Fiona Cristian's 6th Affidavit - Fiona Cristian vs Perpetual Limited

Submitted by Arthur Cristian on Tue, 05/12/2006 - 11:02

We are in court today 5th December
Any witnesses would be great, particularly tape recorders.
Copy of Fiona's 6th Affidavit below & attached.
All the best
Arthur Cristian
0418 203204
af at theelements.cc

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F N E W S O U T H W A L E S
Tuesday, 5 December 2006
C O M M O N L A W D I V I S I O N
REGISTRAR (ASSISTANT) HOWE
COURT 7C, QUEENS SQUARE

POSSESSION LIST - APPLICATION
9:00am
17 013403/06 PERPETUAL LIMITED v FIONA CAROLINE CRISTIAN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form 62 (version 2)

Rule 35.1

SIXTH - AFFIDAVIT OF FIONA CAROLINE CRISTIAN

5th December 2006

COURT DETAILS

Court SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Division Common Law

List Possession

Registry Sydney

Case number 13403/06

TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS

First plaintiff PERPETUAL LIMITED, formerly known as PERPETUAL

TRUSTEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED [ACN 000 431 827]

Number of plaintiffs 1

First defendant Fiona Caroline Cristian

Number of Defendants 1

FILING DETAILS / ADDRESS FOR SERVICE

Filed for Defendant

Address for service Fiona Caroline Cristian

Telephone (02) 4861 1113

Fax (02) 4861 1113

AFFIDAVIT DETAILS

Name Fiona Caroline Cristian

Address 11 Roycroft Street Bowral NSW 2576

Occupation Home duties.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

(2)

On the 5th December 2006, I say on oath:

1. I am the deponent.

2. I believe that the information contained in this affidavit is true.

This affidavit refutes the Writ of Possession issued by Justice Peter Hidden on 15th November 2006 due to the fraudulent, misleading and deceptive documents submitted by the plaintiff in their application for the aforementioned writ of possession, namely the Statement of Claim, Affidavit of Amanda Sherwood and the Notice of Motion.

Unless the questions and points raised in this affidavit can be satisfactorily answered, the writ of possession should be thrown out of court as unlawful, unjust and unfair.

I comprehend that I am legally classified as a self-litigant, regarded as frivolous and therefore deemed to be offensive and vexatious to the legal profession when making self-defence utterances in court proceedings and legal processes, due to being unqualified in the intricacies and mysterious methods of the legal profession, that are not known to lay people like myself. My intention is not to be offensive or vexatious to anyone or deliberately insulting to the legal profession or anyone else just because of using my "salvojure" assumed right to my self-defence. My decision in this matter is that it would be unwise to employ legal representation because my frivolous classification, lack of legal standing, status, or recognition, places me in a legally disenfranchised predicament.

Due to being regarded as frivolous according to the legal profession, according to them, I am not even qualified to instruct my difficulties in this matter to solicitors or lawyers, who I now have no confidence in. The reason I have no confidence in solicitors or lawyers is because I have been disappointed by the conduct of a previous solicitor, appointed to this matter. To me, it is now clear that I am being financially attacked by the plaintiff's legal firms, one who appears to be a genuine legal firm and another who appears to be an unregistered quasi interloping, intermeddling interposing solicitor of a legal firm. These legal attackers Gerard Thomas Breen, Gary Koning and Barrister Steven Mark Golledge are acting against me on behalf of Macquarie Bank who are legally connected with the mortgage manager Macquarie Mortgages Pty Ltd and the lender Perpetual Limited ACN 000 431 827 who is the plaintiff.

My disappointment in this matter is to discover that the banks and the banking corporation break their clients fiduciary trust by divulging all the clients private business to the legal confraternity clandestinely and even abandon their clients to such an extent that they cooperate with solicitors, lawyers and barristers to implement SPER philosophy, a philosophy that is found throughout the legal system.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

S.P.E.R. FRAUDULENT PHILOSOPHY

The corrupt legal philosophy of SPER is to impose the following:

a. Seize and sell personal property & assets.
b. Impose a charge on property (annuities, debentures, stocks and other property)

c. Issue of fine collection notice for the regular redirection of earnings, a debt owed, or from financial account's.

d. The registry may register an interest in land or property (E.g. motor vehicle)

e. Inflict the suspension of your driver's license or the ability to obtain one.

Once again SPER registrars are admitting they conduct business clandestinely with quassi-judicial authority by the mere mention that they 'register interests'. This incorporated department should be shut down and ground into the dirt with all its cohorts and subjected to extreme vindictive acts by the public to set a necessary standard of accountability upon the perpetrators of fraud law & war.

