Continually being updated, last update 25 March 2017
DRONES AGAINST DEFORESTATION
INTERESTING ABC ARTICLE ON ILLEGAL PHOENIXING
JUDGE ORDERS UNREASONABLE LIQUIDATORS Andrew Barnden & Robert Moodie RODGERS REIDY DIRECTORS to pay COSTS
HAMBLETON'S CONDUCT, has caused enormous horror, hurt, sadness, mental distress and anguish to my wife (and myself), taken away my wife's financial future in her retirement years, robbed our youngest daughter with 2 young children of her share to proceeds from the family home, and perhaps the worst of all has been a major factor in my wife and myself being alienated by our eldest daughter Penelope, who we love very much and are unable to contact, having no knowledge as to her whereabouts and as such we are deeply worried about her.
TREATED LIKE A DOG
And now to add insult to the injury of being treated like a dog, four Rodgers Reidy companies sue Gordon for telling the truth, because they are worried that the truth may impact on their Marcs and David Lawrence, $30 million administration. Well to put it as politely as possible.... Gordon says bollocks to them, they ought to be more concerned about the conduct of their director, instead of bully boy and intimidation tactics to try and conceal Hambleton's conduct, which makes Rodgers Reidy just as bad.
“…I have already resolved any valid claims claims against the property. Mrs Janet Craven does not hold title, nor an equitable interest, in my property.”
To avoid being hauled into Court, and no doubt with the goading from her money hungry treacherous scab of a husband, the false statement was in fact repeated by Penny to Hambleton as per instructions, and while it was true that Janet did not have the title in her name (as per the public record), the remainder was in fact totally false.Further, as per paragraph 42 of the Statement of Claim filed in the District Court, Hambleton influenced Penny to agree to the following false statements that he had concocted in a Deed of Settlement between them:
• “At the time of Penelope Craven becoming the sole registered owner of the Property [in August 2006], the Bankrupt Gordon Craven provided the deposit monies to purchase the Property from the sale proceeds of properties previously owned by him.”
• “[in August 2006] The Bankrupt Gordon Craven sought to vest his right, title and interest in the name of his daughter Craven to defeat creditors.”
The statements were entirely false, and Hambleton has failed to provide any particulars of how Gordon allegedly provided the deposit monies or the identity of creditors he allegedly intended to defeat way back in August 2006. That's because he can't, by the whole thing being based on a bogus fabrication rather than fact.WRONGFULL EVICTION OF THE BENEFICIARY AND GORDON
So instead of testing the matter in court as the bankruptcy trustee did in the Supreme Court matter of Clout v Markwell  QSC, where trustee Clout sought and failed to get his hands on property belonging to a beneficiary, Hambleton has foolishly cut corners in dealing with the Property without proper authority (in his own words by "avoiding costly and time consuming litigation"), and as said before, he sabotaged a previous court proceeding which he had caused to be initiated, where he could have applied for a court order. Tamer v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy  NSWSC was a case where the trustee in bankruptcy ignored the beneficiary's interests and actually transfered the family home into his own name. Wrong wrong wrong, a constructive trust for Tamer was declared and the trustee had to fix his errors and transfer the property back to Tamer. Arguing a Trust on Bankruptcy provides a simple commentary on the matter. Moral of the story - title doesn't always show beneficial ownership, and should serve as a warning to trustees wielding the power of the Bankruptcy Act licensed to them by the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA).
THE AFSA WATCHDOG STOOGE DOES NOTHING
Instead of enforcing a trustee's duties as set out here ("registered trustees are required to maintain the utmost professionalism, independence, impartiality, honesty and ethics in their dealings..."), in reality AFSA doesn't give a shit about a trustee's conduct, thus forcing it to be litigated in a court.
"In determining the ownership of, or an interest in, an asset that is part of divisible property, the trustee must act reasonably and claim only the amount that fairly represents the interest in, or value of, the asset."
ASSETS OF THE BENEFICIARY WERE NOT DIVISIBLE PROPERTY because she was not the person who was bankrupt.
PLEASE EXPLAIN AFSA, or Mr. HAMBLETON at the Contact Form below
"Are you telling me that you also, along with Hambleton, are refusing to accept the sworn affidavits of my wife and I as evidence regarding Hambleton's false allegations of abandonment?
No response on this particular request has been received.
So in the current District Court proceeding that may have been averted if AFSA had not been so useless, incompetent and biased, Hambleton is ducking, diving and dodging answering the hard questions being put to him, including making evasive blanket denials and nonadmissions in his Defence pleading without providing direct explanations for the denials and nonadmissions. This is in blatant contravention of Court Rule 166 - Denials and Nonadmissions, because he says he is "confused" and it's all "irrelevant", however as a consequence of his improper denials, subrule (5) of the Court Rule 166 makes them become deemed admissions. And now in an Amended Defence he falsely conjures up that the beneficiary's position is a SHAM, which is again in total contravention of court rules as his SHAM allegation it totally without particulars, as is required by Court Rule 157. However zero particulars does appear to be in line with a multitude of his defence statements that facts are not within his knowledge.WHY GORDON WAS MADE BANKRUPT
bizarre, which is it Hambleton... $100 or $10,000??? contact Gordon to let me know as if the $10,000 is false, it could be seen as the Absolute Liability offence of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, the judicial power being that of the Commonwealth, and if false, Gordon will expect Rodgers Reidy and their deponent lawyer Stephen Polczynski to correct the Court Record and advise Justice Bromwich.