globalman.court.transcript

8/9/2019 GlobalMan.court.transcript

1/19

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTDABN 72 110 028 825

Level 16 Santos Place, 32 Turbot Street, Brisbane QLD 4000

PO Box 13038 George St Post Shop, Brisbane QLD 4003

T: 1800 AUSCRIPT (1800 287 274) F: 1300 739 037

E: [email protected] W: www.auscript.com.au

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGSTRANSCRIPT IN CONFIDENCE

O/N 138069

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PARRAMATTA REGISTRY

DUNKLEY FM

No. PAC 6601 of 2007

and

FAMILY LAW FINAL HEARING

PARRAMATTA

10.58 AM, THURSDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 2009

MR P. appears in person

MS S. BEVAN appears for the respondent mother

Copyright in Transcript is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. Apart from any use permitted under theCopyright Act 1968 you are not permitted to reproduce, adapt, re-transmit or distribute the Transcript materialin any form or by any means without seeking prior written approval from the Family Court of Australia.

.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-1Commonwealth of Australia Transcript in Confidence

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


2/19

HIS HONOUR: Mr . Mr , just come in, sir. Have aseat.

MR : I will do so if I can enter with all my inalienable rights intact,

sir.

HIS HONOUR: No, you can just come in and have a seat, or you can not participateat all. Its a matter for yourself.

MR : Ill do so if you agree that all my inalienable rights are intact,sir.

HIS HONOUR: No, I dont agree.

MR : You dont agree that I have my inalienable rights intact, sir?

HIS HONOUR: No, I dont. Its a matter for you as to whether you want toparticipate or not, so if you do want to participate, come and have a seat at the bartable.

MR : I will do so, sir, if you agree that I have all my inalienablerights intact.

HIS HONOUR: No.

MR : Are you denying me my inalienable rights, sir?

HIS HONOUR: I am.

MR : So let me just record this then.

HIS HONOUR: Call Mrs . Its all recorded, sir. You dont need to.You can get copies of the transcript. Its all on record. Mrs , is shecoming in?

MR : I havent seen her, David.

HIS HONOUR: Didnt talk to you, sir?

MR : Theres no one outside shes just arrived.

HIS HONOUR: Good, thank you. Ms Bevan, are you appearing for the respondenttoday?

MS BEVAN: I am, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right.

MS BEVAN: The respondent is before the court.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


3/19

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.



4/19

MR : Sir, my name is Peter my calling is PeterAndrew . I have asked David Dunkley I have told David Dunkleythat I will enter this court room if I have all my inalienable rights intact. DavidDunkley has said that I do not have all my inalienable rights intact. I will not enter

this court room until such time as I have all my inalienable rights intact and you areagreement, Mr Dunkley, to that.

HIS HONOUR: Just have a seat, sir.

MR : No, sir. I will have a seat when you agree I have all myinalienable rights intact.

HIS HONOUR: Ms Bevan, do you rely on the amended response filed 21 April2008?

MS BEVAN: Your Honour, I have a minute of order to hand up - - -


MS BEVAN: - - - which varies that. Im not sure whether you received my caseoutline?

HIS HONOUR: I did.

MS BEVAN: There is one additional order on this minute of order in relation to anaccount in Jersey.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you. Can I have that? Now, the Jersey account,where do I find about that?

MS BEVAN: Sorry?

HIS HONOUR: You mentioned an account in Jersey.

MS BEVAN: It is point number - - -

HIS HONOUR: Thats five, is it?

MS BEVAN: It is, yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, okay. Whats in that account?

MS BEVAN: In Australian dollars, your Honour, $A1458 using a conversion rateof 1.6 Euro.

HIS HONOUR: Fourteen hundred?

MS BEVAN: Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


5/19

HIS HONOUR: All right. So she relies on the minute of order, the affidavit swornthe 10th of - - -

MS BEVAN: November.

HIS HONOUR: November, and a financial statement which was sworn on 20November.

MS BEVAN: Thats correct, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Is that the documents?

MS BEVAN: They are, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Now, Mr , there was filed for you an application for

final orders on 3 December 2007 and there was also filed on that day an affidavit thatyou swore on 13 June 2008 and a financial statement that you swore on 28

November 2007, and there dont appear to be any updating documents since then.Are you relying on any other documents?

