he absolutely and fervently) “desired” to get back in the witness box and (thereby fraudulently) testify that he knew nothing about certain documents [emphasis mine]: “Your Honour, [man Y], and I seek leave – [man Y] desires to give evidence, and his evidence will be to this effect: That he can confirm that he didn’t receive anything in writing to that effect[99]”. This was fraudulent given that some of those documents were in the affidavit of documents that man Y swore to under oath that he had in his care and custody and the others were in his care and control, regardless.
Man X’s willingness to give testimony he knew to be false unless forced to be honest
I have observed that there are situations that reveal man X’s willingness to give fraudulent testimony in order to avoid truthful admission unless absolutely and categorically pushed into a corner. For example, in relation to the works on waterway [emphasis mine]:
Me: There’s a works on waterway application that is required – which was supposed to be required before stage 2 commenced but that’s been disregarded at this point in time, with the consent of catchment management? … Mr Peake told the tribunal that if we objected to that application that it would stop the quarry, do you remember him saying that?
Man X: No. …
Me: You haven’t applied yet for that permit, is that correct, or have you applied for the permit?
Man X: We have had numerous discussions and we have done all the research for it. Whether that application is in, I’m pretty sure it is.
Me: So you’ve actually filled out an application for that works on waterway permit?
Man X: I’m not so sure on that, ….
Me: Do you intend to?
Man X: Yes.
Me: Have you done works on waterways before without a permit?
Man X: I know what you are leading to and I will say no.
Me: So the works that you did on 20 August 2009?
Man X: Yes.
Me: And further works that you did on 29 August 2009 had a permit even though you applied for one on 1 September and got it on 4 September, so that wasn’t retrospective?
Man X: That’s a better question ask Mr Dunn when he comes.
Me: I’m asking you, did you do works before an application?
Man X: All right. It’s stated in conditions set down – – –
Me: Had you put in an application, please, I’m asking. I’m not asking for elaboration, had you put in an application for the works before they were done? … So can we have actually a definitive answer to that, did you perform the works before you put in an application for a permit?
Man X: We had been talking to – – –
Me: Is it a yes or no, please. This is for the works done in August 2009?
Man X: Let’s say what the works were first, yes.
Me: They were first?
Man X: Let’s say what the works were before I answer that question. The VCAT decision and that condition– – –
Me: No, excuse me. … There was a pipe dug or an excavation in the bed and banks of the waterway which I will call Kookaburra Creek because that’s what it’s locally known as, so there was an excavation dug and a pipe laid in that digging, is that true, yes or no?
Man X: That’s true.
Me: Did you have a works on waterway permit to do that before you did that?
Man X: We had an agreement that we could do it.
Me: I asked did you have a permit?
Man X: We had an agreement to do so and the permit was taken out about two days later.
Me: The works were done on about 20 August, the application went in on 1 September, that’s hardly four days or a couple of days?
Man X: …, the works were – – –
Me: I just asked, did you do the works before or after you had applied for the permit and the answer is yes, you did?
Man X: We had spoken and liaised with that permit.
Me: The answer is yes, you did, is that correct?
Man X: Okay, yes.[100]
Here we have man X, having sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, claiming to be honest and upright, and a man of integrity who takes his oath very seriously, first adamantly denying it (“I know what you are leading to and I will say no”), and then attempting to dissemble and seriously and strenuously avoid the answer until, under significant pressure, he finally told the truth (“Okay, yes”) – if not perjury, is that least not contempt of court? Man X has thereby shown that he is more than willing to blatantly and deliberately lie under oath, then prevaricate around the question and not tell the truth unless absolutely forced to do so. After all the above hedging, man X gave testimony under subsequent re-examination that they had indeed done the work prior to being granted the permit to do so [emphasis mine]: “[I]t was probably about one or two days after it was done that the permit was signed.”[1]Further, he subsequently testified that he knew that he had to obtain a permit prior to doing works on the waterway [emphasis mine]: “The agreement to work on waterways was handed down by VCAT but they said we had to apply for a permit to do so before acting on that waterway.”[2]
Man X also lied under oath and gave fraudulent testimony that they had not impacted the waterway [emphasis mine]: “So there was a culvert put in for the water under the road and this bund. The water still exited at the same point on the waterway, the same water and it wasn’t interfered with.”[103] Yet he had personally signed the Terms to restore the flow that he, man Y and CASACIR had illegally deviated – so that was additional false testimony. The reality is that man X has shown that he will lie under oath, and give clearly fraudulent and contradictory testimony as it suits him in an effort to do what it takes to win the case.
Man X sidestepped answering other questions put to him and one such example is as follows: when I cross-examined him I put to him that: “I also put to you that 2008 was the very first time that there was … any action and that was at the tribunal, that was the review tribunal, and I was only one of 28 people who objected to your application and that was only in regard to the application”, and he gave his sworn testimony in reply: “I put it to you we bought the land with your knowledge, you knew we were doing it before we bought it.”[104] The answer clearly does not relate to the question put. Further, it is of absolutely no relevance and is, in fact, illogical – how is the knowledge that I supposedly knew what he, man Y and CASACIR were going to do in any way relevant to anything other than that the knowledge in fact substantiated our objections to their permit application and proved that the actions taken against them were not vexatious but very valid?
Fraudulent claims about meetings that were supposed to have taken place, but didn’t
In their statements of claim and answers to my requests for further and better particulars, man X and man Y claimed that I had had a number of meetings with them in order to try to force them to buy our property. The first meeting they claimed I had forced them into, was in fact forced by man X outside council chambers, and not by me (and this was later finally admitted by man X under oath). They claimed that I had forced a meeting with man X at VCAT, about which neither man X nor man Y were examined – that meeting also never happened, and they claimed a particular conversation that did not occur. Likewise, they claimed that I had forced a meeting with man X at the quarry site, about which neither man X nor man Y were examined – that meeting also never happened, and they also claimed a particular conversation that did not occur. Also, they claimed that I had forced a meeting with man Y at his offices (at that point in time I had no idea where his offices where) – that meeting also never happened, and they also claimed a particular conversation that did not occur. The third iteration of man X and man Y’s statement of claim[105], and in their responses to my request for further and better particulars (that man Y admitted that he helped prepare), had put together a further adamant, but fraudulent, claim that I had actually, personally and physically attended man Y’s office, and had had a very specific conversation with him at that time [emphasis mine]: “In or around 2008, [she] stated to [man Y] that ‘it could all go away if you negotiate with me’.[106] … On a subsequent occasion, [she] asked [man Y] to buy [her] land while in his office [107]” about which neither man X nor man Y were examined. In spite of those clear and unambiguous (and grossly fraudulent) documented claims filed with the court as absolute and unadulterated fact, man Y testified under examination (by Southall) then cross-examination (by me) [emphasis mine]:
Man Y: The only real contact I’ve had [with her], other than that meeting in the solicitor’s office, has been at VCAT and at various mediation meetings [108]
Me: You said that we have only met a couple of times, basically at VCAT, the mediation and at Mr Callander’s office?
