sydneydatingsites.com.ausydneydatingsites.com.au/all_n2af's+n2psug.doc · Web view- the unusual,...

Form 17 (version 1)UCPR 17.3 and 17.4

NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS AND ADMIT AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS COURT DETAILSCourt SUPREME COURT

Division COMMON LAW

Registry SYDNEY

Case number 2011/327194 previously 1443/64TITLE OF PROCEEDINGSPlaintiff DAVID GREGORY MURPHY - MESSIAH

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Eighth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

Tenth Defendant

Eleventh Defendant

Twelfth Defendant

Thirteenth defendant

Fourteenth Defendant

Fifteenth Defendant

COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF STRATHFIELDAKZO NOBEL PTY LIMITEDORICA LIMITEDDOW CHEMICALSSTATE OF NEW SOUTH WALESTHE BRITISH MONARCHYROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHGIO PTY LTDGE MONEY form. AUSTRALIAN GUARANTEE CORPGE CAPITAL FINANCEWESTPAC BANKING CORPORATIONJAMES WARREN BYRNESMARIO VIERAJANSSEN CILAG PHARMACEUTICALS xxxJOHNSON AND JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICALS xxx

PREPARATION DETAILSPrepared for DAVID GREGORY MURPHY Plaintiff

Contact name and telephone DAVID GREGORY MURPHY, 8214 8397, 0419 605 365

8/1 CURTIN PLACE CONCORD NSW 2137NOTICE TO ALL DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANTS TO BE

AND

NOTICE AGAIN BELOW TO PROPERLY SETTLE UNDER GUARANTORSHIP

THIRD PASS OF EACH

Again by email service dated 11th November as with former services of 23th May and 6th June 2012.

Note this time inclusion of section 5 now included again for respondents to either admit or deny and say why. Responses should be consistent with previous part 17.3 UCPR admissions.

Failure to file a notice of dispute with responses to all requests to admit and disclosive completions of part b sections of each request to admit within 14 days of the email service of this Notice upon you will presume that the respective defendant or defendant to be is amenable to suffering a part 17.7 judgment upon admissions and amenable to proceeding to assessment of quantum, for what it is worth, and pursue, suffer or defend any potential cross claim fallout, for what it is worth, arising.

If not the case please disclosively respond to all requests to admit and parts b thereto and file to the court and respond to me by way of email. Hard copy reply can be served.

This third pass of all the requests to admit is adequate service of all requests to admit such that there has been adequate opportunity to serve a notice of dispute with grounds for disputes attached.

Upon having attended to all requests to admit in this document you are also welcome to put similarly disclosive requests to admit facts to me and present any further documents that all issues as to liability be ventilated prior to application for part 17.7 judgment upon part 17.3 admissions.

The basis of these requests to admit, as can be gleaned from the following highly disclosive self executing requests to admit, is a) the fact that I was not the one who did execute the breach of the Terms of Settlement by way of the unauthorized disclosure of term 3 of the Terms of Settlement of 6th June 1966 on 23rd April 1990 as opposed to the guarantor’s settlement loan recovery agent Comer and that the said Comer did perforce disclose the not to be disclosed term 3 quantum amount without authority or consent from me with consideration in the not to be disclosed amount of $9,500 such breach by Comer attracting repercussions of all interrelated defendants, b) the fact that as outlined in these requests to admit facts and elsewhere in the pleadings on file money raising recovery events in 1990-1 were related in one contiguous transaction commencing with file and settlement order events in 1964-6 through to the guarantor’s failed/aborted Federal Court action of 1997 as disclosed by the discovery of my 1443/64 file from Supreme Court archives on 25th May 1999,c) that moneys became outstanding and remain outstanding as provisioned for in a Deed of Agreement of 18th June 1990 entered with into with a well paid attestingly named representative to enter into two fictitious “sham” capture leases designed to get my money for no benefit, such that, lest there be a fraud upon us moneys then becoming outstanding by Comer’s efforts be provisioned for accompanied by guarantee to me as I was not the one who, when called upon to do so, did breach the Terms,d) that in line with the orders of 8th June 1966 rendering me an investor by an order of the Supreme Court from that date I duly kept accounts on a spreadsheet of all moneys outstanding and credits thereto and have maintained those accounts to this day and continue day to day to manage the investment loan accounts arising from the Deed of Agreement and guarantee arising from the fact that, unlike the other operatives, I in no respect breached the Deed of Agreement,e) that on 23rd December 2003 the tenth defendant on behalf of the 9th defendant took opportunity to apologize for any and all inconveniences that this matter may have caused a primary inconvenience being chiefly the delayed settlement of all moneys outstanding inclusive of swapped settlement necessitating me for the time being, in line with my 8th June 1966 standing, having to maintain the accounts but obtaining excellent Deed interest as an excellent investment in compensation,f) that the matter remains it time, all statute of liability constraints having been observed,g) the fact that moneys in respect of liability have been and continue to be received by me or to my

account and continually settlement offers are being received, 73 in August, 87 in September, 84 in October, some 575 settlement offers arising from liability this year and moves to appropriate these settlement moneys are now underway, h) that all 11 defendant and defendant to be parties have had requests to admit put to them and have each admitted all put to them in respect of liability per part 17.3 and their conduct is consistent with the fact that they want this matter and are happy to bear a presumably referable liability for a time, each for their own reasons, as I believe each to have well prepared positions and have cause to join the twelfth (identity unknown) and perhaps even more parties, i) that the putting of the request to admit facts if not denied with traverse tends to settle all matters of liability per part 17.3 of the UCPR in line with Aon v Anu if the plaintiff puts all items of issue therein such that determination of liability be expedited for what it is worth leaving assessment of quantum and any cross and vertical issues to be pursued promptly thereafter, j) that the entire matter is both

an attempt to obtain a precedent such that all settlements upon terms not to be disclosed are recoverable, breach or no breach, as settlement investment loans for defendants in an attempt to freeze up the courts by causing all actions to otherwise go to hearing and

an accession matter with offer of tribute moneys long in the planning some details of which I have detailed in which matter I have succeeded.

Merry Christmas to all first line defendants whichever they are. Welcome to lawyers’ heaven. Well considered decision of Justice Hidden of 3rd September 2012 attached.This process will only be served by email as hard copy service of all documents and process is impractical and unnecessary and service has been uniform and evidenced.

New South Wales Consolidated Regulations[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Regulation] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]

UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2005 - REG 17.3 Notice to admit facts

17.3 Notice to admit facts

(cf SCR Part 18, rule 2; DCR Part 15, rule 2; LCR Part 14, rule 2)

(1) The requesting party may, by a notice served on the admitting party ( "the requesting party’s notice"), require the admitting party to admit, for the purposes of the proceedings only, the facts specified in the notice.

(2) If, as to any fact specified in the requesting party’s notice, the admitting party does not, within 14 days after service on the admitting party of the requesting party’s notice, serve on the requesting party a notice disputing that fact, that fact is, for the purposes of the proceedings only, taken to have been admitted by the admitting party in favour of the requesting party only.

(3) The admitting party may, with the leave of the court, withdraw any such admission.

You as a respondent in the matter currently before the Supreme Court are called upon to admit or deny the following requests to admit in this Notice to Admit Facts previously put.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/help/legis-help.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/ucpr2005305

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/ucpr2005305/s17.4.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/ucpr2005305/s17.2.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.pl?query=nsw+consol_reg+ucpr2005305+s17.3

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/ucpr2005305/notes.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinoform.pl/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/ucpr2005305/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinoform.pl

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/ucpr2005305/index.html#s17.3

All requests to admit are addressed to you and all parties to answer.

1a) Notice to Admit Facts served upon Centrelink 6th June 2011. b) All requests resolve in favour of the requesting party as per part 17.3 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW on 20th June 2011. c) Same Notice to Admit again put this time to the defendant 9th August 2011 for response. d) Defendant avoids answering and all requests resolve in the affirmative for plaintiff 23rd August 2011 together with default under Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship. e) Court graciously again allows defendant 14 days to respond or organize responses to both Notices 8th December 2012. f) All requests resolve for a third time in favour of the requesting party 22nd December 2011, Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship again subject to default. g) Court graciously again allows defendant 14 days to respond or organize response to twin Notices 30th January 2012. h) All requests resolve for a fourth time in favour of the requesting party and Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship remains in default 13th February 2012.

i) Out of courtesy per part 17 of UCPR this Notice to Admit and the Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship now put to you for your responses, 23rd May 2012.

PART 1


NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTSCOURT DETAILSCourt SUPREME COURT

Division COMMON LAW

Registry SYDNEY

Case number 1443/64TITLE OF PROCEEDINGSPlaintiff DAVID GREGORY MURPHY - MESSIAH

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Eighth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

Tenth Defendant

Eleventh Defendant

Twelfth Defendant



Fifteenth Defendant



#Legal representative SELF REPRESENTED

#Legal representative reference [reference number]

Contact name and telephone DAVID GREGORY MURPHY, 8214 8397

8/1 CURTIN PLACE CONCORD NSW 2137NOTICE TO CENTRELINK, as provider of subsequent evidence in 1443/64.C/- Burwood Office for service

The Plaintiff requires you, Centrelink, to admit the following facts:

Please answer fully and in detail all parts to each request to admit facts.

1a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the probability evidence, and arguments, in my email of 11th May 2011, show

beyond reasonable doubt (90% probability, 9/10, less than 1 in 10 improbability) or certainly on the balance of probabilities, better than 50%, 1 in 2 probability, that

there are a good number of quite apparent correlations to be found in existence between- the primary file amounts and numbers in my matter 1443/64 and - my CRN: 207-509-792K?

1b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?1c) If you say the facts are not so then

i) how are they not so?ii) why are they not so?iii) who says or said they are not so?

2a) Do you admit or agree, on the basis of the evidence, my probability arguments and probability quantums in

my letter of 8th October 2010 and emails of 17th March 2011 and 8th May 2011 and other information presumably now or formerly available to you, that

it is the case, is it not, that my matter 1443/64, where there was a Terms of Settlement and Consent Order in 1966, is adequately enough shown to be related to the issuing of the CRN(s) in September 1997 and later concession card and payments of and from 25th December 1997 thus suggesting a linkage with events in 1990-1 where moneys then being raised of the next friend and myself were made difficult to recover?2b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?2c) If you say the facts are not so then


3a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that there is at least one effective linkage between

- the matter 1443/64 and - the issuance of my particularized CRN and - concession payments,

commenced judiciously, so to speak, or by administrative order, direction or decision, in a timely fashion on 25th December 1997? 3b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?3c) If you say the facts are not so then


4a) Hence Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that there appears to be a beyond-reasonable-doubt or at least on-the-balance-of-probabilities linkage between

- the moneys going one way, towards me, in 1966 and - the other way, away from me and the next friend, in 1990-1

as needed to be evidentially particularized or referenced in the CRN of my concession card and concession payments in order that it may be of assistance to the Court as an evidentiary starting point? 4b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?4c) If you say the facts are not so then


5a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the numeric forensics in the CRN indicates adequately enough that there is a linkage between

- file events in 1443/64 in 1966 and

- the main figures in the approach to raise / recover moneys in 1990 - 1?5b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?5c) If you say the facts are not so then


6a) Hence do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the issuing and early apparent manual evidenced alteration of the CRN number in or shortly after September 1997 relates to

file events (the T of S and Order) taking place in that said matter in 1964 - 6 and a linked approach to recover the proceeds of that matter in 1990-1 and ensuing events in 1996, and in the three months leading up to and culminating in early September 1997?



7a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the facts, and multiple linkages, as outlined in my letter of 8th October 2010 to Centrelink, which should be found in my file and which was hand delivered to the Burwood Centrelink office on the same day, have not been denied and are not in dispute?7b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?7c) If you say the facts are not so then


If in dispute please promptly supply particulars of dispute for speedy resolution.

8a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that with the advent of my becoming a Centrelink client in September 1997 and with the advent of matters from June 20th 1997 to early September 1997 there was, due to some concurrent documentary event or notice, reason for

the file numerics from 1443/64 and numerics from events in 1990

to be recorded and then fastidiously adjusted in my thence accorded CRN? 8b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?8c) If you say the facts are not so then


9a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that there was no other event, apart from AGC’s approach in 1990 through 1997, which led to these numerics being resurrected and duly noted?9b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?9c) If you say the facts are not so then


10a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that this numeric forensic response in my CRN to events prior to my becoming a Centrelink client does, apart from many other undisputed linkages itemized in my letter of 8th October 2010, also or further link events in 1990-1, when AGC approached the next friend and myself via instructed (as to dates and amounts) money gathering intermediaries, to events in 1966?10b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?10c) If you say the facts are not so then


Plus “Interrogatories” of 8.5.11 which are more in the nature of Notices to Admit Facts so are here included under proper form. If not admitting or agreeing to part a of any question then part b of the Notice to Admit Facts question is to be completed. Failure to complete part b of any question (1 - 9) not admitted to or not agreed to will indicate question is not not being admitted or not not being agreed to.

11a) Hence, as demonstrated, do you admit or agree with my assertion that the significant numerical elements from 1443/64 appear to be referably linking my concession payments to my matter 1443/64 and is an absolute certainty, is it not?



12a) And this, of course, happened by the manipulation of the digits, automated or manually, did it not?



SIGNATURE

Signature of party if not legally represented

Capacity Plaintiff

Date of signature

HOW TO RESPONDIf you do not, within 14 days after service of this notice on you, serve a notice on the party requiring

admission disputing any fact (and the authenticity of any document) in this notice, that fact (and the authenticity of that document) will, for the purpose of these proceedings, be admitted by you in favour of the party requiring admission.

E & O E

PART 2

2a) This Notice to Admit Facts served upon GIO 11th July 2012. b) All requests resolve in favour of the requesting party as per part 17.3 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW on 25th July 2011. c) Pursuant to r2af 42a.v Reversal of Fortunes was also effected on 25th July 2011. d) This Notice to Admit again also put this time to the defendant 9th August 2011 for response. e) Defendant avoids answering or arranging for the answering and all requests resolve in the affirmative for plaintiff 23rd August 2011 together with default under Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship. f) Court graciously again allows defendant 14 days to respond or organize responses to both Notices 8th December 2012. g) All requests resolve for a third time in favour of the requesting party 22nd December 2011, Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship again subject to default. h) Court graciously again allows defendant 14 days to respond or organize response to twin Notices 30th January 2012. i) All requests resolve for a fourth time in favour of the requesting party and Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship remains in default 13th February 2012. j) Out of courtesy per part 17 of UCPR this Notice to Admit and the Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship now put to you for your responses, 23rd May 2012.



Division COMMON LAW

#List

Registry SYDNEY

Case number 1443/64TITLE OF PROCEEDINGSPlaintiff DAVID GREGORY MURPHY - MESSIAH

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Eighth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

Tenth Defendant

Eleventh Defendant

Twelfth Defendant



Fifteenth Defendant




8/1 CURTIN PLACE CONCORD NSW 2137NOTICE TO GIO aka GIO AUSTRALIA aka GIO GENERAL LTD ABN 22 002 861 58354 PITT ST SYDNEYResolution and Denouement

The Plaintiff / Settlement Creditor requires you, GIO, being the former public liability insurer of the defendant in 1963 and having had carriage of the matter, to admit the following facts:

Please answer the following disclosive and expansive requests to admit facts which generally speak for themselves based mostly upon information which should now be before you for timely and prompt due expedition of this overdue matter.

1a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that with the auspicious but avoidable choice of 17.3.1964 (17.3 = AGC, AGC day) as the date for your notice of appearance in this matter via the then representation of the Crown Solicitor, without accompanying defence, you duly,

- as an act by the Crown Solicitor of proper and requisite disclosure to the Court and - as an act to provide permanent evidence for much later appreciation,

filed thus a foreshadowing “shadow” notice of appearance on behalf of AGC to give notice to the Court

of the even then involvement of the hand of AGC and its interests in the then and future proceedings from the outset and thus indicate that any settlement would involve a financier seeking gain for minimal outlay, if any, and such settlement would not qualify as a true final settlement at all and the proceedings as conducted by you from then on on behalf of your client would lead on to farce and “sham” but ones in which settlement commitments were entered into so that various moneys would many years later, under the shadow of a guarantee, be acknowledged as “outstanding” in a document put to the plaintiff?1b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?1c) If you say the facts are not so then

i) how are they not so?ii) ii) why are they not so? iii) iii) who says or said they are not so?

2a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that

it would be rather akin to a solicitor choosing to file his client’s claim on April Fool’s Day (notably the day after the 14 day period after 17th March) and thus send an initial potential message to the Court even before deprecatory evidence and arguments come to light and

even the coming down upon the choice of 17th March, St Patrick’s Day, leads to a secondary affirmative argument that even then there was a corresponding confirmatory shadow siding with the plaintiff, as his name is Murphy, a second good reason to definitely avoid the date in the normal course of events, again as any solicitor, especially the Crown, should know if not wishing to seemingly send double duly disclosive messages to the Court at the outset for later appreciation and which become revelations and portentous in the light of later events?


i) how are they not so? ii) why are they not so? iii) who says or said they are not so?

3a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that if you did not wish to

send such a portentous, open to interpretation and duly disclosive message to the Court, and to me in due course when I am much older revisiting this matter as might happen, and

did not wish to file any such apparent shadow notice of appearance as any solicitor, especially the Crown, should know

you would simply have chosen an alternative date to 17.3, the originating writ having been filed on Thursday 20.2.1964, which is, as any lawyer should also know, to highlight 2:20, Exodus 20, i.e. the 10 commandments, the laying down of the law as is going on here, and GIO/SMC having till Thursday 19.3 to file and not necessarily till two days before on Tuesday 17.3?3b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?3c) If you say the facts are not so then

i) how are they not so?ii) why are they not so? iii) who says or said they are not so?

4a.) In short do you you admit that it is the case, is it not, that you had 20 possible days to file your notice of appearance, done in lieu of defence, but by one in 20, 5%, “chance” chose “AGC day”/St Patrick’s Day, 17.3, facts that would not be lost on the Court as it is well accepted in legal circles that

actions send messages to the Court, and there are plenty such in this matter, and GIO/SMC would have thus in retrospect only later be seeable to be have been giving an apparent due disclosure that suggested there may be another player even then waiting in the wings to emerge and play a part in the matter?4b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?4c) If you say the facts are not so then


5a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the shadow notice of appearance filing date of 17.3 also foreshadowed and disclosed from the outset the all very odd (uneven) 7931 “settlement” amount procedure, and recovery, which was to follow as the date of 17.3 was part and parcel of a proprietary generic 7931/gica settlement loan recovery procedure?5b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?5c) If you say the facts are not so then


6a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that term 7, the non disclosure term of the Terms of 6th June 1966, was inserted into my Terms of Settlement, as you still do (per previous default part 17 admissions of 23.1.11), for no clear benefit to me at first blush (or even for any settlement creditor as compared with the relative benefit it confers on a settlement debtor transforming a debt liability payout into a (perhaps) secured perhaps long term latent investment) as the non disclosure term 7 functions effectively as a trigger to activate a settlement loan recovery procedure much further down the track by your from-the-outset duly disclosed said joint endeavour partner, AGC utilizing giveaway local talent, to secure an inordinate attractive gain from a later-to-be-executed contrived, evidenced and engineered breach of the terms intended to facilitate recovery and termination of a 30-year loan (20.6.66 - 20.6.96) with a Certificate of Judgment on 20th June 1996, all commenced with a principal outlay of $7,931?6b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?6c) If you say the facts are not so then


7a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you did not object to Justice Maguire inviting me up to the bench to ostensibly view my injuries thus giving me special attention from the outset of my personal appearance in the Court on 8th June 1966 thus singling me out for special attention and seemingly responding to the shadow notice of appearance, now understandably without defence, by the Crown on 17.3 and insertion of term 7 in the Terms before him suggesting that the Court had already become aware that there was something untoward about the case as plaintiffs are, and perhaps even then were, not usually invited in person up to the bench?7b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?7c) If you say the facts are not so then

i) how are they not so?ii) why are they not so?

iii) who says or said they are not so?

Into the heart of the GICA arrangement 8a.) 7931=GICA = GICA = G+I+C+A = GIO+AGCDo you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the net settlement figure of $7,931 (a one in 10,000 improbability on the balance of probabilities) was a duly disclosive identity revealing arrived at figure, previously used, which dutifully disclosed, with ingenuity, the identities of the two parties who were parties to an arrangement, a “gica” arrangement, which parties were GIO and the said waiting-in-the-wings AGC, as the figure 7931, GICA, disclosing the said two arrangement parties ingeniously begins with the GI of GIO, who is the initiator, and fully involves the initials of the other party, AGC, and hence it was and still is shadow evidence to the Court of an arrangement taking place in the purported but binding enough settlement, enough so to contributively warrant Justice Maguire’s reaction? 8b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?8c) If you say the facts are not so then


9a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the spare “I” left over above (GICA less AGC) is for 9 neatly standing for the not to be disclosed Insured $9,000 being a standard amount in these generic settlement loan recovery procedures and it is the GIO who provides the I, the $9,000? 9b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?9c) If you say the facts are not so then


10a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the utilization of this ingeniously arrived at disclosive amount of $7,931 strongly suggests that such a settlement procedure as in my matter was not a one off but would have been employed numerous times between the GIO and AGC in settlements over the years, even decades, by two, or more, “unscrupulous former business partners” (to quote the current Crown case manager’s concessional words), as there is too much in-evidence ingenuity and intellectual property input which went into the construction of the “triple principal” figure, so to speak, and even suggests why AGC chose that name which indicates that it is the provider of perhaps jointly binding guarantees, in certain cases, as a G is shared by both parties, past and present?10b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?10c) If you say the facts are not so then


11a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that this has already been admitted by you in the said default request to admit no 12 on 23rd January 2011 where by not filing a notice to deny facts you admitted on 6th February 2011 as to an evidenced enough shadow arrangement between GIO and AGC in operation from 1964 onwards in this Supreme Court case?



12a.) Also Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that confirmatorially $7,931 on 20.6.66 @ 9.5000000% over 24 years compounding to 18.6.90 = $70,000, the deed amount on 18.6.90 and approximately $140,000 on 20.6.96, the date of the Certificate of Judgment obtained of the Court after 4 days of non disclosure by AGC to the Court as to reasons why it had approached the next friend and me?12b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?12c) If you say the facts are not so then


13a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the net settlement “triple principal” figure of $7,931 is even further confirmed as identity disclosive and shown to be ingeniously constructed, contrived and a further confirming figure for a money making financier being in evidence and operating through four finance professionals to make money in that when a precise but telling requisite interest rate of 9.5000000% per annum compounding is applied to it, as in a shadow account (formerly provided to AGC and not in dispute) a specified further plateau / new base amount of $70,000 is arrived at around midday on the 18th June 1990 (a well planned requisite date for statute of limitations), the time of the signing by me of an unexpected, provisioning Deed of Agreement with an operative, Byrnes, clearly instructed as to this date and amount, which Deed provides for a number of things including a provision, guaranteed, for “all moneys outstanding” and hence a said shadow account is made out which operated until that day, 18th June 1990, pending the operation of two take over instruments,

one being the provisioning deed (dutifully breached by Byrnes) which provided for my ongoing and recognized entitlements and other investment moneys outstanding and

the other being a fictitious fanciful instant total debt creation capture instrument, a lease / asset purchase agreement, dated, surprize surprize, 20th June 1990, with, surprize surprize, no other than your many years earlier dutifully disclosed joint endeavour partner AGC (who came up with an accommodating GTR guarantor entry also on 18th June 1990, upon receipt of its copy of the signed Deed, as was its duty as befits its middle initial, in anticipation of its operative Byrne’s forthcoming requisite breach of the “even handed” dually functional entrapping/provisioning deed on 18.9.90) to complete an additional 60 months, 5 years to 20th June 1995 and then by the utilization of the mechanism of confidently expected Court interest arising from anticipated Court action for the remaining 30th year to uplift the settlement loan recovery balance from $70,000 to $140,000, a sought after amount specified in the Deed over 30 years to, surprize surprize, 20th June 1996, the date of the Certificate of Judgment obtained of the Court, giving a base return yield for the recovery action of 1,665% minimum over 30 years to be at my expense,

all because I had obtained a verdict in my favour in the Supreme Court and because AGC had a joint venture specialty in the practice of recovery of such verdict amounts for its own gain?13b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?13c) If you say the facts are not so then

i) how are they not so?

ii) ii) why are they not so? iii) iii) who says or said they are not so?

14a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that

- a precise and determinable interest rate of 9.5000000 % per annum compounding and - a 30 year term with a 24 year 1990 restructure plateau juncture and - a $70,000 specification interim balance and - a specified $140,000 computational end balance

tends to prove adequately enough a shadow account, thus far undenied by the guarantor, in operation from 1966 to 1990 to 1996 netting a minimum return over 30 years of 1,665% alone, and hence the provision of an interest investment loan in lieu of a definitive settlement pending a trigger such as a breach of the Terms of Settlement by me attempted at the recovery outset on 23rd April 1990 by Comer, one of the four settlement loan recovery agents working the inside and handling the moneys, followed 2 x 28 days later by a provisional Deed of Agreement given with an otherwise uncalled for coinciding accommodating guarantee pointing towards there being not only a loan in operation but also a non-breach activation by me of the recovery mechanism for that loan with the consequential provision of the said Deed of Agreement with another also-advised-as-to-dates-and-amounts settlement loan recovery key operative agent “about” his business providing for “all moneys outstanding” on behalf of his recovering principal/s or even on behalf of the the original insured and quite provisionally and vicariously guaranteed defendant, SMC, in this matter?14b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?14c) If you say the facts are not so then

i) how are they not so?ii) ii) why are they not so?iii) iii) who says or said they are not so?

15a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that this plateau juncture in the settlement loan recovery procedure is observed at the 24 year point, 18th - 20th June 1990, and the recovery amount and interest rate so necessarily constructed, to allow, upon the mark being assured as to a much shorter duration of 3 – 6 months, for

- an imposing artificial five year capture instrument to be put in place to provide immediate full term investment return to AGC and

- a requisite precise further 6 years for compliance with the Limitations requirements to commence to assist with Court assisted recovery of the 30 year investment loan, further evidencing a 30 year investment loan, in non compliance of the Court Order, settlement thereof concluding on 20th June 1996 thus evidencing the securing of exceptional legal and financial advice input?15b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?15c) If you say the facts are not so then


16a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that earmarked settlement loan recovery begins at the outset, as at the precise date of 23rd April 1990, with

- an approach to the mark as an investor by an order of the Court with an offer of attractive interest from a settlement loan recovery agent, quickly followed by others, which were also taken up and are now being called in,

- in combination with the engineering and evidencing of a breach of the non disclosure term of the Terms of Settlement with the consideration for the breach being the disclosure and taking back of the principal amount of the settlement loan followed up by investments and/or loans designed to recover the interest and as much more as possible following on to a specific end play, in October 1991, to maximize outlay?16b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?16c) If you say the facts are not so then i) how are they not so? ii) why are they not so? iii) who says or said they are not so?

17a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in this settlement loan recovery opening move there was no breach at all by me of the Terms but that the money handling settlement loan recovery agent, Comer, perforce disclosed the requisite amount not to be disclosed and seemingly enough evidenced in writing that this amount was not to be disclosed, at least by him, and so the breach in this case did not take place by me but by him to me and hence by AGC to him who also presumably enough, as lender and recoverer of the amount, improperly knew the amount and this fact further contributes to the contiguity of the recovery in 1990 being linked with events in 1966, otherwise why on the 23.4.90 (cf 23.8.63) would he take back an amount equivalent to the amount not to be disclosed under the Terms as his opening move in raising moneys not to be returned and avoid disclosing in writing the exact amount after he had verbally nominated the amount because I did not know it, having forgotten it long ago, nor knew what he was about which was to raise nominated amounts of moneys?17b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?17c) If you say the facts are not so then


18a.) Given the forgoing, that the purported settlement had the elements of a loan, Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that there was a requirement for security and indemnity in the event that the said settlement loan, to a minor, could not be collected upon and this security was the house and factory at 34 and 36 – 40 Tavistock Road Homebush West, the sale moneys from the latter (after an attempt on the former was foiled) being collected in Oct - Nov 90 when there had been no breach of the Terms by the next friend or by myself in such a way as to make the factory security sale money proceeds both:

one way investment loans under the Credit (Administration) Act 1984 (a peculiar andunwillingly disclosed recovery procedure, knowledge of which betrays a principal, such as AGC, then prominent in the field of finance knowing something that an average investor such as myself or the next friend would not know)while at the same time

-- remain as contemplated and provisioned part of the “moneys outstanding” under the Deed of 18th June 1990 (two days before the date of exchange of the factory security on the 20th June) as moneys raised for or to ponzi “clients” of and by an already admitted and never by it complained about finance broker, Comer, so we would not have been defrauded as the Deed and guarantee and resulting investment loan accounts which I, as an investor, could be expected, and was known, to reliably keep provided for us? 18b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?18c) If you say the facts are not so then



19a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the requisite issuing of the guarantee on my CRA by AGC on 18th June 1990, the date of Deed and two days before factory exchange, was to be disguised to confuse the Court (which AGC did without such reliance in 435/93) as being

a guarantee by me to AGC that the sought after sale moneys from the factory security would be “lent” to the most trusted of the settlement loan recovery agents, Comer, to go to his dummy ponzi scheme borrower clients and to himself for services rendered as one way non repayable investment loans presumably enough for AGC to ultimately benefit from as your joint venture principal to settle an alleged outstanding debt, being to its account, when

it was clear that AGC was the party alone who could and did itself give such a requisite guarantee and put it in a place, which only it could put it in the absence of any supporting documentation from me, the guarantor to a stranger (and actor agent) proposition having been rejected by me, and only produce the guarantee and make it known without explanation belatedly in discovery in 435/93 in about 1994?



20a.) Given that there was the taking of security from adults as befits a loan to a minor for the value of two properties Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that this could not feasibly be done without the consent of the next friend and his brother and any other parties with ownership and this encumbrance, charge, mortgage, lien, loan or the like designed to ultimately defeat or avoid proper compliance with the Terms and Consent Order was under a parallel Terms of Settlement with its own non disclosure term that was never disclosed to me and is now, and always was, void ab initio and as such any continuing encumbrance etc, which has caused stresses in the family, is of no continuing legal effect?20b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?20c) If you say the facts are not so then


21a.) Do you admit or agree it is the case that I was presented with the Deed of 18th June 1990, which provided amongst other things for all moneys outstanding in recognition that I had not breached the Terms and that moneys were indeed outstanding as

they were outstanding to the next friend and myself, and that I did similarly not breach the Deed and that the deed was written in a way so as to have a number of meanings but primarily now, in

retrospect, can be seen not only to secure the mark but importantly to provide for the mark and the next friend lest the approach and recovery become a

fraud but one where I did not knot know why we had been approached and that the guarantorship of the Deed was to that end and no other explanation now suffices for its existence and that of the accompanying

guarantorship?21b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?21c) If you say the facts are not so then


22a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that with the release of the security of the factory, and perhaps next friend’s house, on 20th June 1990 the security for the settlement loan became, by virtue or by effect of the multiply functional Deed and capture contract with AGC, my property at 16 Mitchell St, St Leonards wherein were the damages and this is what led to a successful recovery of considerable moneys from the sale of my said sought after St Leonards property in October 1991, which moneys captured under a contrived garnishee order to a Comer ponzi nominee under a contrived recovery procedure remain outstanding as per the provisioning Deed. 22b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?22c) If you say the facts are not so then


23a.) So to summarizeDo you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that there are clear linkages between events in 1966, 1990 and 1996 pointing to there being the elements of a loan to a minor in evidence to wit: establishment in 1966, recovery commenced in 1990 and conclusion in 1996 as repeatedly alleged and never denied: - observance of shadow account dates:

(filing of writ 20th Feb 1964) payment into Court of $7,931 with strings attached 20th June 1966,

capture and recovery contract with AGC 20th June 1990 = 24y, Certificate of Judgment to mark termination + facilitate recovery 20th June 1996 = 30y, hearing of creditor’s petition in Federal Court 20th June 1997,

- a term of 30 years from 20th June 1966 to 20th June 1996 to provide for good interest return,- a precise interest rate of 9.5000000% p.a. which when applied to the principal of $7,931 paid in on 20th June 1966 compounding till 18th June 1990, the date of the Deed plateauing at $70,000, and then proceeding by virtue of the capture lease’s uplifting interest formula over 5 years ($1,672.72 x 60 months + $28,000) from 18th June 1990 and thence one year’s Court interest at 9% p.a. to $140,000 ($139,995.02) by 20th June 1996,- the taking of security as befits a large 30 year loan, such as the factory whose deeds were held by Westpac (owner of AGC) until 20th June 1990, the date of exchange, and released also in exchange for securing me on capture lease with AGC straight after the signing of the Deed on 18th June 1990 on which date AGC gave the guarantee for “all moneys outstanding” which would appear to perhaps be later arguable that the guarantee was of double application in that the factory security was, without my being advised, swapped for the security in my house wherein were the damages moneys so that AGC could ensure its profit,- the giving of an indemnity in 1966 undeniedly activated in 1997,- the requisite trigger of the evidencing and engineering, with claw back consideration of the not-to-be-disclosed amount of $9,500 ($9,000+$500), breach of the Terms of 6th June 1966 by a most trusted

finance professional working the inside for AGC on 23rd April 1990 with the evidence by his own hand that he appeared to know the amount was not to be disclosed by him and with evidence enough that he was the one who did do the disclosure,- triple admission by AGC in the 435/93 1995 cross-examination of me (who had no idea what counsel was talking about) that entry into the lease arose allegedly to protect my “investment” which the Deed represented (there being only one investment and that was that which arose from the Consent Order of 8.6.66), - the unusual, contrived and mistakenly detailed manner of capture contract recovery with utilization of a fictitious summary balance debt instrument, as described in the Deed found to be a sham in 435/93, and retention of local talent finance specialists as befits recovery of a loan to a minor when he is older and when he has not breached the Terms, - a guarantee given by AGC for amongst other things “all moneys outstanding” on the plateau date 18th June 1990 of the shadow account juncture consistent with the fact that, for the purposes of these proceedings, I am and remain an investor (fixed interest) by an order of the Court, agreed to by both parties on 8th June 1966 that the investment is for my benefit,23b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?23c) If you say the facts are not so then


24a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that all money raisings by Comer, the seemingly most trusted breach-securer and money handling/raising operations agent working the inside, netted a return of not just the 1,665% which the 30 year loan provides for, but much more over 30 years, 25 years even, making this particular settlement-loan substitution and recovery a very profitable exercise indeed for your gica joint venture partner, an assertion not disputed by them in notice to admit facts default questions in correspondence over the past few years?24b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?24c) If you say the facts are not so then


25a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that if a local talent (Strathfield) finance professional approaches a quite removed settlement creditor (in St Leonards) after an appreciably long period of time and demonstrates, for the first time ever and upon his first meeting, a disclosure of an amount not to be disclosed with consideration by securing an amount equivalent to the principal of the original settlement it suggests that a recovery for gain and a set up is in process, particularly when

he leads on to either a full scale recovery of moneys with interest comprising securities and an invidious money capture contract and/or leads on to a Deed of Agreement provisioning all moneys outstanding with attendant guarantee duly

provided by your said joint venture partner financier due to and acknowledging there not having been a breach of the Terms by the original settlement creditor,

it tends strongly to evidence agency of some form by being in possession of knowledge which was only knowable by parties to the Terms?25b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?25c) If you say the facts are not so then


26a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the approach by AGC was not the first approach (and generally isn’t) to recover moneys off me as an investor by an Order of the Court by way of put up fanciful home grown designer investment recovery schemes and again well timed settlement recovery schemes in the 1980’s up to and concluding in early 1992, all destined-to-fail shams and scams, resulting in and causing moneys to be “outstanding” defrayed by moneys earned in the course of my businesses during the term of the 30 year loan before it was more left to AGC to emerge and pursue the mark and his moneys more in its own right with an ever greater degree of exposure growing ever more dependent upon its having to act for itself as time went on and that evidence relating to these investments was admissively obtained of me by an operant after notice in a letter that would have aroused interest advising of the existence as to documents on 17th July 1995 where a finding for the tort of conversion was found which, by a tort to contract swap, turned into an accepted sale?26b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?26c) If you say the facts are not so then


27a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in 1966 in “this matter” there was a direct relationship and arrangement between GIO and AGC where GIO acted for an insurance client, the defendant, and prepared the way in a Terms of Settlement, and perhaps Order, for AGC who later appeared in its own right to recover moneys with accumulated interest via the direct operation of a fictional and contrived mark-capture contract, and by the operation of a number of credit act scam loans organized by one, or both, local-talent money-handling finance specialist operatives and thus reverse an insurance outlay into a handsome investment and good mileage is obtained by all principal and operative parties by this procedure which relies upon the marks not knowing what is going on?27b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?27c) If you say the facts are not so then


28a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that where there has been a settlement loan in lieu of settlement per se the liability and quantum thereof for settlement under the Terms rises in parallel with the shadow account until the expiration of the 24 year period to the time of the Deed of Agreement, should the mark not breach and should the mark have clean hands, and then the Deed becomes the operating financial instrument which enshrines the mark’s entitlement to the recovery of the acknowledged “all moneys outstanding” and accruing per the Deed rate, in full, issuing by virtue of the settlement loan recovery action, recognizing also the fact that the mark has indeed clean hands as evidenced by the accommodating otherwise needless guarantee rendered by your joint venture partner, AGC?28b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?28c) If you say the facts are not so then



29a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that I was not the one who breached the Terms of Settlement by unauthorized disclosure, which disclosure by a key settlement loan recovery agent seeking to evidence and engineer a breach of the Terms with consideration lead to moneys outstanding and owing to us?29b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?29c) If you say the facts are not so then


30a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that there was non compliance with the Consent Order as recoverable accruing credit was provided and not a definitive no strings attached settlement?30b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?30c) If you say the facts are not so then


31a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that I was provided the Deed of Agreement supplanting the earlier Terms and Orders instruments with provisions for preservation and accrual of “all moneys outstanding” because I was not the one who breached the Terms of Settlement nor the party who improperly complied or was non compliant with the Consent Order?31b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?31c) If you say the facts are not so then


32a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the “all moneys outstanding” remain outstanding and accruing as provided for under the Deed as the instrument that now is the instrument that supplants the said other two instruments and that preserves and accrues not only the original settlement moneys still outstanding but also other moneys which have come to be and remain outstanding as per my accounts of “all moneys outstanding” as a result of “this matter”?32b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?32c) If you say the facts are not so then


33a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that as a loan with all the trappings was provided with recovery more than achieved when there had been no breach of the Terms by me, there has thus been a breach of the Terms of Settlement and a non compliance with the Consent Order on the defendant’s side both leading to moneys outstanding to me,

or our family, as contemplated in the Deed entered into with an appropriate duly evidently appointed settlement loan recovery agent and which provisioned outstanding moneys in the said Deed instrument, which follows on from and updates and uplifts the amounts outstanding per the Terms and Order and consequences from the Terms and Order in recognition that I did not breach, and the resulting unimpugned accounts, are appropriately guaranteed by your apologetic but dilatory joint venture gica partner, AGC now GE?33b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?33c) If you say the facts are not so then


34a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the acknowledged “all moneys outstanding” under the Deed with the said co-functional settlement loan recovery agent, advised also as to dates and amounts, remains the liability of the gica-arrangement principals and any client and the defendant to finally settle despite the fact that one party, AGC, has helpfully given a now superfluous guarantorship of the deed, superfluous (but confirmative) now that the principals of the gica arrangement have been determined. 34b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?34c) If you say the facts are not so then


35a.) Do you admit that it is the case that those four dissembling self funding finance professionals who approached the next friend and particularly myself as an investor, with taken up and now being called in offers of attractive interest in 1990, did so to secure moneys and introduce me to AGC and were but operative actors (with yet again evidence-for-the-Court in mind selected names: Comer, the groomer and Byrnes, the strongman of straw who deals with the boy with the burns and MacDonald with his farm of workhorses, mules, donkeys, stooges and shills) in the activity and were paid accordingly for their services with funds obtained of the next friend and primarily myself at no real cost to either AGC or yourself?35b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?35c) If you say the facts are not so then


36a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that, as the purpose of the exercise was to recover moneys and maximize gains and not further outlay them, all moneys to fund the recovery operation was naturally sourced from the mark and the next friend and remain as “moneys outstanding” as per the Deed and guarantee and my accounts?36b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?36c) If you say the facts are not so then


37a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are

so: that as none of the finance recovery agents had any interests in my businesses nor sought to be involved in them, they only sought to secure or return investment moneys obtained of us in a way consistent with the provision and guarantee of the Deed as faithfully recorded in my accounts of amounts lent, expended and outstanding arising from “this matter”?37b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?37c) If you say the facts are not so then


38a.) Is it admitted that it is the case, is it not, that this 30 year procedure indicates a road well traveled against settlement creditors with there being the enjoyment of local talent well versed in its operation as to what role to play and instructed as to dates and amounts? 38b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?38c) If you say the facts are not so then


39a.) Do you admit, or agree, that it is the case, is it not, that this, and potentially any, large scale settlement loan substitution and recovery practice has within it the seeds of death, planted, watered and harvested, giving rise to:

death: the next friend’s despondency over loss induced death on 7.6.93 and mental illness i.e. schizophrenia, my mother and mental instability and loss of opportunity, one sister, anda near death and a “death” experience: the plaintiff mark, 4.12.97 + 11-12.6.10, as well as assault, numerous; injections with inappropriate substances, numerous;

incarcerations, numerous and disorientation and destabilization and tendentious or mistaken diagnosis due to extreme stress and intermediate impact, all but one inclusively and diminutively apologized for to me by the new owner of AGC on behalf of AGC (you though haven’t apologized but then you, and your client, had not been briefed, I expect) as “any inconveniences this matter may have caused” along with delay in settlement of the guaranteed “all moneys outstanding” as an also concessional Christmas gift on 23rd December 2003?39b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?39c) If you say the facts are not so then


40a.) Will you be apologizing to us also, if it also the case that any claim upon you is now referable and someone else is ultimately the debtor (a collateral apology situation which presumably would bring a parallel capital windfall for your current owner also)?40b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?40c) If you say the facts are not so then


41a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are

so: that what has happened to our family is the lot that can be expected by any family who has a member who obtains a settlement in the Courts, with Terms not to be disclosed, or maybe just those where also insurers and financiers play a part?41b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?41c) If you say the facts are not so then


42a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that a 7931/CIGA transaction is an of-great-antiquity “caig” lego-transaction tragi/comedy viz.

i) Introduction & Exposition 23.8.63 – 20.6.66,ii) Rising Action <23.4.90 – 25.12.97, iii) Climax 25.5.99,iv) Falling Action >25.5.99 – 30.6.10, v) Resolution & Denouement 1.7.10 > in which someone gets fra(I)med as in a “caig” and at

least one person gets killed, and that firstly it was the mark who was to be fraimed with a caig capture agreement and now it’s not the mark?42b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?42c) If you say the facts are not so then


43a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that AGC now GE, the apologized for party who rendered the guarantee for “all moneys outstanding”, having been rendered the accounts for the said “all moneys outstanding” arising from this 7931/ciga/caig transaction on numerous occasions in 2008-9 and reporting no fault and taking no issue with them when the time to do so was open, during and following interim 2005 Supreme Court proceedings and ensuing comprehensive correspondence and in 2008-9 contained interrogatories (which were in many instances, properly viewed, part 17 yes/no misnomered requests to admit facts as would have been apparent to the legally trained eye) means that the accounts, entries and quantum calculated per the manner of the Deed to the present time, are and will remain indeed similarly undisputed, not seemingly only by AGC/GE (for reasons of collateral windfall for your current owner), but also presumably (for much the same reason) by you? (And why wouldn’t you?)43b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?43c) If you say the facts are not so then


44a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that AGC’s role in running the settlement recovery case through the Parramatta District Court in 435/93 in 1994-5 was, amongst other things, to gain a precedent for recovery of settlements (if there isn’t one already) in cases where the recipient has not breached so that, notwithstanding the fact that circumstances and cases may change, it could continue to make large profits from settlements?44b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?44c) If you say the facts are not so then



45a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that although the “unscrupulous” gica joint venture “partners”, GIO and AGC, have each been sold and GIO partially fragmented the judgment in 435/93 has not been returned to the Parramatta District Court as obtained by fraud to perpetuate fraud and the judgment still stands leaving GIO to continue to sell off settlement liabilities for those in the know to make vast profits through capture agreements or the like from those who have not or have been induced to breach their Terms by inserting the still inserted non disclosure settlement loan recovery trigger term in any Terms of Settlement indicating that no remorse is shown?45b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?45c) If you say the facts are not so then


46a.) Do you admit or agree that you are content for all previous yes/no requesting “self executing interrogatories” in the email to Lynn Mattes of 23rd January 2011 to execute in the favour of the requesting party as none of the 14 mostly two part questions therein are in dispute and resolved/executed as default requests to admit per part 17 of the UCPR, and the 14 days for service of Notice of Dispute is expired.46b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?46c) If you say the facts are not so then


47a.) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that as 7931/gica/caig co-joint venturer before the Court in this settlement loan substitution and recovery action that in this Notice to Admit Facts your admissions may bind other parties, to wit AGC, Lance Finance, the various operatives and the nominated ponzi dummy intermediary so-called borrower stooges of the finance broker/s?47b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?47c) If you say the facts are not so then


You will note that I have been quite expansive and disclosive. I would expect and I expect the Court would require you to be equally so in your answers for them to be convincing.

The requests to admit of 23.1.11 are again presented below under this cover sheet for you to answer.Where applicable they have been modified to more closely comply and be definable as part 17 requests

to admit. Those in [ ] need not be answered as they are not proper requests to admit.

[1a) It is the case, it it not that, GIO still permits, promotes, allows or outsources etc the recovery of settlements for profit, offset or otherwise as happened with me, breach or no breach whether liability be admitted or not? 1b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?1c) If you say the facts are not so then i) how are they not so? ii) why are they not so? iii) who says or said they are not so? ]

[2) Upon which date did the practice cease and for what reasons?]

[3a) Can you supply me any Court precedents which have determined or terminated the practice? 3b) Can you please cite the case, or any statute, to me?]

4) Does GIO admit or deny as to whether it still inserts term 7 “these terms not to be disclosed” or the like in Terms of Settlements which term can give rise to later recovery in Terms of Settlements?

[5) If the GIO still inserts the terms “these terms not to be disclosed” into settlements what benefit does this confer to the settlement creditor?]

[6) Why is the term, if it is to be inserted for the privacy of a tortious etc party, not modified to “these terms not to be disclosed to the financial detriment of the settlement creditor” or the like?]

7a) Do you admit that it is the case that you still use the $30,000/$9,500/$7,931 transaction? 7b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?7c) If you say the facts are not so then


8) Is it admitted that the 9.5% compounding interest rate for the 30 year loan was made known to the next friend, and his brother?

9) Is it admitted that it is the case that the term “these terms not to be disclosed” was added to facilitate later possible recovery?

10a) As a 30 year loan with 9.5% compounding interest is in evidence in lieu of a settlement, is it admitted that it is the case that compliance with the consent orders is now well overdue in the accrued amount as per the Deed and the accounts?10b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?10c) If you say the facts are not so then


11a) Are the outlined linkages (now outlined) between events in 1990 and events in 1966 admitted?11b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?11c) If you say the facts are not so then



12a) Is the GICA/7931 identity identifying settlement recovery arrangement between GIO and AGC admitted?12b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?12c) If you say the facts are not so then


13a) As the GICA/7931 practice to substitute a settlement entered into between the GIO and AGC has been to thwart or delay a Court order approving of investment, is it admitted that it is the case that the plaintiff is to this day still entitled to proper receipt of his delayed Court approved settlement entitlement and other moneys outstanding and accruing as per the Deed?13b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?13c) If you say the facts are not so then


[14a) Are you now ready to move on to quantum, other issues having now been concluded? 14b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?14c) If you say the facts are not so then i) how are they not so? ii) why are they not so? iii) who says or said they are not so? ]

SIGNATURE


Capacity Plaintiff

Date of signature

HOW TO RESPONDIf you do not, within 14 days after service of this notice on you, serve a notice on the party requiring admission disputing any fact (and the authenticity of any document) in this notice, that fact (and the authenticity of that document) will, for the purpose of these proceedings, be admitted by you in favour of the party requiring admission.E. & O. E.

PART 3

3a) This Notice to Admit Facts together with the other two Notices to Admit and the Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship served upon defendant 9th August 2012 and this Notice to Admit and the preceding two and the Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship also caused to be served on Westpac Bank 22nd September 2011. b) All requests resolve in favour of the requesting party as per part 17.3 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW and the Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship defaulted under also on 23rd August 2011 and both similarly again per Westpac on 6th October 2011. c) Pursuant again to r2af 42a.v Reversal of Fortunes was confirmed by both defendant on 23rd August and Westpac also on 6th October 2011. d) Court graciously again allows defendant 14 days to respond or organize responses to both Notices 8th December 2012. e) All requests resolve for a third time in favour of the requesting party 22nd December 2011, Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship again subject to default. f) Court graciously again allows defendant 14 days to respond or organize response to twin Notices 30th January 2012. g) All requests resolve for a fourth time in favour of the requesting party and Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship remains in default 13th February 2012. i) Pursuant to decision of Justice Schmidt on the 14th February 2012 a fifth window of opportunity arises from the said decision which plaintiff observes with an additional 14 days grace in allowing the defendant to suitably respond and arrange for the responses by the other respondents to the various Notices. All requests to admit again admitted confirmatively on 28th February 2012. j) Pursuant to decision of Justice Schmidt 14 days after the close of the window of opportunity for the requests to admit to be responded to I filed and served a Statement of Liquidated Claim and no defence has been filed as pursuant to the 5 sets of part 17.3 admissions there is no defence available to the defendant. However I have concurred with the defendant that its original 1964-6 defence against negligence was in order, as as you can see from the accompanying Notice to Admit Facts, negligence was hardly at all the correct cause of action in the first place, as can now be seen only in retrospect. Hindsight shows the matter to be quite different to what it originally seemed and only now can be run. h) Out of courtesy per part 17 of UCPR this Notice to Admit together with the others and the Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship now put to you for your responses upon this day 23rd May 2012.

NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS

TO THE DEFENDANT:

The plaintiff requires you to admit the following facts:

1a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the GIO acted for Strathfield Municipal Council (SMC) in Supreme Court matter 1443/64 from 1964-1966?1b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?1c) If you say the facts are not so then


2a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that money raising/recovery events pertaining to me and the next friend in 1990-1 were linked to our

matter 1443/64 before the Supreme Court in 1966?2b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?2c) If you say the facts are not so then


3a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the approach by a money recovery/raising broker/agent/accountant, Martin Comer in April 1990 to relieve our family of money and secure me on a capture lease with AGC thus putting my property at risk wherein were the damages was linked to my matter with SMC, 1443/64, in 1966 in the Supreme Court? 3b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?3c) If you say the facts are not so then


4a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the said Comer had his accountancy/money raising office in Strathfield and his associate MacDonald had been a branch manager of the Strathfield branch of the National Bank and a chap called Osborne whose name was bandied around in relation to the recovery matter had had an office in Enfield and the former two and perhaps the third comprised what is known as the Strathfield team?4b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?4c) If you say the facts are not so then


5a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that Martin Comer, being from Coventry Road Strathfield and having been with a public accountancy practice in Strathfield Plaza and as one of the Strathfield team was further your man coming to me at distant St Leonards and, as to send a message to the Court in a similar vein to the admitted r2af no 35a put to your insurer or y) below, his and his wife’s Shiela’s initials were SMC, Shiela and Martin Comer, the same as Strathfield Municipal Council?5b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?5c) If you say the facts are not so then


6a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you were aware in 1964-6 of an arrangement, a since admitted in evidence 7931/gica proprietary generic arrangement, between your insurer GIO and AGC who later approached me in 1990 via the Strathfield team of a Martin Comer and a Neil Macdonald?6b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?6c) If you say the facts are not so then

i) how are they not so?ii) ii) why are they not so?

iii) iii) who says or said they are not so?

7a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you were aware in 1966 that the Terms of Settlement was being offered to me with the expectation that the settlement (loan) moneys or rather Terms of Settlement moneys would be recovered much later, due to there being a now admitted gica/7931 arrangement, along with moneys from the sale of the factory which would be provided to you or AGC or to someone by me in some form?7b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?7c) If you say the facts are not so then


8a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that there was an arrangement at the time or over the intervening years or at the time in 1964-6 between or with GIO as payer and AGC as money recovering party?8b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?8c) If you say the facts are not so then


9a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in 1990 you did indeed know about the recovery from the next friend and myself by the local Strathfield team being underway? 9b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?9c) If you say the facts are not so then


10a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that it is the case that the Strathfield team ultimately provided you some benefit or were acting under some sort of instruction from you as the defendant or seemingly in your interests or to your knowledge?10b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?10c) If you say the facts are not so then


11a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that there was an attempt to evidence and engineer, with consideration, a breach of the Terms by Comer on 23rd April 1990 or thereabouts? 11b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?11c) If you say the facts are not so then


12a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that this attempt, though successful in recovering the Terms of Settlement amount, failed to elicit a breach of the Terms by me?12b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?12c) If you say the facts are not so then


13a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that I did not breach the Terms when Comer called upon me to do so with consideration in order to kickstart recovery?13b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?13c) If you say the facts are not so then


14a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the same Comer went on to raise most of the moneys outstanding and guaranteed under the Deed? 14b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?14c) If you say the facts are not so then


15a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that Comer was the party/associate who, as formerly of Strathfield town centre and as part of the Strathfield team and a resident of Coventry Rd Strathfield, himself breached the Terms of Settlement by disclosing the amount not to be disclosed, which had clearly been disclosed to him, by nominating and retaking back that same amount of money in the form of a cash cheque #368 in the Terms amount of $9,500 and thereby evidenced a loan, evidencing also at the time that the amount was not to be disclosed, and the amount itself due in time for return (from AGC together with another financier) in late June 1990 in two separated lots, with interest as befits an investor by an Order of the Court?15b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?15c) If you say the facts are not so then


16a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the payment into the Supreme Court on 20th June 1966 and the Certificate of Judgment by AGC in 435/93 in Parramatta District Court on 20th June 1996, pursuant to the entry into the lease on 20th June 1990, marked the beginning and the end of a 30 year loan at 9.5% compounding interest p.a. over 30 years for which security had been taken which security lay within SMC’s boundaries?16b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?16c) If you say the facts are not so then


17a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that two of the four associates who approached me and the next friend to raise moneys and secure me for AGC were local talent from Strathfield town centre who were “just around at the time?” as counsel for AGC admitted in 435/93. 17b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?17c) If you say the facts are not so then


18a) This most unlikely duel “coincidence” of locality and professions, along with counsel’s said disclosure to the Court, does indeed have a probative bearing upon this matter, perhaps as relating to a prior agency, servitude, retention or the like, does it not? 18b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?18c) If you say the facts are not so then


19a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that Comer was a team assessor of sorts to determine whether the recovery should go ahead and upon being sent out he decided to do so by taking back the Terms of Settlement amount but also it was felt that as I had not breached the Terms I should obtain the Deed and guarantee for “all moneys outstanding”.19b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?19c) If you say the facts are not so then


20a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that I did not breach the Terms of Settlement at any time and so received the Deed of Agreement and its provisions and the accompanying guarantorship pertaining to the Deed all on 18th June 1990 because I did not breach and in recognition that I was still the creditor and an investor by the Order of the Court of 8th June 1966? 20b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?20c) If you say the facts are not so then


21a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that James Byrnes, the signatory for the Deed, having been advised as to dates and amounts, was a settlement loan recovery agent and that he signed in a manner binding AGC, who as gica joint venture partner advised him as to same and guaranteed the Deed and what it provided for?