This Revenue raising law is utilized by all legal corporate entities such as the MSC in order to achieve fiscal profit. Reviewers will undoubtedly realize that the Banking, Government & Legislature sectors and any corporate entity with an ABN, like various departments of the Police Force, are able to defraud you of your hard earned savings from any financial accounts deposited within the Australian Federal system. It is apparent that no legal government and their corporate entities can be relied upon or trusted to protect and act responsibly in the public interest, respecting the ordinary peoples so called rights, granting the victimised people human & natural rights but simultaneously denying hereditary legal rights which are inherent & inherited by the few of the blood line. Banks do not respect account holders fiduciary trust because they are prepared to divulge your private banking financial information to any government agent, solicitors, police department etc without any compunction of wrong doing and deceiving their banking clients resulting in financial ruin, domestic upheaval, divorces and suicides. Who needs outside enemies when the real home grown terrorist enemy are within our legal system constantly attacking us for fiscal revenue raising purposes because each ABN holder is a business for profit and we are the duped clients. These cacodeamons (an evil genius, possessed of evil spirit/s) perpetrate more hardship, misery, mental anguish & despair than the most ruthless enemy combatant could inflict on the most nightmarish & hideous battlefield conceived in the ordinary peoples psyche.

It is the ultimate Supreme Court insult to the public that Mr. Paul Marschke has now been appointed as Senior Registrar at the Brisbane Supreme Court after previously being in charge of SPER, practicing persecuting and financial pilfering conducting business under the SPER philosophy mentioned above, which undoubtedly used to the detriment of court recipient victims. This appointment by the Supreme Court tarnishes and disgraces any credibility of honesty that the Supreme Court may try to project or instil in the gullible duped mass psyche. Now we know what to expect from the Supreme Court and all ABN holding entities such as Banks and Councils. ABN holders are all collaborating and cohorting together as one big cooperating firm. No wonder the Supreme Court seized MDAM's property on false default judgment grounds, executed by the sentinel quassi-judges such as Mr. Toogood and his cohorts that received early retirement packages after their corruption had been exposed and objected too.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

The Schedule of Participants in this matter are:

Amanda Sherwood
Is Amanda Sherwood a living human being woman who is acting in the office title "Collection's Manager" for Macquarie Mortgages Pty Ltd? Under this title she signed a clearly perjured affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff Perpetual limited (full of obvious uncertainty, confusion and caprice - stating "to the best of my knowledge, information and belief" and such other words that convey vaguary and uncertainty and is so inconsistent that I object that it should be relied upon as evidence because her words are not positive and concrete and are simply speculation on her version of doubtful truth) and who states that everything stated in her clearly perjured affidavit "is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief". Oh! What Uncertainty? Isn't that guess work?
I now challenge the affidavit of Amanda Sherwood in which she swore she acted on behalf of and with the authority of a LEGAL FICTION ENTITY, Perpetual Limited, which is unable to speak for IT SELF.
As it is self evident that Amanda Sherwood sought refuge behind the mask "COLLECTIONS MANAGER" employed by the fiction entity MACQUARIE MORTGAGES PTYLTD, I will be seeking the living human being woman Amanda Sherwood in her private capacity to be sworn in and to take the stand as a living human being woman and to speak for herself by answering for the claims that she has alleged that she has made on behalf of this fiction entity. I will be asking Amanda Sherwood to swear under her personal "Full" commercial liability to support her alleged claims as it is now her alone that has chosen to participate in this ritual to make a gain for this LEGAL FICTION ENTITY at the expense and the loss of another. Should she be not willing to be questioned in the entirety of this matter and provide a full explanation in its entirety accounting for her claims, there is no subject matter and therefore there is NO CASE, as the claims made by Amanda Sherwood have been made without accountability and are void.
This document is clearly full of inconsistencies, in which Amanda Sherwood, of her own free will and therefore now on her own, entered into an agreement with third parties, totally relying on the knowledge of Gerard Thomas Breen or Gary Koning, who together or singularly quite possibly conspired together to prepare her clearly perjured affidavit. According to their law, The Definition Of An Affidavit is a "statement made in writing confirmed by the makers oath and intended to be used as judicial proof" which makes Amanda Sherwood culpable under the maker of the affidavit. Of course, a solicitor creating such a clearly perjured affidavit is allowed to use poetic license, artistic license and licencia poet arum, which means the right to tell lies in courts of law and legal procedures and processes. This is also called privilege. It is an old underhanded swindling legal trick, a well-used method of public abuse, to rely on the affidavit as the end of the case. (Such affidavits should be banned in the public interest as they are suspected of being based on usurping usury).

If Amanda Sherwood did not create the affidavit, how can she swear that it is true?

Is Amanda Sherwood qualified in law?

If she is not, her status is the same as mine - frivolous and legally disenfranchised.

Amanda Sherwood's testimony, therefore, cannot be relied upon.

The affidavit from Amanda Sherwood was all verbal (not oral - in the oral tradition).

