100519-kevin rudd pm - re company issues

8/9/2019 100519-Kevin Rudd PM - Re Company Issues

1/16

19-5-2010 Page 1PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website

Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. [email protected]

Kevin Rudd PM 19-5-2010C/o [email protected] TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.Ref: 100518-Kevin Rudd PM - Re company issues.Kevin,10

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am very well aware as to the intention of the Framers ofthe Constitution as to have provided the Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers in regard

of companies as well as for telecommunication issues and for this write to you so that you mayensure that appropriate legislation is in place and where already appropriate action is takenagainst those who defies Commonwealth law.15.For purpose of example I will use current litigation as an example but must make it very clearthat I am competent enough to represent the applicant and conduct matters myself and do notexpect nor seek the Commonwealth of Australia to get involved in the litigation that is beforeVCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) albeit I recognise that the Commonwealth20of Australia may consider for itself if it were to prosecute any company as to offences againstCommonwealth legislative provisions if this were to concluded may have eventuated..

The various issues I may canvas are: Can a company registered under Commonwealth law and operating under25

Commonwealth law nevertheless deny a client his legal entitlements to have matters indispute heard in the State where the contact arose (where the client was at the timesigning the documentation) in direct contravention with the Intentions of the Framers ofthe Constitution?

Is it appropriate for a company to use a small type of letter print as to set out the30TERMS & CONDITIONS but then for litigation purposes provide a large print of thesaid TERMS & CONDITIONS as to enable a judicial officer the ability to read theTERMS & CONDITIONS ?

Should a contract have the ORIGINAL signatures of both parties to be deemed a validcontract?35

Is it appropriate for a company to use brochures and upon this conclude a sale as thenafterwards to claim that the brochures are incorrect and the client/customer has to paythousands of dollars more or have goods delivered in damaged state as well as incompleteas to what was agreed upon at the time of sale?

Would a member of the LEGAL PROFESSION commit an offence under the40Telecommunication legislative provisions where this member of the LEGALPROFESSION knew or could have known that he was transmitting documentation forlitigation purposes that he knew or ought to have known were containing false andmisleading and/or deceptive claims, as to pervert the course ofJUSTICE.

Would a member of the LEGAL PROFESSION commit an offence under the45Telecommunication legislative provisions where this member of the LEGAL


2/16



PROFESSION knew or could have known that during the telephone hearing in which heparticipate by telephone he continues to support the deceptive, false and misleadingconduct as to pervert the course of JUSTICE?

Such further issues you may deem is relevant from the issues set out below.5The matters below are set out as to give you a better understanding as to what I seek to convey toyou but is not intended by me that somehow you (so the government) may intervene in thematter. The issue rather is that you can ensure that these kind of practices are outlawed and dealtwith against any offender. As such, if the government deems that certain offences have takenplace and seeks to prosecute then this will be apart from the litigation that is presently before10VCAT..As I represent as an advocate the Applicant Mr Ray Vella ofGreat Body Works I was notifiedby the Respondent EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD that Mr Mark Grant Fleming ofNorthside Solicitors Pty Ltd (Queensland) was to represent them in litigation before VCAT15(Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal). What however I didnt expect was for MarkGrant Fleming to conduct himself in what I view unlawful manners which including the filingof a 6 May 2010 submission in VCAT and to persist with this during the phone in hearing on 12

May 2010 before Deputy President B. Steele..20It is my view that Mr Mark Grand Fleming knew or ought to have known that his writtensubmission was concealing relevant details, was deceptive, false and misleading and designed topervert the course ofJUSTICE..These are matters which I view the Federal government ought to investigate, as I hold these25matters to be very serious..I provided EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD with correspondences dated 24 April 2010 and27 April 2010 which Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd severely

attacked as to its content in his 6 May 2010 submission. While in itself an opponent may seek to30attack my writings to argue his own line of argument it must however never be accepted nortolerated that a lawyer, and OFFICER OF THE COURT does so with concealing relevantdetails, fabricating detail and in the overall making false and misleading claims that amounts toperverting the course of JUSTICE..35It is my view that Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd went about tocreate a purported CONTRACT he filed as a 9-page contract, he included in his 6 May 2010SUBMISSION as Annexure A which he knew or ought to have known from my writings (heso severely criticised) that never was as such a contract. In fact it is my view that any competentlawyer looking at the 6 May 2010 submission would immediately detect that the submission is40

contradicted by its own annexure and the entire submission basically lack any merits and indeedlegal justification.While these proceedings are before VCAT, nevertheless as this involved what I view deliberatelyfiling false and misleading claims, concealing relevant details and in the process perverting thecourse of JUSTICE then I view this should be formally investigated by the Federal45government, apart of what VCAT may itself pursue about this.In my view any court/tribunal must be able to rely upon that a LEGAL PRACTITIONERwho is an OFFICER OF THE COURT does present submissions, using telecommunicationfacilities for this also, which are not deliberately falsifying what the true circumstances of thelitigation are.50This complaint is not seeking the Federal government to determine the parties rights as that is amatter for VCAT to determine, nor is it the purpose of the complaint for the Federalgovernment to deal with the issues of dispute as this is not the function of the the Federal


