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.
Background to him
According to Lionel’s website, he “is the principal of Meltzer Green with nearly 35 years of commercial law, insolvency and commercial litigation experience”.
He is based in Melbourne, Victoria, and currently represents two men (man X and man Y) in a case against me, in an attempt to send me into insolvency/bankruptcy.
As a barrister and lawyer admitted to the bar, Lionel, having sworn his allegiance to the crown, then swore that: “he would truly and honestly demean himself in the practice of the profession of a barrister and solicitor according to the best of his knowledge and ability”.
His website also states that [emphasis mine]: “Lionel regularly appears as counsel in both the Supreme Court and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Lionel has great skill as a negotiator, and will employ a variety of dispute resolution techniques to the best advantage of his clients”, and “Lionel has a very realistic, commercial approach to solving legal problems”. He certainly did use a variety of “creative” techniques to the best advantage, including financial advantage, of his clients as you will see below.
Interactions with Lionel did not start well and systematically got worse.
Documents
He delayed having me served with (almost unreadable) documents until just before Christmas, knowing that if I was to try to obtain legal advice it would be almost impossible at that time.
The “quality” of the documents served on me was so poor that the court registry refused to accept scanned copies of them; I would class this poor quality as an improper service.
The service of those grossly inadequate documents had been purposefully delayed, thereby deliberately adding significant additional interest to his clients’ claim.
Lionel filed and served his notice of appearance the day prior to the hearing – he didn’t file or serve his clients’ notice of appearance the required 3 days prior to the hearing in spite of knowing on 2 January (28 days earlier) or at the latest, 15 January (15 days earlier), that it was required by law (and in spite of the notice of appearance he eventually filed and served less than one day before the hearing stating that it was filed and served under r2.06 of the Bankruptcy Rules 2016 which states that such filing had to be done at least 3 days prior to a hearing where he intended to dispute an application. In addition, the notice said that his clients would be appearing in person and they did not, and the notice did not state that he would be appearing on his clients’ behalf, stating only that his office was the address for service. Perhaps it is assumed that he would be appearing instead of them, but to a novice, it is not clear at all.
The hearing of 30 January 2018
I had filed and served two affidavits supporting an application to set aside the judgment order and the bankruptcy notice. Lionel proceeded by misleading and deceiving to the court by knowingly grossly erroneous misrepresentations in submitting to the Registrar, as absolute fact, that I had not paid the money I had claimed to have paid to his clients (money that I certainly had paid, and that I could prove that I paid). He did this by deliberately submitting, as absolute fact, that:
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.
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 – – –
Green: Right.
Registrar Ryan: – – – to 65 and $75,000.
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 deposed by – – –
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 —
Green: No, they – – –Registrar Ryan: – – – say, $190,000. …They have not been taxed as yet, Registrar. They’re my instructions.
Registrar Ryan: All right. So you dispute that?
Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: All right. All right.
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.
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 – – –
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.
Green: Yes. Yes, Registrar.
Registrar Ryan: But you dispute that – you dispute that the – there’s a dispute about how much – – –
Green: The quantum – – -
Registrar Ryan: – – – your client has been paid.
Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: All right. I understand.[1]
Anyone using simple logic would see that if I had not paid every cent 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 Lionel’s clients’ claims against me. This proved that either (1) Lionel deliberately misled Ryan R, or (2) his clients deliberately lied to Lionel (he did say that he made the submission under instructions), which would have thereby continued on their fraud.
Whether it was Lionel or his clients, it can reasonably be assumed that the grossly erroneous claim swayed Ryan R because he said in his Reasons that:
[Mr Green] made oral submissions which were of assistance[2]. :
Mr Green disputes the exact sum that has been paid to his clients by the applicant[3]
And I’ve noted that it’s disputed by Mr Green[4].
In addition, Lionel told the court that I had not served certain documents on him or his clients:
Mr Green: Registrar, a few housekeeping items first: we were served with the affidavit of [the debtor] sworn 23 January … at 1.30 yesterday … that service did not include any of the exhibits which she refers to therein. I’ve heard reference this morning to a further affidavit sworn 8 January. I’ve never seen – we’ve never been served with a copy of that affidavit nor any material regarding a statement of claim against the respondents for fraud[5].
Registrar Ryan [S]o you haven’t – you haven’t served that affidavit upon the – upon Mr Green?
Me: Yes, I – I just have now.
