response to 2 - sydneydatingsites.com.ausydneydatingsites.com.au/response_to_2nd_defendant.… ·...
TRANSCRIPT
IN THE SUPREME COURT IN SYDNEYDAVID GREGORY MURPHY V COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF STRATHFIELD AND ANORS 2011/327194, 1443/64
25th December 2012
To: Dennis Vuaran, DIBBS BARKERLevel 8 Angel Place123 Pitt StSydney 2000
By email only: Email response to email and letter of second defendant of 11st December and Further specific Requests to Admit Facts per part 17.3 of second defendant, Akzo Nobel Pty Ltd, as owner to some extent of ICI, Imperial Chemicals Industries.
1. In relation to 1 I say a further amended Statement of Liquidated Claim will soon be filed and served. I shall forward that to you when it is filed and sealed. I shall do service by email as it it much easier as everyone has printers and forwarding on and duplication is free of costs. Service of a Supreme Court Statement of Claim by email at 5 pm on 16th March was considered effective enough to put into an action an attempt to undermine credibility, the defendant or its associates having no defence so email service has hence in this matter been admitted effective.
2. The Notices in question were forwarded by email to a number of Akzo Nobel email addresses:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Notice to Admit Facts and Notice to Properly Settle
Date: 23.05.2012 17:01
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Date: 23.05.2012 17:01 The original message was received at Wed, 23 May 2012 17:00:57 +1000from 110-174-27-238.static.tpgi.com.au [110.174.27.238]
This message was generated by mail13.tpgi.com.au
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----<allen.brookes@ akzo nobel.com > (reason: 550-Invalid recipient <allen.brookes@ akzo nobel.com >)<brookes.allen@ akzo nobel.com > (reason: 550-Invalid recipient <brookes.allen@ akzo nobel.com >)
From: Andrews, Blake <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Not read: Notice to Admit Facts and Notice to Properly Settle Date: 08.06.2012 07:12
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Notice to Admit Facts and Notice to Properly Settle - this second time with all Notice to Admit annexures. Date: 20.06.2012 23:52
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Date: 20.06.2012 23:54 The original message was received at Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:50:35 +1000from 110-174-27-238.static.tpgi.com.au [110.174.27.238]
This message was generated by mail12.tpgi.com.au
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<allen.brookes@ akzo nobel.com > (reason: 550-Invalid recipient <allen.brookes@ akzo nobel.com >)<brookes.allen@ akzo nobel.com > (reason: 550-Invalid recipient <brookes.allen@ akzo nobel.com >)
From: Andrews, Blake <[email protected]> To: David <[email protected]> Subject: Not read: Electronic email service of Notice of Motion, Affidavit and Annexure of David Gregory Murphy of 21.8.2012 in 2011/327194 Date: 30.08.2012 09:09
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Subject: Electronic filing and simultaneous filing of Amended Statement of Liquidated Claim and Affidavit in Support and other bringing up to speed documents Date: 04.07.2012 23:56
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Date: 05.07.2012 00:01 The original message was received at Wed, 4 Jul 2012 23:55:03 +1000from 110-174-27-238.static.tpgi.com.au [110.174.27.238]
This message was generated by mail9.tpgi.com.au
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----<allen.brookes@ akzo nobel.com > (reason: 550-Invalid recipient <allen.brookes@ akzo nobel.com >)<brookes.allen@ akzo nobel.com > (reason: 550-Invalid recipient <brookes.allen@ akzo nobel.com >)
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Subject: Complementary electronic service of sealed copies of both Amended Statement of Liquidated Claim and Affidavit Verifying with provision to cover your print off costs thereof Date: 18.07.2012 23:00
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Date: 18.07.2012 23:03 The original message was received at Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:00:08 +1000from 110-174-27-238.static.tpgi.com.au [110.174.27.238]
This message was generated by mail12.tpgi.com.au
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----<allen.brookes@ akzo nobel.com > (reason: 550-Invalid recipient <allen.brookes@ akzo nobel.com >)<brookes.allen@ akzo nobel.com > (reason: 550-Invalid recipient <brookes.allen@ akzo nobel.com >)
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Subject: Electronic email service of Notice of Motion, Affidavit and Annexure of David Gregory Murphy of 21.8.2012 in 2011/327194 Date: 21.08.2012 18:01
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Date: 21.08.2012 18:08 The original message was received at Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:00:03 +1000from 110-174-27-238.static.tpgi.com.au [110.174.27.238]
This message was generated by mail13.tpgi.com.au
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----<allen.brookes@ akzo nobel.com > (reason: 550-Invalid recipient <allen.brookes@ akzo nobel.com >)<brookes.allen@ akzo nobel.com > (reason: 550-Invalid recipient <brookes.allen@ akzo nobel.com >)
From: Info AkzoNobel <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Not read: Electronic email service of Notice of Motion, Affidavit and Annexure of David Gregory Murphy of 21.8.2012 in 2011/327194 Date: 21.09.2012 15:18
From: David Gregory Murphy <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Notice to Admit Facts and Admit Authenticity of Documents per part 17 UCPR (NSW) 2005 and Notice to Properly Settle Under Guarantee - third pass - by email service only Date: 16.11.2012 17:05 To Akzo Nobel Pty Limited
Dear Madam/Sir
Please forward requesting party's attached Notice to Admit Facts and Admit Authenticity of Documents and Notice to Properly Settle Under Guarantee to appropriate department.
