THE NUTSHELL
Queensland Judge bases his findings on the lies of a lawyer and fabricated evidence, while ignoring probative evidence.

Is turning a brind eye also a Queensland Judicial Culture?

UPDATED 15 February 2021
1.    Warren Nigel Russ Process Server (Licensed by the Queensland Government), unlawfully trespassed multiple times and unlawfully evicted and locked out the Plaintiff (a litigant in person) pensioner and his wife (without the required Warrant of Possession), from a property at Cooroy while the Plaintiff and his wife were performing repairs, maintanance, painting and property upgrade for a future real estate listing, and were temporally living at another address while the upgade was taking place.

2.    The Plaintiff's wife, happened to be the beneficial owner of the Cooroy property, and her company Penny's Flowers Pty Ltd had made all of the mortgage payments on the property over a 9 year period since its purchase, while the property's registered owner was the Plaintiff's daughter who leased the property to the Penny's Flowers, the Plaintiff and his wife (her mother).

3.    Having become bankrupt in 2015 (for unsuccessful litigation against some rip-off merchants), the Plaintiff's Trustee in Bankruptcy falsely claimed an interest in the property and instructed his thug Russ to take possession of it (as per 1 above). The Trustee was subsequently sued by the Plaintiff and his wife and he eventually compensated the Plaintiff's wife. The pensioner Plaintiff then turned his attention to the Russ thug and found him to be a serial liar when Freedom of Information documents revealed he had made misleading statements to an investigation by the Queensland Licensing Agency. So the Plaintiff sued Russ and his company Commercial & Process Services Australia Pty Ltd who have a hopeless defence that idiot Russ drafted himself in 2017 and amended in June 2018, with both being filed in the District Court Maroochydore (Court Record).

4.    Scott Argles (a subsequent lawyer at Aejis Legal) and Russ declined the Plaintiff's invitation for them to further amend the Defence Pleadings, in the face of the Plaintiff's notice that he would be applying for partial Summary Judgement (Declarations only with any Damages to be assessed later).

5.    On declining the Plaintiff's invitation, along with Affidavits pursuant to rule 296(1), they were served with:
(a)   an Application pursuant to rule 190, that there be partial judgement for declarations on the basis of Deemed Admissions (created by rule 166), by the Defendants in their hopeless Defence Pleadings; and
(b)   an Application for partial Summary Judgement for declarations pursuant rule 292;
On the evening before the hearing, Argles and Russ cobbled together Fabricated Evidence in an Affidavit by Russ, and Fake Submissions by Argles regarding issues that were not pleaded and unsupported by evidence other than the Fabricated Evidence, thus making them false and misleading; i.e. FAKE ISSUES or in other words a SHAM.

6.    The Fabricated Evidence consisted of Russ falsely swearing that there were no belongings on the property of any value (which included 2 x 6 metre Shipping Containers), while there being document evidence of Russ fitting high tensile locks costing $70-00 each to the containers. Russ further provided 50 photo exhibits to his Affidavit that DID NOT include the SHIPPING CONTAINERS or OTHER BELONGINGS ON THE PROPERTY, while the property was undergoing the upgrade. DESPITE CASH REFUSING TO ADDRESS THE MATTER OF FABRICATED EVIDENCE, the Plaintiff does not need a court to find the affidavit to be fabricated, as the Plaintiff KNOWS it to be fabricated.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
•>   "A judgment that is tainted and affected by fraudulent conduct is tainted throughout, and the whole must fail.”
SEE: AKS Investments Pty Ltd v Gazal [2015] QSC 247 @ [54] & [63]. PDF

•>   Dal Pont, Gino --- "Judgments Fraudulently Obtained". PDF
"It is a general rule, that whenever a party, by fraud, accident, or mistake, or otherwise, has obtained an advantage in proceeding in a Court of ordinary jurisdiction, which must necessarily make that Court an instrument of injustice, a Court of Equity will interfere to prevent a manifest wrong, by restraining the party whose conscience is thus bound, from using the advantage he has there gained."