3/16



government either however I do view that where it can be proven that a Queensland registeredlegal practitioner Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd has been involvedin filing deceptive material which he knew or ought to have known was false and misleading andwas to pervert the course of JUSTICE and by this used telecommunication facilities (such asfacsimile and/or phone in facilities, etc) and may have done also as to undermine the purpose of5Commonwealth s51(xx) applicable legislative provisions, then this I view is an issue..I also view that as telecommunication was used this matter is an issue for the Commonwealth toinvestigate..10Essential the issue is that Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd filed anAnnexure A of which the first page was a TAX INVOICE which included the word SENTand 22-9-09 as such seeking to prove that certain items on the tax invoice dated 18/9/2009 wasthat day forwarded. However in his submission he claims that the goods were received andremained in the possession of the Applicant since 18 August 2009 and by this argued that by the15terms of the contract of 30 days the Applicant had exceeded the 30 day time limit. Upon thisbasis he also then argued that by the terms of the written contract JURISDICTION lies withQueensland.

As such, his entire submission is based upon a delivery on 18 August 2010. the Annexure Adid not at all exist of any true contract as was purported by Mr Mark Grant Fleming of20Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd but rather was part of 4 different documents Mr Mark GrantFleming ofNorthside Solicitors Pty Ltd put together as to purport one document contract..It is upon this that he achieved an adjournment for a JURISDICTIONAL HEARING as to arguehis case that not the State of Victoria but the State of Queensland had jurisdiction in determining25the dispute, where as had Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd filed thecorrect details without concealing relevant details and not fabricated a 9-page contract referredto as Annexure A then I have no doubt that no JURISDICTIONAL challenge would have beenpermitted. As such, the order for a JURISDICTIONAL HEARING, I view, was obtained by

perverting the course of JUSTICE!30.What I submit is that Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd did was toconceal 2 emails forwarded on 29-9-2009 (one at 16.32 and another at 17.32) by EUROTECPRODUKTS PTY LTD to Applicant Mr Ray Vella ofGreat Body Works even so he knew orought to have known from my 24 April 2010 and 27 April 2010 (which correspondences he so35severely criticised and hence by this underline/implies to have read them) which are critical tothe entire issue and so to say make or break his legal arguments. (See below for a copy), and assuch concealed critical details. further, that he fabricated a 18 August 2009 date which he knewor should have known was false, misleading and/or deceptive and was only for the purpose as tofabricate some set of circumstances he knew or ought to have known didnt exist as such.40

Further, that he concocted a version of a contract as Annexure A which he knew or ought tohave known never existed as such. (See below also).In my view EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD also knew or should have known that MrMark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd engaged by them to act as aprofessional advocate within s.62 of the vcaaata1998428 had grossly deceived VCAT.45EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD through Mr Mark Grant Fleming of NorthsideSolicitors Pty Ltd claims that its main trading offices are in Queensland!.

Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)QUOTE50

As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick orchoose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of hisclient. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a


4/16



duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a

mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is

none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth

and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowinglyconceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence5to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are againsthim. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even thosethat are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, ifthey conflict with his duty to the court.

END QUOTE10.Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OFAUSTRALIA.QUOTE

In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is15willfully false. The sub-section should be read according to its terms. To say that 'falseevidence should be read as 'willful false evidence' is to introduce a provision notexpressed by the provision; cf s6H of the Royal Commission Act 1902 which speaks of a

witness 'who knowingly gives false testimony'. This interpretation is reinforced byreference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of20evidence which would comprehend cases of willful false evidence.

END QUOTE

.QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343

Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of25what is true.

END QUOTE

.QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by30actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act

itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.

END QUOTE.As Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd by his own TAX INVOICE35marked Annexure A presented the evidence that EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD.

THE REAL CIRCUMSTANCES:

On 22 September 2009 as shown by TAX INVOICE dated 18 September 2009 themig welder and Telwin digital Dent Repair System 5500 Plus (Kit 4) were40

despatched to Great Body Works instead of the mig welder and Telwin DentRepair 5500 Kit 3 incl trolley, Pulflex and pullin and as such at no time didEUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD supply the Kit 3 as was paid for then or eversince as a new complete system! Also the mig welder was faulty as it had been usedpreviously. Later the missing dent puller was delivered with cracked rubber feets45indicating it was worn out extensively by past usage and hence was not either in newcondition. As such no new sets were delivered as to what was already paid for.