You have 14 days until 30th November 2012 to respond per section 17.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW, in the same fashion as you are served, by return email, otherwise all facts are admitted per part 17.3 of the UCPR.
Note addition of part 5 added since last service on 20.6.12 and subsequent part 17.3 admissions by parties on 4.7.12.
Documents and exhibits attached.
David Gregory MurphyPlaintiffCase no 2011/327194, formerly 1443/64SUPREME COURT IN SYDNEY
From: David Gregory Murphy <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: In matter 2011/327194: Further Requests to Admit Facts of seventh defendant and request for identity of possible twelfth, and maybe thirteenth and even a fourteenth, defendant. Date: 09.12.2012 23:00
From: Andrews, Blake <[email protected]> To: David Gregory Murphy <[email protected]> Subject: Out of Office: In matter 2011/327194: Further Requests to Admit Facts of seventh defendant and request for identity of possible twelfth, and maybe thirteenth and even a fourteenth, defendant. Date: 09.12.2012 23:00 Thank you for your email.
I am currently off site with limited email/phone access.For matters that need to be dealt with promptly, please contact;(08) 8359 4333 - [email protected] and/or [email protected] inquiries of a technical/sales nature, [email protected] can be contacted on 0407 638 044.Speak to you soon - Blake
3. The Amended Statement of Claim was also forwarded by registered mail to Akzo Nobel offices at 8 Kell.away Place, Wether.ill Park on 23rd July 2012. No response was received but Akzo Nobel suffered no detriment by not responding. On September 3rd Justice Hidden in the Supreme Court refused leave to file the visibly defective Amended Statement of Claim thus performing me a service in not proceeding to point six of the motion – hence the recent fifth and sixth sets of now admitted requests to admit and consequent upon your appearance seventh set of ten requests to admit facts specifically to you below.
4. In relation to 2 your client admitted on 30th November all that was put to it per part 17.3 of the UCPR. Your out of time notice of non admission was not a notice of dispute so all is admitted.
5. In relation to 3 I say the Notice of 16th November actually contains a number of Notices to Admit Facts, each quite valid in themselves, all but the fifth having been served upon you before and the fifth being served upon you for the first time on 16th November by email to email addresses that had been previously been advised for service of court pleadings. The notice is a valid notice to admit as it is a notice, albeit containing in itself a number again of past notices to admit. It contains detailed, disclosive and definitive self executing requests and asks you to admit, or agree if you prefer, or deny and in the event of a deny to elucidate, should there be any reason, and say why. The service of the 16th November was like a fresh opportunity to provide a timely notice of dispute, the previous two services of May and June having been admitted to by all.
6. Perhaps by saying the notice is not a valid Notice to Admit Facts, apart from the fact that it contains a number of past actual Notices to Admit Facts it still contains facts plural. Part 17 does not call the instrument a Notice to Admit Alleged Facts or Notice to admit Purported Facts or a Notice to Admit a Fact at a Time and in the interests of Aon v Anu I have, of course, as a qualified ex teacher of english and law therapist connected various sets of facts collectively into one sentence scenarios and subcases to expedite matters and make it easier for everyone to
understand the entire case including, of course, the Court. In the interests of Aon v Anu the various connected facts put together in various questions over either one notice or now over many months five notices, it matters not which, serve to expedite the proceedings and conclude the issue of liabilities such that justice is quick, cheap and of course exceedingly just. The requests are such that they could not be put in the witness box and by putting them as written requests plenty of opportunity is given you to give studied reflective detailed written answers to the questions at your and your client’s leisure. 7. What precedent or regulation do you cite to say it is not valid? It has been properly served in that you effectively got it in its entirety and email now is an excellent way to serve, well used by I should imagine all legal personnel, and I note the Courts, for all manner of communications and servings. The format of electronic filing and simultaneous service of a Statement of Liquidated Claim satisfying the rules has been thoroughly tested and accepted by Burwood Local Court and it has worked will and that matter of mine is now somewhat down the track. Your client did attempt to respond to it by issuing an out of time notice to not admit which is not a notice of dispute as called for in the circumstances by the rules. Presumably a Notice of Dispute answers each of the whys and is not as lazy and lacking as a stopgap Notice of non admission. I have thus far received only one of these although the respondent did not call her email missive an actual Notice of Dispute however in tackling all the whys in detail it served as such – and I expect she got paid well for it as being an undercover agent there was more unexpected good money in it for her and it was probably testing new ground and set me off in a new direction against her mentors who trace back to another of the defendants who have no defence – who have just now on the 23rd in turn admitted all put to them.
