Did you think Australian Judges were beyond reproach?

Well hello to the Dirty Dyson matter regarding the former High Court of Australia Judge Dyson Heydon (previously a judge in Supreme Court NSW), all while other judges knew about it, but


Dirty Dyson


The accusations against Dyson Heydon highlight a "deeper and more insidious" problem for courts globally, says a UNSW Law teaching fellow. “These issues run deep in the legal profession...."

Dirty Dyson


A senior lawyer at a top-tier firm has such a history of harassment that a supervisor must sit next to him at every social event... harassment rife in Australian legal profession. Link to PDF

Dirty Dyson


The Baker McKenzie remedy :
Just Smile Ladies.... Can you imagine male lawyers being given similar advice?



Across the legal industry, men and women who worked with Mr Heydon are debating a crucial question: was the brilliant High Court judge's attitude towards women an unfortunate relic of a more sexist age, or did it cross into behaviour that a jury might have deemed, to put it bluntly, crimes?



The High Court has written to more than 100 former staff to uncover the extent of sexual harassment involving judges' associates. A group of female barristers have also lodged a complaint with the Legal Services Commissioner following allegations of sexual harassment and indecent assault against former High Court judge Dyson Heydon.



Heydon's lawyers complain that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the Victims. However the investigator invited Heydon to respond to the claims, but he declined to either be interviewed or provide a statement, effectively refusing to be involved in the inquiry. Link to PDF



For years, the stories of women who say they were sexually harassed by one of Australia's most powerful judicial figures were kept private, though allegations of his behaviour were apparently an "open secret" circulating among legal circles.
Link to PDF



On the reports that Mr Heydon was not afforded “procedural fairness”, claimed by his lawyers and The Australian, the firm denied it as “ridiculous”. Principal Josh Bornstein said the High Court acted swiftly, that the investigation was led by a former inspector-general of intelligence-security and that a fair process was run at all times. Mr Heydon was also instructed at every point of the investigation by his lawyers.

Elizabeth Lee


Canberra Liberals politician Elizabeth Lee has claimed she was sexually harassed by former High Court Judge Dyson Heydon at the 2013 University of Canberra Law Ball. 
The former lawyer alleges Mr Heydon made unwanted sexual propositions towards her, repeatedly urging her to go to his hotel room. Link to PDF

Susan Kiefel Chief Justice High Court of Australia


'We're ashamed': the Chief Justice and the High Court's #MeToo moment.
This week, the voices of long-silenced women in the legal profession became a roar – and were heard by the chief herself.
Link to PDF

Formal Statement.

Noor Blumer


'The judge’s hands became very busy under the table': lawyer says Heydon groped her.
Noor Blumer, a prominent Canberra lawyer who was then President of the ACT Law Society, was delighted to be seated next to the guest of honour, whose brilliant legal mind she But the evening ended with Ms Blumer leaving in distress, disgusted after Mr Heydon groped her under the table, she says, before trying to kiss her against her will. Link to PDF



Major legal publisher Thomson Reuters says it is reviewing its relationship with prolific author and former High Court justice Dyson Heydon, after an internal investigation by the court concluded he sexually harassed six former judge's associates. Link to PDF



Taken some time between 2007 and 2013, which is the period when Justice Kiefel and Justice Hayden served together at the High Court of Australia.
The term "Pervert" is made in the context of  attempting to persuade this young lady into unacceptable sexual activity.

There are many definitions of "Pervert" in dictionaries, and the Cambridge Dictionary provides:
"a person whose sexual behaviour is considered strange and unpleasant by most people".

Of course he would deny it, just as any lawyer who was a scumbag put it to proof, rather than having the guts to look at himself in the mirror and attempt to remedy the situation while his fellow colleagues just turned a blind eye. But no, this judge chose to further harass the victim by putdowns in open court.
DISGUSTING! This pervert has no right to be a judge.

Pervert Australian Judge


"I was a 23-year-old law graduate. I had worked hard to earn my degree and gain professional experience at the same time that would set me apart in an increasingly competitive industry....
The behaviour quickly escalated to the judge taking photographs of me without my permission, inviting me to his hotel room, instructing me to bring a bikini to his hotel and discussing travel plans in which we could save money by sleeping in the same bed....
I was told to complain....
I had one opportunity to speak to the chief justice over the phone about the judge’s conduct, in which I was advised to confront the judge about his behaviour myself. The chief justice did not approach me again to inquire about my welfare....
Dutifully, I confronted my judge. He denied that anything inappropriate had taken place....
The conduct complained of was replaced, however, by verbal putdowns directed towards me in open court."
 Link to PDF