•>   Jonesco v Beard HL 1930.  PDF
"Fraud is an insidious disease, and if clearly proved to have been used so that it might deceive the court, it spreads and infects the whole body of the judgment."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

7.    The delinquent purpose of Russ & Argles, was obviously intended to mislead the Court that the property had been abandoned (thus terminating the lease on the property), when it had not been abandoned, and turn it into a FAKE ISSUE in order to defeat the Summary Judgement Application, by telling the Court that the (Fake) Issue and other fake issues dreamed up, needed to go to trial.



8.    When failing to provide a mandatory affidavit pursuant to the rules of Summary Judgement (rule 296(2)) (Cash also ignored the Plaintiff's complaint about that), which denied the Plaintiff's ability to respond pursuant to rule 296(3), they served the cobbled material on the Plaintiff just before the hearing, and then handed it up to Cash.
 The Plaintiff believes that these circumstances alone, should have sent a message to Cash, that the hearing should be aborted because this sort of blatant unfair conduct was capable of inflencing the outcome of the hearing, which in fact it did.

9.    Consequently, the Plaintiff was taken by surprise which Cash ignored, and chastised the Plaintiff for daring to complain about the non-truthfulness of the Russ Affidavit. In bringing his Applications, the Plaintiff had expected his Honour to at least examine the pleadings, which illustrated the deficiencies of the Defence Pleadings. Having failed to do that Cash, then failed to proceed with the Plaintiff's first Application pursuant to rule 190, because of the obvious hurry he was in. As such, Cash FAILED to hear the rule 190 Application that would have likely disposed of the proceedings apart from any assessment of damages that may be available.

10. The transcript of the 29 March 2019 hearing, shows that Argles, when asked by his Honour "what do you say is your best point", Argles responded by stating "a large portion of this argument is about whether the lease was terminated or not. So that's the big issue. Okay?"

11. However, termination of the lease had not been pleaded in the Defence Pleading, and thus was not an issue for the Court.

12.    Unfortunately his Honour Judge Cash, (in the obvious hurry that he was in) apparently wasn't astute enought to know what was going on, and along with ignoring the Plaintiff's evidence (at 14 below), trusted the Fabrication and Argles Submissions of Fake Issues to be genuine, and took no notice of the multitude of deemed admissions in the Defence Pleading, created by the sub-rules (1), (4) & (5) in Rule 166 - Denials & Non-Admissions, as illustrated in the Table of Deemed Admissions, which had been adopted by the Plaintiff in his Reply pleading.

13.    The result, was that Cash formed an erroneous opinion that (as per the transcript) there was, "a serious question about whether the lease was terminated or not". BEING A FAKE ISSUE not pleaded in the Defence.

14.    In the circumstances of being misled, Cash must have considered the submissions and evidence of the Plaintiff (a litigant in person) to be a waste of time, to the extent of not even commenting on them in his judgements.

15.    The Plaintiff's Affidavit evidence (along with evidence of the then lawful tenancy of the property), included:
(a)    the proper procedures the Plaintiff had undertaken prior to making his Application, which included inviting the Defendants to further amend their hopeless defence, which they declined;
(b)    the Plaintiff's reliance on the then current Defence containing Deemed Admissions in making his Application;
(c)    the Defendants failure to provide any evidence of lawful authority for their actions;
(d)    the Defendants not having a Warrant of Possession for the property.
(e)    the multiple failures of the Defendants to adhere to Rules of the Court and an Order of the Court, prior to the Application (SEE 25 below);
(f)    the facts relating to the Defendants avoiding and omitting to defend (plead or properly plead), to core issues within the Plaintiff's claim as set out in the Table;
(g)    and consequently, the Defendant's deemed admissions meant that they had zero prospects of defending the Plaintiff's claims at trial.

16.    Not only did Cash IGNORE this evidence, but went on to dismiss the Application based on the Argles lies and the Fabricated Evidence. In the circumstances of his FAILURE to hear the Plaintiff's rule 190 Application, he went on to award costs (to be paid immediately) against the Plaintiff, contrary to the similar circumstance in the Supreme Court authority, State of Qld v Nixon & Ors [2002] QSC 296, and told the Plaintiff  words to the effect, that his application was not a useful contribution to the proceedings, thereby ignoring the fact that a speedy resolution of legal disputes was always desirable.

