• JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 82
Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media is part of t...



In late 2008 we became vi...

Banking In Australia Today

Banking In Australia Today

Visit Banking in Austra...

Donate Please

Donate Please

At the moment we need y...

Prev Next


This is extremely disturbing news of the Schafer family being evicted unlawfully from their home. It is also a case where the Judiciary System is supporting and protecting the banks. This is why A Royal Commission is so urgently needed in Australia. It makes a mockery of the Judiciary System in Australia, and brings shame on the politicians for allowing this to happen.

Below is a statement released today on Face book. Please offer your support by following the face book link below.

Sad News: Schafer family evicted today | Join with us now - Your help needed! July 4, 2015 at 12:46pm

Unlawful enforcement of a fraudulently obtained possession order

July 3 - 2015, Western Australia

Alleged lender - RAMS Home Loans (now RHG Mortgage Corporation, owned by RESIMAC)

Today a large group of approx 30 deeply concerned members of the Australian Public stood as witnesses to the apparent unlawful enforcement of the fraudulently obtained possession order which resulted in the Schafer family having to give up vacant possession of their beloved family home of 21 years.

This was in spite of the fact that the WA Police (WAPOL) had sent 8 officers and 1 cadet officer to attend to a civil matter (not criminal) and that those officers were made aware prior to the eviction through a long, though polite, discussion with various members of the Australian Public and Mr Schafer himself regarding the fraudulent manner in which RAMS had unlawfully obtained the eviction order from the WA Supreme Court.

The WAPOL officers were further advised by various members of the Australian Public that for WAPOL to allow the eviction to proceed following that knowledge of fraudulent procurement of a court order by RAMS having been conveyed to the WAPOL officers, then those officers would be considered by the witnesses present (as members of the Australian Public) to be aiding and abetting in the further commission of fraudulent crime resulting in theft and the unlawful disturbance of the peace.

The WA Police were made reasonably aware before the eviction proceeded that the eviction was based upon a fraudulently obtained court order, in 2012, the Schafers had added a clause to the terms of the loan contract between themselves and RAMS, and, had done so with the full knowledge of RAMS Home Loans (now RHG), as the Schafers had written a letter to RAMS and advised them of the additional clause being added, the additional clause required RAMS to hand over any loan documents which the Schafers may request by providing written notice to RAMS.

RAMS was aware of the clause and signed in acceptance making the clause binding upon RAMS, the Schafers had given written notice to RAMS to provide documents to show that RAMS had been the party to provide the funds under the contract as promised.

RAMS refused to provide those documents putting RAMS in breach of the loan agreement, the Schafers refused to make payments citing anticipatory repudiation as the legal basis for their right not to pay - as RAMS had indicated by its refusal to provide documents that RAMS intended not to honor the contract, which gives the other party the right to not have to perform.

RAMS then took legal action against the Schafers knowing that it was itself in breach of the loan agreement and was therefore coming to court with unclean hands, which is not allowed, so the Schafers in turn made the WA Supreme Court aware of the situation that RAMS had refused to provide documents requested as per RAMS obligations under the terms of the loan agreement, but instead of hearing from both sides and telling RAMS to discontinue its action (as it had been brought by RAMS against the doctrine of illegality) and to either provide the documents being sought or stop charging further interest, the WA Supreme Court took an apparently partial position in favor of RAMS and allowed its fraudulent claim to be heard.

Acting Master Gething at one point made orders for RAMS to provide the documents requested by the Schafers, however, at the next hearing and now in front of a new judge, Justice Chaney, RAMS' barrister said his client refused to provide the documents in spite of Gething's order.

Justice Chaney made a mockery of the Court and of Acting Master Gething in particular when Chaney ignored the fact that RAMS was now in contempt of those orders made by Acting Master Gething.

Justice Chaney just said that the documents which were being sought which might prove whether or not RAMS had provided the loan - which was the fundamental, cornerstone allegation upon which the RAMS claim was constructed - were irrelevant and RAMS did not have to produce any evidence to support its written claim that it had provided the loan, the Schafers tried repeatedly over the coming year to have the court force RAMS to meet its obligations under the loan agreement and to provide the documents which would show that RAMS had, or had not, provided the loan amount (specific performance under the contract), but to no avail.

The WA Supreme Court completely denied any sort of access to justice to the Schafers by refusing to accept their applications for specific performance and others documents for filing and ignoring any principle at law which was disadvantageous to RAMS. Often access to justice was denied by lowly clerks within the Registry Office with no formal legal training and certainly no judicial authority to make such refusals.

It is significant to mention that during the proceedings, the Schafers had also revoked the powers of attorney under the mortgage because RAMS was unable to provide any evidence those powers had been purchased for valuable consideration in order to make them irrevocable as per S.86 of the Property Law Act (1969) (WA) - because at law if there is no evidence of a fact, then it doesn't exist, and RAMS had adduced no such evidence before the court to prove RAMS had lent the Schafers anything.