Barrister Josie Dempster


The reason I do not intend to call out my perpetrators is because I could not possibly recall all of the people who have ever wronged me, nor all of the occasions on which I have been harassed. Because there are just so many. That is the truth. Touching, staring, lewd remarks, invasive questions about my private life. Comments about my appearance, my body. Mostly in a professional context but occasionally in a personal one....
When it happens, I feel as if I shrink. I lose my voice. My strength. My capacity for rage. I feel like a little girl. I feel immense discomfort. I feel self-conscious. Exposed. As if my body is not mine. As if being a woman makes me less....
All of a sudden, I was blaming myself for something I had no hand in perpetrating....
Is this how men who perpetrate sexual harassment and assault are feeling? Or are they simply relieved that someone else has taken the fall for their bad behaviour?...
There is no point pinning all of the blame onto Dyson Heydon. On all accounts, his behaviour was morally, if not criminally, wrong and he should certainly be held accountable.... Link to PDF

High Court Report


Ironically, in law – an industry where power and money are often regarded as more important than integrity – stories of unwanted sexual attention or the "innocent" hand on knee are all too common. Whether it be on the bench, at the bar, or in the solicitor’s office it is rife....

So what’s a young lawyer to do?

Confront the source? Chances are you’ll be managed out and gradually given less and less work until you are, quite literally, redundant. Dare approach HR? A file note may be made, a meeting scheduled. But it’s career suicide. Tell the managing partner? You’ll be told the firm takes these issues seriously. And then you’ll suddenly find yourself working for a new partner, in a different team. You’re an experienced litigator. Well, congratulations, now you’re a property lawyer! And trust me, this "strategy" is akin to Russian roulette – your new boss may be just as bad, perhaps worse. Link to PDF



To all men who are in on the ‘open secret’: you have failed us....

To those men who are reading this and starting to stiffen their backs in self-defence, we accept that you may not be personally guilty of misconduct. But, if you thought that the “open secret” is par for the course, then you are part of the problem....

To all those men that are in on the “open secret”, you have failed us. You failed to speak out when you should have. You failed to help salvage the career of the women who left their workplace. You failed to advocate for your colleagues, for your friends, and for a future free from sex discrimination. Your silence was complicity. Link to PDF

Dyson Heydon and the misogyny of the law

As allegations mount against former High Court justice Dyson Heydon, Bri Lee has written about the way misogyny and harassment are embedded in the legal profession. She says that may be changing.



...a fresh allegation came to light he "used his public standing on the High Court" to lure a woman into a position where he could make advances on her....
In a separate development, police said they had begun investigations on other allegations of inappropriate conduct that may amount to indecent assault....
These developments came as an Australian-born international human rights lawyer made another allegation against Mr Heydon.
The judge's approach allegedly involved an invitation on High Court stationery and champagne in his chambers, continuing a pattern described by other women who have made allegations against Mr Heydon.
"This was not just opportunistic behaviour. It was calculated behaviour. He used not only his public standing on the court, he really abused his position of trust," said Dr Alice Edwards....
Mr Heydon stood with her as she waited for the taxi, Dr Edwards said, and "continued to insist he should come back with me in the taxi, because taxi drivers in Canberra were dangerous men".... Link to PDF

High Court Report


Dyson Heydon shows us how judges aren’t just blind to the abuse of power, they’re complicit.
The institutions of society reckon that men like Dyson Heydon would never be so 'stupid' as to abuse their power. But they are....

Another High Court Groping Judge


Diana Bryant, former chief justice of the family court of Australia, said she was “shocked by these revelations, but not surprised”.
“This kind of behaviour isn’t new, it’s been rife within the legal profession and it goes back to times when I was a young lawyer, I had experiences myself,” Bryant told the ABC.
Bryant says she was groped by a high court judge at a legal dinner, in just the manner described in the allegations against Heydon, and as chief justice heard allegations of poor conduct by other judges.
“That happened to me in exactly the same way forty years ago at a dinner in which I was sitting next to a high court judge who I might say is no longer alive, who did exactly that to me, groped me under the table,” she says.
The allegations, which Heydon has denied, describe a type of sleazy conduct that is so prevalent as to be part of the culture of the legal profession.... Link to PDF

Dyson Heydon


Deep cultural shifts required:
OPEN LETTER (PDF) from 500 legal women calls for reform of way judges are appointed and disciplined.

In an open letter to Attorney-General Christian Porter, about 500 women working in the law from across Australia have sought changes to the way judges are disciplined and appointed.

The letter comes after former High Court judge Dyson Heydon was found by an independent investigation to have sexually harassed young female associates of the court, as reported by The Sydney Morning Herald.

The letter was also sent to Susan Kiefel, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, along with another letter to thank her.

The full text of the two letters are published. Link to PDF

Dyson Heydon


In a male-dominated profession where rigid hierarchies, power imbalances, and archaic traditions are entrenched, it is hardly surprising that parts of the legal profession are contending with misogyny and under-reported abuses of power....

Heydon, despite the allegations against him, remains eligible to receive a pension nearly seven times the median salary in Australia....

Heydon, who retired with more than 10 years’ judicial service, is eligible to receive a pension for the remainder of his life that is 60 per cent of the amount payable to a current High Court judge. This means that Heydon, despite the allegations against him, remains eligible to receive a pension estimated at $331,128 a year – nearly seven times the median salary in Australia.

