Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.
As I have previously identified, man X and man Y took out bankruptcy action against me in relation to payment of an amount of $225,000.00 made by orders dated 25 August 2017 in the Costs Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria – which the court handed down unknowing that it had been made as the result of multiple obstructions of justice, including by man X and man Y giving false testimony.
Man X and man Y served me with a bankruptcy notice which resulted with me basing my objections on, inter alia, (1) a counterclaim founded on the fact that I did not owe the money to man X and man Y because they had committed fraud[1]in the obtaining of their order (and preceding orders) and that I had a counterclaim for more than man X and man Y were seeking, and (2) the fact that I had no unencumbered assets or money remaining because man X and man Y had already stripped me of everything I had by their various forms of obstructions of justice, and had caused me to become insolvent and an undeclared bankrupt.
In the Federal Circuit Court in 2018, both man X and man Y were asked if they wanted to take an oath swearing on the Bible or take an affirmation. Both men adamantly chose to swear an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, with their hand on the Bible.
I have previously claimed that man X and man Y were entirely unremorseful, unrepentant and unapologetic for what they have done.
I have repeatedly claimed that man X and man Y (and others who assisted them in their obstructions of justice) were so arrogant that they did not even see what they have done is illegal, dishonest, immoral and unethical. Man X and man Y remain unremorseful, unrepentant, entirely unapologetic and in absolute denial, and they made this entirely clear when recently in the Federal Circuit Court:
Me: Right. So did you, in any form, obstruct justice in getting the determinations that have been handed down?
Me: Have you lied under oath …?
Me: I put it to you [man X] that you exaggerated a lot … is that true?
Man X: No. That’s not true[4].
As I will reveal in below and other places in this website, this was further false testimony.
Man Y swore that he had read all my affidavits and then swore that he had not
Man Y swore on oath that he had read on oath my affidavits [emphasis mine]:
1.I make this affidavit from my own knowledge and believe save where otherwise stated[5].
2. I haveread all of the affidavits sworn by [her]and filed in [the Federal Circuit Court proceedings …] and the application by [her] to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice … in proceedings No … (“the BN application”) including her last affidavit sworn 28 April 2018 (“the last affidavit”)[6].
3. In allof [her] affidavits she has stated that the Court should look behind the various orders made against her in favour of [myself and man X][7]
4. Exhibits VG4-4.VG4-5 and VG4-7 to the last affidavit contain a litany of allegations against [man X and me] including:
* Fraud
* Obstruction of justice
* Misleading and deceptive conduct
* Perjury
* Perverting the course of justice
* Intimidating conduct towards and bullying [her]
* Harassing and defaming [her]
5. [Man X and I] deny each and every one of the fraud allegations made against [us] by [her] in her affidavits[9][10]
12.In the BN application [she] filed and served a document …, being a “Statement of Counter-Claim [sic] in relation to setting aside Order dated 25 August 2017 and Bankruptcy Notice … (“the counterclaim”).[11]
13.The counterclaim contained 11 pages of claims and particulars of alleged fraud by [man X and myself] against [her].[12]
He identified under oath in his affidavit above that he knew the full details of my allegations, but then man Y verbally swore, again under oath, that he hadn’t read all my affidavits: [emphasis mine]
Me: Okay. But you said, did you not, that you had read all my affidavits?
Man Y: Well, I certainly have.
Me: So you read – – -?
Man Y: Well, I’ve read all the last voluminous ones but I have read mostof them, yes.
Me: So now it’s most of them? Because in your affidavit, you said all of them?
Man Y: The last one that you sent was some 300-odd pages of regurgitated information and I’ve got to say to you, I did not read all the information.
Me: I’m talking actually about the one before that, which was my first affidavit in relation to the creditor’s petition and it detailed payments?
Man Y: I probably have read it. I would say yes, I will have read but I was unprepared, of course, for this cross-examination and I haven’t read it in recenttimes at all.
Me: [to the judge] Well, I believe that [man Y] is an unreliable witness because he swears to one thing and then – in his affidavits and then swears to something different on the witness stand.[13]
The affidavit I was referring to was dated 25 March 2018, just 1½ months earlier than his own affidavit of 7 May 2018 where he swore that he had read them all, i.e. just 2½ months after receiving my affidavit and just one month after swearing that he had read it. All I can say is that he must have an exceptionally poor memory now and perhaps should not be in charge of the companies he is in charge of!
