Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport ±

By 9 August 2016LAWYER FRAUD
tie-me-kangaroo-down-sport-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport (±x)

Published on 9th August 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
440

Enter more text here

Historically, we have not commented on current or proposed litigation for reasons obvious enough. But when there is blatant Perversion of the Course of Justice, only a fool would remain silent.

[The following is the plain-English, summarised version, and the precise one will be published in due course.]

Recently, I brought an application to set aside a fraudulently obtained judgement against me, after the usual Appeals process was completed. The Appeals process had already commenced before the information required to set aside the judgement had been properly obtained and verified in late 2015 AND I was able to instruct properly (I was unable to earlier due to heart issues).

The burden of proof for Perjury is of course high, and it would have been an abuse of process to set aside a judgement due to fraud, when there was already an appeal process underway and when information/instructions were deficient at the earlier point of time.

A judgement that is shown to have been obtained by fraud MUST be set aside. To show that a judgement has been obtained by fraud, the following must be established:

  • There must have been conscious and deliberate dishonesty in relation to the relevant evidence or action, which is relevant to the judgement.
  • The relevant evidence, action, statement or concealment must be material.
  • The dishonesty must be instrumental to the judgement obtained.

ALL THE ABOVE RELATE TO THE JUDGEMENT I WAS CHALLENGING.

Case Law:-

THE COURT OF APPEAL CAN RE-OPEN A DECISION TO REFUSE PERMISSION TO APPEAL WHEN IT IS ALLEGED THE JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD

In Bishop -v- Chhokar [2015] EWCA Civ 24 the Court of Appeal decided that it had jurisdiction to re-open an order refusing permission to appeal when it was alleged that a judgment was obtained by fraud.

Setting aside a fraudulently obtained judgment

In Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Highland Financial Partners LP ([2013] EWCA Civ 328) the Court of Appeal took the unusual step of setting aside a judgment on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud.

judgment obtained by fraud victoria australia

...

Setting aside and variation of judgments and orders

[2-6600] Setting aside a judgment or order given, entered or made irregularly, illegally or against good faith A judgment or order may be set aside if given, entered or made irregularly, illegally or against good faith: r 36.15(1).

http://adrianzuckerman.co.uk/files/File/Pages%20from%20CJQ08_27(2)_151-280.pdf

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/1995/11.pdf

http://netk.net.au/CrimJustice/Allars.pdf

http://www.hearsay.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=325&Itemid=45

There is a copious amount of case law and I have to say that I am SHOCKED by how so many judges/barristers/lawyers are ignorant of non-existent statutes of limitation for Fraud on the Court.

The affidavit placed before the court (albeit lengthy and perhaps not in an ‘easy-learning, my first A-B-C’ format that Australian Courts can understand) contained sufficient information to set aside the judgement, or at the very least obtain a stay of enforcement until an affidavit that the County Court of Victoria could ‘understand’, was filed.

The Hearing was nothing short of a farce and justice did not prevail. My 74 year-old mother attended as I cannot fly and she was shocked by the style of the proceedings.

I have experienced this type of problem before in Australia, and I am not sure whether the underlying issue is racism, ignorance, stupidity or fraud.

The term ‘Kangaroo Court’ applies for the following reasons:-

  1. 1:  a [mock] court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted

  2. 2:  a court characterised by irresponsible, unauthorised, or irregular status or procedures

  3. 3:  judgement or punishment given outside of legal procedure

In any event, I decided to appeal the decision and we had 28 days to analyse the transcript and file an application. My mother felt that there were a lot of factual inaccuracies during the hearing and the mere fact that the judge refused to consider the evidence properly or refile affidavits was a denial of natural justice – a solid ground if nothing else.

What happened next is the most bizarre thing ever.

Obviously I need to see the transcript (as I am the Appellant) and I was not present. Firstly the judge did not provide grounds for the decision and secondly, there appeared deliberate delays in the production of the transcript as well – around three weeks or so.

When it was finally produced I was informed by my barrister (who also was not present) that the judge had stated it could not be provided to me! Well, how can I possibly determine errors of law or fact if I cannot see the transcript itself?

When I then questioned the lawyer about the exact wording of the undertaking he had provided to the court to eventually obtain the transcript (as I was obviously expecting my name specifically referenced as a party who was not entitled to see the transcript) I was not even referenced!

I found the decision both surprising and unsurprising, and the underlying case itself has been deficient in so many areas with a whole plethora of ridiculous decisions.

I have therefore decided to waive Client Privilege via some new websites – I am not going to be putting up with this nonsense and once I publish the call recordings then the Perversion of the Course of Justice which pervades the Australian Judicial System will be patently obvious.

The good news is that the Fraudulently Obtained Judgement is being set aside in a new action, which quantifies and includes the damages directly flowing from it, and we will be filing an Incident Report with the Victoria Police!

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS CITP MACS Snr CP MSCSComputer Scientist

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP