G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Legal Service Commissioner - COMPLAINT Against Gadens Lawyers - Etc

1
Legal Service Commissioner

admin@lsbc.vic.gov.au
19-8-2015
5
Cc; Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
10
Re: 20150819 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Legal Service Commissioner - COMPLAINT

against Gadens Lawyers- etc
Sir/Madam,
This is a complaint against Gadens lawyers, but before addressing it let me clarify
something.
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
As you may be aware that Mr Lulham of VCAT, some years ago, made a complaint against me,
to which the Legal Service Commissioner at the times I understood it spend more than a year
investigating me. The issue realty was that I had exposed that VCAT members were fraternizing
with ,lawyers and all a lawyer needed to do is to make a phone call and then have orders issued
without an y formal application and hearing. While I was unable to obtain evidence that actual
kickback payments were made when members of VCAT did so, it was however persistent
rumour. In the end the opponent lawyers filed a detailed account of their phone calls to VCAT
and it included 9 of them of which 2 resulted to orders being issued.
One has to ask if the legal service Commissioner is really trying to protect the integrity of
lawyers or merely to protect lawyers from anyone exposing the rot the lawyers are involved in.
While VCAT was supposed to be a cheap alternative resolution centre it now is awarding cost in
tens of thousands of dollars and as such hardly is the alternative resolution centre at next to no
cost.
More than a decade ago Mr John Abbott engaged a lawyer about being sued for a huge amount
of monies purportedly owning the GE Monies, this even so as I understood it GE Moneys had no
records of any account.
Mr John Abbott authorised me to action his behalf within POWERS OF ATTORNEY and I
contacted Gadens Lawyers about this. While Mr John Abbott had his matter, I did a personal
investigation and understood that Gadens Lawyers was pursuing others also for alleged debts
even so those persons also as I understood it had paid out the previous debts with AGC. One was
my then son-in-laws Mr Thakur who had purchased a fridge finances by AGC but had paid out
the debt before it was purchased by GE Money. Still he was receiving correspondences that he
owned monies in regard of the AGC account now owned by GE Money. Because generally
people rather paid then have the embarrassment of court litigation this scam was really a
financial bonanza. People generally keep receipts regarding taxation but not a paid out loan.
Because also of the challenged I made to Gadens Lawyers it filed in the court litigation an
Affidavit which included the following:
In his 10 November 2005 Affidavit stated;
QUOTE
p1
19-8-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by admin@inspector-rikati.com
See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
2
I, Patrick John Walsh of level 25/600 Bourke Street, Melbourne in the state of Victoria, solicitor, make oath
and say as follows;
3. I am a Partner of Gadens Lawyers, and have the conduct of this proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff.
5
4. I am authorized to swear this Affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff and do so from my own knowledge and
belief save where otherwise stated. Where I swear this affidavit on the basis of information supplied to me, I
verily believe such information to be correct.
END QUOTE
10
15
No. 17293
TRUST RECEIPT
FUNDS DATE
FROM cash 09/01/2006
John Murray Abbott
THE SUM OF
Thirty Two thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Six Dollars and Fifty Eight Cents $ **** $32686.58 35
CREDIT Bridgement Smith (Holdings) Pty Ltd
A/C 2529063 Re AGC Pty Ltd v- John Murray Abbott
20
Gadens Lawyers letter dated 6 January 2006 gives the account total at $229,267.30 attached JMA 3
If $229,267.30 was obtained fraudulently from just one former AGC customer then I view it
may involve likely tens of millions of dollars considering other former clients.
25
QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 14 January 2006

14 January 2006
Dear Sir
30
Re:
GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd -v- John Murray Abbott
On the 7 December 2005, a default order in the County Court of Victoria in favour of Australian Guarantee
Corporation Pty Ltd (AGC Pty Ltd) formerly trading as Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited (AGC
Ltd) for an amount in excess of $167,000.00.
35
The acting legal agent for AGC Pty Ltd was Rotman and Morris acting for Bridgement Smith Collections.
On the 16 December 2005, an enforcement order of the Supreme Court of Victoria was obtained against me for the
principal sum, interest and costs, which the total may amount to on, or about $229,267.30.
40
END QUOTE.
While Mr Abbott had filed an appearance his affidavit as I understood it was filed one day too
late and a default judgment was made by the court.
.
45
50
55
QUOTE (Red colour and bolding added)

Then in the 10 January 2006 correspondence of Gadens lawyers to myself;
QUOTE
Dear Sir
GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd v John Murray Abbott
Supreme Court of Victoria Proceedings No. 6690 of 2005
We refer to your further letter dated 10 January 2006, and respond as follows.
As you are aware, we are instructed by Bridgement Smith Collections acting in the capacity as agent for
GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE).
In regard to payment of funds from your Bank West loan settlement, Bridgement Smith has obtained its
instructions from GE that all funds be paid unto our trust account.
60
Yours faithfully
p2
19-8-2015
3
Patrick Walsh
Partner
END QUOTE
One has to question what integrity is there in the courts when court orders are issued upon a
fictitious claim?
.
Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4
Bouv Inst. n. 4411.
o Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.
10
o Fraus et jus numquam cohabitant. Fraud and justice never agree together. Wing. 680.
15
20
http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
QUOTE
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
END QUOTE
QUOTE R.V. Crimmins (1959) VR 270
Suppression of relevant evidence
END QUOTE
.
25
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 of what is true.
END QUOTE
.
30
35
40
45
50
55
Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUOTE
In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is wilfully false. The subsection should be read according to its terms. To say that 'false evidence should be read as 'wilful false
evidence' is to introduce a provision not expressed 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 by
reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of evidence which
would comprehend cases of wilful false evidence. At common law, a judgment will be set aside if it has
been obtained by fraud. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, it has been held that an applicant must show
something more than perjury, ie. new facts (Baker v. Wadsworth [1898] 67 LJQB 301; Everett V. Ribbands
[1946] 175 LT 143). This tends to suggest that the words 'false evidence' should be given their literal
meaning
END QUOTE
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
QUOTE
As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his
clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he
honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a 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 knowingly
conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support
it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client
discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
END QUOTE
.
Was a fraudulent GE account (GE AR 226183 Re AGC 0045873235) created that GE Money itself had no
knowledge about but Gadens Lawyers were so to say happy to pursue despite my warnings?
p3
19-8-2015
10
15
4
Below is a copy of GE Money correspondence re there not being any account relating to Mr John
Abbott. And you wonder why on earth people check with me about my views when lawyers are
involved in fraudulent conduct and the Legal Service Commission is more concerned about my
doing then the fraudulent conduct of lawyers? In my view a complete investigation should be con
ducted in how many persons were affected by this elaborate scam! Having since 1982 conducted
a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL I had ample of
people contemplating suicide because of how they held lawyers had obtained fraudulent orders.
Just that lawyers often are able to cover up their wrongdoing. In this case however there is clear
evidence that Gadens Lawyers didnt have lawful authority of GE Money and so how many other
cases were likewise conduct against innocent victims one had to ask, and should be investigated.
As I acted within POWER OF ATTORNEY you can forget of trying to smear my name with
another investigation. And despite that as POWER OF ATTORNEY I was entitled to claim cost,
I never did so. Investigate why lawyers of Westpac and GE Money didnt bother to seek leave to
intervene in the court proceedings when both ought to have known this was an elaborate scam.
I will now quote my 13-8-2015 correspondence to Mr John Abbott, albeit it is not including all
relevant details/issues. And as I indicated Mr John Abbott had a lawyer involved but he seemed
to me to understand basic legal issues, and so got nowhere with the lawyer.
20
QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 13-8-2015
Mr John M Abbott
13-8-2015
johnabbott9@bigpond.com
25
Ref; 20150813 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr John M Abbott

Re GE Money 07 Agust 2015 correspondence Re GE AR 226183 Re AGC 0045873235
John,
30
35
Thank you for your email including as copy of the 07 August 23015 correspondence
from Agi Ferguson, Senior Customer Resolution Officer, Customer Resolution Team of GE.
At the time as I recall it GE was suing you for an alleged debt that existed with AGC. To
which at the time I expressed my concern that someone within AGC was closing off accounts
then was able to obtain a position with GE and subsequently would reopen the accounts and
control fraudulently GE position to do so. As this person as I recall it filed in the Supreme
Court of Victoria an affidavit that he was authorized to act as he did, then I view GE itself is
account table for this. They cannot have a person fraudulently obtain perhaps millions of
dollars by using his position with GE without any legal accountability by GE.
TAYLOR v. TAYLOR [1979] HCA 38; (1979) 143 CLR 1 (22 August 1979)
40
45
Similarly in Commissioner of Police v. Tanos (1958) 98 CLR 383, at p 395, Dixon C.J. and Webb J. said that
QUOTE
it is a deep-rooted principle of the law that before anyone can be punished or prejudiced in his person or
property by any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding he must be afforded an adequate opportunity of
being heard.
END QUOTE
As such the court should have allowed you to proceed with the affidavit where you had in
error filed it too late but had in time filed an application contesting GEs application.
50
55
QUOTE Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court)

A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of endeavouring to
ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own advocacy
END QUOTE
Ample of legal principles exist, what is however relevant is that it was GE (GE Money) that
was suing you, at least as I recall it.
p4
19-8-2015
5
Below I have quoted some items of correspondences as well as a report of the sale of AGC.
There can be no question about it that both you and myself referred matters to the directors of
GE and as such I view they ought to have immediately caused a complete investigation as to
why an closed account of AGC which it owned was now pursued in the Courts without GE
having any records of such an alleged debt. I wonder if this was an insider trading fraud upon
AGC and its shareholders? Was any of the directors involved, as after all it would be
extremely difficult to accept that Mr Boyden, Mr David Attwood, Ms Jones were working
independently of a non-existing alleged debts. Was the ACCC, Westpac and others misled as
to the financial position of AGC?
10
QUOTE (Red colour and bolding added)
QUOTE
Dear Sir
15
20
As you are aware, we are instructed by Bridgement Smith Collections acting in the capacity as agent for GE
Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE).
In regard to payment of funds from your Bank West loan settlement, Bridgement Smith has obtained its
instructions from GE that all funds be paid unto our trust account.
25
30
35
40
Yours faithfully
Patrick Walsh
Partner
END QUOTE
It appears to me to be clear that Gadens lawyers were claiming to represent Bridgement Smith
Collections acting in the capacity as agent for GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE) and as such GE had in
my view a legal obligation to step in, such as seeking leave to interven, as to make clear to the
Court that it had not and neither intended to authorize Bridgement Smith Collections acting in the
capacity as agent for GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE) as claimed by Gadens Lawyers.
In my view Gadens lawyers ought to have checked back with GE if indeed it had authorized
Bridgement Smith Collections to act or claim to act on its behalf, considering your opposition to
this. It may be questioned how often Gadens Lawyers were involved in such possible scam
litigation against past AGC customers without GE knowledge or with GE not acting against
this?
.
45
50
In my view Gadens Lawyers had a legal obligation to check back with GE to check for its
authorisation. I view the Legal Service Commissioner ought to investigate the conduct of
Gadens lawyers.
QUOTE part of your 5 December 2005 Affidavit in support of your defense (disallowed by the court for being
filed to late)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No. 6690 of 2005
BETWEEN:
55
GE FINANCE AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD (CAN 000 015 485) FORMERLY KNOWN AS AUSTRALIAN
GUARANTEE CORPORATION PROPRIETY LIMITED AND AUSTRALIAN GUARANTEE
CORPORATION LIMITED)
Plaintiff
p5
19-8-2015
6
AND
JOHN MURRAY ABBOTT
Defendant
AFFIDAVIT
Date of document
Filed on behalf of
5 December 2005
The Defendant
10
John Murray Abbott
25 Leslie Street, Brunswick, Victoria, 3056
Deponent:
John Murray Abbott
15
Sworn:
I, John Murray Abbott, Care of 25 Leslie Street Brunswick in the State of Victoria, self -employed and the
Defendant in these proceedings make Oath and say as follows:
20
1.
That I have read the sworn affidavit of John Boydon sworn on the 9 November 2005 and respond as
follows:
2.
That the Plaintiff; GE Finance Australasia PTY LTD (CAN 000 015 485) is not capable of suing in this
matter for the following reasons:
25
The Defendant challenges the legal standing of the Plaintiff
3.
The Defendant challenges the Deponent, John Boydon assertion that the Plaintiff has legal standing to
sue the Defendant for the following reasons:
30
(a)
That GE Finance Australasia CAN 000 015 485 has not shown any evidence what so ever that
said GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd purchased the Defendants account from Westpac Bank.
(b)
That Westpac Bank (whom at the time the Credit account was closed off and then being the
owners of AGC Ltd) has no record of any default listed under the Defendants name and
therefore, it is the Defendants submission that where there was no default recorded by
35
Westpac then John Boydon, the then Senior risk manager for AGC Ltd then owned by
Westpac at the material times, could not have entered, for the records of his department, any
record of default against the Defendant. Further, as there is a considerable process before any
default is entered against a payee, the Deponent, John Boydon does not show how and by
what method an alleged write off of the Defendants account came about unless he is referring
40
to the $1.20CR that was inadvertently paid by the Defendant but was subsequently returned
by AGC Limited by way of a AGC Ltd cheque. I refer to the exhibit filed by John Boyden
marked as JB-14 containing the final statement provided to me.
(c)
45
It is now that I ought to set out my concern that the Affidavit seems to be unduly use
excessive amount of paperwork, such as in exhibit JB-1 being a massive 46 pages, and exhibit
JB-5 being about 134 pages, this because JB-1 rather then merely showing a limited extract
required for purpose to show registration have, as I view it, gone overboard to use about 46
pages, as I view to unduly inflate their charges per page. Likewise with exhibit JB-5, of 134
pages, there are as I view it at least 4 sets of 22 pages identical in this exhibit, and in fact some
p6
19-8-2015
7
more pages. It all seemingly to try to maximize cost per page claim rather then try to keep the
paperwork to an absolute minimum. Yet, remarkably, a few pages that are essential to the
litigation were omitted! Such as statements provided by AGC Ltd prior to the 30-12-2001
statement reproduced in JB-14. For example, Statement dated 30-8-2001 from AGC Ltd
showing a payment due of $1.20. This, after the previous statement requesting payment of
$220.71 was complied with. As such, the $1.20 balance existed since 30-8-2001 not as may be
construed from the version of Mr John Boydens Affidavit material only since December
2001. However, on 31-8-2001 AGC Ltd did so to say, write off the $1.20 albeit this was at
the time unbeknown to me, and as such I made a payment on 4 September 2001 of $1.20
10
causing the account from then on being $1.20 in credit (in my favour) As such, AGC Ltd in
fact owned me $1.20 Further, the 30 September 2001 statement showed PAYMENT DUE
$0.00 where the closing balance was $1.20 CR. Therefore since that time without ever any
other monthly statement having shown any demand for payments and no further Statements
having been received since 2001 then the Defendant cannot possibly have been in default.
15
(d)
As such it was not that $1.20 was transferred from the account to a General ledger or for that
to some alleged Merchant Clearing Account (Merchant Clearing), rather that AGC Ltd had
owed me $1.20 instead. Where a credit account is in credit (to the benefit of the Defendant),
then there is no way this monies could be written off as alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore
as from at least 31 August 2001 the account showed a nill balance and since 4 September
20
2001 this was showing a $1.20 CR

