Menu
Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media is part of t...

NAB VICTIM

NAB VICTIM

In late 2008 we became vi...

Banking In Australia Today

Banking In Australia Today

Visit Banking in Austra...

Donate Please

Donate Please

We need your support. ...

Prev Next
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
Welcome to the Kunena forum!

Tell us and our members who you are, what you like and why you became a member of this site.
We welcome all new members and hope to see you around a lot!

TOPIC: Jennie Paluka says "report McGarvie to IBAC"

Jennie Paluka says "report McGarvie to IBAC" 2 years 1 month ago #2884

  • DesiredUserName
  • DesiredUserName's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 779
  • Thank you received: 7
  • Karma: 0
hotcopper.com.au/threads/well-done-bfcsa...744352/#.Vzlfmf8Vjoo
Hot Copper is the largest stockmarket forum in Australia

with over 250,000 registered members

and more than 8,000 posts per day.....
...

BFCSA calls are heard, but not by outgoing ASIC Chairman, G. Medcraft

ASIC boss Greg Medcraft says he doesn't want to regulate banking culture The head of Australia's corporate watchdog has responded complaints from Financial Systems Inquirychair David Murray that ASIC attempts to regulate company culture were comparable to those used by Adolf Hitler.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and the shadow treasurer Chris Bowen have taken the lead in the financial services sector scandals and will hold a royal commission into the financial services sector if Labor wins the next election.

Today I say, enough is enough Opposition Leader Bill Shorten

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said the royal commission would cover banks, superannuation funds,
other financial institutions and insurance companies. The royal commission will look at whether illegal
and unethical behaviour in the financial services sector was widespread. It will also look at how the duty
of care financial institutions have to their customers works and how business structures affect the behaviour
of finance sector employees and whether Australian regulators have enough resources.
"We're not announcing the terms of reference today," Mr Bowen said.
Read more: www.theage.com.au/…/labor-calls-for-royal-commission…
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Jennie Paluka says "report McGarvie to IBAC" 2 years 3 weeks ago #2900

  • DesiredUserName
  • DesiredUserName's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 779
  • Thank you received: 7
  • Karma: 0
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Bill Shorten says its a protection racket! 1 year 10 months ago #3161

  • DesiredUserName
  • DesiredUserName's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 779
  • Thank you received: 7
  • Karma: 0
Subject: Fwd: your enquiry LEXDOC 3236 [DLM=For-Official-Use-Only]
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Cc: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

For your meeting perhaps.

Forwarded message from This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 01:41:48 -0500
From: mytton.watson
Subject: Re: your enquiry LEXDOC 3236 [DLM=For-Official-Use-Only]
To: Privacy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Cc: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Dear Sir

Thank you, please investigate the Victorian Legal Services Board (if you can compensate us) but do it properly and don't assume the ethics board weren't helping that scam litigation boiler room firm run by the famous Trevor Mctaggart to hunt our whistleblower reports.

We think this case is the most outrageous case we've ever heard of.

The "ethics board" threatened Elliot Sgargetta with jail.

The ethics board threatened the daughter of American police called Waldron that, unless a hush deed was signed, a bank will throw her on the street.

In The AustralianNewspaper 4 April 2016, Mark Holscher is qouted as saying the Australian Government leaked unethically however we know the VLSB did it because our group member Elliot Sgargetta told Parliament about it BEFORE the FBI jumped out of the bushes.

The VLSB told him they wanted to do over the unethical banks but they couldn't because their budget was tight and we believe the VLSB deliberately and maliciously went out of its way in revenge or something. Shocking isn't strong enough to describe what these ethics regulators were up to with goons like the men who threatened Simon Woodford and lawyers called Janover in Queen Street Melbourne.

Mastercard's legal bill for work went down the drain for $544,000,000, and that is not a typographical.

The Mastercard shares dropped about 4%!

Visa's shares dropped about 3%.

Gary Friedman lost about $40m in legal fees because the cat got out of the bag.

We also want compensation beause the board gave our witness information to scam litigation firms run by the biggest con man that Kelvin Thomson ever saw, McTaggart. Dennis Sgargetta and Elliot Sgargetta were told all about it by the staff inside the Victorian Legal Services Board because the whistleblowers didn't want to get caught in the cover up. Scandalous!

Judges in New York proved the facts in our group complaint to the American SEC.

Judges found that American Express AND the class action lawyers misled the SEC, staff, shareholders and 15,000,000 shops about Reserve Bank reports in the case.

blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2015/08...y-tainted-amex-deal/

The Judges confirmed that lawyers were unethical and the ethics were so bad that the Judges threw "Settlements" out.

nypost.com/2015/08/04/burn-after-reading...ex-credit-card-pact/

The Judges specifically say the lawyers breached ethical duties.

We object to the Victorian Legal Services Board for spying on our reports to the Office of the Whistleblower in the SEC and we object to the Victorian Legal Services Board cover up. BankReformNow specifically told Parliament that the cover up was extraordinary.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-...card-deal-speaks-out

Our belief is that the VLSB bent over backwards to get at banks and get at our Association that opposes abuse of the disabled in care facilities.