This is despite allegedly ruining the careers of some of the brightest legal minds in the country, and bringing the judiciary into disrepute....
Link to PDF

Lawyers Weekly


‘Tsunami of complaints’: What the Heydon allegations revealed about the law.

Ms Needham addressed the Heydon complaints, explaining that there has been a major response because it was not just that “somebody thought somebody was cute”, it was an “unacceptable exercise of power”. The issue comes back to power and attitudes of the judiciary to feel they have a right – or are beyond reproach – for their behaviour.

This was an issue Ms Needham herself had early in her career. She told the webcast that she had been “sexually approached” by a judge that she was due to appear before the following Tuesday and then had to recalibrate a “what do I do now” approach.

“It’s really, really hard because it is your job as an advocate to persuade the bench the case should win and your case is the best, but if you’re sitting there saying ‘judge, that is inappropriate, shut up’, it is really difficult to get them on side,” Ms Needham said.... Link to PDF



Lawyers threaten Heydon with Human Rights Commission.

Three alleged victims of former High Court judge Dyson Heydon will seek compensation from both the federal government and the former top judge.

Lawyers representing the alleged victims, whose allegations of harassment were uncovered by an independent investigation, have also threatened to take Mr Heydon to the Human Rights Commission if he did not agree to enter settlement talks.....

Mr Bornstein said his clients lived in "visceral fear of Dyson Heydon’s power".

"My clients, when they commenced work at the High Court, were the best and brightest graduates of law schools from around Australia. To their horror, they were sexually harassed by a judge of the High Court.".... Link to PDF

Noor Blumer


The more victims stand together to call out inappropriate conduct, the less women will continue to be victims of power-based sexual harassment, Noor Blumer said.

Former justice Dyson Heydon was directed out of the University of Canberra Law Ball after at least one young female student complained about his behaviour. Ms Blumer left even earlier, telling her husband she had been sexually harassed.

Speaking at the Australian Women Lawyers (AWL) 2020 National Conference, private practice solicitor Ms Blumer said that she does not regret speaking out about what had happened years before and other victims should consider doing the same.

“The greatest barrier to speaking out is fear,” Ms Blumer told the webcast. “Why should those of us who have done nothing wrong feel afraid? We are strong, educated women and this is our legal profession. If we cannot stand up for ourselves, how can we then represent those that have suffered serious domestic violence?

“The more we stand together to be counted, the more the stigma will fall away and the less we will continue to be victims of power-based sexual harassment.”...... Link to PDF

Chief Justice Tom Bathurst



4 February 2021
Chief Justice Tom Bathurst said it is critical that the profession adopts robust mechanisms to prevent further sexual harassment and bullying against members of the legal profession.

Chief Justice Tom Bathurst said it still has a “significant problem” as more women are driven from law and more legal workplaces continue to display risk factors, such as power imbalances and men in more senior positions.

In addressing a statistic that almost half of Australians do not trust judges, the NSW Chief Justice said that to the extent sexual harassment within the profession erodes trust in the judiciary, it also erodes trust in the judges who are appointed leaders. It is then only made worse by the culture of silence that exists in the judiciary....
Link to PDF

Dyson Heydon



12 February 2021
Federal judges would be overseen by a new agency that could investigate allegations of corruption and other misconduct — including sexual harassment and bullying — under plans being drawn up by the Morrison government.

Attorney-General Christian Porter has sought legal advice on the design of a judicial complaints agency, and is expected to move ahead with its establishment once legislation is in place for a commonwealth integrity commission that would probe corruption in the rest of the public service.

The disclosure of sexual harassment allegations against former High Court judge Dyson Heydon and bullying allegations levelled at other federal judges have intensified pressure for a ­federal judicial oversight body.
Link to PDF




14 February 2021
"The Chief Justice's actions have been taken to protect the reputation of the court."

A Tasmanian Supreme Court judge has been counselled by the Chief Justice after he was photographed at a Hobart nightclub in an embrace with a junior court employee.

The photograph was taken at the Grand Poobah nightclub in Hobart on Friday, January 29 — the evening of the opening of the legal year. 
Link to PDF

A late night intimate kiss between a Judge and his associate has led to him being counselled by the state’s most senior legal authority. The judge’s public behaviour has alarmed legal professionals across the state. 



toxic culture pervades the Australian political and justice systems.

It came as little surprise to me that such abominable behaviour could occur within an organisation that is supposed to be a pillar of responsibility and integrity. The parallels between the legal fraternity and the political work environment are significant. 

Most people would think that politicians – as our democratically elected representatives – would be held to the highest standards of integrity and accountability and yet, the government of the day has shown that serious allegations of sexual misconduct go not only uninvestigated but unpunished.

As for our legal system? It’s clear that this issue runs all the way to the top....