Registrar Ryan: Just have. Okay. So you’ve – so both the January affidavits are in that material?
Me: That’s correct.
Registrar Ryan: Okay. All right. Well, it sounds like Mr Green hasn’t had an opportunity to consider certainly the substantive body of the – the 8 January affidavit.
Me: I tried to email it through. I only got it back from the court yesterday —
Registrar Ryan: Yes.
Me: – – – sealed and I’ve tried to email it through but it was too big. So – – –
Registrar Ryan: Which affidavit is that? The – the – – –
Me: That’s the second one, the small one.
Registrar Ryan: Yes.
Me: And so I just thought, “Well, I will bring it today,” because the order 15 stated that I didn’t actually have to file until 4.30 today. So I was actually – pardon me – I was actually ahead of time.
Registrar Ryan: Right.
Me: I filed on the 24, which was – it was Wednesday last week I filed. And then the registry has been absolutely flat out and they – they were only able to get it back to me yesterday. And, as it came through to me, I immediately forwarded it on to Mr Green.
Registrar Ryan: All right. What I – just as a matter of procedural fairness, what I propose to do is just to stand the matter down for a short period, Mr Green – – –
Green: Yes. That’s – – –
Registrar Ryan: – – – for you to read the body of that second affidavit. Now, I understand that you haven’t – you weren’t served with a copy of the annexures – – –
Green: That’s correct.
Registrar Ryan: – – – to the later affidavit. They will be there[6].
There is a big difference between not having time to have read the documents as compared to not having been served with them – I had served the documents, some the previous day by email and the reminder by hand at the hearing (which was still prior to the time limit provided for filing and service by the relevant order made by Ryan R himself), but Lionel still wanted to get me into trouble. On 2 January 2018 I had served Lionel with a copy of Ryan R’s order stating that I had until 4.30pm 30 January 2018 (the day of the hearing). Ryan R subsequently admitted that I did not have to have served (or even filed) prior to the 9.30am hearing:
I extended the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice until 4:30pm today[7].
In spite of Registrar Ryan being very clear that he had read the judgments and knew the material and history, Lionel was determined to tell him anyway:
Registrar Ryan: So, Mr Green, you wanted to take me through the history. And what I said was that I’m – I’m pretty aware of the history but if there’s anything specific that you want to take me to or to highlight – – –
Green: I – if your – the Registrar is familiar with the number of actions in the Supreme Court – – –
Registrar Ryan: Yes.
Green: – – – including the Court of Appeals – – –
Registrar Ryan: Yes.
Green: – – – applications by [the debtor] which number three separate actions, there’s nothing really further that I want to refer to in the – in the cases and the judgments that are there save that on each and every application by [the debtor] to set aside the judgment or seek leave to appeal they’ve all been rejected in quite – in very unequivocal terms by the court in its primary jurisdiction and in its appellate phase[8].
Also, Lionel told the court as absolute fact, that I had been claiming the fraud issue for the past 4-5 years, whereas the issue of fraud had not been raised at court – even though Lionel had not been involved in any of those cases and would not have known about it at all; he was thereby adding yet more grossly erroneous claims to his clients’ case.
And the provisions upon which the [debtor] is relying on today are completely unfounded, broad allegations of fraud which have been made for a period now of some – some four or five years now[9]
The Registrar indicated that he was swayed by the above grossly erroneous misrepresentation as well:
[T]he [debtor] has been agitating her allegations of fraud against the [creditors] repeatedly and consistently since the trial before Pagone J[10].
I did try to explain to him:
Me: Mr Green said that, for the last four or five years, I’ve run accusations of fraud. The issue of fraud has never been brought before the court. Never. Not in any of the courts. It was only raised by the 2016 Court of Appeal where they said, instead of bringing action under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 under section 29, I should have – if I thought it was real, I should have gone for fraud. So, up until that point, nobody told me that I should have been taking action for fraud instead of – under section 29 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Registrar Ryan: Well, it seems to me from reviewing the material that – that you have made allegations of fraud prior to then but I think my – and I will – this is what —
Me: Not taking action though.
Registrar Ryan: My understanding from your material is that you say that you weren’t aware that you were – you may have been entitled to prosecute a separate and independent action of fraud – – –
Me: That’s correct.
Registrar Ryan: – – – beyond the defamation proceeding and the section 29 proceeding.
Me: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: That’s what you say.
Me: That’s correct.