However if your heart isn't in it, don't bother, we'll wait for a Royal Commission.

Thanks.


>
> David Taylor |Senior Privacy Advisor|
> Office of the Commissioner for Privacy and Data Protection
> Level 6, 121 Exhibition Street | Melbourne|Victoria|3000
> GPO Box 24014 Melbourne VIC 3001
> T: 1300 666 444
> D: 03 8684 1688
> www.cpdp.vic.gov.au
>
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Jennie Paluka says "report McGarvie to IBAC" 1 year 10 months ago #3167

  • NotMe
  • NotMe's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 97
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
Howard Bowles doesn't like Americans, look what happened.
www.msn.com/en-au/sport/watch/bank-emplo...ikGn1?refvid=BBijWqk
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Jennie Paluka says "report McGarvie to IBAC" 1 year 9 months ago #3171

  • NotMe
  • NotMe's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 97
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
The US Supreme Court looks like it disagreed with Howard Bowles and McGarvie about the Racketeering Laws throughout their files. Was Howard Bowles really talking to undercover agents about Bill Clinton's Eric Pulier and Michelle Obama's ex colleague Keila Ravelo? These Racketeering Laws and Wire fraud laws look dangerously global. McGarvie does run a board under a foreign government's Act of Parliament too. What do you think? www.justice.gov/opa/pr/nine-fifa-officia...ering-conspiracy-and
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Jennie Paluka says "report McGarvie to IBAC" 1 year 9 months ago #3174

  • Scrag
  • Scrag's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 2695
  • Thank you received: 9
  • Karma: 0
Dear Mr Pakula,





In regard to your email below, can you please provide us with an update.



Furthermore, as you are aware the Courts have a division designated to handling such complaints against judges and judicial members, (please see here: www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/node/154), however to date no response has been made whatsoever from this division in regard to our complaint, hence why your involvement and intervention is understandably needed.

Scepticism has grown when we discover that this division is actually run potentially by the very same judicial members who may be involved in the complaint itself or obviously their colleagues, thus certainly and ironically lacks impartiality and fair-mindedness, and hence potentially why no response has been made to date.
Chief Justice Ms Warren has been clearly notified about this, and it is rather unacceptable for her to be ignoring it.



Please note, we have sent 3 emails following up on our complaint on - 14 April 2016, 4 May 2016 and 14 June 2016, and yet as mentioned not a single reply whatsoever has been made.




Essentially Mr Pakula we are seeking the following to occur, based upon the unsatisfactory handling of our matter –



1. A retrial (with a jury) on the basis that:

a. judges who presided over our matter had substantial financial interests with the NAB (please see supporting transcripts attached) who ethically ought to have recused themselves, especially when a self-represented litigant is involved against a bank, and had actually protested about it. There are a very clear precedents for what ought to be done and seen to be done when judicial members have relationship or interests with a party in litigation, but regardless of such authorities and precedents, it is simply a matter of ethics and integrity, and it puts our judicial system into disrepute when such basic moral fundamentals are ignored or devalued. We really don’t need a precedent or an authority to tell us that judges who have a relationship to a party in litigation (especially a financial one) should not be sitting on those cases do we!?
For your interest we conducted our own public survey as well and the results are clear. Judges should have NO financial interests in our banks when residing over banking matters!
Please see survey results attached.

b. Pro Bono Barrister – Paul Hayes, that was assigned by the court under the VBPBS (Victorian Bar Pro Bono Scheme) at the last moment to address our matter, has confirmed categorically that the judges (J.Whelan & J.Santamaria) were WRONG! - in establishing that he had expressly abandoned the pinnacle ground to this case.
Please see attached their judgement, and Paul Hayes’s submissions proclaiming that the Judges were wrong!.





We simply want a fair hearing (i.e. with a jury, community members, not bank shareholding judicial members) to determine:



a. whether NAB breached the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. S83 and the ACL (as we still do not have a clear determination on this ground) and therefore our house returned…or rather now fair remuneration of our losses suffered. This is a very relevant precedent that needs to be made in our era where debt and banking conduct is under intense examination, it is certainly of public importance as you can understand.

b. the consequences for NAB and their counsel - Mr Adam Segal, falsifying evidence & statements in trial in order to affect judgment in their favour. See attached trial transcript excerpt for your perusal.
(i.e. NAB pronouncing that we did not pay them in order to save our house, as per their deed) when it was determined by the courts that we did in fact pay them, and therefore a clear undeniable perjurious offence.

You see Mr Pakula the controversy here is the bank itself pronounced in trial that their deed was available to us and therefore we merely just needed to pay them the sum of $299,000 to save our home by the 15 April 2013. We paid the NAB the sum of $299,000 on 20 March 2013 (Please see copy of bank cheque attached), almost a month earlier, which now the judiciary confirms.
However the judiciary shockingly sidestepped around this and established that Mr Hayes (our pro bono barrister) for some bizarre reason expressly abandoned this critical ground, which proved without doubt that NAB did lie in court, and furthermore the deed was available as NAB themselves stated on 20 March 2013.
And interestingly enough J.Whelan even pronounced at the commencement of the hearing that this whole case is all about whether the NAB deed was still available at 20 March 2013 because clearly we had paid them on that date.
Please see attached that transcript excerpt.