Deliberate confusion and deception regarding monies said by man X and man Y to be owed to them.
In my counterclaim and supporting affidavit, inter alia, I listed amounts of money that had already previously been awarded to man X and man Y and which I had already paid[14].
As identified elsewhere, a hearing was held in the Federal Court on 30 January 2018 before Ryan R.
At that hearing their then solicitor, Lionel Green (“Green”), told the court he was under instructions to submit to the court, as absolute fact, that I had notpaid the money I had claimed to have paid to his clients (that I certainly had paid, and that I later proved that I paid). He did this by submitting, as absolute fact, that [emphasis mine]:
Mr Green: That – yes, that’s so, Registrar. I just go to the main affidavit which is sworn the 23, the larger of the two affidavits, sworn the 23. At no stage – it talks about a claim of some $330,000, three – sorry, paragraph 11 on page 5 refers to damages of 351,361.26 already paid. Now, there’s no breakup of that amount.
Registrar Ryan: My understanding is that amount broadly is the amounts which [she] has paid your clients by way of damages for the defamation claim together with statutory interest together with the costs of the Court of Appeal as taxed.
Mr Green: Well, I don’t think that’s correct, Registrar, in that the orders were for – the damages were twelve – sorry, 8000 and $12,000 respectively – – –
Registrar Ryan: Which were then increased in the Court of Appeal – – –
Mr Green: Right.
Registrar Ryan: – – – to 65 and $75,000.
Mr Green: Yes. Well – and there’s no – no other sums that have been paid to – – –
Registrar Ryan: Okay. Well, we should talk about that because that’s – that’s not what has been deposedU by – – –
Mr Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: – – – by [her]. So [she] has deposed that she has paid your clients the damages that were awarded as increased by the Court of Appeal together with statutory interest and also she has paid the costs that were ordered and taxed in the Court of Appeal proceedings and I think they – she deposes in the sum of —
Mr Green: No, they – – –
Registrar Ryan: – – – say, $190,000.
Mr Green: They have not been taxed as yet, Registrar. They’re my instructions.
Registrar Ryan: All right. So you dispute that?
Mr Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: All right. All right.
Mr Green: Yes. The – – –
Registrar Ryan: I understand that. I – look, and, to some extent, it’s – it’s not critical. I think the sum of 351 to me – what’s required when you’re seeking to set aside a bankruptcy notice on the basis of a counterclaim, you need to satisfy the court not only that the claim is – is a genuine claim and has sufficient prospects of success but also that it’s for a sum which exceeds the amount in the judgment debt. Now, here we’ve got the judgment debt of $225,000 representing the costs that were taxed by Judicial Registrar Gourlay.
Mr Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: So I think what [she] is putting to the court is that her claim for fraud against your clients is for a quantum which exceeds the debt – – –
Mr Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: – – – $225,000 and would be at least for a sum representing the amount that she has already paid to your clients. My understanding is her claim is that, as a result of these – of the frauds, the alleged frauds, if they hadn’t have occurred then the various judgments at the various courts – the courts wouldn’t have been misled, allegedly, in the way that she claims and, as a result there wouldn’t – you wouldn’t have been – your clients wouldn’t have been successful in defamation and there wouldn’t have been the various costs orders. In addition to that, she seeks aggravated and compensatory damages – aggravated and exemplary damages.
Mr Green: Yes. Yes, Registrar.
Registrar Ryan: But you dispute that – you dispute that the – there’s a dispute about how much– – –
Mr Green: The quantum– – -
Registrar Ryan: – – – your client has been paid.
Mr Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: All right. I understand.[15]
Simple logic tells you that if I had not paid every cent that had been ordered and taxed other than the amount under dispute in the bankruptcy proceedings, those other amounts (totaling many hundreds of thousands of dollars) would have been included in Green’s clients’ claims against me for bankruptcy. I was uncertain at the time (1) whether Green personally deliberately misled Ryan R, or (2) whether his clients deliberately lied to Green, thereby continuing on their obstruction of justice.