17.    Conveniantly for the Defendants, Cash did not hear the Plaintiff's rule 190 Application (per 5(a) above), simply because while being pressed for time, he didn't bother to examine the pleadings which clearly exposed the deemed admissions in the Defence Pleading.

18.    The matter then went to Appeal before Justice Philippides, who was provided with the same Fabricated Evidence together with the False and Misleading submissions of Fake Issues by Argles.

19.    AMAZINGLY, after FOUR MONTHS and TEN DAYS of deliberation, her Honour produced a two and a half page Judgement of just ten paragraphs, DISREGARDING the Fabricated Evidence and Fake Issues, and the Plaintiff's evidence, and repeated the findings of Cash, plus making a further costs order againt the Plaintiff.

20.    As such for whatever reason, Turning a Blind Eye appears to be enshrined in some of the Queensland Judiciary.

21.    The Plaintiff became totally confused about this, no wonder because he and the District/Appeal Courts were victims of a Fraud.

22.    What was happening, was that the non pleaded Bullshit narrative of the Argles Submissions/Issues, was the version preferred by Cash and Philippides, who both apparently did not bother to compare the Argles Bullshit to the Defence Pleadings or the Plaintiff's Reply, and thereby totally disregarded the Plaintiff's evidence and submissions.

23.    Sub-rules 149(1)(b) & (c) dictate the requirements of pleadings, i.e:
(1) Each pleading must—
(b) contain a statement of all the material facts on which the party relies but not the evidence by which the facts are to be proved; and
(c) state specifically any matter that if not stated specifically may take another party by surprise;

24.    Or perhaps they just didn't like the Plaintiff and favoured bias against a litigant in person. All sorts of things come to mind such as CA$H for CA$H? were Cash and Philippides ........? or perhaps it's a way to get rid of litigants in person (which judges call LiPs) from the Court. The longer this saga remains unresolved, more things come to mind. Certain elements of the judiciary in Queensland may have adopted the belief of a psychiatrist, that a "LiP" can be pre-judged as being "querulous" or even having "schizophrenia". More about LiPs from Bernard Porter QC, who is now Judge Porter of Queensland's District Court. Link to the LiPs PDF

25.    The matter came on again before Cash on 6 December 2019, who then ignored the Plaintiff's six Applications filed 11 November 2019 that could have arguably disposed of the proceeding for reasons of the Defendants:
/ failing to comply with an order Rule 374;
/ failing to provide particulars Rule 163;
/ failing to comply with the rules sub-Rule 296(2) / Rule 371;
/ failing to comply with Rule 5;
/ disclosing no reasonable defence Rule 171;
AND THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL... the Rule 190 Application (as per 5(a) above), first filed on 13 March 2019 listed to be heard on 29 March 2019, but not heard by Cash because of his own lack of due diligence and time, and again not heard on 6 December 2019.

26.    Instead of hearing those applications, Cash doubled down on his previous errors, decided to follow what Philippides had found (based on what Cash himself had found); 
 
THE CIRCULAR DECISION MAKING (TURNING A BLIND EYE INTO AN ARTFORM)
and decided to hear an application for Security for Costs by Argles to protect a hopeless Defence, which included failing to defend or plead AT ALL, to core issues. When the Plaintiff complained to Cash about the Philippides judgement, Cash responded with words to the effect, "you are not permitted to make that critisism in this court". That denial causes the Plaintiff to publish this District Court Report. 

27.    If the original proceeding can ever be re-established, the Defendants have little chance of amending their defence, which would first involve getting leave to withdraw the deemed addmissions that the Plaintiff has relied upon in bringing his Application for Summary Judgement. Of course refusing leave would only happen if a judge followed the law and some common sense together with fairness. Even if they did manage to amend their defence, they would be in no better position because in reality there is no defence to the Plaintiff's Claim.

28.    Incredibly, neither judge had the nous or proper diligence to realise that the original Summary Judgement Application was for declarations (as per the Plaintiff's Claim) and not damages, but their long awaited judgements (totalling over SIX MONTHS wait) went on to decide matters relating to damages that had not been applied for in the Plaintiff's Application, thus adding further unnecessary complexity.

