Mangled Thoughts

The “operation is the State Trustees Office”. The STO engages in large-scale confiscation of private property; savings accounts, any other capital assets they might have, and the homes of victims. They use ‘legal’ measures against their many victims to achieve their objective. What the STO is doing is no secret; it is widely known around Victoria - by law firms, accounting firms, real estate agents, and doctors. The Victorian Government, through Attorney General Hulls, under both Bracks and Brumby, is running, a large-scale criminal operation.

In the introduction, I said that a major legal “industry’ has been raised, dedicated to the advance of these criminal actions. Driving it is collusion. In this instalment, we supply direct evidence of collusion between the STO and lawyers, and that their action is sheltered by VCAT (1). The evidence shows laws are broken, the principals involved, certainly in the case to be set, commit perjury.

Those involved in these criminal activities are so habituated to what they are engaged in that they were blasé, casual, in what they did in the case to hand. They supplied the documentary evidence of their crimes that I will set forth. They did not realise that they were doing so in some instances. One instance is curious in this regard. Neither did they count on two of their many victims refusing to roll over, and fighting back. They also did not count on the victims tirelessly hunting down evidence that condemns the principals involved. In this part, we set out the opening phase which details crimes committed right at the beginning.

The hostile parties became more vicious as time wore on. They intensified their actions against the victims, and multiplied the list of crimes committed. Crimes committed during the ‘opening phase’ are numerous as it is. One expression sums up the main tactic used against the victims, “Fear” = “false evidence appearing realistic”. Perjury and collusion, are only two criminal offences committed, as the case shows.

This case is a precedent, due to the victims’ diligence and attention to detail. It is one of the few, if any cases, in which a complete archive was compiled and preserved. I have read the archives and copied the documents. The case ran nearly 3 years from 2005 of 2007. Documents crucial to the defence are direct evidence of crimes committed against the victims.

This part relates the opening phase against the victims. Those moves brought in straight away the STO.

The law firm of “McDonald, Slater and Lay”, acting for hostile parties, broke the law. Their witnesses committed perjury, at the start. An affidavit, for example, against Jennifer and Peter is a list of lies. Those lies were the core basis of all the successive actions against Jennifer and Peter. The barrister engaged by the hostile firm also broke the law when he signed the first application against the victims as the “Applicant”.

The firm broke the law again when it told The Bendigo Bank that it had a VCAT order for the freezing of Jennifer’s accounts. It had no such order.

Bendigo Bank broke the law in complying with the firm’s demand they freeze the accounts. A law firm has to hand over such orders to the head solicitor of a bank. The bank’s solicitor must, on receiving it, duly notarise it. The Bendigo Bank’s head solicitor had no such order in the first instance, yet he stopped the accounts; that was against the law.

Bendigo Bank had only a matter of days before broken the Federal Privacy Act. Staff of the branch Jennifer does her transactions at, disclosed her account details to her hostile offspring, who were the original instigators of the criminal actions to be outlined.

The STO entered a criminal arrangement with the law firm “McDonald, Slater and Lay” before VCAT. The scheme was to charge the hostile lawyers fees to Jennifer’s accounts under STO control. This was done, and it is documented; some crucial documents showing this were, ironically, extracted (after long months of pressure) from the STO in 2006.

The above is to be demonstrated in tomorrow’s continuation of ‘phase one’.The documentary evidence is incontrovertible, it is direct evidence of what was done.

(I) The STO’s operations are sheltered by VCAT. Effectivley, VCAT helped the STO commit larceny.

VCAT was established for the original stated aim of supplying a lower cost alternative to regular courts. In reality, that is not how it functions. It is the enforcer of many of the capricious “Acts” of the Victorian Government.

The rules governing VCAT are not internal rules of due process to ensure justice. The rules governing VCAT ensure it is nearly impossible for anyone rammed through a VCAT “list’ to seek redress in a regular court. In this case, the redress sought was against:

The crime of Government stripping them of their inalienable rights, their private property, Jennifer’s liberty, and their dignity; via the STO and VCAT, backed by a wall of lawyers inside and outside of the STO arranging these acts of larceny.

As for cheapness; it is not cheap at all. The case to be unfolded is one demonstration of this. Those caught in the VCAT noose face a long, gruelling, wrenching, and very expensive grind to protect their inalienable rights. For one thing, it requires top barristers to fight back. The STO practice is to starve those who resist into submission and VCAT abets STO very well.

An “industry” of lawyers has grown up around finding ‘cause’ to drag hapless victims before what are Kafkaesque trials. This case is only one of them, in which the victims were effectively put on trial. The objectives were to strip them of their rights, their private property, their dignity, and their liberty, and to destroy their marriage.

Indeed there were two victims, Jennifer’ and her husband Peter. He was unofficially on ‘trail’. The reason was a malevolent defamation campaign promoted by hostile parties and accepted by VCAT. Yes, cruel, entirely false slanders against Peter was submitted as ‘evidence’, and allowed by VCAT.

Due process and rules of justice, to serve justice? VCAT is a mockery of justice. The case to be laid out demonstrates it. To foreshadow one problem:

Unlike in cases before regular courts, defendants have nearly zero rights of discovery of hostile evidence in order to prepare their case. In this case, some crucial evidence used early against them was obtained late in the course of their persecution, only by using the ‘Freedom of Information Act’. That evidence was central to the persecutors’ “case”.

There is one important device to be noted, hearings held ex parte. That means hostile parties can engage in proceedings without the other parties being informed so that they can prepare their defence. This is not a joke, it is true. This will be shown, and how it can be used against victims, and to inflict more pain on victims.

Interestingly, the victims applied for an ex parte hearing, to discuss how to proceed in their defence, not to engage in a ‘hearing’ against their foes. Their request was soley for procedural guidance. The ‘member’ (the VCAT name for ‘judge’) agreed, but he added a twist. He, instead, ordered a ‘rehearing’ of the earlier case’ which did more damage to the victims.

A rehearing is a challenge on the grounds a previous hearing was flawed. They were not prepared for that, they were not asking for that at that stage. Naturally, they lost badly in that session.

One ‘member’ excluded a large body of crucial evidence submitted by the victims. Needless to say, that was automatic bias in favour of the hostile parties. The upshot is obvious.

In another session, the hostile parties were permitted to shout down the victims. The persecutors freely made claims, perjuring themselves with it. VCAT ‘members’ did not interfere. The defence could not cross-examine, could do nothing but sit and watch their foes and the ‘members’ reduce a hearing into a farce that left the position of STO, the hostile lawyers, and their witnesses intact.

Key hostile witnesses, whose evidence was unbroken perjury, were never required to appear in VCAT. They were not cross-examined. This, despite one of them falsely swearing in an affidavit they were willing and free to appear before VCAT. In reality, there should have been no freedom to choose.

The witnesses, because of the gravity of their slanders, should have been required to attend, and be cross-examined. There are more points about hostile witnesses which will reinforce the point Indeed, what I am describing are some of the conditions of due process and justice and they are the two things VCAT is not about at all.

VCAT ‘members’ notion of due process is the standard used in Stalin’s show trials.