8. Which Supreme Court rule/s are you citing?
9. I don’t care if your client chooses not to respond. It’s a self executing notice to admit facts and on 30th November with no Notice of Dispute, not that I could get my teeth into, it executed in that all was admitted and you had had two opportunities and many lots of 14 days to compose detailed and well considered answers to it, much more than 14 days and much better that shooting off answers of the top of your head in a witness box. Email allows this more and it serves Aon v Anu well and allows more time.
10. If someone is saying that in this day and age after all this time that email is not now a perfectly valid and effective way to serve and prove service of pleadings (too well perhaps, see above) well they have to bow to the inevitable that before long it is going to change and this case should certainly help that change to take place. Email has been found to be a valid manner of service in the Court of Admiralty in the United Kingdom and it is time it was the case here too. In fact in a case like this it is the only sensible and practical option and opens up many new possibilities. As said by way of precedent someone somewhere thought my email service of the initiating Statement of Claim (Liquidated) on the first defendant only at 5 p.m. on 16th March 2012 to be very effective calling for a stiff form response and that matter is currently proceeding in another jurisdiction and heading for precedent as to service. It is not my function to waste time and money and escalate costs in the highly complex, non productive and befuddling task of itself of supplying printed pleadings to solicitors who have lost their practicing certificates and now run process service operations to give them some avoidable work.
11. To 4 I say your notice to not admit is not provided for under the rules, unlike a notice of dispute is deficient, unenlightening and is out of time. Not only was it not within the 14 days but
my electronic service records show that service of the requests to admit was served upon your client on two previous occasions 23rd May and 20th June. You state your client does not now admit but you did not say that it did not admit during the fourteen day period so on 30th November all was admitted by your client, all that your client could be expected to know. Furthermore I do not need to tell you that in the ensuing fourteen day period you had a grace opportunity to sneak in a a doubly impressive (having taken for yourselves twice as much time) set of answers to the requests to admit facts with grounds as to delay but by 14th December you had not done this and such did not attend your missive of 11th December. Same goes probably for the 28th December – move quick. Furthermore the requests to admit also request that in the event that your client does not admit then it is called upon to say why and this has not been done so any not admits are not only doubly, triply even, out of time but don’t hold water, don’t perform, don’t go anywhere, are lacking in force unconvincing stopgap anti Aon v Anu delay measures and are deficient as the whys have been avoided. “He stood there and asked me why, all I could do was cry” - Shangri Las.
12. Turning now to specifics for your client’s response,
13. In essence as relates to Akzo Nobel, a chemical company acquired by your client, Akzo Nobel, being ICI, Imperial Chemical Industries, closely allied with the sixth defendant who understandably resists service, presumably the chemical company with the highest standing in the picking, packing and pecking order, the centre stakeholder in the pact, hence your client’s championing lone response, the others sitting it out, (but for the can carrying first defendant who tried something else on 3rd December which doesn’t work (the seventh defendant coincidentally tried it too just recently on the 9th of this month also and it didn’t/doesn’t work there either (and imagine a lawyer pontificating in ten minutes on doctrinal requests to admit before those with standing to do so opening their doctrinal requests to admit email service over four hours later – hence by due process all twelve of the sixth set of specific requests were admitted on the 23rd
December))). From:
Alex Kohn <[email protected]>
To: David Gregory Murphy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Notice to Admit Facts and Admit Authenticity of Documents per part 17 UCPR (NSW) 2005 and Notice to Properly Settle Under Guarantee - third pass - by email service only
Date: 16.11.2012 17:22
Dear Mr Murphy, I refer to your email below. On 3 September 2012, Justice Hidden refused leave to file an Amended Statement of Claim. His Honour also ordered that you pay our client's costs. Accordingly there are no proceedings on foot which would permit you to serve further court documents on us or our client. You are attempting to re-agitate issues which have already been disposed of by the Court, which is not permissible. Please desist from corresponding with us or our client about this extinguished matter. We are instructed that if you continue to attempt to involve our client in this matter our client will give serious consideration to enforcing the costs order against you. If you are in doubt about your rights we respectfully suggest you obtain legal advice. Regards, Alex Kohn
Partner l Makinson & d'Apice, Lawyers
Level 12, 135 King Street, Sydney NSW 2000
Direct line 02 9233 9036 l Direct facsimile 02 9233 9136
Email [email protected] l Website www.makdap.com.au
From: Alex Kohn <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Read: In matter 2011/327194: Further Requests to Admit Facts of seventh defendant and request for identity of possible twelfth, and maybe thirteenth and even a fourteenth, defendant.