It boggles the mind to think that a judge in the highest court in the land – the ultimate arbiter of justice – was allowed to get away with such reprehensible behaviour for so long....
Link to PDF



When a High Court-commissioned investigation confirmed last year that former justice Dyson Heydon, one of the country’s most prominent jurists, had sexually harassed six female staff members, it sent shockwaves through the legal profession and the wider community.

It seemed an irony that a man entrusted with the solemn task of upholding the law could so abuse his position, and could do so for a decade with apparent impunity....

“The victim may not – indeed, I think, often will not – feel able to stop what’s happening or to prevent its recurrence. Why? The victim may fear the consequences of complaint. There may be fear of retribution.”

His comments are particularly timely in light of the experience of Brittany Higgins, the former Liberal staffer who alleges she was raped in 2019 by a former staffer on a couch in Defence Minister Linda Reynolds’s parliamentary office.

“There is a strange culture of silence in the parties. The idea of speaking out on these sort of issues, especially around a [election] campaign, it’s like letting the team down”, Ms Higgins told the Ten Network on February 15....




Alarmingly, when the woman raised her concerns, she was initially told “there’s not much you can do about it because he’s a judge". 
Link to PDF




The outcome of a year-long investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against a judge of the Federal Circuit Court is yet another reminder that the struggle for gender equality has a long way to go. The investigation found that the judge had engaged in unwelcome sexualised conduct towards two women, one employed at the Federal Circuit Court in Sydney and the other a former law student...

 One of the most powerful lawyers in the country, a judge who administered the law in the highest court in the land, betrayed his oath by mistreating young associates....

In June 2020, I wrote to the Federal Circuit Court on behalf of my client to detail her complaint of sexual harassment by a judge. The response was swift and decisive....
Link to PDF


Alleged fraud by Solicitor and Client causes the District Court Queensland to wrongly insult and defame a litigant in person (Plaintiff), along with breaching his Human Rights and causing him the damages of costs orders, which are then used against him by the Court.
From the Court of Public Opinion:
Queensland Judges can be authoritarian with an air of superiority and they are subject to zero discipline. While being slow, inefficient and sometimes simply wrong, insulting, and arrogant, they demand respect but give little back while collecting huge remuneration well in excess of $400,000 per annum from taxpayers.
BELOW is a story currently evolving, regarding the personal account of a litigant in person (the Plaintiff) as to how some judges in Queensland are open to be misled by a lawyer and client, then close ranks and turn a blind eye when it is found out and a complaint is made about Fraud on the Court.

What this exposes is a culture of lawyers being able to LIE to a Court with impunity.

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 1930PDF
"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); 
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:

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.


Step in Justice Morrison JA

His Honour Justice Morrison is a graduate of The University of Queensland—Bachelor of Laws (1977). His Honour received the Family Law Prize in the same year.

In 1976 Justice Morrison was admitted as a barrister of the Supreme Court of Queensland before being appointed Queen's Counsel in 1989. Justice Morrison was previously a reporter for the Federal Law Reports (1980–84).

His Honour has extensive trial and appellate experience, appearing as lead counsel in various courts, including the High Court, Queensland Court of Appeal, Full Court of the Federal Court, Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission (New South Wales), Federal Court, and Supreme Courts of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.

NUTSHELL - part 2

Is Turning a Blind Eye to be Repeated? 

41. There is yet ANOTHER (the third) security for costs application by the Defendants, so as to protect a hopeless defence that has no chance of success.

42. At hearing on 17 June 2020 before Justice Morrison, Toogood for the Defendants UNBELIEVABLY yet again rely on the Fabricated Affidavit, and the fact that Cash, despite being misled, came up with a finding against the Plaintiff.

43. Morrison identified from the Defence and exclaimed words to the effect, THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. True, however since the date of the proceedings being initiated in November 2017, the Defendants have done nothing about it, such as filing Third Party Proceedings (a Third Party Notice must be filed within 28 days...). And Morrison appeared to not to consider the long held principle that agents are always responsible for their own torts (wrongs), irrespective of having been instructed by others, to commit the torts.

44. As licenced Process Servers / Debt Collectors, the Defendants should have been well aware of the law regarding trespass and unlawful eviction, as well as Fabricating Evidence.

45. In fact, if the torts were not in fact authorised by the instructor (as per 3 above), the Defendants could find themselves liable to that instructor (who the Plaintiff and his wife successfully sued), who has compensated the Plaintiff's wife for those same torts.

46. Perhaps the most sickening thing about this whole saga is that both Argles and Toogood are supposed to be Officers of the Court they practise in, and as such, have an absolute ethical Duty to the Court to tell the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion, so as to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system.

47. This exposes a vile culture within the legal profession, further to misogyny and harassment being embedded (as per the Dirty Dyson and others exposure), where so called Officers of the Court can outright LIE to a Court with impunity.

48. The Plaintiff has come across this behaviour previously in Queensland, however this Argles/Russ example is clearly the most outrageous, along with a substantial amount of evidence.