By having Green so submit, man X and man Y were:
- fraudulently attempting to have the court believe that I was not to be trusted because they were ascertaining that I would and did swear to facts that were not true;
- trying to cause confusion as to the amounts of money that were paid, or were likely to be claimed by man X and man Y as requiring payment, and
- trying to give themselves an opportunity to increase the amount of money claimed so as to try to beat my counterclaim and
- trying to get out of the fact that they instructed Green to lie to the court on their behalf.
Man Y later swore to having the authority to make [fraudulent] claims on behalf of himself and man X[16]:
1. I am … authorised to make this affidavit for and on behalf of myself and [man X].
2. The statements made in paragraphs 1… of the creditor’s petition are within my own knowledge true.
Man X and man Y’s creditor’s petition states[17]:
1. [She] owes [man X and man Y] the amount of $229,623.29 being the amount due and payable by [her] to [man X and man Y] for costs due under an Order obtained in the Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne on 26 August 2017.
Man Y later swore in his later affidavit that:
6. In May 2013 Pagone J in the Supreme Court of Victoria awarded damages to [man X and me] … in the sum of $12,000.00 for [man X] and $8,000 for myself along with an order for costs. [“The original judgment”][18].
7. In 2015 [she] commenced an application against [man X and me] for orders pursuant to Section 29 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and r46.04(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. [her] application heard by McDonald J in May and October 2015 and was unsuccessful…[19][20]
9. On application by [man X and myself] the Court of Appeal of Victoria on 24 April 2015 increased the damages payable by [her] to [man X and me] to $75,000.00 for [man X] and $65,000.00 for [me] along with [our] costs[21]. …
As seen above, Green told the court that he had been given certain instructions by man X and/or man Y to present fraudulent facts to the court in relation to those and other payments.
Man Y falsely swore in his affidavit to having full knowledge of the financials of himself and man X[22]:
1. I am the second applicant herein and, as such, have access to the books and records of [myself and man X] and am authorised to make this affidavit for and on behalf of myself and [man X].
The falsity of man Y’s testimony is revealed as follows there he swore on oath at the hearing on 6 June 2018 where he inadvertently admitted that he had misled and deceived the court as to what books and financial dealings he actuallyhad knowledge of [emphasis mine]:
Me: Right. Okay. … can I take you to your affidavit of 6 February. You swore you have access to the books of yourself and [man X]?
Man Y: I’m not sure I quite understand that question, your Honour. I do have access to the books that relate to a partnership in business between [man X] and myself. Is that the question?
Me: That’s not what you wrote in your affidavit.
His Honour: Is that affidavit on this file?
Me: It’s part of the creditor’s petition, your Honour.
His Honour: Sorry. Part of the what?
Me: The creditor’s petition.
His Honour: Right.
Me: Should be at the back.
His Honour: I see. So it’s the affidavit there. Yes. I see.
Me: That’s correct.
His Honour: Okay.
Me: It’ s a single page. I think it’s number 2.
His Honour: [Man Y] swore he had access to the books and records of the applicantsand was authorised to make the affidavit.
Me: That’s correct?
Man Y: I think I answered yes to that.
Me: Yes. But what you just answered then was you had access to the books of Casacir, which is – – -?
Man Y: No, your Honour, I did not. Casacir was not mentioned. You asked did I have access to the books that related to [man X] and myself.
Me: Yes?
Man Y: And I said, “Yes, I have access to the business partnership, which has a set of books and I maintain the books for [man X] and I”.
Me: That – – -?
Man Y: You never mentioned Casacir.
Me: Okay. That goes beyond what was in your affidavit?
Man Y: Well – – –
Me: What that’s – so in those payments – in those books – in those records, you would have access then to what was paid in relation to the previous orders and judgments?[23]
Firstly, the “business partnership” isthe CASACIR business! Secondly, he did not swear in his affidavit as to his knowledge of the “books” being the CASACIR books or even to the books being the “partnership” books, he swore to the strong and clear implication that it was the personal financial books of both he and man X – otherwise it was totally irrelevant. However, its real purpose was, yet again, to fraudulently make it appear that it was me who had lied under oath by swearing that I had made the payments, and not them who had misled and deceived the court by fraudulently claiming that I hadn’t. Thirdly, I was cut off by Peter Fary (“Fary”)[24]and the judge before I could take the matter to clarification by proof – but what happened was sufficient to prove that man Y swore falsely in his affidavit because either he did not know the general payments made to man X or he lied under oath about what he knew and didn’t know.