(e)
That Westpac gave the understanding to the Defendant that not all accounts were sold to GE
Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE Money) in the course of the sale of AGC Limited to GE
Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE Money), and therefore, even if the $1.20CR was written
off on 31 august 2001, then GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE Money) has no call on that
25
amount. The fact that AGC Ltd refunded the $1,20 by way of company cheque, in December
2001, and the Defendant accepted the refund of that amount as clearly shown in my attached
Exhibit of the Banking slip with the letters JMA 1, then the matter came to an end.
(f)
However, should GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd or anyone else make claim to any other
amounts then the Defendant makes objection and/or denial for any amounts payable to GE
30
Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd given also that GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE Money),
upon the purchase of AGC Limited in June 2002 at no time furnished the Defendant with any
statements of account and nor any Terms and Conditions as would be required by credit and
other legislative provisions if GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (using whatever identity) had
purchase any alleged Creditline account in regard of the Defendant.
35
(g)
That the Defendant also denies the claim made by the Deponent John Boydon because the
Defendant has made numerous inquiries from GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE Money)
as to any outstanding monies owed by the Defendant and each time staff at GE Finance
Australiasia Pty Ltd gave the Defendant the understanding to deny the existence of any
monies outstanding payable by the Defendant. This since March 2004 and until recently, over
40
a period in excess of 18 months and to date, no statements or terms and conditions have been
p7
19-8-2015
8
forthcoming leading the Defendant to verily believe that GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd or
any of its departments do not recognize any outstanding amount from the Defendant.
(h)
That despite various request/demands by the Defendant to be provided by GE Finance

Australiasia Pty Ltd with a formal account statement, terms and conditions and other relevant
details as to the alleged account the Plaintiff failed to do so and as such the Defendant cannot
be in default of non existing accounts, terms and conditions.
END QUOTE part of your 5 December 2005 Affidavit in support of your defense (disallowed by the court for
being filed to late)
10
I may now quote my 2-2-2006 correspondence to you

QUOTE 2-2-2006 correspondence
15
20
John Boyden in his 9-11-2005 Affidavit stated;

QUOTE
The Plaintiffs Standing to Issue Proceedings
5.
The plaintiff is duly incorporated pursuant to the provisions of the laws of Australia and is capable of
suing.
6.
The Plaintiff has changed its name and was formerly known as;
(a) Australian Gurantee Corporation Proprietary Limited during the period 25 July 2002 to 14 October
2004; and
25
(b) Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited during the period 18 June 1925 to 24 July 2002
7.
30
35
An Historical Company Extract for the plaintiff was produced from the ASIC database on 7 November
2005 (the Company Search).
Now produced and shown to me and marked with the letters JB-1 is a copy of the company search.
END QUOTE
Therefore, John Boyden claimed to the Court that GE FINANCE PTY LTD (CAN 000 015 485) was the Plaintiff,
and concealed that in fact the lawyers conducting the case were in fact not instructed at all by the alleged Plaintiff,
but in fact by Bridgement Smith Collections (VIC) Pty Ltd.
Obviously, if Bridgement Smith Collections (VIC) Pty Ltd was the real Plaintiff then the 47 odd history of GE
FINANCE PTY LTD (CAN 000 015 485) was irrelevant in that regard as being the actual plaintiff, and was only to
serve as to deceive the Court to what was really applicable.
40
It would have been a different matter if for example the Plaintiff had shown to be for example;
Bridgement Smith Collections (VIC) Pty Ltd, on assignment for GE FINANCE PTY LTD (CAN 000 015
485)
45
50
55
What this then would have indicated to the Court would be that Bridgement Smith Collections (VIC) Pty Ltd was
the true Plaintiff, and by this the alleged assignment of the debt being allegedly in the wrong ledger, would have
been clear to the Court that in that event Bridgement Smith Collections (VIC) Pty Ltd could have no legal standing
for an assignment without GE FINANCE PTY LTD (CAN 000 015 485) first having appropriately established that it
had a legal standing in regard of the claimed assignment of debt.
An assignment of a debt can only be done if a real debt exist. However, GE FINANCE PTY LTD (CAN 000 015
485) never had a debt purchased but rather a liability, and therefore could assign this liability as some debt.
Therefore, the assignment to Bridgement Smith Collections (VIC) Pty Ltd was legally floored.
It appears to me therefore that John Boyden , being an expert in credit provisions, deliberately concealed from the
Court that the real Plaintiff was Bridgement Smith Collections (VIC) Pty Ltd, and not at all GE FINANCE PTY
LTD (CAN 000 015 485).
Further Patrick John Walsh
p8
19-8-2015
9
QUOTE
I, Patrick John Walsh of level 25/600 Bourke Street, Melbourne in the state of Victoria, solicitor, make oath and say
as follows;
1.
I am a Partner of Gadens Laywers, and have the conduct of this proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff.
2.
10
15
20
I am authorized to swear this Affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff and do so from my own knowledge and
belief save where otherwise stated. Where I swear this affidavit on the basis of information supplied to me,
I verily believe such information to be correct.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Dear Sir
As you are aware, we are instructed by Bridgement Smith Collections acting in the capacity as agent for GE Finance
Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE).
In regard to payment of funds from your Bank West loan settlement, Bridgement Smith has obtained its instructions
from GE that all funds be paid unto our trust account.
25
Yours faithfully
Patrick Walsh
Partner
END QUOTE
30
35
Why on earth would GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE) engage a debt collector regarding a alleged debt and
order the monies to be instructed to Bridgement Smiths collections (VIC) Pty ltd into a trust account one may ask.
After all, if GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE) was the plaintiff then payments would have to be made to GE
Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE) and have nothing to do with Bridgement Smith Collections (VIC) Pty Ltd.
However, Gadens lawyers receipt shows;
QUOTE
No. 17293
TRUST RECEIPT
40
FUNDS
FROM cash
DATE
09/01/2006
John Murray Abbott
45
50
55
THE SUM OF
Thirty Two thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Six Dollars and Fifty Eight Cents
$ ****
$32686.58
CREDIT
Bridgement Smith (Holdings) Pty Ltd
BEING Settlement Monies
END QUOTE
It is therefore very clear that the monies paid in do not go into some Gadens Lawyers Trust account for GE Finance
Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE) but in fact for Bridgement Smith (Holdings) Pty Ltd.
Again;
60

QUOTE
p9
19-8-2015
10
I, Patrick John Walsh of level 25/600 Bourke Street, Melbourne in the state of Victoria, solicitor, make oath and say
as follows;
3.
I am a Partner of Gadens Laywers, and have the conduct of this proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff.
5
4.
I am authorized to swear this Affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff and do so from my own knowledge and
belief save where otherwise stated. Where I swear this affidavit on the basis of information supplied to me,
I verily believe such information to be correct.
END QUOTE
10
And
QUOTE
Dear sir
15
20

As you are aware, we are instructed by Bridgement Smith Collections acting in the capacity as agent for GE Finance
Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE).
from GE that all funds be paid unto our trust account.
25
30
35
40
45
Yours faithfully
Patrick Walsh
Partner
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
CREDIT
Bridgement Smith (Holdings) Pty Ltd
BEING Settlement Monies
END QUOTE
Clearly, Patrick John Walsh knew or ought to have known that his client was Bridgement Smith Collections (VIC)
Pty ltd as recorded by them also as Bridgement Smith (Holdings) Pty Ltd and therefore should have disclosed this in
his Affidavit of 10 November 2005 where he clearly did not do so.
Irrespective if Bridgement Smith Collections (VIC) Pty ltd was or was not acting as an agent for GE Finance
Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE), when it comes to being paid for services Gadens lawyers would have to pursue payment
from Bridgement Smith Collections (VIC) Pty Ltd not of GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd (GE).
******************FOSTER**************** insets case law!!!!!!
50
55
John Boyden in his affidavit 9-11-2005 stated;

QUOTE
The Default
25
The defendant has defaulted under the loan Agreement and the Mortgage by paying the sum of
$1521.44 interest only, and failing to make the balance of monthly payments which were due to the
Plaintiff.
60
p10
19-8-2015
11
26
On 30 January 2002 I caused to be produced and Account Reconciliation in relation to the loan which
shows that gross payment of $1521.44 only were made towards reduction of the Loan (the Account
Reconciliation).
Now produced and shown to me and marked with the letters JB-13 is a copy of the Account
Reconciliation.
5
27
10
At the date of swearing this Affidavit no further payments have been made by the Defendant towards
reduction of the Loan.
END QUOTE
AND
15
QUOTE
30
20
Now produced and shown to me and marked with the letters JB-15 is a copy of the letter dated 18
February 2004 from David Attwood of Australian Guarantee Corporation to the Defendant.
END QUOTE
By the letter dated 18 February 2004 David Attwood of Australian Guarantee Corporation wrote to the
Defendant.
In this last paragraph John Boyden refers to Australian Guarantee Corporation a non-existing legal entity,
seemingly as to cover up that David Attwood was in fact not acting for either Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd
or Australian Guarantee Corporation Pty Ltd, but the correspondence is used never the less.
25
35
The document attached shows that it has a letter head (BLACK AND WHITE);
QUOTE
AGC
Australian Guarantee Corporation
Australian Guarantee Corporation Pty Ltd
A.B.N. 88 000 015 485
5th floor
32 Phillip Street
PARRAMATTA
NSW 2150
40
NSW BUSINESS FINANCE COLLECTIONS