Date: 10.12.2012 07:22
Your message was read on Sunday, 9 December 2012 8:22:08 PM UTC.mail disposition report attachment
Final-recipient: RFC822; [email protected]: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayedX-MSExch-Correlation-Key: fDuli4QPqkOrdctQlTF7rg==X-Display-Name: Alex Kohn
From: Alex Kohn <[email protected]>
To: David Gregory Murphy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: In matter 2011/327194: Further Requests to Admit Facts of seventh defendant and request for identity of possible twelfth, and maybe thirteenth and even a fourteenth, defendant.
Date: 10.12.2012 07:32
Dear Mr Murphy, We confirm the orders made by Justice Hidden on 3 September when leave was refused to file an Amended Statement of Claim. As there are no proceedings on foot, our client will not be responding to your email below. Please desist from continuing to correspond with us and our client about this extinguished matter. Regards, Alex Kohn
Partner l Makinson & d'Apice, Lawyers
Level 12, 135 King Street, Sydney NSW 2000
Direct line 02 9233 9036 l Direct facsimile 02 9233 9136
Email [email protected] l Website www.makdap.com.au
This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain information that is commercially confidential and/or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
From: David Gregory Murphy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2012 11:01 PMTo: Fr Brian Lucas; Glenn Mowbray; Ms Rosario Sia; Alex KohnSubject: In matter 2011/327194: Further Requests to Admit Facts of seventh defendant and request for identity of possible twelfth, and maybe thirteenth and even a fourteenth, defendant.
to some extent was a party to a settlement arrangement negotiated by the GIO in 1964 whereby damages for for a claim of negligence, denied at the time (to which denial I now concur as not at all negligent but rather admissively complicient to the speculative investment pact, hence carrying the can) were paid by a number of such chemical companies who could not properly come to assess proportionality, (a helicopter or long fishing rod would have been needed to take samples, from they knew not where as no one asked me whence nor asked me to guide them back to the where the accident had happened, presumedly quickly bulldozed or tipped over with new refuse, being a tip) nor did admit liability and settled subject to recovery at 9.5% p.a. compounding interest, should I later, as perhaps many may, when called upon to do so, breach the Terms of Settlement which breach of the Terms would be attested to with oral evidence as evidence to fool the Court that I did breach. On 23rd April 1990 I did not subsequently breach when called upon to do so by Comer and Joseph and so on 18th June 1990 duly obtained a Deed of Agreement for all moneys outstanding which provision for the all moneys outstanding was guaranteed by the 9th defendant, then owned by the 11th defendant, incorporating apology for delay of settlement apologized inclusively in writing as a Christmas present (on 23.12.03 the sixth anniversary of the damages admission stream of “moneys outstanding” payments commencing on 25.12.97, as if I was supposed to know then prior to discovery on the 25.5.99 what that meant) by the new tenth defendant owner.
and
14. Akzo Nobel being the principal of a Ronald Doman, who in the capacity of a director of Akzo Nobel in 1994-5 (and former director of Union Carbide, another former dumper of chemical wastes, taken over by the fourth defendant), operated a garage rental business and in the course of the operation of his garage business with his mother, Minnie, did acquire the plaintiff’s personal possessions, presumably to settle concurrent District Court proceedings accounts, and in lieu of looming Commercial Tribunal proceedings, left behind a bill of sale under the Sale of Goods Act 1923 which has not been satisfied and which prices remain outstanding as at the conclusion of proceedings in the Sydney District Court the items were sold by me to Mr Doman and Mrs Minnie Simpson, who acted in some capacity on your client’s behalf (attached) to recover purported costs in paralleling proceedings, by my relectantly after giving every opportunity for return and after pursuing all avenues for recovery: consenting to the items’ acquisition, passing title to the advised list of items having arrived at and advised of prices, enjoying no returns and
advising accordingly, all after two Calderbank offers had been made by Mr Doman which fell short of the sale price, Mr Barko of council acknowledging the occurrence of the sale, noting liability for tort had become “indebted”ness for contract, is it all not the case?If not then why not?NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS
UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2005 - REG 17.3
Notice to admit further specific facts
17.3 Notice to admit facts
(cf SCR Part 18, rule 2; DCR Part 15, rule 2; LCR Part 14, rule 2)
(1) The requesting party may, by a notice served on the admitting party ( "the requesting party’s notice"), require the admitting party to admit, for the purposes of the proceedings only, the facts specified in the notice.
(2) If, as to any fact specified in the requesting party’s notice, the admitting party does not, within 14 days after service on the admitting party of the requesting party’s notice, serve on the requesting party a notice disputing that fact, that fact is, for the purposes of the proceedings only, taken to have been admitted by the admitting party in favour of the requesting party only.