The revocation of the powers under the mortgage removed the right for RAMS to seek a possession order because the right to sue for possession comes through the power of attorney under the Mortgage (which must be substantially in the form of the Nineteenth Schedule of the Transfer of Land Act (1893) (WA) (scroll down) so effectively, RAMS had no legal standing to sue the Schafers at all from that point on, to get around the problem and assist RAMS with the theft of the Schafer family home, the WA Supreme Court completely ignored all legal principles or arguments to the effect of these measures and, after a lengthy period of hearings upon hearings, the court decided to dismiss all of the Schafers applications for a stay of the summary judgment orders for possession, an appeal of the summary judgment decision, and for specific performance to make RAMS to meet its obligations to provide documents under the binding agreement it had made, this brought the original summary judgment possession orders back into play and, upon those orders, the bailliff ordered the sheriff to evict the Schafers, today with the assistance of 9 WAPOL officers in attendance who did nothing to uphold the law or to investigate their reasonable suspicions of the commission of crime, depsite serious crimes being reported to those officers by a group of approximately 30 members of the Australian Public.

Another problem, which those present considered to be significant yet which the WAPOL officers chose to ignore, was that the court order for possession had been made back in August 2014 and the order stated that it had to be exercised within 28 days from being made.

However, August 2014 was almost a year ago and those 28 days had well and truly expired when the order was used today; the least the WAPOL officers could have done, considering the large amount of public interest surrounding the case, was to make the sheriff go away and get a fresh order and bring that to the eviction while the order was inside its expiry date. The WAPOL officers were so intent of assisting the bailiffs to do RAMS dirty work that they couldn't even be bothered to do that part of their job correctly. Krispie Kreme, anyone?

The Upshot

The entire event was videoed by numerous members of the Australian Public and the most relevant sections of that video footage will soon be made available for all Australians to view.

The large and growing number of people around the country now that are waking up to what is going on is impressive and is getting more and more organised to combat this outright theft being allowed by corrupt judicial officers and police officers who simply won't do their job and investigate these most serious crimes when they are reported to them by concerned or affected members of the Australian Public.

We all hope you too will wake up to the enormity and severity of the problem and join with us in the fight to protect each and every Australian family's right to peaceful possession of their home - unless a lender can actually prove to a court through material evidence that it truly lent the money it promised it would and that the borrower is therefore in actual default.

These are fundamental issues which you'd imagine a court would automatically address, but they are being deliberately ignored by every intermediary court in Australia right now while financial institutions steal thousands of properties each year.

Where's The Media?

If you're thinking 'this can't be true' otherwise you'd have heard about it in the media, we can assure you all that the media is being gagged on this issue as the evidence is clear from the complete lack of responses we get from its members whenever we write to them. Considering that the ABC is prepared to expose the Liberal Party for its associations with the Calabrian Mafia, it seems surprising that it chooses to ignore this systemic corruption in our courts and parliament.

There are one or two exceptions in the mainstream media (e.g. the good folk at 60 Minutes) and quite a few in the independent media but we need your help to demand that the entire chorus of the media start reporting far more widely and thoroughly on the true state of affairs instead of covering up what it knows to be the commission of serious crimes against the Australian civilian population.

What You Can Do To Help

We are asking for as many of you, as concerned Members of the Australian Public to share this email far and wide to your friends, your families and others on your list to help us stop this organised crime from continuing.

Post its content on Facebook and work with us to fight against what is systemic judicial and political corruption that is allowing fraudulent lenders to steal the primary, family homes or ordinary Australians, too often without any legal cause.

Send this email to your local state and federal members and demand that they table it in parliament for discussion with a view to bringing about proper parliamentary inquiries in each state as well as the Commonwealth.

Send this email to all media contacts that you may have and demand that the media stop ignoring this most serious and alarming problem and start doing their job of investigating serious matters of public interest - or we will organise boycotts on buying their newspapers and purchasing the products which they promote for their advertisers.

Thank you for taking the time to read this important message about just one more example of the organised theft of land going on in your country, Australia. Now, what are you going to do about it?

Join in with your fellow Australians to fight to protect our homes and our land. After all, loss of land is by far the greatest threat a nation of people can possibly face. Give it some real thought before you decide to leave it up to someone else to do something about it.

Last modified onSaturday, 04 July 2015 23:27

1 comment

  • Evan Jones
    Evan Jones Tuesday, 14 July 2015 04:13 Comment Link

    Justice John Anthony Chaney is the brother of Michael Chaney, long time Chairman of the NAB.
    Chaney has presided over a period of the NAB's ongoing corrupt practices, doing nothing whatsoever to rein in the corruption.


Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.

back to top


Major Topics

Helpful Resources


About Us