22a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that

- if the purported settlement in 1966 is linked to the approach of Comer and Byrnes and AGC in 1990 and that

- if I did not breach the Terms and - if the settlement turned out to have been a 30 year loan and credit, not settlement, and the

settlement to be loan funds to a minor requiring an unusual manner of recovery - then the settlement obligation is preserved under the Order of the Court of 8th June 1966 per

the gica agreement rate of 9.5% maturing mid term at $70,000 on that day, at around midday, and has continued to accrue as part of the “all moneys outstanding” under the Deed of Agreement of 18th June 1990 at the proffered rate therein from that day to the date of proper and compliant no strings attached settlement per the accounts which I as an investor by an order of the Court have maintained and tended since 1990 and thus is still outstanding and has accrued from 1966 to 18th June 1990 to the current day and continues to the date of proper full settlement in the Deed percentage accrued amount as offered?22b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?22c) If you say the facts are not so then


23a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that if a 30 year loan with later recovery effected was supplied in lieu of settlement as required by the Order approving of investment and payment into the Court then there has been a non compliance with the said Order of 8th June 1966?23b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?23c) If you say the facts are not so then



if events in 1990 are linked with events in 1966 then AGC approached me via Comer to effect recovery via a capture lease, termed an innocuous

car rental for 3 to 6 months in the Deed, there being no application executed by me, for a profit of minimum 1,665% ($140,000/$7931) and as much more as possible (from proceeds of the sale of the factory security and other moneys),

then: as the point of the exercise was to take in money and maximize returns then in paying PEF for services rendered it would not have credibly outlaid any of its own

money when one way investment money loans were being recovered off myself and particularly the next friend so that AGC as gica principal would not be out of pocket?24b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?24c) If you say the facts are not so then


25a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that Byrnes was a settlement loan recovery agent of AGC and hence, though delegated signatory party to the Deed, not the party to be sued for default as no loan to him took place but moneys became outstanding thereunder to us due to AGC’s approach via Comer, and to a lesser degree himself, and pursuant to AGC’s default under the guarantee on 30th September 2009. 25b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?25c) If you say the facts are not so then


26a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that Byrnes’ and Comer’s client/principal, AGC, who went guarantor on 18th June 1990 for the “all moneys outstanding” under the Deed of 18th June 1990 and who admittedly and evidently entered into the alleged gica/7931 arrangement with GIO, is not the ultimate party in 1443/64 yet to be sued as you have not yet joined AGC or GIO nor yourselves taken advantage of the twin indemnities in your favour of GIO’s insurance covering this manner of event nor taken advantage for yourselves of AGC’s GTR (guarantor) entry on my CRA?26b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?26c) If you say the facts are not so then


27a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you have three perfectly good recourses available to you, one being that your then public liability insurance applies in a case such as this and secondly the guarantee by a party on your side for all the moneys outstanding available to you covers you for any impost put upon you by the joint venture gica partners’ activities and as well the apology given by the new owner of AGC further assists you in your exposure at a time such as this? 27b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?27c) If you say the facts are not so then

i) how are they not so?ii) ii) why are they not so? iii) iii) who says or said they are not so? +

28a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the written Christmas gift apology by GE Capital Finance on behalf of AGC on 23rd December 1993 for any inconveniences that “this” matter may have caused was apology for delay in settling and apology for the consequential death of the next friend?28b) If not then why not and what else was it for?28c) If you say the facts are not so then


29a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that this matter is not out of time as all limitations requirements have been complied with and furthermore the matter was originally filed in 1964 and the breach of the guarantee for settlement or commitment with prompt timeline thereto of “all moneys outstanding” by you does not accrue from you until 23rd August 2011?29b) If not then why not and if out of time then upon what date did limitation expire?29c) If you say the facts are not so then


30a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the plaintiff comes before the Court with clean hands and has done nothing wrong save keep accounts and lend money as investment loans in 1990-1 to Comer’s/PEF’s stooges upon being approached and sought to recover consistent with his status as an investor by an Order of the Court of 8th June 1966?30b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?30c) If you say the facts are not so then


31a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the approach by AGC via Comer to obtain moneys off me via a capture lease was a “sham” as termed by Judge Taylor in His 1996 judgment in 435/93?31b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?31c) If you say the facts are not so then


32a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the plaintiff/settlement creditor and perhaps the next friend was/were set up to be “relieved” of their moneys, but with legal recourse so as not to be a total fraud?32b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?32c) If you say the facts are not so then


33a) Given that in your recent communication to me you said “this matter” now involves parties external (but not unrelated) to SMC, Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that those parties, GIO and AGC, gained their candidacy and involvement ultimately due to their having knowledge of the not to be disclosed quantum terms and that that is traceable back to you as defendant? 33b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?33c) If you say the facts are not so then



34a) Hence again do you now admit that it is the case, is it not, that the Strathfield team acted for your benefit or in your interests or by your leave or at your direction or selection, did they not?34b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?34c) If you say the facts are not so then


35a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that any real settlement has been delayed and should proceed forthwith as per the Deed and accounts, and now superfluous guarantorship?35b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?35c) If you say the facts are not so then


36a) Hence Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that nothing has changed entitling me to settlement from the time of the Terms and Order except as to quantum which has accrued under the 7931/gica/gio+agc arrangements and the ensuing Deed provisioning for the “all moneys outstanding” inclusive of recovery expenses and outgoings? 36b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?36c) If you say the facts are not so then


37a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that it is the case that during the 1960’s, and perhaps prior and later, there had been discord between yourselves and our family/ies (the next friend/’s and his brother/’s) over the factory?37b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?37c) If you say the facts are not so then


38a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that there was some opinion on your part that you were owed money from ourselves??38b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?38c) If you say the facts are not so then


39a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that any mortgage, encumbrance, charge or the like, should they exist, over any of our family’s

properties is hence void/voidable and unenforceable?39b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?39c) If you say the facts are not so then


40a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that any purported family debt does not and did not ever transfer to me from the next friend or via the Deed or the Terms or the capture agreement or the loans, 30 year or various, or whatever and that as I was not the one who breached the Terms and did not breach the Deed, fulfilling it in all respects, “making” all 6/12 payments, even 9/18, and as what the guarantee provides was guaranteed to me as to terms:

- 3 – 6 months engagement, - provision of 3 months repayments, retracted, to ease me in from PEF/financiers (our money), - retracted reduction of Comer’s debt, $3 - 6,000 and - provision for “all moneys outstanding” at an applicable rate of investment interest for one who

has not breached there is only one way that money can now move and that is now back to us and any attempt of using the whole facade to deny, delay or divert moneys from us under some ancient pretext has now failed as I have done nothing wrong save lend money as investments and kept accounts as an investor by an Order of the Court against this day?40b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?40c) If you say the facts are not so then


41a) Do you admit that it is the case, it is it not, that: i) On 25th December 1997 the Crown, the previous owner of GIO, in the continuing tradition of

sending messages to the Court, via Centrelink commenced making 7931, 792k, concession payments for its part in and towards the third tort of the conspiracy to defraud in the claim and continues to make such damages payments in reduction of the accrual of the third tort component to this day and they are accounted as advised as so,

ii) On 23rd December 2003 the new owner of AGC, GE Capital finance, with reference to events in 1990, giftingly apologized for the delay in settlement, the loss of my residence, investment properties and business and the death of the next friend caused by the said apologized for delay in the settlement of the “moneys outstanding” which it facetiously and tritely termed “inconveniences”. This apology was timed to occur 6 years after the gifting of the concession stream of payments for some reason of no consequence,

iii) On 30th September 2009 AGC, now renamed GE Money defaulted under a demand to honour the guarantee and settle in the amounts of the accounts supplied to it,

iv) On 20th June 2011 Centrelink admitted under part 17.3 all that was asked of it in relation to its 7931, 792k, gifted admissive concession payment instrument and in relation to its disclosed clear evidence relating thereto with no requisite notice of dispute,

v) On 25th July 2011 your insurer admitted to everything on your behalf with no notice of dispute but did not itself apologize for the delay in settlement or death of the next friend as had GE Capital?41b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?

41c) If you say the facts are not so then i) how are they not so?ii) ii) why are they not so? iii) iii) who says or said they are not so?

42a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that it is the case that the whole exercise to recover settlement of me and more in which you were the defendant was, now admittedly, to create a precedent to facilitate the recovery of settlements with interest for profit when a plaintiff / settlement creditor has not breached the Terms – as that is what has happened in my case with you – and it would therefore be appropriate for you to instruct Parramatta Local Court to strike the (understandably purloined) judgment in 435/93 from the record and give full reasons as to why, such as the judgment being obtained by fraud?42b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?42c) If you say the facts are not so then


PART 44a) This fourth and again different similarly expansive

NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS

together with, out of courtesy, the preceding three sets, all requests to admit previously having previously been admitted per part 17.3 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules numerous times, in line with Law Therapy procedure, is today, 23rd May 2012, served together with Notice to Properly Settle under Guarantorship, upon you.

1a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in 1963 either you as a company, directly or indirectly, or a chemical company or entity whose rights, opportunities, obligations, exposures, assets or markets etc you had or have since in full or in part acquired deposited considerable truckload quantities of chemical waste in Bressington Park in the Municipality of Strathfield?1b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?1c) If you say the facts are not so then


2a) Do you admit or agree that it is the case, it is it not, that in 1963 - 4, pursuant to communications and negotiations with the Government Insurance Office, GIO, acting as Public Liability insurer for Strathfield Municipal Council as a result of an action I had brought through my next friend, yourselves or the chemical company/ies in question responded in a way so as to provide moneys pursuant to an arrangement of settlement, presumably with terms not to be disclosed, either with the said council itself or with the said GIO or directly or with the next friend Neville Murphy, and presumably his brother and their two wives, which moneys were either provided in full or in part by yourselves or that previous entity or a backer/investor or by way of the raising of funds from a financial entity to, in time, all going well, be repaid at interest, is it not the case?2b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?2c) If you say the facts are not so then


3a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the duration of the thus “settlement/investment loan” advanced to myself as a minor in June 1966 whose enforceable recovery was contingent upon a breach of a generally superfluous trigger term 7 of a Terms of Settlement between the defendant in this matter and myself via my next friend, of the suggestive, foreboding and informative date of 6.6.66, was for a term of some 30 years at an interest rate of 9.5% per annum compounding?3b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?3c) If you say the facts are not so then


4a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in June 1966 an amount of $7,931 out of a gross settlement amount of $9,000 + $500 costs stemming from yourselves pursuant to an arrangement which the GIO secured with you such that the GIO need not needlessly pay damages for a cause of action of negligence (thus rejected as denied) out of its own pocket when so flagrant as action as dumping combustible and presumably carcinogenic

chemicals in a public park to a level of “12 feet deep” was afoot by chemical companies, such quantum of moneys being forwarded to the GIO for the GIO to forward to the Supreme Court which amount on or about the 20th June 1966 formed a calculation base for what is termed a “settlement investment loan” to accrue over some 30 years per a shadow account at 9.5% p.a. compounding such that by around midday 18th June 1990 an interim balance of $70,000, half way, would be reached when a do or die recovery action would have to be afoot which would or could give rise to a Deed of Agreement and thereafter the said “investment settlement loan” would continue to accrue for 6/7 more years until 1996/7 when a balance of $150,000 ($140,000 with $10,000 for costs provision) would be arrived at on precisely the 20th June 1996/7 giving a return overall of minimum 1,665% contingent upon the appropriate legal trigger to allow recovery to proceed having been set off, such trigger being a breach of the Terms by the settlement creditor to create or undergird the creation of a fake debt giving rise to judgment designed to bankrupt or recover and leave a charge or whiff of fraud upon the victim, all done as an act of fraud save for the provisions of the said Deed upon the victim who was evidently perceived to be someone of great inherent worth, is it not the case?4b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?4c) If you say the facts are not so then


5a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in 1990-1 pursuant to such involvement in the settlement loan recovery action, which had good upside for those on the defendant’s side of the fence, a good return was ultimately obtained by someone in the know associated with the transaction such that there was upon the defendant’s side no great loss and the transaction came off profitably and very well indeed for all involved collectively in playing their parts and no one complained upon the defendant’s side.5b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?5c) If you say the facts are not so then


6a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in 1990, pursuant to the approach of a finance specialist and now, as of late and but for semantics, admitted settlement recovery agent for AGC, one Martin Comer, who approached me on 23.4.90 seeking to secure the requisite breach of the said Terms of Settlement, I did not breach and so in response to my not having breached when called upon to do so with consideration of $9,500, so as there not be a fraud and the recovering principal parties thus be subject to leverage by their operatives, the so called local “Strathfield Team” of specialist and role differentiated finance professionals, a Deed of Agreement with provision for “all moneys outstanding (t)hereunder” was put to me 56 days, allowing 2 x 28 days for response/proceedings to be instituted (as if I had any idea what they were up to), later on 18.6.90 as since I had not breached when called upon to do so concomitantly, in the course of the recovery of the original settlement loan principal of $9,000 + $500 by way of requested cash cheque, #378, for investment, dutifully receipted with due disclosure that the said amount was not to be seen to be disclosed by Comer, on the said 23.4.90, all moneys under the original Terms of Settlement, which moneys were being supplanted and augmented by the Deed of Agreement, were preserved as “outstanding” and owing to me and as such even guaranteed on 18.6.90 by Comer’s principal, AGC, the Australian Guarantee Corporation, in the business, as its name then disclosed, of providing guarantees for Australian entities, providing that I, in accord with the Order Approving of Settlement

and Ordering Payment In and Investment of 8.6.66 rendering me an investor by an Order of the Court for the purpose of these proceedings, kept proper and meticulous accounts to the best of my ability of the said “all moneys outstanding (t)hereunder”, is it not the case?6b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?6c) If you say the facts are not so then


7a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that this settlement option cum opportunity was entered into arising from the fact that I had agreed to not go to hearing but rather settle in an amount which was 30% of my original claim, that is in the amount of $9,000, not the original £A15,000, the amount offered of $9,000 being an amount from which a reduction to a net forwarded amount of $7,931 as a basis figure for commencement of calculable principal from 20.6.66 for the conduct of a 7931/gica/“caig” transaction could be achieved and growth commenced at 9.5% p.a. compounding to mature over 30 years, to 20.6.96, to some $140,000 as enshrined in the Deed entered into on the interim date of 18.6.90, the date of the midway maturation of $70,000?7b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?7c) If you say the facts are not so then


8a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the term 7 term that the Terms were “not to be disclosed” was inserted, without my knowledge, primarily for the benefit of the defendant or backers to provide the opportunity for gain, should I subsequently breach, giving the settlement the nature of a settlement loan, with general minimum base yield of 1,665% (but achieving in our case a 7,000+% return due to the skills of the adroit and esteemed Comer (called “The W(h)iz”)), pursuant to anticipated but unsecured breach?8b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?8c) If you say the facts are not so then


9a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in this transaction, as there was money to be made at interest contingent upon a breach of the terms by me and as I did not breach I obtained a Deed and Guarantee for all moneys outstanding but though I had no idea of what was going on, and thought and did enter into (mirror) investment loan transactions with others (such transactions not otherwise occurring in the real world), recovery and profit for the investment backer who put up the original moneys in 1966 proceeded apace, as it did, and their money was indeed made but properties remain under encumbrance to this day when I did not breach but they, perforce, did?9b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?9c) If you say the facts are not so then


10a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you, or that acquired entity and thus you yourselves, are now currently in a position where you yourselves have redress for any imposition of loss against an earlier “higher up the chain” party with whom you prudently have a double edged indemnity of sorts such that should I succeed you yourselves should most certainly enjoy a capital windfall as well as full recompense, referability or bypass of moneys from that preceding party, be they (a) backer/s or investors or (major) or former shareholders? 10b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?10c) If you say the facts are not so then


If so please now identify those parties and promptly produce documentation for the Court to me by return email so as the Court may look more favourably upon your prompt and forthcoming provisions and indemnifications.

11a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you enjoy some manner of security for return provided for in that you or your backer or someone further up the chain, owner, investor, guarantor or the like, has or have an encumbrance of some manner of security such as “unregistered mortgage” over the property at 34 Tavistock Rd Homebush West together with perhaps certain other related properties and possessions and entities all trussed up together to be released upon sale?11b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?11c) If you say the facts are not so then


Please provide copies of all encumbrances and their deeds and attachments within 14 days should such be the case otherwise they will be declared void.

12a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that Richard Murphy and Roslyn Lunsford, nee Murphy, play a part in all of this, either in the early days or as beneficiaries to some degree with a duty to oversee or to keep things “on track” and maintain or create evidence or protect their interests?12b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?12c) If you say the facts are not so then


13a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that it is now appropriate to disown and disentitle and disenfranchise and no longer deal with or retain either of them? 13b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?13c) If you say the facts are not so then


14a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the above matter, my matter, if tracing back to and through yourselves then you would of course presumably enjoy an indemnity and that or those parties affording it themselves also prudently are in receipt of one such similar such that all can quickly be produced if needs be and so as to be of effect suggesting that matters trace back at least to an incident involving a betrayal of someone over some things said or done or in relation to who they might be for a consideration of 30 pieces of silver between two parties (and some hush money) thus indicting antecedent parties to whom intercedent partyship may be attributable and from whom settlement or referable settlement as yet thwarted and delayed may be either separately or jointly forthcoming as per the above mentioned said Deed?14b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?14c) If you say the facts are not so then


Please give names of the current lawyers and client names and any file reference numbers for all the antecedent two (or more) parties within 14 days.

15a) Cutting to the chase: Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the said thirty pieces of silver as cited by one in tax and accounting, though returned back and then put towards the purchase of land for cemetry plots by one of the parties were again equivalently seized as one screw top lid glass jar of one kilo of finespot silver grain full of many shiny pieces of assay 99.98%, a jar, seized as part of the royal silverware, of most beautiful unfashioned silver I just had to buy (as you know in January 1979 for $184.32) for its beauty, by tellingly an industrial chemist of yours with no less a name Doman, Doughman, indicative, along with Simpson, of ones laundering proceeds of tort who operated your garage business and the 30 pieces worth of silver, say one ounce each plus as bit more, though there were many shiny grains, were again fetched back and remain in your care as presumably they and certain other goodies would not have been given to the poor and unfortunate or charities and an undertaking had been given that my goods and effects would be moved to another safe keeping site, is it not the case? 15b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?15c) If you say the facts are not so then


Even though I subsequently resignedly sold my items to the Doman/do-man/doughman team, thus elevating the tortfeasors (as is my right) to happy retentive representative customers, but have not been paid and the moneys remain outstanding I would still like that jar of silver, and the music, back and upon return will issue a credit. I expect the items are properly stored as that is what I had been advised for future reference pending their future and other items role. Bill made a point of saying he was a music lover so of course being in the care of the Court the edited cassette music collection in their cases of different colours are somewhere pending their role.

16a) And thus Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you have over all this time just been waiting for me to come along to do cases and to get my stuff and collect some money to cover some perceived costs and outlays concerning some of which you might have had final resort to saying the Deed operated in your favour for all moneys outstanding (what moneys, now, prey tell?) and treat me as a marked man arising from a cooking/braising/blessing exercise with ingredients supplied by you or your antecedent/s at

Mason/Bressington Park in the area of Homebush on Underwood Rd (Underwo(r(18)+l(12)/2=o(15))d) Road) confirmatorially in an act of Hotliness from which a local shrine or rather two resulted, two holy sites within the one municipality, one parish (conveniently calling due preservation for a pilgrimage (with walkway from one to the other down Tavistock Road into Melville Reserve, through the canal through Airey Park, the route we took that morning of 23.8.63)), is it not the case?16b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?16c) If you say the facts are not so then


17a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the said transaction with the said 30 pieces of silver, to in some way again be taken back now again after being once given back and then again outlaid, plus some hush money, then was to bind all those involved on both sides to an unholy arrangement somewhere, someplace, sometime whereby the leadership of the original Church of Him betrayed and denied and Her also thus sidelined, cast aside and fraudulently denied and de-officed was/were to be held under sway as compromised and to henceforth for a time be recognized as being not of Her to whom the best part had, with confirmational double anointment ceremony, been given to never be taken away from Her and from whom it was thereby unauthoritatively wrested away so as for a time for that reason, in part, she could not write or publish in her own name, in favour of Peter, accorded successor to the one he cited as being group leader, (Acts 1:20 quoting Psalm 109:8) who in double envy, jealousy and from enmity angrily betrayed, and whose name Peter was before long in disregard discontinued by the One who gave it, pursuant to seeing exposive dominative liberties with and over Her, as the disciple He, as apart from all the others (had) loved in that way alone, and told what privilege He had in mind or reserved for Her was none of his business as She always was and is the true original, and now thus spiritual, temporal head of the church and doctrine as the one who, in posterity, did benefit was not the first or final choice and such has admissively been coming to be the case at semi official levels since 1969 with Her restoration to the Missal, is it not the case?17b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?17c) If you say the facts are not so then


18a) And do you admit or agree that it is thus the case, is it not, that Her official recognition as leader with sole shared authority over the Church as originally envisaged is now overdue?18b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?18c) If you say the facts are not so then


19a) Given that the number of days from the date of cause of action being the cooking incident with ingredients

supplied by you, 23rd August 1963, to end of a financial year, 30th June 1996, 10 days after the terminating of the 30 year loan document of 20th June 1996, was a well timed and undismissible evidencing 12,000 days and

from the date of my birth on 2nd September 1953 to the date for entry into the Court records of my bankruptcy to be on Monday 23rd June 1997 was confirmatively a further undismissible evidencing 16,000 days, both exact and precisely timed to show great advance planning at work, do you admit or agree, that it is the case, it it not, that the Motion to enter judgment for the guarantor who was pursuing a creditor’s petition in the Federal Court was notably timed to be

precisely 215 years after acceptance of the Great Seal in the United States of 20.6.1782 and precisely 160 years after the date of accession of Queen Victoria, a monarch of a certain line of

royalty in England on 20.6.1837, a line which was to become a significant if not major shareholder in Imperial Chemicals Industries, ICI,to indicate my long awaited coming and evidenced significance that if not cooked alive I should be bankrupted arising from fraud and sidelined, negated or rendered without capacity or unable to prove claim being from attestingly a separate or pre-existing recondite and virtually lost, but known to some, line of royalty meaning I have to prove matters the hard way without a fully attesting, but in the normal course of events open to dispute, genealogy available to me to make things easier, suggesting indisputability, and, of course, if I am who they/you think I am then I should be able to do just that by a variety of other proofs and evidencings, as God would know who is Heris own, is it not the case? 19b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?19c) If you say the facts are not so then


20a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that with my disruption of the Motion of 20.6.97 and my not being bankrupted upon that date and my unresponded to settlement proposal to the guarantor of 23.6.97, in lieu of entry of bankruptcy into the register on the said 16,000th day, indicating that at that time I had little clue as to what was going on when my accounts had been kept impeccably and my Midwest Research business was at its height, later on 1.9.97, the same day as the guarantor withdrew or requested or had dismissed its creditor’s petition in the Federal Court, being on the first day after the date upon which Princess Diana of another certain line of royalty was notably taken on 31.8.97, (related, is it not?), after my having advised my Public Trustee appointed solicitor on Friday 29.8.97, 70 days after 20.6.97, not to appear at the Federal Court creditor’s petition hearing on the 1.9.97, the day before my birthday on the 2nd, the creditor’s petition was dismissed as a reverential gift for my birthday from someone ultimately able to cause, allow, concede or request dismissal in my unrepresented absence, lest there be a fraud and the parties subject to leverage, is it not the case?20b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?20c) If you say the facts are not so then


21a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the manner of transaction with the choice or necessity of the numerals 7+9+3+1 quite nicely identifies parties to the action from the defendant’s side being for example GIO (7,9,15) + AGC (1, 7, 3) and also identifies, does it not, Imperial (9, 13, 16 (1+6=7), 5, 18 (8-1=7), 9, 1, 12 (1+2=3)) Chemicals Incorporated and Union Carbide (3, 1, 18 8-1=7, 2, 9 (9-2=7), 4, 5, 4+5=9, 5-4=1) as parties to the operation of a 7931/“gica” settlement loan recovery action for gain against someone clearly of great note and provided as evidence for a court somewhere at some time lest there be a total deception even as far as to trick or bind a court?