P O BOX 223
PARRAMATTA
NSW 2150
30
18 February 2004
END QUOTE
And
45
QUOTE
Please contact the writer with details of payments made by yourself in order that we may reach an amicable
settlement.
Enclosed are copies of contract and Mortgage.
50
Yours truly,
55
60
David Attwood
Rlvg Manager
02 9842 3249
END QUOTE
As NSW BUSINESS FINANCE COLLECTIONS, P O BOX 223, PARRAMATTA, NSW 2150 was not a
registered business entity then clearly I was entitled not to accept this correspondence as being genuine.
Yet, as shown above, John Boyden relied upon this letter.
p11
19-8-2015
12
As a matter of fact, David Attwood in his 25 February 2004 correspondence used the same NSW BUSINESS
FINANCE COLLECTIONS identity.
As John Boyden claimed that I was in default;
5
25 The defendant has defaulted under the Loan Agreement and the Mortgage by paying the sum of
$1521.44 interest only, and failing to make the balance of monthly payments which were due to the
Plaintiff.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
The Mortgage (Filed by John Boyden as JB-6 Memorandum of Common Provisions, do not reveal under the
heading (6) DEFAULT any of the subclauses.
Not even subclause (1) could be applicable.
(1) If default be made by the Mortgagor is due and punctual payment of any part of the principal sum or
interest thereon or of any instalment of principal and interest at any time due and payable by the Mortgagor to
the Mortgagee and such default shall continue for fourteen days or more;
To be in default, one must have failed to comply with formal request, as required by relevant Credit Act legislative
provisions to make payment, etc.
The last formal Statement showed;
QUOTE
Period From;
01/12/2001
To;
30/12/2001
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
AVAILABLE TO WITHDRAW
$165000.00
CREDIT LIMIT
$165000.00
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATES
0.00%, 7.00%, 9.50%
PAYMENT OVERDUE
$0.00
MINIMUM MONTHLY PAYMENT
$0.00
PAYMENT DUE
$0.00
END QUOTE
UNDER PAYMENT OPTIONS;
QUOTE
In person Present this statement at any Australian Post branch or Westpac, challenge and Bank of Melbourne
branch.
All cheques must be made pay able to AGC
END QUOTE
Then we must look at what the Loan Agreement states;
45
50
In the LOAN AGREEMENT

QUOTE
THIS AGREEMENT is made amongst the party named as the Borrower in the First Schedule hereto, the party
named as the lender in the First Schedule hereto, AND the party, if any, named as the Guarantor in the First
Schedule hereto.
OFFER
The Borrower offers to borrow Advances up to an aggregate amount not exceeding the Credit Limit from, and to
enter a loan agreement with, the lender, on terms and conditions set out in the First and Second Schedules.
55
END QUOTE
Clearly the Loan Agreement refers to the Second Schedules also.
60
END QUOTE 2-2-2006 correspondence
p12
19-8-2015
10
15
13
In my view if Westpac didnt sell your account to GE then it had a legal obligation to
intervene in the matter (seeking leave to intervene) as then it cannot stand by to allow
As such GE had no legal position to allow its name to be used to sue you where they were
aware they didnt purchase your past account and should have intervened also as to prevent an
elaborate fraud to continue, where it effectively retained ownership of your past account.
As I understand this it was a comprehensive wide spanned elaborate fraud perpetrated upon
both Westpac as well as GE against numerous former customers of AGC, and yet both failed
to act. In my view their silence/failure to act is to be regarded as co-conspirators of the fraud
perpetrated also upon the courts to pervert the course of JUSTICE. Because GE
management was alerted as well as Westpac their refusal to act must make them also legally
liable for all that eventuated.
Perhaps you may desire to pass on my writings of today (13-8-2015) also to the Financial
Ombudsman who then may recommend a formal investigation by the relevant
authorities regarding all involved.
QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 7 December 2004
p13
19-8-2015
14
10
15
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Christopher Gerard Vanderkley
7-12-2005
Director GE Finance Australiasia Pty Ltd
Fax: (03) 99216177
Re; Accounting practices, debt, etc.
Cc;
Mr John M Abbott, johnabbott@aapt.net.au
Stefano Paolo Bertamini, director
Thomas Charles Gentile Director
Ewan Doughlas Cameron Director
Steven Andrew Sargeant Director
Vincent Alfonso Erardi, Director
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Sir,
I request you to provide a copy of this correspondence to your fellow directors also.
As per your request, I now fax you this correspondence.
20
25
30
35
40
Recently, Mr John Murray Abbott obtained a credit Card from GE and this without any
problems. As late at about Monday 28 November 2005 Mr Abbott once again requested GE to
clarify what debts he had outstanding with GE. Despite having contacted the various department
he was given the understanding that the only debt outstanding on GE records is the credit card.
This is where the problem lies. For some considerable time allegedly GE has been litigating
against Mr John Abbott in the County Court of Victoria, and this now is in the Supreme Court of
Victoria for alleged outstanding debts to GE in excess of $160,000.00, this, even so Mr John
Abbott at no time had any monthly statement to this alleged debt from GE, and by a recent court
order on 28 November 2005 by the Supreme Court of Victoria that Mr John Abbott was to be
provided with a final statement of the alleged debt GE failed to do so. Proceedings are now to
return before the Court on 16 December 2005!
What was provided however was some flimsy statement by Bridgement Smith Collections who
are pestering Mr John Abbott about an alleged debt, even so GE gave both Mr John Abbott and
myself the understanding that they have not instructed anyone as they have no records of the
alleged debt.
Mr John Abbott had a Creditline with AGC Ltd when owned by Westpac, and this account was
closed in December 2001, with a final payment of $1.20. As such, the account was closed of
prior to the sale of AGC Ltd by Westpac to GE.
What is now happening is that somehow the account, years later, is allegedly reactivated, but
without GE itself having formally notified Mr John Abbott as to be a client in that regard owning
a debt, without any formal monthly statement ever having been forwarded by GE to Mr John
Abbott and without any terms and conditions ever having been provided to Mr John Abbott.
p14
19-8-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
What the more was suspicious to me that the first demand for payment was made by a Mr David
Attwood under a defunct AGC Ltd black and white photo copy letter head (even so GE on its
website had published it now uses GE letterheads) and referring to cancelled cheque amounts!
Mote over, it was also using the business name (unregistered) NSW NSW Business Finance
Collections, as it appears to me, using GE Sydney address.
From onset, I assisted Mr John Abbott, not as a lawyer but as his Attorney, and immediately
question the validity of Mr David Attwood claims, also because he was seeking to claim monies
regarding cheques that had never been issued by AGC Ltd. It was thereafter that Bridgement
Smith Collections took over, claiming that they were instructed by AGC Ltd, a legal entity in its
own right and that it had nothing to do with the sale to GE!
Yet, it then obtained a default order in regard of GE Finance! This, because Mr Abbott had filed
a Notice of Appearance but had omitted to file a supportive affidavit.
Mr Abbott, and so myself, repeatedly pursued that Ge provided a formal statement to show that it
was a legitimate claim and shows the terms and conditions and the interest payable and also to
whom payment was to be made. Despite this none was ever forthcoming. And despite the recent
order by the Supreme Court of Victoria, GE failed to comply and instead some flimsy statement
was provided by Bridgement Smith Collections, that in no way can represent to be a formal
statement of GE as is required by credit law to be provided in regard of any alleged credit
provided to Mr John Abbott. Neither was Mr John Abbott ever provided with any DEFAULT
notice by GE as to being allegedly in default with GE.
Mr John Abbott, until now never received any correspondence from GE setting out that it
purchased some account relating to Mr John Abbott, and clearly this would not have been
possible where the account was closed in December 2001. Neither did it provide ever Mr Abbott
with any formal statements setting out the alleged debt and what interest was applicable, how
payments were to be made and when, etc.
As such, I have the understanding that GE is not at all authorising this litigation against Mr John
Abbott but rather that some one with some authority within GE may be conducting some private
business using his/her position within GE to fraudulently claim moneys.
For example, why on earth would GE in the first place use some unregistered NSW NSW
Business Finance Collections from its Sydney office to pursue some debt when its own fraud
department gave me the understanding they had no records about such a debt in regard of Mr
John Abbott and could not have authorised such debt collection agency. Indeed, the fact that Mr
David Attwood operated from within GE by using its business address obviously as I view it
implicates GE to use a defunct black and white photo copy letter head of AGC Ltd in 2004 while
this AGC Ltd was no longer a legal entity since 2002!
It must be kept in mind that media reports indicate that someone is pursuing people over old
AGC Ltd debts, and people make clear that they all along paid this out years ago. In fact, my
son-in-law himself made known to me that he was pursued for a completed (years ago before
GE purchased AGC Ltd from Westpac) loan when he purchased a refrigerator, and even so he
had paid this loan out. As my son-in-law is a financial advisor, and so had access to check
matters out, he quickly discovered, that, so to say, some funny business was going on. It is then
that quick smart they dropped to pursue him any further.
As a financial advisor he certainly would be wary of what is going on about AGC Ltd having
been purchased by GE and now this rot is going on.
Personally, I doubt he would recommend anyone for finance with GE in view, as it appears to
me, someone within GE is misusing the old AGC Ltd files to perhaps fraudulently obtain
monies.
p15
19-8-2015
16
10
15
20
25
It is only recently that we discovered that a Mr John Boyden now is involved in the litigation and
seemed to have acknowledged that he used to be the Senior risk manager with AGC Ltd (when
still owned by Westpac) and now is employed by GE.
As it appears to me that Mr John Boyden is , so to say, an all rounder in financial matters I view
that he ought to be aware that before GE can sent Debt collectors upon anyone it first must
follow credit procedures as required by relevant credit legislative provisions. Despite this still GE
maintain no records exist in regard of the alleged debt!
Mr John Boyden has involved himself in the litigation and has made certain claims which are in
my view contradicting claims by a Mr David Attwood. Sure, there is the possibility that the case
against Mr John Abbott may succeed regardless if GE is itself not the instructor as clearly it has
never formally acknowledge the alleged debt to exist, but to me as a writer of books, I pursue
why GE then failed to comply with credit legislative provisions!
Indeed, I intend also to pursue taxation matters I perceive are relevant. After all, if tax deductions
were claimed then how can this be ignored? I wonder if there is some system operating that
inappropriate tax deductions are claimed?
In my view, the board of directors of GE should take urgent and immediate action, in view of the
16 December 2005 hearing date to investigate if in fact GE did have ever any formal account in
regard of Mr John Abbott in regard of the alleged debt now subject to litigation.
If it does not, then why is its identity used to litigate first in the County court of Victoria and now
in the Supreme Court of Victoria?
30
Indeed, if it has no formal account in that regard, then why should GE be paying lawyers to
litigate? Indeed, why would it have engaged a non registered NSW NSW Business Finance
Collections that somehow uses GE offices?
Why would it engage Bridgement Smith Collections to obtain Court orders for cheque amount
that were cancelled before issued?
35
It may be questioned if GE was swindled into a purchase of AGC Ltd in the first place, where
perhaps someone within AGC Ltd having a certain position may have inappropriately reduced
the value of AGC Ltd as to then after the sale to make a personal fortune by using then GE
identity to pursue people for debts, even so GE never purchased those alleged debts!
In my view, it is unlikely we are dealing with mere one account, but that this may in the many
millions of dollars!
40
45
It ought to be questions why on earth some unregistered NSW NSW Business Finance
Collections was operating from GE offices!
Why would GE litigate against Mr John Abbott in the Supreme Court of Victoria and then pursue
that payments are to be made not to GE but to Bridgement Smith Collections?
In my view, however is using the old AGC Ltd files, that were handed over to GE, it likely must
be a person who has, so to say, some cloud within GE and can perhaps manipulate his/her
position to throw off any investigation.
50
55
Ultimately, I intend to publish my book and set out the numerous failures, as I view them, by GE
in regard of credit legislation provisions.
After all, as GE is clearly the entity suing Mr John Abbott in the Courts and Mr John Boyden
made known he is authorised, as such then it cannot be claimed GE was unaware of what going
on.
p16
19-8-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
There is a lot more to it all, but it would take reams of paper to set it all out and this can be done
later, but the issue might be for the Board of Directors to consider if it should stand by allowing
the 16 December 2005 proceedings to go ahead, even if this may end up being a miscarriage of
justice, and then GE may face severe consequences if in the end it can be shown it failed to
comply with relevant credit laws, or perhaps the Board of Directors take immediate steps to seek
to have it investigated and order its own lawyers to intervene and to seek the 16 December 2005
proceedings to be adjourned pending its own investigations if the proceedings are legitimate on
behalf of GE.
It would, in my view, be a serious matter if the Court were to make orders against Mr John
Abbott and then the Authorities investigating matters would then find that GE never complied
with legal provisions governing credit to be provided.
Because the last statement Mr John Abbott received from AGC Ltd was one of nil in
December 2001 after Mr Abbott had send in a postal money order for the $1.20 that was on his
November 2001 statement, which AGC Ltd cashed and then subsequently refunded, because it
had written of the $1.20, then clearly the account was non existing at the time AGC Ltd was sold
by Westpac to GE.
As Author of books, in certain constitutional and other legal issues, I am always aware that I
must provide others a reasonable opportunity to respond and to put their case forwards. If GE
fails to respond then it cannot claim afterwards that it was not given the opportunity to do so.
In my view, albeit Mr John Boyden appears to claim being employed by GE, to me this does not
necessarily mean that he therefore acts with full authority for GE in these matters. But that is for
GE to sort out.
Again, Mr John Boyden seems to be some expert in credit matters and I view he should be well
aware that you cannot just engage a debt collector, in regard of an alleged debt, where there was
no default on statement where the statements were never provided in the first place.
Obviously, I did download what GE published on its website, so that it can be used that GE did
publish certain statements and somehow appears to contradict its own publication!
Why on earth in view of what is stated in this correspondence would GE litigate about a debt yet
have no records on file about it? Who really is going to get the moneys, if the Court order this to
be paid, if Bridgement Smith is getting this money?
Mr John Abbott has stated ongoing that if GE had any legitimate claim (not that he seeks to
indicate such legitimate claim exist), which it can prove by records showing it was purchasing a
Creditline account of Mr John Abbott when Westpac sold AGC Ltd to GE, then he would
obviously be required to pay moneys due and payable as per terms and conditions. The problem
is however, he never was provided with a single account statement, and understand none will
ever be issued because GE simply has no records of this alleged debt, then why is GE suing him
then in Court? It cannot have it both ways not having any form of credit records and no monthly
statements and as such there is and can be no default, and on the other hand nevertheless litigate
for an alleged debt. I still wonder how extensive this kind of conduct may be going on.
Mr John Boyden did file an Affidavit in Court in which exhibit JB-15 contains a copy of the 18
February 2004 correspondence of Mr David Attwood. As such, it appears to me that Mr John
Boyden relies upon this, as I view it, being a bogus business name of NSW Business Finance
Collections. And, if the Board of Directors also were to check also the 25-2-2004
correspondence of Mr David Attwood, then it may ask itself is this the professional manner GE
deals with alleged debts? Keeping in mind that contrary to all allegations of closure of account,
the account continued until December 2001 when it was paid out by Mr John Abbott by paying
the final payment required (by AGC Ltd statement) of $1.20.
p17
19-8-2015
18
QUOTE 28-11-2005 CORRESPONDENCE TO MR JOHN BOYDEN
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr John Boyden
Strategic Asset Finances Group GE
Fax: (02) 82493795
28-11-2005
Re; Accounting practices, debt, etc.