On 29 September 2009 (that is 7 days after despatching the defective items thefollowing email was received first at 4.32 and an identical email albeit at 5.32 againmaking clear no deal and We will give you your money back and we will50pick up the goods tomorrow.

.QUOTE 090929 16.32 Email


5/16



From: Brett FisherSent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:32 PMTo: Ray VellaSubject: no deal

5Hi Ray,

We have given you the worlds best deal and you have done nothing but winge since

the day we did the deal. We will give you your money back and we will pick up thegoods tomorrow10You dont know a good deal when you have just tripped over one.

Regards,15

Brett Fisher

National Sales Manager

Eurotec Produkts Pty Ltd4/21 Duntroon Street Brendale QLD 450020Ph: 07 3881 5000Fax: 07 3881 5051

Mob: 0404 889 239

END QUOTE 090929 16.32 Email.25As such, within 7 days Bret Fisher ofEUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD had cancelledthe purported contract of sale and committed to refund the monies and to have itemscollected the following day. As such in my view what Mr Mark Grant FlemingNorthside Solicitors Pty Ltd for EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD submitted toVCAT in his 6 May 2010 submission clearly is in my view concealing relevant details (the3029 September 2009 emails), deceptive and false and misleading!

Because Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd for EUROTECPRODUKTS PTY LTD obtained an order for a hearing to challenge VCAT jurisdictionthen I pursue this was having perverted the course of JUSTICE because if there is no validCONTRACT then it is irrelevant what the purported contract might have stated if indeed35any valid contract that is written contract ever existed.

.In paragraph 2 (c) of the submission Mr Mark Grant Fleming refers to his Annexure A asfollows:QUOTE40

The contract was written and signed by the applicant. Annexure A is a copy of the signedcontract with printed version of the terms and conditions.

END QUOTE.The 6 May 2010 submission of Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd45actually consist of at least 4 different documents being;

TAX INVOICE marked Annexure A page

Pages marked 1 of 4 and 2 of 4 F-069 (Meaning Fax 069) time:12:28

Pages marked 3 of 4 and 4 of 4 F-067 (Meaning Fax 067 times 12:13 & 12:14 Pages marked 3 of 6, 4 of 6, 5 of 6 and 6 of 650

In my view even a first year law student should know better then to fabricate some kind ofcontract together from at least 4 different documents..

When one then look at the purported contract then as far as I am aware of it contains thefollowing pages:55


6/16



TAX INVOICE SENT 22-9-09 ANNEXURE A(This document refers to the Welder and Dent System having been SENT 22-9-09

AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY PAGE 1 OF 4 DATE; 13-0809 12:28 AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY PAGE 2 OF 4 DATE; 13-0809 12:28

Dated 13/08/20095

AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY PAGE 3 OF 4 DATE; 13-0809 12:13 AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY PAGE 4 OF 4 DATE; 13-0809 12:24

AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY PAGE 3 OF 6 AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY PAGE 4 OF 6 AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY PAGE 5 OF 610

AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY PAGE 6 OF 6.It must be clear that by the purported contract Mr Mark Grant Fleming filed as Annexure Apursue his claim opposing VCAT JURISDICTION he relies upon the contract constitutionthese 9-pages. In my view EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD would itself have to admit this15doesnt at all represent to be the purported contract.Firstly, the documents marked Annexure A (the first page of the Annexure A) never was orcould have been part of any contract as it is a TAX INVOICE dated 18 September 2009 and

clearly indicates that the welder and Dent Puller equipment were SENT on 22 September2009. As such created after the contract of sale (verbally or otherwise) was made on 13 August202009) Yet, when one check the submission of Mr Mark Grant Fleming he states in paragraph5:QUOTE

5. On 18 August 2009 the mig welder and dent puller were delivered to the applicant.END QUOTE25.QUOTE

8. On 7 October 2009, the authorised agent of the applicant verbally informed therespondent via telephone that it rejected the goods in total and requested a refund.

9. By email dated 7 October 2009, the respondent offered to accept a return, from30the applicant, of the dent puller and accessories in exchange for a full refund ofthe purchase price for that divisible part of the contract but denied a refund of thepurchase price for the mig welder divisible part of the contract.