22a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the personage of great note is attested to by the defendant or rather its precursor’s choice of 16th

December 1927, 16.12.1927, by reduction being 1+6=7, 1+2=3, 1+9=10=1, 2+7=9, 7319, being for the inauguration of Mason and Bressington Parks in the area of Homebush such that the number of days to 23rd August 1963, the date cause of action would be 13,034, 2 x 7 x 931, and thus by this most highly improbable collocation of the said 7931 transaction a design for the transaction is made out and intent appears afoot against someone not born on this earth till 1953, as if a known event to some and thus great planning and forethought was in evidence and even an attempt to cook him alive was planned so as to do away with him early on, which entire transaction did ultimately result in the death of the next friend attributable to later events in the transaction?22b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?22c) If you say the facts are not so then


23a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that given that

Bishop Ussher (us.sher.a/er, usher, ushera) made the calculation that the world was created in 4004BC and

2 Peter 3:8 says one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day and God created the world in 6 days (yom: period of time) and then rested for the seventh and that if we count forward 6,000 years from 4004BC (Jesus is said to have been be born in 4BC)

we come to 1996, a set of facts I knew when I was 14 portending that some 6,000 year period would end in 1996

which indeed was the end on June 20th (cf solstice) of the 30 year loan and the date the ninth defendant obtained the judgment by deception, since torpedoed, and

the end of the financial year, 30.6.96, was the end of the above mentioned 12,000 days commencing 23.8.63, the date of the cause of action

then we have a further numerical chronological confirmation of the commencement of Messiah’s thousand year reign commencing 1996 and another evidencing that Messiah is now upon the Earth which can quite make sense as if the present royalty has a disputed claim as it is quite reasonable to assume that God certainly knows who the correct designate Messiah is according the correct way of tracing genealogical lines of descent, wherever he is, and imbue him with many probative evidencings and indicators and there would be a broad array of admissions under Court rules all around and in both of these all other pretenders and houses would be lacking as God certainly knows who that person is and would make it very hard for them to be disproven (and I, having had no significant contact with any of those conversant with these subjects find it does appear to come down the Scottish line if not the Scottish line of Kings (and it seems to have something to do with Manchester) and some other island or forest/glen in Scotland)?23b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?23c) If you say the facts are not so then



24a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that there was a least one other little boy who fell into the subterranean fires and was burnt and he came to be represented by, of all people, the barrister John Kerr who, of all people, came to be Sir John Kerr, knight of the realm and Governor General, whereas I was represented by a beginner, a novice beginner barrister friend of the family who advised my sister not to become a barrister or go into law just as my father had advised me to become an accountant and my mother had advised me to become a barrister, both of which I seemingly have done, being drawn on by the case to do as they said, is it not the case?24b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?24c) If you say the facts are not so then


25a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the figure 7931 was chosen, obviously it was chosen and not by chance, as it does the job of evidence so well, to accord with scripture (793: 1 Corinthians 9:3)? 25b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?25c) If you say the facts are not so then


26a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that on 23.2.12 a $500 loan, all but $10 of which has been paid off, was notably raised on the 6 month anniversary date of the date of the original cause of action, 23.8, by one Monica Esiloni, an immediate neighbour who notably had borrowed no moneys since 23.8.11 so dated so as to designate a thus doubly compelling linkage back to a principal guiding her in her protracted borrowing activities to illustrate to the Court, lest there be a fraud, a linkage to one who was mindful with the date of the cause of action in 1963 being the date from which, if 12,000 days are counted, one comes to the date of 30.6.96, elsewhere cited, to thus also illustrate linked knowledge of the event in 1963 with the events in 1990 giving rise to an expected court action upon that date at the request of the said guarantor and thus the protracted borrowing regime of Monica where moneys were raised along the way for the guarantor are thereby linked with the original cause of action and the events in 1990-1 and 1996/7, is it not the case? 26b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?26c) If you say the facts are not so then


27a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the representative borrowing agent Monica Esiloni, in borrowing again an interim amount of $200 (+$14) at interest and setting herself a task of repaying a small $200 (+14) loan by 17.5.12 so as not to concede is deemed by default to have admitted, as advised pursuant to discussions and provision of documentation about Mary Magdalene, which she took to study and has studied, that the said Mary

Magdalene, about whom I gave her expansive details as to Her Holy Office, and thus now her (ultimate) principal is now so bound by her defaultive admissions in failing to settle and thus failing to repay her small loan, having, as confessed, spent the money that morning, such that contrary to her initial position of hostility to Mary M, a position from which she has relented upon study, that as of “midnight” 17/18.5.12 Mary M is conceded by her, for a consideration of $200 +($14) (+$4), to be Church leader and thereupon on 17.5.12 in advance she took Her initially rejected card, is it not the case? 27b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?27c) If you say the facts are not so then


28a) Do you thus admit or agree that it is the case, is it not, that the decision in the Commercial Tribunal on 15th November 1996 freeing me to, in time, pursue

the loan moneys outstanding under the Deed, and the junking of the 1984 cognate acts applying and the junking of the Commercial Tribunal and the admission on the same day in the NSW

parliament by the Minister for Fair Trading that licensing had no relevance to the provision of creditwas timed, in like manner, as was to happen as an evidencer with Princess Diana in the AGC matter, to occur with the return of the Stone of Scone from Westminster back to Scotland on the same day, 15th November 1966, suggesting a kingship concession, later made to me on 25th December 1997, in relation to which numerous admissions have been made, being made to or in relationship to the scottish line of kingship purported to descend in some near 160 steps/generations from King David?28b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?28c) If you say the facts are not so then



the said transpiration of the coinciding events of 15th November 1996, the failure after 16,000 days from 2.9.53 of 23.6.97, the said tragic event of 31.8.97 and the immediately following requested dismissal event of 1.9.97 for my birthday of the 2.9.97

gave rise to the advising of the date and numerical content containing 792K and other numerical data known only to those familiar with the 1443/64 case for a concession card gifted to me on 25.12.97 being a DSP, Deity or Dignitary (or Damages) Support/Stipend Payment/Pension Concession Card which, amongst perhaps other provisions, provides me, pursuant to the fact that it is gifted and my said status, leading to the K on the 792, with free bus, train and ferry transport instead of paying $2.50 per day and as such is in evidence as being repeatedly honoured, upon being displayed, for some considerable time now, along with other maintained paralleling receipt evidence, all I have said is thus the case, is it not?29b) If not then why not?29c) If you say the facts are not so then


30a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that my crucible residence where I grew up and which has burnt down, Glen Royal (being a Scottish name), at the corner of the also aptly named Tavistock (Dave in stocks, Dave is of the right stock, keeps to or is the tick tock clock) and Hornsey (Horn see ye, Horns eye, Horny) Rds, in Homebush West was named after a legend of royalty (of a different line) to be between an Elizabeth and David with an n, for Neville, in the middle suggesting an end, and new beginning, coming?30b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?30c) If you say the facts are not so then


31a) Do you admit or agree the whole investment arrangement being speculative and turning upon a breach by me could have gone pear shaped

if I did not breach and the operatives continued to do their job in recovering whilst,seeing to it that my rights were observed but not otherwise assisting me yet allowing me to manage my own accounts in line with the Order of 8th June 1966 which I was

not yet aware of at the time which Order perhaps ordered my thoughts as an investor by the said Order of the Court and this going awry potential would be enshrined for us in the Deed providing for all moneys outstanding which explains why:

AGC did not launch, Lance was named the way it was as front company who did joust first, giving us the right to

joust evermore whenever with whomever in response, the borrowers had recourse made available to them in the form of the Credit (Administration)

Act 1984 protecting them from liability as liability lay with the backer (baker) and the plaintiff was kept in the dark by the local Strathfield team of finance professionals going

about their business and the appropriately named Byrnes with an Ashfield/Summer (simmer) Hill car yard, though part

of the Strathfield team was a front man for someone closer to the cooking action being the chemical ingredient companies, and

the defendant still plays a part by there being some impediment over the selling of the shrine at 34 Tavistock Rd Homebush West, nine years after the fire and

the failure or inability of the trust fund to be set up for my benefit, which fund moneys now constitute moneys outstanding under the Deed in recognition of which no other deed was ever otherwise instituted as there was one in operation which the executor gave me thus explaining why AGC requested its creditor's petition be dismissed for my birthday and

why, without application, I was provided a verifiable and operational damages or deity support pension/pass on 25th December 1997 with the 792K for King to be found or the 7931 attesting to the repeating number of the case and the not to be disclosed 9500 also to be found and,

if a king, the king would naturally have fitting opponents with imperial roots utilizing an Imperial Chemical Company to do cooking and that I was accompanied or rather led by Gary Graham to be there, at Bressington Park for initiation and baptizing upon that day, 23rd August 1963, 23.8, by invitation of WH, Windsor House, is it not the case?31b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?31c) If you say the facts are not so then


32a) Hence it is the case, is it not, that this matter comes down to one line of monarchy versus another, the Imperial Houses of Europe versus another line being the line of David, God knows Heris own and where they lie, who brings

a new Christian religion replacing the moribund, done that, and a new manner of implementation of law based upon the tenets of Law Therapy in line with

the UCPR of 2005, parts 17 and 22 and mercy in the tort to contract swap, done that, and refashioned outmoded marriage to either relationship agreements or foldmateships for all,

done that,and hence it is the case, is it not, that we are soon, if not already, to have a monarchy of the line of David in Sydney (sy deny, 1925 deny) setting up from here the new world order, a monarchy different from the European lines who would trace their authority in this matter back to the Catholic Church and back to Peter, not Mary Magdalene, and so on further back to money lending Jewry, per the said 30 pieces of silver deal, who did not accept but insurrected against Christ, also of the line of David and a king at the time, is it not the case?32b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?32c) If you say the facts are not so then


33a) Do you admit or agree that it is the clearly the case, is it not, that my own estranged sister Roslyn Lunsford, nee Murphy, knowing me to be a law therapist and creditor and ringing me pursuant and in recognition of my skills so as to consult, fish and test and secure evidence and admissions in regular incessant lengthy adversarial inquisitorial and abusive, taped for evidence and invoicing, abnormally badgering (like she did with my father to get the inheritance in her name) nuisance calls, which I will of course charge for, always extending her every opportunity to exhaust all her avenues as is due process, is now assisting and acting for the defendant in soliciting money and withdrawal of proceedings and testing and setting out arguments and positions to assist the defendant and the backer/s and all those on the opposing side in the matter as to the initiating Statement of Liquidated Claim to the intended overall financial detriment of myself and my other sister, Judith and her extended family, as there is no defence available to be filed so other means of succeeding are being attempted there being no plausible defence available which cannot be surmounted, is it not the case?33b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?33c) If you say the facts are not so then


Re Akzo Nobel

34a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that just as the Deed was entered into with the boy with the burns with a fittingly named chappy by the name of Byrnes, like other such instances of fitting names cited herein, you also did much the same in 1994 - 5 through another such attestingly named couple by the names of Simpson, the launderer, and

Doman, the Doughman, the latter, Ron, being, as I recall, one of your directors, entering into a business arrangement with me in relation to a garage business they were running and doing what they liked with as “our” business under documentation bearing the company name in 1994-5 to secure and have access to my possessions and any evidence which I had stored pursuant to a rental agreement therein, a veritable Alladin’s cave of goodies, quite a haul of over a thousand items, such that with the rent paid up and tendered by me twelve months in advance, $960, having already collected almost that amount over the previous near 11 months, mostly as cash, until a contrived dispute started, they, in most peculiar fashion and for no other accountable or logical reason but gain in an amount thus greater than $960 as garage landlords, helped themselves to those items, having had many months to pick through them to choose the more lucrative option, which would assist you to defray costs you were suffering as an “ultimate” client as outlined herein in concurrent proceedings in 435/93 in the Parramatta District Court at that time and, amongst other items, they managed to collect some four sapphires and jewelery of value (the royal jewels) and collectibles and many other items of value and worth from the exercise, all outstanding items being not returned to me at my 65 Christie St, St Leonards address which was known to them where I had a large ready made delivery parking bay for offloading and delivery at the rear, is it not the case?34b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?34c) If you say the facts are not so then


35a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that any proceeds obtained from the rent, acquisition and disposition in full or in part, as items of value were reportedly not discarded so were able to, if not actually, be accorded to accounts of costs against an account with either AGC or Westpac or legal costs associated with them or the so called borrowers, that is, was there a financial triangle between you or one of your entities and AGC/Westpac/the most fittingly named Abbot Tout/GIO and with myself such that my goods or proceeds from dealings with them, were applied to settle some legal costs or amounts purportedly but never reportedly outstanding leading to the observations:

a) well why wouldn’t they when it is all so obvious with all the rightly named people and entities present and

b) clearly then you would know or have access to know who’s got what items of value not proffered back or collected back by me and where?35b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?35c) If you say the facts are not so then


Re ICI

36a) Do you admit or agree that it is the case, is it not that just as GIO and AGC chose or had chosen for them their names in the mid 1920’s to be able to indicate a relationship in the execution of a 7931 transaction, lest there be a deception on the Court and a fraud upon the plaintiff and the next friend, you also by your choice of name chose or had chosen for you Imperial (I = 9, M = 13, P = 1+6=7, E = Elizabeth, R = Regina, 1+8=9, 8-1=7, I = 9, A = 1, L = 12 = 1+2 =3 to also doubly indic(a)t(e) a name connected with the said 7931 manner of recovery and also with the remaining ER and also choice of name “Imperial” indicate that your major or one of your major shareholders, born similarly in 1926,

was Elizabeth Regina of a certain opposing royal line who represented the empire cum commonwealth, is it not the case? 36b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?36c) If you say the facts are not so then i) how are they not so? ii) why are they not so? iii) who says or said they are not so?

37a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that it was the chemical company, ICI, who at some point assumed the liability or opportunity for gain being the party who was the beneficiary under the settlement substitution where credit was substituted for settlement leading to moneys outstanding under the Deed should the plaintiff not be the party who breached the Terms when called upon to do so in 1990?37b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?37c) If you say the facts are not so then


Re Orica

38a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the name Orica (15, 18=8-1=7, 9, 3, 1 ) was so chosen, lest there be a deception on the Court and the plaintiff, to again indicate a link, not only with ICI and ICI Australia, but also with the said 1966-1996 manner of 7931 transaction and as well with Eroica written originally in honour of Napoleon by Beethovan and that thus admissively there is a linkage back from Orica through ICI even back to Napoleonic times and thence via the Concord.at with Pope Pius (16=1+6=7, I=9, U=21=2+1=3, S=19=1+9=10=1+0=1) VII such that even today Orica has redress to other earlier parties on the continent or in the Vatican for any exposure in the above matter and presumably thereby a capital windfall opportunity, is it not the case?38b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?38c) If you say the facts are not so then


39a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that a Peter Davis in your employ was the, or a, person who received emails from me to his email address [email protected] from 7.7.2008 to 1.3.2012 and in the style of other names in my case, such as the said Simpson/Doman team and the said James Byrnes and a James Murphy who gave the apology, he, like other players and actors positioned in this matter for the benefit of the Court to provide evidence, lest there be a fraud, also indicated by his name Peter Davis, Peter / David, d not s, earlier linkages to which you have recourse in place pending this time, going back either to the said Peter’s organization or to himself at the time of the said above mentioned 30 pieces of silver deal with another doughman with other religious authorities (generally the priests, pharisees (fair you sees / fare you sees) of saducees (sad you sees), both the former said Peter and the doughman having issues with the One betrayed and denied and His lady disciple whom He loved/s similarly denied and, pursuant to the said 30 pieces of silver deal, cast aside, is it not the case?39b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?39c) If you say the facts are not so then



Feel free to supply any confirmation or documentation by way of email that we might leapfrog.

Crown Solicitor

40a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you acted for the GIO, Government Insurance Office, in 1964-6 in relation to my above cited matter 1443/64 in the Supreme Court?40b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?40c) If you say the facts are not so then


41a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you negotiated the settlement with the next friend for myself on behalf of the defendant council in that matter?41b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?41c) If you say the facts are not so then


42a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in 1963 - 6 you were in a position to logically, obligatorially and from a position of strength secure an attractive and/or concessional and agreeable arrangement with the chemical dumping companies: ICI, Union Carbide, Akzo Nobel, Monsanto et al, as perhaps no one quite knew who individually was to blame (and no one ever asked me to go back to the exact spot so testing could be done), whom the defendant had quite presumedly for gain been entertaining in filling up Bressington Park with combustible and presumably carcinogenic chemicals (along with the garbage) such that they for their flagrant activities of dumping assuredly toxic and combustible chemicals there with the defendant’s full knowledge and consent were able to come up with an arrangement (the so called “transaction from Hell”) with me that flowed through to settlement in an reduced and accepted amount for me such that there be no hearing at which they in such circumstances, should they have been joined or perhaps not, would have certainly, in an open and shut case, have lost due to such intentional dumping of combustible, toxic and presumably carcinogenic chemicals, waste and ash ingredients in a public park cum garbage tip to a height of “12 feet deep” (per the man in the shed), is it not the case?42b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?42c) If you say the facts are not so then


43a) So Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that upon the GIO being prepared to advance moneys in relation to the claim in 1443/64 in 1964 - 6 it secured an arrangement with the depositors of the chemical cocktail ingredients in Bressington Park to make up the moneys to be forwarded to the Supreme Court in such a way that they would be free to recover at a later stage if they so wished by either recovering off the plaintiff in later life at

interest, and/or recover by having a security over properties accruing at a rate akin to capital interest for Sydney being 9.5% compounding per annum.43b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?43c) If you say the facts are not so then


44a) Formation of a Contract of Sorts/Torts/ExtortsDo you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that at the time of the matter in 1963 - 6 it is perfectly credible and was even obligatory, in order to reduce avoidable outlay, the GIO, when faced with the prospect of paying out very considerable moneys as damages, made a reduced offer to me of 30% of my claim which outlay, upon acceptance, forming a contract of sorts, it would seek to recover from the logical source of the problem being the party/ies who dumped the chemicals at the invitation or consent of the council, the latter being happy to thus go defendant but of course then quite properly and indicatively deny negligence as the cause of action, to any, presumably by agreement, chemical landfiller company, in such a way that that/those party/ies was/were able to hedge its/their position/s and treat the outlay as a speculative risk investment of monies recoverable from the plaintiff, as now perfectly visible in retrospect in later years, should the chemicals not prove to be carcinogenic and the plaintiff unexpectedly survive, and this later led to:

the attempt to have me breach for the recovery of more than the moneys advanced and the Deed of Agreement with guarantee for all moneys outstanding, lest there be a fraud, and

hence as the investor/ba(c)ker chemical company, then ICI or Polymer or Union Carbide or whomever but now enshrined as either Orica or Akzo Nobel or Dow (I need to add all, please specify who is off the hook as defendant/s) as the one/s who was/were beneficiary/ies or intending beneficiary/ies or actual beneficiary party/ies under the shadow accounts and, if there is a party guarantoring or indemnifying them standing behind them such as their major shareholder owner/s at the time such as who owned much of Imperial Chemicals Incorporated, such as the House of Windsor, for example or other Houses of Royalty or even the party who presided over any of their contracts of marriage, being a well heeled church, them too as they all seem to know what they were doing and who they were after and dealing with and why, is it not the case?44b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?44c) If you say the facts are not so then


45a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that that settlement arrangement secured of such chemical dumping entities, and perhaps their patron or backer or principal or owner/s, supplying moneys to you to supply to the Court was obtained with the concession to them that there be a trigger term 7 in the terms that for no readily apparent long term benefit to the plaintiff, apart from this now manifested and pursued, but rather to the defendant or the chemical companies due to their lawyers always obligatorially seeking to position their client/s so as to not ultimately lose but at least position themselves to have a long term 7931/gica investment arrangement, that the terms be “terms not to be disclosed”?45b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?45c) If you say the facts are not so then

i) how are they not so?ii) ii) why are they not so?

iii) iii) who says or said they are not so?

46a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in such circumstances, where there was such flagrant activities in abandoning combustible and presumably carcinogenic chemical grey waste, ash and powder in a public park the GIO was full well able to recover any outlays from those chemical companies such that it was not out of pocket in coming up with the money in due course in such a 70% lessened amount with a trigger term only of seeming benefit to any for whom the settlement figured as an investment at interest contingent upon breach?46b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?46c) If you say the facts are not so then


47a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in so securing the requested lessened quantum of wherewithal you either had parallel proceedings at that time in the Supreme Court, or threatened such, or separate out of court negotiations, as would be perfectly expected with them, leading to their coming up with the said wherewithal out of their own pocket or by way of a 30 year loan so as to provide the moneys ultimately which, in whole or in part, made their way to the Supreme Court, is it not the case?47b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?47c) If you say the facts are not so then


48a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in the circumstances it would have been most remiss of the GIO as a public liability insurer, where children where falling into the fires, not to talk and secure a financial undertaking of a sort agreeable to all on the defendant’s side of the matter which led to those parties being parties to an agreement, similar to mine being not to be disclosed but this time for good reason, to come up with funds, even investment styled funds, consistent with the Order of 8th June 1966, recoverable pending breach of the terms by me in later years for a handsome profit to someone, either themselves or a backer, or even at the remotest chance by me should I not breach and discover the lost file and with no one’s assistance, as all are obliged to render no assistance, work it all out and keep accounts of all moneys outstanding and perforce proceed myself unassisted as per the rules as is my lot?48b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?48c) If you say the facts are not so then


49a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in preference to the current defendant Strathfield Council who in 1964 went defendant that currently the more appropriate defendant is either jointly or severally Orica or Akzo Nobel or who ever issued or acquired opportunities for gain or exposure for liability under the Deed resulting from the depositing of chemicals in Bressington Park?49b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?49c) If you say the facts are not so then


50a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that now in retrospect after recovery having been successfully effected a cause of action in the short term arising from chemical companies who were not sued, so my case was not properly handled and was one where chemical companies were allowed by the defendant to dump their combusting and presumably carcinogenic chemicals in a public park up to a level of some “12 feet deep”, a claim of negligence against the local consenting council who retained the services of a gate keeper to oversee and presumably collect moneys was not appropriate but rather only now some other cause of action after recovery is more appropriate such as at least a cause of action such as:

since evidenced and admitted stringed terms of settlement providing for contingent recovery improperly executed upon the settlement creditor and next friend pursuant to a retrospectively discovered settlement recovery arrangement taken up by determined/able parties to so as to mitigate loss and turn a liability obligation under a Terms of Settlement into a speculatively gainful investment opportunity pending breach where in the circumstances the settlement creditor upon later triggering approach was not the one who performed the requisite breach of the said term 7 nor hence implicit and restrospective breach of the Terms of 6.6.66 and Order of 8.6.66 by way of later undue over retraction at interest with concessional, conceded and concomitant provision for redress, in a matter where much was not disclosed to the Court or the plaintiff arising from reckless activities or an invitation from the defendant or the defendant agreeing to the dumping of chemicals ash and waste landfiller to excess upon or in one of its gazetted public parks, a cause of action in which when called upon to breach I did not and the settlement loan recovery agent perforce did leading after 56 days, 2 x 28 days for response or initiation of proceedings, as if I had any idea as to what was going on or that even then the matter of the 1966 Terms and the subterfugal 1990-1 recovery were linked, to a Deed of Agreement providing for “all moneys outstanding” accounts of which, of course, I have (though I suspect incomplete) kept and are now are able soon to present?50b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?50c) If you say the facts are not so then


51a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the GIO would of course know who it secured the money from and who they put in a pretty position to recover and who they are protecting from recovery with their best efforts to make me look like a have a mental illness because I was chemically burnt and am a creditor and hence are chary of telling me but would of course have the records somewhere hence their giving me a gift pension on Christmas Day and Centrelink admitting to everything in Notices to Admit.51b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?51c) If you say the facts are not so then


52a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the front runners at the moment are

Akzo Nobel who swung into action to recover in 1994 - 5,

ICI, now Orica, who have left hints in their names as to their linkages as evidence for the Court and Union Carbide who would have sold off or divested their operations, assets and potentials to the other two and perhaps Monsanto leaving 6 defendants: Strathfield Municipal Council (the current defendant), GIO, who they won’t or can't join, Akzo Nobel, ICI and Orica and Union Carbide overseas now or their successor and perhaps Monsanto?52b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?52c) If you say the facts are not so then


53a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that a public facade is being maintained, to which my sister, Roslyn, is a willing patsy being either herself with or without a mental illness, purporting that I myself have a mental illness which no one seems to know much about, due to the fact that I am a creditor of note in this undefended matter, since I was in infants or early primary school being sent to Child Guidance in the early 1960’s, picked up again in 1997, when prior to 25.5.99 even I thought it to be the case, and so the facade of a mental illness is maintained by the Department of Health, as happens, so as to negate or arrogate capacity or to claim or credibility, or explain away the damages concession pension pursuant to the application of 8.6.66 as a disability support pension when at least it is a concessional damages or dignitary or decreed support/stipend pension, even more as the split bed incident of June 2010 suggests, is it not the case?53b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?53c) If you say the facts are not so then


54a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the medication model is instituted against creditors for no lesser reason than in some cases to monitor and avoid settlement of liabilities by the current Crown in deference to the utilization of the plaintiff’s much cheaper Court based Law Therapy discipline-modality-method for relief of symptoms and outcomes to which medication is currently applied, all of which means moneys in various entities’ pockets who have provided no evidence of studies that medication settles debts or makes amends for the impactful effects of tort or breach such that the ultimate debtor or tortfeasor is not brought to book?54b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?54c) If you say the facts are not so then


Correct me if I am in error in the above but for now I shall proceed against Australian entities being the defendant and the chemical companies and any indemnitee who I believe may have recourse under indemnities afforded them long ago before my temporal birth for recourse should the outsider come to the fore and God be seen to be God and the Courts defended from a devastating impending precedent and set in train that which is required for the temporal material institution of the new religion with tax reliefs and the institution of the new ways of performing and conducting procedure based upon the common law in line with sections 17 and 22 of the UCPR and the Tort to Contract swap.

55a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that given the foregoing and all contained in the requests to admit herein and by the way that I have been dealt with that I am the Messiah, the King of kings, pursuant to the evidence and the revelation of Orgasmianity, the Orgasmic Internet Church of Mary Magdalene and Jesus the Christ, et al I have brought is the long awaited dispensation?If not then why not and who, if anyone else is being courted, is, or is opposing and what are their doctrines?55b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?55c) If you say the facts are not so then


If you do not, within 14 days after service of this notice on you, serve a notice on the party requiring admission disputing any fact (and the authenticity of any document) in this notice, that fact (and the authenticity of that document) will, for the purpose of these proceedings, be admitted by you in favour of the party requiring admission.

E. & O. E.

David Gregory MurphyPlaintiff

PART 5

5a) Wider service on all parties of Notice to Admit Facts served upon 23rd October 2012 to which part 17.3 admissions were made on 6th November 2012 by the respondents by email served.

b) These requests to admit facts are now put to all defendants and again to defendants to be to admit or deny and say why. If no detailed Notice of Dispute responding to these requests to admit accompanied by answers to all the previous above requests to admit, each individually addressed, is not received within 14 days of the service of this notice upon you then each request to admit and each document attached will be admitted by you per part 17.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (NSW) 2005.



Division COMMON LAW

Registry SYDNEY

Case number 2011/327194 previously 1443/64TITLE OF PROCEEDINGSPlaintiff DAVID GREGORY MURPHY - MESSIAH

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Eighth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

Tenth Defendant

Eleventh Defendant

Twelfth Defendant



Fifteenth Defendant




8/1 CURTIN PLACE CONCORD NSW 2137NOTICE TO ALL RESPONDENTS

The Plaintiff requires you to admit the following facts:

1a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that on 23rd April 1990 a Martin Comer, public accountant and finance professional of Strathfield, together with a Judi Joseph, financial planner, members of the so called Strathfield team, approached me with a view to engineering and evidencing a breach of the Terms of Settlement of 6th June 1966 in my matter 1443/64 by way of seeking to secure an improper and unauthorized disclosure, contrary to term 7, of the quantum of term 3, $9,000 + $500, by way of a raising of the said term 3 amount as an investment loan returning $11,000 in the short term and that such breach, if by the plaintiff, was to pave the way for recovery of the damages amount under the Terms of Settlement together with interest at 9.5% p.a. compounding accruing over 30 years and more all contingent upon the plaintiff being induced to breach the said Terms? 1b. If you say the facts are not so then

i) how are they not so?ii) why are they not so?

iii) who says or said they are not so?