MR : I am not relying on any other documents to do with theAustralian Federal Magistrates Court.

HIS HONOUR: You are relying on those, or not on those?

MR : I am not relying on those documents to deal with the situationtoday and the question I have is may I take a seat with my inalienable rights intact?

HIS HONOUR: You can take a seat whenever you like.

MR : When you agree that my inalienable rights are intact, I willtake a seat, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Its a matter for you as to whether you keep standing. So thosedocuments arent relied on by you. If thats the case, then you wont have anydocumentation before the court.

MR : I have documentation to present before a common law court,your Honour, but I am not going to answer until such time as you agree to thecontract that my inalienable rights are intact.

HIS HONOUR: Well, its a matter that you either give me the documents now orthe case would proceed on an undefended basis.

MR : You have no right to proceed with the case on an undefendedbasis, David. I have submitted my claim of right to the Queen, the Prime Minister,the Attorney-General and the Governor-General, and they have consented by


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


6/19

acquiescence that you do not have a right to provide judicial adjudication servicesto me unless I consent.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, sir, you are an intelligent man and you know that thats

a nonsense.

MR : Well, if that is a nonsense, David, you are going to have to signan affidavit under full penalty of perjury, full commercial liability, to say that it is anonsense. Are you willing to sign such an affidavit?

HIS HONOUR: No. I have just said that it is a nonsense. Now - - -

MR : Well, what you say doesnt matter. What matters is what youare prepared to put on affidavit, David.

HIS HONOUR: All right. So there is no documents on which you seek to rely?

MR : I have documents on which I seek to rely, but you have notagreed to the contract that I can enter the court room with my inalienable rightsintact.

HIS HONOUR: Sir, you either hand me the documents now or the matter proceedson an undefended basis.

MR : Well, if you proceed with the matter on an undefended basis,David, I will charge you one million ounces of gold for enforcing an adjudication

process on me that I have not consented to as a sovereign.


MR : I stand here before you as a sovereign of the nation of theland known as Australia, and I do not consent to your adjudication services in anyway, shape or form and I have plenty of witnesses who know this.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you. Then the matter proceeds undefended.

MR : Well, you will be charged one million ounces of gold for doingthis, David. Do you agree to that charge?

HIS HONOUR: Charge whatever you like.

MR : Thank you for agreeing to the bill, David. Your audience heremay wish to know why is it that a man cannot enter the court room with hisinalienable rights intact?

HIS HONOUR: The audience here observes that you are already within the courtroom, sir. All right. Then, Ms Bevan, you better address me in respect of how we


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


7/19

would get to a set of circumstances that would mean that your client gets the totalityof the asset pool.

MS BEVAN: In order to do that, your Honour, I must tender a reasonably

significant amount of documentation.

HIS HONOUR: All right.

MS BEVAN: In relation to the Black & Kellner and Weir & Weir principles, mycase is that the husband, by failing to disclose his assets, has left the court in asituation where, as those cases say, you should not be unduly cautious in making anadverse finding in favour of the innocent party.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS BEVAN: In addition, your Honour, the husband himself in various emails hasmade reference to his own income earning ability, in reference to his, in effect,destruction of the company of the parties, Instant Business Intelligence. There areother factors to take into account with regard to the Irish proceedings. My clientsevidence is those Irish proceedings are now concluded and cannot be reinstated.

HIS HONOUR: Well, they cant be because, I mean, this is the venue for thehearing, isnt it?

MS BEVAN: It is, and this is the appropriate jurisdiction, in my submission, yourHonour. Your Honour, there is also emails from the husband in which he makesreference to having removed certain amounts of money, such as 7000 and 10,000Euro out of the jurisdiction, that being the jurisdiction of Ireland.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well, you had better tender that material.

MS BEVAN: Thank you, your Honour. I have on the front of it a list of thosedocuments. I estimate that it will take approximately an hour to read. However, Ican indicate that in relation to the husbands emails, although it is certainly outside ofthe usual practice, those emails are quite lengthy and I have put highlights around therelevant sections. I dont ask you to read the whole of the emails, but simply those

highlighted sections.

HIS HONOUR: So the material that is produced in the ringback folder, you areseeking to tender that. Is that - - -

MS BEVAN: I am, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Mr , there is sought to be tendered beforeme some material in a binder. Do you wish to be heard in respect to the tender?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


8/19

MR : I do wish to be heard, sir, and I wish you to agree that I canapproach the court with all my inalienable rights intact.