10. By letter dated 4 December 2009, the applicant, by its authorised agent rejectedthe respondents offer referred to in the preceding paragraph [9].35

11. Since 18 August 2009 the applicant has been, and remains, in possession of thegoods.

END QUOTEOn basis of this Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd acting for EUROTEC

PRODUKTS PTY LTD then make further claims such as the 30-days as he relies upon in40 clause 7, 7.1 & 7.2 of the contract! As such his entire case is build upon that on 18 August 2009the goods were received and in possession of Great Body Works (applicant) this even so hisown front page of his annexure shows tax invoice SENT 22-9-09. In my view it is sheerincompetence for a legal practitioner to file a claim contrary to his own evidence in his AnnexureA. As such any calculation of 30-days (if this were to be applicable at all) never could be from4518 August 2009 but at the earliest could be from the date that the items were actually receivedand that was after it was delivered subsequently to having been SENT on 22-9-09.Hence, all this hot wash (as I call it) about the 30-days having expired clearly was irrelevantfrom the 18 August 2009 date as it never existed as such. What therefore is clear is that theconcealment of the two 29 September 2009 emails from Mr Bret Fisher was as to seek to50

legitimate his argument about 30-days and an existing contract being applicable in relation to


7/16



Queensland where =if the would have revealed the content of the 29 September 2009 emails hisentitle submission would be so to say gone out of the window.I have not enclosed the relevant Annexure A but can provide them subsequently if so required..It is normal that parties in litigation may have at times conflicts of what the history of matters5may be and I am well aware of this having assisted parties in their litigation for about 3 decades,however it is and never should be acceptable that an OFFICER OF THE COURT knowinglyor should have known that the 6 May 2010 submission was constructed for no other purposebut for to pervert the course of JUSTICE. Hence the purpose of the correspondence is also thatMr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd acted in a manner that in the10circumstances was to obtain by deception, orders he could not have obtained had he disclosed thetrue circumstances relevant to the case which he knew or could have known. (Again my 24 April2010 and 27 April 2010 correspondence did include the 22 September 2009 emails and as suchMr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd merely had to check with his clients ifsuch email had been forwarded to Great Body Works.15.Also, I view that a competent lawyer would first request his client to show the ORIGINALcontact it claimed to rely upon that shows both the ORIGINAL of the Applicant and also the

ORIGINAL of the Respondent.It is my submission that it is not for a legal practitioner, an OFFICER OF THE COURT to20fabricate his own version of CONTRACT so as to try to achieve a JURISDICTIONALHEARING where if he filed just the document EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD claimed tohave then the 9-pages may turn out to be a mere 2 pages without the very terms and conditionsMr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd so much based his wholeJURISDICTIONAL argument upon and not even the two page purported contract would show in25my understanding the ORIGINAL signatures of both the Applicant and the Respondent..While I accept that a LEGAL PRACTITIONER may file a copy of a CONTRACT that may ormay not contain errors it is another matter to fabricate a version of a CONTRACT that he

knew or ought to have known never existed as such.30.While my position is that certain items were delivered subsequently to 22 September 2009 by 29September 2009 the sale was cancelled by mutual agreement as confirmed by Mr Brett Fisherfor EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD in his 29 September 2009 emails no deal and Wewill give you your money back and we will pick up the goods tomorrow .35.Fancy Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd having disclosed this to VCATin his 6 May 2010 submission then his entire JURISDICTIONAL argument based upon hisclaims would be up so to say in the air. As such concealing these emails was paramount to adeliberate deception to pervert the course of JUSTICE.40

.Some of the 6 May 2010 submissions made by Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside SolicitorsPty Ltd were:.QUOTE45

5. On 18 August 2009 the mig welder and dent puller were delivered to the applicant.END QUOTE

.QUOTE

11. Since 18 August 2009 the applicant has been, and remains, in possession50of the goods.

END QUOTE

.


8/16



QUOTE

12. On 7 October 2009, the authorised agent of the applicant verbally informed therespondent via telephone that it rejected the goods in total and requested a refund.

13. By email dated 7 October 2009, the respondent offered to accept a return, fromthe applicant, of the dent puller and accessories in exchange for a full refund of5the purchase price for that divisible part of the contract but denied a refund of thepurchase price for the mig welder divisible part of the contract.

14. By letter dated 4 December 2009, the applicant, by its authorised agent rejectedthe respondents offer referred to in the preceding paragraph [9].