Registrar Ryan: Yes, I understand that.
Me: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: All right[11].
Even Lionel did, probably inadvertently, admit that I had not yet taken action for the fraud:
[The issues of fraud] have not been prosecuted by the [debtor][12]
The question is: did his clients tell him to act so falsely, did he contact someone else to get some advice (and thereby received the advice to act so erroneously), or did he choose to act that way on his own? Whichever way it went down he was the one at court and it came out of his mouth – thereby making him guilty of knowingly deliberate and determined grossly erroneous conduct.
It is interesting to note that Ryan R specifically identified that:
The [debtor] claims that the [creditors] were aware she was not capable of paying the debt at the time of the issuing of the bankruptcy notice and accordingly, it can be concluded that the [creditors] have issued the notice for an improper purpose[13].
He then concurs with me by making the observation that
An awareness by the [creditors] that the [debtor] 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[14].
i.e. this confirms that he knows that they are not after the money, but are after grinding me into the ground by making me insolvent (bankrupt) with all the long-term implications that will entail. Their ill-will, ulterior motives, and unjustifiable and unreasonable conduct continues on and on.
Just as Lionel’s clients continued, and still continue, to refuse to face the facts and reality of their fraud, Lionel has taken a stand against me taking them on for what they have done. He did this by putting in Registrar Ryan’s mind that I was a vexatious litigant:
[I]f the [debtor] were to issue such proceedings she may well be labelled a vexatious litigant[15]
This was also an attempt to intimidate me by making it clear that if I took action against them to try to right the wrongs, they would be claiming that I was a vexatious litigant. So much for him upholding justice and the truth as an officer of the court.
The reality is, as I told Ryan R, I had been forced into fighting for the legislated rights we had had before Lionel’s clients stole them. In fact, they stole our legislated rights from us, lied to and about us (and particularly me), ignored legislation, ignored their conditions, and even ignored many of their own undertakings. To fight for our rights was not being vexatious:
As far as being a vexatious litigant, I’ve been – to go back to the VCAT hearings, that was in result of the fact that Mr Green’s clients weren’t doing what they were supposed to be doing. We’re stuck on a property that is being bombarded by noise, by dust. They stole our water. They dug a hole and the water that used to come onto our place that we relied on went underground. And we’re frustrated, we’re anxious, we’re depressed and we’re forced into a fight because they didn’t want to buy us. They said that they would and then we kept offering to say, “Look, well, buy us out and we’re gone.” But, “No, no. We would rather fight you,” they said – well, [man X] said that. And that proved immensely true. But then they used the letters against us to say we were trying to stop the quarry. We just wanted to stop the noise and the dust and – just buy us out and let us go and we will be right because nobody else wanted to buy it. And even when we did put it on the market finally, we were in a situation where we lost $365,000 of value because of what they were doing. So that’s the background. And then I put it all up on the web and then they said, “You’ve defamed us.” I had a legal team at the beginning who refused to use any of the defences. And I’m saying, “I can prove everything I’ve said.” And they wouldn’t even give me the defence of, “It was my opinion,” let alone anything else. So I’m stuck in a – between a rock and a hard place. And consequently I got a defamation determination against me. And then I appealed, they appealed. And I tried to say, “Well, their conduct under section 29 of the Civil Procedure Act was deplorable because they lied,” but everybody is sort of saying, “Here’s this horrible person who has defamed these poor men,” and everybody turns their back on me because these poor men, who lied under oath provably, you know, they’re the – they’re the victims, not us. Not me, not my husband. I mean, we’ve now got nothing. We were relatively well off and we’ve now got absolutely nothing[16].
Lionel’s clients, having taken almost everything from my husband and having taken everything from me, have their chosen new legal representative well – so far, Lionel has continued the conduct exhibited by his clients’ previous representatives, proving that (1) they choose people of like mind to represent them, and (2) they are very happy to instruct, approve, authorise and pay for such conduct.
More updates on the case and Lionel’s conduct will follow as the case progresses.
Update 28 April 2018
Green and his clients have now issued a creditors’ petition against me. Green also served me with an affidavit that did not dispute any of my allegations or grounds for dismissal – yet they are continuing on with their plans to try to make me bankrupt anyway!
Had a hearing before Ryan R again on 29 March and he refused to hear the case and had it referred to a judge because I had proved that Green had (1) been instructed to lie to him, (2) had refused to notify the court of his “error” (as required by law), and (3) had refused to apologise to the court and/or to me.