49. From the Plaintiff’s experience, a judge is far more likely to favour submissions from a so called Officer of the Court (lawyer) than a litigant in person, and when a judgement is made in that circumstance, it is clear that the Appeal Court favours confirming the original judgement by a kind of entrapment, that is, by going through the judgement under appeal and getting the Plaintiff to agree with certain selective sentences that the Appeal Judge reads out. Often these are matters that the Plaintiff can agree to, however the issue is NOT with what is included in the judgement, rather than what has NOT been included, together with the portions of the judgement that the Appeal Judge has selectively omitted, who then may seek to have the Plaintiff retract allegations made about the judge in the Court below (i.e. the District Court).

50. By reason of what could be inferred from the circumstances set out at 35 above, the Appeal Court will undoubtably intensely dislike having to overturn the findings of Cash, and somehow agree that the Plaintiff should pay security for costs (for peace of mind to the Defendants) (PDF), so as to stifle and put an end his Appeal.

51. Given the appalling conduct set by the District Court the Plaintiff now has no trust in that Court. The Plaintiff says that even if he could afford to pay security into court, why would he do that when the Court is so incompetent, and cannot be trusted to do the right thing. It would be like giving money to a cowboy tradesperson who rips consumers off.

52. It is the Plaintiffs view, that perhaps the newly introduced Queensland Human Rights Act, will instil some discipline into the Queensland Judiciary, in particular by way of sub-section 31(1) Right to a Fair Hearing.

53. Russ was given notice to attend the hearing for cross-examination of his Affidavit.

54. He did attend, but Morrison did not seek any cross-examination, nor did he seek an explanation from Russ.

55. After being advised by the Plaintiff of many of the above matters, and how these matters were also of Public Interest, that included:
i.     False and Misleading submissions to a Queensland Court;
ii.    Fabricated Evidence to a Queensland Court;
iii.   A Queensland Court's duty to be guided by the pleadings, when hearing submissions;
iv.   The application of the recently enacted (01/01/2020) Human Rights Act (QLD) to Queensland Courts;
v.    The behaviour of the defendants and their lawyer, have arguably Perverted the Course of Justice;
Justice Morrison reserved his decision. Hopefully he can do better than Justice Philippides, or is Turning a Blind Eye to be again repeated?

56. The Human Rights Commission Factsheet provides:  (PDF)
"Although Queensland courts and tribunals are independent of government, they have important duties under the Human Rights Act 2019."
"The Act applies to courts and tribunals when they are performing functions that are relevant to the rights protected under the Act. This includes both the judicial and administrative functions of courts and tribunals.
Judicial functions include the work courts and tribunals do in hearing cases and handing down judgements. Examples of the human rights that will apply to judicial functions include:
• equality before the law;
• fair hearing; and
• rights in criminal proceedings."

57. This publication at Human Rights Report and District Court Report has been brought to the attention of Yvette D'Ath, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice in Queensland by THIS EMAIL.

58. A COMPLAINT dated 13 August 2020 has been sent to the; The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for the State of Queensland. They responded by way of THIS EMAIL.

59. Having been stitched up by Argles and the District Court at Maroochydore & the Supreme Court, the Plaintiff wonders how long it will take for Justice Morrison to provide a remedy.

60. Justice Morrison delivered his judgement at 9.30am Tuesday 25 August 2020.



Appeal Court Judge Ignores Statutory Rules of the Court.

61. Firstly, instead of finding the matters at 6 above (regarding Fabricated Evidence) that there was a purpose to mislead the Court, Justice Morrison found that while it was accepted that the Shipping Containers were present in the back yard of the property and that Russ had been instructed to secure them;
(a) INCREDIBLY Morrison found that...
"there is reason to doubt that when he [Russ] referred to items left in the back yard [in his Affidavit], he was referring to the Shipping Containers";
when Blind Freddie could see the purpose of the Russ deceit.
(b) the fact of the omission of the containers and other personal property from any of the exhibited photos in the Russ Affidavit, was not addressed by Morrison in the circumstance of Morrison not even bothering to request an explanation from Russ who was present at the hearing for the purpose of cross-examination, defies logic and common sense.

62. THIS IS A MIND BOGGLING STATEMENT by Morrison, that it was somehow OK to purposely omit the presence of Shipping Containers and their potential value to an evidence affidavit. A fair minded person cannot be mistaken that the purpose of the omissions were to give a false impression to the Court, that the property had been abandoned when it had not been abandoned, but Justice Morrison has somehow without explanation, come to a different view. Morrison knows full well that the High Court is unlikely to entertain reviewing a finding of fact, which is what this is.

63. As per 25 above, the procedural unfairness of the Rule 190 Application (and other Applications), first filed on 13 March 2019 listed to be heard on 29 March 2019, but not heard by Cash, and then listed to be heard on 6 December 2019, but again was not heard. Morrison DID NOT ADDRESS THIS UNFAIRNESS, which is directly related to the 166 Sub-rules that Morrison is conveniently ignoring (per 64 to 79 below).