HIS HONOUR: So do you consent to the tender of the documents?

MR : No, I do not consent to the tender of the documents, David.

HIS HONOUR: All right. On that basis dont you consent to the tender of thedocuments?

MR : I dont consent to the tender of the documents on the basis thatI have not been given the opportunity to enter the court with all my inalienable rightsintact.

HIS HONOUR: Thats not a legal basis for the tender not to proceed, sir.

MR : Thats the lawful basis for the tender not to proceed, David.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Then - - -

MR : We are in common law jurisdiction, David.

HIS HONOUR: And on the basis that there is no objection that is sustainable atlaw, I mark as exhibit A the material in a ringback folder.

EXHIBIT #A MATERIAL IN RINGBACK FOLDER

HIS HONOUR: Anything further, Ms Bevan?

MS BEVAN: Would you prefer to have my submissions or after you have read - - -

HIS HONOUR: No, I had better read all that material.

MS BEVAN: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. We will adjourn while I go off and read.

ADJOURNED [10.20 am]

RESUMED [10.58 am]


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


9/19

HIS HONOUR: Ms Bevan, I have read the documents in exhibit A. Mr, there is a notice to produce. Do you produce any documents inanswer to that notice?

MR : Not in answer to that notice, David. I have plenty ofdocuments that I wish to provide to you.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Do you want to do that now, thank you.

MR : I would love to do that now, David, as long as you will agreethat I can enter between these two gates with all my inalienable rights intact. In

particular, my property rights.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. So if you are going to produce, produce them nowplease.

MR : When you said, Yes, all right, do you mean that I may enterwith my property rights and my inalienable rights intact please, David?

HIS HONOUR: No, I dont mean that.

MR : May I ask you a question then, David?

HIS HONOUR: No. Are you going to produce some documents in answer to thenotice to produce?

MR : So I want it recorded that I asked politely, May I ask, David,a question, and he said, No.

HIS HONOUR: Are you going to produce the documents?

MR : Is your oath in the court room today, David?

HIS HONOUR: All right. I take it that means that you are not producing.

MR : And I note for the audience that David has refused to answer

the question, is his oath in the court room today?

HIS HONOUR: So there is no documents in answer to the notice to produce, MsBevan.

MR : There are documents in answer to that notice, David.However, I will only present those documents in the case that my inalienable rightsare intact.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Ms Bevan.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


10/19

MS BEVAN: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, in the documents produced tendered, there wasnt a reference to the 10,000 Euro, I believe.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS BEVAN: I have one email and one letter to tender in addition in relation to that.

HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you.

MS BEVAN: Its only the upper part of that email I ask you to read, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr , there is produced or sought to be tendered, anemail from Sarah Bevan to SBA Mail dated 25 November 2009. Do you want to beheard about that being marked as an exhibit?

MR : David, I would like to participate in a friendly and peacefulway in this conversation. However, I will only participate in this conversation withmy inalienable rights intact. By the way, I wish to declare that Mr Peter Andrew is a corporate straw man fiction and I am the prime creator andsecured party for this corporate fiction. You may call me Peter, David.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Then I mark as exhibit B the email from Sarah Bevandated 25 November 2009 to SBA Mail.

EXHIBIT #B EMAIL FROM SARAH BEVAN TO SBA MAIL DATED

25/11/2009

HIS HONOUR: Mr , there is a letter from the Royal Bank of Canadato Mrs J. dated 20 March 2008 that is sought to be tendered. Do youwant to be heard about that?

MR : David, I have asked you to please call me Peter. Mr is a corporate straw man, its a dead entity. I will speak as PeterAndrew of the family, the primary creator and the secured party for

the corporate straw man, Mr Peter Andrew .

HIS HONOUR: Then there being no objection, I mark as exhibit C the letter fromthe Royal Bank of Canada dated 20 March 2008 to Mrs J .

EXHIBIT #C LETTER FROM THE ROYAL BANK OF CANADA TO MRS J.

DATED 20/03/2008

HIS HONOUR: Ms Bevan, in reading the material - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


11/19

MS BEVAN: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: - - - there is an email called [email protected]. Ipresume thats your clients email address.

MS BEVAN: It is, your Honour, yes.