15. Since 18 August 2009 the applicant has been, and remains, in possession of the10goods.

END QUOTE

On basis of this Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd acting for EUROTECPRODUKTS PTY LTD then make further claims such as the 30-days as he relies upon inclause 7, 7.1 & 7.2 of the contract! As such his entire case is build upon that on 18 August 200915the goods were received and in possession of Great Body Works (Applicant) this even so hisown front page of his annexure shows TAX INVOICE SENT 22-9-09. In my view it issheer incompetence for a legal practitioner to file a claim contrary to his own evidence in his

Annexure A. As such any calculation of 30-days (if this were to be applicable at all) nevercould be from 18 August 2009 but at the earliest could be from the date that the items were20actually received and that was after it was delivered subsequently to having been SENT on22-9-09., that is if the 30-days could be applied at all in the first place.Hence, all this hot wash (as I call it) about the 30-days having expired clearly was irrelevantfrom the 18 August 2009 date as it never existed as such..25I request your attention as to the matters pertaining the deceptive submission as to I view beingbreaches of an OFFICER OF THE COURT of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Queensland,and I make it clear again that this is separate from any determination VCAT may make as to therights and entitlements of the parties concerned and also considering that Mr Mark Grant

Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd is not a practicing solicitor in the State of Victoria, at30least for so far I am aware of and so doesnt fall in that regard within its jurisdiction for anycomplaint with the authorities of the State of Victoria who otherwise may pursue some of thesematters, other then VCAT itself, against a member of the legal profession of another jurisdiction,and even then any offences against commonwealth legislative provisions are for thecommonwealth to attend to.35.I do not know neither is it relevant to me as to how long EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTDmay have relied upon the legal advice of Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors PtyLtd but I have to express my concerns that the conduct of Mr Mark Grant Fleming NorthsideSolicitors Pty Ltd may by this cause undue cost to EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD if they40

were to be provided with legal advise that they have a valid case to contest the applicants claimswhere as I view a FAIR MINDED PERSON would have understood that in view of the 29September 2009 emails (identical other then the time of sending) then the sale came to an end abinitio and no contract or purported contract then existed.My 24 April 2010 and 27 April 2010 correspondence both referred to that Mr Ray Vella of45Great Body Works suffered of suffer of dyslexia syndrome and as such it appears to me thatMr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd seeking to oppose me to representGreat Body Works then seek to take undue and improper advantage of this dyslexiasyndrome and to me this is a very serious matter also..50What we have therefore is that we need appropriate legislative provisions in place, if not alreadyexisting, that any company that is trading in a certain State cannot include any clauses in any


9/16



contract that pursues to deny that State jurisdiction to hear and determine any dispute betweenthe company and the client/customer..That all and any terms and conditions must be in clear legible print no smaller then size 12Times New Roman.5.That where a company is dealing with a person who suffers of DYSLEXIASYNDROME orother problems which may have or likely may have prevented the client/customer to fullyunderstand and comprehend the terms and condition of the contract and/or the legalresponsibilities associated with the contract then such contract shall be deemed void ab initio10unless the company can demonstrate by appropriate evidence that the client/customer was in aposition to understand matters. For example that the client/customer was assisted by a person ofhis choice (being it a legal practitioner or otherwise) which was competent to understand therelevant legal issues and was able to advise the client/customer of this in a sufficient manner toensure that the client/customer at the time of signing any documents understood precisely what15he was engaging in..Also, the fact that Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd filed another set

of terms and conditions (with larger prints) as to overcome the problems for VCAT not beingable to read the small print underlines that this kind of conduct must be prohibited. If the print is20deemed too small for a judicial officer to read then surely it must be deemed to be too smallfor a person who suffers of DYSLEXIA SYNDROME to read it in a workshop environment orfor that matter most people in a workshop environment..Further, I view it is essential, for so far this is not already part of legislative provisions, that any25contract that is presented by a company must be appropriately have each page numberedconsecutively showing each page its page number of how many pages the contract is in totalityalso. What we had here was pages transmitted at different times and containing thereforedifferent imprints of facsimile recordings as well as unnumbered pages and other pages never

part of any facsimile transmission that a total of 9-pages were presented as an Annexure A30even so the document that purported to show the signatures of the contract of sale merely was of2 pages..THE ISSUE OF A TRUST FUNDIt is not uncommon that companies use lawyers to protract litigation and prolong the agony upon35other parties in all kind of conflicts, not just contract, such as employers failing to secure theentitlements of employees, etc. and by the time finally the courts get around to pronounce ajudgment in favour of an employee/customer, etc, then most if not all of the moneys were so tosay eaten away by lawyers. In my view the Commonwealth should legislate that it is mandatoryinvolving any company that where there is a dispute then unless a court orders otherwise the40

company must deposit in a special trust fund held by the Commonwealth Attorney-General themonies in dispute. Trust funds of a legal practitioner will be useless as the lawyers themselveswill take a large slice out of it to renumerate their litigation charges no matter how justified ornot this might be. Hence there must be a trust fund that operates away from the arising parties.Because the trust fund would operate under Commonwealth law then any State Court exercising45federal jurisdiction can then put in place any order that may seek to prevent hardship to acompany where the court holds that in the circumstances prevailing this is appropriate.Obviously tribunals who cannot invoke federal jurisdiction cannot make such an order. For allpurposes and intend any application to a court (exercising federal jurisdiction) that were to haveto entertain such an application would be under the principle that the company has the onus to50prove to the court why special orders should be issued as to allow the company to having to placein the trust fund less monies then that which is in dispute. As such, in a case such as Great BodyWorks v Eurotec Produkts Pty Ltd C229-2010 VCAT the onus would be upon EUROTEC