Man Y: To the best of my recollection, yes.
Me: That’s to the best of my recollection also but I notice in your response to my request for better and further particulars that you actually said that we had a meeting in your office. I would like to know when that meeting took place and what it was regarding because I don’t even know where your office is, other than it’s in Lilydale.
Man Y: I don’t recall it either.
Me: That makes two of us because that’s actually in your [statement of claim dated 2 March 2012] … Under paragraph 15 thereof it says: “On the subsequent occasion the defendant asked [man Y] to buy our land while in his office“?
Man Y: I think it might mean [man X] was in my office.
Me: Because I’ve never been to your office.
Man Y: I certainly hope not.
Me: I’m glad that we are in agreement there, but it does call into question things that are said.[109]
Southall (who knew that the written claims were entirely fraudulent being that he had settled both documents), re-examined man Y so as to suborn the following false sworn testimony:
Mr Southall: Just one question. Early on in the cross-examination, … it was pointed out correctly by [her] that in paragraph 15(b) of the further and better particulars to the statement of claim there was a statement that there was a meeting where [she] met you in your office. Do I understand from an answer you gave you don’t recall any such meeting?
Man Y: That’s correct.
Mr Southall: If that was in the further and better particulars, does that appear to be a mistake?
Man Y: Yes, without sitting down and reading it thoroughly, I would have interpreted it that the meeting what in my office between [man X] and I regarding the issue[110].
The claim had been deliberately and specifically added to their statement of claim and their further and better particulars, and was provided and approved by man Y. It was clearly and unambiguously stated that the alleged meeting took place with the “defendant” – that was me. There was no mistake – there can be no grounds for interpreting that the meeting took place between man X and man Y, particularly given that it related to that specific alleged conversation that I was supposed to have had with man Y (but didn’t). Further, the claims were in a section that was supposed to relate to what I was supposed to have done and even though man Y had deliberately inserted it into the claims and answers, he knew it to be an outright lie that was meant to convince the court that I was this intrusive, nasty person, when the allegations were actually only in their own mind, imagination and creativity. What we can see from this is that when confronted by the fraudulence in his documentation submitted to the court as absolute and resolute truth and fact, man Y attempted to divert attention from the fraudulent claims by presenting a totally implausible alternative fraudulent “interpretation” under oath. Further, I made the following submissions to his Honour, and man Y did not gainsay it: “[man Y (and man X)]’s response to my further and better particulars: Request for further and particular particulars states that I met [man Y] in his office and asked him to buy our land. The claim was very precise as to who met [man Y] in his office and what was alleged to have transpired. [Man Y] said that he thought it referred to a meeting between he and [man X]. The fact is that this was a breach of overarching obligations and proper basis because no such meeting took place [with me] and no such conversation transpired, as admitted by [man Y].[111] This is but one of a number of such meetings that were alleged to have taken place but did not, and with resultant conversations that did not occur. All this does show that man Y was willing to, did, and does, approve and authorise documentation that is filed with the court as absolute and unwavering fact but which is actually knowingly fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading, and then he gives deliberate and knowingly false testimony by lying under oath.
Proof that man Y gave false evidence and thought nothing of it
Man Y actively wanted to get back in the witness box and swear that he knew nothing about documents that were in his care and control, and gave as absolute truth what Southall termed “throw-away” lines as testimony [emphasis mine]: “Just going back to that, at transcript page 258 what [man Y] said, he said nothing more or less than a throw-away line … He said that as a throw-away line in the witness box”. But, unlike man Y or Southall, Pagone J was horrified: “It wasn’t a throw-away line. … It was a bit of evidence from the witness box.”[112]
Use of hearsay to give testimony they knew to be false
Man X falsely testified by lying under oath that [emphasis mine]: “The police told me not to talk to because you record everything and you are taking photos of everybody from a distance.”[113] Firstly, this is hearsay and man X did not bring in the purported policeman or policewoman to give such testimony. Secondly, it is excessively unlikely to be true because I had not spoken to the police about it and, unless I was under police supervision the police had no way of knowing whether (1) I even possessed a voice recorder, or that, (2) if I did, whether I used it to record anything let alone “everything”, and, (3) the police had no way of knowing whether I took photos at all, let alone “of everybody”. Not only was man X’s testimony knowingly fraudulent, but was ridiculous and lop-sided because man X took photos of me (and others with me), including causing danger to us by acting in an intimidating, harassing and bullying manner by blocking roads in order to take the photos (and I have the photos to prove it). This testimony was simply man X’s attempt to defame me and to try to further their false claims that I was vexatious rather than trying to protect our pre-existing legislated rights.
Man X used a significant additional amount of hearsay during his sworn testimony, for example, but certainly not limited to [emphasis mine]: “[T]he world are telling me they have seen [the website] and industry wise, everybody knows about it, they have heard about it…[114] There were numerous people that spoke to us who had seen the website.[115] … Other people made notices about – they were aware of the Quarry Fight website and the ongoing disruption to our business.[116] …People who used to work for us, office girls and the like, had brought it up [117]… They certainly had been reading it and certainly commented about it.[118] Man X did not bring any of those persons in as witnesses and therefore, since hearsay cannot be legally used, but it was [119]. It must be deemed to be further fraudulent testimony, especially given that (1) it was used solely for the purposes of trying to gain traction in their case for aggravated damages, irrespective of the fraudulent nature of it, (2) man X has proved that he gave prolific false testimony and that he lied under oath repeatedly, (3) it was a further attempt to bring in the entire website which was not pleaded, and (4) it was for the purpose of trying to make it seem as if there really had been an impact when there had not.
Man Y committed fraud by using considerable hearsay and even double hearsay. He deceitfully and dishonestly testified (for example, but certainly not limited to): “I did have a number of calls from people that we do business with and certainly via the clerk of works in VicRoads and the Baw Baw Shire Council, they would discuss these issues with my men and obviously it would travel up the line.[120] … [T]he report on this Quarry Fight website just spread like wild fire amongst my people.[121] Man Y did not bring any of those persons in as witnesses and therefore, since hearsay cannot be used[122] it must be deemed to be fraudulent testimony, (1) especially given it was used solely for the purposes of gaining traction in their case for aggravated damages, irrespective of the fraudulent nature of it, and (2) man Y proved that he otherwise lied under oath repeatedly.