Cc;
Mr John M Abbott, johnabbott@aapt.net.au

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
10
Sir,
In March 2004, I published the DRAFT of my book;
15
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS

For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD.
ISBN 0-9751760-4-3
However, due to ongoing litigation involving Mr John Abbott and alleged debt I have delayed
the final publication as to be able to include the correct version of events.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
When Mr John Abbott contacted me early last year about a Mr David Attwood making claims of
debts on behalf of AGC Ltd it was my view that this was likely to be an elaborate scam, where
people may be ripped of by the old AGC Ltd records being inappropriately used. In fact, because
I understand Mr David Attwood was using incorrect amounts, using a black and white photo
copy letterhead of the former red and white AGC Ltd letterhead, using an unregistered NSW
Debt collection agency, etc it was not a lawful demand. Having researched the issues, I became
quickly aware that neither AGC Ltd or AGC Pty Ltd were using the letterhead as GE had
indicated on its website that it was using new letterhead of GE and clients were provided with
Terms & conditions. Each client would be notified. As Mr John Abbott never was notified about
this I for one viewed this as underlining that this was a scam by Mr David Atwood. In particular
where there was a refusal to provide formal notices of any alleged debt and so Terms and
conditions. I view that no one in his right mind really could accept that a reputable company like
GE would conduct matters in such absurd manner.
My son in law also gave me the understanding having been pestered about some old AGC Ltd
account, this even so he had the evidence that he paid that account out (before Westpac sold
AGC Ltd to GE). More over, various media reports indicated that people were pestered with
AGC Ltd accounts, band so debt collectors and credit rating problems, this even so they had
evidence to show they had paid out the account or simply they were never a client with AGC
Ltd.
In March 2004 I have various conversations with staff of both Westpac and GE and they gave me
the understanding that they had no records in regard of the alleged debt pursued by Mr David
Attwood and neither had authorised any debt collection agency regarding the claimed debt.
When Bridgement Smith became involved, still pursuing amounts of cheques which had been
cancelled without being drawn again they were requested to provide formal notification from GE
that they were involved and so a formal Statement and Terms and Conditions. Bridgement Smith
responded to the effect that their client was a legal entity and the sale of AGC Ltd to GE had
nothing to do with it. Yet, by default they obtained County court orders for amounts which were
clearly of cheques that had been cancelled before being paid out.
In my view, this was an elaborate scam even to the extend to pervert the course of justice.
Obviously, as writer about certain constitutional and legal issues, I am very much interested in
how far this goes on and what ultimately authorities will do. In that regard it is not relevant what
orders any court may make, as if it is a scam then that is what I pursue to expose.
p18
19-8-2015
19
10
15
20
25
30
35
I understand that Miss. Kaylene Spencer, Executive Complaints Manager, Westpac Bank,
has indicated to Mr John Abbott that he does better to directly contact you about matters before
the Supreme Court of Victoria, and I understand that you have claimed to be employed by GE.
So far, I have been unable to have this confirmed that indeed you are employed by GE, and so in
what capacity, albeit I understand that you were employed by AGC Ltd while it was owned by
Westpac. I invite you to clarify to me if you are in fact employed by GE or not, as I do not want
to publish incorrect details about you.
CEF EQUIPMENT HOLDING LLC Securities Registration Statement (simplified form) (S-3)
RISK FACTORS.htm indicates the process, I understand, you outlined as to recovery of a debt.
Albeit being a long time ago, I used to work in an accounting department (in Europe) and
involving in debiting and crediting accounts, it is because of my past experiences that somehow
it did not make sense to me what David Attwood, Bridgement Smith and others tried to make out
of it all. I was known to be extremely precise with accounts and where clients returned goods I
would restructure the original purchase then work out what their true discount entitlements had
been if they had purchased the items minus what was returned, etc. when employed in another
accounting department, (in the 1960s) having six women typing out the accounts, I never
hesitated to let them retype a 40 fold invoice where I detected errors. After all, being accurate is
what is essential. The same I do with certain constitutional and other legal provisions.
Obviously in view of the recommendation by Miss. Kaylene Spencer that you are the person to
be contacted, I cannot ignore this. After all, where as late as this week I have the understanding
that GE so far has not recognized Mr John Abbott as a account holder in regard of the alleged
debt, then I like to expose if there is some elaborate scam going on and why authorities failed to
deal with that. Considering that you appear to be extremely qualified in these matters of what is
relevant as to overdue accounts, etc. I cannot ignore to seek your assistance to clarify to me what
your views are and why despite GE haven given me the understanding not to recognize Mr John
Abbott in regard of the alleged debt, neither having authorized any debt collection agency to act
in that regard for the alleged debt, then somehow nevertheless the Courts can make a default
order and further litigation can be pursued in the Supreme Court of Victoria on a what appears to
me to be a fictitious debt.
It would be extremely hard to ignore your competence in debt collection issues, as I understand
you do also give lectures, such as in Sydney on 20 July 2005, which then listed you as GE
Commercial Finance.
TIMETABLE
Credit Analysis and Fundamentals
Dates:
Wednesday 20 July 2005
Times:
9:00 am 4:00 pm
Venue: Securities Institute

Level 3, NAB House
255 George Street
SYDNEY
40Presenter: John Boyden SIA (Aff) GE Commercial Finance
p19
19-8-2015
20
Time
Topic
9:00 am 10:30 am
Introductions and scene setting
What is credit?
Credit analysis fundamentals and information gathering
10:30 am 10:45
am
BREAK
10:45 am 12:15 pm
Credit analysis fundamentals and information gathering cont.
Financial analysis fundamentals (I)
12:15 pm 1:00 pm
LUNCH BREAK
1:00 pm 2:30 pm
Financial analysis fundamentals (II)
Loan structuring and documentation (I)
2:30 pm 2:45 pm
BREAK
2:45 pm 4:00 pm
Loan structuring and documentation (II)
Putting it all together
10
15
20
The following also indicates that a person wanting to avoid certain fees then needs to make
payments in a certain manner as indicated by the account. That is where the problem is. As I
understand it, not only did AGC Ltd fail ever to set out in any account the monies now pursued
in total of alleged overdue account, but also neither AGC Pty Ltd and for that GE itself did ever
provide any such Account Statement. Now, it seems to be extremely difficult then for any person
to be in default of monthly payments when never any were sought as such! Perhaps you may
clarify this to me how on earth a person can be nevertheless in default of payments to GE when
GE has given me the understanding that they do not recognize this alleged debt to exist?
In that regard, even if the Courts were to issue orders for an alleged debt, I view, it would not be
legally enforceable because if the orders were the product of deception then that is the end of it.
I recognize that the Courts issue orders upon the basis that the evidence was correct, and
therefore if any evidence turn out to be false/misleading then the orders obtained by anyone by
perverting the course of justice may lack any legal enforcement. After all, the Courts cannot
allow it to be abused and misused by fraudulent conduct. Therefore, anyone who may pursue any
litigation and obtain orders obviously has to realize that those orders will be worthless if they are
discovered to be the product of fraudulent conduct.
Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF
AUSTRALIA.
"In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is
willfully false. The sub-section should be read according to its terms. To say that 'false
evidence should be read as 'willful false evidence' is to introduce a provision not
expressed by the provision; cf s6H of the Royal Commission Act 1902 which speaks of a
p20
19-8-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
21
witness 'who knowingly gives false testimony'. This interpretation is reinforced by
reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of
evidence which would comprehend cases of willful false evidence. At common law, a
judgement will be set aside if it has been obtained by fraud. In the exercise of this
jurisdiction, it has been held that an applicant must show something more than perjury, ie.
new facts (Baker v. Wadsworth [1898] 67 LJQB 301; Everett V. Ribbands [1946] 175 LT
143). This tends to suggest that the words 'false evidence' should be given their literal
meaning"
Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343
Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what
is true.
No one could hold that a judge of a Court intended to make orders for fraudulent usage. Hence,
I view, the de fault judgment obtained from the County Court of Victoria upon amounts then
alleged and finally now allegedly admitted to have been incorrect, would clearly show that the
orders were fraudulently obtained.
In my view, the Supreme Court of Victoria could never rely upon the County Court of Victoria
de fault orders to enforce them once it is made known that those orders were obtained using false
and misleading amounts.
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
"As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or
choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his
client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a 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 knowingly conceal the truth. He must not
unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all
relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if
ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court."
In my view, lawyers acting in the litigation would have a duty to advise the Court that not only
were the County Court of Victoria default orders obtained using incorrect amounts but also that
in fact no default can exist where at no time Mr Abbott was provided with any formal
Statements to make payments in regard of the amounts now claimed and neither Terms and
Conditions how payments are to be made.
The concept of impracticability in s.79A(1)(b) differs from problems of enforcement that
may arise due to a reasonably foreseeable change in circumstances and, as a matter of
principle, a party cannot successfully seek an order pursuant to s.79A(1) as a result of
that partys own default.
45
50
Concept of self-induced frustration discussed:
Re Badische
Co. Ltd. (1921) 2 Ch. 331, Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd (1935) AC 524 and
Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capell and Co. (1919) AC 535 noted.
It appears to me that despite request for formal statements and terms and conditions none were
provided to him in regard of the amounts of monies claimed in Court, then even if somehow GE
could produce evidence to be the legitimate owner of a debt it still would face the hurdle it never
did notify Mr John Abbott about this, neither made any formal provisions. And as such Mr John
p21
19-8-2015
10
22
Abbott was and remains frustrated to be denied to know what to do, despite his about 18 month
campaign to be advised of the relevant details he is entitled upon by law. One can hardly argue
that some flimsy photo copy of a redundant AGC Ltd letter head payable to a unregistered NSW
Debt Collection agency regarding incorrect amounts could be deemed proper notification and
terms and conditions. I understand that Gadens lawyers refer to him (Mr David Attwood) as their
client, and this in my view then also place in question their credibility. After all, it would be
unlikely that GE having such long experiences in financial matters, would lower themselves to
ignore all legal requirements and go as far as to use a defunct black and white letter head to
pursue some alleged debt.
Below is what AGC Ltd had applicable at the time it was operating as an entity of Westpac;
9002.001.N.WS.011
lease read this brochure carefully as it explains important fees and charges covering your
15
AGC CreditLine account. Many of the fees outlined in this brochure can be avoided by making
small changes to the way you operate your account.
Wherever possible, AGC have provided information on how to avoid having to pay these fees.
Fees and Charges