10/16



PRODUKTS PTY LTD to prove to a court of competent jurisdiction why it should not depositthe $11,035.00 in the Commonwealth trust fund. It would then be up to the court if it were tocontemplate to entertain such application to invite the other party to respond before issuing anyorders that may or may not grand the application and this would be irrespective of what thetribunal (such as VCAT) and or court may ultimately determine upon the issues in conflict.5What this kind of trust fund would provide for is to stop scrupulous companies of underminingthe ability of client/customers/employees/subcontractors/etc of their rightful entitlements where atribunal/court were to make an order against it..DISQUALIFICATION OF DIRECTORSHIP, ETC.10It is my submission also that under the companies legislative provisions there should be anautomatic 10 year disqualification of any person being a director and/or owner or part owner ofa company which fails to have paid within the time ordered by a court monies involving thisperson as a company director and/or part owner. As such, it means that if a company is owned bysomeone and his company fails to pay up as ordered then AUTOMATICALLY this person is15disqualified from being a director and/or wholly or partly own a company and any assets such asstock and bonds are frozen for the court that issued the orders to determine what is to occur withthose assets.

There are far to often companies so to say going broke that owns monies and yet the companyowner(s) live in luxury so to say thumping their nose upon the courts and more the entire20JUSTICE system. This is what the Framers of the Constitution were concerned about and yetafter more then 100-years of federation working families who have done no wrong still find tosuffer severely because the practices used by some scrupulous companies still have not beenappropriately addressed. What we have is that a person can simply reregister under a differentcompany and commence trading while leaving his victims to suffer to such extend that some not25just contemplate but actually end up committing suicide. Many find their security of an old agepension they worked so hard for during their lifetime being ripped away by scrupulouscompanies.THIS MUST STOP!

.30The legal principle embedded in the (Federal) constitution and the States created within s.106from the colonies are by this subject to this constitution bound by it;.http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+p35arliament%22#fn50QUOTE

Constitutional interpretation

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the

search for the intention of its makers[51].40END QUOTE

.Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with45regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling theParliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted

elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is

not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."

END QUOTE50.


11/16



Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HOWE:They show that the thrift practised by the people of Australia is unparalleled in the historyof the world. But there is another side to this question, and a very gloomy and sorrowfulside indeed. There are records of bankruptcy, of reckless, and in some instances5corrupt, management, when the hard earnings of the people and the savings of a

lifetime have been swept away-have melted away like snow before the noonday sun.

Through this reckless and corrupt management men who thought they had provided

for their old and declining age found themselves stranded on the cheerless shores of

charity, and many of them have had to accept even amongst ourselves the pauper's10lot. The pauper's lot in Australia or in any other country is to the deserving poor one

of the saddest and darkest blots on our civilization.

END QUOTE.Hansard 22-9-1897Constitution Convention Debates15QUOTE

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member, Mr. Howe, can now move his proposed new sub-clause.

The Hon. J.H. HOWE (Western Australia)[4.4]: I consider that it is the duty of thecommonwealth, rather than of the states, to undertake the work of providing for the20invalid and aged poor of the commonwealth. The matter was dealt with [start page

1086] in Adelaide, when some of the leading legal members of the Convention took the

position that the question was more a state question than a commonwealth question.

Since then I have considered it carefully, and the more I have read and thought overit, the more I am convinced that this work should be undertaken by the25commonwealth. I consider that no more important question than this could occupy

the attention of the Convention. The question is one which is now occupying the

attention of all the learned and able statesmen of Europe. Great philanthropists all

over the world are trying to find a solution for this dreadful calamity. In everycivilised community we find men who have given their best mental and physical30labour to the state becoming, in their declining years, through no fault of their own , a

burden to their friends, who cannot afford to maintain them, or entering charitable

institutions, and finally finding a pauper's grave.

END QUOTE.35HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it

occurs.END QUOTE40.HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the

laws of the place where the contract was made.45END QUOTE.Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. SYMON:


12/16



There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many

of the rules of the common law and rules of international comity in other countries

cannot be justly applied here.