Amanda Sherwood was not party to the contract and there cannot be trusted. She is an interloper and is a 3rd party to the contract.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

Kylie Arigho

Is Kylie Arigho a living human being woman in her private capacity who is acting in the title "Manager" for the plaintiff, Perpetual Limited? (refer "Amanda Sherwood" above). Kylie Arigho verifies the plaintiff's Statement of Claim as "true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief".

No affidavits can be relied on - refer above.

Gerard Thomas Breen

Maker of the perjured Affidavit of Amanda Sherwood, Statement of Claim, and Notice of Motion.

No affidavits can be relied upon - refer above.

Gary Koning

Maker of the perjured Affidavit of Amanda Sherwood, Statement of Claim and Notice of Motion.
No affidavits can be relied upon - refer above.

Steven Mark Golledge

Barrister contracted to DIBBS ABBOTT STILLMAN or Dibbs Abbott Stillman Lawyers or Perpetual Limited or another company not yet declared.

All of the above participants are third party interlopers and not party to the contract.

James Angus

Manager Operations and Authorised Officer for Perpetual Limited (formerly known as Perpetual Trustees Australia Limited). Until proven otherwise, James Angus is the creator of the Macquarie Mortgages Pty Ltd loan contract for the Plaintiff Perpetual Limited, as deemed by his computer-generated signature as Perpetual Limited Authorised Officer (see page 10 of loan contract).

Until proven otherwise, James Angus is also the creator of The Macquarie Mortgages Pty Limited Macquarie Executive Choice Line of Credit (LOC) approval documents (these are the deceptive documents that led to my husband and I signing the fraudulent and misleading contract under the direction of an authorised MM broker/agent, as already acknowledged and accepted as fact, on two occasions, by the plaintiff) as deemed by his computer generated signature and his printed name as Macquarie Mortgages Pty Limited Manager Operations).

The MM LOC approval documents and the Plaintiff's loan contract were both dated 22nd August 2005. If James Angus exists as a real human being, he was present to the creation and signing of both documents. Based on all the documents at hand, James Angus is the only party to the contract and the only witness to the contract. James Angus signed these two documents for the two dissimilar Macquarie products (Macquarie Mortgage Saver Home Loan and Macquarie Executive Choice Line of Credit) on the same day 22nd August 2005 and mailed them together to my husband and I on the same day 22nd August 2005, either without noticing, in which case I would say that he is incompetent, or knowingly, which makes him perjurous and suspect of duplicity. Thus, no affidavits can be relied upon.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

In fairness, and to assist in my defence in proving that the contract is fraudulent and therefore invalid, I intend to subpoena Amanda Sherwood, Kylie Arigho, Gerard Thomas Breen, Gary Koning and James Angus, to ask them, under their personal full commercial liability, if they were responsible for the creation of the contract and are therefore party to it.

In the course of my investigations I have become aware of the following points:

I now comprehend that the legal profession does not have to inform the "ordinary" people about the rules and regulations it makes and acts under. "Judicial Independence" keeps the "ordinary" people in ignorance.

"Openness In Rule Making"

Page 255 in "The Rules of Court" By Enid Campbell Professor Of Law Occupying The Chair Of Sir Isaacs Isaacs, Professor of Law At 'The Monash University' ISBN No 0 455 20630 9

1932, Comprising A Study of Rule Making Powers And Procedures.

1 Subordinate law making bodies are not under Australian Law, under any legal duty to conduct their proceedings in public.

2 They are not normally required to give notice of proposed rules or regulations.

3 Or to give interested persons an opportunity to make oral or written submissions.

4 Their legislation does not have to be published if it has to have any legal force or effect.

5 But explanations or reasons for the legislation do not have to be provided except when they are demanded by a parliamentary security committee.

6 Members of the public do not at common law; have any legal right of access to the minutes of subordinate lawmakers.

7 Or to any other documents which have been prepared of rule or regulation making.

8 Freedom statutes may confer such a right, but those statutes usually contain provisions, which entitle the agencies to which the statutes apply to refuse requests for access on stated grounds.

9 The grounds on which agencies are entitled to claim exemption from the general duty to afford access usually allow an agency to withhold documents recording deliberations which have preceded the making of a decision if they can demonstrate that the disclosure would not be in the public interest.

The meaning of the bracketed letter "[R]" seen in the Title Rules of Court above are here explained further: -

The bracketed letter [R] = Is the bracketed letter "R" as seen in the legal instructions to the Legal Profession and Judiciary book titled "Rules of Court" (Seen above) This evil book instructs the legal profession, its judges, Magistrates, Solicitors, Lawyers, Police Officials and all other legal profession proxy agents, how to deliberately impose endless unlimited Legal Profession authored writ of abuse and corruption on court victims for the purpose of fraudulent money raising fine revenue impositions.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

The letter "R" as shown in brackets thus [R] is a Judicial treachery signal as seen at "Abuse of Process" on pages 234 and 235 of The "Rules Of Court" ISBM 0 455 20630 9 The book that reveals the extent of judicial corruption inflicted against the duped people who mistakenly rely on Judicial Independence blindly assuming that such independence is for their protection when it is really independence from the masses of victims that are to be victimized and word swindled and down trodden by a disguised unfathomable legal profession extortion plot's.