2a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the said Comer and Joseph, so approaching the plaintiff in April 1990, were charged with the task of securing the said plaintiff on a lease, asset purchase agreement, with the Australian Guarantee Corporation who would, by way of 60 installments of $1,672.72 and a balloon payment of $28,000, seek to recover the 1966 settlement loan moneys accruing over 30/31 years (shadow accounts 1 and 2) to 1996/7 of the plaintiff pursuant to an induced breach of the Terms by him which breach would open the way for handsome recovery by way of induced investment loans from him for having breached the Terms of Settlement of 6th June 1966?2b. If you say the facts are not so then


3a. Do admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that when so approached by these two members of the so called Strathfield team, a specialist finance team unit, to breach the Terms of Settlement on 23rd April 1990 and to raise moneys equivalent to term 3 to evidence such breach the plaintiff did not breach because he did not know there were terms and did not know the quantum of the terms and did not then know that Comer and Joseph’s approach was related to the inflated recovery of his 1966 settlement and hence could not and did not and thus was not the one who did perform the breach? 3b. If you say the facts are not so then


4a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that when Comer, faced with the fact that the plaintiff, so approached with the said investment loan proposition, did not know terms 3 or 7, nor that there were terms nor that the approach was connected to the damages settlement he had become entitled to at the age of 12, found that in order to proceed with recovery Comer himself, perforce, had to disclose, without authority or consent from the plaintiff, the not to be disclosed amount under term 3 required to provide evidence with consideration as to a breach of the terms and by so doing Comer himself, and thus on behalf of any advising principals all the way up to the doorstep of the first defendant, breached the said terms of settlement without authority or consent from the plaintiff?4b. If you say the facts are not so then


5a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that shortly thereafter, when asked by the plaintiff who had noticed that Comer as a fiance professional supplied no supporting paperwork to acknowledge receipt of moneys raised as investment loans but for undated promissory cheques of a company, Milebrook, he as a strategic bankrupt had the chequebook for, Comer adequately evidenced, by his notations on the backs of his undated cheques that he knew at least the amount of $9,500 was not to be seen to be being disclosed by him by his splitting the $9,500 amount in two, the only time he ever did so and the only time he ever raised the Terms of Settlement $9,500 amount, into amounts of $6,000 and $3,500 for no other reason but to be seen to be not by his hand disclosing the pursuant to term 7 not to be disclosed amount indicating adequately enough that he knew the amount of $9,500 displayed on cheque #368 was an amount not to be seen to be disclosed by him and hence an amount not to be disclosed arising from term 7 of the Terms of Settlement?

5b. If you say the facts are not so then i) how are they not so?ii) why are they not so? iii) who says or said they are not so?

6a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that Comer, and perhaps Joseph’s, unauthorized and improper disclosure of term 3 thereby offending term 7 that the terms not be disclosed, reflected upon their thus in evidence instructing principals who had instructed Comer and Joseph in the amount and need for the amount of $9,500 and pursuant and concomitant recovery procedures and that thus Comer’s breach, having himself been advised likewise in contravention of term 7 of the amount not to be disclosed, reflects upon his advising principals being the Australian Guarantee Corporation, in whose interests he professionally and presumably acted having clearly been improperly, but for agency, advised of the not to be disclosed amount, and as well by way of feed back to the principal ultimately the defendant in the matter being the Council of the Municipality of Strathfield who denying negligence went defendant? 6b. If you say the facts are not so then


7a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that as the plaintiff was not the one who did perform the requisite breach of the Terms of Settlement required to initiate recovery of the amount under the Terms in order to open the gate to recovery proceedings designed to recover the moneys investmentwise lent in 1966 to provide a return to some party/ies, presumably the first defendant and/or the chemical companies, the plaintiff on 18th June 1990 in lieu of an application form was offered a Deed of Agreement with a evidencingly named agent, Byrnes, calling for certain compliances on his part so as to be able to, in the absence of breach thereof, claim and have provisioned to him alone “all moneys outstanding” and that these moneys outstanding would, from the dates of their arising, bear interest in his favour at 40% per annum on quarterly rests for not having breached but suffering recovery nonetheless, 40% being the precedent rate, (the admitted Messiah rate) in such situations where investment loan money meant in the short term not to be returned is by way of subterfuge being raised of one who is the then known, being acknowledged, to be the Messiah (see below) who has not breached but is being specifically set up by those who know so?7b. If you say the facts are not so then


8a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that since the plaintiff was not the one who did perform the breach of the Terms he was accorded the said Deed of Agreement of 18th June 1990 with one aptly named Byrnes, the person selected to deal with the boy with the burns, 2 x 28 days after the breach of the Terms by Comer, and since he performed under the said Deed and did not breach, and all other parties did, that he is entitled to the “all moneys outstanding” provisioned for under the said Deed of any party whose function was to evidence a guarantee of the said Deed. 8b. If you say the facts are not so then


9a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that upon the date of the signing of the Deed of Agreement, being on its face the 18th June 1990, a “GTR” entry was placed upon my Credit Reference Association report upon the receipt thereof which entry eventuated from the Australian Guarantee Corporation’s receipt of its own copy of the said Deed on that date and by so guarantoring the said Deed the Australian Guarantee Corporation, AGC, became, as its name indicated, the guarantor of the “all moneys outstanding” being obtained of the plaintiff and his next friend as its then name clearly indicated that the said Australian Guarantee Corporation was in the business of providing an Australian guarantee at the Australian end for all moneys outstanding and so, by way of entry upon the plaintiff’s Credit Reference Association report under the said entry dated 18th June 1990 the then Australian Guarantee Corporation became the party who is guarantor for all the investment and other recovery moneys expended outstanding commencing with the Terms of Settlement of 1966 and augmented by other moneys secured by the agency of Comer as well as all other moneys still outstanding to date owing to the plaintiff and the next friend expended or outlaid in order to or arising from their efforts to recover their moneys outstanding?9b. If you say the facts are not so then


10a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the Deed of Agreement comprised an investment vehicle, of the type the said Australian Guarantee Corporation managed, assuring the plaintiff of his money due to not having been the one who breached the Deed thus supplanting the Terms of Settlement of 1966 as being the instrument that provides for his investment moneys arising from the Order of the Court of 8th June 1966 which Order rendered the plaintiff an investor by an Order of the Court. 10b. If you say the facts are not so then


11a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the figure of 7931, being the net settlement amount settled upon in 1966 for payment by the Government Insurance Office, GIO, to the Supreme Court on 20th June 1966, containing the figures 7, 9, 3 and 1 which equate to the letters G, I, C, A was the amount distinctively chosen so as to indicate an association commencing with the GI of GIO at the outset and wholly even then in 1966 encompassing AGC as the letters AGC are to be found wholy contained in the acronym GICA and that hence the transaction was designed, in part, to evidence to the Court an arrangement even at that time in 1966 between the GIO as architect and presider of a settlement arrangement involving a number of parties and AGC as the recovering party who would be entitled to proceed with recovery in the event that the plaintiff should be induced to improperly breach by way of unauthorized disclosure the quantum of the Terms of Settlement being term 3?11b. If you say the facts are not so then


12a. Do you further admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that the figure 7931 was a premeditated requisite figure in that it is the required starting point for a settlement loan amount such

that by application of exactly 9.5000000% per annum compounding interest the quantum reaches $70,000 on the day of the signing of the Deed of Agreement being 18th June 1990 when the accrued amount for recovery of investment loans that are breached was reached and this figure was guarantored by the Australian Guarantee Corporation on the same day when the plaintiff had in fact not breached when called upon to do so nor at any time afterwards, is it not the case? 12b. If you say the facts are not so then


13a. Hence Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that as the acronym 79 arising from the 7931, GICA, reveals an association between the well acronymed for the purposes GIO and AGC, both formed in about 1925-7, there was an association for the purpose of recovery of the moneys advanced in 1966 to the plaintiff earmarked for recovery pursuant to a to be induced breach of the terms which breach only transpired when performed by a member of the Strathfield team emanating from the locality of the first defendant, is it not the case?13b. If you say the facts are not so then


14a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that as 7931, the figure revealing of an association is the requisite starting point for a calculation transaction such that with a remarkably exact rate of interest of 9.5000000% being applied from 20.6.66 to 18.6.90, the amount of $70,000, the purported value of each of the vehicles under the lease, one with the said AGC and the other with the pointedly named Lance Finance, indicates a clear design to the settlement loan recovery transaction to be in evidence and the architects of the recovery transaction are made out to be AGC and the GIO on behalf of the moneyed chemical dumping parties and the first defendant who denied negligence throughout in the matter but now clearly complicit in the long planned for since at the latest 16th December 1927, matter, is it not the case?14b. If you say the facts are not so then


15a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that:

the Australian Guarantee Corporation indicated that its role, consistent with its name, was to provide a guarantee with its entry on his CRA of 18th June 1990 guarantoring all which was capable of being guarantored under the Deed, which in the case of the moneys being obtained of the plaintiff and the next friend and in time others, calls for the guarantor to be guarantor of all those moneys, if not directly to the plaintiff then to the defendant, now first defendant, to whom the breach of the terms feeds back and

the first defendant has thus a claim under the guarantee provided by the guarantor as the guarantor’s existence in the transaction stems to, at the latest, 1966 and is suggested to stem by way of the defendant’s letter to the Supreme Court of 19th October 2011 to 1964 when the pact between the various chemical parties to which the first defendant would presumably have been privy was overseen by the GIO and

hence the first defendant in 1964-6 denied negligence, which plea I now accept, and indicated

the year of 1964 as the year in which it was absolved of its involvement so the breach of the non disclosure term of the breach sheets home to it as Comer could not have known the not to be disclosed quantum term required to evidence and engineer a breach of the terms on the part of the plaintiff if it were not revealed to him as agent, thus now evidenced agent, is it not generally the case?15b. If you say the facts are not so then


16a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the amount which under the lease of 20th June 1990, 24 years to the day after the payment into the Supreme Court of $70,000, if it went anywhere at all, was money which was being raised of the plaintiff and the next friend as investment loans by and to Comer and his clients, friends, nominees, ponzi scheme players and so did not diminish the pocket of AGC nor of the figuratively named Lance Finance who led the charge, nor did it come to the plaintiff nor was it received by the apparent owner of the Mercedes Grosser vehicle, RKJ 566, a Michael Wilson, who did not receive the money believing the vehicle to have been misappropriated by his manager, Hobbs, due to some dispute and so the only moneys known to have been received by Wilson in the matter (if he did not get or was not in some manner accorded half the $35,000, as some $17,500 was found to be auction market value of the vehicle, to Hobbs as his share) emanated from the Commonwealth Bank and not from AGC at all as no moneys ever passed from the pocket of AGC to Wilson in 1990 or thereafter and, as Justice Taylor observed, the whole transaction was “a sham”, not what it appeared to be, and AGC lost no money of its own but only supplied our savings money to its operatives, given as a cheque to Byrnes for PEF to bank and pay out operatives in the settlement loan recovery transaction which foundered in that I did not breach the Terms but did consequently obtain a very good Deed for “all moneys outstanding” still due to me being not the one who did perform the breach of the Terms of Settlement although other parties, Byrnes, Comer and AGC, did breach the Deed?16b. If you say the facts are not so then


17a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that as I was not the one who breached the Terms of Settlement AGC, under garnishee order of 23.10.92, paid me back the nine installments which it had plundered of my account drawing upon my line of credit with the Chase AMP bank which plunderings by itself and Lance Finance were designed to bring me to bankruptcy and cause the loss of my residence wherein were the 1966 damages so that I could not recover of the “borrowers” so protecting them. 17b. If you say the facts are not so then


18a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that i) just as 9.5% p.a. compounding is the precedent rate of interest (as applied in the shadow accounts) against a future to be secured breach of the Terms of Settlement by the settlement creditor, the precedent rate of interest where an approached and induced settlement creditor does not breach (and the

original defendant by way of feedback does) is 40% per annum either at quarterly rests or not and that ii) upon the entering into the Deed of Agreement, provided due to my not having breached, the 9.5% per annum transmuted to the said non plaintiff breach rate of 40% per annum on all moneys outstanding at quarterly rests and do you further admit or agree that iii) this “all moneys outstanding”, for the reasons above, does not apply to any moneys expended by the Australian Guarantee Corporation or Lance Finance as both knew why they were approaching the plaintiff and that was to “scam” him though not totally because he had been afforded a perfectly good Deed of Agreement, if he could ever work it out, which possibility was not available to him until he found his file from Supreme Court archives on 25th May 1999?18b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?18c) If you say the facts are not so then


19a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that i) from about 2006 - 2009 many interrogatories and various requests to admit have been put by me to you, none of which you have in all honesty been able to deny, and ii) all these non admissions have resolved in favour of the plaintiff and do you further admit iii) your current answers to these present requests to admit must be in agreement with those part 17.3 admissions or part 22 non denials?19b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?19c) If you say the facts are not so then


20a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that as the particulars evidence well indicates the involvement of AGC in the grand scheme of things and thus in the pact against the mark as early as 1964, AGC is well placed to be able to answer all the other requests to admit facts put to the other defendants, all of which requests to admit facts the other defendants have unanimously admitted as all have been well versed in the matter from the date of filing in 1964 (and some even earlier)? 20b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?20c) If you say the facts are not so then



in those years and in that correspondence when the accounts were rendered to you on many occasions you never once found fault with any of the entries in the accounts and hence

all account entries are currently admitted and to deny such only now is too late given the passage of time available to you to do your own

investigations and remonstrate and so the accounts for your part are effectively thus not in dispute?




i) this whole matter relates to an approach to divest me and our family of moneys as investment loans or moneys outstanding ultimately attributable to - the first defendant as fed back breachparty of the Terms and jointly to - AGC as guarantor of the “all moneys outstanding” and that ii) the whole transaction was a settlement loan recovery scheme which went too far and should have been abandoned when I did not breach but due to the nature of who I am had to proceed when I had not breached and that henceiii) blame from breach lay on the first defendant and “all moneys outstanding” were guarantored by the company whose name announces it provides a service in such matters as providing a guarantee being the Australian Guarantee Corporation, is it not the case?22b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?22c) If you say the facts are not so then


23a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that when its present owner, GE Capital Finance, on 23rd December 2003 issued the second apology (fourth paragraph) in the letter of that date on behalf of AGC for “any inconveniences that this matter may have caused” it was referring to the inconvenience of the accruing moneys of which AGC was the guarantor not having been settled as there were no other real inconveniences apart from the moneys outstanding and in consideration of this being the fact it signed off the letter by one, if he existed, James Murphy, James of James Byrnes, Murphy of David Murphy to evidence to the Court that the foregoing was correct, is it not the case?23b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?23c) If you say the facts are not so then


24a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that given the foregoing there is no impediment to my recovering the all moneys outstanding to me or on behalf of others under the Deed of either

the first defendant who has the guarantee available to it or by my securing off the guarantor or of the apologist or of any defendant party to the pact?



ii) why are they not so? iii) who says or said they are not so?

25a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the settlement loan device herein described against one such as me as before the Court was a procedure to obtain a precedent where settlement of a plaintiff, who has not breached a Terms of Settlement, can be obtained in order to recover of further plaintiffs who have become settlement creditors who subsequently do not breach their terms yet are still subject to recovery so as to obtain a precedent in the court rendering all settlements, breach or no breach, as investments in the hands of or for the benefit of a defendant or investor who has bought the downside for its upside potential such that all settlements become covert shadow investments and all plaintiffs will prefer to proceed to full hearing every time so as to squeeze and freeze up court processes as the many who may settle and save the court’s time will not settle and so slow up the courts and so the process, as described, is a subtle, long-in-the-planning, contempt of court, an abuse of process and conspiracy to defraud each head of which attracts damages equivalent to the outstanding and accruing basic quantum of the value of the Deed, it is not the case? 25b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?25c) If you say the facts are not so then


26a) If the foregoing was the aim, as seems apparent in retrospect, is not the process of law therapy most appropriate for saving the courts’ time and abiding by the decision of Aon v Anu for cheap, quick and just disposition of proceedings as is being done by the requests to admit facts which quickly resolve in my favour in the absence of any coherent response by yourselves? 26b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?26c) If you say the facts are not so then


27a) So given the forgoing that the planning for this settlement loan procedure was long planned in advance is it not suggestive that I am whom the evidence and admissions thus far under n2af section 4a #55 says I am, to which you add your voice by not answering clearly to these requests to admit facts?27b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?27c) If you say the facts are not so then


28a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that Comer’s raising of investment loans to his clients or nominees were but means for the first defendant or the investor behind the settlement loan investment to maximize its return to over 7,000% by way of Comer’s ponzi plan of raising moneys for transfer via his clients and so the loans to his clients, which were caught by the well prepared Credit Act scam, are but moneys outstanding under the Deed and we (I and others who have been asset stripped) have suffered no loss? 28b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?

28c) If you say the facts are not so then i) how are they not so? ii) why are they not so? iii) who says or said they are not so?

29a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that I am now entitled to all moneys outstanding under the Deed according to the accounts, of which you have been given more than adequate notice, and that I have not done anything wrong in any respect as I did not breach and lent when called upon to do so and did not default under the Deed in any respect and that AGC, as guarantor of the all moneys outstanding, is, as GE Money, liable as any other pact defendant to settle any moneys outstanding? 29b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?29c) If you say the facts are not so then


30a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the reason you could not reap the benefit of the judgment you obtained of me in 1996, prior to my discovery on 25.5.99 of my file from Supreme Court archives linking AGC with events in 1966, was because your judgment obtained was founded upon non disclosure and hence obtained by you by deception and could not be negotiated or benefited from and so served just to buy time for AGC allowing my investment under the Deed to grow with the complicity of AGC and that the proceedings in 435/93, since stolen and obliterated, were but to fool the Court and trick further the plaintiff? 30b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?30c) If you say the facts are not so then


31a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that one of the major reasons as to why you persisted was to obtain a most valuable precedent for others so as to stifle for all time the proceedings of the Court for the benefit of an ultimate client, an arch nemesis of the Courts, who would want such? 31b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?31c) If you say the facts are not so then


32a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that for the past few years you have enjoyed the services of one Monica Esiloni, a neighbour and investment loan promoter who has persistently raised money of me in the style of Comer for channeling to the proposed ninth defendant by way of what she has admitted to be a fictional lease in the same style as the one with which you approached me in 1990 so as to get moneys off me, for which she has willingly incurred liability with interest returns of 20% flat, half that of the deed but flat rather then compounding, and that at the time of writing she is only paying half of her obligations under the loan contract of 8th September 2010, $250 instead of $500 per fortnight, as the other half of the obligation is being continually diverted to a slush fund, a compromise account, to pay ongoing bribe,

set up or hush monies as recently witnessed in my motion where none of the defendants have a defence and have admitted all per previous requests to admit leading to the avoidance of five points of my recent Motion for default judgment on liability?32b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?32c) If you say the facts are not so then


33a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the above requests to admit, if left to resolve in my favour or responded to emptily without the attendance to the part b’s, call for the adding of the Australian Guarantee Corporation, AGC, now GE Money, its owner GE Capital Finance, its apologist, Westpac Bank, AGC’s former owner at the time of the approach and settlement and security retraction actions, and the GIO currently owned by Suncorp, as defendants into the matter where already so much has been admitted par part 17.3 admissions by the other pact defendants?..



34a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that far from my being greedy the amount outstanding has grown because of AGC’s arrant greed in not wanting me to keep the amount of $20,076.16 obtained under garnishee when your settlement loan recovery agent, as history and circumstance now shows us, Comer, had raised some $600,000 in investment loans of the next friend and me for which you and your associate finance company friends, Lance Finance, made a point of showing zero sympathy for our loss because you knew that we had not suffered loss but rather that due to my not having breached I had a significant activated instrument of gain, the Deed, which was for me to work out and so needlessly gratutious action 435/93 prolonged the amount outstanding as without AGC’s response to recover the money the amount sought today would perhaps never have grown to the amount it has grown under the Deed as most likely in relation to the lease moneys I may well have walked away but AGC kept me to it and did not repay the well advised non repayable investment loans raised by its operatives such that by your greed you as acquisitive court criminals warrant zero sympathy from me? 34b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?34c) If you say the facts are not so then


35a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that your involvement as the Australian Guarantee Corporation was to provide the guarantee for the “all moneys outstanding” under the Deed so as to: provide a guarantee required by the pact settlement loan investors in 1964-6 such that there be a guarantee to them for their part in the pact arising from their joint liability for “all monies outstanding” due to their jointly not knowing to what extent each was liable for their part in the damages lent into the Court on 20th June 1966 and hence the GIO had to secure a long in advance prepared guarantor such as

AGC into the equation for the pact partners to agree to be paid of a settlement loan recovery pact investment for gain, there being a guarantor who could vouch for the return of their investment from the security, the factory, demanded for the settlement loan, giving rise to the caught by the prepared 1984 Credit Act investment loans to the borrower cum ponzi scheme participants and Comer’s go between intermediary actions and that

the Australian Guarantee Corporation was set up in the mid 1920’s to provide the guarantee on behalf of Australia for the coming Messiah who was destined to have his accident giving rise to a claim for “all moneys outstanding” to be memorialized in a Deed due, if he did not breach the 1966 terms,

and so the said Australian Guarantee Corporation, now GE Money, is the party whoguaranteed the return of all moneys to the chemical company / first defendant etc pact partners holds out not only the guarantee for the Messiah against the world but also

guarantees the all moneys outstanding to the Messiah, who had his accident in Mason/Bressington Park, in a messpool of toxic carcinogenic combusting subterranean chemical waste in the area of Homebush, confirmatively in an act of Hotliness, 12,000 days before the elsewhere said 30.6.1996, is it all not the case?35b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree? 35c) If you say the facts are not so then


36a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that there was and is a parallel Deed of Agreement, the Pact, with terms not to be disclosed, such that the existence of the Pact, 17:23, is not itself to be disclosed and this Pact of relatively recent, or great, antiquity, signed/sealed in blood, descendant of a succession of pacts similarly signed/sealed in blood, atimes written in the blood of martyrs in a processional chain tracing back to a single source thus attesting to the integrity of the bloodline and generally being attended by considerations down the ages in the forms of excesses, impositions, desecrations, incursions, exactions and eliminations, ever yielding up innocent binding holy blood, by perhaps one dynastic line, one arcane recondite im.pact.ing, imp.acting line over the outcast other, preparing for every and any eventuality against this day seeking to bind, were it possible even the Court so as to not find for the chosen descended one, accounts for everyone’s tell tale admissive silence and because of the Pact, not to disclose nor be disclosed, as per its terms, there will never, this side of awareness of the pact, be any defence (apart from that (see below) lodged in the Guardianship Tribunal where its defeat was suffered) until it is void, i.e. in fact, never any real defence, its existence attesting to conspiracy to defraud precludes one, as its now in tatters existence is by non dispute to this n2af acknowledged (I know enough about the proper management of the pact parties’ side of the case that I could probably even write parts of it up myself, but for full knowledge of all its participants)?36b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?36c) If you say the facts are not so then


37a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the very existence of this Pact, or various constraining now void and in tatters sequential Pacts, declare/s, more than any impeccable genealogy (impeccable due to its being withheld), unequivocally as to who I am and that is that it was (they were) (an) instrument(s) instituted in secrecy to defeat the long expected Messiah known to be coming in upper secret order echelons for certain purposes such as

to do away with treachery and deceit and usher in a new approach to law, new religion of natural love for believers and New World Order, is it not the case?37b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?37c) If you say the facts are not so then


38a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the only reason why anyone today adheres to there being any validity or credence attached to the 1990 asset purchase/lease capture agreements with either AGC or Lance Finance with which I was approached, (pursuant to which no real business was being done nor benefit provided me but that which the Deed held out to me, such instruments serving but to be an entrapment devices to capture me and my money such that certain realities accompanied such as

- the AGC vehicle being positioned to be found to be a stolen vehicle and - seeking for me to take possession of a stolen vehicle in order to give me a criminal record

where none existed, nor exists today, and - there never being any payment to Wilson with any money from AGC and - the failure of AGC or any other party to deliver the vehicle to me and - the fact that the arrangement was only to be for three to six months but upped to sixty on the

20th June 1990 and the scheme set to fall apart) was due then to the then being raised by way of investment loans bribe/hush/set up/compromise

moneys, 23rd April – 8th June 1990, $57,990, by Comer beforehand and today due to the currently again being raised bribe/hush/set up/compromise slush fund moneys,

some $40,000, being raised again as Comer style investment loans by Esiloni securing bribe/hush/set up/compromise moneys designed to influence and coerce the Court

against me as seen recently by the astute response thereto of Justice Hidden whose name is indicative as that of Byrnes was, that much is being hidden, hence his being chosen to be in attendance as due disclosure that much was being hidden in the matter?38b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?38c) If you say the facts are not so then


39a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in the matter 435/93 in the Parramatta District Court you found it easy to mislead me and the Court by not disclosing the reason as as to why you had approached me in 1990 and in all my dealings with you you have been notably avoidant throughout in that you never disclosed that the reason for your approaching me and the next friend via your settlement loan recovery agents (Comer, MacDonald, Joseph) fronting for you and a front finance company, Lance Finance leading the charge, was to secure me on a fictitious asset purchase agreement as a cover to pass moneys in the amount of $70,000 to your settlement loan recovery agent, Byrnes, a convicted heroin dealer, presumably for supply of capital, secured of the next friend and myself as innocent investment loans at no outlay to yourselves for their services in securing me so as to recover my 1966 settlement together with the proceeds of the coinciding sale of the 1966 settlement loan security being our family factory with interest when I had not breached, as I had not disclosed either the amount nor any term not to be disclosed, and the only honest thing you or rather the your team did was, lest the matter be an outright fraud upon us and all settlement creditors before and after, was to duly provide me the compensatory counterbalancing Deed

of Agreement for all moneys outstanding, together with a hidden for some years, inscrutable at the time, “GTR” entry upon my CRA which, should I ever chance upon my Supreme Court file, put two and two together and work it all out myself and be most fortunate due to the historical advent of computers and spreadsheets, having been impacted by the Court proceedings of 8th June 1966 rendering me, for the purpose of these proceedings, an investor by an order of the Supreme Court, to have thus kept comprehensive accounts, with which upon numerous inspections you have never found fault, in this practice of settlement for 30 year loan substitution and recovery, this hallowed and of great antiquity sacrosanct rite of passage, which no lawyer would dare speak against, of raising retirement moneys of settlement creditors for judges in their retirement pursuant to an induced breach of the Terms of Settlement, nor would perhaps a court rule against it, a practice which, in this case, you are seeking all out to gain a precedent such that all settlements upon terms not to be disclosed, and now also if not not to be disclosed, are long term investments for a backer and recoverable even should there be no breach by the settlement creditor?39b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?39c) If you say the facts are not so then


40a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that on 28.3.2012 a defence to matters central to your 1990 approach to me setting out your defence/case was delivered to the Guardianship Tribunal (excerpt annexure) for presentation there in my matter seeking to impede me obtaining legal assistance flowing from the advice of Justice Schmidt that I obtain legal assistance and that thereto I dealt with this interposed de facto defence in your favour with a response I was obliged to perform to in part deal with this interposed defence with a response (annexure) and I succeeded in my matter in the Guardianship Tribunal and so the issue of a formal defence in the matter any different will likely not arise as I have quashed the defence filed in the Guardianship Tribunal proceedings designed to undermine my case?40b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?40c) If you say the facts are not so then


41a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you as ninth defendant in writing have already ventilated your very own defence at its highest in the Guardianship Tribunal in the submissions by your quisling in that jurisdiction, one Roslyn Lunsford presumably in your pay and sway, who presented your defence at its highest on 28.3.12 so as to derail the proceedings in the Supreme Court as against your associate first defendant and that I effectively routed your advance and defence in that jurisdiction, and hence in this Supreme Court jurisdiction, on 30th April 2012 such that you have no further defence, that core defence, having been presented on behalf of all defendants who subsequent to said rout have been unable to provide any defence and thus having each and all failed, paves the way for my

part 17.7 judgment as to liability, for what it’s worth, and default judgment and even judgment upon the facts and defeat of the defence put on by the guarantor defendant all four of which are now in order for me.