64. Akin to Climate Change Denial, Morrison is in denial of certain Rules of the Court..... 

MATTERS OF LAW (i.e. Statutory Rules of the Court made under the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (PDF copy) THAT HAVE BEEN PLAINLY IGNORED
65. The essence of this matter sheets home to the initial finding of Cash on 29 March 2019, to which Morrison focussed his attention on issues raised on the pleadings that were before Cash.

66. Morrisson has found that the Plaintiff had an inability to understand the pleadings before Cash, and therin lies to answers to this saga, and an appeal to the High Court.

67. It is the Plaintiff's contention that it is Morrison that does not understand the Rules of Pleadings, or is otherwise turning a blind eye to them, for reasons given at 35 and 50 above.

68. The Defendants did not plead a defence to certain core allegations (SEE 81 below) of trespass contained within specific paragraphs in the Statement of Claim. The Rule in that circumstance is Sub-rule 166(1)
(1) An allegation of fact made by a party in a pleading is taken to be admitted by an opposite party required to plead to the pleading unless—
(a) the allegation is denied or stated to be not admitted by the opposite party in a pleading.

69. As the Sub-rule (1) states, the consequence of not pleading at all, is that the allegation in the Statement of Claim is taken to be admitted.

70. Morrison contends that the Defendants denied the allegations that were not pleaded to, this is true, and is made in an obscure part of the Defence Pleading at paragraph 19, that does not connect to any specific allegation of the Statement of Claim.

71. However this denial constituted a (now prohibited) blanket denial, without the required explanation and as such not in compliance with Sub-rule 166(4):
(4) A party’s denial or non-admission of an allegation of fact must be accompanied by a direct explanation for the party’s belief that the allegation is untrue or can not be admitted.

72. And the result of that is Sub-rule 166(5):
(5) If a party’s denial or non-admission of an allegation does not comply with subrule (4) , the party is taken to have admitted the allegation.

73. Again the consequence of those Sub-rules (4) & (5), is that the allegations in the Statement of Claim are admitted.

74. Paragraph 4 of the Defence is a good example of this (e.g. an explanation as to why the Plaintiff did not have lawful occupation and possession of the property... IS MISSING) and does not constitute a direct explanation; Groves v Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers’ Union & Anor [2004] QSC 142 at [15]. PDF copy

75. These 166 Sub-rules have received considerable attention and discussion in Courts and out of Courts by barristers and solicitors. The purpose of the Rules is to prevent what the Defendants actually did in their efforts to conceal their delinquencies.

76. A good example of the now prohibited conduct regarding Sub-rules (4) & (5), is published by Carter Newell Lawyers about what is called; Cutting Corners? The risks of filing a ‘holding’ defence in Queensland (PDF copy), and another article on the subject is at Deemed Admissions in Queensland. PDF copy

77. The Plaintiff based his partial Summary Judgement Application and his UNHEARD Rule 199 Application (per 63 & 25 above), on these very 166 Rules.

78. How Morrison did not observe these Rules, and lay blame on the Plaintiff (who he describes as "risible" and publishes same), for the saga is most concerning.

79. Having again been insulted by the judiciary, the Plaintiff declines to enter into any tit for tat trading of insults with a sitting judge, and risk of being in Contempt of Court.

80. So as to alter the path of justice, Morrison found that there had been denials of core allegations in the Statement of Claim, when in fact there were NO such denials. The core allegations were not pleaded to as per 68 above, and thus admitting the allegations, and as to the obscure denial referred to at 70 above, this also results in an admission as per 71.

81. Part of paragraph 6.1 of the Statement of Claim:
On 8 September 2015 when the Property had not been abandoned, the Second Defendant acting as director of the First Defendant :

(i) again in blatant disregard of the said notices not to trespass; and

(ii) for the purpose of taking possession of the Property; and

(iii) while knowing the said purpose was not a regulated activity; and

(iv) while knowing he was not an authorised person named in a warrant of possession to enter premises and take possession; and
(v) in blatant disregard that a warrant of possession under the provision of section 351 RTRA Act was required but had never been issued; and
(vi) ignoring the presence of the substantial amount of the tenants’ personal property, furniture, tools, fridges, huon pine timber, chattels air conditioners, cold room and 2 shipping containers on the Property;
in the temporary absence of the tenants and without prior warning to them, the First and Second Defendants illegally entered the Property by cutting a lock on an entrance gate in the perimeter fence with no entry sign attached, and breaking a lock on the house on the Property and entered the house.

82. By virtue of failing to plead AT ALL to 6.1, and provide a prohibited denial, the Defendants ADMIT that:
• the property had not been abandoned;
• they had disregarded notices not to trespass;
• they knew that they were required to have a warrant of possession to take possession of the property;
• they knew that they didn't have a warrant of possession;
• accordingly they knew they were not legally authorised to enter the premises and take possession;
• they knew about the substantial amount of the Plaintiff possessions & shipping containers on the property;
• they illegally cut & broke locks in order to gain illegal entry to the property.