My then solicitor, Tom Callander (“Callander”), had arranged a meeting at his offices between man X and man Y and me with regard to a potential sale of our land to man X and man Y. Man X subsequently lied under oath by falsely testifying as unwavering fact that Callander had told both man X and man Y that he (Callander) did not want them to talk to me because they had been “hoodwinked or bushwhacked” by me[123]. Man X falsely testified: “[Callander] met us in the waiting room and said he wasn’t happy with what had happened, that he thought we had been hoodwinked or bushwhacked, I can’t remember the exact terminology…[124] …Mr Callander didn’t even want us to talk to you and you were his client, he felt that you had done the wrong thing in that meeting.”[125] Firstly, it is hearsay and man X has nothing to substantiate his claim; even man Y did not give testimony about that. Secondly, it would have been extremely unprofessional of Callander to have made the alleged comments. Thirdly, it is untrue because Callander had organised the meeting directly with man X and, as an outcome of those preliminary discussions between Callander and man X, Callander told me (and I have an email from him proving it) (1) that he had suggested to man X that there be discussions with Sue[126] at the meeting, and (2) that man X knew and understood that I would be wanting more for the land than market value to compensate for obtaining a new property. Man X (and man Y) had knowingly attended the meeting on those basis, but then claimed such a request was unreasonable, unjustified, was for an anterior and collateral purpose, and they claimed aggravated damages as a result – and man X claimed that they had been ambushed by Sue (and another neighbour)’s arrival – it is interesting to note that, when man Y spoke of the meeting, he did not say anything such as man X testified to. If man X is prepared to uphold his fraudulent hearsay testimony that Callander had breached his ethical and legal responsibilities to me in such a gross and extraordinary manner, perhaps Callander needs to give testimony about it. Man X deceived the court by lying under oath and giving false testimony with the intent of making me look vexatious and to make the court look away from his own appalling conduct.
Summary of Man X and man Y’s false testimony
Man X and man Y deliberately gave false testimony without quibble or qualm and did so with the premeditated purposes of turning the court away from their own conduct, and of trying to make the court believe that I was nasty, vexatious and intent on trying to stop the quarry, when all I was trying to do was (1) take them up on their 2005 offer (which unsurprisingly turned out to be fraudulent) and, (2) if they were not going to buy us out, to retain or regain the pre-existing legislated rights we had had prior to the arrival of man X, man Y and CASACIR and their severe, horrible, and on-going, detrimental impacts. All of the false testimony was planned and intentional, none of it was accidental or a mistake. I believe that absolutely meets the criteria for a classification of perjury.
Making other claims as absolute truth when they were knowingly fraudulent
Man X and man Y each signed an overarching obligations certification on their own behalf and on behalf of CASACIR in order to convince the court that it could believe as truth contents of the documents man X and man Y had personally approved and authorised to be filed and/or served, and that the court could and would believe as fact. They authorised and approved of prolific amounts of fraudulent misrepresentations and negligent misstatements made in documents and correspondence, particularly, but not limited to: each of the 7 iterations of their statement of claim, their answers to my request for further and better particulars, their letter of 19 August 2011[127], and addresses and submissions made on their behalf and/or in their names (the proof of their approval and authorisation of the fraudulent addresses and submissions, as well as by the fraudulence in documents and correspondence, is by way of lack of complaint or correction, by their participation in conferences (including strategical and tactical planning meetings), and by the paying of the fees of their “mouthpieces” in full).
Man X and man Y took action for defamation in the full knowledge that the action was fraudulent (some of the details are, or will be, detailed in other pages of this website). The commencement and running of that action was a criminal obstruction of justice and an abuse of process given that it was taken out in an attempt to (1) intimidate, bully and coerce me into removing my former website in its entirety, as a matter of urgency (and it succeeded), and (2) intimidate and depress me to the point where I had to move away and therefore not be in a position to stop the quarry. On a side note, if man X and man Y’s claims of defamation were true, they would have retained their word-for-word identical claims in injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct. The fact they removed those claims, along with the proofs that they had lied in the documents, is extremely telling – proving that the defamation claims were also false and that they only won the case by their fraud, their lies under oath, and the fact that truth was not allowed to be heard. The reason for their later offer of compromise identical to mine was because they did not actually want to take the risk of running the case. Because I did not accept their fraudulent offer of compromise, the case ran – hence the need for all their false testimony and their sanction of the fraudulent misrepresentations and negligent misstatements given in their name and on their behalf as absolute fact.
Man X and man Y actually had 3 known (2 of them admitted to at the time) ulterior purposes/motives for the actions against me, namely: (1) the need to get rid of me so I could not stop the quarry, (2) the removal of my former website in its entirety, as a matter of urgency so that their failures to comply with legislation, their permit and work authority and their own undertakings were no longer revealed (this current website reveals it though), and (3) having access to my assets and drive me into bankruptcy (which they have) – each of which is an criminal obstruction of justice (but all ultimately going back to real reason (1)). While having ulterior motives of itself is not an abuse of process, the fact that the ulterior motives were used as a method of leverage to gain the desired results, i.e. removing me and the removal of the entire former website, was an abuse of process – this is particularly so given that they had not revealed that the removal of the website as a whole was the main and the only truthful focus for the action until actually during the court case – it must be noted that the claims of injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct and the proofs that they and the defamation cases were fraudulent because they were removed as claims the instant that I was bullied and intimidated into removing my entire former website.
Man X and man Y caused me considerable financial hardship, not the least by running up significant unnecessary costs when (and after) I had a legal team. For example, by: (1) the 7 iterations of his statement of claim (on average one iteration every 2.5 months), at least 6 of which were entirely unnecessary; (2) unnecessary communications requiring a response, or requiring instigation due to man X and his team not having complied with orders; (3) with having to deal with a folder of 309 pages, 302 pages of which were admitted to be entirely unnecessary (4) with having to deal with the injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct claims that were an abuse of process as well as being an criminal obstruction of justice; (5) with having to have a legal team to try to combat their fraudulent misrepresentations and negligent misstatements.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the defaming, and attempts at shaming and belittling of me in documents, correspondence, submissions and addresses – man X himself is a defamer of me and is entirely unrepentant and unapologetic about it.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the intimidation and harassment of me in documents, correspondence, submissions and addresses – man X himself is an intimidator of me and is entirely unrepentant and unapologetic about it.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the deliberate delays in taking action and in particularisation of the words complained of, and authorised and approved the gross and deliberate misuse of those delays throughout the trial and beyond.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of the creation and fraudulent use of the letter of 19 August 2011 that contained knowingly and deliberate fraudulent claims and denials, and used that letter in their case without having pleaded it.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the fraudulent misuse of my apology. It can be assumed that since man X and man Y are themselves unapologetic and unrepentant, they assume that others are not sincere when apologising (I apologised for any hurt resulting from what I said, but I could not lie and apologise for having revealed the truth).
