Summons to Court – BDS Huon

Update 26 June 2017:

Five complaints lodged this morning with the Tax Practitioners’ Board about BDS Huon, and matters of misconduct arising from the hearing last week at the Albury Local court, into the charge they assisted their employee to bring against me, after I had accused her of misconduct towards themselves. 

I will be taking those complaints to the Federal Court, if BDS Huon do not cease and desist with this harassment, and corrupt and unlawful court proceedings.


To the owners of BDS HUon

As you are aware, I am unable to contact you to discuss our matters before the Albury local court.

I’ve also been experiencing computer problems recently, and lack of a private space to finish preparing my defence for the five charges you again have me facing this year, and so am behind in my paperwork, and still preparing my defence strategies against the first charge, bought against me on 20 January 2016, by Con Rowan Weekley.

Jon Williams was always required to attend that hearing, to be cross examined by the defence, as he is nominated by the ‘victim’ and the arresting officer as having been a witness to the ‘crime’.

However, the victim goes on to describe the actions of Ross Griffin and Leasa Brown, in relation to that same crime, and the actions they took regarding it, in her witness statement to the police. The defence had not had access to that statement until November 2016.

The defence has therefore decided to call Mr Griffin and Ms Brown to give evidence at that first hearing on 20 June 2016.

Mr Griffin was not going to be cross examined until the second charge is heard, when he appears as a police witness at that hearing. Ms Brown is to appear as a witness for the police at the hearing of the third charge.

I believe that we might be able to avoid some of those other hearings, if the Magistrate on the day hears the case honestly this time, and actually considers at least some of the defence statements and evidence.

However, that might not be the case, and those employees will be summoned, along with other staff, in relation to the other matters, over the course of the following four to five months.

Therefore, please consider this to be preliminary notice that you are required to attend the Albury local court on 20 June 2017, to give evidence at the hearing into the criminal charge.

I will get a copy of the notice to summon you, to police, asap. I have no desire to walk into their cesspit of corruption to give it to them, nor am I allowed to email Con Weekley or I will again be assaulted and arrested for ‘internet crimes’. I will try to get it in the mail this week, to the arresting officer.

It will be nice to finally meet you all face to face.

I will then confirm to the current investigation into these issues, by the Tax Practitioners Board, that you did all show up, and did all try to have me convicted of crimes that you are very aware were not crimes at all.


And yes, BDS Huon ARE under investigation as we speak, by the TPB, for issues which were not properly investigated last year.

BDS Huon claimed on the Google Review platform, that they don’t even know who the TPB are, and that they were investigated and exonerated, but also that they were never investigated and exonerated.

I think those police witness statements have provided the proof the complaint needed, to make it undeniable.

I must get around to sending the rest of them, now that I am back online.


Just for the readers information:

I was also facing another charge on 20 June 2017, bought against me by a staff member of the Albury court house, for lodging complaints about the police involved in all of these questionable charges surrounding BDS Huon. She claims those complaints are internet crimes, and victimization of herself.

However, in checking the court list last week, I see that the hearing of her charge has been removed, and replaced with ‘to be mentioned’.

Meaning, it has been delayed again, and without myself being notified, or advised what has created the delay. That’s actually illegal, but staff at the Albury court house don’t understand the word ‘legal’ anyway.

Police say I will be sentenced to a jail term, for those internet crimes which caused offence to one person. So my time in jail has been delayed for a bit longer.

I will continue to try to avoid that all together, by having a higher court acknowledge that it is an illegal charge, and for which police have not only tampered with the evidence, and acted unlawfully in other ways, but because police have failed to provide my IP and telecommunications account details in their arrest documentation, and therefore, the charge cannot proceed until they do so.

They are aware they would have to arrest and charge another person for that allegation of a crime having been committed from their telecommunications account. Yet they have chosen not to do that. I wonder why?


Tax Practitioners Code of Conduct

Confidentiality of client information

You must not disclose information relating to a client’s affairs to a third party unless you have:

  • obtained your client’s permission; or
  • a legal duty to do so.

This is one of the obligations (item 6) under the Code of Professional Conduct (Code).

‘Information’ refers to knowledge you have acquired or derived about a client, whether directly or indirectly. It is only necessary that the information relates to the affairs of a client. Further, the information does not have to necessarily belong to the client.

A ‘third party’ is any entity other than you and your client and could, for example, include entities:

  • to which you outsource your tax agent services
  • within the same service trust structure, unless the client is defined (for example, in the engagement letter) as the whole structure
  • maintaining offsite data storage systems (including ‘cloud storage’).

We recognise that tax practitioners are increasingly engaging in outsourcing or cloud storage arrangements. However, the obligations under Code item 6 have not changed – you must ensure confidentiality of client information, including appropriate disclosure of such arrangements to your clients to ensure you comply with your obligations under this Code item.

Failure to maintain confidentiality of your client’s information

If you disclose information relating to a client’s affairs to a third party without the client’s permission or a legal duty to do so, the TPB may find that you have breached the Code and may impose sanctions for that breach.


Failing to comply with your obligations

All registered tax practitioners must comply with the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (TASA), including the Code of Professional Conduct (Code) and the civil penalties provisions. We consider allegations that a tax practitioner has failed to comply with the TASA very seriously.