20
ATM Withdrawal Fee - $1.95

EFTPOS Transaction Fee - $0.85
Australia Post Payment Fee - $1.50
CreditLine CreditLine
Information Fee - $10.00
25
This fee will be debited to your account when AGC receives any request for information about your account
or this contract and AGC gives that information in writing.
How to avoid paying this fee
30
When you took out your AGC CreditLine account, AGC provided you with all the information you need to
know about your account and contract.Your monthly statements and regular updates will keep you informed
about your balance and other relevant transaction information so you can avoid paying the fee by referring to
this information.
Direct Debit Dishonour Fee - $2.50

This fee will be debited to your account when any direct debit payment processed by AGC is dishonoured.
35
If you have established the AGC EasyPay Direct Debit payment facility to make your monthly CreditLine
payment, you will never have to pay this fee if you always ensure that adequate funds are in your bank
account when your AGC CreditLine payment is due.
Overdue Fee - $27.00

This fee will be debited to your account when any amount payable to AGC under this contract (or part
thereof) is 10 or more days overdue.
40
You can avoid paying this fee simply by ensuring that you make your AGC CreditLine payments on time.
The various ways you can pay your account are detailed on your AGC CreditLine monthly statement.
Account Keeping Fee - $2.95 per month

This fee will be debited to your account monthly on the date of each statement of account.
45
Over-the-counter Fee - $4.00

This fee will be debited to your account when any request is made for a cash or cheque advance over-thecounter at any branch of Westpac Banking Corporation, Bank of Melbourne or Challenge Bank.
50
You cant avoid this fee if you want to withdraw cash over the counter at any branch of Westpac Banking
Corporation, Bank of Melbourne or Challenge Bank.
p22
19-8-2015
23
Cheque Dishonour Fee - $9.00
This fee will be debited to your account when any cheque received by AGC is dishonoured on its
presentation to AGCs bank.
You can avoid paying this fee simply by ensuring you always have adequate funds in your bank account
when making a payment to your AGC CreditLine account by cheque.
AGC Advance Fee - $10.00

This fee will be debited to your account when any advance is made at an AGC branch.
You cant avoid this fee if you want to withdraw cash over the counter at an AGC branch.
10
AGC252NP (7/03)
ATM Withdrawal Fee - $1.95

This fee will be debited to your account on each occasion on which you make a successful withdrawal from
your account at any automatic teller machine (ATM).
15
You cant avoid this fee if you want to withdraw cash at an ATM.
EFTPOS Withdrawal Fee - $0.85

This fee will be debited to your account on each occasion on which you make a successful purchase on your
account or successful withdrawal from your account using electronic funds transfer at point of sale
(EFTPOS).
20
You cant avoid this fee if you want to withdraw cash at EFTPOS.
Payment Handling Fee - $1.50

This fee will be debited to your account on each occasion on which you make a payment on your account at
any Australia Post outlet
25
You can avoid this fee by paying your account by BPAY or setting up a Direct Debit.
You may notice;

30
This fee will be debited to your account when any request is made for a cash or cheque advance over-thecounter at any branch of Westpac Banking Corporation, Bank of Melbourne or Challenge Bank.
You cant avoid this fee if you want to withdraw cash over the counter at any branch of Westpac Banking
Corporation, Bank of Melbourne or Challenge Bank.
35
And
The various ways you can pay your account are detailed on your AGC CreditLine monthly statement.
40
45
50
55
As I understand it those terms and conditions have never been altered. However, I am
understanding from my conversations with Westpac that those conditions no longer apply, since
Westpac sold AGC Ltd to GE. And, if no statements are provided, because the last Statement
was zero, then I view, there is a lot of explaining to do how on earth legally any alleged debt can
exist.
Now, lets say I had an account with the Westpac owned AGC Ltd and had paid out that account,
and now someone were to bother me with seeking payments, well, I can assure you that I would
simply report the matter to the police under Section 21A of the Crimes Act (Vic) stalking!
In fact, I did so months ago when some Debt collection Agency was pestering me with some
alleged debt of some address I had never even been at. Despite their formal notices, they quick
smart stopped their rot, and must have discovered that after all it had nothing to do with me.
You see, if anyone is stalking another person about alleged debts without presenting any
legitimate evidence that such debt actually exist and the claimant is entitled upon it then I view
those involved could score themselves criminal convictions and perhaps some happy time in
imprisonment. After all, we do have laws in this country to protect the innocent.
In the event you were unaware of what precisely may have been going on, of which some has
been outlined above, then for an expert like yourself I have no doubt you will take every
appropriate action to ensure that whatever is within your powers matters will be properly
addressed. I intend also to follow up with the relevant authorities what, if anything they are doing
p23
19-8-2015
10
15
20
25
24
about matters, as I am greatly concerned about what appears to me gross abuse and misuse of old
AGC Ltd records. Perhaps, we might even be able to compliment each other effort to iron out
matters and to protect the general community of any abuse/misuse of the old AGC Ltd records.
I understand from past conversation with staff of Westpac that it did not sell all AGC Ltd
account to GE, as certain accounts were retained by them. It would therefore be interesting to
discover if someone was to pursue accounts retained by Westpac as being now GE accounts.
As you have inside knowledge of having been employed, as I understand it, previously with
AGC Ltd (when owned by Westpac) you may be able to shed light on this also.
Please do understand that I have set out the above, so you can provide me with, your response
albeit do take into account that this correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived
to contain or otherwise is intended to contain legal advice. It is my view, that if I do not set out
the above then I can hardly expect you to set out your views as an expert in financial matters and
so how GE possibly could as I view it legal requirement, and still maintain a claim. Because you
appear to be an expert in financial matters, I have no doubt you will be able to teach me some
tricks of the trade, so to say, that will clarify to me matters.
Because of the coverage in the media about other cases involving past accounts of AGC Ltd, you
may pursue a full and total investigation as to ensure that anyone who may be involved in a
fraudulent scheme will be reported to the relevant authorities.
I for one, having read some of the material I understand you have published about credit issue,
could not possibly understand how GE could then pursue this matter against Mr John Abbott as
is currently being done, and for this grateful to Miss. Kaylene Spencer having provided your
references as to be able to address matters.
Because my past involvement in accounting in Europe, I recognize that besides, so to say, being
rusty, some different kind of credit legislation may exist, but I doubt if the debiting and crediting
system itself would have been changed altogether to such extend, regardless of which country it
is applied in. Anyhow I look forwards to your fullest cooperation and will not hesitate to provide
Mr John Abbott with a copy of your response so he may also have a clarification about the
issues. For this, I look forward for receiving your response within the next seven days.
30
Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA (Gary)
END QUOTE 28-11-2005 CORRESPONDENCE TO MR JOHN BOYDEN
Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA (Gary)
35
END QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 7 December 2004
40
QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 30 December 2004

Miss. Alexander Jones
GE Money
Ph: 38967377
Fax: 38967586
Mr. John M. Abbott

6 Elementary Way
Upper Coomera, 4209
Ph/Fax 55734041
45
p24
19-8-2015
25
30 December 2004
Dear Alexander
Re:
AUSTRALIAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION ABBOTT
5
Further to our telephone conversation on the 28 December 2004, my understanding by your comments is that GE
Money (GE) are unaware of Bridgement Smith Collections, nor engaged them to affect any action for collection
against me on behalf of GE. Further, that you/GE have no knowledge of Bridgement Smith Collections existence.
10
15
20
25
30
35
It is my further understanding that when I indicated that Bridgement Smith Collections had obtained a judgment
against me at the County Court Melbourne for the amount of $167247,66 you expressed no knowledge and nor had
any record of any outstanding amount regarding my name to GE.
To assist you/GE in its inquiries and for your records, I forward a true copy of the letter from Bridgement Smith
Collections dated 22 December 2004 which shows that Bridgement Smith Collections made application and
obtained judgment against me for the said amount for and on behalf of CREDITOR: GE Finance Australia Pty Ltd
AMOUNT OWING: $167247.66.
Further, the said letter goes on to state:
The Judgment debt shall continue to accrue interest under the Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983 at the
current rate of 12%.
And
It is our clients intention to proceed with further action, such action may result in a Warrant to Seize
property, an Oral Examination Summons, Wages Garnishee or Bankruptcy proceedings against you.
And
You will be liable for all costs involved thus increasing the exposure you have to our client.
By our client the letter clearly indicates that GE Money is the client that the letter refers to. As you are aware
that I am not your client then I look to you/GE Money to assist me in setting the record straight. I respectfully
request a written confirmation that I am and never was your client and that Bridgement Smith Collections are in no
way acting in any capacity for and on behalf of GE Money to pursue me for any amounts of money or for any
reason.
I request such a letter as matter of urgency as presently I am compelled to file an Appeal to the County Court at
Melbourne to overturn the said judgment and possibly make an application for out of pocket expenses from the
court.
Please forward to me by way of facsimile and hard copy my requested letter within 7 days to not only assist GE
Money and me but also the County Court who, in my view, may have been deceived by the conduct of Bridgement
Smith Collections to make such a judgment against me.
40
Yours truly, John M. Abbott
END QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 30 December 2004
45

Mr. Christopher Gerard Vanderkley
Director GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd
Fax: (03) 99216177
Mr. John M. Abbott