Man X and man Y aided in the concealment of documents that were critical to the case, and authorised and approved of the fraudulent claims made about some of those documents. The affidavit of documents they swore to had documents in it that were not in the notice to admit but were critical to the case and they authorised them being withheld [128].
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the active and deliberate deceptions in relation to my offer of compromise, for example the implying to Pagone J that I had not made an offer of compromise that was higher than the damages granted (when it was in fact double that awarded at the time) – with the result that Pagone J was misled into granting costs to man X and man Y.
Man X and man Y again provided, and/or authorised and approved the use of various private letters including those marked “in confidence” and/or “without prejudice” without prior discussion or request for, or grant of, permission, in their statements of claim, in their affidavit of documents [129], and in their notice to admit [130], and by the blatant and deliberate misuse of those letters to imply that I had been vexatious in trying to protect my pre-existing legislated rights. They did this so that they could try to avoid the consequences of their own actions and their own failure to comply with permit and work plan conditions, with legislation, and with their own undertakings. It was a ploy to try to get the judiciary to focus on their false claims that and that I had been threatening and malicious by sending the correspondence [131]. In fact, man X and man Y fraudulently claimed that I had tried to blackmail, intimidate and/or threaten them by way of my website, by way of meetings (including claimed meetings that did not occur), by conversations (including regarding claimed conversations that did not take place) and by the letters that were the result of a fraudulent offer in 2005 by man X himself [132].
Man X and man Y authorised and approved bills of costs containing and claiming a significant number of improper items – a few examples of the many are in relation to: the duplications of costs; costs already paid in other bills; claims for meetings with people entirely unrelated to the case [133]; and the like.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the fraudulent claims that they did not owe for the financial impact on me caused by their assertions and denials in the injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct[134] claims and other behaviour caused by their blatant criminal obstruction of justice and abuse of the court’s processes.
By all this criminal obstruction of justice, man X and man Y won this case, as well as damages, interest and costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. These costs are part of the judgment and order at the basis of man X and man Y’s bankruptcy notice and creditors’ petition against me.
In relation to the appeals of the defamation case (“the appeals”)
Although man X and man Y had not pled VCAT matters in the lower court, they nonetheless authorised and approved the introduction of the VCAT outcomes into the appeal that were themselves gained through man X and man Y’s false sworn written and verbal testimony [135], and other obstructions of justice [136].
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of Smith and Southall ignoring further orders and directions of the court. For example, but certainly not limited to, their ignoring of the directions as to the timing of filing and serving appeal documents (and lied to the court registry about it).
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of Southall not advising the court in time for me to apply for leave to appeal rather than having to go through the extra application of applying for an extension of time [137]. This resulted in additional costs and wastage of the court’s and my time. Further, the real reason for hiding the fact that I could have applied for leave to appeal without going through the needed for an application for an extension of time related to the fact that it would have put me ahead of their appeal instead of behind.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of the continued fraudulent use of the letter of 19 August 2011 (although not pleaded in the lower court) that contained considerable fraudulent claims and denials. The continued use of this fraudulent letter was in fact a significant factor in man X and man Y gaining not just costs, but considerable additional damages [138].
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of the self-serving (and untrue as relates to legal actions) presentations as fact of man X and man Y’s excellent reputations, ethics and the like [139]. The falsity of their claims is revealed by man X having lied under oath both verbally and in affidavits at VCAT (with man Y ‘s acknowledged approval and authority) and both men lied under oath verbally at court, and by them having approved and authorised fraudulent claims in documents, correspondence, submissions and addresses as revealed in, for example, the iterations of their statement of claim used before the appeal judges, the letter of 19 August 2011 used before the appeal judges, and the addresses and submissions made on their behalf and/or in their names.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of the deceiving of the court in regard to the types and numbers of witnesses giving evidence on their behalf [140] [141].
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of the fraudulent claim that my former website was false, entirely false, without foundation and baseless without having pleaded it in the lower court, and without seeking or obtaining permission to add that claim to the appeal – and they did this knowing that the website was in fact clearly and unequivocally true. For example, in spite of his earlier repeated sworn testimony that it was secure, man X then admitted that photos on the website revealed the lack of security at the quarry site. This proved the truth of the publications, the falseness of his earlier testimony, and his lies under oath that the site was secure, and that he therefore knew his earlier testimony had been absolutely fraudulent.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of bills containing and claiming a significant number of improper items – a few examples are in relation to the duplications of costs; costs already paid in other bills; claimed costs for unnecessary meetings and then confirmation letters of those meetings, instructions, and the like; overcharging; claiming for irrelevant and unrelated matters; by the unnecessary amount of communications caused by their refusal to include items in the appeal book that were deemed to be of critical importance by Pagone J[142].
Man X and man Y approved and authorised the running up significant unnecessary costs for me, forcing me to expend considerable amounts in travel costs, filing costs, stationary costs (folders, dividers and paper), photocopying and printing costs.
Man X and man Y continued to authorise and approve the persistent defaming, and attempts at shaming and belittling of me in documents, correspondence, submissions and addresses[143].
Through their barristers and documents, man X and man Y continued to fraudulently claim that I had tried to blackmail, intimidate and/or threaten them through my former website, by way of meetings (including claimed meetings that did not occur), by conversations (including regarding claimed conversations that did not take place) and by letters; by continued authorising and approving of the use of the private letters including those marked “in confidence” and/or “without prejudice” without prior discussion or request for, or grant of, permission in their application for an extension of time to appeal, and then by deceitful and misleading claims as fact that they had not used the letter in any part of their appeal – the purpose of these continued claims was to try to make the court look at the correspondence or the claimed (but erroneous) motives behind the letters rather than what man X and man Y had done or not done, and they did this so that they could try to continue to avoid the consequences of their actions and their failure to comply with permit and work plan conditions, with legislation, and with their own undertakings.
Man X and man Y again authorised and approved the continued misuse of their deliberate delays in taking action and in particularisation of the words complained of.
Man X and man Y again authorised and approved the continued fraudulent misuse of my apology.
Man X and man Y continued to authorise and approve the attempt to conceal documents from the court that were critical to the appeals – for instance by their approval of the refusal to include documents in the appeal book that were deemed to be of critical importance by Pagone J and/or that were critical to my case, and which documents the court had ordered be inserted.