If we receive a complaint that a tax practitioner is suspected of failing to comply with the TASA including the Code, we will look into the matter further by making preliminary enquiries. Where we consider it appropriate, we will initiate a formal investigation.

If we find that a tax practitioner has failed to comply with the TASA we may impose one or more administrative sanctions or seek a Court imposed civil penalty. Administrative sanctions for breach of the Code can include:

  • a written caution
  • an order requiring the tax practitioner to:
    • complete a course of education or training we specify
    • only provide certain services
    • provide services only under supervision
  • suspension of registration for a certain period
  • termination of registration.

The severity of a sanction depends on the nature and extent of the breach and the individual circumstances of each case.

If an administrative sanction is imposed (other than a written caution), details of the sanction are listed against the tax practitioner on the TPB Register.

Civil penalties

There are a number of civil penalty provisions in the TASA relating to certain conduct of registered tax practitioners, and certain activities of those who are acting as unregistered tax practitioners.

The Federal Court has the power to impose penalties of up to $45,000 for individuals and $225,000 for corporations for each breach.

More information

For more information, refer to:



4 thoughts on “Summons to Court – BDS Huon

  1. I’ll leave Leasa Brown out of the first hearing, just to not complicate the issues too much. However, she will be required to testify later on this years, about issues of libel towards myself. Police witness statements show that she was aware of the truth of the situation, from the outset. Yet Ms Brown posted statements to Google Review, on behalf of the management of BDS Huon, which were contrary to the truth.

    When googling Mr Griffin a couple of weeks ago, I see that his father died mid last year. Is that when you got nasty Leasa? Trying to make all this go away for him, by coming to my blog and attempting to bully me into letting your company have me convicted of crimes which were not crimes, just to protect your firms reputation?

    It would have just been easier to drop the charges, and the blog and the reviews would have ended in June last year.

    I guess the TPB are taking things more seriously this year, when they see that some of my emails about misconduct by the owners of BDS Huon, are being forwarded to the Premier of NSW, and other assorted agencies and politicians. Plus those witness statements of course, as to why I kept contacting your company.

    The owners of taxation accountancy firms are required to be of upstanding conduct within their own community.

    Yet BDS Huon have wasted thousands of dollars of state funds, on false arrests and corrupted court cases, designed to harass me into silence about having been framed in the local court, to protect a staff member of BDS Huon, and with the assistance of the owners of that company.

    Not to mention the corrupt Magistrate and other assorted corrupt staff at that establishment and the adjoining police station.


  2. Check the paperwork for the new interim gag order. It in no way prevents me from addressing the owners of BDS Huon, via the internet, or writing about them on the internet.

    I have not had time to finish my brief to the court for the hearing next week, so haven’t been able to notify police that I wanted to cross examine Mr Griffin. However, I believe that Mr Williams will be in attendance anyway, so that will have to do for now. We’ll have to address one charge at a time, and any new charges they are attempting to bring against me this year.

    I notice that police phoned me last Wednesday some time after I had made this post on the blog. I guess BDS Huon are wanting to have me charged for making it. Yet I am not game to phone or email their office, not even acting as my own solicitor for these matters, so this is the only way I can interact with them.

    Technically, I am allowed to phone their office, or email the owners directly. But if I did, I’m sure they would have police frame me for that as having been some kind of internet crime, so I won’t take the chance.


  3. My back went out last week, and I had the flue. Plus the migraines have been coming back now, on a regular basis. Which is why I was unable to finish my submission to the court, and due to sheer emotional and physical exhaustion. Which is what the court and police have tried to push me to all along, and have now managed to do so.

    However, I will have it with me on Monday, and advise the court that I didn’t serve it on police, because last time my solicitor contacted them about the evidence we intended to produce at hearing, the police assaulted me, put me on another false charge and bail, and instructed me to leave town before any of the charges were heard in court.

    When they tired to scare me out of town for all of last year, the plan was that I could then be convicted in my absence, and would not receive any notification of the fines handed down, because I had left my address. Then they would have been able to issue warrants, which were state-wide, and have me picked up and thrown in jail, in any town I just happened to have run away to.

    Putting me on bail complicates things even further. I had the option not to attend any of these re-hearings for the five false charges, due to them being invalid, and then to appeal to the district court after the corrupt local court had convicted me of them. Being on bail, means that I have to attend, to be convicted on the spot, and this time it won’t be fines, it will be a jail sentence. Its a shame the jails are full, and that it will completely destroy my health when they do that to me, costing the tax payer more money later on in medical bills.

    So they list the charge I am on bail for, on the same day as the illegal charges I might not have bothered to show up for hearing for. The district court would agree, that charges of breach bought against an unserved ADVO just cannot be acted upon, in a real court of law. However, I won’t be able to easily appeal to that court, because I’ve been jail for not appearing when I was on bail, and was required to do so.


  4. I really hope the TPB do their job this year, and then I will be able to sue BDS Huon for having been jailed, once it is found that BDS Huon had no right to engage in legal action against myself, when one considers the topic of the conversation I tried to have with them.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s