HIS HONOUR: And then there is some emails to a xxxxxxxxx. Who is thatperson?

MS BEVAN: There was only one to Bruce and thats the accountant, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: The accountant for what?

MS BEVAN: For Instant Business Intelligence.

HIS HONOUR: And there was some emails directed to a Bill xxxxxx, x-x-x-x.

MS BEVAN: My clients father.

HIS HONOUR: I see.

MS BEVAN: The others which is xxxxxxxxxxxx is my clients son.

HIS HONOUR: Son. Fair enough, I gathered as much. All right. Yes, all right,then your submissions.

MS BEVAN: Thank you, your Honour. The orders my client seeks effects, whenone takes into account the add backs included, and in that regard, your Honour, Ishould have an amended case outline which I should have handed up earlier. Thereare only some minor amendments on it which I have underlined - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right.

MS BEVAN: - - - is to add in one add back of $7000.

HIS HONOUR: Thats the money that was transferred when the - - -

MS BEVAN: 7000 yes, it was.

HIS HONOUR: When - - -

MS BEVAN: And the net is underlined on the two last pages, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Yes?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


12/19

MS BEVAN: Your Honour, the effect of the orders sought by my client, if the addbacks are taken into account, and I will address you on those shortly, effects a split tomy client of the assets of 83 per cent, 83.3 to be precise. My submissions take analternative two alternative approaches, or indeed a combination of both. That is

that these orders are warranted on the basis of a Black & Kellner or Weir & Weirtype approach, as I highlighted earlier, that being that the court should not be undulycautious in making findings in favour of my client, the innocent party. Thealternative is that there should be a significant adjustment pursuant to section 75(2)specifically in relation to subsection (b).

Your Honour, in relation to the assets, the Australian assets and the relatively minorassets in Ireland are easy to identify. There is also, the husband asserts in emails, aloan from his brother. The wife has given evidence that that loan was in fact a giftand the husbands own emails, as contained in the tender documents, refers to thatamount not needing to be paid back.

HIS HONOUR: Still have to plead it as a contribution that comes in on his side ofthe - - -

MS BEVAN: You do, your Honour, and I will address you on contributions in thatrespect when I get to it, but given that the husband has not put any evidence withregard to the amount of the loan or the interest on the loan or the terms of repayment,and also given the nature of his emails as contained in the tendered exhibit A, mysubmission is that this is not a loan and should not be treated as a loan of the parties.In fact, its just simply a contribution issue that I will come back to.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS BEVAN: Your Honour, in relation to the Black & Kellner considerations, youhave before you emails from the husband where he refers to removing 7000 Euro outof the jurisdiction. He also refers to paying that amount to a colleague in Germany,as he says. You also have the email, exhibit B, which refers to him removing 10,000Euro, he says to apply it for the sake of the family. My clients evidence saysdifferent and in fact my clients evidence is the only sworn evidence you have beforeyou, your Honour.

In addition, your Honour, there was also what I would submit was a very significantasset, that being the company, Instant Business Intelligence. My clients evidence isclear that that business traded well, afforded them a very decent income.

HIS HONOUR: I dont have any figures about it, do I? Dont have any.

MS BEVAN: You dont.

HIS HONOUR: And there is no profit and loss statements, there is no taxationreturns.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


13/19

MS BEVAN: You have nothing in that regard, your Honour. My submission in thatrespect is that you cannot know anything about the company and in fact the companyis now dissolved.

HIS HONOUR: Dissolved, I saw that.

MS BEVAN: But in any event, there is no means by which that this court can say,I consider it had, or at some stage, a value of X. That - - -

HIS HONOUR: I mean it could have it could simply just be a trading companythat they conducted a business out of. It had no other intrinsic value of its own.

MS BEVAN: As in just a simply income earning vehicle?

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS BEVAN: It could, your Honour, but it also could have been a significant assetitself. Tied in with the company is a reference, the husband makes in various emails,to the software.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS BEVAN: That he has software and, on one of his emails, refers to, No courtcan force me to sell my software.

HIS HONOUR: Sure.