Off to Federal Circuit Court (don’t know or understand why Green changed courts). Had a directions hearing on 9 April and we have a trial set for June. Should be very interesting in that I get to put the two men back of the stand again and question as to why they lied under oath, why they committed clear and unmistakable fraud (by, inter alia, having signed a document as being truthful that they had no intention of complying with on any sort of long-term basis – signed with the intention of avoiding legal action), why they obstructed justice and why they do the many sometimes illegal, immoral and unethical, things they do. I have now filed a further affidavit, with the permission of the court, which brings the truth to light.
Man Y (with the authority and approval of man X) has filed and served an affidavit in response that denies having done the very things they have done, and for which they will have to account for under oath – this time with the proof that they have to face.
Update 22 March 2019
There has been a series of very serious conduct, breaching the law and lawyer’s obligations. I have received legal opinion and the answer has come back that “he should be disbarred” – see what you think.
Putting in a nutshell the log of what happened:
Green was selected by man X and man Y to act for them in a bankruptcy case against me. Green commenced by service upon me of bankruptcy document in the Federal Court before Ryan R.
As stated previously, at the hearing on 30 January, Green effectively told Ryan R that I had lied in my affidavit when it has been lately proved that I told the truth and that he had lied. He claimed that I had not paid monies to his clients that I had certainly paid, and he also lied and told the Registrar that I had taken action for fraud over the previous 4-5 years when I had not taken action for fraud at all, at any time or in any manner (but which I should have).
I told Green during an adjournment that I had paid the monies and that he needed to inform Ryan R of the mistake. Green said that he would make a correction to Ryan R but did not do so. Further, he knew that he had lied because he later provided a document that contained the proof of what I had said and the proof that he knew he was lying in what he told Ryan R.
Being self-represented, I sent correspondence to Green during bankruptcy – which he largely refused to answer.
The matter moved to the Federal Circuit Court before Burchardt J with Green’s clients having driven me into bankruptcy. I was made bankrupt, with sequestration orders on 3 August 2018. Mr Cant of Romanis Cant, was appointed as trustee over my estate.
Green prepared affidavits for man Y and suborned perjury in his affidavit before Burchardt.
Given that the costs of the bankruptcy before Ryan R and Burchardt J were awarded to man X and man Y, I asked Green what he and his clients were intending to do about the costs of the bankruptcy. However, he refused to tell me, other than to say that I needed to contact the bankruptcy trustee about it – which I did and the trustee said that it had nothing to do with him (no surprises there).
After the bankruptcy action had commenced, man X and man Y, not through Green, but through their other solicitor (Ken Smith of Ken Smith & Associates), commenced action against me to regain costs of 3 other judgments and have them taxed in the Supreme Court Costs Court before Walton R. Along with myself and Ms Bell (man X and man Y’s costs lawyer), Green attended a hearing held on 13 August 2018, 10 days after I had been made bankrupt). When introducing himself to Walton R, he blatantly and deliberately lied and claimed that he had been appointed as the representative of the trustee (neither I nor the Registrar were aware of this deceit at the time). Green actually had no right or standing to even attend on 13 August. The hearing was adjourned for a phone mention which was ordered for 12 January 2019 at 9.30am between Walton R, myself and Ms Bell. The orders were sent to myself, Ms Bell, a representative of Ken smith & Associates, and Green (since he was understood to be acting for the trustee – this understanding was later confirmed by Walton R).
On 8 February 2019, I sought confirmation from Walton R as to whether he was to conference call each of us, or whether we to call in to be joined to the conference call:
Good morning Registrar,
I refer to the phone mention set for Tuesday next, commencing at 9.30am. Please advise if we are to call you (in which case please provide a phone number) or if you are to call us.
I continue to rely upon the information previously sent to you and the other side, including the fact that the other side are still not interested in even attempting to amend the costs they claim in spite of many having been triple and/or double charged, and/or otherwise charged at the incorrect scale (as admitted).