Man X and man Y continued to authorise and approve the active and deliberate deceptions in relation to my offer of compromise, and man X authorised and approved the active and deliberate deceptions in relation to the offer of compromise served on behalf of himself and man Y.
Man X and man Y again authorised and approved of the making of submissions containing claims continuing for the same aggravated damages that Pagone J absolutely dismissed [144], and then authorised and approved of them submitting that there had not been any such claims made in the appeal process.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of Smith and Southall going well outside the itemised and specific particulars that had been in their pleadings before Pagone J[145].
By all this criminal obstruction of justice, man X and man Y also won this case, and costs.
In relation to the s29 application taken out under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (“CPA”) (against man X’s conduct, as well as that of man Y and their legal team, in the trial before Pagone J)
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of the claim that the fraudulent and purportedly withdrawn claims and denials of injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct were true and accurate [146] in spite of knowing that they were false and only created for the purse of trying to intimidate, bully and coerce me into the removal of my former website (which conduct succeeded).
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the repeated undermining of the provisions of the CPA at s28-30[147] in order to have their conduct not examined.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the twisting of facts in relation to the folder of annexures [148] so as to not have to pay for the gross number of unwarranted pages.
Man X and man Y gave their support to the repeated Southall’s repeated fraudulent allegations that there were only 3 amended statements of claim – all for the purpose of not having to pay my costs caused by the excessive number of their iterations (7 iterations being on average of one iteration every 2.5 months) [149].
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the repeated claims by Smith and/or Southall that none of man X, man Y, Southall, Kaye, or Smith, had done anything wrong (by actively and deliberately deceiving the court)[150] in spite of knowing that facts were to the contrary.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved of bills of costs containing and claiming a significant number of improper items – a few examples are in relation to the duplications of costs, costs already paid in other bills, costs claimed in relation other matters [151], claiming for additional time not spent, claims for costs of letters asking for permission where permission had previously been given (to serving by email).
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the active and deliberate deceptions in relation to my offer of compromise, and they authorised and approved the active and deliberate deceptions in relation to the offer of compromise served on behalf of themselves [152].
By all this criminal obstruction of justice, man X and man Y won this case, and costs. These costs were then part of the judgment and order at the basis of their bankruptcy notice and creditors’ petition against me.
In relation to the s29 application appeal (“s29 appeal”)
Man X and man Y authorised and approved Southall changing his story and fraudulently exaggerating by telling their Honours as fact, that I had been taking man X, man Y and CASACIR to VCAT since 2008[153]: “Can I start this way, Your Honour, I’ll keep it brief: the matters giving rise to these proceedings and the circumstances underlying the proceedings go back as far as 2008, when VCAT proceedings were commenced by [her]”. This is in spite of the fact that Southall had previously truthfully told Pagone J as fact, that action had only taken been action in August 2009 and 2010: ““[C]ommencing 2009 through to 2010 are the VCAT proceedings …”[154], and in spite of the fact that I had not taken out any of the actions myself.
Man X and man Y authorised and approved fraudulent and contrary claims in regards to the costs of the injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct claims so as to not have to pay for their abuse of process and extraordinary incompetence [155], [156].
Man X and man Y authorised and approved the repeated claims that it was far better to finalise the matters (i.e. not investigate them), and simply dismiss my allegations – and they did this by way of approving and authorising Southall claiming to the court that giving false testimony was a small or trifling matter with which the courts should not concern itself [157]; and that McDonald was correct in not addressing the issue [158].
By all this criminal obstruction of justice, man X and man Y won their case and costs. These costs were part of the new claim for costs in the Costs Court, made in order to try to defeat my application to set aside their bankruptcy notice. Those costs then sat waiting for them to do something with them – clearly, they are waiting until I was out of bankruptcy in 2021 so that they could try to send me back there for another 3 years.
In relation to the Federal Court (“FC”)
Man X and man Y knew that their previous forms of criminal obstructions of justice and abuse of process had made me insolvent. Nevertheless, they deliberately and determinedly took out bankruptcy procedures against me when they knew that (1) there was no valid reason for having taken out any action against me at all, (2) especially when they knew that they had already caused me to become unofficially insolvent. By taking out the action against me, man X and man Y had a further (fourth) now known ulterior purpose/motive for the previous actions as well as the bankruptcy procedures, this time an intention to make me formally bankrupt, as was confirmed by Ryan R [159].
Man X and man Y gave knowingly fraudulent instructions to Green to tell the FC that I had been taking action for fraud against them for 4 to 5 years when I had not taken any action for fraud to that time.
Man X and man Y gave knowingly fraudulent instructions to Green to tell the FC that they had not been paid the amounts I had paid to them (and which payments had been acknowledged to them by their former lawyer, Smith). Man X and man Y gave those instructions with the deliberate intention of making the FC believe that (a) I had lied to the court, (b) that I had lied in my sworn affidavit; (c) that I was therefore not a person to be trusted, and (d) that the amount of money I said was owed to me was lower than the amount said to be owed from me to them – this was a deliberate deception as they needed to have the amount owed to them greater than that which had had been paid by me if they wanted to have my application to set aside the bankruptcy notice dismissed. They did all this so that the court would dismiss my application to set aside the bankruptcy procedures – and they succeeded. This is typical of the fraudulent conduct that I have been subjected to by man X and man Y all the way through the various cases. In fact, I had the Legal Service Board investigate to ensure that the money had been paid to man X, man Y (and/or CASACIR), and the LSB confirmed that Smith’s books were in order and, as stated above and, as can be easily proved, Smith acknowledged that the amounts had been paid, as I said they had.
Indeed, they then commenced action for recovery of 3 other bills that I had been told [160] they would not be proceeding with due to me being insolvent – however, they then started the action so as to try to ensure that the amount owed to them was purportedly higher than the amount that I had originally claimed I was due in return.
By all this criminal obstruction of justice, man X and man Y succeeded in winning the cases, won damages, costs, and interest, and turned it all around on to me – instead of taking responsibility for their actions and trying to mend their ways, man X and man Y “victim blamed” me and made it all my fault for revealing what they had done and didn’t do. To man X and man Y it was the revelation, not the things they had done wrong, that was at issue and was the problem. Man X and man Y have had the odd perception that failure to comply was actually compliance – as identified earlier, there were at least three occasions when this proved true.
Again, because of their prolific lies, they won the costs of the bankruptcy application – and, in spite of me repeatedly requesting the bill, Green (their now solicitor) has told me to contact my bankruptcy trustee – the trustee then tells me that it is up to man X and man Y to tell him what they want him to do with the costs, but man X and man Y seem to believe the trustee is a mind reader!