MS BEVAN: My submission in that regard, your Honour, is that he is making aconcession that there is an asset. Again, you have absolutely no means of knowingwhat that asset is worth and that is because of the husbands complete failure todisclose any relevant material in this case, your Honour. Your Honour, incircumstances where you have no knowledge of what the asset pool is, this is a case,in my submission, that falls clearly within the guidelines set out in Weir & Weir and,in my submission, should give you or should lead you to not be cautious at all inmaking findings in favour of my client. When I referred earlier to my clientreceiving 83 per cent of the property pool, that is of what we know there is and the

easily identifiable add backs.

Your Honour, in respect of the add backs, it is my submission that where you have ineffect concessions by the husband that those amounts have been removed for his own

purpose, have not been expended, on my clients evidence, for the sake of the family,but presumably have been used for his own personal purposes or simply, as he says,paid to someone else, that being a colleague in Germany, then the appropriate courseis to treat those as add backs rather than as some sort of wastage consideration underKabaly. Your Honour, in relation to actually I will come back to the Kabaly issuelater, your Honour. In relation to those add backs, there is then the consideration ofwhether they are to be treated as an asset rather than under section 75(2)(o).


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


14/19

In that regard, given that the amounts are clearly identifiable and my clientsfinancial statement sets out the means by which she has converted the amounts toAustralian dollars, that being 1.616 I believe, it is appropriate and in fact is really theonly course open to the court in respect of how to treat those factors. Your Honour,

in relation to the contributions, my submission is that this is a case where thereshould be a 55/45 per cent split in my clients favour. Your Honour, the husband, ifhe was to present a case, might have two factors that he could argue in relation tocontributions, that being that he provide a support to the wifes two older childrenfrom a previous relationship.

HIS HONOUR: A Robb & Robb type argument.

MS BEVAN: Sorry?

HIS HONOUR: A Robb & Robb type argument.

MS BEVAN: Yes. However, that is mitigated by the fact, your Honour, that myclient received child support from the childrens father and they were only residentwith the parties for a limited part of the marriage. The other factor, your Honour, isthe gift from his brother. He said its a loan, but as my submissions as submissionsmade earlier, its appropriate to be treated as a gift. My clients evidence is that itsan amount of $15,000 that was advanced very early in the relationship. On the basisof it being a relatively limited amount and the amount of time and the nature of thecontributions that have flowed since that time, my submission is it would really havelittle, if any, weight pursuant to Pierce & Pierce type considerations, your Honour.

On the contrary, your Honour, my client has made significant post separationcontributions and I should add, when I am jumping to post separation, apart fromthose two factors that I have just mentioned, I would say that the contributions duringthe marriage would generally be considered 50/50. The husband was the breadwinner, my client was the carer of the children and the domestic duties. She did thatand that is how the parties organised their lives. Its a clear case where, apart fromthese other factors, it would otherwise be a 50/50 case, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS BEVAN: Since separation, my client has continued to care for the children andhas continued to make all payments for the care of the children. She has givenevidence that in caring for the children she must pay private school fees and she isnow also supporting Josephine, the older child, who is now at university.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, she is over 18.

MS BEVAN: Sorry?

HIS HONOUR: She is over 18.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


15/19

MS BEVAN: She is over 18.

HIS HONOUR: She is not a special needs child.

MS BEVAN: She is not a special needs child, no.

HIS HONOUR: No.

MS BEVAN: I will come back to her in relation to section 75(2) though, yourHonour. In addition, the contributions that my client has made post separation, in mysubmission, have been made more onerous by the conduct of the husband. Thehusband has embarked on a course of conduct which was designed I withdraw that.The husband has embarked on a course of conduct which has had a significantlynegative effect on my client. She says in her affidavit that she has received anextraordinary amount of emails from the husband and on that point, your Honour, I

must correct one point in my clients affidavit. She says she has received whatnumbers in the thousands. Since swearing the affidavit, she has taken the arduoustask of actually counting those that she still has, not knowing if any were deletedwhen the husband accessed her account, and she has counted 550.

That doesnt include the emails sent by the husband to various friends and colleaguesand family members. Whatever the number, whether its 550 or in the thousands, itis an extraordinary number of emails all taking a very particular approach and all the combined effect must have an effect on my client. Your Honour, you dont haveit in evidence, but my client instructs me today that she has been in counselling for18 months she has now concluded that counselling in order to deal with thetreatment she has had at the hands of the husband. Your Honour, as you will beaware, Kennon & Kennon gives authority to where in circumstances where therehas been domestic violence, but not only domestic violence, also other conductwhich is not limited by description, the factors such as those should warrant aconsideration of weighting the contributions in favour of the essentially the victim,your Honour.