On 11 February 2019 Green was again representing man X and man Y, this time in an action by me against man X, man Y, and others). About a hour after the hearing had finished, Walton R rang me to tell me that I could not take further part in the costs action, and particularly in relation to the phone mention planned for 9.30am the next day, 12 February 2019. Walton R went on to tell me that Green would again be acting for me as the representative of the trustee. I remind you that Green had been acting for man X and man Y in the bankruptcy matters and that he had been and was still acting for them in my action against them in the Supreme Court at the same time as he was falsely claiming to act for the trustee in representing me – his client’s opponent, and particularly an opponent in the costs case! So he was planning on acting for both them and me at the same time. This was unconscionable given that both parties had an absolutely acrimonious relationship and Green had proved himself to be a person who lied on man X and man Y’s behalf and who had encouraged them to lie.
I contacted the trustee (Manuel Hanna is a director of Romanis Cant, and Mr Cant is always copied into emails to and from Romanis Cant)
Hi Manuel,
Tomorrow is a phone mention regarding additional costs that the creditors are trying to put against me. They applied for the costs, setting the whole thing in motion by way of a summons – you will be aware of the issue given that you apparently authorised Lionel Green to act on your behalf 6 months ago at the hearing where the creditors sought to adjourn the taxation that they had started, sine die (i.e. adjourn it out into the never, never, clearly with the intent to make me bankrupt again once I am out of this bankruptcy).
The Registrar rang me and said that I cannot act for myself in this, and that it has to be you, even though Lionel did not reject me acting on my own behalf at the previous hearing.
Because this is not a case where I would be getting money, are you happy for me to represent myself, or do you have to do it, bearing in mind that Lionel will likely throw me under the bus if he acts for you – it is all he has done so far.
Because I had not received an answer, I contacted Walton R:
Good morning Registrar,
I refer to your telephone call yesterday afternoon. There are a number of issues I would like to address:
-
-
- I emailed the trustee when I got home from court yesterday and have not heard back from him;
- I assume your telephone call resulted from communication you received yesterday afternoon from Mr Green objecting to my inclusion because he was representing the Trustee in bankruptcy;
- I am alarmed that anyone would see it fit to have a person legally representing the other side, purportedly acting on my behalf through the trustee (how could he possibly be unprejudiced, especially given that he has “thrown me under the bus” many times (including yesterday), and has actively and consistently worked against me);
- It must be remembered that Mr Green, while purportedly acting as the trustee’s representative in the previous hearing, did not object to my participation
- And even when I provided you and the other side with documents to be taken into consideration for today’s phone mention, Mr Green did not object!
- I believe that it would have been appropriate, if I was banned from participation, that it would have been prudent to notify me in writing, and much earlier.
-
Regardless of your decision, if I recall correctly, you stated that an adjournment sine die was not appropriate. I contend that a series of adjournments would not be appropriate either and would be a waste of the court’s time and resources. If the other side are not going to have the costs taxed as commenced (it was them who started this whole matter by summons), they should agree to abandon the cost and the matter.
The trustee did eventually get back to me and stated unequivocally that:
I advise that we have not engaged Lionel Green to act in any capacity for the Trustee.
The Trustee does not intend to engage solicitors to act in this matter and will leave the matter for the Court’s discretion.
After I had requested clarification I responded:
Sorry Manuel, but can I just clarify when you say that Lionel has not been engaged to act on your behalf, does that mean that you have never retained him to act for you at all in relation to my bankruptcy, or just in relation to the phone mention of today?
In a second email the trustee further clarified [emphasis his]:
As indicated in my email, Mr Lionel Green has not been engaged in any capacity by the Trustee.
This includes all aspects of the administration of the bankruptcy.
As a result of the trustee’s emails, I responded to Walton R as follows:
Good morning Registrar,
An extremely serious matter has arisen as you can see from the email from the trustee: the trustee has never given instructions for Lionel Green to represent him. That means that when Mr Green attended the previous hearing stating that he was the representative of the trustee, he did so without any authorisation to do so!!
I consider then that I have the absolute right to participate, and that Mr Green DOES NOT.
I await being included in the phone conference mention at 9.30 am today.
Walton R rang me back and said that Ms Bell was not acting for man X and man Y now, that Green was, and that I could not take part as I was a bankrupt.