In relation to the Federal Circuit Court (“FCC”)
Man X and man Y then pushed ahead with their intention to make me officially bankrupt by taking out a creditor’s petition against me. It was within this action that man X (the first applicant) authorised and approved of man Y (the second applicant) swearing an affidavit dated 6 February 2108 in relation to the financial situation between us, testifying that: “I am the second applicant herein and, as such, have access to the books and records of the applicants and am authorised to make this affidavit for and on behalf of myself and the first applicant herein”.
Therefore, man Y admitted that both he and man X knew the financial facts. Therefore, it can more than reasonably be determined that man X and man Y knowingly gave fraudulent instructions to Green to tell Ryan R that he and man Y had not received the money I had paid through Smith – in fact, as previously stated, I had the Legal Service Board investigate to ensure that the money had been paid to man X, man Y (and/or CASACIR), and LSB confirmed that Smith’s books were in order. Therefore, their fraudulent claim was a further criminal obstruction of justice.
In a yet further, and continued, criminal obstruction of justice, man X and man Y then sought further costs that their then solicitor had assured me they would not be seeking. The reason that man X and man Y were seeking the additional costs, and the reason it is an abuse of process as well and an criminal obstruction of justice, is that the purpose is not to gain the money (or any part of whatever further money they can ring out of me), but it was to try to again impact the amount of money I was claiming in my previous attempt at a counter claim (which failed because of their lies).
As noted by the affidavit produced and sworn by Green on behalf of, and approved by, man X and man Y – man X and man Y actually did not actually object to any of my Grounds, and the creditors’ petition ought therefore to have been dismissed, with costs awarded to me.
This matter went to trial in the FCC on 6 June 2018 at which time all this information and proof went before the court. Man X and man Y each then got in the witness box and yet again under oath, gave yet further false testimony.
Again, because of their prolific lies, they won the costs of the follow-up application – and, in spite of me repeatedly requesting the bill of costs, Green (their now solicitor) again told me to contact my bankruptcy trustee – the trustee then again told me that it is up to man X and man Y to tell him what they want him to do with the costs, but man X and man Y still seemed to believe the trustee was a mind reader!
In relation to the Supreme Court (“SC”) again
I took action against man X, man Y and CASACIR, as well as Smith and Southall, in order to try to bring them to task for their fraud, lies under oath, and/or lies to the court in documents, correspondence, addresses and submissions. However, they lied yet again, wriggled and squirmed and made the court and Daly AsJ (the judge) believe that they were all covered by indemnities in spite of not denying what they had done – resulting in having her throw out my case and awarding yet further costs against me.
Again, in spite of me repeatedly requesting the bill of costs, Green (man X and man Y’s now solicitor) has told me that he is still awaiting instructions (if Green was telling the truth, how frustrating it must be to have clients who refuse to give instructions for years!)
Summary
By the criminal obstruction of justice, inter alia, as outlined, man X and man Y: *achieved their unconscionable goals; *by all the various means of criminal obstruction of justice, they won the cases resulting in: being granted damages, being granted interest (including statutory interest), and being granted costs (including on an indemnity basis) totalling many hundreds of thousands of dollars; *succeeded in intimidating me into the removal of my entire former website; *had my application to set aside the bankruptcy procedures dismissed, and *by all this criminal obstruction of justice, they additionally succeeded in having turned it all around onto me, making me appear the villain; and *brought me to the point where I was forced into selling our land, and thereby man X avoided the otherwise necessary closure of the quarry and the loss of in excess of $100m.
Instead of taking responsibility for their own appalling actions and trying to mend their ways, they “victim blamed” me and made it all my fault for revealing what they did or didn’t do. Man X summed it up when he testified: “We have always done something but you’ve had to bring it to our attention and everybody’s attention again” [161]. In other words, to man X it was the revelation, not the things done wrong, that were at issue and were the problem, together with the need to get the best result, regardless that the truth was generally actually polar opposite to that claimed by both he and man Y.
Man X and man Y have been dramatically rewarded for their deplorable conduct. The courts should have taken their conduct into consideration and dealt with them accordingly by: *significant damages against them; *significant aggravated damages against them; *significant exemplary damages against them; *a judgment of perjury against them, with resultant jail time and heavy fines; *costs of this proceeding against them; *orders that the provide me with a written and verbal apology for their conduct that, inter alia, obstructed justice; and *any other orders against them that the court saw fit to grant – instead, the courts did nothing to even chastise them, and went so much further and absolutely reward them very handsomely for their abuse of the courts’ processes and lying under oath and fraudulent misrepresentations and negligent misstatements. Thereby, the courts have absolutely shown that they have no concern that a person can conduct themselves in the manner that man X and man Y have done with absolute impunity and without fear of any repercussions. Hence, it is an injustice system, and man X and man Y are a major part of it as it relates to me and my related parties.
Knowing that he and man Y were trying to sell CASACIR, man X liked the acronym for CASACIR so much (Crush Any Shit And Call It Rock), he started a new company in 2019 which included CASACIR in the name!! It is to be noted that man X and man Y lied to the Supreme Court by telling it that the CASACIR company was not worth anything because of my website: I would hardly call a sale for $70 million nothing!
Man Y died on 28 March 2024, yet actions against us are still being taken in his name!
[1] When all this commenced, CASACIR also operated two concrete plants and the Jindivick quarry – all of which man X oversaw.
[2] T232:20-22
[3] Excerpt from man Y’s affidavit filed and attached as part of their creditors’ petition to make me bankrupt
[4] I was the spokesperson of our companies that were forced to take action against man X, man Y and CASACIR because of their significant failures to comply with the law, their permit, their work authority and their own undertakings
[5] The land owned by my super fund – land that was adjacent to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s land later used for a noisy, dusty, non-compliant, water polluting, and water and amenity stealing, quarry
[6] Because I knew the truth
[7] T208:8-23
[8] Inter alia, email dated 14 April 2007 (marked as being “without prejudice & in confidence”);
[9] Inter alia: T134:16-24 (19 October 2012); T134:28-30 (19 October 2012).
[10] T87:5-7 (18 October 2012)
[11] Oral rather than written testimony
[12] T72:24–T73:15 (18 October 2012)
[13] This is both ridiculous and extraordinary since ours was a little farm fighting to try to retain the legal rights it held prior to man X, man Y and CASACIR (multi-millionaires) removing my related parties’ rights without the legal entitlement to do so, and in the face of entirely proper and appropriate objections and opposition.
[14] T96:25–T97:1 (18 October 2012).