If ever a case fell into the category of conduct which is designed to, or which has ledto making the innocent party have a more onerous job in doing their day to day life,this is the case. Your Honour, the number of those emails, the nature of those

emails, the widespread nature of those emails, can only have an effect on my client.Admittedly you dont have expert evidence before you, but, in my submission, it is avery clear cut case that by simple common sense the effect of those must have had onmy client. Your Honour, in relation to the section 75(2) factors, my submission isthat there would be a very weighty adjustment in my clients favour. If we startedfrom a proposition of a 55/45 contribution, my submission would be that it would beappropriate to adjust, perhaps even up to 40 per cent in my clients favour.

HIS HONOUR: Why?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


16/19

MS BEVAN: Your Honour, subsection (b) refers to the income and earningcapacity of the parties. The husband, throughout his emails, has referred to hisincome earning capacity. In one of his more recent emails, he has referred to theability to earn 200,000 Euro. That, in rough figures, equates to I am doing the

figures in my head about $A320,000 a year. He has referred to his consulting feeof 1000 Euro a day, which is 1600 approximately, Australian dollars a day. If youdont consider that the property that the business is indeed property and insteadwas an income earning vehicle, the fact of the husbands income earning during therelationship suggests that he now has that earning capacity. Now whether he choosesto exercise that or not as a result of other conduct that he chooses to take, is a matterfor him. However, he has that capacity.

Your Honour, in addition my client has the care of the younger child of the marriage;she is under 16. As her evidence says, she is required to pay private school fees forhim and also maintain him in the usual way. In addition, subsection (d) refers to the

commitment to support others, as does subsection (e). She has given evidence thatshe is paying Josephines university fees. As someone on a student permit, she haslimited work rights and therefore limited ability to support herself. In addition, yourHonour, subsection (k) refers to the effect of marriage on the earning capacity of a

party. My client gives evidence that throughout the marriage, from very shortly afterthe younger childs birth, by agreement she was the one looking after the children.

She was the one who stayed home and devoted herself to the care of the children inthe house and effectively enabled the husband to go out and earn the amounts ofmoney that he did, which then puts him in good stead to earn similar amounts ofmoney now.

HIS HONOUR: I just dont have any evidence as to what he earned.

MS BEVAN: What he earned. In my clients affidavit, your Honour, there is someevidence.

HIS HONOUR: Its a statement.

MS BEVAN: There is a bit of limited evidence, but you have it before you inparagraphs 55 and 56. Its within her knowledge to make those statements and

therefore, as the only evidence you have in this matter, my submission is that itsstrong evidence that you are able to rely on, your Honour. She says that thecompany paid the husband between six and 8000 Euro a month and that the companyearned 220-odd thousand dollars in consulting fees and an additional amount insoftware sales. Coming back to the effect of the marriage on my clients earningcapacity, the absence for her from the workforce for such a length of time can onlyhave a negative effect on her earning capacity.

Subsequent to separation, she obtained work as a carer which is a relatively unskilledposition, and now works in office administration. She has detailed what her incomeis and its certainly not anywhere near what she says the husbands income was.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


17/19

Your Honour, another consideration under section 75(2) is the child support paid forthe children. Josephine is now over 18, but she was under 18 at the time ofseparation; Joshua is still under 18. My clients evidence is that apart from three

payments in November 2007, she has received no money whatsoever for the

children. She has had to maintain the children since separation and I think its veryclear and my submission is there is no hope that the wife will ever receive any childsupport for Joshua. Your Honour, turning lastly to section 75(2)(o), I mentioned

before the Kabaly principles in respect of wastage.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS BEVAN: Your Honour, the husband has engaged in conduct that I wouldsubmit falls within the Kabaly principles in relation to two items: that being thecompany. If your Honour accepts or is willing to make a finding that it may wellhave had a value, then the husbands actions since separation have led it to now be

dissolved and for it to have no value, one would assume, at all. In addition, yourHonour has evidence about the actions the husband took in relation to the controlledmoneys account. The sale proceeds from the sale of the Pennant Hills property were

pursuant to orders of 16 June 2008 to be placed into controlled moneys account.

HIS HONOUR: Well, the best that they can get for that would be something likeabout 2 or 3 per cent, isnt it?