The letter "R" is described in "Cassel's Latin Dictionary" by the word "asper"= physically rough, stormy, and "aspera" inclement climate= "asperum" = Roughness, A rough place or treatment, Pungent too the sense of hearing = sour, vinum, "Ter"= "C"= The lowest grade or order, and by adding the suffix -ic after the letter "C" to make "Cic," is an indication that "C' And "Cic" means that the victim is to be regarded as adverse troublous, dangerous.

Thus the victim is to be dealt with by: - res, tempora, sententia, severe of speech harsh bitter fastine, Cic. = "literia aspera" = the letter "R" = morally rough, wild and harsh = "homo asperetdurus". This refers to the condition of a person bitten by an asp-snake and caused to aspirate and battle for breath with difficult breathing due to the effects of the poisoniness venomous snakebite, as advocated as ideal legal profession conduct to be imposed upon legal profession public victims selected to be destroyed by unfathomable legal processes.

Therefore the letter [R] signals the legal profession to inflict harsh verdicts against victims as a regular routine act of judicial conduct to literally strike victims as a serpent does.

The letter "R"= The letter = ar = and is refashioned -er, -or, -ary. ar = em Rod = instrument of punishment = the crucifix Cross = Rood, also a Rood measure i.e. 40 square poles ¼ acre of land.

-----------------------------------

I now comprehend my standing and status in the eyes of the legal profession. Refer above and to the following "Equity and Chancery" document.

Equity and Chancery

Chancery

· The High Court Of Equity with Common Law Functions and Jurisdiction of Equity Cases (Referring to Equality for Equal significant People and not applicable to unequal insignificant ordinary People deemed void of legal recognition or legal capacity as the masses are deemed legally to be) Chancery Law supersedes all other Common Law, Ecclesial Religious Laws and all other written laws relied on by the insignificant gullible trusting masses.

· A court in the judicial System that regulates the principals and practices Judicial Equity as well as with a record office of public archives and Ecclesiastical, Legal and diplomatic process and proceedings.

· A method of imposing a Legal Profession "Stranglehold" in Litigation concerning ordinary members of the Public Legally Trapped and forced into a Hopeless Inescapable defenceless Predicament totally Ignored by Legal Profession Rulers.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

Only Equal significant people can be quitted with equity, not ordinary insignificant people of the unqualified electorate, consisting of the insignificant serf masses, that are not legally qualified, or part of the inheritors of big firm legal profession exclusive privileges.

Democracy

De-reverser, up ender destroyer & stuffer upperer of everything. Moc- to mock, ridicule. M-mysterious creative force. O-existence, cycle of life from mother's womb. C-to cut; kill (cide as in suicide). Racy-race, R-espera, serpent bites you & venom causes you to aspirate, stop breathing and die. Ra-the sun God. Ace-to get the better of somebody. Y-Yiddish cross symbol, Yiddish approval of destruction or something to their benefit. E.g. Man (A Yid is born a Hu-man but becomes a Man once becoming learned in judicial sophistry, A Yiddish Man risen above a Hu-man level, not a Hu-man) when a man makes a mistake he can quote 'it shows I'm only Hu-man. i.e. When an ordinary person assumes wrongly that he's a man they say he is acting manic, (ic means to resemble) therefore manic-depressant. Man- when added Y becomes MANY: meaning a group called man part of Yiddish fold in contrast to men.

Equity

a.. Fairness, impartiality with justice administrated between equitable litigants, which is based on natural reason or "ethical judgment".

a.. The word "Ethic" meaning the standard or character set up by any race or nation from the word ethnos meaning character.

a.. Ethical: means Treating of morals in accordance with right principals as defined by a given system of ethics as professional conduct = ethicality, ethicalness, ethically and ethicize = to moralize and discuss ethics.

a.. Ethics: The study and philosophy of "Human conduct" with the emphasis on the determination of right or wrong which is one of the normative sciences in regard to right action.

a.. Ethnic: Pertaining to races of people and groups as stocks of mankind having certain physical, mental, or cultural characteristics in common.

a.. Ethic: Is pertaining to people neither Jewish nor Christian who are regarded as Gentile's Heathen and Pagan, from ethno = Race Nation and Peoples.

a.. Ethnobiology: The study of Human societies and biological environment and Human ecology.

a.. Ethnocentrism: A w, G. Summer concept that attitudes, belief's and customs of ones own nation are of the utmost central importance.

a.. Ethnography: The branch of anthropology that considers "Man" geographically in regard to the subdivision of races.

a.. Ethnogenic: Producing different races of people.
b.. Ethnolinguistics: Linguistic methodology study of the relation between language and ethnology.
c.. Ethnology: The science of Human character.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

Only 'Equal People' possessing inherent (inherited) significant legal rights & capacity can speak and be recognized in courts, in contrast to ordinary insignificant human beings making up the masses. Human beings are to be silent in court and have legal representation to act on their behalf because they are regarded as 'aments' (mentally retarded in regard to legal matters, as frivolous insignificant non-entities). These unfortunate ordinary people are deemed to be eternally fleeced by legal practitioners resulting in impoverishment, misery, deprivation, and loss financial status etc etc.