41b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?


42a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that by way of various inflows of settlement and damages monies currently being received weekly and having been so for some years and my being also in receipt of over 500 legally crafted not to be misjudged or kept waiting settlement offers which need to be followed up and court ordered I am now well beyond the judgment on liability stage and into the settlement stage as receipt of admissive settlement moneys indicates consideration for admissions overall as to liability from various quarters in this case and entitlement to the moneys outstanding now slowly but significantly and meaningfully being received as trickles?42b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?42c) If you say the facts are not so then


43a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the defendants have shown by the succession of plans of avoidancy of response, the latest now falling apart in the criminal division being plan I (for impugn) and plan J (for judge) recently conducted in the Supreme Court and plan K (for king) next, that all defendants have shown they have no defence and there never will be a defence but for the one presented on your behalf or the twelfth defendant’s behalf in the Guardianship Tribunal?43b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?43c) If you say the facts are not so then


44a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that were it not for the greed of AGC in pursuing moneys plundered in 1990-1 of my line of credit with never a statement being produced to me nor acknowledgment at the time that I was any sort of client and no application having been performed by me which moneys with court interest I recovered of Westpac Parramatta branch from an account whose number had cheerfully been advised to me by AGC on 23rd October 1992, 20 years ago today (get it? God’s perfect timing, you can’t win), AGC having been advised that I had “obtained the go ahead for a garnishee order in relation to AGC” pursuant to a garnishee order of Ryde Local Court in the relatively paltry amount of $20,076.16 (a credit in the overall accounts) and AGC had been content to let matters lie and accept the default verdict of the court obtained due to your indolence, insouciance, in responding to court process when you had no real defence but rather went on to agitate the matter rather unmeritoriously in the Parramatta District Court for four wasted hearing days, 3-7.3.95, for only the lawyers to make money by bluffing, even pointing out three times to Judge Taylor during cross examination that I allegedly entered into the lease with AGC to protect my investment which the Deed with Byrnes represented which allegation made absolutely no sense to me at the time prior to the discovery of the fresh evidence from Supreme Court archives on 25.5.99 in the form of my 1443/64 file linking money recovery events such as your lease action in 1990-1 with file events in 1964-6 which discovery eventually led to a written apology by a James Murphy (!?) of the tenth defendant, “on behalf of AGC I would like to apologize for any

inconvenience that this matter may have caused”, as my second well timed Christmas present on 23rd December 2003, six years (as if that mattered, there’s no doubt that you’re going to breach the accompanying claim under the guarantee in fourteen days time setting off a fresh cause of action against you as all the other defendants have recently done due to their recent similar defaults) after the consideration paid under a regent crown of a regional line as admissive damages commencing a stream of “7931, gica” gio+agc(evidence to the court of a covert arrangement) Christmas gift damages that continues to this day, then matters would most likely never have reached the point they have today and even the said crown (of a lesser antipodean regional line) sponsored credit act scam loans to Comer’s ponzi clients channeling money to AGC or to a 12th ultimate waiting-in-the-wings, protected by the in-tatters pact, defendant-to-be client may never with any understanding have come to be understood so as to be included in the “all moneys outstanding” as per the said Deed which Deed AGC guaranteed as its Australian end role as its name disclosed being a service it provided to investors such as myself per the orders of 8th June 1966, on which date I was invited up to the bench by Justice Maguire to receive, and indicate, special attention by the Court sending a massage as to the unusual nature, even then, of the case and my standing as more bench than bar?44b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?44c) If you say the facts are not so then


45a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the plaintiff is not estopped in any way by any party, event or time constraint in seeking the relief which he claims pursuant to the accounts which you have for the most part been furnished with by registered mail from 2007-2009 and found no fault with on numerous occasions when the time to do such, now closed, was open to you?45b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?45c) If you say the facts are not so then


And so with the issue of the defence dealt with and admissions made pursuant to these r2af’s with no conceivable alternate defence due to the Pact, as is the case at present, I seek judgment as to liability and to proceed to matters of quantum.

I have given you every opportunity to come forth, and be forthcoming to lessen the financial blow for you and your ultimate principal whom I assume will eventually take its place as the waiting to be joined twelfth defendant whose identity I do not know. I shall not settle for another offer of settlement. As said I am in receipt of over 500 already to be followed up upon judgment. I seek a written judgment by the Court abandoning the long held practice of recovering settlements as long term investments to which it was/is addicted in utilizing childhood settlements as retirement moneys for judges, religious dignitaries, political personages, crime figures or the like for them to take their settlement loan winnings to featherbed their illusory mansions in hell courtesy of the simoniacs and the finance industry. This is a hard judgment and I have essentially chronicled it in my n2af’s. It’s time for the Court to turn the page and write a most important judgment in the secretive history of the Court in matters that have to date been managed as the province of secret societies, some antipathetic to and some welcoming of the Messiah and the New Age.

Accompanying are various other requests to admit facts, due also of you, all of which have been admitted in full by all previous defendants who have not served upon me any notice of dispute in response to service upon them with the said requests to admit facts.

Please find attached Notice to Properly Settle Under Guarantorship incumbent upon you.

SIGNATURE


Capacity Plaintiff

Date of signature 8th November 2012

HOW TO RESPONDIf you do not, within 14 days after service of this notice on you, serve a notice on the party requiring admission disputing any fact (and the authenticity of any document) in this or attached to this notice, that fact (and the authenticity of that document) will, for the purpose of these proceedings, be admitted by you in favour of the party requiring admission.

E & O E

IN THE SUPREME COURT IN SYDNEY, NSW, AUSTRALIA

In the matter of:DAVID GREGORY MURPHY V

COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF STRATHFIELD AND ANOR

FILE NUMBER 2011/327194, FORMERLY 1443/1964

TO THE EMAIL ADDRESSEE RESPONDENT ENTITY

NOTICE TO PROPERLY SETTLE UNDER GUARANTORSHIP As submitted and evidenced and admitted the $7,931 moneys supplied in 1966 transpired to have been the principal for a 30 year loan and were recovered for exceeding profit when I was not the one who breached the Terms of Settlement, as happened. The settlement moneys hence outstanding, together with other moneys outstanding, are currently provisioned for under a Deed of Agreement of 18th June 1990 to which a guarantorship of the same date by AGC, now GE Money, applies. The evidence indicates, and it has been admitted, that AGC, Australian Guarantee Corporation, was a joint venture partner (for gain) in the recovery of the moneys with the insurer GIO, contingent upon me breaching the Terms, which did not happen, hence the Deed providing for “all moneys outstanding” as the replacement provisioning vehicle. In previous correspondence I have advised that the guarantor, AGC, the insurer’s recently admitted gica/7931 joint venture partner, had defaulted under the guarantorship of 18th June 1990 of the “all moneys outstanding” provided for under the Deed of 18th June 1990 on 30th September 2009. The defendant in this matter breached the same guarantee on 23rd August 2011. A default by the defendant and your guarantor on your behalf reflects upon you as a default by your team on that date. No arguments to the contrary have been presented. Along with the requirement that these sets of mostly pre-advised requests to admit facts be answered within 14 days I also require that within 14 days of the date of the service of these notices to admit facts upon you on 23rd May 2012 you enter into a full and unconditional updated settlement undertaking commitment, by way of forwarding a deposit amount of $5,000 to either myself or to the Supreme Court for banking on my behalf as per the Orders of 8th June 1966.

Failure to do so will constitute a first hand default under the guarantorship and Deed by yourselves as respondent so time is of the essence.

I expect all outstanding liabilities upon you should be referable for you so you only need to onclaim. David Gregory MurphyPlaintiff E. & O. E. PART 6

IN THE SUPREME COURT IN SYDNEY CASE NO 2011/327194 previously 1443/64David Gregory Murphy v Council of the Municipality of Strathfield and anors

To the defendants or defendants to be as named per the above email address:

It is noted that all facts have been admitted by all parties to the recent Notice to Admit Facts and Notice to Admit Authority of Documents and again all parties have breached unanimously the Notice to Properly Settle Under Guarantee thus inviting a determination as to liability.

With all 11 respondents having admitted all per the rules and all having breached and all having received the notice and all having demonstrated that they have received the said notices and none having served a traversed Notice of Dispute and none but the 8th defendant to be having put any written requests to me as invited, which response has been satisfied, all is admitted.

However prior to refiling a part 17.7 Motion for Judgment as to Liability I serve a further specific Notice to Admit Facts upon the 7th defendant pursuant to part 17.3 of the UCPR in relation to capacity of the Simoniac leadership of the seventh defendant whose capacity I dispute as being resident pursuant to a fraudulent de-officing of a designated co-anointed leader, Mary Magdalene, with her own respective teachings and her own set of followers within the seventh defendant which contingent have the claim to supremacy of tenure and are alone to champion in unhindered fashion the interests of the seventh defendant resulting in all promulgations pursuant to the improper de-officing being of no authority or capacity.. This impacts also on the standing of those resident in the edifice of the sixth defendant (calling for a revisiting as to tenure) who consequently currently seek to avoid service and impacts upon the loyalties of the fifth defendant.

This Notice to Admit Facts will have an impact upon the later proceedings as to quantum and any lateral cross claims. It is anticipated that all parties may be able to refer certain claims to an earlier party or parties, plural, as yet unjoined in respect of outstanding claims, remedies etc. Perhaps James Warren Byrnes may be of some utility here as a twelfth party appears to be missing. If so please advise as I am not clear for whom he acted, if anyone. If he had a principal please advise that I may forward requests to admit to his principal who may become the twelfth defendant. Perhaps he inherited or was bestowed or appointed some capacity to approach me stemming nevertheless from the first, eighth and ninth defendant. He should not be protected if he has a case to answer for having breached the Deed of Agreement on behalf of some undisclosed secret party (such as a certain Masonic rite? or more likely a cabal of jewish creditor/investors?) leading to exposure by all

defendants for the “all moneys outstanding”. Please give me the name and email contact details of any principal or legal representative thereof of his (or Comer and MacDonald / PEF's) as he (and Comer and MacDonald etc) was only a child at the time of the cause of action in 1963 and pact of 1964 and I may well have to put another set or respective sets of requests to admit facts to them directly prior to joining them.

The attached Notice of twelve Requests to Admit Facts has already been admitted by two parties having some degree of training in a related entity who rather than refer the requests on admitted all.

Note: all parties and respondents have now again admitted request 55 of section 4 so my standing to bring the further attached Notice to Admit is not in dispute even by the seventh defendant under its current incapacitate leadership.

NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS, served upon first 11 defendants 9.12.2012.




(1) The requesting party may, by a notice served on the admitting party ( "the requesting party’s notice"), require the admitting party to admit, for the purposes of the proceedings only, the facts specified in the notice. (2) If, as to any fact specified in the requesting party’s notice, the admitting party does not, within 14 days after service on the admitting party of the requesting party’s notice, serve on the requesting party a notice disputing that fact, that fact is, for the purposes of the proceedings only, taken to have been admitted by the admitting party in favour of the requesting party only. (3) The admitting party may, with the leave of the court, withdraw any such admission.

1a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that more than anyone else, Mary Magdalene satisfyingly, according to the clues deposited in the biblical text, satisfies all the accepted conditions generally mentioned for consideration and hence is a - the - prominent contender for consideration as the author of 1 John and hence the fourth gospel?1b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?


2a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the textual clues in support deposited in 1 John and the fourth gospel are

conclusive enough in the circumstances for a conclusion to be drawn that Mary M, being quite presumably the disciple whom Jesus loved, to whom the best part had been given never to be taken away from her, a double meaning there, was the writer of the said epistle and said fourth gospel as befits a highest church leader?2b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?2c) If you say the facts are not so then


3a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that a consideration of the clues to be found in the epistle such as 1:1 (held/touched) , 5:21 (cf from idols/migdol), 2:12-14 (father in two meanings, young men all repeated twice for emphasis) and verses 1, 12 and 13 of 2 John which is quite apparently written back as a response to the writer of 1 John, the elect lady, in which John touches on the some of the somewhat feminine teachings raised in 1 John by the person to whom 2 John is written back to, point probatively and adequately to Mary Magdelene being the elect lady, with a sister with children, as author of 1 John and hence John’s gospel (note chap 17, the male disciples were asleep and Mary M recorded the prayer lest there be any doubt as to authorship she could not be seen at the time to have claim to) and was hence the disciple whom Jesus loved, Jesus not being gay and not loving otherwise just one disciple and not not much liking the others, the reference being clearly romantic.?3b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?3c) If you say the facts are not so then


4a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that John 21, written now by you know who you know why, has much to say about the two contenders for church leadership and shows who was held in higher regard by Jesus and who was being paid out after being caught out in the nude (Simon’s mimicking “how I have loved you”) with the disciple whom Jesus loved such that he and his crew caught no fish all night when there were plenty of fish to be caught so he was caught out and supplied some tribute for to be given the one who gave tribute (“it is the Lord”) for her rendered in dominance services as pursuant to her standing and Temple profession as a receiver of tribute.?4b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?4c) If you say the facts are not so then


5a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that Mary Magdalene being the writer of the epistle and fourth gospel and the only anointed, jointly anointed, Jesus feet and her hair/head, disciple and first apostle, apostle to the apostles, was and hence is the leader designate of the church and was the temporal body of Christ to which we all, if true, belong, her having the best part?5b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?


6a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that John’s comment back to Mary Magdalene as the writer of 1 John in the pointedly anagrammatical Diotrophes (i.e. priesthood) lament in 3 John v9 refers to the concept of priesthood having no real place in their, or the latter day english language church, in which they (the elect lady, Mary Magdalelene (legendary mama) and John’s contingent (incl. Demetrius (merited us, mitered us)) held the authority and hence the church is a movement of the laity, layity, as opposed to the other priesthood (Diotrophes) styled religions and antichrists which went out from them (1 John 2:19) which do not recognize the leadership of the elect lady, Mary M, and John et al, having talked wicked nonsense about them, 3 John v10, causing there to be two seeming gospels, one group continually and mournfully celebrating the death of Jesus long after he had come back and preaching a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-9) to the new one, the gospel of love, based upon the new commandment (John 13:34) continually celebrating living in love and having joy upon meeting and loving one another, not one other, as Jesus had loved the church, living the new commandment day by day in action and having joy?6b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?6c) If you say the facts are not so then


7a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that we should not be unequally yoked with simoney ak simoniacs?7b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?7c) If you say the facts are not so then


8a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that an acceptance of 1 John and the fourth gospel being written from a female point of view casts certain teachings, such as loving one another, woman to man, man to woman, in a different light and has unavoidable implications for the ordination of women in the church hierarchy and of course leadership as the original church leader designate was a woman and another is long overdue and the church may not be even be being seen to be scriptural but rather apostate by denying such?8b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?8c) If you say the facts are not so then


9a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that with the de-officing of Mary Magdalene by Simon, formerly Peter but demoted back to Simon pursuant to his triple denial (John 18:17, 25-27), a fraud took place

which is overdue for rectification and Mary Magdalene be restored to a position of temporal authority and leadership long denied by the patriarchal Diotrophes (priesthood) set and women in consideration be elevated and the Jesus / Magdelenean new commandment be reinterpreted as between men and women, love one another, not one other, as I have loved you (Simon having given his slant on what that meant), she being the disciple whom Jesus loved?9b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?9c) If you say the facts are not so then


10a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the deofficing of Mary Magdalene by the male disciples resulted in an illegitimate de-officing fraud of she who had been appointed and co-anointed and contradictorally arose because of headstrong undoctrinal mysogenist Diotrophes patriarchy against Galatians 3:28 that in Christ there is neither male nor female and further that this unlawful de-officing, being a fraud upon her and Jesus’ joint anointment appointment has resulted in a simoniac church with history, traditions, certain sacraments, ceremonies (e.g. marriage) and much teaching where it departs from the Word being based upon a fraud and hence irrelevant, misleading, in error and invalid? 10b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?10c) If you say the facts are not so then


11a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the only real oft quoted verse to support marriage in the gospels being, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7, even points out it is the man who leaves his parents and goes to the woman and not the woman who goes to the man indicating the priority of women in the view of Adam (Moses) and Jesus? 11b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?11c) If you say the facts are not so then


12a) Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that marriage has no place in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth as Jesus said (Matthew 22:30, 6:10) and a higher calling per Jesus (Matthew 19:11) and Paul is to be single (1 Cor 7:8, 2 Cor 6:14) but living in love (Ephesians 5:2, 1 John 4:16, 2 John 2:6) and loving one another, not one other (which means more than making a cup of tea for someone at a church social) as by this would all men, the simoniacs, know that we are His disciples if we have love, one to another, not one other, as Jesus loved the church, Mary Magdalene.12b) If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?12c) If you say the facts are not so then


ii) why are they not so? iii) who says or said they are not so?

Yours SincerelyDavid Gregory MurphyPlaintiff, Settlement Creditor, by your admissions, per the evidencings and request to admit #55 part 4: Messiah.


NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTSCOURT DETAILSCourt SUPREME COURTDivision COMMON LAW#ListRegistry SYDNEYCase number 1443/64 now relisted as 2011/327194TITLE OF PROCEEDINGSPlaintiff DAVID GREGORY MURPHYDefendant COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF STRATHFIELDPREPARATION DETAILSPrepared for DAVID GREGORY MURPHY Plaintiff#Legal representative SELF REPRESENTED#Legal representative reference [reference number]Contact name and telephone DAVID GREGORY MURPHY, 8214 8397, 0419 605 365

8/1 CURTIN PLACE CONCORD NSW 2137email:[email protected], [email protected]

NOTICE TO THE CHIEF OPPONENT / ULTIMATE DEFENDANT


1a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that the official pronouncement of degradation by a Pope Gregory the Great of Mary Magdalene the companion of Jesus, the disciple whom Jesus loved, to seemingly the status of a harlot and to decry her acts as forbidden in a homily:

"She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices? It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts. What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner.”

on Sept 14, 591 was performed by the said Pope Gregory the Great for strategic purpose/s, gain, greater power, advantage and prestige to raise his church of Peter higher as against any vestiges left of Mary Magdalene’s followers?

b) If not then why not?

2a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that such seeming degradation of the competitor of Peter and her mentioned perfumed acts of loving one another, not one other, outside contract of marriage as worship, as Jesus had loved her being the original church (temple), was to bolster any purported authority and foundation for the church of Peter which, as the big competitive business of the day, held itself out as sole authority and path to God and whose enthralling strongly promoted products included:

(a) contract of marriage and

mailto:[email protected]

(b) forgiveness of sins and(c) the only procedures for observance and worship and (d) the only proffered means of salvation and hope (e) the only means of coming to God through baptism, its priesthood and sacraments for those of the church of Peter andand that such degradation of Mary was meant to bolster Peter’s followers’ church’s coffers and authority in the eyes of

others for business deals, trade and standing and gain a binding supremacy over all other worldly leaders who could be persuaded as against alternate views, even alternate Christian views, the only viable one with authority being Mary Magdalene’s where making love as one to another, not one other, is an act of worship to the extent it would cause her disciples to be greatly recognized by “all men” along the lines of “love covers a multitude of sins” - even concurred early on by Peter?


3a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that such an official denunciation reflective upon character (and upon women) as to Mary Magdalene’s acts was essential by Pope Gregory as, in official circles, Mary Magdalene, who also more strongly, demonstratively, unwaveringly, transparently and acceptedly acknowledged Jesus as teacher, master, Lord, the Christ, was still seen as the only viable contender to Peter fitting the identifying prophecy:

“the stone whom the builders had rejected”, having (along with Jesus) no buildings, and “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense” 1 Pet 2:7-8 (her acts (of making love as worship) were “forbidden”) and one who, if she had followers in deference to the male Peter’s, may well viably challenge the church of Peter as the true

church (1 John (MM) 4:8) and so by revolution rule all Christendom and come to challenge, discredit and replace the church of Peter and its allegedly unscriptural church practices and doctrines and love of money business practices with her practices and doctrines such as the making of love to one another as worship out of contract for all foldmate believers as “love is the fulfillment of the law” and “love covers a multitude of sins” and so “tend” his sheep as her gospel was foreshadowing?


4a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that if the foregoing in (2) were the products of Peter’s church, put out then as a mission or sale to the heathen and non-church-of-Peter people in the south which, for influence, it could make available out of its claimed authority as a further set of alternate parallel upheld scriptures, offering (a) – (d) but not (e) above and detailed for heathens, even heathens amongst other believers to the south not wholly accepting of Peter’s northern purported authority nor to those of the church of Peter, then:

- it could diplomatically, through a good aspiring customer-cum-leader of his people, bring into another fold (to quote Jesus as justification) of its own and to salvation, direction and dominion, also of its own design, those in the south and

- establish a subordinate new acceptable tolerated friendly religion (the customer, originally a Christian who never renounced) which it may be able to control, pursuant to contractual arrangement, for reason initially of getting to a new market first with an alternate distribution version with giveaway familiar star entities who were of its panoply to promote and

- so beat any other southern (orthodox) churches into a new field of evangelistic endeavour, where it was geographically disadvantaged, for gain and little if any outlay through one who kept coming back for more scriptures and was retained as against any others as a good long term confidential customer and

- that much of this holds the key legally to what is happening in the world today is an evidentiary and explicable dislocation of its now arguably perhaps intentionally undoable and till now unravelable covert act of sale justified as to be a lawful obligatory compliance of Jesus’ Great Commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel, here the altered gospel of the customer himself who wanted his own gospel fetched from official approving sources with alterations so that he could become a leader?


5a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that this said denigration of Mary Magdalene came at a time and pursuant to when the now bolstered Peter’s church, by the supply of alternate available for the right price but needing to be rather markedly different texts, was seeking to reach a mutually beneficial mediated collateral solution to

- a rather extreme but perhaps common problematic situation of great antiquity and divisiveness that had arisen in the Abraham+Sarah/Isaac+Rebeka family downlines leading to divisions between the jews and their neighbours over alleged inheritance disputes with Isaac and Ishmael, based upon marriage, and

- a dispute with Jacob and Esau over a birthright lost over a request for dinner and led arguably to the opportunity for the provision by the church of Peter of a convenient solution to this problem with the

descendants of Ishmael and Esau in the form of a most valuable, purportedly imbued and reverential, due to their mysterious (but now not credible or creditworthy) source, series of esteemed items which came at considerable cost, or trade off, and input drawing clearly and duly upon the knowledge and characters of the Christians and also those of the jews and brought considerable moneys and advantage in some form into some division of Peter’s church who held sway over the religious scriptoria, and quiet trade-offs all around, and so in quietly seeking to achieve a permanent solution in the form of detailed scriptures put together at considerable cost with much imagination by professionals, a third monotheistic religion of their own came into being with its own set of imbued tendentious scriptures for which no credible explanation was ever given as to whence and how they came to be written down in such timely fashion so soon after the said official policy denunciation of Mary Magdalene and her acts whose absence, unlike that of the approved Mother Mary, is evident throughout?


6a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that since there has never been any verifiable convincing explanation as to source of these new scriptures (see below), such as eyewitnesses or oral tradition or inspiration, it points directly to an ongoing reliable formal arrangement, a sale agreement with terms of settlement with consideration with perhaps a Deed of Agreement attached most certainly in writing, for control, between various parties with terms not and never to be disclosed such that all parties with knowledge to the sale and supply were thus bound and in light of the customer’s alleged inability to read or write it is apparent that all allegedly impressively authoritative religious documentation came from a fairly capable production scriptorium capable of producing familiar impressive material from the same sources as produced material on many other well known biblical characters who again reappear for the new customer (after all it has been alleged to have been done before in Babylon during the exile but based upon oral tradition so there is an alleged precedent) who kept coming back repeatedly over a period of 23 years inclusive from 610, 19 years after the 591 denunciation, till 632 when he died, and no one knew from whence he was procuring his documentation and what as a merchant he was trading or trading off for it, then it can be said such well written and professionally prepared scriptorium quality scriptures were arguably coming from some establishment in Peter’s camp under contract with terms not to be disclosed as there was no other with the resources and legal force of empire well near the very centre and at the very top who had some mileage to gain with ability to enforce, a party now with no standing or capacity or claim anymore to anything but to follow Mary, the original leader with authority and her authoritative teachings?


7a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that this denigration of Mary Magdalene, the priestess of loving “acts” of worship, to below even the status of Rahab, and Rebeka, mother of Esau, by her act leading to a trade off, that another Mary, Mary the mother of Jesus, was elevated up in both religions either collusively or observantly as a rallying point to women believers, led to the new religion also denigrating women with contract being locked in and led to a suppression of women in contrast to Jesus’ actions and words and a solution to the Jacob-Esau debacle which had led to discord and did away and sealed the fate of Mary Magdalene in the said homily and deal with terms not to be disclosed and that now that one of those terms, that the terms not to be disclosed is disclosed, the rest (such as reproduced below) are no longer subject to that non disclosure term as it has been defeated and a release obtained in a later document without disclosure to me, but if so from above, and the rest of the terms of the agreement can now be made known and acted upon as someone within each party has a copy of it leading to an impasse arising now being able to be broken?


Beyond reasonable doubt evidence 8a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, given that both belief systems became official at much around the

same time, Peter’s church becoming the dominant religion in the old roman empire in the late 300’s, the pronouncement being made in 591 and the new customer’s religion coming to prominence in the early 600’s, that one of the rather telling clues as to the scriptoria source being connected to Peter’s church (most everything was, who else was there?) is that of the phenomenon of the rising status of Mary, Mother of Jesus, that had been taking place in Peter’s church and is similarly to be found as policy reflected in the scriptures of great value being supplied for the customer as of 610 and b) is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that such elevation of Mary, mother of Jesus, is a particular giveaway hallmark of Peter’s church supplanting Mary Magdalene for Mary Mother of Jesus who is not given any appearance after her denunciation of 591 and hence policy is quickly reflected in the new customer’s scriptures strongly hinting at its northern source and which along with its timing suggests a motivation for its supply for all sides?

c) If not then why not?

9a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that there were no out of control monasteries or scriptoria for such seemingly heretical scriptures to come from (otherwise they would be making up anything with all the great names for money and there would have followed denunciations) and such an ongoing publication would have required continuing blessing, agreement and sanction, from those who considered themselves caretaker authorities of all scriptures to do so, with power to enforce and set any terms?

b) If not then why not? 10a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that since Mary Magdalene had been discounted and abased and

could not be promoted after 591 there could thus be no mention of her in the new texts but Jesus’ Mother Mary was given a position of prominence and so we can see the signs being the two Mary’s, one Mary’s fortunes waxing and the other Mary’s fortunes waning, on both sides, those sides being within Peter’s church and the reflection within the customer’s new texts, consistent with the scripture producer’s policy of one waxing and one waning, pointing to the source being Peter’s church who sought to maintain a hold over all orthodoxy within and without its empire and seeking to bind on earth what it sought to bind in heaven?