END QUOTE.5Hansard 3-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of theNational Australasian Convention)QUOTE

Sub-clause 19. The status in the commonwealth of foreign corporations, and ofcorporations formed in any state or part of the commonwealth.10

Mr. MUNRO: We have agreed to sub-clause 13, dealing with the incorporation of banks,and I do not see why a similar provision should not be made in regard to the incorporationof companies. Why should they not be under the control of federal officers? At the presenttime the law as to incorporation is different in the different colonies, and the result is[start page 686] extremely unsatisfactory in many cases. I do not see why we should not15make the same provision in regard to the incorporation of companies as we have made inregard to the incorporation of banks. We might introduce at the commencement of the sub-

clause words to this effect: "The registration or incorporation of companies."

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I do not think we should. There are a great number ofdifferent corporations. For instance, there are municipal, trading, and charitable20corporations, and these are all incorporated in different ways according to the law obtainingin the different states.

Mr. MUNRO: But as to trading corporations!

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It is sometimes difficult to say what is a trading corporation.What is important, however, is that there should be a uniform law for the recognition25of corporations. Some states might require an elaborate form, the payment of heavy fees,

and certain guarantees as to the stability of members, while another state might not think itworth its while to take so much trouble, having regard to its different circumstances. I thinkthe states may be trusted to stipulate how they will incorporate companies, although weought to have some general law in regard to their recognition.30

Sir JOHN BRAY: I think the point raised by the hon. member, Mr. Munro, is worth alittle more consideration than hon. members seem disposed to bestow upon it. We knowwhat some of these corporations are; and I think joint-stock companies might beincorporated upon some uniform method. In South Australia, a banking company is not

allowed to be incorporated under the Co mpanies Act; still, there is nothing in Victoria35of which I am aware to prevent a banking company from being registered there as a

limited company and opening a branch in South Australia a few days afterwards. Ithink it is necessary, therefore, to have some uniform law. There is nothing in which thepublic should have more confidence than in banks which are in any way recognised by thestate; and I think we should have some uniform system of incorporating banks. Many40companies, although doing business under different names, are, in reality, banks.

Mr. MUNRO: The banks are incorporated under the Companies Act in Victoria!

Sir JOHN BRAY: You can establish financial companies, which you do not call banks,but which answer all the purposes of banks. We have provided that the federal parliamentshall legislate as to the incorporation of banks; but there is nothing to prevent the45

incorporation by the states themselves, quite apart from the federal parliament, of tradingcompanies which will do all the ordinary business of banks. If it is desirable to intrust


13/16



legislation as to the incorporation of banks to the federal government, there is no

reason why we should not say that the registration of financial companies doing all the

business of banks should be dealt with in the same manner.

Sub-clause agreed to.

END QUOTE5.Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Sub-section 22: Foreign corporation and trading corporations formed in any State or partof the Commonwealth.10

Sir GEORGE TURNER: With regard to this clause, we have already given power todeal with the question of banking, and we are now giving power to deal with foreigncorporations and trading corporations. I fail to see why we should limit the sub-section totrading corporations. There are financial institutions which are not banking institutions, andif we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate with regard to banking,15and with regard to trading corporations, we should go a step further and give it power also

to legislate with regard to financial institutions.

Mr. BARTON: I do not know.

Sir GEORGE TURNER Building societies.

Mr. BARTON: I think the present wording of the sub-section covers as nearly as20may be the intentions of the Constitutional Committee, and really for the amendment,which is a desirable amendment, in the sub-clause as it stood in the Bill of 1891, we areindebted to my hon. friend, Mr. Isaacs, who put it in its present form.

Mr. ISAACS: I suggested the word for temporary consideration.

Mr. BARTON: I Should like to be favored with any arguments in favor of the25suggestion.

Mr. DEAKIN: We recently passed a law in our colony which placed a strict limitationon the meaning of the word "banks," excluding from it particular kinds of financialcompanies which had hitherto been called banks, or treated as banks.

Mr. BARTON: You mean that kind of financial company that went down so often.30

Mr. DEAKIN: We distinguish them from banks on the one hand and tradingcorporations on the other. We want to include all limited companies because the class of

companies I am speaking of deal with lands and with deposits, and they require to becarefully regulated.

Mr. MCMILLAN: You want to include everything outside private companies.35

Mr. DEAKIN: Especially land and finance companies which caused so much litigationin the past.

Mr. Symon: In the original Act corporations simply are mentioned. Why this difference?

Mr. BARTON: The reason of making the difference was this: It having been seen thatthe word "corporations," as it existed, covered municipal corporations, [start page 794] the40

term was changed to "trade corporations."


14/16



Mr. SYMON: Why not simply use the term "company"? If you use that word it will bewell enough understood.

Mr. BARTON: Why not adhere to "corporation"? That governs everything under

the Companies Act.