MS BEVAN: In a cash management account it now has gone up, but previouslywhich relates to most of the period would be about 3 per cent. By my calculations,

being that its approximately six months, it would be around about four and a halfthousand dollars. Your Honour, there is very clear evidence from the husbandsemails in respect of the controlled moneys, I can say that there was an attempt by myclient to have the registrar sign the required documents pursuant to section 106A.There was a difficulty in that regard as a result of the notation made by JudicialRegistrar Johnston that the agreement that Watts McCray would ....., the husbandsformer lawyers, was a notation only. That was therefore unsuccessful, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: That probably brings it to an end then.

MS BEVAN: Sorry?

HIS HONOUR: That probably puts it to an end. If its a notation only I mean Iwill have to look at that.

MS BEVAN: Its unfortunate that in what happened, it was only a notation.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS BEVAN: There was certainly no issue at the time and it wasnt that particularpart wasnt drafted as consent orders. It was added by Judicial Registrar Johnston.Your Honour, returning lastly to justice and equity in respect of the property issues,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


18/19

while my clients application for effectively 83 per cent of the assets is under what Ihave suggested might be the appropriate percentage for her, it is all that she can get.There is absolutely no point in making an order for the husband to pay her anymoney because I think we can all accept that that simply will not happen based on

the conduct of the husband to date. Your Honour, the husband has chosen not togive evidence today. It can be as a result of what can only be described hiscontemptuous attitude towards this court.

That the husband has presented with that attitude should leave the court no concernsas to failing the husband in terms of providing him justice and equity. Your Honour,there are two additional orders sought that have only lately been sought in respect of

parenting. Your Honour, that is sole parental responsibility and an issue about thepassport. While sole parental responsibility should cover a passport, it is certainlymy experience in the past with other clients that the passport office doesntnecessarily accept a sole parental responsibility order.

HIS HONOUR: When does the childs passport expire?

MS BEVAN: The childs passport expires in January, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: He travels on an Australian passport?

MS BEVAN: He does, your Honour. Your Honour, there has been no section 60Icertificate. My submission is that this is a matter where mediation is that therequirement for mediation should be waived because of the simple impracticality ofit. Your Honour, the husband the only evidence I am relying on to support the sole

parental responsibility is the husbands own emails where he refers to the children ashis former children and also makes a comment of the leeches called wife andchildren. The husband himself has disowned the children. I can say to your Honourthat those two emails that I provided are not the only emails in that regard; there arenumerous emails. I didnt see any point in tendering all of those relevant emails,your Honour. Your Honour, those are my submissions. I do have an application inrespect of costs though.

HIS HONOUR: Well, I am going to reserve so you will have to come back inrespect of that. Mr , are there any submissions that you want to

make?

MR : David, I have asked you to call me Peter. Mr isa corporate straw man of which I am the primary creator and secured party. For therecord are we are on the record? I believe you have been recording. I believe youhave been recording?

HIS HONOUR: No, no. What happens here, Mr , is that allproceedings in this court are recorded.

MR : Okay. So for on the record, David, are you operating under

your oath today?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


19/19

HIS HONOUR: Mr , do you have any submissions that you wish tomake?

MR : For and on the record, David, are you operating under your

oath today?

HIS HONOUR: I take it that therefore you have no submissions that you wish tomake.

MR : So let the record show that a sovereign, Peter xxxxxxxxxxxx, has asked David twice, is he operating under his oath today, andDavid has refused to answer is he operating under oath, and its my contention thathe is operating as a private employee and therefore has no jurisdiction over mycommon law property rights.

HIS HONOUR: There being no submissions, then I reserve my decision. I willdeliver written judgment on a date to be advised.

MR : Well, David, should you choose to violate my property rights,let me hereby notice you that I will address those rights in a common law jurisdictioncourt. You may be charged with theft. You may be charged with violation ofcommon laws. I have with me documentation to demonstrate that I am the primarycreditor of the corporate straw man, Mr Peter xxxxxxxxxx , and Ihave the highest claim. I have not been able to present this documentation becausethe judge is acting the magistrate is acting as a private employee of a privatecompany, not as a common law judge. He is in fact impersonating a public servant.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. We are adjourned.

MATTER ADJOURNED at 11.28 am INDEFINITELY


5

10

15

20

25

30

globalman.court.transcript

Documents