11a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that another clue as to source is that the new texts did not come all in one go but kept coming through in portions over 23 years as an ongoing meted out production exercise as if it had been from God there would no problem producing it in seconds out of the air onto a table in Mecca like a genie - as genies were supposed to be able to do - so it had to be done by painstaking human agency with considered input over time which would be for impressive value which again points towards contract and terms being terms not to be disclosed?


12a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that since the new texts were a product of Peter’s people who did not have ultimate doctrinal authority (well, did they not?) and arose as a result of an ongoing deal with a merchant then neither do the texts and the proponents of both belief systems are similarly without legal or bestowed authority unlike the moved-to-one-side original religion of Mary Magdalene which much more self evidently and manifestly does with its spirit infilled physical signs (sought after by the pharisees and those of an adulterous generation) when making love as worship as between believers?


13a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that Jesus, as well as Mother Mary (as well as Moses and Abraham), are the more prominent off the shelf biblical personages available from the rolecall of available characters for the merchant’s new texts and though Jesus’ teachings were not for inclusion for reasons of being in official use and copyright and “intellectual property” as they were produced in the various gospels, his name is mentioned more times than any other (apart from Moses (a descendant of Israel) and Abraham and mother Mary) including that of the customer who is later promoted to centre-stage, such is the emphasis of the policy of the owners of the scriptorium reflected statistically in the texts so that it decidedly does seem to come from a Peter’s church scriptorium and certainly not jewish and from nowhere else as there is much from the evidenced production house’s policy and Christian and jewish scriptures therein and were it not so, with permission, there would have been stinging denunciation from the pulpit of Peter’s church, not perhaps that they may care, with repercussions and proscription enforced, as happened with Mary Magdalene, in preparation for any such profitable sale or sales on the side of variant version texts to distant customers in new lands?


14a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that these texts were an alternate version of the Christian and jewish scriptures where ongoing editions were available for good paying well esteemed merchant customers who could make good quelling foreign affairs use of them and have the wherewithal all to pay or defray providing the original source was kept quiet, hence the drip feed system throughout his life and the total secrecy as to source as it was such a departure from the norm by thorough professional experts who really knew how to make their language and writing most expressive, given the required time to work on it year in year out to get it linguistically correct as only those in a dedicated scriptorium or monastery could, for the next edition?


15a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that the specifications and terms of the contract of sale for a continually being produced series of revealed scriptures related to conditions / concessions / restrictions in relation to but not restricted to

Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina, secrecy to be observed by all parties to the continuing sale agreement, keep people guessing, no overall formal leadership as may constitute a challenge,continual updates till death of customer, terms not to be disclosed, women to be inferior, own legal system permissible and preferred, particular attention to rules for control, no jewish pork and no alcohol, emphasis on total submission and no free thought to ensure compliance of the faithful,ritual, ritual, ritual, observance of the main characters of the jewish scriptures and the christian gospels, no monasticism or priesthood except for every man with up to four women, these scriptures are being written by our scribes and sold from our scriptoria as updating versions of formerly produced

available scriptures for the children of Ishmael and Esau to convert to it by the sword many unbelievers as allowed by contract, but stay away from us and our empire,

delivery will be made in person or by courier to be collected in the desert or where specified for privacy,source of writings not and never to be disclosed,the content remains the intellectual property of the production house charged with its preparation and its principals,you can supply content for inclusion and consultation for inclusions permissible,the material will not be produced locally at our scriptoria premises for security?b) If not then why not?

16a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that such alternate texts were not simply written by the uncommonly literate and erudite in their bedrooms late at night when they were bored but that such writings had to be written by those approved and indebted for their training in or for authenticity in connection with approved scriptoria or monastic (hence a giveaway reference to monasticism being eschewed, repudiated even (a vote against monasticism and importantly a quiet vote by the scriptorium writer for Mary Magdalene’s acts)) premises under the auspices of a religious institution and blessed by those higher up, even to the top, for general or private sale/distribution with the bestowal of any real or purported authority before dissemination or there could be consequences such as rejection, non payment, alteration, non acceptance, dispute, demand for compensation, exposure, etc?


17a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that the fact that there is no mention of Mary Magdalene anywhere in the texts or in his religion when she was Jesus companion indicates a clear link with her official 591 denunciation and abasement to harlot status rendering her unfit for promotion – and a clear indication as to the source of the texts not noting her as being under Peter’s church’s policy sway?


18a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that the new scriptural texts were received over 23 years in undisclosed locations from another person or place over time pre-prepared in writing upon paper or parchment or vellum, rather then either appearing out of thin air as a non human messenger may be able to provide or rather than being recited and written down at the same rate as came the recitation over a lengthy period of time without question and without witnesses and

is it not the case that the merchant did not have occasion, as would in normal circumstances be expected, go to a scribe or scriptorium with witnesses to make a record of his most sacred recitations because there were no recitations to make a record of as the scriptures were prepared and written for motivations rather than arriving by way of inspired recitation which would quickly be forgotten and for which there was no documentary record as could have been made at the time and

is it not the case that the well known truism that “a prophet is never accepted in his own home town” holds true so why should he be any different as suggested by nothing being documented at the time?


19a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that the merchant promoter did not recite to others well versed concerning events of which neither he nor they had little or no direct experience or knowledge, which he and as much they could only have heard from other sources, and that the stories of the introductory but allegedly not

contemporaneously recorded recitations came afterwards as: if he had had direct knowledge he would have drawn upon that and hence had recognized authority, if, being illiterate, he had had little or no knowledge or learning he would have drawn upon what he had heard and been

scoffed at by those who knew more or differently and if he had been correct all good learned men and women wherever he traveled would have acclaimed him and if everything had come from Gabriel by recitation all would have known it to be correct and everything would thus most

certainly have been recorded in writing straightaway a number of times over (like as was the custom of the jews and christians) and all sacred originals preserved for posterity as compelling evidence and for comparison, lest sacrilege be committed, showing that the source of the information was as claimed through him alone, and therefore all material was initially presented in writing from more authoritative distant unquestionable undisclosed sources?


20a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that verse 2:98 (and 3:7) says no such thing as Gabriel being the bringer of the new revelations to the merchant or to anyone,

for free, it is just not there, and furthermoreat the time the new scriptures were being delivered or expounded they were already in a book form meaning they had

been printed and bound (2:2, 6:38, 6:92, 6:114, 6:155, 7:196, 10:1, 11:1, 11:14, 14.1) and furthermore that in the total absence as to any disclosure as to source of the new scriptural texts (book per 3:7) is it not the case that

quite simply it was never disclosed to anyone at the time whence the source of the new scriptural texts was as it clearly was a secret and a very secret source kept from all and hence a weak point, Islam’s greatest secret and achilles heel and a glaringly hopeless evaded point upon which all authority turns all stemming from illicit or questionable sourcing which could not be openly imprimatured and adverse clues given leading on to the obvious conclusion for the texts’ ongoing creation being motives of collusion and control for those in the know, if there be any left such as those with the contracts, who have something to hide over the faithful or rather the credulous benighted ones and Islam has no way of showing or proving what I say is not so?


21a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that the catholic and islamic edifices have much in common, moreso than any other seemingly unconnected faiths due to the latter’s borrowed offshoot roots and they may have initially been in need of each, their silence and their concept of honour towards each other being that Peter’s church had the means and the resources to draw upon and paraded its purported authority while the customer had an ongoing need and desire for his people that grew over the years and he saw an opportunity and a desert deal was struck so that consequently there are many similarities and cozy accommodations that have been evident between the two parties from the outset of the newer faith denoting a connection based upon supply of scriptural intellectual property texts per ongoing agreement and consent and input? (Refer to google for giveaway proud commonality similarities between Catholicism and Islam)


22a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that the writer of the text’s dismissal of the monastic tradition as in 57:27 as not of God was a timely directive put into the texts for a return to what was of God - being the pleasurable non monastic worship life of Mary Magdalene’s perfumed “acts” (the seeking first of the “good pleasure”, the kingdom, of God on earth, 57:27, through having mates, 30:21) though officially then recently denounced as her “forbidden acts” which are forbidden in Peter’s monastic priest/esshood tradition and hence the writer of the texts, though finding him/herself to be under the monastic sway, hence a cause for mention, where the writings could year in year out be done, was yearning for Mary’s forbidden old temple traditions which had lessened and were being officially quashed of which the writer could not directly write but for which an official concessionary male alternate for multiplicity in support was in development for retention of the tradition of having multiple foldmate worshipers where making love to one’s wives (or allowably vice versa 30:21) was an act of worship (and the purchaser himself was to be allowed as many Mary and Jesus styled foldmateships as he wished) all attesting to Mary’s Gospel and teachings and acts as the true church and teachings (love one another, not one other as Jesus loved her, his church (church originally meaning “of the lord”) with authority, and those of Peter’s monastic tradition for priest/esshood not being of the true church, which is consistent with it being said that God is the all compassionate, all loving and that this does not necessarily discredit the teachings in the texts as far as they go towards constituting Orgaslam, the loving worship of Orgasallah, submission to the loving will of Orgasallah by making love as the true worship as true submission in deed not word with all those whom God has given you to that end.


23a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that hence any authority for the the customer’s texts comes from their derivation and origin being from the teachings of Mary’s church of

love for all, hatred for none (love one another, not one other) and making love to one’s mate/s, in parallel not necassarily series, as acts of worship and doing good deeds such as showing and making love in agreed non monasticism i.e. with foldmates as

worship (of course if you don’t have to support them you can have as many foldmates as you like as the merchant did, and they can too) being a key for salvation and not from

its derivation from Peter’s church with its emphasis on contract and sacraments and priestly monasticism and the above a – d etc as if indeed Gabriel was the messenger from God this is the message that Gabriel was bringing through the writer in the monastery/scriptorium consistent with Mary’s writings:

love one another, not one other as unto the Goddess of love as making love is an act of worship with your foldmates whom God brings you to be with and de-stress with and worship with and through forever and therefore every believer should be a worshiper of Orgasallah by making love with other believers as unto the Goddess of Love in the inner temples and hence:

the commonality between the three monotheistic religions remains the making of love with your foldmates as worship of the God.dess of Love and, in fulfillment of the law, vicariously and directly loving one another, not one other, as we are designed, created, equipped, commanded and quite like to do and so want to do as love and orgasms as gifts and worship should and can never be subject to contract and this is God’s will that our joy may be full.


24a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that on 3rd April 1969, relatively shortly after the six day war in 1967, lasting surprize surprize from 5th to 10th June 1967, what amounted to a recantation of the 591 denunciation of Mary Magdalene and her “forbidden acts” now being (finally accepted as) “offered to God in a more praiseworthy manner” in the homily by Pope Gregory the Great of Peters’ flock took place pursuant to Vatican II without great explanation or fanfare by listing Mary Magdalene unconditionally in the new catholic missal and so Peter’s church relinquished any continuing basis of argument opposing her early documentedly acknowledged special position of leadership of the early church and thus allowed her to unconditionally re-assume her original mantle of leadership (she hadn’t been a harlot after all) as the now unchallenged first church leader who had never stepped down from her position but was now again being recognized by Peter’s camp as a, even the, leader by choice of reading for the 1970 missal as the one showing more commitment (v 20:1, 11 and Peter less 20:4,10) and the one in the missal reading (John 20:1-2, 11-18) declaring Jesus thrice to be Lord and also once to be teacher (Peter didn’t till he was challenged to respond after going back to fishing to basically and conditionally sell his fishing business in John 21 where Jesus had stopped calling him Peter) and being chosen to see and be given the revelation and message of Jesus’ resurrection (particularly John 20:11-12,17-18 (20:4, 9-10 being notably, embarrassingly even, omitted from the reading)) recognizing her as the first apostle to the apostles and her original leadership of the church restored unchallenged, with authority intact, and this act has the seeds within it to lead to the testing and transformation of the three (and hopefully more) various belief systems and any others that seek to bind by marriage, tradition, ritual and stricture in place of Mary’s physical (v 20:17) “offered to God” “acts” of “more praiseworthy” worship by loving one another, not one other, with touching, holding and clinging (v 17) and coming together in heartfelt orgasms of praise as we are designed created and love to do, man to woman, woman to man?


25a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that matters may have gone back to earlier times before the times of Jesus and Mary such as to times of Daniel, David and Solomon, Moses, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, Adam and Eve and if so any evidence or documentation or arguments or claims should now to be produced to the Court once and for all if any party seeks to rely upon such if needs be. Certainly matters against women seem to have started with the story of Adam and Eve blaming a woman for all the world’s ills but even that story all traces back to the planting of a certain tree which some reputed male could not resist?


26a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that Esau’s birthright, like anyone’s, was to be able to worship God differently to Abraham, orgasmically, by making love as an act of worship with other goddesses as he was designed, created and equipped to do and that overrode any temporal blessing given by Isaac and that could and should never be able to be given away. If given away to Jacob then Jacob’s descendants have not properly done it and so it is again open to Esau’s descendants, male and female, to again take up his/their birthright to worship God as an act of worship with and through other believing foldmate goddesses and priests as as for possessions the

earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof and what else is there but to love and make love to God and be blessed by Herim?

b) If not then why not?c) Is not Gen 27:40a “By your sword you shall live”, now overtaken by Jesus/Issa’s first and second commandments and

the new commandment of Jesus/Issa and Mary and “And your brother you shall serve” now taken over or confirmed by his second commandment given to all, loving your neighbour as yourself, and serving goddesses in making love as an act of worship.

d) If not then why not?

27a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that by implication as has previously been submitted that as Mary Magdalene was the only disciple with probative evidence for her authority and Peter had virtually none all such agreements dependent upon his purported church’s standing or capacity to preside or enter into agreements, such as this undislosed agreement or Deed, are void and with these admissions per part 17 of the UCPR action can now be taken to proceed to settle matters and moneys outstanding as provided by law in courts of law. Any said agreement and deed and any such documents should now be produced to concerned or relevant creditors and as well to the Court by all sides. Should it or they not be produced then any such agreement/s and the like are to be regarded by all sides as null and void or may be reconstituted in time for the purposes of the Court proceedings only as I have sought to do above if no longer in existence or withheld and thus produced to the Court?


28a) Either production or non compliance with a production order and non response to this Notice to Admit Facts will vitiate the instrument/s and serve to break and dissolve any intractable impasses. With the release of the terms we can now move on to the solution of the middle east conflict, with consideration and the abandonment and freedom from ritual and tradition and contract and subjugation and war. Both sides are to produce such that if only one party produces the Court may decide to give it the benefit of any provisions therein in the interests of fairness to all parties unless the agreement is of no consequence and standing and void as said.


29a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that as what this insidious agreement gave rise to has been termed in proceedings “the transaction from hell” which has not been denied and so is admitted the documentation is in hell, which exists in part for the reason of its safe keeping, awaiting the day for it to be called upon and should now be discovered or produced as per Court rules or abandoned forever if to any but the defendant’s’ detriment.


30a) Is it admitted or agreed that it is the case, is it not, that each of the three religions have no clear standing and were conceived of the minds of men for gain. One very original religion would emerge as a phoenix again out of the ashes and that is the selfless orgasmic religion of Jesus and Mary Magdalene which we today call Orgasmianity for which there may be found attestation in each of the three scriptures of the said three religions?


Come on, its getting late in the piece and its nearly over so its time to fess up and produce defences if there be any. If defending please produce a chronology of all events leading up to the current time.

The preceding self executing requests to admit facts incorporating a note to produce documents upon which the parties may seek to rely are put from 11-22-23.11.2011 within the context of the proceedings of the plaintiff’s matter 1443/64, now renumbered 2011/327194, in the Supreme Court in Sydney with 14 days to reply as per part 17.3 of the NSW Uniform Civil Procedure Rules NSW 2005 from 24.11.11. Service is presumed effected on 24.11.11 in the similar manner as led up to one of the vendor’s, Westpac’s, attracting formalized service towards itself of all Notices to Admit Facts etc on 22.9.2011. Otherwise should the Court know the whereabouts and identities of the primary defendants for purpose of service on the said parties, the Court may effect service that they may respond as I labour under the disability of not knowing the ultimate defendant’s name or wherabouts.

SIGNATURE


Signed on my computer or to be signed by me

Capacity PlaintiffDate of signature 23rd November 2011

HOW TO RESPONDIf you do not, within 14 days after service of this notice on you, serve a notice on the party requiring admission disputing

any fact (and the authenticity of any document) in this notice, that fact (and the authenticity of that document) will, for the purpose of these proceedings, be admitted by you in favour of the party requiring admission.

E & O EForm 17 (version 2)UCPR 17.3 and 17.4

NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS AND AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTSCOURT DETAILSCourt SUPREME

#Division CIVIL

#List

Registry SYDNEY

Case number 2011/327194 previously 1443/64TITLE OF PROCEEDINGSPlaintiff DAVID GREGORY MURPHY

Defendants (15) COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF STRATHFIELDAKZO NOBEL PTY LIMITEDORICA LIMITEDDOW CHEMICALSSTATE OF NEW SOUTH WALESTHE BRITISH MONARCHYROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHGIO PTY LTDGE MONEY formerly AUSTRALIAN GUARANTEE CORPGE CAPITAL FINANCE

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

JAMES WARREN BYRNESMARIO VIERAJANSSEN CILAG PHARMACEUTICALS xxxJOHNSON AND JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICALS xxx

PREPARATION DETAILSPrepared for DAVID GREGORY MURPHY plaintiff

Contact name and telephone DAVID 8214 8397 0419 605 365

Contact email [email protected] TO JAMES WARREN BYRNES, 12TH DEFENDANTThe Plaintiff requires you to admit the following facts:

1a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in April – June 1990 I was approached by yourself and Martin Comer to enter into leases with the finance companies AGC and Lance Finance in order for them to recover a settlement loan investment of 20th June 1966 of me with interest of 9.5% per annum compounding over a 30 year term since that date?1b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?1c. If you say the facts are not so then

i) how are they not so?ii) why are they not so?iii) who says or said they are not so when the facts have since become known?

2a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that a breach of the Terms of Settlement of 6th June 1966 was required to legally facilitate the recovery of the said settlement loan moneys, such moneys having been provided on 20th June 1966 as credit for recovery contingent upon a to be arranged breach of the said Terms of 6th June 1966 by me?2b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?2c. If you say the facts are not so then


3a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that the decision in this case to recover the settlement moneys off me pursuant to a breach arose pursuant to an agreement with potentially liable stakeholder parties in the matter of 11th November 1964 that settlement would be made available providing such could be fashioned as an investment contingent upon a later to be arranged breach of the terms by me which breach would open the door at law to recovery of the moneys with 9.5% per annum compounding interest for my having breached which moneys would be recovered of me by obtaining my residence bought from the proceeds of the said settlement loan and as well the collateral security for the said investment loan of 20th June 1966 being the factory of the next friend and his brother which security was also to be recovered pursuant to a breach of the terms?3b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?3c. If you say the facts are not so then


4a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that these stakeholder parties being generally chemical dumping parties, ICI, Union Carbide and Polymer, their major shareholders and the like, the 2nd to 4th defendants, who sought a recoverable

strings attached settlement as condition for settling with me become liable due to the cause of action at Mason/Bressington Park on 23rd August 1963 due to combustible materials they had deposited with the first defendant having caused grievous burns to the Plaintiff?4b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?4c. If you say the facts are not so then


5a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that pursuant to discussions with a later recovery in mind the Terms were fashioned in the way they were such that upon breach lawful enforceable recovery could commence which is where you, Comer, MacDonald and Joseph came in to effect the recovery of the settlement loan moneys with 9.5% compound interest for the said stakeholders over 30 years?5b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?5c. If you say the facts are not so then


6a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that far from there being any business deal between us at the time (I met you only twice through Comer, the first client of Comer I got to meet) as neither you nor Comer nor MacDonald took any interest in any of my network or sales businesses or entertainment businesses and I had no interest in your car business your capacity was as a settlement loan recovery agent of the 8th and 9th defendant who had briefed you as to amounts and dates and briefed Comer of the amount not to be disclosed to be secured by way of an investment loan caught by the Credit Act meriting you a share in a tail end commission and not a share it in my settlement and investment loan “moneys outstanding” proceeds under the Deed guaranteed to me by the 9th defendant?6b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?6c. If you say the facts are not so then


7a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that for your efforts AGC and Lance Fiance paid you $140,000 for services rendered such monies having largely been provided by the next friend and myself as investment loans raised by Comer, the money raising man, with the applicable instrument being the Deed of Agreement of 18th June 1990 provided such that we not be out of pocket should I also not breach the Deed of Agreement?7b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?7c. If you say the facts are not so then


8a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that at no time was I the one who upon the approach of Comer was the one who did in fact breach the Terms of Settlement of 6th June 1966 on 23rd April 1990?

8b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?8c. If you say the facts are not so then


9a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that at no time did I ever breach the Deed of Agreement with you?9b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?9c. If you say the facts are not so then


10a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that with your and Comer and AGC and Lance’s breach of the Deed of Agreement arranged on behalf of AGC and Lance Finance to secure me into the functional settlement recovery leases with those two parties I became entitled to the “all moneys outstanding” under the Deed, primarily from the guarantor and secondly from yourself?10b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?10c. If you say the facts are not so then


11a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that AGC was the guarantor of the Deed indicated by AGC entering a GTR entry upon my CRA, Credit Reference Association report, on the date of the Deed being 18th June 1990?11b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?11c. If you say the facts are not so then


12a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that with the guarantor in place you were indemnified against any exposure as you were merely a settlement loan recovery agent doing his job?12b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?12c. If you say the facts are not so then


13a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that ultimately the stakeholders being the 6th and 7th defendants are the major clients in this matter and the 5th and 8th to 11th defendants are insurers / guarantors to a greater or lesser degree, three as owners or former owners of the other two?13b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?13c. If you say the facts are not so then


14a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the dummy leases never came into force as the cars, the subject of the leases were never available for delivery nor the keys provided me nor their whereabouts disclosed and that they had been provided overall for an ill purpose being the recovery of a court settlement when I had not breached and were purportedly provided as security for a purported loan which never happened as the $140,000 Project Equity finance received was, as the transaction had to be self funding, payment sourced by Comer from the next friend and myself as caught by the Credit Act investment loans, for services rendered by you to your clients being the stakeholders and the two finance companies?14b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?14c. If you say the facts are not so then


15a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that AGC never parted with any of its own money into Wilson’s pocket for the Mercedes and could not recover of you as you had performed your recovery role breaching as instructed upon cue?15b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?15c. If you say the facts are not so then


16a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the purpose of the leases was for the recovery of my Supreme Court settlement of 20th June 1966 with 9.5% p.a. compound interest over 30 years to 20th June 1996 by ultimately AGC pursuant to a breach of the terms of settlement, otherwise you would not have approached me, a total stranger, an unknown, unless you then or those advising you knew me to be Messiah, as has been admitted by all other eleven defendants in response to previous requests to admit, as appears to be the case?16b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?16c. If you say the facts are not so then


17a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the approach by the associate of Byrnes and Associates, Martin Comer, a finance professional and accountant of Five Dock of Comer and Associates (Comer and Associates = Byrnes and Associates = Comer, Byrnes, Macdonald and Joseph) led to “moneys outstanding” to myself, the next friend and others which monies are recoverable under the Deed and Guarantee given to me in recognition that I was not the one who in fact had breached the Terms of Settlement with the not to be disclosed amount secured being in evidence as a cash cheque #368 raised on day one of recovery, 23rd April 1990, in the amount of $9,500 which cheque in the said amount evidenced a breach of terms 7 and 3 of the Terms?17b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?17c. If you say the facts are not so then


18a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that this breach by Comer reflects upon all other defendants as I was not the one who breached the terms, Comer having become privy to the not to be disclosed amount which clear breach of the Terms by him having been advised reflects fair and square upon the first and eighth defendant?18b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?18c. If you say the facts are not so then


19a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you and Comer were the key players in seeing to it that the finance companies were well positioned to recover with interest of me pursuant to a breach of the Terms of Settlement by myself to be arranged by Comer which breach Comer performed feeding back to his and your principals?19b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?19c. If you say the facts are not so then


20a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that collateral for the loan being the security of our family’s factory premises at 36-40 Tavistock Rd Homebush West was also recovered by caught by the Credit Act investment loans, now “moneys outstanding” under the Deed, that AGC be not out of pocket and able to guarantor the Deed should the need arise thus, in effect as consideration, obligating AGC as guarantor to settlement of the all moneys outstanding under the Deed?20b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?20c. If you say the facts are not so then


21a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that all moneys outstanding are provisioned for under the Deed that I and the next friend be not out of pocket but instead have a good well secured investment for my not being the one who performed the breach of the Terms of Settlement when called upon to do so by Comer and Joseph on 23rd April 1990?21b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?21c. If you say the facts are not so then


22a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that at no time did I breach the Terms of Settlement and you and Comer and MacDonald were only doing you job for which you and your team were well paid for services rendered by the finance

companies with money obtained by Comer of us such that your clients were only briefly out of pocket for three months from 20.6.90 – 20.9.90?22b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?22c. If you say the facts are not so then


23a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that I being an investor by an order of the Supreme Court of 8th June 1966 am the one who is expected to have kept all accounts?23b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?23c. If you say the facts are not so then


24a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the December 23rd 2003 apology in writing by the 10th defendant, GE Capital Finance, on behalf of the 9th defendant, AGC, for any inconveniences that this matter may have caused is binding?24b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?24c. If you say the facts are not so then


25a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the reason you were chosen for the job was that it was thought appropriate for one named Byrnes to deal with the boy with the burns as an evidence to the Court lest there be a fraud upon the next friend and myself?25b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?25c. If you say the facts are not so then


26a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that also lest there be a fraud we were provisioned with the Deed for “all moneys outstanding” and that as I did at no time breach I am entitled to those moneys off the guarantor and its associates, principals and owners and stakeholders?26b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?26c. If you say the facts are not so then


27a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that that breach of the Terms by Comer on 23rd April 1990 gave rise to the “all moneys outstanding” in the investment loan accounts I have consistently maintained for 23 years being due to us as I did

what was required to safeguard those moneys outstanding and at no time breached, did I not?27b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?27c. If you say the facts are not so then


28a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that it is the duty of the settlement investor who has been given the benefit of the guarantee assuring return of all moneys outstanding + interest under the Deed, lest there be a fraud, to keep all accounts?28b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?28c. If you say the facts are not so then


29a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that all my duties in the matter were to keep accounts, as Comer observed, of “all moneys outstanding” and not be the one who on either occasion breached either Terms or Deed?29b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?29c. If you say the facts are not so then


30a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that under the Deed there was no call for me to take possession of the cars as there was no possible security in place for your payment for work done and there was no evidence of any loan to you in my accounts (which led me almost to dispose of the Deed as describing a non event)?30b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?30c. If you say the facts are not so then


31a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the 40% per annum at quarterly rests offered under the Deed for all moneys outstanding is that standard compounding percentage offered a settlement creditor who has not breached but where recovery proceeds apace as if he/she had breached with a compensatory Deed whose function to provide for the plaintiff cannot be appreciated in the absence of the original Supreme Court file?31b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?31c. If you say the facts are not so then


32a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the 9.5% per annum compounding sought by the finance companies is that standard precedent percentage operative in anticipation of a breach by the settlement creditor and if the settlement creditor

does not breach the money is recovered anyway with the said styled Deed offering 40% should the settlement creditor prove he is worth his salt and works it out and keeps records and shows he has kept up his interest and his interest up in managing his investment moneys and fresh investment moneys?32b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?32c. If you say the facts are not so then


33a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the immediate liability holders are themselves indemnified and have no qualms about my recovering in full, which should bring you, Comer and Macdonald a further to be shared 1% tail end commission (subject to one caveat) (presumably the 1% tail end commission was written into your agreement or should have been with certain of the defendants in the event I were to eventually come out on top after discovering my Supreme Court file and putting two and two together and recalling that I was not the one who breached) of your immediate retainer clients, 5th and 8th to 11th defendants (who also share in a 1% of the ultimately liable 6th and 7th defendants) for further assistances in securing the final settlement of “all moneys outstanding” on behalf of the Kingdom?33b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?33c. If you say the facts are not so then


34a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that a function of the leases, in the light of my credit situation of my 10 credit cards and my repayments on my investment property was (as MacDonald said “you were supposed to be bankrupt by now”) to ensure by way of an induced bankruptcy, not related to my business, that I was not in a position to recover in the short term upon my investment loans to Comer’s clients and nominees nor recover any of the moneys outstanding generously provisioned for under the Deed which leases failed to achieve their objective of conclusively bankrupting me such that I would not at any future time be in a position to recover upon the provisions of the Deed of the guarantor?34b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?34c. If you say the facts are not so then


35. I advise that on three occasions in 2012 the first seven defendants and on the third occasion the 8th to 11th defendants also have admitted all per part 17.3 of the UCPR meaning admissions all around are already in hand and the facts of the matter well known and my moneys not in dispute.