83. It doesn't matter what the Russ thug knew, what matters is what he has ADMITTED. However, Morrison dances around this, so as to alter the path of justice and protect his judge colleague in the District Court.

84. Instead of acknowledging the non compliance of the rules by the Defendants and their resulting admissions, their Honours choose to insult the plaintiff and publish those insults in the Court Reports.

85. Morrison, while finding that the Defendants had been instructed by others:
(a) he did NOT identify any particulars that entitled the Defendants to LAWFULLY enter and take possession of the property (perhaps because there are none); and
(b) as per 43 above... he ignored the fact that agents are always responsible for their own torts (wrongs), irrespective of having been instructed by others, to commit the torts.

86. Morrison failed:
(a) to take into consideration the Plaintiff' evidence, a summary of which is set out at 15 above. No legal knowledge is necessary, to understand that a common sense cornerstone of a Fair Hearing, is that all relevant evidence be considered; and
(b) as per above at 63, he did not give consideration to Cash refusing to hear the Plaintiff's Rule 190 Application regarding the sub-rules of Rule 166; and
(c) as per 88 below, there is a cluster of ignored matters.

87. Morrison makes no response regarding the fact that the Argles submissions to Cash were not in accordance with what had been pleaded in the Defence, except to say that they were "old submissions".

88. Essentially Morrison, along with a lot of other things has displayed a disgraceful display of autocracy by:
(a) ignoring the facts of Argles Fake Submissions to Cash; and
(b) ignoring that the resulting Fake Issues were introduced into the proceedings; and
(c) ignoring the facts of Fabricated Evidence; and
(d) deliberately not questioning Russ about his affidavit; and
(e) making a ridiculous excuse for ignoring the Fabricated Evidence; and
(f) ignoring that the purpose Fake Issues and Fabricated Evidence was to mislead the Courts; and
(g) ignoring that Cash relied on the Fake Issues in his judgements; and
(h) ignoring all the admissions that had been made by the Defendants by virtue of Rule 166; and
(i) ignoring the probative evidence of the Plaintiff; and
(j) ignoring the requirement of a fair hearing by the Human Rights Act; and
for the above reasons, has generally adjudicated in a tin pot manner.


89. While judges relish in describing each other as "learned", the "learned" Plaintiff (by reason of 72 years of life experience), is to file this saga in the High Court of Australia, calling on the High Court to provide relief to the issues at 88 above regarding Morrison's extraordinary arbitrary behaviour that one would expect from someone like....

90. However given the content of this publication that assists the exposure of High Court Judges Turning a Blind Eye to Misogynistic Behaviour, the Plaintiff is not confident of any success that may reinstate his confidence in the legal system.

91. Morrison has totally ignored and failed to make any reference to the statutory rules that underpin this saga.

• Is the behaviour described above a general rort, YET ANOTHER well known open secret between all of the Queensland judiciary and Queensland lawyers, so as to get rid of all LIPs from Queensland Courts?
• Do the Queensland Judiciary have a secret ledger on LIPs?
• Is it simply a victimisation of the Plaintiff LIP?
• Is an injustice justified, in order to protect the reputation of a colleague judge?

93. Morrison will be relying on the Plaintiff not being able to correctly formulate a Special Leave Application (PDF copy) and the High Court's ability to dance around the facts and the law just as Morrison has done, and provide no reasons for dismissal as per its normal practice. Morrison will also be reliant on the fact that most Applications for Special Leave are unsuccessful, and the Plaintiff cannot find any instance where a "LIP" has been successful in a Special Leave Application.

94. Even if the High Court chooses to ignore most of the above issues, it's not known how the High Court can possibly ignore the issue of non compliance with Rule 166 (PDF). I guess we will have to wait and see if there is to be any fudging of a proper outcome. 

95. The High Court Application listing 12 Grounds of Appeal, IS HERE.

96. It's 18 December 2020, and it looks like they are all down the golf course until February 2021. It only costs $3,440.00 (three thousand, four hundred & forty dollars) to file a Special Leave Application (filed 24 September 2020), one would expect better service than what is being received.

97. Back to Queensland's judicial integrity... Another example of bad judge behaviour is one particular judge in Queensland, who appears to be such a total asshole that he is being sued by the person he wrongly sent to jail. That judge (Judge Salvatore Vasta) has a long record for being nasty and making wrong decisions, but finds himself being mentored by a senior judge instead of being thrown out for being such an asshole. THE DESPICABLE CONDUCT IS REPORTED HERE / PDF copy.

98. Vasta's father, Angelo Vasta was removed from being a Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland, the only occasion since Federation that any parliament in Australia has removed a Supreme Court judge. Amazingly the Supreme Court still refers to him being "Honourable". You can see from the Wikipedia report (PDF copy) along with a Google search for "Judge Vasta", that the Vasta family is in the upper echelons of power in Queensland society. 