(3) The admitting party may, with the leave of the court, withdraw any such admission.
15. 1a. Does your client deny that it is in fact the case, is it not, that it, or it now by way of its assumption of ICI, participated in an investment loan pact in 1964-6, the existence of which is attested to in the first defendant’s letter to the Supreme Court of 19th October 2011, to, since the pact partners could not determine apportionment arising from the mix of whose burning chemical ash, absolve the impact of damages then contemplated and turn such damages into an attractive but speculative investment loan opportunity at 9.5% per annum compounding over 30 years to recover not admitted damages outlays with interest pursuant to a creative (though probably common in the insurance industry) tort to contract swap solution to the conundrum, overseen by the eighth defendant, GIO, then owned by the fifth defendant, loyal to the sixth defendant, shareholder in the said ICI, designed not to fail being contingent upon a to-in-the-course-of-time-be-induced breach of term 7 in relation to term 3 of the Terms of Settlement of 6th June 1966 (previously supplied) by me which breach, if by me, would open the way to lawful but subterfugal recovery by a deed-guarantoring ninth defendant, Australian Guarantee Corporation, and turn a profit for pact members, which breach by me did not arise but was rather performed perforce, due to my not having a clue as to what was going on, by the recovery agent, Comer, who had evidentially been advised of the not to be disclosed quantum to be recovered at the outset as the first investment loan taking place in a fashion consistent, as he kindly, compliantly and disclosively evidenced in handwriting, with non disclosure term 7 on 23rd April 1990?15. 1b) If your client denies then how does it account for the in evidence breach of term 7 by Comer, and Joseph, by way of attesting investment loan cash cheque #368 for consideration of $9,500, the not to be disclosed quantum of term 3, on day one of the recovery phase?
16. 2a. Does your client deny that it is in fact the case, is it not, that it retained or enjoyed or directed the services of a Ronald Doman and his mother, garage landlady Minnie Simpson, to
acquire personal and business effects of mine in order to defray outlays in legal proceedings with both Lance Finance, leading the charge in 1991-2, and in 1994-5, AGC, when twelve months’ rent had been tendered in advance, pursuant to a defective notice to vacate which items became subject of a sale under the Sale of Goods Act which sale moneys now comprise moneys outstanding as contemplated by and under the said guarantored Deed of Agreement, with putting-the-provision-and-guarantee-for-moneys-outstanding-in-place activating agent Byrnes, and remain gathering Deed interest thereunder in recognition that I am an investor pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court of 8th June 1966?16. 2b) If your client does deny then how does it explain how one of its directors ended up in a garage sale of his own making with me and, after making out that he had overall won the case and was a creditor pursuant to a Calderbank offer, which failed, being below the in the passage of time admitted sale price, disappeared and admissively never came back to collect his abandoned-in-the-face-of-an-estopping-sale winnings?
17. I give your client an opportunity to deny. The various requests to admit have each done their job all around and not attracted a non defective and in time notice of dispute so all is admitted per the rules and the requests to admit, being disclosive and detailed, speak for themselves and are self executing.
18. 3a. Does your client deny that it is in fact the case, is it not, that this matter is related to the fact that my mother, a Sybil Murphy, nee Johnston, worked for some years at Dibbs Crowther as a legal secretary suggesting an opportunistic attempt to claw back her many years’ wages for breach of a third non disclosure term besides the other two (Terms of Settlement and the now per part 5 of n2af admitted in tatters Pact) with interest which breach did not manifest on her or my father’s part as they never disclosed yet Comer attempted to secure an unregistered mortgage over the family residence and recover the factory security for the 30 year loan by way of investment loans caught by the Credit Act scam, which investment loans now comprise part of the “moneys outstanding” under the Deed?18. 3b. If not admitting then how do you explain why my mother developed a mental illness if not due to an impacting and overreaching non disclosure term having impact in something she could not understand and dare not transgress?
19. 4a. Hence does your client deny that it is in fact the case, is it not, that it retains a prohibitive caveat or the like over the second shrine, which still after 9 years my sister Roslyn continues to make regular pilgrimages to and faithfully and dutifully tends, at 34 Tavistock Rd, Homebush West (the first shrine is Mason/Bressington Park in the area of Homebush, consecrated 23.8.63 (Wipeout by Surfaris #1 that week on 2UE Top 40 chart, day one of 12,000 days to 30.6.96) , in an act of Hotliness, meaning the first defendant has two shrines in its precincts which will attract interest and pilgrims from around the world, the only such shrines in Australia) bundled perhaps with other properties such that they can’t be easily dealt with? (I hear some Koreans have been on to the first defendant to do the Bressington/Blessington Park shrine. Obviously they’ve done their homework and worked out it’s going to be a moneyspinner.)19. 4b. If not then why not? Please produce or have produced all copies of caveats or the like not to be disclosed or the like to me within 14 days from the date of this service or they each, as they are anyway, are void.