Mr. SYMON: Why not leave out the word "trading"?5

Mr. BARTON: Or add the word "financial"?Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I move:

To insert the word "financial" before "corporation."

Mr. BARTON: Would it not be better to make it thus:

Any trading or financial Corporation.10

So as to separate that branch from foreign corporations?

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I will consent to that and move:

To insert after trading "the words or financial."

Amendment agreed to.

QUOTE15.Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-I do not think that it is necessary to frame a definition of "citizen." Acitizen is one who is entitled to the immunities of citizenship. In short, a citizen is a20

citizen. I do not think you require a definition, of "citizen" any more than you requirea definition of "man" or "subject."

Mr. ISAACS.-Would you include a corporation in the term "citizen"?

Mr. SYMON.-Why not?

Mr. ISAACS.-Well, in America they do not.25

Mr. SYMON.-I do not see why a corporation existing in one colony should not have therights of a corporation in another colony. Otherwise you defeat the objects of thisConstitution.

[start page 1783]

Mr. ISAACS.-I agree that that ought to be so, but the word "citizen" will not include a30corporation.

Mr. SYMON.-Well, in my opinion it should. I think, however, though I am not preparedto say definitely, that other provisions in the Constitution would deal with that case. Clause52 provides that we are to have uniformity, and I think would prevent any difficulty inregard to corporations, quite apart from the question of the meaning of the word "citizen."35But if you ask me whether a corporation might not come within the definition of "citizen"to a certain extent-not, of course, in regard to the right of the voting and so on-I should say

that it would. The difficulty is one that requires to be met. Although I admit that theamended American Constitution goes further than anything we require, and is directed to a


15/16



particular and special condition of things, this provision seems to me absolutely essential,and, in my opinion, the Constitution would be incomplete without it.

END QUOTE.Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates5QUOTE

Mr. BARTON:

The status in the Commonwealth of foreign corporations and of corporations formed inany State or part of the Commonwealth.

It has so far been altered as to read:10

Foreign corporations and trading corporations formed in any State or part of theCommonwealth.

So that the Commonwealth may have the power to legislate, not merely with regard

to the legal status of corporations acting within the Commonwealth, but it may havepower as far as it can legislate upon the general subject of these corporations, over the15

general subject of foreign corporations, formed in any part of a State of theCommonwealth, for the purpose of uniform legislation.

Mr. HIGGINS: Does that give power to exclude them from trading in theCommonwealth?

Mr. BARTON: Not, I think, to exclude them, but to regulate the mode in which they20conduct their operations. It is for the purpose of uniformity. After the old subsection,which gave the Commonwealth power to deal with the subjects of marriage and divorce,have been added these words:

END QUOTE

.25 The statement below makes it very clear that corporations are governed as to their conduct underCommonwealth law and as such the place where the oral sale/contract was affected (see abovequotations) was at Great Body Works business address, in the State of Victoria, and notQueensland.QUOTE30

So that the Commonwealth may have the power to legislate, not merely with regard

to the legal status of corporations acting within the Commonwealth, but it may have

power as far as it can legislate upon the general subject of these corporations, over the

general subject of foreign corporations, formed in any part of a State of the

Commonwealth, for the purpose of uniform legislation.35

END QUOTE.The Framers of the Constitution also embedded in the constitution the legal principle that wherea person made an offence against Commonwealth law then the offence was to be tried in a Statecourt exercising federal jurisdiction at the place where the offence took place. Hence, this legal40principle also applies to any breach of a sale contract where the offence occurred in the State ofVictoria and where then any litigation must be conducted at the location where the sale wasconcluded. Because of the problems of different colonial legal provisions it was held that to haveone overall umbrella being the Commonwealth to ensure that corporations are all dealt with inthe same manner. In my view no kind of contract, regardless if agreed upon or implied agreed45

upon between themselves.


16/16



Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government HCT-00-CV-MA-593-

2003

QUOTEConstitution needles to mention is a supreme law of the land.

END QUOTE5.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates ofthe National Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual10citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection andsecure to him.

END QUOTE.HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of15the National Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its

Constitution,END QUOTE20.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been

made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but25not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it

embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will allhave been the work of Australians.

END QUOTE

.30QUOTE CHH 92-217 page 78485 (1991)

The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely

because the parties consent to it..

END QUOTE.35Therefore in my view it isnt relevant if the purported contract were to stipulate that litigationwere to be under Queensland law because the parties cannot abrogate the legal principlesembedded in the constitution that the conduct of a corporation is under Federal law and anoffence to be tried where the offence took place.The very notion of being tried by once peers also underlines that once peers are more aware of40

local conditions that exist as the place of the alleged offence..

.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL45.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

100519-kevin rudd pm - re company issues

Documents