Ordinary people relying on the judgment of a court of equality will be disappointed when realizing they are not regarded as equal people and will experience the full ramifications of the above. Because they are regarded as frivolous people deprived of all legal recognition it follows that all their marriages are therefore also not recognized but only registered/recorded to keep a ledger of the population, this also applies to their children's birth that are considered illegitimate bastards. This is why the Democratic Political Parties continually coin the phrase "keep the bastards honest"!

The legally linked administrators and bureaucrats practice De-force Law to generate fiscal profit for their business enterprises (public fiscal depriving businesses). De-force is to keep (something) by force or violence (from the person who has a right to it); to withhold wrongfully. To eject (a person) by force from his property: to keep (him) forcibly out of the possession of, depriving wrongfully by:

Deforcement Law

The holding of any lands or tenements to which another person has a right (Law Lex), the action of forcibly keeping a person out of possession of anything. Deviser = one who devises; a contriver, inventor, a framer, forger, plotter, schemer etc. deviser = Planned, contrived, invented, feigned, etc. devised = to divide; to separate, part; to distribute.

Common Law

Is the commands of the Government in control of uncontrollable force that can innovate without limit. It never hesitates to employ the "Whole force" of despotic government officials, behaving as legal mystics for the attainment of desired dictator means and ends by swindler police force policies.

The word "Whole" refers to the superior clandestine significant ruling cult in the sense that members of the insignificant masses are not whole people due to being mentally handicapped as "aments" that cannot be regarded as being whole.

-----------------------------------

I now comprehend the true meaning of the word Affidavit. Refer above.

I also comprehend that an affidavit prepared by a solicitor is relied upon as the end of case, as admitted by Magistrate B Hine of the Brisbane Magistrates Court. Magistrate SM Kehoe another Brisbane Magistrate is also on record as making a conviction based on the false fraudulent contract prepared by a Federal Government Solicitor, Mr Ian Anderson.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

Court Registrar Retires

Courier Mail Wednesday 12th July 2006 page 14

The chief administrator and register of Queensland's Supreme and District courts will retire on Friday, the fifth long serving court registry staffer to leave the complex within a week. Ken Toogood, 57, has worked at the court complex in an administration role for 41 years- the last 18 as principal registrar and administrator. He will be officially fare welled at a valedictory service at the Brisbane courthouse this morning- an occasion usually reserved for departing judiciary.

It is understood Mr. Toogood's departure follows the early retirement of four other experienced registry staff in recent days. It is believed all have accepted voluntary redundancies or voluntary early retirement packages. In an interview with The Courier-Mail yesterday, Mr. Toogood cited the introduction of registrars in courtrooms as quasi-judges in a bid to reduce judicial case loads and the computerization of the registry process as among his most significant achievements. He paid tribute to his 180 court administration staff, who he said played a vital role in the administration of justice. He will be temporarily replaced by Magistrates Court administrator Paul Marschke until job is filled.

This outcome is a result of the corruption of Federal Government Solicitor Ian Anderson & the Child Support Agency's Danielle McIsaac (false affidavit signatory) on a false claim of purported debt of $3,334.58 after which MDAM has paid in excess of $133,655.00. These details highlight the excess of corruption in the Australian legal system as the results of this agenda are self evident with the facts that approximately 30 non-custodial parents are committing suicide weekly, excessive rate of single parent families, excessive rate of bankruptcies resulting from this legal profession atrocities, deprivation of rights of fathers and children, extortion of property and assets, oppressive tyrannically legislation in cancellation of licenses to further burden non-custodial parents, declining population, all due to the promotion of fraud law & war.

For verification of these statements Mark Whittacker (0408 006319) of Cairns or Justice Kirby (The Supreme Court should be disgusted with their action of hiring a self confessed unconventional [with a fetish not to have children] to judge on matters concerning the welfare children, it is inappropriate in the extreme and another blemish on the Supreme Court) of the Brisbane Supreme Court can be contacted for further and fuller in depth information of this corruption against the masses of the population. With enemies with in the system purportedly stationed to protect our better interest, who needs external enemies!

This episode is a clear cut example of Chancery Judaic Judicial Independence and Judicial Cognizance "litera scripta manet-lex scripta" unwritten law that allows the legal profession to operate clandestinely and practice "jus dividendi" dispelling all reality.