1 Piccolo Street
Coomera Waters
QLD, 4209
Ph/Fax: (07) 55734041
50
14 January 2006
Dear Sir
55
Re:
GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd -v- John Murray Abbott
On the 7 December 2005, a default order in the County Court of Victoria in favour of Australian Guarantee
Corporation Pty Ltd (AGC Pty Ltd) formerly trading as Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited (AGC Ltd) for an
amount in excess of $167,000.00.
60
The acting legal agent for AGC Pty Ltd was Rotman and Morris acting for Bridgement Smith Collections.
p25
19-8-2015
26
On the 16 December 2005, an enforcement order of the Supreme Court of Victoria was obtained against me for the
principal sum, interest and costs, which the total may amount to on, or about $229,267.30.
10
15
20
25
30
From onset, I have made every attempt to request from GE Money what if any claim was being made against me and
if GE were involved in the said court proceedings. So far, GE has not been forthcoming with any correspondence
and/or assistance to me to clarify what if any claim GE had or has against me.
The history of the matter is that I received a telephone call from Mr. David Attwood on or about February 2004 who
claimed to be working for AGC Ltd and made demands for payment. I requested that Mr. David Attwood write to
me and explain the demand in writing.
I received two letters from Mr. Attwood where I noticed that both letters were a photo copy of an AGC letterhead;
Indicated that it was from NSW Business Collections; the signatures were totally different on each letter; each letter
was typed in a way that was not formatted in the manner that one would expect to receive to receive from a large
corporation and that the ABN/CAN number was registered to AGC Ltd.
I became suspicious and contacted a friend by the name of Mr. Schorel-Hlavka of May Justice Prevail for assistance.
Mr. Schorel-Hlavka then requested that I give him power of attorney so that he may be able to communicate with
Mr. David Attwood.
From my understanding, Mr. Schorel-Hlavka the wrote to Mr. Attwood and requested further information and that
Mr. Attwood did not respond but rather, Mr. Attwood appeared to disappear from the face of the Earth so to say.
On or about 30 July 2004, I received a demand letter from Bridgement Smith Collections (BS) purporting to be
acting for AGC Ltd and demanded monies to be paid under threat to sue. The amount demanded was $162,530.70 to
be paid within four (4) days and in default of such payment by the required date we will instruct our Solicitors to
commence legal proceedings by way of a Complaint (summons) without further notice to you.
It should be noted at this time that other than the said letter of the 30 July 2004, I received no other letter, statement
or anything else from Bridgement Smith Collections.
Again I requested that Mr. Schorel-Hlavka communicate with them as my Power of Attorney but Stella Gianinno at
BS made known to me that she, on behalf of BS would refuse to communicate with Mr Schorel-Hlavka despite the
Enduring Power of Attorney.
35
40
Mr. Schorel- Hlavka and I requested from BS to clarify whom they were acting for but refused to do so citing only
that AGC Ltd was able to sue in its own capacity. However, when Mr. Schorel-Hlavka and I specifically questioned
BS as to whether GE was the actual litigant, the response from BS (letter dated 8 September 2004) was that GE was
irrelevant and further made known that your account was moved from one general ledger to another. The account
balance was in fact transferred to the wrong ledger; hence, your account was closed off by crediting the amount of
$162,589.20 in June 2001.
45
In this claim to close off my account by crediting me for the amount of $162,589.20 and the as later claimed by Mr.
John Boydon that my alleged account was transferred into the merchant clearing account leaves me to believe that
when GE then owes me $162,589.20 and not that I owe GE.
50
However, the contradiction from statements made by Mr. David Attwood in February 2004 and then BS in
September 2004 that my account was transferred into the wrong ledger is in clear contradiction to what Mr. John
Boydon now claims in his sworn affidavit filed in the Supreme Court that my alleged account was put into the
merchant clearing account.
55
It may well be that Mr. Attwood, BS, and Mr. John Boydon are participating in deceptive conduct because it now
turns out and by their own admission that the amounts sought from onset were never disbursed because I now have
the evidence that the amounts sought and default judgment entered in the County Court for such amounts is now
proven to be incorrect.
60
As such, the said judgment of the County Court is incorrect and I verily believe that Gadens were made aware of this
fact as late as November 2006 but Gadens Lawyers ignored my correspondence and so too the correspondence of
Mr. Schorel-Hlavka and obtained orders from the Supreme Court for enforcement based on the said County Court
order.
p26
19-8-2015
27
In my view, this could be a very serious matter and it may well involve GE.
10
On the 18 August 2004, I wrote a letter to GE Board of Directors C/o Michelle Trimble asking if GE had engaged
any collection Agency and/or solicitors to pursue for any debt owing to GE. The response from GE by way of a
letter dated 10 September 2004 stated in part: Unfortunately we were unable to contact you by way of telephone
number provided. Please feel free to contact our customer Care Team on 1300 131 034.
Further correspondence outlining the above was sent to Gadens Lawyers, GE and other interested parties but Gadens
Lawyers and GE did not respond to our concerns but rather made such correspondence available to Mr. John
Boydon of Strategic Asset Group.
All of the above has given me cause to believe that so and I too GE have been dragged into a possible elaborate
swindle-to-swindle funds. It may well be that I am wrong but I respectfully request that you and so too GE launch an
immediate investigation upon which I will be very happy to cooperate in any way that I can.
15
I verily believe I have an excellent case against GE if GE is in fact involved. However, I am also of the mind that M.
John Boydon and others may be acting without the knowledge and/or consent of GE.
20
25
In my view, GE could not have purchased my account from AGC Ltd because my account was in fact closed over
18 months before GE purchased AGC Ltd from Westpac Bank and if my account was allegedly placed in the wrong
ledger the GE would have known about it and if my alleged account was placed with Merchant Clearing at GE then
GE would have written me a cheque for that amount.
Further, as the last statement I received as at 30 December 2001, the said statement clearly shows a nil balance and
no further statements have been received to date.
As such, the reasonable person would consider that there could not have been a default on a nil account. Yet a
default judgment has been entered against me in the County Court.
30
35
From my understanding of accounts and the accounts department, the above stated allegations by Mr. Attwood, John
Boydon, Bridgement Smith Collections is nothing short of nonsense, and GE should investigate such allegations.
I was of the mind to launch an immediate demand from GE to return all monies including legal costs, interest paid
and out of pocket expenses. However, at the insistence of my friend and ally Mr. Schorel-Hlavka who kindly
recommended that I first write to you, I have opted for this course.
However, I am keen to pursue this matter as interest is accruing and the monthly payments for the loan I was forced
to take is placing an extreme financial burden upon me. Further, I am unable to affect the works I had planned
because I have borrowed to the limit because of the above stated.
40
As such, I plead with you to have this matter investigated as a matter of urgency.
Please respond to me personally and I urge you not to forward this letter to Mr. John Boydon, nor Mr. Attwood or
Bridgement Smith Collections given that I have outlined my suspicions.
45
I await your reply.
Yours truly,
50
John Abbott
END QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 14 January 2006
55

Mr. Christopher Gerard Vanderkly
Director GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd
Fax: (03) 99216177
C.c:
60
Mr. John M. Abbott

25 Leslie Street
Brunswick, 3056
Ph: (03) 93877044
Stefano Paolo Bertamini, Director

Thomas Charles Gentile, Director
Ewan Douglas Cameron, Director
Steven Andrew Erardi, Director
p27
19-8-2015
28
27 January 2006
Dear Sir
Re: John M. Abbott and GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd

I request that you provide a copy of this correspondence to your fellow directors.
I refer you to a letter dated 7-12-2005 from Mr. Schorel- Hlavka and the contents therein.
10
On the 16 December 2005, Gadens Lawyers instructed by Bridgement Smith and purportedly for and on behalf of
GE Finance Australasia Pty ltd obtained an enforcement order to take possession of my properties at 25 Leslie Street
and 8 to 14 Russell Street Brunswick.
15
20
25
That enforcement order was based on a statement from Bridgement Smith Collections that in no way can represent
to be a formal statement of GE as is required by credit law to be provided in regard of any alleged credit provided to
me. Further, I was never provided with any DEFAULT notice by GE as to being allegedly in default with GE.
To date, I have never received any correspondence at all from GE setting out that GE may have purchased some
account relating to me from any other finance company especially AGC Ltd given that my account with AGC Ltd
was closed and a final formal statement with a NIL balance was received by me from AGC Ltd in December 2001
which is at least 6 months prior to the purchase of AGC Ltd from Westpac Bank by GE Money.
Further, I can understand why GE never formally provided formal monthly statements, Terms and Conditions or
even an official letter from GE and that is because GE never recognized as a client.
As such, I have the understanding that GE is not at all authorizing this litigation against me but rather that someone
with some authority within GE may be conducting some private business using his/her position within GE to
fraudulently claim monies.
30
It may be a worthwhile exercise to try and bring up my name in any of the records and/or computers at GE and I
have no doubt that apart from my Creditcard account for $2,500.00, no other records exists. Further, my account
with AGC Ltd number 0045873235 (the closed account as at August 2001) will not show on GE records either.
35
40
Mr. David Attwood, during the course of a telephone conversation, gave me the understanding that this account had
been written off. What I cannot understand is, how can one write off an account when there is nothing to write
off?
I also find it interesting that when Mr. John Boydon submitted as an exhibit a letter written by David Attwood, the
signature was omitted from the letter. However, I have the original and there are two letters both have been signed
and both signatures are totally different as if they had been signed by someone who does not usually sign that name
in that way.
In any event, I had no choice but to pay the amounts sought on behalf of GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd and legal
costs in spite of my ongoing protests that GE had no legal standing in pursuing any debt against me.
45
What I have now is an order of the Supreme Court (16 December 2005) that affectively has enforced an order of the
County Court made on the 7 December 2004, which was obtained by default. However, I make it known to you as a
Director of GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd that such orders of the court have been obtained by deceptive means
and/or wrongly.
50
First and foremost, there is no record of default regarding my alleged account with AGC ltd, or AGC Pty Ltd. Nor is
there any record of default with Westpac Bank or GE Money.
55
60
Secondly, there is no formal monthly statement from GE that remains unpaid or from any of the above-mentioned
companies. Further, the last relevant formal monthly statement I received from AGC showed a nil balance and as
such, there can be no argument that I could possibly be in default to a nil balance.
I have pointed out on more than one occasion that GE could not have purchased a nil account from Westpac Bank
and that GE never had any legal standing to demand any payment from me but all along, I was ignored, and my
protests fell on deaf ears.
p28
19-8-2015
29
Now we have a situation that I have been forced to pay money to GE that all along were never outstanding nor
collectable by GE and in my view, any monies collected by GE or accepted as payment on behalf of GE is wrongly
claimed.
To my understanding, what makes matters worse is that even if GE could make any claim against me then GE would
or should have gone through the proper channels as provisioned by law to first send me formal monthly statements
and terms and conditions, which GE never did.
10
I refer you to advertised information from GE, which is headed by: Changes to your AGC Creditline Contract
which states in part:
15
Between December 2003 and February 2004 all AGC Creditline cardholders will be sent a booklet titled
Changes to your Creditline Contract which sets out the changes to your existing financial table and replaces your
old terms and conditions. Please read this booklet carefully and keep it in a safe place for future reference. We also
ask that you inform any additional cardholders on your account of the changes.
During that period of December 2003 and February 2004 or any time, I did not receive a booklet from GE, or for
that matter, I received nothing from GE so at the very least, if GE had any claim against me then where was I
supposed to send payment?
20
What did occur is that some collection company, (Bridgement Smith on the 30 July 2004) sends a makeshift letter of
demand claiming they were acting for AGC Ltd Business Line of Credit GP but refused to substantiate that
demand with any evidence whom they were acting for.
25
30
35
When Bridgement Smith Collections was, so to say, cornered as to whether or not they were acting for GE they
responded that AGC Ltd had a right to sue in its own right and GE was irrelevant. I refer to their letter
(Bridgement Smith) dated 8 September 2004.
However, in my view, Bridgement Smith had a duty of care to me to answer my questions honestly but refused to do
so. In addition, had they done so, much of what has happened may have been averted and so too the expenses which
to date are considerable.
It later turns out that Bridgement Smith Collections let the cat out of the bag so to say when by way of their letter to
me dated 22 December 2004 and after obtaining a judgment by default in the County Court on the 7 December 2004,
the letter mentions:
Re:
40
CREDITOR: GE FINANCE AUSTRALASIA Pty Ltd