[15] Inter alia: T47:26–T48:3; T48:5-7; T48:21-31; T223:11-19; T241:15-16; T342:7-9; T394:2–T398:12; T402:3-9; T543:7-10; T570:2-5; T569:30–T570:13.
[16] This is the process where one judgment, itself being the result of criminal obstructions of justice such as fraud, abusing the processes, perjury or the like, then impacts the next judgment which understandably assumes the soundness of the previous judgment but inadvertently adds to the miscarriage of justice.
[17] Man Y is a very intelligent man who runs, operates, and is “the guiding light: of a multi-million dollar multi-subsidiary conglomerate (the Stabil-Lime Group) as well as being a director and shareholder of CASACIR. At no time has anyone asserted that he was incompetent or unable to understand the importance of the oath he swore to. [The reference to man Y being the “guiding light” is found in T10:2-3 before Pagone J]
[18] Because I knew the truth
[19] An offer made as fact to any person who did not want the quarry nearby and wanted to sell, that man X and man Y would purchase the property for a price as determined by a registered valuer based on a “without quarry” valuation.
[20] T143:12-17
[21] T155:19-23
[22] T143:5-8
[23] T143:9-11
[24] T144:13-17
[25] It became my business when he lied under oath and claimed costs for doing so that totalled over $100,000, and I was forced to live next to the uncompliant quarry with significant dust billowing offsite, noise that was horrendous and the pollution and removal of the water (all unauthorised and illegal activities).
[26] T155:19-23
[27] T156:7-10
[28] T239:1-3
[29] T253:20-23
[30] T234:9-12
[31] This claim is proved false by the repeated requirement that the Neerim North Road be pulled up and repeatedly replaced after his company’s shoddy work.
[32] Also a criminal offence
[33] T158:30-31
[34] T224:31–T225:1
[35] T168:4-7.
[36] T144:19-24.
[37] T146:7.
[38] T146:27-30.
[39] T234:1-2
[40] This is in spite of his wife and Kraan (who is a friend and a specialist in the industry) and Kraan’s wife, each sitting in court every day and not testifying on his behalf.
[41] He spent time with the legal team preparing his witness statement and proof of evidence, and his witness statement (or parts thereof) was read aloud. He knew when he was supposed to be in the witness box, but was purportedly “too busy” to actually come and support his father and fellow shareholder. It must be remembered that the timing of other witnesses was flexible and accommodated, so clearly Heath was not willing to come at all.
[42] T322:5-8
[43] T248:2-7
[44] T280:2-8
[45] T180:6-9. I countered this at T180:31–T181:6. It is important to note that CASACIR had not ever had a work authority at that site until 20 July 2009 and it was never unendorsed.
[46] e.g. that the watercourse effectively flowed uphill, and that there were “no land disturbing works” where they intended to dig a large dam, …
[47] Other than having pointed out the DPI some of the lies within the first work plan.
[48] T181:4-8
[49] Endorsed as part of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s planning permit
[50] The planning report at [3.4], written by Jack Kraan (“Kraan”), and approved by man X (and man Y)
[51] T180:11-23 & T181:7-16
[52] this is a legal requirement
[53] It should be noted that this new work plan contained information that had not been presented to the VCAT members who were deciding the review and who granted the permit based on the content of the previous iteration.
[54] So they had deliberately chosen to delay commencement for 14 days after they could legally commence.
[55] T167:1-4
[56] T170:10-11
[57] An appeal of the costs in relation to a VCAT determination
[58] T564:4-5
[59] T168:1-4.
[60] T170:14.
[61] T236:18.
[62] T277:19.
[63] T220:13-14
[64] T385:17–T387:4
[65] T568:6-7
[66] They only performed some of the terms agreed to, but only after threats of further legal action, but then proved that they were going to ignore the entirely anyway.
[67] This is shown by their failure to restore the flow until after threats of further legal action, and also within their Spring Water Management Plan, where they stated that they intended to permanently remove the flow of Kookaburra Creek from our land and replace it with polluted quarry wastewater and drainage discharge – without discussion, or agreement and in breach of the terms of settlement – clearly their words is worthless.
[68] Although this accusation was aimed at me rather than the company.
[69] 20((j)“as to [man X] statements”, 29(j)“as to [man X] representations”, 20(c)“as to [man Y] statements”, 29(c)“as to [man Y] representations”
[70] 20(k)“as to Casacir statements”, 29(k)“as to Casacir representations”, 20(q)“as to Casacir statements”, 29(q)“as to Casacir representations”, 20(r)“as to Casacir statements”, 29(r)“as to Casacir representations”
[71] T146:5-16
[72] T303:25–T304:8
[73] ‘under paragraph 29(j) thereof’, ‘Under paragraph 29 “as to the [man Y] representations” (c) thereof’; ‘Under paragraph 29 “as to the Casacir representations” (q) thereof’; ‘Under paragraph 29 “as to the Casacir representations” (r) thereof’.
[74] His fraudulent claims are further proved by pages 12, 13/14, 15 and 16 of his response to my request for further and better particulars dated 25 May 2012
[75] T171:1-2
[76] T139:29-30
[77] This is in the identification of a “sensitive use” paragraph 7.1 of their first work plan, as referred to in paragraph 33 above.
[78] T177:5-6
[79] T145:20-27
[80] So called by his Honour at T59:27–T60:1
[81] I advised the Court of this and it was not gainsaid (T455:12-13).
[82] As well as misleading and deceptive conduct
[83] T145:16-18
[84] T148:6-8
[85] T205:27
[86] T206:24-25
[87] T206:3-4
[88] T207:16-17
[89] T230:7-11
[90] T230:15
[91] T207:5-6
[92] When my related party was forced to sell its property on the open market – for a $365,000 loss due to the quarry and its impacts.
[93] T205:30–T206:3
[94] T206:12-25
[95] 2.02-3.24ha
[96] T87:26-30
[97] T106:27-31, T107:18-28, T108:10-17 (11 October 2016)
“[98] T146:22-24
[99] T467:8-11 (Southall told the court as absolute and determined fact that this was what man Y wanted to do)
[100] T193:28-T197:27
[101] T228:18-19
[102] T228:6-9
[103] T228:14-16
[104] T170:22-28
[105] Dated 2 March 2012 – in other words, the fraudulent claim had been deliberately added 3½ months after the 1st iteration, and 20 days after the 2nd iteration.
[106] Statement of claim dated 2 March 2012, in the particulars of paragraphs 26, 27 & 28
[107] Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s response to my request for further and better particulars dated 25 May 2012, “Under Paragraph 15(b) thereof” and “Under Paragraph 21(b) thereof”. “Under Paragraph [26/27/28] thereof”, man Y refers back to the admittedly false allegation that I had met with him at his office.