29.    A comedy of errors one may say, and to make things worse, Cash decided to use the Plaintiff's unpaid costs orders (obtained by fraud) against him, in his decision to find that the Plaintiff should pay Security for Costs so as to give "PEACE of MIND" to a pair of DELINQUENT DEFENDANTS.

30.    The result was that in a reserved decision over two months later in February 2020, his Honour Judge Cash of the District Court Queensland, insulted & defamed the Plaintiff and thereby breaching his Human Rights namely; sub-section 25(b) Right to Reputation while denying him fair hearings as required by sub-section 31(1) Right to a Fair Hearing of the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD) and resulting judgement at:
https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QDC20-012.pdf

BEHAVIOUR OF JUDGES
31.    In falsely describing the Plaintiff  as "obsessive" rather than having "rational deliberation" when deciding to apply for partial summary judgement (despite the matters at 15 & 4 above), and further falsely implying that the Plaintiff was a vexatious or harassing person, Judge Cash has re-written historical facts to suit his own agenda based on:
(a)  a Lying Lawyer;
(b)  Fabricated Evidence; and
(c)  ignoring the Plaintiff's Evidence.

32.    Cash then published his insulting and derogatory results carte blanche under the immunity from consequences provided by privileges afforded to Judges & Courts. A harsh thing to say about a judge perhaps, but it happens to be TRUE.

33.    While it is accepted that there were delinquent circumstances that caused Cash to be misled, at the hearing on 6 December 2019 he had ample opportunity to correct his errors, given he took over 2 months to provide his reserved judgement. As per 25 and 26 above he did not do that, and in February 2020 delivered a judgement that insulted and defamed the Plaintiff.

34.    The Plaintiff contends that, from the refusal of Cash to correct his obvious errors, it can be inferred that there was an intention to:
(a)   cover up or turn a blind eye to his own stuff-up; and/or
(b)   unfairly remove the Plaintiff from the proceedings; and/or
(c)   inflict harm or somehow punish the Plaintiff;
AND his insults to the Plaintiff do not stand up to logical scrutiny.


35.    Needless to say that this is an unacceptable exercise of power by a Judge who must believe that his behaviour is beyond reproach and that he is not required to conduct a Fair Hearing in accordance with Human Rights. As such his behaviour has entered into the realm of a Court of Public Opinion. That Court, has to wonder if Cash exercised the same behaviour when employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Queensland and a Crown Prosecutor, when prosecuting a series of murder, manslaughter, rape, drug trafficking, child sex offender cases and the Daniel Morcombe murder trial along with Brett Cowan’s subsequent appeals.

36.    Calls for an Australia wide regulatory body overseeing the judiciary, even at the State level in Australia, have met with considerable resistance. Also see Who is judging the judges (in UK)?. PDF COPY

37.    Miscarriages of justice are accepted in the criminal justice system (taking the fall for a dingo)(PDF), likewise logically, why would they not be even more prevalent in the civil justice system, with a lower standard of proof.

38.    The Plaintiff believes, that similar to the Dirty Dyson saga (above), where judges think they can do what they like with impunity, the open letter from around 500 (FIVE HUNDRED) women working in the legal profession to the Attorney-General Christian Porter to curb this unreasonable authoritarian behaviour, provides a good example for the Queensland Judiciary to follow, so as to regulate and discipline any sort of bad behaviour.

39.    AGAIN the matter goes to Appeal, alleging Procedural Unfairness and Fraud on the Court (Notice of Appeal as Amended), and the President of the Appeal Court (Chief  Justice Walter Sofronoff * ABC Story * His Honour's Ferrari) has taken an interest.

40.    Aejis Legal & Argles have dumped Russ (or vice versa), who now has a new lawyer Chris Toogood Legal.

•    Judge Glen Cash QC has been employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Queensland since 1992, and has been a Crown Prosecutor since 2001, successfully prosecuting a series of murder, manslaughter, rape, drug trafficking and child sex offender cases. Glen Cash QC worked on the Daniel Morcombe murder trial and in Brett Cowan’s subsequent unsuccessful attempts to appeal that sentence LINK

•    Unsubstantiated allegations by a legal practitioner against a self represented opponent, fall short of the high standards required of the practitioner, according to Commisioner Mahon of the Queensland Legal Services Commission.