Man Y’s false testimony later continued [emphasis mine]:
Me: Right. Okay. Okay. So can you tell the court, please, were you paid – and to your knowledge, [man X] paid – the full damages from Pagone J and the Court of Appeal?
Man Y: Are you talking about the Full Bench appeal?
His Honour: Yes. That’s right.
Me: I’m talking about – there was – – -?
Man Y: No. We haven’t been paid.
His Honour: There were two proceedings, as I understand it?
Man Y: Yes.
His Honour: One in front of Pagone J. That was then the subject of both an application for leave to appeal and appeal, if I understand correctly.
Me: That’s correct.
His Honour: The application for leave to appeal in relation to costs was rejected but the appeal was successful and damages were increased quite substantially?
Man Y: Yes.
His Honour: So the question is have you been paid the moneys that were ordered to be paid, in effect, by the Court of Appeal?
Man Y: My understandingis that’s the 250-odd thousand that – from McDonald J that we’re talking about in costs here and the costs for the – in the Court of Appeal haven’t – we’re just having them taxed now.
Me: Then we’ve got a substantial problem here, your Honour, because [man Y] signed affidavits – he swore affidavits that he had no real basic knowledge of because all those costs have been paid and I’ve proved it in the affidavits that [man Y] swore that he read. The costs relating to the 225 are the costs of the actual trial before Pagone J and the costs before McDonald J. They’re the ones that have been taxed and have resulted in – they weren’t taxed; they went to mediation and resulted in an agreement.
His Honour: That’s why we’re here.
Me: For that one. I’m asking [man Y] has he received the money – the 65,000 that was supposed to come to him and has [man X] received the 75,000 30 total, what was before Pagone J and the Court of Appeal? They were the totals – – –
His Honour: Well, it’s – the way you put it is in fact slightly inaccurate. Pagone J ordered relatively small amounts of money to be paid.
Me: That’s correct.
His Honour: Those were then substituted by the greater amounts ordered by the Court of Appeal.
Me: That’s correct.
His Honour: So you don’t have to pay both; you only had to pay the second one. Have the sums – not the costs but the orders for damages – been paid?
Man Y: Yes. I believe they have.
His Honour: Yes.
Me: Right. You just made a statement that the costs of the trial before the Court of Appeal had not yet been taxed and that’s what’s before – the Court of Appeal in 2014. That was the Court of Appeal appealing Pagone J’s orders. That resulted in an agreement, did it not, for 195,000 and you were there at the mediation?
Man Y: To be honest, your Honour, I – there has been so much water under the bridge with these things, I can’t be dead specific as to which ones have been paid. I would need to talk to the lawyers that handled the money through their trust account but certainly, we had an appeal before the Full Bench and that we have just had taxed and the remaining outstanding are the orders that we’re here for. That’s my understanding.
His Honour: Okay?
Man Y: I think that is what I’ve put in the affidavit but I haven’t seen it for some time, of course[25].
So, man Y states that he had not seen his affidavit of just one month earlier “for some time”, but had sworn earlier in that same affidavit that the claims were made “from [his] own knowledge” – such an abnormally poor memory for a man with such onerous financial and company responsibilities.
Man Y gave false testimony about not knowing that he was to be a witness.
Me: I’m talking actually about the [affidavit] before that, which was my first affidavit in relation to the creditor’s petition and it detailed payments?
Man Y: I probably have read it. I would say yes, I will have read but I was unprepared, of course, for this cross-examination and I haven’t read it in recent times at all[26].
So, in spite of knowing that it was a very serious issue and that he had sworn in his affidavit that he had read all my affidavits, man Y again gave false and misleading testimony. In addition, he was fully prepared for giving cross-examination given that Burchardt J had asked at an earlier directions hearing who Green’s witnesses[27]would be (and man Y was one of those nominated):
His Honour: How many witnesses would be involved in the trial? I presume that, given the circumstances, if I’m hearing about fraud in the Supreme Court and VCAT cases, there must be a number of persons against whom assertions are made.