-----------------------------------

I now comprehend that Registrars and Judges are being used as quasi-judges in courtrooms.

With this comprehension, how can I trust a system where the banks and the legal system obviously collude with one another?

The Westpac Bank, Supreme & Magistrates Courts, Child Support Agency (CSA),

The Federal Government Solicitors & Minter Ellison Solicitors,

Devious Collusion Extortion Plot Took Place In This Manner!

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

The Westpac Banking Corporation divulged MDAM's ("Meyrick Douglas Aplin Mytton "A Legally Robbed Victim And Supported by His Multitudes Of Antagonized Sympathizers") private confidential financial information to the CSA tax snoops (in cooperation with SPER) as standard practice in which all Banks breach their fiduciary trust to all their clients and account holders, that they intentionally deceive, and act in a gestalt chutzpah collusion against clients scheduled for legal profession sabotage and destruction.

Then to ensure that MDAM's destruction plot favoured the CSA and the fraudulent Brisbane Magistrates Court (family matters) action against MDAM without prior notification, the bank assisted CSA and the Federal Government Solicitor by freezing MDAM's bank funds and cancelling his property loan account, deceitfully without any justification, except that they were assisting in the collapse, financial ruination & demise of MDAM at the Brisbane Magistrates Court, they did this in collusion with the Magistrates Court that had written out an arrest warrant to imprison MDAM and seize his assets before a trial or hearing. Oh! Oh! What a corrupt collusion!!!

This collusion plot was designed to insure that the penniless, poverty stricken and imprisoned before trial; MDAM could not afford a defence as Westpac Bank and its colluder's intended.

The trial was a sham trial because the Magistrate stated that once; a Child Support Agency Official had signed a guilty Affidavit, which deemed that very act was the end of the matter because only a guilty verdict was possible regardless of any evidence to the contrary thereafter (it cannot be challenged).

The Brisbane Magistrates Court Quassi-Judge Officials convicted MDAM fraudulently as the CSA Affidavit was totally perjurous, as MDAM had paid $130,000.00 in excess of his CSA obligations.

The Australian Government Solicitor Ian Anderson acting on behalf of The Child Support Agency (CSA) did not put into effect The Brisbane Magistrate Court orders to bankrupt and place in receivership and seize and sell MDAM's property or exercise their caveat because they have been caught out. The reason they did not do this, was because the above were in collusion with the Westpac Banking Corporation.

The Westpac Bank found that their Illegal freezing of MDAM's account funds and cancellation of his property loan account was without justification and put Westpac Bank in jeopardy, because they had been in collusion in the conviction of MDAM at The Brisbane Magistrate Court.

Because Australian Government Solicitor Ian Anderson failed to exercise his MDAM bankrupting plot and their caveat as they were caught out in their collusion with the Westpac Banking Corporation, who had been helping Mr. Anderson and The Child Support Agency by freezing funds, in turn leaving the Collusionists, in a vulnerable position with the bank exposed for their criminal activity. The Westpac Bank then soughted assistance from Solicitor Lawyers Minter Ellison who hatches a default plots under handed Legal profession Dirty trick.

The Westpac Banking Corporation Deviously decided to work in with the CSA that had been hounding MDAM for years. They cunningly claim to have delivered a summons to MDAM which MDAM could not possibly answer as it was not received.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

Then the Supreme Court deviously ruled that MDAM was in default of a non-existent, cancelled loan account/contract. The Westpac Bank was entitled to override The Magistrate Court's CSA caveat of MDAM'S property and grant the benefit of the caveat to the Westpac Bank who had actually caused MDAM to be unable to meet his previous obligations to them due to freezing his funds prior to cancelling his loan account illegally. MDAM has no further obligations because The Westpac Bank has cancelled his account; this means his obligations are ceased!!!

The Westpac Banking Corporation, The Magistrate's Court, and CSA Tax snoops and The Supreme Court are not going to get away with their crimes against MDAM unpunished. An example is to be made of the whole Legal Profession system for the benefit of Australian residents who are likely to face the same dangers. The Westpac Bank is not going to get away with their crime of illegally seizing bank funds and closing his loan account, without any reasonable above board justification, and then have the gall to get a corrupt Solicitor Minter Ellison to lodge fraudulent default seizure applications at The Supreme Court, who have shown themselves to be equally corrupt by allowing their Quassi-judge Registrars to send their bailiff to seize MDAM's property by force with Police assistance based on the totally corrupt false devious assertion that MDAM failed to meet his obligations to The Westpac Bank which did not exist because they had cancelled them, this is an incantation: which means: The use of a formula of words spoken or chanted to produce a magical devious legal affect.

The Supreme Court has blemished its character by incompetently allowing the Quasi-Judge registrars to fraudulently rule that MDAM has to be deprived of his property in favor of the corrupt Westpac Bank.