[108] T234:31–T235:3
[109] T251:31-T252:21
[110] T281:10-22
[111] T448:12-22
[112] T560:10-12, 17-21 (17 April 2013).
[113] T169:26-29
[114] T146:28-30.
[115] T147:31–T148:1.
[116] T148:6-8.
[117] T148:13-14.
[118] T148:26-27.
[119] The Evidence Act 2008, s 59(1): “Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation”.
[120] T245:24-29
[121] T239:25-26
[122] The Evidence Act 2008, s 59(1): “Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation”.
[123] T181:31–T182:6 & T182:17-28
[124] T157:19-22
[125] T182:4-6
[126] One of the neighbours who attended Callander’s office in the hope of speaking with man X and man Y
[127] Details of the fraudulence of the letter of 19 August 2011 are exhibited elsewhere in the website
[128] T416:11–T427:3; T465:6–T477:19;
[129] The letters to CASACIR dated 20 February 2007 (marked “without prejudice”), 22 March 2007 (marked “private and confidential” and “without prejudice”), letter dated 26 July 2010 (“Without prejudice save as to costs and for production to the Tribunal on 24 August 2010”), and dated 26 August 2010 (“Without prejudice save as to costs and for production to the Tribunal on 24 August 2010”), and the emails to CASACIR dated: 9 February 2007 (marked “without prejudice”), 11 February 2007 (marked “without prejudice”); 14 April 2007 (“without prejudice & in confidence”).
[130] The letters to CASACIR dated 2 February 2010 (marked “without prejudice”), 22 March 2007 (marked “private and confidential” and “without prejudice”), letter dated 26 July 2010 (“Without prejudice save as to costs and for production to the Tribunal on 24 August 2010”), and dated 26 August 2010 (“Without prejudice save as to costs and for production to the Tribunal on 24 August 2010”), and the email to CASACIR dated: 14 April 2007 (“without prejudice & in confidence”).
[131] Inter alia: T5:9-12, T6:20–T7:5; T14:7-10; T252:18-19; T285:13-17; T285:19-26; T104:28-29; T318:4-6; T384:12-29, T467:8-11; T470:25-27; T543:11-12; T543:16-17; T544:24-27; T545:13-15; T453:24-29; T518:20–T520:22; T602:12-13; T607:8-10; Judgment of Pagone J dated 23 May 2013 Reasons at [34], [39], [43], [53] to [57].
[132] Inter alia, see the 7 iterations of their statement of claim at items 15 and 16 (and in the first 5 iterations also items 21, 22, and 23). The offer by man X in 2005 related to a community meeting initiated by me where he told those at the meeting that they would purchase the properties of anyone not wanting a quarry nearby, and that the properties would be purchased on a valuation provided by a registered valuer based on a “without the quarry” basis.
[133] Inter alia: time spent with O. Scoulier-Gregg, B Natoli, J Kraan, T Bellair, P Barro, R Kerr, H Curnow, K Minehardt, T Bailey – not one of whom was a witness or gave any testimony or evidence at all.
[134] Inter alia: proved to be a lie by bill of costs dated 8 March 2017 at items 34 & 35 where the bill was reduced
[135] with the acknowledged authorisation and approval of man Y and CASACIR
[136] T42 & 43 (6 November 2014) where Southall quotes the impact on Pagone J’s decision
[137] T3:28–T4:3 (15 July 2013)
[138] T27:3-19 (6 November 2014); T34:12-29 (6 November 2014); T35:10 (6 November 2014); T41:17-18 (6 November 2014); T44:3-4 (6 November 2014); their Notice of Appeal dated 23 August 2013 paragraph 9(d); their submissions dated 23 August 2013 paragraphs 15(d); their Notice of Appeal dated 2 October 2013 paragraph 5(d); their submissions dated 14 April 2014 paragraph 18.
[139] T20:11-13 (6 November 2014); their submissions dated 23 August 2013 paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15(a); their Notice of Appeal dated 2 October 2013 paragraphs 1, 3(e); their submissions dated 14 April 2014 paragraphs 4, 5, 8, 9, 13.
[140] T4:27-29 (20 September 2013)
[141] T13:2-4, T14:11-18 (6 November 2014)
[142] And by delays causing otherwise unnecessary communications, and the like.
[143] Inter alia: T49:12-13, 22-23 (6 November 2014); in each of their statement of claim paragraphs 15 and 15.
[144] Particularly in their Draft Notice of Appeal dated 14 August 2013 paragraph 11 and their Notice of Appeal dated 23 August 2013 paragraph 10(a) and (b) in spite of the fraudulent claim made as absolute fact at T42:14-23 (6 November 2014).
[145] Their submissions dated 14 April 2014 paragraphs 1, 6, 16 to 21
[146] Their outline of submissions dated 9 July 2015, paragraphs 27 and 28; T12:6-16 (26 October 2015); T26:13-18 (26 October 2015). This is in direct conflict other testimony and submissions (inter alia: T3:15-26 (23 November 2012). T8:14-21 (23 November 2012); T214:24–T215:4; T219:25–T220: 29; T272:13-26).
[147] T24:8–T25:20 (26 October 2015)
[148] T25:31–T26:12 (26 October 2015); their outline of submissions dated 9 July 2015, paragraph 25
[149] In spite of admitting in their outline of submissions dated 9 July 2015, paragraph 23 of “[a]dditional draft amended statements of claim were served on [me] in order to seek consent to proposed changes”) (in spite of only one of these documents actually being a draft, and is spite of deliberately misleading each of the other judges about the total number served on me)
[150] Their outline of submissions dated 9 July 2015, paragraphs 3, 10, 11, 16, 19-22, 25, 29, 30, 32.
[151] E.g. S29 account at item 47
[152] Their outline of submissions dated 9 July 2015, paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 19, 31
[153] T10:1-5 (11 October 2016).
[154] T564:4-5.
[155] T88:21–T91:31 (11 October 2016)
[156] T93:10-17 (11 October 2016 quoting McDonald J)
[157] T106:27-31, T107:18-28, T108:10-17 (11 October 2016)
[158] T108:21-26 (11 October 2016)
[159] The un-numbered Judgment of Ryan R dated 30 January 2018 on page 5, just prior to the summary: “See [Culleton v Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 8]. An awareness by [man X and man Y] that [she] may be insolvent supports the conclusion that they were intending to invoke the insolvency jurisdiction of the Court rather than for some other purpose such as debt recovery.”
[160] By one of Smith’s employees after I had repeatedly asked for the bill.
[161] T220:14-16