So what does the judiciary have to say for themselves when the bank itself proclaims in trial that their deed was available at 20 March 2013?
We know they received payment on that date, so what it is going on here?


We are certain that if these 2 matters are put before community members (a jury) to make a decision, that a more factual and diligent one will be made in our favour as it rightfully should.
However quite simply the judiciary are stopping this from occurring.
Mr Pakula you can establish quite quickly and logically, that it is rather obvious that it would no doubt solidify that NAB and their counsel committed perjury in trial, by submitting that no payment was ever made, and the judiciary certainly can’t have a self-litigant being successful against a bank and their equally sized conglomerate law firm – Gadens for such a serious offence.
It is certainly embarrassing, so instead we will establish that the ground was abandoned by the pro bono barrister!?



As it is right now we are left with judgments that express the following in regard to the 2 final core reaming matters -



1. NAB’s conduct in regard to their payout notice was unsatisfactory (negligent) in many ways, but they didn’t do it deliberately, thus not unconscionable.
[Mr.Cosgrave [2014] VCC 48 – 7 February 2014 – Para. 70 & 71]
[Mr.Whelan & Mr.Santamaria [2014] VSCA 159 – 30 July 2015 – Para. 75 – 77]

2. Paul Hayes abandoned the void & severable ground – which was to bring to light that NAB gave false evidence in trial, and most importantly had confirmed that their deed was available
and therefore payment was made and ALL that was required from us to save our house.
[Mr.Whelan & Mr.Santamaria [2014] VSCA 159 – 30 July 2015 – Para. 7 & ]



So misapplication &/or avoidance & evasion in point (1) and complete abandonment in point (2) is what we have been provided from the judiciary to be considered a job well down in ensuring all elements and grounds were thorough litigated and determined. So Evasion & Abandonment is what the judiciary has produced for us?

The way this case and matter has been handled by the judiciary clearly has been inadequate and unacceptable, and we urge for your intervention Mr Pakula so these mishaps are appropriately rectified.

Please appreciate Mr Pakula that 9 pro bono barristers were drawn into this case, and as per the VBPBS rules they will only take on cases if there are overwhelming merits, clear and factual evidence and of some public relevance. Clearly these criteria were firmly ticked.


Unfortunately however a culmination of fiscal retainer constraints within the VBPBS, mixed in with the misconduct or misunderstandings or inappropriateness of the judiciary and/or case handling, we are left with losing our house, livelihoods and overall health and wellbeing.

Justice should not be a cunning game played amongst legal practitioners, or overly rigid and tightly constraint protocol which prevents the truth from prevailing, nor should it be only proffered to the wealthy…

but it seems to be the situation that is bouncing around our courtrooms.



Clearly what we have been left with is not justice, in anyone’s view, and we ask that you please use your position to ethically and morally address this matter with Chief Justice Ms Warren &/or the appropriate Senators or authorities in order to have this rectified.

It does not take too much effort or resource to establish that there has been some serious judicial mishaps in this matter when all the evidence and issue are associated totally to in-court conduct. That of itself ought to certainly raise serious concern, that our grievance is not about just being unhappy about decisions by our judiciary, but rather the conduct, avoidance and evasion of matters that almost strategically barricaded the truth from succeeding relating to in-court conduct, and it is only reasonable to have it rectified. We can assure Mr Pakula that if a jury made a determination on the above remaining grounds, as opposed to misapplication and abandonment, we would be satisfied with that whatever that decision is.

And that is what this complaint is about - The in-court conduct that buried/sidestepped the truth and prevented honest justice from occurring.
Mr Pakula this isn’t just about our case, but what it represents systemically and communally and we urge for your immediate attention.

Please let us know if you need further clarification on anything outlined.





Thank you.



Regards,



Elliot







From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 June 2016 1:06 PM
To: Elliot Sgargetta
Subject: Re: Complaint - The Judiciary gave NAB our house based on perjury and false abandonment.



Good Afternoon

I write to acknowledge receipt of your email to the Attorney-General, the Hon Martin Pakula MP.
Your correspondence is currently being considered.


Kind Regards

Office of the Hon Martin Pakula MP
Attorney-General and Minister for Racing
Level 26, 121 Exhibition Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
PH: 03 8684 1111 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
The content of this e-mail and any attachments may be private and confidential, intended only for use of the individual or entity named. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you must not read, forward, print, copy, disclose, use or store in any way the information this e-mail or any attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this e-mail and any attachments.
Our organisation respects the privacy of individuals. For a copy of our privacy policy please go to our website or contact us.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Time to create page: 0.837 seconds

News

Major Topics

Helpful Resources

Socialize

About Us