AMOUNT OWING $167,247.66
Therefore, finally, and after many letters, phone calls and the like, Bridgement Smith Collection made it known to
me (and others) that GE was allegedly the Company involved or so it seems.
It appears odd that where Bridgement Smith filed the action in the County Court as Australian Guarantee
Corporation Pty Ltd formerly Trading as Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited and the after obtaining orders by
default then send me a demand letter to pay GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd.
45
Again, many letters were sent to Bridgement Smith and so too Rotman and Morris (the acting lawyers for
Bridgement Smith) making known that GE had no legal standing to claim any debt from me, and my associate Mr.
Schorel-Hlavka made it known to Bridgement Smith and Rotman and Morris that even though they had a county
Court judgment, should they try and collect the monies then they could be party to fraudulent conduct.
50
Nothing more was heard from Bridgement Smith Collections or Mr. David Attwood.
55
Six moths later, Gadens Lawyers made demands for payment for and on behalf of GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd
citing that I was in default as at June 2005 and threatened legal action if the $167,247.66 plus $300 costs, were not
paid forthwith.
60
What is most notable about the demand from Gadens Lawyers is that although Bridgement Smith had obtained
orders for accruable interest as from the 7 December 2004 in the said default order, no interest was claimed by
Gadens Lawyers in the Writ before the Supreme Court and my understanding at the time was that Bridgement Smith
had abandoned their action and Gadens Lawyers had started the process De Novo.
p29
19-8-2015
30
Again, the correspondence was extensive with Gadens Lawyers where I requested evidence that GE Finance
Australasia Pty Ltd was their instructor and/or client. Again the response was evasive or not at all and it was not
until the 11th hour 10/1/06 so to say, where I insisted that any monies paid by me be paid directly to GE that I
received a letter dated 10/1/06 from Gadens Lawyers which states
5
We refer to your further letter dated10 January 2006, and respond as follows:
As you are aware, we are instructed by Bridgement Smith Collections acting in its capacity as agent for GE Finance
Australasia Pty Ltd (GE).
10
directly from GE that all funds be paid into our trust account.
15
It is that allegation that Bridgement Smith has obtained its instructions directly from GE that is in contention. It is
my belief that although Bridgement Smith has obtained its instructions from someone from GE, Bridgement Smith
has not obtained its instructions directly from GE itself.
20
When Mr.Schorel-Hlavka and I (my enduring power of attorney) attempted to correspond with Mr. David Attwood
from allegedly NSW Business Collections, he appeared to melt, so to say, into the woodwork. However, from the
way the letters were written and the allegations made such as the amounts sought, it was clear from onset that there
was something very wrong.
I then contacted Mr. Schorel-Hlavka who then wrote to me after investigating matters and indicated to me that such
claim by Mr. David Attwood may be a scam and promptly wrote to Mr. David Attwood who then, as previously
stated, melted into the woodwork.
25
When Bridgement Smith Collections became involved, the matter became even more confused and as previously
stated, Bridgement Smith were very evasive, and after leaving just one message on Mr. Schore-Hlavkas answering
service refused to communicate with my enduring Power of Attorney Mr. Schorel-Hlavka.
30
35
It appears that the many questions Mr. Schorel-Hlavakas put to Bridgement Smith were too close to the core of the
alleged scam such as that Mr. Schorel-Hlavkas comments that Bridgement Smith could not have been acting for
AGC Ltd because AGC Ltd no longer existed and it was GE who now owned AGC Pty Ltd as from June 2002.
It was not until I received a sworn affidavit by Mr. John Boydon who claims to be Vice President of Strategic Asset
Finance Group that things began to fall into place so to say and in the said affidavit sworn 9 November 2005, Mr.
John Boydon at item 21 states:
On 11 April 2001, and as a direct consequence of drawing the Bank Cheques, the Plaintiffs account with
Westpac was debited by the amounts of $468.71, $47,227.67, $92,384.32, and $22,450.
40
That may well be but my formal Statement dated 30/06/2001 shows only two of those amounts being $468.71 and
$22,450.00 of which, the $22,450.00 was an amount added to the original contract as an amendment without my
expressed consent as evidenced by the lack of my initials. The only amount that is, so to say, legitimate is the
amount for $468.71 of which, to my understanding was paid with the first formal statement of the 30/06/2001.
45
50
Further, the formal statements from AGC Ltd continued to the month of December 2001 and it must appear odd that
Mr. David Attwood makes claim that the account, in June 2001 went into the wrong ledger and then Mr. Boydon
makes claim (under Oath) that the alleged account in May 2001 went into the Merchant Clearing Account while in
June, July, August, September, October, November, and December 2001 I am still receiving formal monthly
Statements.
It may well be that this kind of evidence may prove that Mr. John Boydon has committed perjury, has obstructed the
course of justice and misled the Supreme Court of Victoria. In this, I rely on the Authority: TAYLR v. TAYLOR
(1979) Fam LR 5,289289 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. And: Byrne v. Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343
55
Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.
60
No one could that a judge intended to make orders for fraudulent usage. Hence, the default orders of the County
court on the 7 December 2004 upon amounts alleged then and now it is admitted that those amounts were incorrect
and that without seeking to have the Court rehear the matter or ask the court for amended Orders then seek to
enforce those orders through the Supreme court would clearly show that the intend that I have outlined.
p30
19-8-2015
31
I also note that Mr. John Boydon claims that he is duly authorized attorney under Power of Attorney dated 4
December 2002. Mr. Boydon also stated in his said affidavit at item 1 I was employed by the Plaintiffs
predecessor in title as a Senior Risk Manager.
5
I find it interesting that Mr. Boydon claims he was employed by the Plaintiffs predecessor and became the Power
of Attorney for GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd on the 4 December 2002, which is about 6 months after GE acquired
AGC Ltd.
10
15
In this, it appears that there was a lot of planning and orchestration on foot even before GE acquired AGC Ltd. The
question begs to be asked, how many accounts, finalized or otherwise we wrongly put into the wrong ledger or
inadvertently placed in the Merchant Clearing Account?
What also begs the question: Who is the Plaintiff? After all, Bridgement Smith instructed Gadens Lawyers and
Rotman & Morris. Could it be that the true Plaintiff is Bridgement Smith, David Attwood and/or John Boydon?
When one considers the key position that Mr. Boydon holds and held with both AGC Ltd and now GE Money as
Vice President Strategic Asset Finance Group and then add the said Power of Attorney, the reasonable person could
deduce that such key positions are essential to directing traffic, so to say.
20
Further, Mr. David Attwood made known in his letter dated the 25 th February 2004 that:
the problem starts when your transaction was moved from one General Ledger to another which was the
wrong one which was supposed to streamline the method of collecting on the product Business Line of Credit.
Your account was closed off by crediting the amount of $162,589.20 in June 2001
25
Please note: the amount of $162,589.20 were amounts that have been crossed out of the original contract due to the
several Bank cheques were incorrectly issued and therefore rejected. As such, such cheques could never have been
disbursed and in fact, were not.
30
35
As such, Mr. David Attwood has blundered because it now shows that he and others were stumbling all along, so to
say, because they are claiming amounts from me and the courts that were never disbursed as I all along claimed but
because of the confusion in the beginning, I only became aware of this as late as November 2005.
I did mention this fact to the Master of the Supreme Court but the Master indicated that there was nothing he could
do about it now because it is too late but indicated to me that might settle under protest with Gadens Lawyers and
get them of my back and then take up any flack afterwards.
I deemed this to be good advise and I now take that first step to taking up the flack.
40
It gets better, so to say, because, in the said affidavit sworn by Mr. John Boydon at paragraph 28 he states:
In or about May 2001, the Plaintiff inadvertently transferred the Defendants loan from its Commercial
ICBS Accounting system (ICBS), to the Plaintiffs Merchant Clearing Account (Merchant Clearing) within its
Consumer Balance Sheet.
45
So which is it? The wrong ledger or the Merchant Clearing Account? Yet when I persisted with these questions, I
was denied any due and proper answers.
The fact is that on my 30/06/2001 Business Line of Credit Statement, it shows that:
50
55
30/05/2001
INITIAL DRAWDOWN
$92,137.50
30/05/2001
INITIAL DRAWDOWN
$468.71
30/05/2001
INITIAL DRAWDOWN
$22450.00
30/05/2001
INITIAL DRAWDOWN
$47,532.99
When I compare the statement of John Boydon and the amounts he refers to then I can see that from onset, he did
not have a copy of my statements because, if I also compare the amounts referred to by Mr. David Attwood in his
letter dated the 18th February 2004, the amounts he refers to are:
Amount by Mr. Attwood: $92,137.50 - $468.71 - $22,450.00 - $47,532.99
Amounts by Mr. Boydon: $92,384.32 - $468.71 - $22,450.00 - $47,227.67
Bridgement Smith demand letter of the July 30, 2004 for AGC LTD
TOTAL $162,589.20
TOTAL $162,530.70
TOTAL $162,530.70
p31
19-8-2015
32
Further, the deception, in my view, is apparent in the letter by Bidgement Smith STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
dated 2nd December 2005 and as presented to the Supreme Court where such letter state:
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
Account No. 0045873235
Date
Description
Amount
10
11/04/2001
11/04/2001
11/04/2001
11/04/2001
Initial Drawdown
Initial Drawdown
Initial Drawdown
Initial Drawdown
15
These amounts are not the amounts listed in the actual statements and it is my contention that it may well be that
Bridgement Smith were well aware that should they show the original statements then the court would consider that
there could be no default given that the actual amounts on the statement/s were never disbursed as I all along
claimed.
20
The question begs, why did Bridgement Smith not pick up on the differences on what they were claiming and the
fact that the Statements from AGC Ltd as at August 2001 showed different amounts and a nil balance?
$92384.32
$468.71
$22,450.00
$47227.67
Balance
$92384.32
$92853.03
$115303.03
$162530.70
It is also disturbing that the name of GE was omitted with the application to the County Court given that all along, it
appears that Bridgement Smith intended that GE was purportedly the instructor and/or the applicant.
25
To make matters worse, the original contract with AGC Limited at page 2 clearly shows that the amounts on the said
statements have been crossed out and to the left of those amounts new figures inserted without my initial being
present besides each amount and as such, this too may be a point of contention in that what we may have is a
fraudulent and/or an unenforceable contract.
30
This goes to the very core of the problem and why I all along insisted on statements as to avoid what has actually
occurred in that when I add the amounts on the statement for 30/05/2001 and 30/06/2001 I get the total amount of
$162,589.20 which complies with the Total amount demanded by Mr. Attwood and those amounts were never
disbursed as I all along claimed.
35
On the other hand, the Total amount as demanded by Bridgement Smith is a different amount from what Mr.
Attwood claimed and as I have never received any further statements, there was no way that I could pay amounts
that were not owing.
40
45
Further, the other difficulty is that now we have an order (by default) from the County Court. Such order does not
indicate which amounts were sought and more importantly, on what basis was the order made given that the Court
did not canvas what if any statement was in default and/or how the default occurred.
As such, the only avenue left open to me may be to seek to have the order struck out in light of new evidence now
available to me.
However, I first seek to communicate with GE if there is any way to reach a just and amicable solution.
50
The first port of call, in my view, is for GE to first establish grounds that GE in fact has a right to claim any monies
from me or to put it another way, on what grounds would GE have to recognize me as a client.
The second, what if any monies does GE seek from me and finally, to have the Order from the County Court Struck
out as the default order may jeopardize my credit standing which even now is unhindered which surprises me (and
others) given the said default judgment of the 7 December 2004.
55
60
I view that now this is a very serious matter in that the Supreme Court has made orders against me and if then it
turns out that the investigating Authorities find that GE never complied with legal provisions governing credit laws.
However, prior to any attempt to make formal complaints to Authorities, it is in my nature to first communicate with
all relevant persons. All discussions with Bridgement Smith, David Attwood, John Boydon and Gadens Lawyers
have been fruitless and in fact have been used against me.
p32
19-8-2015
33
I do not wish to litigate, however, given my position and the considerable amounts I have paid including legal fees
and interest, I am keen to resolve this matter as soon as possible.
As such, please respond at your earliest convenience, preferably within 14 days of the above date.
Presently, the moneys paid to Gadens Lawyers Trust account is being held in trust and I am waiting for an itemized
account in taxable form for the legal fees I was forced to pay which may amount to over $36,000.00.
I also inform you that most of the money I borrowed ended up with Gadens Lawyers, which inhibits me to pay my
GST account and that account is presently incurring further expense and interest.
10
As such, the longer this matter takes to resolve the more the expense and distress to me caused by a shortage of
funds and growing interest payable.
Yours truly,
15
John M. Abbott
END QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 27 January 2006
20
25
30
35
I recall that you filed a complaint with GE and well it seems the same person was intercepting
your complaint at the time. It is GE who in my view failed to safeguard former customers of
AGC and in its name as I view if fraudulent claims were made against them.
As the 07 August 2015 correspondence is an admission no debt was owed by you to GE in
relation to the AGHC account then I view it is liable to compensate you for the monies you
were ordered to pay, as well as for pain and suffering, the tainting of your name by having a
fraudulent court order against you, the cost of borrowing monies to pay this judgment, etc.
It should be understood that the judgement itself cannot be used against you.
While you filed a counter application in the Supreme Court of Victoria due to your supportive
affidavit being filed to late the court made a judgment against you.
As I indicated the staff member of GE likely was involved in an elaborate swindle using his
GE position as my then son in law Mr Takhur also was receiving a correspondence that his
AGC account was still open, and this too was from GE. As I understand it Mr Thakur had
previously borrowed monies from AGC to purchase a refrigerator and had paid out the
monies he borrowed to AGC. Hence, as a professional advisor I understand he would warn
potential customers against GE conduct to pursue monies from them.
Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4
Bouv Inst. n. 4411.
40
o Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom's
Max. 349.
o Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.
o Fraus et jus numquam cohabitant. Fraud and justice never agree together. Wing. 680.
45
50
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
QUOTE
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
END QUOTE
Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
p33
19-8-2015
34
10
15
20
25
QUOTE
In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is wilfully false. The subsection should be read according to its terms. To say that 'false evidence should be read as 'wilful false
evidence' is to introduce a provision not expressed 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 by
reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of evidence which
would comprehend cases of wilful false evidence. At common law, a judgment will be set aside if it
has been obtained by fraud. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, it has been held that an applicant must
show something more than perjury, ie. new facts (Baker v. Wadsworth [1898] 67 LJQB 301; Everett V.
Ribbands [1946] 175 LT 143). This tends to suggest that the words 'false evidence' should be given their
literal meaning
END QUOTE
In my view GE (Owner of AGC) must be deemed legally liable as the litigation was as I recall
in its name and authority. And Alexandra Jones clearly referred to David Attwood. It may
very well be that alexander Jones was so to say the go between to redirect complaints to
David Attwood and this then to debt collectors Bridgement Smith
QUOTE 12-1-2005 CORRESPONDENCE
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:33:56 +1000
From: "johnabbott" <johnabbott@dodo.com.au>
Subject: AGC - David Attwood 11-1-05.doc
To: <mayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com>
Mr. David Attwood
Mr. John M. Abbott

