Continually being updated, last update 23 September 2017. Get notification of updates with CHANGE DETECTION
This is a tale about a Trustee in Bankruptcy, who in his exercise of power under the Bankruptcy Act, has overseen two totally innocent daughters of a bankrupt having their investments of thousands of dollars in a Property
wiped out, while the bankrupt's wife was also ripped off and received nothing, after toiling for almost 10 years towards paying the mortgage and making improvements.
In his mismanagement of the bankruptcy, David Hambleton is alleged in the Draft Amended Statement of Claim to have also committed: Trespass, Wrongful Eviction, Continuing Trespass, Defamation, Devaluing Trust Property, Causing the Expense of Alternative Accommodation, Breaching an Agreement to Pay Proceeds into Court and Destroying a Company Business belonging to the wife, for which he has essentially provided zero reasonable explanation for any of these wrongs.
AFSA urges Hambleton to pay the money back into Court.
The Jaw Dropping sordid tale of events.
How Hambleton outsmarted himself.
DRAFT 57 page Amended Statement of Claim with major amendments and fresh incriminating allegations.
Given Rodgers Reidy Federal Court matter was a flop which cost them in excess of $50,000 in legal fees, for which they achieved nothing, Google Adword & Bingad campaigns for Rodgers Reidy Sucks are being developed.
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, a single parent with 2 young children with learning disabilities, of her share to proceeds from the family home to which she had contributed a substantial amount to the deposit. Perhaps the worst of all has been a major factor in my wife and myself being alienated by our eldest daughter Penelope since being handled and bullied by Hambleton and causing her to lose 90% of her investment in the Property. We unconditionally love her very much and are unable to contact her, having no knowledge as to her whereabouts and as such we are deeply worried about her. However see what we all being put through in aggravation of the matter at the WASHUP .
TREATED LIKE A DOG
And now to add insult to the injury of being treated like a dog, four Rodgers Reidy companies (including Hambleton's Rodgers Reidy QLD) 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.
However, they got their just deserts on discovering that they had bitten off far more than they could chew, and had to promptly back out of their bully boy litigation on discovering that Gordon (who represents himself in court) was going to counterclaim for some 50 or so declarations. Away they went with their collective tails between their legs and their failed excercise that cost them something in the region of $50,000 PLUS to achieve a big fat zero (apart from earning a new website RodgersReidy.Sucks) and make them look ridiculous. Rodgers Reidy's due diligance had been thrown out the window and one wonders if they apply the same belligerent and stupid decisions when they manage the financial & litigation affairs of their clients given that they tout Litigation Support Services amongst the repertoire of services they offer. A fuller report is published at RodgersReidy.Sucks that includes the costs decision by Justice Bromwich of the Federal Court and an affidavit detailing Rodgers Reidy legal costs.
“…I have already resolved any valid 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 statements were in fact repeated by Penny to Hambleton by RETURN EMAIL as per his 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.
The EMAIL evidence (redacted by Hambleton to assist in stopping the Beneficiary having contact with Penny), now forms the exhibit "JC-22" to an affidavit which has been filed in the Supreme Court - Supreme Court File, and also pleaded at paragraphs 36 and 37 of the District Court Draft Amended Statement of Claim, underpinning Hambleton's contemptible conduct of turning Penny against the rest of her family, so that he can get his way in his pursuit of fabricating evidence against Gordon.
Further, as per paragraph 42 of the Draft Amended Statement of Claim to be filed in the District Court, after Penny had told Hambleton that she and her sister had provided the 20% deposit for the Property (which was true), Hambleton then influenced Penny to agree to the following totally 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. Even if the statements were true (which they're not), that doesn't give Hambleton a licence to rip-off Gordon's wife and daughters.
Not happy to leave it there, Hambleton then conjures up another false allegation that in October 2008 the beneficiary and Gordon paid $550 for the beneficiary's solicitor to prepare a fake Declaration of Trust document. Once again Hambleton fails to provide any particulars to support his ludicrous and imaginary allegation in order to clutch at the straws of his bogus defence which wastes everybody's time and just postpones his eventual demise.
WRONGFUL EVICTION OF THE BENEFICIARY AND GORDON
Once he achieved the EPOA, Hambleton's henchmen then trespassed (by climbing over locked gates with prominent "No Entry" signs), changed all the locks and locked out the beneficiary and Gordon age pensioners in their retirement years from the Property while they were not home, and thus causing them to be evicted and locked out of access to their belongings. Hambleton then helped himself to property belonging to the beneficiary (Penny's mother) including trying to sell 2 shipping containers on the Property, with stored belongings and which belonged to the beneficiary, and Hambleton being fully aware that the containers belonged to the beneficiary. Hambleton reckons he had them sold to ANL Containers and was going to complain to police when they vanished prior to collection, well BooHoo Hambleton the beneficiary was able to retrieve them back and sell them herself.
DEFAMATION OF THE BENEFICIARY AND GORDON
Hambleton then humiliated Gordon and his wife by defaming them over an extensive period, by falsely publishing on Rodgers Reidy letterhead that they had abandoned the Property when in fact they did not. This baseless and venomous attack on the beneficiary and Gordon for reasons only known to Hambleton, wrongly left them with being labeled as bottom feeding riff-raff that abandon a property at will. It is profoundly annoying and frustrating, that Hambleton STILL serially perpetuates his lie of abandonment while ignoring the substantial evidence (that includes 2 sworn affidavits) and legal authority provided to him and his lawyers, that the Property was not abandoned. His oppressive belligerence makes his conduct all the more annoying and frustrating. Apparently it doesn't occur to Hambleton, that normal honest and diligent people, do not abandon a property and leave valuable possessions worth thousands behind, for someone like him to come along and loot.
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 transferred 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. Then when it does get filed in court, they say... oh we can't address that issue, because it's being decided by the 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.
AFSA finally did come back and say that Hambleton was being advised the he should pay the money back in Court that he had previously kept for himself.
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.
The washup is that to get to the core of all these matters, as the law currently stands as handed down by the High Court in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, because of Hambletons belligerence in failing to admit fault, Gordon and his wife are put in the undesirable position of having to prove that their daughter Penny was dishonest and fraudulent or as further interpreted by the Supreme Court of NSW Appeal Court in Hasler v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd, to be a "transgression of the ordinary standards of honest behaviour". This would never have happened but for Hambleton's delinquent conduct and Penny being married to this spiteful & controlling piece of crap.
WHY GORDON WAS MADE BANKRUPT
Gordon Craven was made bankrupt when, in the public interest as a service to consumers and without representation, he sued and lost to persons that are involved in deplorable conduct regarding consumers, florists and review sites as shown at the following websites: Ready Flowers Review and Ready Flowers Australia. The only consolation to Gordon is that it cost the persons (the Hegarty clan) well over $200,000 to employ a legal team to represent them over a 6 year period, together with also attempting to sue Gordon and his wife for defamation (District Court File), for which the result is, those persons now appear to be in financial trouble... SEE ready Flowers Unravels, whilst apparently also being under investigation by the ACCC... more info on that is HERE.
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.