I contacted Walton R and notified him as follows [emphasis was in my email to the Registrar]:
Just to put it in writing so that I fully understand what has happened, I believe the facts are as follow:
-
-
- On 13 August 2018, at a hearing entirely originated by[ man X and man Y] to adjourn the taxation sine die,because [they] refused to have their costs taxed, you ordered that there be a phone mention was set for 9.30 today further in relation to that application (I believe at the time it was determined that it was going to be a conference call);
- You rang me yesterday afternoon saying that Lionel Green was acting for the trustee and that I could not therefore be involved (I assume this was based on a call from Lionel telling you this – please confirm);
- I contacted the trustee yesterday who replied today and said that Lionel was not acting for him and had never acted for himin relation to anything to do with my bankruptcy (proving that Lionel lied to you when he told you, as absolute fact that he was representing the trustee at the hearing of 13 August 2018);
- You said you had left a message for Lionel and had told him he could not be involved in the phone mention today as he was not acting for the trustee;
- You told me you rang Helen Bell to commence the conference call and discovered that at some time it had been determined that she was no longer acting for [man X and man Y], and that no-one had advised you of this fact;
- You discovered that Lionel was now acting for [man X and man Y], and that no-one had advised you of this fact;
- You told me that you had told Lionel that he had to file and serve a notice of appearance;
- You discovered that [man X and man Y] now want to take the matter to taxation, in spite of their previous adamant refusal to do so;
- With no notice to either you or me, the phone mention of today did not take place because of the above.
-
The hearing on 13 August [2018] was based on the application for an adjournment sine die, as was the ordered phone mention of today.
Consequently, since the costs of the adjournment sine die application were reserved with the right to seek costs, I now seek orders that all the costs related to the application for an adjournment sine die be granted to me since [man X and man Y] have proved that their application was entirely bogus and that they have wasted your and my time entirely unnecessarily.
I contacted Green’s office with the following:
Lionel,
I am appalled that you took part in the commencement of the action in relation to cost before Walton R (phone mention today). According to the trustee (underlining his): “As indicated in my email, Mr Lionel Green has not been engaged in any capacity by the Trustee”, yet you dishonestly intruded yourself as being there as the trustee’s authorised representative – that is gross misrepresentation, sadly not surprising considering everything else you have done.
I have had legal opinion and it was that “he should be disbarred”.
What do you have to say about that?
Later that day (12 February 2019), I received the following from Green’s office:
-
- A Notice of change of practitioner dated 12 February 2019;
- A letter dated 10 August 2018 from the trustee stating:
I refer to my appointment as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Virginia Giles and your letter dated 7 August 2018.
I advise that as Trustee I do not object to your client proceeding with the Summons for Taxation of Costs.
-
- A letter to Walton R dated 12 February 2019 stating:
We refer to the telephone mention of the matter at 9.30am this day and confirm that were act for the Applicants in the above proceedings.
We now enclose herewith Notice of Change of Practitioner dated this day. The Notice shall be lodged this day with Redcrest and it will be served on the Respondent.
We confirm that our clients seek to have the matter heard as soon as possible.
We advise that the Respondent became bankrupt on 3 August 2018 pursuant to the Order of Judge Burchardt of the Federal [Circuit] Court made that day. We enclose a copy of the Certificate of Appointment of Trustee dated 3 August 2018 for your information.
We further enclose copy letter from the Trustee dated 10 August last advising that he does not object to the Applicants proceeding with the Summons for Taxation f Costs. The Trustee has not changed his position in regard to this matter.
We are instructed by the Trustee’s office as of today’s date that the Trustee will not be attending upon the hearing of our clients summons for taxation of Costs.
We are of the view that the Respondent as [sic] undischarged bankrupt has no standing to appear upon the return of the Summons for Taxation of Costs. We base this on the following:
-
-
- Section 58(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act provides that:
-
“… were [sic] a debtor becomes a bankrupt:
(a) the property of the bankrupt, not being after acquired property vests forthwith in the Official Trustee or … a registered trustee becomes the trustee of the estate of the bankrupt…”
-
-
- Section 5(1) defines property to mean “… real of [sic] personal property of every description”.
- We note that the Summons for Taxation of Costs relates to costs awarded in a final determination of three separate matters and as such Section 60 of the Bankruptcy Act has no application herein.
-
Firstly, it must be noted that, at the hearing on 13 August 2018 (where Green appeared without any authority to do so and under gross and deliberate deception) Green did not say that I should not be there.
Secondly, Green wants to handle the taxation of costs entirely on his own since he is clear that it is his belief that I cannot be represented by anyone other than the trustee who is not going to attend.