"This devious act is hereby recused."

-----------------------------------

I have always been clean handed, above board with honest intentions and without any blemishes on my character from the past so therefore I am not happy in being involved with fraudulent activity from financial institutions in collusion with and instigated by the legal system. Apparently, a standard practice.

I request the presiding judge to judge the case fairly (in the literal sense) as the case is put before them, rather than being obliged to become a participant/prosecutor in nepotism in favour of the banks.

I appeal to the judiciary to show me consideration in this matter despite the fact that I am legally disenfranchised.

I have clean hands; the question is, have the other parties in this matter?

Further Inconsistencies

My research requires that the following inconsistencies, discrepancies, vagaries and anomalies be explained, point-by-point in writing and not just verbalised, but oralised - in the oral tradition. The judgment by Justice Hidden for the Writ of Possession needs to be immediately set aside and struck off until all the questions and points detailed in this affidavit, can be satisfactorily explained and answered.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

It is not fair that this judgment for a writ of possession was issued when I repeatedly stated to Justice Hidden that I had not completed my defense in this case, and was investigating the plaintiffs documentation in order to prove that the contract upon which the application for writ of possession is based, is invalid, void and holden for naught. Justice Hidden ignored my appeals for a fair hearing and went ahead with the judgment and order for a writ of possession based on conundrum speech, legal profession riddle talk that I could not comprehend and suspected of being meta language (a legal language within a normal language that confuses ordinary people) which inveigled me into having the wrong impression, that he was talking in my favour, when the reverse was the case. I feel entitled to argue against that judgment despite the fact that I am regarded as a legal non-entity.

Justice Hidden has disregarded my legal rights. Is Justice Hidden telling me that I have no equality and that I have no legal rights? I want to know and have it stated in writing, not verbalised, but oralised, in the oral tradition, from the Judiciary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

a) Do I Have Legal Rights?

b) Do I have legal rights in this court case?

c) Is it true, that I am granted human rights which means the denial of legal rights and also that I have adverse democratic rights as a serf?

d) Is it true, that if I have no legal rights then I am unable to be contracted as a low class, legally disenfranchised, common human being?

e) Is it true, that I am to be treated and scheduled by legal fiction; any assumption which conceals, or effects to conceal, the fact that a rule of law has undergone alteration, its letter remaining unaltered, its operations remaining being modified again. In Australian Law fiction has played a considerable part. There may be said to be statements, or suppositions which are known to be untrue, but which are not allowed to be denied, in order that some legal difficulty may be overcome, and substantial justice secured.

How could anyone trust the legal profession when it practices legal fiction under exemption?

I respectfully request that the presiding judge demands that all these questions and points in this affidavit are answered by the plaintiff and their solicitors and I am asking that the judgment and order for the writ of possession by Justice Peter John Hidden be immediately set aside and quashed and to be void of jus dividendi (which means dispelling all reality).

In the transcripts Justice Peter John Hidden states that he has seen the documents I previously filed in court. I respectfully claim that he has erred in his judgment, which appears to be flawed on the count of all the information that is now revealed within this affidavit. I trust that any other presiding judge reviewing this matter will read all the evidence put forward in a new light.

I respectfully require the presiding judge to clarify in which court this hearing is being heard. Is it common law, equity law or chancery law? These three laws as already being explained in this affidavit are self admit and are obnoxious to the public and therefore I am not happy to have to submit to the judgements of those courts.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

Footnote:

The plaintiff's solicitor on record and partner of the law firm DIBBS ABBOTT STILLMAN, Gerard Thomas Breen (practicing certificate number 19757), is another interloper and a 3rd party to the contract, and his employed contractor solicitor, Gary Koning, is another interloper and a 3rd party to the contract, have verballed me in the literal sense and in the old traducing oral tradition, the plaintiffs statement of claim including Kylie Arigho's Affidavit, the notice of motion and the affidavit for Amanda Sherwood which they perjured themselves. Gerard Thomas Breen and Gary Koning were not parties to the contract. In fact they have deliberately perjured and altered the conditions of the documents for the plaintiff, therefore they are inconsistent and cannot be relied on to give evidence against me.

The manager for the plaintiff Kylie Arigho, another interloper and a 3rd party to the contract has verballed me in the literal sense and in the old traducing oral tradition, the plaintiffs Statement of Claim and specifically her sworn affidavit, authored and sworn by Gerard Thomas Breen and Gary Koning in collaborating collusion as cohorts. Kylie Arigho was not a party to the contract and therefore cannot be trusted or relied on.