99. Hearing of the Special Leave Application has been listed for Thursday 11 February 2021. Amongst other things we will find out if is OK for a string of Queensland judges to totally abrogate requisite Rules of the Court that the Plantiff had relied on, and without providing any reason/s whatsoever for this behaviour. 

100. NSW Chief Justice Bathurst recently told Judges to, show some respect.
As reported by the Australian:
"Judges can no longer rely on technical expertise but must also have the personal skills needed to make people feel as if they’ve had a “FAIR GO” in their courtrooms, ­according to NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst."
The Australian continues:
His comments come after several Federal Circuit Court judges have come under fire for bullying litigants or dismissing cases without providing litigants a fair hearing. Chief Justice Bathurst said “justified concern and disgust by the public” at allegations of sexual harassment by a judge — ­alluding to former High Court judge Dyson Heydon — showed how easily trust in judges could be dismantled.
Archived: Judges-must-show-respect.pdf - Trust-in-the-Judiciary.pdf


Just like the United States Republican Party’s propensity for political venality in voting for political reasons rather than facts in the Trump Impeachment Trial, the High Court has dismissed my application for leave (REASONS), along with another 29 dismissals out of 30 applications (for February 2021) (potentially $103,200 in fees) as at 11 February 2021 (Special Leave Application Results), and thereby have totally failed to even inquire as to the following facts being:
• non application of requisite Rules of the Courts in Queensland; and
• fabricated evidence put to Queensland Courts.

102. If there was a valid reason for the High Court abrogating its duty then I would be satisfied, but no, the gutless High Court chooses to COLLECT ITS FEE FOR ZERO SERVICE, which demonstrates in reality, how it is intrinsicly bound to protecting the reputation of Judges and Courts, no matter how wrong they can be.

103. The High Court's investigation into the behaviour of Justice Dirty Dyson, was not born out of morality, but born from minimising damage to its reputation, when the behaviour was destined for widespead publication.

104. As to reason 1. My Application was made well within the 28 day period for doing so. The obstacles with associated delays put in my way by the exceptionally slow and unhelpful Registry, caused the filing to be made 1 day late, thus causing the further application for a (one day) extension of time.

105. The so called REASONS, in respose to my APPLICATION, provide evidence of the ABSOLUTE PALTRY ATTENTION given to this matter for a $3,440.00 fee for service, and have provide ZERO reasons as to why the High Court should not have regard to section 35A of the Judiciary Act regarding the APPLICATION, as is required by that Act, instead of REFUSING TO DO ITS JOB, not to mention the fact that my trampled rights for a Fair Hearing under Queensland Human Rights Legislation have been IGNORED.

106. This is nothing other than a RORT (and coming is www.HighCourtRort.com). This is clearly not in line with Chief Justice of NSW saying that litigants should be made to feel they have has a FAIR GO, and calling on judges to address reinstating the public's Trust in the Judiciary.

107. This is not a matter of competence, I am quite sure that the High Court Justices are competent at making legal decisions. This is a matter of INTENTION, it is clear from the reasons, that there is an intention to not make a decision, which disgusts me, just as those perverts (see above) do, that lurk in the Judiciary and hide behind the power they yield. 

108. The High Court's behaviour, in particular that of Justice Bell and Justice Gageler, make a mockery of providing a Fair Go and Reinstating Trust in the Judiciary. As such, I will be making and publishing a Statutory Declaration of the facts in this matter, and drawing conclusions from those facts.
Stay tuned...

Time period since proceedings first filed in the District Court on 15 November 2017Countup

Powers of the courts when parties have engaged in fraud or serious wrongdoing. PDF copy

What role can the court play when it is discovered in the course of the proceedings that a party has engaged in serious misconduct? Recent decisions have considered the role of the court in deterring wrongdoing, whether in the conduct of the litigation or in the facts forming the basis of the action. In Toksoz v Wetspac Banking Limited (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 288, the Court of Appeal confirmed that it was within the court’s power and in the PUBLIC INTEREST for the court to forward a copy of judgment onto relevant government agencies where issues raised in the case merited further investigation.
The original judgement.


Scott Argles

Oh really?... the Public Trustee refuses to respond to inquiries about Scott Argles.

About the so called "Special Counsel".

Funny, Linkedin doesn't mention Argles being a "Senior Associate" and "Director of Legal Services".

Queensland Law Society has been requested for details of the Argles Practising Certificate, but the request has been ignored.

Scott has been admitted as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland for over 20 years. Prior to joining the firm, Scott was a Senior Associate at a large national law firm and international law firm and, in more recent times, was the Director of Legal Services for the Public Trustee of Queensland, (which employs around 30 lawyers).


The dog is looking for a bone...

The Plaintiff reserves the right to respond by way of this website & its domains to the false and derogatoty publication about him, by
Judge Cash of the District Court of Queensland, who simply doesn't care when he gets it wrong. For many years the Plaintiff has had the utmost trust in the integrity of the Justice Systems in Australia. That has now changed in regard to Queensland.

DirtyDyson.com  •  Human-Rights.Report

The dog's looking for a bone