Mr Green: Yes, there are two.
His Honour: Right.
Mr Green: I would have thought there would be three witnesses on behalf of the ‑ ‑ ‑ …
His Honour: [to me:] you would be your only witness?
There can be no doubt as to man Y’s knowledge that he was there to give sworn testimony.
I find it simply astonishing that a man who claims to personally and financially control multi-division, multi-million dollar companies (including those of the multi-million dollar company CASACIR, as well as the financials of many other businesses), has such an extraordinarily low grasp of what money comes and goes – and that is in spite of assuring the court that he had read each of my affidavits (and thereby assuring the court that he knew what money had been paid and what had not – this included the claim of having read my affidavit containing the claims and proof that I had paid the amounts I said I had paid). He has shown himself to clearly be a man whose word, even his sworn word (whether verbal or written), simply should not necessarily be believed – and this is additionally shown as follows and elsewhere in the documents.
By an excerpt of the above, man Y also proved that it was he who gave the fraudulent instructions to Green to tell Ryan R that I had not paid amounts that I have most certainly paid and proved I had paid:
Man Y: Are you talking about the Full Bench appeal?
His Honour: Yes. That’s right.
Me: I’m talking about – there was – – -?
Man Y: No. We haven’t been paid[29].
Which was contradicted and provedto be false testimony by Fary’s submissions that:
[Man X and man Y’s] case is that [she] has paid a total of $351,955.79. … Which has been applied towards payment of damages … various costs orders, including some costs that were ordered by the Court of Appeal…[30]
In an affidavit dated 25 March 2018 I proved I had paid the money I claimed to have paid, and I proved it by way of:
- bank statements;
- bank letters and records showing what account money was paid into on what dates;
- correspondence and confirmation of payments from man X and man Y’s earlier solicitors, KSA;
- correspondence from the Legal Services Board.
Proving that man Y lied under oath again. Man X should perhaps make other arrangements for the oversight and control of the CASACIR books since man Y has admitted that he has no idea of the general finances.
Man Y’s sworn testimony regarding the letter of 19 August 2011
Man X and man Y served me with a letter dated 19 August 2011. This letter was full of fraudulent claims and denials and they used this letter prolifically to garner themselves additional damages before Pagone and the 2014 Court of Appeal. I sought an explanation from man Y [emphasis mine]:
Me: You approved a letter of 19 August 2011; is that correct? That was – – –
His Honour: It’s rather hard to suspect him to remember that.
Me: That was the letter that, as soon as you found out that I had the website, you authorised Mr Smith, who was your then solicitor, to send me?
Man Y: Off the cuff, I cannot recall the letter but I certainly would have given instructions to Mr Smith to ask her to take the website down immediately. If that’s what’s in the letter, I certainly would have.
Me: But it didn’t ask me to take down the website. It listed an (a), (b), (c) and (d) of things that you objected to and you said that you objected to me putting on the website that Casacir – excuse the language, your Honour – Casacir was an acronym for “Crush any shit and call it rock”. You said that was defamatory and I had to remove it. You then subsequently confessed at court, under oath, that that’s exactly what it did mean; is that true?
Man Y: I do recall some of those issuesand it was you, in fact, that raised that issue under oath as a witness in VCAT.
Me: Actually, I didn’t.
Man Y: You actually did that, hence I was there to prove it.
Me: In – – -?
Man Y: And it wasn’t me that you cross-examined about that; it was David and I don’t know whether it’s relative, your Honour, whether that’s correct or not but the fact is it is correct.
His Honour: Can we all just pause for a minute while these ….. I’ve got to sit still and be quiet while this thing is taking readings. Yes. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you….
Me: In 2008 – I will ask [man X] this but in 2008, your planner, Jack [Kraan], told VCAT that that was the acronym – that was the name that Casacir was the acronym for – and yet, in the letter, that was also classed as defamatory that I had written, that Mr [Kraan] told VCAT that.[31]
Again cut off by the judge, but enough to prove that man Y lied under oath when the letter is viewed. A copy of comments about the letter are in the website .