20. 5a. Does your client admit that it is in fact the case, is it not, that as owner, part owner or chief successor of ICI, former chief stake holder in the 1964 pact, it had thus a chief interest and advisory role in the contrived and tendentious application advanced by my ever opposing sister
Roslyn Lunsford, ever your faithful advocate and lackey, in concert with a Mario Viera case manager for the fifth and sixth defendant and by extension the second defendant and lines of descent of lesser pretentions, to mount an application in the Guardianship Tribunal (plan H) where he, as a malingering long odds gambler with no account keeping experience and no credentials, sought to become my “financial manager” in a hat trick attempt to
- take over my Developing Financial Responsibility system for the great financial gain it offers if sold on and also
- to stamp out Law Therapy (in so doing creating great law therapy KC costs since converted to gambling losses by the two of them yet to be met) which is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry and related exploitative charlatans, and
- filed misinformation so as to ostensibly seize control of my Supreme Court case and have the case removed from the list due to your and his client, and at that point the first defendant, having no defence available to them.20. 5b. If not then why not?
21. 6a. Does your client admit that it is in fact the case, is it not, that your client, like as the ninth defendant, is greatly involved in the set up, operation and tell tale diversion of investment loan repayment installments and obligations of the currently operating sacrosanct compromise account (twice reported to Burwood Police who would not investigate) subject of the fifth defendant’s Mario Viera, with insistent support of adversarial “odd angle” shrine tender Roslyn,’s failed application to the Guardianship Tribunal as plan H, to wrest control of my Supreme Court case for “moneys outstanding” due to all defendants, including the second defendant, having no defence to my detailed causes of action?21. 6b. If not then why not?
22. 7a. Furthermore does your client now admit that it is in fact the case, is it not, that it, being the chief or co-chief stakeholder, along now with Orica, of the then ICI in the pact, was/is the or a principal of James Warren Byrnes who approached me after I had not breached through the Strathfield team to put in place the provisions and guarantees of the Deed of Agreement and for that reason there was interest to seize or appropriate my possessions and documents and accounts in the garage after I had advised in the letter of 17th July 1995, attached, there to be significant and sensitive evidence and documentation in the garage pertaining to legal matters?22. 7b. If not then why not?
23. 8a. Does your client admit that it is in fact the case, is it not, that it (along with the third defendant) as successor of ICI, the chief stakeholder in the speculative settlement investment loan pact of 1964, was the ultimate client not only of Byrnes but also of Comer, Macdonald and the Strathfield team, quite obviously working for the first defendant, who raised the settlement investment loan and was the party for whom the ninth defendant gave to me the guarantee for “all moneys outstanding” which included the investment loans arising from the 1990 sale of the family factory (proceeds from the sale of which were kindly supplied for immediate recovery by Comer by the fifth defendant, then more under the control of the sixth defendant), which factory had been the security for the 30 year loan, 20.6.1966 – 20.6.1996, at 9.5% p.a. compounding such that even though I did not breach the Terms of Settlement and did enact the recovery mechanism proceeding by way of a number of Credit Act scam investment loans, whose recovery was on 15.11.1996 thwarted by made up and immediately junked on 15.11.1996 Orwellian 1984 Credit Act legislation, the fifth defendant had, due to its obligations, as the former owner of the eighth defendant, put in place to assist in recovery of court settlements such as mine of settlement creditors by an order of the Court?
23. 8b. If not then why not?
24. 9a. Does your now coming or being brought, dragged, to the forefront second defendant client [as owner/successor of ICI, Leader of the Pact (l.o.t.p. anagrammed = plot, or feet plot charade)(commemorated late 1964 (first defendant in letter to SC of 19.10.11 cited 1964 as when it got off the hook) in two edged fashion, pact/pack, (Comer was to be likewise a “leader of the pack” (anagrammed: a preheated flock) card sharp)) publically in song by the Shangri Las (anagrammed: hangs liars (angri slash, liars gnash, gnash lairs, sharing ash (swap an l for an h, both part of the same four letter word concerning el (h.el.l)) so h.el.l plot hangs gnash lairs liars, says it all, cop that, (nothing like a little divination)) as an evidentiary duty of disclosure to the Court of the otherwise not in evidence most clandestine culminative top level pact, marking the pact, against some evidently very important Mark, born 2.9.53, day one of 16,000 days to date of anticipated entry in the Federal Court of bankruptcy on 23.6.97, averted, by some waiting in the wings arch 12th defendant (bring ‘im out), not so??? - gotcha], admit that it is the case, is it not, that it was later constructive in the application in the local court in matter 422/00 to defraud me of moneys due to me from the fees of members of the Self Litigants’ Association (which each in order member would recover as costs in their cases) of which I was the founder, president and creditor, which stacked-with-dummy-members association held panel meetings weekly at the H.el.l.enic Club, and due to your client’s improper intervention pursuant to the fact that most of the members were bogus with no real cases or hope of recovery and no real prospect of paying the fees out of successful costs applications pursuant upon wins as they were quislings whose fictitious case covers I had blown I was defrauded of moneys just after I had embarked upon recovery of the moneys owing to me in the garage matter with operative director Doman and Simpson and thus did not your client regard the SLA as a private venture of mine as a former teacher which I had bankrolled for return of capital only, all in the public interest (shangri las = sharing sla, sla garnish), is it not all the case?24. 9b. If not then why not?