36. I advise that since the matter has returned to the Supreme Court I have received some near 1,500 part settlement offers from overseas agents on behalf of international banks seeking to provide a part or reduced settlement in the matter so liability is essentially admitted per those banks on behalf of the 2nd, 4th , 6th and 7th defendants.

37. I advise that the 10th and particularly the 11th defendant pursuant to a sealed garnishee order instrument that I served upon the 11th defendant on 23rd April 2013 adventitiously secured that day above expectation funds in the order of $136.5 Billion dollars from the US Stock Market as a quick elegant solution to this entire quandary being more than adequate funds to quench all claims so the funds for settlement are in the possession, care and control of the 11th defendant and 10th defendant. I have advised the 11th defendant that the excess funds are to my account and to be accorded to the account of the Plaintiff for the advancement of His Kingdom and this is not opposed. 38. To secure your share in the share of the 1% (1% of $136.5 Billion = $1.365 Billion tail end commission amongst the at least three of you) you, Neil MacDonald and Martin Comer would have to see that the total said fund secured on 23rd April 2013 by virtue of an imbued garnishee instrument of Messiah is rendered to the care and control of the Kingdom. 39. I can tell you that the 11th defendant with the 10th defendant have thus also concomitantly secured your tail end 1% commission and have that money now in hand ready for disbursal to the three (or more considering the late Judi Joseph) of you after or when I have been fully settled with my full proceeds less any outstandings. 40. The reason for the equitable by rights back end 1% commission in this matter (1% amongst yourselves and presumably an additional 1% amongst the 5th and 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th defendants, i.e. insurer, guarantor and their current or former owners) is that at the tail end there is some further work to be done to see the Plaintiff is settled should the Plaintiff work His way to the final amount available due to not having breached and do so without any further input from yourselves which nevertheless entitles you to your by rights 1% for seeing to it that He is settled by again liaising with the various finance and insurance entities. I note MacDonald has astutely well positioned himself to effect this final settlement of the “all moneys outstanding” and full proceeds pursuant to the service upon the 11th defendant of the said garnishee order. You will be glad to know you each are looking forward to a handsome return of $455 million each for your combined efforts after 23 years as a result of the “deal”. This is the first time I have used the term “deal” in relation to this matter now that I know what the deal and your part in it is. 41. There is however the proviso that upon receipt each of you settle from your share overdue moneys outstanding to individual unsatisfied hard done by creditors in your respective strategy bankruptcies.

42. The $136.5 billion and hence your 1% tail end commission/brokerage is currently parked under the care of the 10th and particularly the 11th the defendants accruing interest for all involved however I note since the event of 23rd April the US stock market has risen some 13% so your share each is now worth approximately $US500 million.

43. I advise that to confirm that there is money owing in this matter certain stakeholder defendants such as the second mounted an action in 2012 in the Guardianship Tribunal to gain control of this matter which attempt failed. The defence there presented in this Supreme Court matter was defeated.

44. I advise that pursuant to the large amounts outstanding, as said, many part settlement offers have been made to me which stand ready for the initiation of proceedings which can be commenced after the above funds are in hand. Neil MacDonald is well placed to handle these many bank offer cases.

45. I further confirm that the second or fourth defendant has failed in its some 16 year attempt to have me admit guilt in relation to the breaching of the terms of settlement which attempts have failed.

46. For now answer the above requests to admit facts. Please forward any reply to me at [email protected].

The Plaintiff requires you to admit the authenticity of the following documents: Deed of Agreement of 18.6.1990

E & O ESIGNATURESignature

Capacity Plaintiff

Date of signature 6th November 2013

HOW TO RESPONDIf you do not, within 14 days after service of this notice on you, serve a notice on the party requiring admission disputing any fact (and the authenticity of any document) in this notice, that fact (and the authenticity of that document) will, for the purpose of these proceedings, be admitted by you in favour of the party requiring admission.







From: David Gregory Murphy <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re my advised account

Date: 01.11.2013 08:35

To Ms Gail Kelly and Mr Mike Bowen

Please advise what interest rate the $US136.5 billion raised in four minutes from the US market on 23rd April 2013 pursuant to my personal service of my Messianic garnishee order instrument upon you that day is earning.

This $136.5 billion was raised pursuant to my said instrument as a solution to the debt quandry presented to the 11 defendants in my 50 year Supreme Court accession case 1443/64, now 2011/327194, in which you are the eleventh defendant.

I would like for the return to be a minimum of 5% per annum compounding or I may take my money elsewhere. I note with the US market booming the return Westpac is enjoying upon my money is far higher. I note with the US stock market having risen from 1550 to 1750 since 23rd April you should be able to furnish me a return in excess of 5%, such as 13% since then being in the order of a projected 25% for the year, if the present boom which has been in place since March 2009 continues as it should as the present boom is very orderly. Consequently my $136.5 Billion should be worth $155 Billion by now as the money obtained from the market on the strength of my instrument is of course mine.

Presumably the account is being managed by BT.

Please furnish me a statement and advise of the account number about which I have been receiving confirmation emails below from yourselves as due notice to the Court that you have my money in at least one account. The emails below and previously supplied you have been to encourage me to formalize an account.

I note there is a card attached to the account. Please forward the card to me at 8/1 Curtin Place, Concord, 2137. If I need to attend a local branch to formally endorse the account please advise.

The card should be in the name of Messiah David as the money is earmarked for the use of the Kingdom (and not a war chest for the defendants).

Yours Sincerely






mailto:David%20Gregory%20Murphy%20%[email protected]%3E

David Gregory Murphy

8/1 Curtin PlaceConcord 2137.

Affidavit of Service of Notice to Admit Facts upon 12th defendant.

1. On 6th November 2013 I personally served by registered mail a copy of the Notice to Admit Facts and Notice to Admit Authenticity of Documents upon the twelfth defendant. I served by registered mail as I did not have the twelfth defendant’s email address and so was obliged to serve by registered mail to obtain evidence of delivery which I would have been more easily able to obtain by email.

2. On Friday 15 I received the registered leter back in my mailbox marked RTS, return to sender, with the aperture taped with Post Office sticky tape saying repaired by Australia Post indicating that the twelfth defendant had opened it and presumably taken a copy and upon seeing what it contained decided to return it.

3. On Saturday morning at 9 a.m. I attended 60 Cranbrook Road and served another copy of the Notice to Admit Facts by leaving it upon the doorstep supported by the doormat to stand up and command attention. I rang the doorbell twice and heard it ring twice but no one attended the front door. I noted the premises appeared to be under renovation which items of value left on the front porch.

4. I again left the letter in the letter box so that the letter would indeed by returned to sender being the twelfth defendant as he had requested. I had not opened the returned letter to see if there was a Notice of Dispute in it as I believed the defendant should put a fresh stamp to forward his Notice of Dispute rather than popping it back in the same envelope.

5. On Monday I checked with the Electoral Office and confirmed that the 12th defendant’s electoral address was indeed 60 Cranbrook Rd Bellevue Hill.

6. Since the 12th defendant has so much money coming his way it is doubtful that the return of the letter was nothing but a knee jerk reaction and a mistake due to the 9th defendant seeking to cut him and his friends short. Due to the money made available to the 12th defendant it is in his interest that he was properly served as he was by me three times..

7. By or on 20th December 2013 no Notice of Dispute had been received so on 30th November and even on 20th November the twelfth defendant admitted all. Obviously the 12th defendant did not wish to exclude himself from the money coming his way from the successful venture which was now reaching fruition nor to exclude his friends MacDonald, Comer and Joseph from the moneys headed their way.

8. On 9th December I posted by prepaid post a copy of the twelfth defendant’s part 17.3 admissions for any belated response by addressing a letter to Jim Byrnes at 60 Cranbrook Road, Bellevue Hill, 2023 and dropping it in the mail receiver at Burwood Plaza. I did not send by registered post as the respondent tends to return such. The twelfth defendant knew my address form the first missive but did not return the confirmations of part 17.3 admissions to me by 23rd December and so has accepted service of such that he may be paid his back end 1% of gross commission share.

9. The fact that the twelfth defendant always sought a share in the gross at the end of the “deal” is the reason he supplied a Mercedes Grosser in 1990 to preadvise that he would be seeking a back end share in the end for him and his friends.

UCPR 17.3 and 17.4

NOTICE OF TWELFTH DEFENDANTS PART 17.3 (2) ADMISSIONS OF 20TH & 30TH NOVEMBER 2013

COURT DETAILSCourt SUPREME

#Division CIVIL

#List

Registry SYDNEY

Case number 2011/327194 previously 1443/64TITLE OF PROCEEDINGSPlaintiff DAVID GREGORY MURPHY

Defendants (15) COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF STRATHFIELDAKZO NOBEL PTY LIMITEDORICA LIMITEDDOW CHEMICALSSTATE OF NEW SOUTH WALESTHE BRITISH MONARCHYROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHGIO PTY LTDGE MONEY formerly AUSTRALIAN GUARANTEE CORPGE CAPITAL FINANCE

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

JAMES WARREN BYRNES

JAMES WARREN BYRNESMARIO VIERAJANSSEN CILAG PHARMACEUTICALS xxxJOHNSON AND JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICALS xxx

PREPARATION DETAILSPrepared for DAVID GREGORY MURPHY plaintiff

Contact name and telephone DAVID 8214 8397 0419 605 365

Contact email [email protected] TO JAMES WARREN BYRNES, 12TH DEFENDANT








1a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that in April – June 1990 I was approached by yourself and Martin Comer to enter into leases with the finance companies AGC and Lance Finance in order for them to recover a settlement loan investment of 20th June 1966 of me with interest of 9.5% per annum compounding over a 30 year term since that date?1b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?1c. If you say the facts are not so then


1. Admitted

2a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that a breach of the Terms of Settlement of 6th June 1966 was required to legally facilitate the recovery of the said settlement loan moneys, such moneys having been provided on 20th June 1966 as credit for recovery contingent upon a to be arranged breach of the said Terms of 6th June 1966 by me?2b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?2c. If you say the facts are not so then


ii) why are they not so?iii) who says or said they are not so when the facts have since become known?

2. Admitted but the breach was to be performed by you, not the arranging.

3a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that the decision in this case to recover the settlement moneys off me pursuant to a breach arose pursuant to an agreement with potentially liable stakeholder parties in the matter of 11th November 1964 that settlement would be made available providing such could be fashioned as an investment contingent upon a later to be arranged breach of the terms by me which breach would open the door at law to recovery of the moneys with 9.5% per annum compounding interest for my having breached which moneys would be recovered of me by obtaining my residence bought from the proceeds of the said settlement loan and as well the collateral security for the said investment loan of 20th June 1966 being the factory of the next friend and his brother which security was also to be recovered pursuant to a breach of the terms?3b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?3c. If you say the facts are not so then


3. Admitted.

4a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that these stakeholder parties being generally chemical dumping parties, ICI, Union Carbide and Polymer, their major shareholders and the like, the 2nd to 4th defendants, who sought a recoverable strings attached settlement as condition for settling with me became liable due to the cause of action at Mason/Bressington Park on 23rd August 1963 due to combustible materials they had deposited with the first defendant having caused grievous burns to the Plaintiff?4b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?4c. If you say the facts are not so then


4. Admitted 5a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that pursuant to discussions with a later recovery in mind the Terms were fashioned in the way they were such that upon breach lawful enforceable recovery could commence which is where you, Comer, MacDonald and Joseph came in to effect the recovery of the settlement loan moneys with 9.5% compound interest for the said stakeholders over 30 years?5b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?5c. If you say the facts are not so then


5. Admitted.

6a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that far from there being any business deal between us at the time (I met you only twice through Comer, the first client of Comer I got to meet), as neither you nor Comer nor MacDonald took any interest in any of my network or sales businesses or entertainment businesses and I had no interest in your car business, your capacity was as a settlement loan recovery agent of the 8th and 9th defendant who had briefed you as to amounts and dates and briefed Comer of the amount not to be disclosed to be secured by way of an investment loan caught by the Credit Act meriting you a share in a tail end commission and not a share in my settlement and investment loan “moneys outstanding” proceeds under the Deed guaranteed to me by the 9th defendant?6b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?6c. If you say the facts are not so then


6. Admitted.

7a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that for your efforts AGC and Lance Finance paid you $140,000 for services rendered such monies having largely been provided by the next friend and myself as investment loans raised by Comer, the money raising man, with the applicable instrument being the Deed of Agreement of 18th June 1990 provided such that we not be out of pocket should I also not breach the Deed of Agreement?7b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?7c. If you say the facts are not so then


7. Admitted

8a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that at no time was I the one who, upon the approach of Comer, was the one who did in fact breach the Terms of Settlement of 6th June 1966 on 23rd April 1990?8b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?8c. If you say the facts are not so then


8. Admitted

9a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so:that at no time did I ever breach the Deed of Agreement with you?9b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?9c. If you say the facts are not so then


9. Admitted

10a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that with your and Comer and AGC and Lance’s breach of the Deed of Agreement arranged on behalf of AGC and Lance Finance to secure me into the functional settlement recovery leases with those two parties I became entitled to the “all moneys outstanding” under the Deed, primarily from the guarantor and secondly from yourself?10b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?10c. If you say the facts are not so then


10. Admitted

11a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that AGC was the guarantor of the Deed indicated by AGC entering a GTR entry upon my CRA, Credit Reference Association report, on the date of the Deed being 18th June 1990?11b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?11c. If you say the facts are not so then


11. Admitted

12a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that with the guarantor in place you were indemnified against any exposure as you were merely a settlement loan recovery agent doing his job?12b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?12c. If you say the facts are not so then


12. Admitted

13a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that ultimately the stakeholders being the 6th and 7th defendants are the major clients in this matter and the 5th and 8th to 11th defendants are insurers / guarantors to a greater or lesser degree, three as owners or former owners of the other two?13b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?13c. If you say the facts are not so then


13. Admitted

14a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the dummy leases never came into force as the cars, the subject of the leases were never available for delivery nor the keys provided me nor their whereabouts disclosed and that they had been provided overall for an ill purpose being the recovery of a court settlement when I had not breached and were purportedly provided as security for a purported loan which never happened as the $140,000 Project Equity finance received was, as the transaction had to be self funding, payment sourced by Comer from the next friend and myself as caught by the Credit Act investment loans, for services rendered by you to your clients being the stakeholders and the two finance companies?14b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?14c. If you say the facts are not so then


14. Admitted

15a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that AGC never parted with any of its own money into Wilson’s pocket for the Mercedes and could not recover of you as you had performed your recovery role breaching as instructed upon cue?15b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?15c. If you say the facts are not so then


15. Admitted

16a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the purpose of the leases was for the recovery of my Supreme Court settlement of 20th June 1966 with 9.5% p.a. compound interest over 30 years to 20th June 1996 by ultimately AGC pursuant to a breach of the terms of settlement, otherwise you would not have approached me, a total stranger, an unknown, unless you then or those advising you knew me to be Messiah, as has been admitted by all other eleven defendants in response to previous requests to admit, as appears to be the case?16b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?16c. If you say the facts are not so then


16. Admitted

17a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the approach by the associate of Byrnes and Associates, Martin Comer, a finance professional and accountant of Five Dock of Comer and Associates (Comer and Associates = Byrnes and Associates = Comer, Byrnes, Macdonald and Joseph) led to “moneys outstanding” to myself, the next friend and others which monies are recoverable under the Deed and Guarantee given to me in recognition that I was not the one who in fact had breached the Terms of Settlement with the not to be disclosed amount secured being in evidence as a cash cheque #368 raised on day one of recovery, 23rd April 1990, in the

amount of $9,500 which cheque in the said amount evidenced a breach of terms 7 and 3 of the Terms?17b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?17c. If you say the facts are not so then


17. Admitted

18a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that this breach by Comer reflects upon all other defendants as I was not the one who breached the terms, Comer having become privy to the not to be disclosed amount which clear breach of the Terms by him having been advised reflects fair and square upon the first and eighth defendant?18b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?18c. If you say the facts are not so then


18. Admitted 19a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that you and Comer were the key players in seeing to it that the finance companies were well positioned to recover with interest of me pursuant to a breach of the Terms of Settlement by myself to be arranged by Comer which breach Comer performed feeding back to his and your principals?19b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?19c. If you say the facts are not so then


19. Admitted 20a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that collateral for the loan being the security of our family’s factory premises at 36-40 Tavistock Rd Homebush West was also recovered by caught by the Credit Act investment loans, now “moneys outstanding” under the Deed, that AGC be not out of pocket and able to guarantor the Deed should the need arise thus, in effect as consideration, obligating AGC as guarantor to settlement of the all moneys outstanding under the Deed?20b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?20c. If you say the facts are not so then


20. Admitted

21a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that all moneys outstanding are provisioned for under the Deed that I and the next friend be not out

of pocket but instead have a good well secured investment for my not being the one who performed the breach of the Terms of Settlement when called upon to do so by Comer and Joseph on 23rd April 1990?21b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?21c. If you say the facts are not so then


21. Admitted

22a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that at no time did I breach the Terms of Settlement and you and Comer and MacDonald were only doing you job for which you and your team were well paid for services rendered by the finance companies with money obtained by Comer of us such that your clients were only briefly out of pocket for three months from 20.6.90 – 20.9.90?22b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?22c. If you say the facts are not so then


22. Admitted

23a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that I being an investor by an order of the Supreme Court of 8th June 1966 am the one who is expected to have kept all accounts?23b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?23c. If you say the facts are not so then


23. Admitted

24a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the December 23rd 2003 apology in writing by the 10th defendant, GE Capital Finance, on behalf of the 9th defendant, AGC, for any inconveniences that this matter may have caused is binding?24b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?24c. If you say the facts are not so then


24. Admitted

25a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the reason you were chosen for the job was that it was thought appropriate for one named Byrnes to deal with the boy with the burns as an evidence to the Court lest there be a fraud upon the next friend and myself?

25b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?25c. If you say the facts are not so then


25. Admitted

26a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that also lest there be a fraud we were provisioned with the Deed for “all moneys outstanding” and that as I did at no time breach I am entitled to those moneys off the guarantor and its associates, principals and owners and stakeholders?26b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?26c. If you say the facts are not so then


26. Admitted

27a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that that breach of the Terms by Comer on 23rd April 1990 gave rise to the “all moneys outstanding” in the investment loan accounts I have consistently maintained for near 24 years being due to us as I did what was required to safeguard those moneys outstanding and at no time breached, did I not?27b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?27c. If you say the facts are not so then


27. Admitted

28a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that it is the duty of the settlement investor who has been given the benefit of the guarantee assuring return of all moneys outstanding + interest under the Deed, lest there be a fraud, to keep all accounts?28b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?28c. If you say the facts are not so then


28. Admitted

29a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that all my duties in the matter were to keep accounts, as Comer observed, of “all moneys outstanding” and not be the one who on either occasion breached either Terms or Deed?29b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?29c. If you say the facts are not so then


ii) why are they not so?iii) who says or said they are not so when the facts have since become known?

29. Admitted

30a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that under the Deed there was no call for me to take possession of the cars as there was no possible security in place for your payment for work done and there was no evidence of any loan to you in my accounts (which led me almost to dispose of the Deed as describing a non event)?30b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?30c. If you say the facts are not so then


30. Admitted

31a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the 40% per annum at quarterly rests offered under the Deed for all moneys outstanding is that standard compounding percentage offered a settlement creditor who has not breached but where recovery proceeds apace as if he/she had breached with a compensatory Deed whose function to provide for the plaintiff cannot be appreciated in the absence of the original Supreme Court file?31b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?31c. If you say the facts are not so then


31. Admitted

32a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the 9.5% per annum compounding sought by the finance companies is that standard precedent percentage operative in anticipation of a breach by the settlement creditor and if the settlement creditor does not breach the money is recovered anyway with the said styled Deed offering 40% per annum compounding should the settlement creditor prove he is worth his salt and works it out and keeps records and shows he has kept up his interest and his interest up in managing his investment moneys and fresh investment moneys?32b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?32c. If you say the facts are not so then


32. Admitted

33a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that the immediate liability holders are themselves indemnified and have no qualms about my recovering in full, which should bring you, Comer and Macdonald a further to be shared 1% tail end commission (subject to one caveat) (presumably the 1% tail end commission was written into your

agreement or should have been with certain of the defendants in the event I were to eventually come out on top after discovering my Supreme Court file and putting two and two together and recalling that I was not the one who breached) of your immediate retainer clients, 5th and 8th to 11th defendants (who also share in a 1% of the ultimately liable 6th and 7th defendants) for further assistances in securing the final settlement of “all moneys outstanding” on behalf of the Kingdom?33b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?33c. If you say the facts are not so then


33. Admitted – it always was a deal and I am now throwing my lot in behind the 1% so as not to be the cause of my friends missing out on their share – otherwise they might blame me for missing out on their portion.

34a. Do you admit or agree that, as is now claimed, it is the case, is it not, that the following facts are so: that a function of the leases, in the light of my credit situation of my 10 credit cards and my repayments on my investment property was (as MacDonald said “you were supposed to be bankrupt by now”) to ensure by way of an induced bankruptcy, not related to my business, that I was not in a position to recover in the short term upon my investment loans to Comer’s clients and nominees nor recover any of the moneys outstanding generously provisioned for under the Deed which leases failed to achieve their objective of conclusively bankrupting me such that I would not at any future time be in a position to recover upon the provisions of the Deed of the guarantor?34b. If you do not admit or agree then why do you not admit or agree?34c. If you say the facts are not so then


34. Admitted

35. I advise that on three occasions in 2012 the first seven defendants and on the third occasion the 8th to 11th defendants also have admitted all per part 17.3 of the UCPR meaning admissions all around are already in hand and the facts of the matter well known and my moneys not in dispute.

36. I advise that since the matter has returned to the Supreme Court I have received some near 1,500 part settlement offers from overseas agents on behalf of international banks seeking to provide a part or reduced settlement in the matter so liability is essentially admitted per those banks on behalf of the 2nd, 4th , 6th and 7th defendants.

37. I advise that the 10th and particularly the 11th defendant pursuant to a sealed garnishee order instrument that I served upon the 11th defendant on 23rd April 2013 adventitiously secured that day above expectation funds in the order of $136.5 Billion dollars from the US Stock Market as a quick elegant solution to this entire quandary being more than adequate funds to quench all claims so the funds for settlement are in the possession, care and control of the 11th defendant and 10th defendant. I have advised the 11th defendant that

the excess funds are to my account and to be accorded to the account of the Plaintiff for the advancement of His Kingdom and this is not opposed. 38. To secure your share in the share of the 1% (1% of $136.5 Billion = $1.365 Billion tail end commission amongst the at least three of you) you, Neil MacDonald and Martin Comer would have to see that the total said fund secured on 23rd April 2013 by virtue of an imbued garnishee instrument of Messiah is rendered to the care and control of the Kingdom. 39. I can tell you that the 11th defendant with the 10th defendant have thus also concomitantly secured your tail end 1% commission and have that money now in hand ready for disbursal to the three (or more considering the late Judi Joseph) of you after or when I have been fully settled with my full proceeds less any outstandings. 40. The reason for the equitable by rights back end 1% commission in this matter (1% amongst yourselves and presumably an additional 1% amongst the 5th and 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th defendants, i.e. insurer, guarantor and their current or former owners) is that at the tail end there is some further work to be done to see the Plaintiff is settled should the Plaintiff work His way to the final amount available due to not having breached and do so without any further input from yourselves which nevertheless entitles you to your by rights 1% for seeing to it that He is settled by again liaising with the various finance and insurance entities. I note MacDonald has astutely well positioned himself to effect this final settlement of the “all moneys outstanding” and full proceeds pursuant to the service upon the 11th defendant of the said garnishee order. You will be glad to know you each are looking forward to a handsome return of $455 million each for your combined efforts after 23 years as a result of the “deal”. This is the first time I have used the term “deal” in relation to this matter now that I know what the deal and your part in it is. 41. There is however the proviso that upon receipt each of you settle from your share overdue moneys outstanding to individual unsatisfied hard done by creditors in your respective strategy bankruptcies.

42. The $136.5 billion and hence your 1% tail end commission/brokerage is currently parked under the care of the 10th and particularly the 11th the defendants accruing interest for all involved however I note since the event of 23rd April the US stock market has risen some 15% so your share each is now worth approximately $US500 million.

43. I advise that to confirm that there is money owing in this matter certain stakeholder defendants such as the second mounted an action in 2012 in the Guardianship Tribunal to gain control of this matter which attempt failed. The defence there presented in this Supreme Court matter was defeated.

44. I advise that pursuant to the large amounts outstanding, as said, many part settlement offers have been made to me which stand ready for the initiation of proceedings which can be commenced after the above funds are in hand. Neil MacDonald is well placed to handle these many bank offer cases.

45. I further confirm that the second or fourth defendant has failed in its some 16 year attempt to have me admit guilt in relation to the breaching of the terms of settlement which attempts have failed.

46. For now answer the above requests to admit facts. Please forward any reply to me at [email protected].

The Plaintiff requires you to admit the authenticity of the following documents:

Deed of Agreement of 18.6.1990E & O E

SIGNATURESignature

Capacity Plaintiff

Date of signature 6th November / 9th December 2013

HOW TO RESPONDIf you do not, within 14 days after service of this notice on you, serve a notice on the party requiring admission disputing any fact (and the authenticity of any document) in this notice, that fact (and the authenticity of that document) will, for the purpose of these proceedings, be admitted by you in favour of the party requiring admission.

sydneydatingsites.com.ausydneydatingsites.com.au/all_n2af's+n2psug.doc · Web view- the unusual,...

Documents

Transcript of sydneydatingsites.com.ausydneydatingsites.com.au/all_n2af's+n2psug.doc · Web view- the unusual,...