Testimony regarding man Y’s sworn claim that he neither he nor man X had committed any fraud and that the flow of Kookaburra Creek had not been interfered with
In the hard task of trying to get a reasonable and honest answer from man Y, I asked the following and received yet more false testimony as a result [emphasis mine]:
Me: Okay. Your affidavit, dated 7 May 2018, which is not the one today but the previous one – which is a few pages long – at paragraph 5, you denied each allegation of any type of obstruction of justice – or you called it “the fraud allegations”. So do you adhere to that? You say that there is nothing that you or [man X] have done in relation to the proceedings – any of the proceedings that will be fraudulent or misleading and deceptive? Well, we will take them one at a time. Fraudulent?
Man Y: I can absolutely swear that I have not and to the best of my knowledge, [man X] has not.
Me: Can I just take you to one instance that was not before the court, it was before VCAT, where you signed a – or you authorised [man X] to sign a document in order to get out of going to the hearing and it was a binding terms of agreement to restore the flow of water that you, through your company, had illegally removed from our property. You signed or you authorised the signing of a document where you were never going to, over the long-term, comply with the conditions – with the terms.
Mr Fary: Well, I object.
His Honour: Pause for a moment.
Me: Is that not fraud?
His Honour: Do you understand the question, Mr – – -?
Man Y: I think I do.
His Honour: Yes?
Man Y: In part.
His Honour: Are you able to respond to it?
Man Y: Yes. I certainly am.
His Honour: Thank you?
Man Y: What I can’t recall in those proceedings so long ago is – I was there for most days. I can’t swear to have been there for every day; however, there is a spring on our property that ran down through a property that [she] owned and with all of the issues that went before the VCAT hearings, we installed a facility in our property and we’ve had external consultants monitor the flow of water out of that spring that went under the road and through into her property. Nothing has changed in that respect to this day.
Me: Is it not true that the reason I took legal action against you was because – well, you and Casacir and [man X] – was because instead of just putting the stream in a pipe, you actually dug a hole and put the water underground without a permit to do so, without authority to do so– – –
His Honour: This all went to VCAT, didn’t it?
Man Y: Yes.
Me: It all – yes but it establishes – – –
His Honour: And was the subject, I infer, of quite protractive proceedings at VCAT?
Me: Yes. But it goes deeper. It goes to the point of the reason why they dug the hole, the reason why – – –
His Honour: How long was the proceeding in VCAT? How many days – – –
Me: How long ago?
His Honour: No. Well, first, how long ago?
Me: It was in 2010.
His Honour: Right. And how many days or days did it go for?
Me: Well, it didn’t go because they signed the document the day before it was supposed to go to VCAT, which was then supposed to make me feel confident that it was all taken care of because they said they would never interfere with the flow again. Then – but their whole quarry relied on them interfering with that flow. Three months later, at VCAT on an enforcement application, their barrister, Mr Peak, cross-examined me on that and he said, “So you would object to an application to interfere with the flow, even if it stopped the quarry?” and I had to say yes because that was our sole water supply.
His Honour: Well – – –
Me: But [man Y] authorised[man X] to sign this document, knowing that it was never going to be complied with in the long-term. That makes it fraud.
His Honour: Well, no, just pause there and – do you understand what has been put against you, [man Y]?
Man Y: I think I do.
His Honour: It has been put against you that you and [man X] improperly caused a document to resolve the – signed a document to resolve the proceedings in the knowledge that it was effectively never going to happen?
Man Y: I really can’t answer that question but I can say to you that that spring and the creek that results from it continues to flow and is there to be seen today.
His Honour: Yes.
Me: Is it not – – -?
Man Y: And it’s monitored.
Me: Is it not true that the reason why that spring still flows today is because you haven’t yet quarried in that area? You haven’t yet quarried through the spring that was feeding that water course? … is the reason that the creek still flows because —[32]
There are a number of points here:
- I was cut off before I could get a proper response from man Y on his authorisation of the fraudulent document, but it was enough to show that man Y deliberately lied and evaded a proper answer. Should anyone take umbrage at this, I will certainly provide a copy of the agreement;
- I was cut off before I would get a proper response to the fact that they were intending to quarry through and destroy the spring (as well as its watertable and catchment), and the watercourse – and that the longevity of their quarry relied upon them doing so. Should anyone take umbrage at this, I will certainly provide a copy of Figure 5 of their work plan showing that the spring, catchment and watertable as well as the watercourse, will be destroyed;
- And man Y called it a spring and creek (which it is) and yet man X called it a drainage line so that they can justify their pollution of it, and implies that it is of no real concern when they do so), but later inadvertently admitted it is a waterway.