Thirdly, Green’s selective quote of s58 (countered by me below) talks about real or other property I have – I have no property, as has been previously confirmed by the trustee (and further confirmed by the trustee’s entire disinterest in this proceeding). The taxation is about Green’s clients trying to get money fromme when I have none, and this fact has been further admitted by counsel selected by Green to act on behalf of man X and man Y in the bankruptcy proceedings, and previously by Ryan R.
-
- A letter to me dated 12 February 2019 stating:
We refer to the telephone mention this day with Registrar Walton of the Costs Court.
We advise that the writer was a party to a telephone mention on behalf of the applicants and not on behalf of your Trustee in bankruptcy. We informed Registrar Walton that we would be filing and service [sic] a Notice of Change of Practitioners in this matter this day.
We now enclose herewith a Notice of Change of Practitioner by way of service.
We also enclose copy letter forwarded to Registrar Walton this day and do not intend to respond further to your emails of this morning.
Firstly it was not a phone mention with Walton R because that was to be a conference call to determine what to do about man X and man Y’s application for an adjournment sine die of the costs; secondly, Green was not authorised at that time to have part in the phone mention – because of his conduct, the phone mention did not occur, as was agreed by Walton R in a phone call to me where he expressed absolute surprise and unhappiness with the fact that he had not been told that the phone mention would not take place.
After having received the above items, I sent the following to Walton R:
Good afternoon Registrar,
Further to my [earlier email], I note having received communications from the offices of Meltzer Green this afternoon.
One of the comments made in Mr Green’s letter to you is that it is his opinion that I can’t take part in the proceedings – in fact there is nothing in the Act, bearing in mind the communication from the trustee, that precludes me from taking part in the proceeding.
It is critical to note that Mr Green fails to point out that s.58 of the Bankruptcy Act goes on to state that [emphasis mine]:
(3) Except as provided by this Act, after a debtor has become a bankrupt, it is not competent for a creditor:
(a) to enforce any remedy against the person or the property of the bankrupt in respect of a provable debt; or
(b) except with the leave of the Court and on such terms as the Court thinks fit, to commence any legal proceeding in respect of a provable debt or take any fresh step in such a proceeding.
Therefore since, as Mr Green points out, I am an undischarged bankrupt, and his clients (the creditors) cannot enforce any remedy against the person or the property of the bankrupt in respect of a provable debt and have not sought permission from the court, the matter should be null and void. This is especially so given the issue of Anshun Estopel. In addition, even if the taxation was to proceed, it cannot be added to the bankruptcy, and even if it was found to be able to be added, it would not result in payment given that Mr Green and his clients have already sent me bankrupt and there is nothing in the estate to pay anyone anything. Therefore, to proceed to taxation is entirely a waste of time, including and especially, the court’s time. The court has jurisdiction in this matter and you can make the decision to not allow it to proceed.
Further, the phone conversation you had with Mr Green today could not be considered to be the phone mention given that he had not let you know that he was now acting for his clients in this matter (as of today, as noted in his Notice of Appearance).
I refer also the letter from Romanis Cant dated 10 August 2018 (provided by Mr Green) and the fact that the letter does not appoint Mr Green, or anyone from Meltzer Green, to act for him (confirmed by emails from him today) and that, therefore, Mr Green deliberately lied to you when he stated unequivocally that he acted on behalf of the trustee while at the hearing of 13 August 2018.
At no time until the afternoon of 12 February 2019 (well after the 9.30am time of the phone mention that did not take place) did Ms Bell officially notify us of her cessation in acting, and Smith of Ken Smith & Associates has never notified us of his cessation to act.
Green has also had communications with the court (in relation to my action against his clients) without copying me in – this is in spite of me having pulled him up about having done it previously – in fact, a judge’s associate had to also reprimand him in this respect.
Then to top it all off, Green failed to bring the files to the taxation – I don’t know where he thought he was going, or what he thought the taxation was for – obviously the files would be needed for the taxation.
Green blatantly lied again to the Registrar when challenged about having told the Registrar that he was acting for the trustee – he lied and said that when he said he was acting for the trustee, it was a “mistake” – don’t you just hate it when your mouth gets into gear and just lies, without you knowing it, so that you can deliberately give a false impression? Regardless of what Green said, Registrar Walton was very firm that he had absolutely been told by Green, as fact, that Green was representing the trustee.
Green has lied to the Supreme Court before Daly AsJ in a sworn affidavit.
Green regularly fails to serve me at the postal address I requested.