25. I should expect that you all have reason in a matter such as this to keep good records.
The Garage Sale 26. I presume all those goods are out there somewhere as the evidence produced in the District Court was not conclusive that many of the items, if any, were actually tipped (“selective” photos to fool the Court were taken in the garage but not of the tipping) and Mr Minter made a point of saying, as a clue to the Court, my items were headed for a factory storage site to which he told me verbally that his “client had access”, presumably for mindful safe storage. The fact that the bill for the sale has not been paid suggests someone is hoping to return certain items or safeguard them for someone unusually important who did not have room for them or to refer to them in evidence on the offchance we should be getting to assessment of quantum so as to demean or enhance credibility ... so let’s move on to quantum. Please now advise of where I can “inspect the goods” kept for tests of credibility as to later arguments of veracity of quantum.
27. I would like the music cassettes and reels of my edited music collection back which were in the garage and will discount the sale amount for return of same intact and in good order. I would also very much like to have the some 1 kg pieces of 99.98% assay prized glistening finespot silver in the glass jar (an attraction to an industrial chemist like Ron) in relation to which the evidence was the 30+ pieces of silver, like other items of value such as the music, as items of
value were not disposed of. Bill Doman made a point of saying in evidence that he was a music lover so that music is out there somewhere, not disposed of, just as your client would have kept the documentation of the case 8149/98, Murphy v Simpson and Doman in the District Court, for eventual reference. Ron said there was no silver in the garage, the Court found for it. 28. I would also like the four deep blue sapphires which being items of jewellery are an attraction to old women who rent out garages to snaffle the items of a tenant under pretense. The sapphires, found to be there, were not items which would be given away to the “poor and unfortunate” so, being items of value, they were not tipped or given to St Vincent de Paul and were an attraction as far as Min would be concerned who did not give video evidence to the contrary. She did say she looked through the items, access to which she and Ron had by having a key. I will, like the music, also credit the return of the silver and sapphires off the sale price. Furthermore the diaries in which you will note there is a handwritten entry for every single day and the keeping of accounts from as early as 1.1.68 would of course have been retained for the day they are called upon as evidence.
29. It would be nice to have the citrine green sound cabinet back which I constructed in our factory with the assistance of the next friend as it means much. Being an item of value it was not discarded and though said, as an item of furniture, to have been given to Vinnies it was not to be found there like other furniture so it was retained as a keepsake. It alone of all the furniture, being personally manufactured, I sought back and did not wave away.
30. 10. Your letter of 11th December is undisclosive, indicative of liability or guilt. The Court does not like those who hide and conceal and do not disclose so as to fool the Court. Please be highly disclosive in your future letters, for instance giving the reasons why you approached me via Doman and Simpson at the time of the case with the guarantor in 1994-5 to collect my saleable “goods” and taking me for a fool. Presumably I am the only one you have done this with, is it not the case?
31. Towards Credentials: Let the Reader Understand: Case MusicNotice to Court and defendants as to Divine Case Management by way of telling titles.Anthology Attachments: Chronology of Major 1443/64, 2011/327194 Accession Case Dates.For those who know their case dates please study closely and note telling titles commentary. Notices of Dispute with reasons attached to be served within 14 days.
2UE Top 40 chart of 23rd August 1963 showing Wipeout to be #1 and Helen Shapiro (I ash pro) to be highest new entry at #34. Note Brenda Lee at #18, precursor dat of Deed, Johnny Cash at #22, advice from Eydie Gorme at #23 and further advice from Bobby Rydell at #25, Bill Justis anagrammed our team, our mate, am route, second week at #28.Top 40 chart for 17th September 1963 (date of operation) showing I ash pro to have gone to no #2. Top 40 chart for 12th October 1963 (discharge) shows Lonely Surfer to have completed 7 weeks in charts on day before my discharge after 50 day stay in hospital after my 23.8.63 surfari to the tip for “fire walking performance”. Top 40 chart for 20th February 1964 (date of filing of 1443/64) now showing at #2 in response I Want to Hold Your Hand. Went well with Dave Clark 5 at #3.Top 40 chart of 25.11.64 showing Leader of the Pack (Enfield Primary 5OC, o = p-a, c, K) which entered the charts at #25 on Remembrance/Armistice Day 11.11.64 (presumed date of pact) up from #5 to #1. Kinks on 11.11.64 this time at #2 in confirmation. Confirmatorially the letter from 2nd defendant is dated 11th December 2012.