Man X’s sworn testimony regarding the diversion of Kookaburra Creek without a permit
I thought I would try man X, but it appears that either he had been given the same instructions, or that he and man Y had got together to discuss what they would testify to (because he gave the exact same fraudulent line) [emphasis mine]:
Me: Did you divert the flow of Kookaburra creek without a permit to do so?
Me: You admitted under oath that you actually did do so.
Man X: The – Kookaburra creek is what your terminology for a drain, number one. Number two, the water still runs down that same drain as it did when we bought the farm, and it still does today as running with the quarry.
Me: Does it still run there because you actually had to put in a pipe to redivert it from underground where you had put it?
Man X: No, not at all. No. Do you want the answer? The pipe ran under a bunding that would always run there in a pipe, and we directed that water down the waterway[34]– a waterway to the drain on the side of the road and under a culvert that ran directly into the drain that ran through our place and then yours.
Me: So you’re saying that you didn’t do the diversion along the side of – – -?
Man X: We – – –
Me: Can I ask the question. Are you saying that you did the diversion along the side of the road only because you wanted to restore the flow?
Man X: We haven’t altered the flow at all, and the water still flows down the existing drain line that it always flowed, and it still is.
Me: Did you do that extra pipework because I took action against you?
Man X: No.
Me: You signed a terms of settlement agreement …to restore the flow?
Man X: We haven’t altered the flow. We’ve never altered the flow.
Me: So that terms – – -?
Man X: We still monitor the flow today. It’s still being monitored by Southern Rural Water and Gippsland Water today, and nothing has changed. The water is still coming from the same spring and flowing down the same gulley line.
Me: So it never was diverted underground?
Man X: It’s never [been] diverted underground, no.
Me: Well – okay. I actually think this is quite pointless because neither man is telling the absolute truth[35].
This all proved that man X lied under oath before Burchardt J. Secondly, he had admitted before Pagone J that he had done the works without a permit to do so:
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?
Should anyone take umbrage at this, I will certainly provide a copy of photos of the diversion and the restoration of the flow, this time in pipes that were the result of the terms of settlement agreement – proving that man X lied under oath yet again.
Testimony regarding man X’s sworn claim that he knew what conversations took place in closed mediation session at VCAT
Man X swore under oath before Pagone J that he knew the details of a conversation that took place behind closed doors where he was not a party and had no representation at that closed mediation. However, before Burchardt J he denied it [emphasis mine]:
Me: Okay. So … – I don’t know what questions I’m going to be allowed to ask. Can you tell me how you came – you say you came to know of a conversation that took place in a closed mediation session of which you were not an attendee?—I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Me: At VCAT, there was a mediation meeting which you testified to before Pagone J and you said that you knew the conversation that had taken place – – -?
Man X: Excuse me. Pagone J was in the Federal Court.
Me: No. Pagone J was in the Supreme Court.
Man X: Supreme Court. And you said at VCAT.
Me: Yes. You swore, under oath, at the Supreme Court before Pagone J that you knew what happened in a closed meeting between my husband and myself, so how did you come to know what you say was the conversation?
His Honour: Well, I think the question, once again, will have to be broken into its parts. Did you give evidence before Pagone J about a mediation at VCAT of any sort, particularly one between [her] and her husband?
Man X: I’m lost here. We’re talking about a VCAT – – –
His Honour: Something happened at VCAT. It is said that you then gave evidence about what happened at VCAT in the Supreme Court?
Man X: I did give – that’s the only time I’ve ever given evidence is in the Supreme Court. Yes.
His Honour: Right. And when you did so, do you recall whether or not you gave any evidence about what might have happened at VCAT?
Man X: I don’t think so. I can’t remember that. No[37].
Proving that man X either has an exceptionally poor memory (should he be in charge of a quarry is if this is the case) or that he again deliberately lied under oath yet again.