The barrister Steven Mark Golledge who is contracted to DIBBS ABBOTT STILLMAN or Dibbs Abbott Stillman Lawyers or to another company not yet declared. A vital question is: - who is he contracted to, (what a mystery!), to be able to represent the plaintiff in this case. Barrister Golledge is also another interloper and a 3rd party to the contract. Barrister Golledge has verballed me in the literal sense and in the old traducing oral tradition, the plaintiff's Statement of Claim including Kylie Arigho's Affidavit, Notice of Motion and the Affidavit for Amanda Sherwood. Barrister Golledge was not a party to the contract.

My antagonists in this matter Gerard Thomas Breen - Gary Koning - Steven Mark Golledge - Amanda Sherwood - Kylie Arigho, they are all unarguably part of a legal profession, contract alteration squad. By contrast, I, the victim, Fiona Caroline Cristian, stand alone, disenfranchised in law without privileges or consideration.

A Chain of Corporate Legal Profession Miscreants

All parties mentioned in this matter have deliberately acted with malapropos, clandestine, behind the scenes and sub Rosa, as manipulators. Further documents proving these statements can be furnished at a later date if so required to reveal my antagonists as corporate cacodeamons of misconduct in which they are attempting to impose a BRAION: - this means converting their disproof into a convicting proof at my expense. I have consulted my associates in this matter and they have suggested that my antagonists could be suffering from Acatlepsia: - this means an impairment of the reasoning faculties combined with an amazing abnormal inability to comprehend simple facts.

The presiding judge is hereby requested not to charge me for contempt of court for my comments because this would be demonstrating that I would be despotically convicted without a trial, summarily and arbitrarily based on judicial cognizance in a dictatorial traditional method.

.................. ................

Deponent Witness

The Essential Point of this Enigma Riddle Matter

One can't alter an agreement by secretly rewording a contract to deceive an innocent party, and then bring a 3rd party solicitor or anyone else, in to make it right. This damns the solicitor/s. The solicitor/s should be struck off the legal practitioners list for preparing a perjured affidavit as part of legal procedure.

My husband (co-borrower) and I did not know that we were signing something that was wrong. Nobody in our case would intentionally sign a wrongful contract if they knew what they were getting into. We are not legal experts and are unable to decipher this loan contract that was provided to us. We relied upon the plaintiff to provide us with a lawful document, not one that is fraudulent and concludes with a fraudulent document authored by a solicitor as an affidavit, after the event. We are legally disqualified in the first place in all matters of law, including our signatures because we are regarded as being frivolous and disenfranchised with law. This is why we now want this judgment for the writ of possession and the case struck out. We chose box B in the contract because we trusted the plaintiff and its agents and contractors to be lawful, to be legal & above board. We did not suspect that they were going to bring 3rd parties into this loan contract.

Does the Supreme Court of New South Wales approve and sanction such wrong doings?

SWORN/AFFIRMED .......................

AT ................................

Signature of deponent.........................

Signature of witness........................

Name of witness..........................

Capacity of witness.........................

-----------
Date: Today 00:25:09
From: "Arthur Cristian" af at theelements.cc (Psychic Reign)
To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"
Reply to: "Arthur Cristian" af at theelements.cc

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Writ of Possession Proceedure

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 17/12/2006 - 00:14.

Dated: 12-16-06:

As a legal investigative reporter with a branch of the International News Group I have many questions of the "Writ of Possession" document and the authority of legal professionals!

Here in America I am continually suing so called lawyers and attorneys and since 1938 not one, hear me now, not one lawyer, attorney or lawyer-judge has been capable of producing any viable authoritative credentials (documents) whatsoever!

To this point, one Tennessee (Shelby County) Circuit Court Judge by the name of Robert Lanier even went so far as to issue a court order denying me to even request the production of a lawyer's license (Re: Russell E. Reviere) of Jackson, Tennessee!

This Judge's Order is still filed in that court case (Washington vs. Ward, et al) filed with the Shelby County, Tennessee Court Clerk's Office in early 2002! Other lawyers involved in that case was (i) Richard Vaughn, (ii) Russell E. Reviere, (iii) Keely N. Wilson, (iv) Christian Goeldner of Southaven, Mississippi and (v) Evan Nakmias of Memphis, Tennessee!

Even though these so called licensed lawyers and lawyer-judges state on and for the record of that Circuit Court that they are state licensed to practice law, that to is a blatant deceptive lie and they operate only "Under the Color of Law" meaning that they only appear to be lawful and authoritative which is further from the truth can anyone can even imagine!

Finally, since 1938, I have never yet been defeated by any lawyer or attorney in any case matter nor have they ever been issued any orders of judgments against me whereby they collected one red cent from me! Henry Ward, CJO News Media International!

Email address: lowiq47 at aol.com

Advertising

 


Advertise here!

All content and comments posted are owned and © by the Author and/or Poster.
Web site Copyright © 1995 - 2007 Clemens Vermeulen, Cairns - All Rights Reserved
Drupal design and maintenance by Clemens Vermeulen Drupal theme by Kiwi Themes.
Buy now