Top 40 for 3rd May 1966 shows Nowhere Man, Beatles at #1.Top 40 chart for 6th June 1966, 6.6.66, date of Terms of Settlement, this time showing Dusty to be #2, Cher at #6 (double meaning), Bob Lind and Beatles at #8 and #9, Yardbirds at #12, Frank Sinatra at #17, Mannfred Mann at #18, Stones at #20, Nancy Sinatra at #23.Top 40 chart for 20th June 1966, commencement of 30 year settlement investment loan, showing this time Frank Sinatra up from #5 to #1, Verdelle Smith this time at #2 followed by Dusty #3 and Stones #4, Bob Lind this time paired by the Who (“your lies for fact”) at #7 and #8, Mannfred Mann #12, Simon and Garfunkel at #18, Nancy at #20, Paperback Writer/Ra.in overtakes Nowhere Man in for about last time, Stones at #38 last appearance as against Matt Monro’s eventual #1 at #39 followed by another animal song at #40.. Merit Award Disk: The Word for Today / The New Breed.Top 40 for 3rd May 1967 shows Dedicated to the One I Love – Mamas and Papas at #1.Top 40 for 24th May 1967 shows This Is My Song – Petula Clark at #1.Top 40 for 1st January 1968 shows Snoopy’s Christmas – Royal Guardsmen at #1.Go Set Chart for 27th January 1973 shows Ben – Michael Jackson at #1.Take 40 chart of 23rd April 1990 shows Opposites Attract - Paula Abdul to be #1.Take 40 chart of 18th June 1990 shows All I Want to Do is Make Love to You – Heart to be #1.Take 40 chart of 19th/25th July 1990 shows U Can’t Touch This – MC Hammer to be #1.Take 40 chart of 23rd October 1990 shows Bust a Move - Young MC to be #1.Take 40 chart of 23rd October 1992 shows Achy Breaky Heart – Billy Ray Cyrus to be #1.Take 40 chart of 20th/30th June 1996 shows Killing Me Softly to be #1.Take 40 chart of 15th November 1996 show Wannabe to be #1.Take 40 chart of 20th/23rd June 1997 shows MMMBop to be #1, 2nd song to go straight in at #1.Take 40 chart of 1st September 1997 shows Men in Black to be #1.Candle in the Wind – Elton John released 5th September 1997.Take 40 chart of 25th December 1997 shows Doctor Jones – Aqua to be #1.Take 40 chart of 6th/7th June 2003 shows Take Me to Life – Evanescence to be #1.2nd September 2003 our time, White Flag released – 6 years after the Di do.Take 40 chart of 23rd December 2003 shows Shut Up to be #1.Take 40 chart of 11th June 2010 shows OMG – Usher feat. Will.I.Am to be #1.Take 40 chart of 13th October 2011 shows We Found Love - Rihanna to be #1.Take 40 chart of 19th October 2011 shows Mr Know it All – Kelly Clarkson to be #1.Take 40 chart of 27th October 2011 shows Somebody That I Used to Know - Gotye to be #1.Take 40 chart of 14th/17th February 2012 shows Set It Off - Timomatic to be #1.ARIA chart of 3rd September 2012 shows Battle Scars – Sebastian + Fiasco to be #1.ARIA chart of 23rd December 2012 shows Thrift Shop to be #1 for 4th week.
32. 11a. Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that the foregoing number 1’s on the Top 40, which charts I was for many years an avid collector of, and the other charts, with the dates of events happening in the case is highly indicative of an admin commentary upon what was happening in the case at the time suggesting a divine guiding hand in the conduct of the matter?32. 11b. If not then why not?
33. 12a. Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that such being the case it tends to confirm that I am an above average Plaintiff and Creditor, Messiah even as admitted in the earlier requests to admit facts (part 4 / #55a)?33. 12b. If not then why not?
As the ninth defendant was told by me in writing even as early as 1997: “CHECKMATE”.The only ones now who don’t believe are those avoidants with vested interests suggesting exposure.
‘nuff for now.Quote from Comer: “there’s no answers to it”Your move – Chess Jurist.
...turning tort to contract swaps, and thus elevating tort feasors to a higher standing as befits law therapy, into an art form.
Law Therapy: Lawyer Path, Reap Thy Law, Ra.pe Thy Law, Pare Thy Law, The War Play, Pray the Law, Pray Wealth, Lay the Wrap, The Raw Play
Myrrhy Christurnalia and a Happy New Year
Yours Sincerely
David Gregory MurphyPlaintiff