Testimony regarding man X’s sworn exaggerations
I sought to test man X on his exaggerations [emphasis mine]:
Me: I put it to you … that you exaggerated a lot …; is that true?
Man X: No. That’s not true. …
Me: All right. When you said we had been 40 days in VCAT when we had been 23 but 12 of those days were as part of the review, of which I was one of 28 participants; is that correct?
Mr Fary: I object on the ground of relevance.
His Honour: Well – – -
Me: [Man X] swore, under oath, that we were 40 days in VCAT.
His Honour: Where’s the evidence of that?
Me: It’s in one of the – okay. Page 170, line 14, of—
His Honour: Well, if there’s a piece of transcript that you wish to put to [man X] – – –
Me: I will hand it up.
His Honour: – – – you should give it to my associate. She will show it to Mr [Fary], and we will put it to the witness.
Me: Okay. So it’s ….. 40 days in VCAT.
His Honour: You’re being asked to comment upon an apparent – do you need your reading glasses, Mr – – -?
Man X: If I can just get my glasses out of the bag.
His Honour: Yes, of course, go and get them. The purport of the question … is it’s put that you have exaggerated in asserting that there were 40 days in VCAT?
Man X: I think probably the 28 – the 30 days would be the length of time that we actually sat in VCAT, but that’s without some of the arbitration days and discussion days that also went with it.
Me: This is the history of the VCAT proceedings, so there’s a list there, and then the type of days, including the mediation days, and the number of people who were part of the initial review.
Mr Fary: Well, I’m happy for this to be put to the witness, but it looks to be a document prepared by [her].
His Honour: I see. Well, it’s a document [she] has prepared, it doesn’t bind you. Are you able to – I think what’s being put to you is that your estimate is still too high?
Man X: I will say that we – there just wasn’t one case in VCAT. It was numerous cases in VCAT, and that’s also a long ago.
His Honour: Very well?
Man X: And, yes, so – I don’t know what …..
His Honour:….. Yes. Thank you. Pass that back to [her], please[38].
Proving that man X lied under oath yet again.
Testimony regarding man X and man Y’s need to have me off out property
I thought [emphasis mine]:
His Honour: Perhaps the question can – as I understand the substance of the question, it’s being put to you that you and [man Y] deliberately set out to portray [her]s in a bad light with the aim of forcing her from her property because you knew that in time her continued presence there would obstruct your business?
Man X: But that’s not the case at all[39].
Proving that man X lied under oath yet again.
Testimony regarding man X’s sworn “confusion” over the work plan at the Supreme Court
I had asked man X what a work plan was so that I could ask then why he lied about his confusion at the time of giving his testimony before Pagone J. Man X gave an unexpected confession before the judge cut off that line of questioning [emphasis mine]:
Man X: I will explain what a work plan is, if you like, your Honour[40].
Proving that man X lied under oath at the Supreme Court before Pagone J when he effectively claimed that the work plan and work authority were the same thing.
[1] I was later told that I was erroneous in limiting their conduct to fraud as fraud was just one of the many ways they had obstructed justice, so I subsequently took action against them and others for their deliberate and premeditated obstruction of justice in many forms (e.g. perverting and attempting to pervert the course of justice, abusing the court’s processes, fraud, misleading and deceptive conduct, and lying to the court (including but certainly not limited to giving false testimony).
[9] Note the plurality of affidavits
[14] Which did not include the money in the order of 25 August 2017, nor did it include costs awarded in 3 later orders where bills had not yet been served or taxed.
[17] The date of the stated Order is incorrect – the accurate date was 25 August 2017.
[20] There are a number of critical errors in this paragraph of his affidavit: (1) the action was commenced in 2013, prior to the handing down of Pagone J’s judgment and final orders; (2) the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules were the 2005 iteration, not the 2015 iteration.
[24] Man X and man Y’s then barrister – Fary did not want the truth to come out, or to have man Y have to admit that he lied in his affidavit that Fary would have settled.
[27] A “witness” being a person who gets in the witness box and gives sworn or affirmed testimony
[33] And yet he finally admitted to having done so when under cross-examination before Pagone J – proving that he will lie under oath at will.
[34] Now he admits that it is a waterway and not just a drain!!!