In summary to date, Green has:
- deliberately lied to and deceived 4 members of the judiciary – so far;
- deliberately tried to ensure that I couldn’t interfere with the taxation of his clients’ claimed costs (even though many of the claims are fraudulent);
- deliberately lied about being a representative of the trustee;
- otherwise conducted himself in a grossly dishonest manner; and
- single-handedly brought the legal fraternity into disrepute.
Let’s see what else happens because these issues, and the cases, are a long way from done.
Well, following along from all the above, Lionel has further inserted himself into my bankruptcy by acting for man X and man Y in actually taking over my “estate” after my discharge.
It is to be noted that Lionel (on behalf of himself and his company, Meltzer Green (now Meltzer Green Borberg) proclaims in his website that:
- he gives advice on asset protection (“Meltzer Green advises clients how to effectively and efficiently protect their assets prior to any potential claim being made against them”) – yet Lionel claims we are trying to defeat creditors by having taken measures to protect a secured creditor (whereas his clients are unsecured creditors), and has taken action against us;
- he gives advice on how to minimise impacts on his clients’ assets and business (“We advise our clients how to legally arrange their affairs to minimise the effects of bankruptcy on their assets and future business activities”) – yet again, Lionel is chastising and taking action against us for doing, what he claims, is just that;
- he takes action to oppose bankruptcy orders taken out against his own clients (“We regularly appear in the Federal Court of Australia to oppose the bankruptcy orders being made against our clients”) – yet he considers that I was a terrible person for opposing the bankruptcy orders made by him for his clients against me (and, as addressed previously, he actively lied to the court to try to overcome my opposition);
- he and his company work fast and keep (his client’s) costs down (“We provide practical and cost-effective advice and recommendations”, “Meltzer Green will always advise and assist clients on ways to avoid costly litigation … We are always mindful of the costs to our clients of court proceedings” – but that is a clear lie because he is running up costs at a great rate when it could have all been resolved in March 2024 if not earlier;
- he works with all parties and stakeholders (“We liaise and negotiate with all parties and stakeholders”) – and yet this, too, is another lie. Lionel refused to answer an attempt to resolve the issue back in March 2024 – so this could have all been resolved back in March 2024, but he has continued on regardless, and he has been actively obstructive (ignoring communications); and
- he develops the most appropriate strategies to manage court proceedings (“… avoiding litigation is not always possible [and] we will develop the most appropriate strategies to manage court proceedings … within a reasonable time-frame”) – and yet this, too, is another lie. As stated, Lionel refused to answer my attempt to resolve the issue back in March 2024 (he didn’t even have the politeness or common decency to acknowledge receipt of my approach), commenced legal action in July 2024 without any warning or attempt to resolve the issues prior to taking action (in fact, you wouldn’t believe the obfuscations in his “genuine steps” document filed as fact with the court) and has not attempted in any manner to seriously or legitimately negotiate or work with us. In fact, his statement of claim is deceptive (he is insinuating that amounts of money have not been paid to his clients that he knows full well have been paid), ludicrous and over-the-top (he is making claims that are he knows are provably false), and actually illegal (he is claiming a windfall which is not allowed). This could have all been resolved back in March 2024, but he has continued on regardless.
In my opinion, added to the fact that he lies (apparently without shame and certainly without any correction or apology), Lionel is just so hypocritical and, again in my personal opinion and based on my own experience, not to be trusted.
[1] TP9:31–TP10:16 (30 January 2018)
[2] Page 2 of Ryan R’s un-paginated and unnumbered Reasons dated 30 January 2018
[3] Page 3 of Ryan R’s un-paginated and unnumbered Reasons dated 30 January 2018
[4] TP13:7 (30 January 2018)
[5] TP5:32-44 (30 January 2018)
[6] TP6:35–TP7:35 (30 January 2018)
[7] Page 2 of Ryan R’s un-paginated and unnumbered Reasons dated 30 January 2018
[8] TP8:33–TP9:3 (30 January 2018)
[9] TP9:6-8 (30 January 2018)
[10] Page 3 of Ryan R’s un-paginated and unnumbered Reasons dated 30 January 2018
[11] TP13:13-46 (30 January 2018)
[12] TP9:8-9 (30 January 2018)
[13] Page 5 of Ryan R’s un-paginated and unnumbered Reasons dated 30 January 2018
[14] Ibid, Page 5
[15] TP9:13-14 (30 January 2018)
[16] TP14:1-27 (30 January 2018)