6 Elemenatry Way
Upper Coomera
Queensland, 4209
11 January 2005
30
Dear David
Re:
AUSTRALIAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION PTY LTD formerly trading as AUSTRALIAN
GUARANTEE CORPORATION LIMITED
35
40
I recall from out telephone conversation on this day the 11 January 2005 at approximately 2.20 pm that you
were working for Westpac Bank. However, you later corrected yourself that you are acting in the capacity as
freelance for Westpac Bank and GE Money.
During the course of our discussion you also made known to me that you were instructed not to become involved in
this matter as of June 2002. When I asked you as to who instructed you you responded by saying that your
instructions come from AGC -Westpac Bank and GE.
You further stated to the effect that This account was written off by AGC Pty Ltd when it was handled by GE in
June 2002.
45
You may also recall that I informed you that I was in communication with Alexandra Jones of GE Money and that
she had called me by way of telephone and left a message on my answering machine where she stated:
p34
19-8-2015
35
Hello Mr. Abbott this is Alexandra Jones just calling to let you know that I am no longer handling the
case, but a David Attwood is now handling it. You can contact him on (02) 94073471. Thank you.
End
recording
10
To this you indicated that I should be contacting Bridgement Smith Collections. I then again asked you whom were
you working for and at that point you informed that you were no longer willing to speak to me as you had spent
enough time.
I then told you that this was the frustrating point all along that when I ask a question I am never given a straight
answer to which you replied:
I wrote to you in February 2004 and told you what the issues were.
I then reminded you that the two letter I received were:
15
1.
20
Signed differently as one was as David Attwood and the other just Attwood
2. That both letters were on photo copy letterheads to which you replied that that was because the letters came
from a computer and only prints in black and white to which I responded: I can afford a colour printer why
cant AGC Westpac GE afford a colour printer?
3. That both letters left a lot to be desired in a professional letter format.
25
30
To this you indicated that it was not an issue and I then continued to ask you as to what wrong ledger are you
referring to and can you make available a true copy of the wrong ledger that you refer to with my name on it and
was such ledger sold to GE to which you indicated that it was sold to GE. I then asked you as to why GE after
informing all their clientele obtained from Westpac that all clients could expect new correspondence letterheadspaying details and credit cards all to bear the GE Logo as from February 2004 and why was it that I had never
received any such correspondence etc to which you replied: Talk to Bridgement Smith.
Further, I asked you as to how you account for the wrong ledger not being purchased by GE to which you replied:
They did. I then asked you as to how did you account for the fact that GE has never sent me any information and
further informed me that they (GE) do not recognize me as an account holder to which you replied the account
was written off. I asked you who wrote off the account and you replied GE I then asked you Why would
GE write off the account and you replied Talk to Bridgement Smith.
35
I again informed you that I had asked many questions from Bridgement Smith including who employed or instructed
them and they had simply told me that that was irrelevant and were not prepared to answer those questions claiming
that: It was privileged information.
40
Further, on more than one occasion I requested your address that I may write to you and you refused to give me your
business address citing that this has nothing to do with you and that I should write to Bridgement Smith. I then told
you that I was making notes of this conversation and would send you a copy of them and if you were not prepared to
give me a mailing address at least give me your facsimile number but you declined.
p35
19-8-2015
36
As I have no address or facsimile number for you/your office and I take note that you are not working for Westpac
or GE or at least you have no office with either organization then I will send this letter to you care of Bridgement
Smith marked private and confidential.
5
However, I still look to you to explain and make available true copies of the wrong ledger which purports to have
my name and account in it so that we all may get to the hub of this mystery as to who purports to own any alleged
account with my name on it and for what (if any) amount and as mentioned during the course of our conversation
how many other accounts were put in the wrong ledger and for what purpose.
10
Further, please inform me as to who wrote off the account; which insurance company was involved; what amount
was the write off and for what purpose and for whom are you now chasing this alleged account.
15
As to your accusation that make false allegations and innuendos, I assure you that that is not my intention but as
mentioned to you, my intention is to unravel this mystery and expose all those who may be embroiled in fraudulent
conduct (if any).
I look forward to an early reply say within 7 days of the above date.
Yours truly,
20
John M. Abbott
END QUOTE 12-1-2005 CORRESPONDENCE
25
In my view if Gadens Lawyers were ac ting for GE then the monies from its trust account
should have been paid to GE, unless GE directed otherwise.
p36
19-8-2015
37
QUOTE The Courier-Mail ACCC OK's AGC sell-off (archived).htm
ACCC OK's AGC sell-off

5
WESTPAC Banking Corp Ltd's planned $1.5 billion sale of its AGC consumer finance business to
GE Capital was today cleared by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
"The ACCC has conducted extensive market inquiries into this proposed acquisition consulting with
customers, competitors and consumer organisations," ACCC chairman professor Allan Fels said.
10
"No issues of concern arose in relation to business finance and vehicle finance.
"The ACCC found that the proposed acquisition was likely to have little effect on
the state of competition in these markets."
15
Professor Fels added that some retailers had expressed concerns about
competitive consequences the sale of AGC to GE Capital would have on instore credit.
However, the competition watchdog believed that the provision of in-store credit
was just one of number of payment options available to consumers.
20
"After extensive investigation, the ACCC has concluded that the provision of instore credit does not have features which sufficiently set it apart from other credit
facilities for it to occupy its own distinct product market," Professor Fels said.
"Under these circumstances, any attempt by the merged entity to raise its prices
would be constrained by retailers and their customers switching to other payment
options.
25
"On this basis, the ACCC concluded that the proposed acquisition was not likely to
result in a substantial lessening of competition."
A Westpac spokesman said the bank welcomed the decision by the ACCC to
approve the deal.
Westpac shares closed seven cents higher at $16.28.
30
35
40
45
END QUOTE The Courier-Mail ACCC OK's AGC sell-off (archived).htm
The question I raised at the time to you is if David Attwood, Boyden, Jones, and others
may have been engaged in an elaborate scam with olr weithout gthe inv ilvement of any
members of the board of Directors and/or other persons at Westpac, etc, to deliberately
devalue the financial status of AGC as to facilitate GE to purchase it at a lower price
than that otherwise would have been possible, and by this perhaps GE may have assisted
Boyden, Jones, David Attwood to charge former customers of AGC regardless if their
accounts were showing a zero debt. If David Attwood would have been in charge with
AGC he could have manipulated the outstanding debt levels by deliberately reduce them
to zero, such as writing off the debts, and then by this reduce the market value of AGC,
and then once Ge took over then reinstate accounts and collect the monies he was able to
obtain using a debt collection agency. It may be also asked if he had as financial
position/interest in of Bridgement Smith! Being it by being given as commission or
otherwise from Bridgement Smith for any successful litigation. As I indicated to you
at the time my (then) son-in-law Mr Thakur was sent a letter of demand for having to
pay an outstanding debt with AGC (after it was already purchased by GE) and ass a
p37
19-8-2015
38
financial planner he kept all evidence he had paid AGC and so they didnt get him but
perhaps
.
10
Too often unscrupulous people will pursue fraudulent conduct and often well aware how to
get around the courts to achieve their elaborate frauds. Hence, I view it is essential you expose
this to all extend so others may also be ab le to pursue justice.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all
details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
Awaiting your response,
15
(
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B.
(Friends call me Gerrit)

END QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 13-8-2015
20
25
30
35
40
45
No I do not pretend to be a lawyer as it would be to me a gross insult to associate me

with a bunch of crooks! For sure there are many lawyers who are acting honourable and
like the crooks to be exposed, but regretfully the Legal Service Commissioner seems to
be more concerned to pursue a person like me exposing the rot then to deal with those
involved in the rot. And people who then in desperation commit suicide are the one
paying with their lives for it.
I urge you to show that the Legal Service Commissioner doesnt whatsoever endorse any
fraudulent scam and has this fully investigated by the relevant authorities if this is deemed
appropriate. After all we may be dealing with a multimillion dollars fraudulent scheme
involving lawyers. Why then one has to question why did Westpac lawyers and GE Money
lawyers fail to act when they were warned about this fraudulent scam should also be
investigated, as I view it made them associates of the fraud. Where they receiving a kick back
I wonder. And as I specifically wrote to the directors of GE Money then they too must be
investigated if they were involved in a multimillion dollar fraudulent scheme cover up. And a
full investigation of the Involvement of Bridgement Smith Collections to pretend to represent
AGC/GE Money, and why GE Money didnt act to stop this fraud. Was there a closure of
account prior to the sale to artificially reduce the value of AGC so that GE Money could
purchase this at a lower cost from Westpac? As such insider trading such as perhaps with the
involvement of Mr Boyden, who I understood was employed by AGC and then with GE
Money and seemed to control matters, including complaints.
While Mr Abbott pursues his own issues, nevertheless I view I ought to make this formal
complaint because to my understand ding this was far more elaborate than just against Mr
John Abbott. And perhaps victims of the fraudulent scam may now com forwards so they can
reclaim monies they were forced to pay out.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all
details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B.
(Friends call me Gerrit)

p38
19-8-2015

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Legal Service Commissioner - COMPLAINT Against Gadens Lawyers - Etc

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Legal Service Commissioner - COMPLAINT Against Gadens Lawyers - Etc

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

Legal Service Commissioner

Re: 20150819 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Legal Service Commissioner - COMPLAINT

QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 14 January 2006

GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd -v- John Murray Abbott

QUOTE (Red colour and bolding added)

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

QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 13-8-2015

Ref; 20150813 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr John M Abbott

QUOTE Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court)

John Murray Abbott

2001 this was showing a $1.20 CR

That despite various request/demands by the Defendant to be provided by GE Finance

I may now quote my 2-2-2006 correspondence to you

John Boyden in his 9-11-2005 Affidavit stated;

In his 10 November 2005 Affidavit stated;

GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd v John Murray Abbott

John Boyden in his affidavit 9-11-2005 stated;

NSW BUSINESS FINANCE COLLECTIONS

In the LOAN AGREEMENT

END QUOTE 2-2-2006 correspondence

Re; Accounting practices, debt, etc.

Mr John M Abbott, johnabbott@aapt.net.au

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS

Wednesday 20 July 2005

Venue: Securities Institute

Concept of self-induced frustration discussed:

Fees and Charges

ATM Withdrawal Fee - $1.95

Direct Debit Dishonour Fee - $2.50

Overdue Fee - $27.00

How to avoid paying this fee

Account Keeping Fee - $2.95 per month

Over-the-counter Fee - $4.00

AGC Advance Fee - $10.00

ATM Withdrawal Fee - $1.95

How to avoid paying this fee

EFTPOS Withdrawal Fee - $0.85

How to avoid paying this fee

Payment Handling Fee - $1.50

How to avoid paying this fee

You may notice;

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA (Gary)

QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 30 December 2004

Mr. John M. Abbott

AUSTRALIAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION ABBOTT

QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 14 January 2006

Mr. John M. Abbott

GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd -v- John Murray Abbott

QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 27 January 2006

Mr. John M. Abbott

Stefano Paolo Bertamini, Director

Re: John M. Abbott and GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd

CREDITOR: GE FINANCE AUSTRALASIA Pty Ltd

Mr. John M. Abbott

I then reminded you that the two letter I received were:

ACCC OK's AGC sell-off

END QUOTE The Courier-Mail ACCC OK's AGC sell-off (archived).htm

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Awaiting your response,

(Friends call me Gerrit)

No I do not pretend to be a lawyer as it would be to me a gross insult to associate me

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL