Corrupt Albury Police Preparing to Arrest Me?

Snr Con Milne has phoned me today, from the Albury Police Station. She is the officer who supports people who make false ADVO applications in court, and holds their hands while they prepare to tell lies on the witness stand.

She expects me to call her. Why would I phone Albury police? They are corrupt, and out to silence me for exposing their own corruption on my blog, and in particular, about these false ADVO allegations and illegal court proceedings. Also, due to information I provided to crime stoppers about their drug dealing detective and other assorted unsavoury allegations.

I guess the ‘protected liars’ might be complaining that my blog is still on the air and they are still being ‘harassed’ by being exposed as being liars who used their friend at the court house to have me put on false criminal charges. I guess they are angry that I am not spending time in jail over Christmas for still daring to tell the truth about them, and their false allegations, in public.

Or is it because the Local court is getting nervous because I am nearly ready to lodge my appeal in the supreme court against their latest dodgy conviction?

A notice of intention to appeal would have been received by the Supreme court on Monday of this week, along with some supporting documents. Yesterday I emailed that court to ask how much the appeal will cost, so I can attach payment to my application. I was advised that it was free to appeal a criminal conviction to that court.

Today I asked if the fine I received at the latest bullshit charade in the Albury local court would be suspended once I lodge the rest of my application, and the actual notice of appeal. The woman got all funny then, tried to tell me I couldn’t lodge an appeal to that court from the local court. That is not true, I have already done the research. She is advising me not to pursue the matter there.

I have advised that I have no option to appeal it locally, and plan to continue. I also advised that I will lodge the paperwork next week to start paying off the fine, so that I am not jailed for not doing so, while waiting for my supreme court appeal to overturn that corrupt judgement and fine, and so that Albury police have no reason to issue a warrant for my arrest at the end of next week.
Again, that might be the real reason the cops are phoning me today, Gotta prevent me from lodging that appeal?

Going to arrest me today on some trumped up complaint from their friends the liars, who gained their ADVO’s through lies, bought criminal charges against me with lies, and then were granted new orders with new lies, and new corrupted court proceedings.

NSW Justice must be exceedingly proud of Albury court house and how many convictions it hands down with a minimum of time spend on those hearings.

That’s because they scoff at and dismiss all defence evidence, don’t bother to read it or allow any to be introduced at hearing, and viola, a conviction based on lies told by police, on paper, and for which the accused is given no chance to refute or defend.

Yeah, justice, lol, or the definition of it as held by the staff at the Albury Court House.

o  I noticed today that the police prosecutor, Sgt Lewis, describes my 91 page defence brief as a bunch of documents ’emailed to the overseeing officer who is not in court today’, in the doctored transcript.

Then when Weekley is on the stand, she asks him to confirm that he is the overseeing officer of the charge, and he does so.

So how was he not in court?

I made the above post on facebook today, and repost it here just to let readers know what is going on. The police and court house have been silent for a long time, but appear to be making plans to pounce on me now.

Please sign the petition to have the contents of this blog investigated, and myself released from jail, if I don’t log in every few days in the upcoming weeks.




Framer Weekley Under Cross Examination

cromptom meme protector

Absolutely stunned at the audacity of the employees at the Albury court house, for the degree that this document has been tampered with, even after them having been found guilty of two other instances of same.

They know I can’t get an investigation into how many changes were made to all of the other transcripts, so they just continue with their corruption, against myself, justice and the people of NSW.

Also disgusted at the levels that Cromptom has stooped to, in allowing himself to be used in this circus, designed to protect sex offenders and perjurors. So glad I put that book out exposing him, before he can continue further down this path unnoticed.

I won’t be blogging in the next two weeks. I’ve been taking time out before starting to prepare my submission to the Supreme Court, to have my recent fine overturned.

Then I might abandon this blog, while leaving it online in its current form, and set about writing up more comprehensive studies of these proceedings, and all of the reasons behind them, including government run pedophile rings, which are covered up for, and protected by police, and the NSW judiciary and the court rooms they preside over.



(The transcript typist uses this name for framer Weekley all the way through the document. I have changed it to make it conform with the name shown on this blog, and what is his real name. I wonder if that is deliberate though, so that the allegations I make against him, end up being made against a person who does not exist in the NSW police force)


Q.  Can you please say your full name, rank and station?
A.  Rowan Michael Weekley, Senior Constable from Albury Police Station.

Q.  In the matter before the Court you’re the officer in charge. Is that correct.
A.  That’s correct.

Q.  As part of your investigation you have made a four-page statement. Is that correct
A.  Yes, that’s correct.

Q.  Dated 16 September 2016?
A.  Yes.

Q.  Are the contents true and correct?
A.  Yes. (No. they are very untrue)

Q.  You’ve served a copy on the defence?
A.  Yes. (Not before the hearing, or the appeal. He served his brief in November 2016, ready for the rehearing ordered by the district court set for December of that year)

Q.  I show you a document. Is that a copy of your statement?
A.  Yes, it is.


(obviously I should have objected, but the court knew that I probably wouldn’t be aware of that, and they would get away with this. I think I had also been instructed to remain quite while the prosecutor did their job, and that I would be allowed to question her statements and his comments afterwards)

Q.  As part of your statement you say that you conducted a handheld electronic interview with Ms Burt. Is that correct?
A.  That’s correct.

Q.  You’ve provided a transcription of that interview?
That’s correct.

Q.  Is the transcription an accurate recording of that interview?
A.  Yes, that’s correct.

Q. I show you a document. Is that a copy of the transcription?
A.  Yes, it is.


(obviously I should have objected, but the court knew that I probably wouldn’t be aware of that, and they would get away with this. However, I am not certain they did tender those into evidence, they might have just asked him to confirm them)

Q.  You obtained a copy of the interim apprehended domestic violence order that was in place at the time of this allegation?
A.  Yes.

Q.  Is that a copy of the AVO?
A.  Yes, it is.


Q.  You were made aware that Ms Burt lodged a section 4 annulment application in this matter. Is that correct?
A.  That’s correct.

Q.  An annulment application was heard at the Albury Local Court on 18 April 2016. Is that correct?
A.  That’s correct.

Q.  Are you aware that Ms Burt gave sworn evidence in that s 4 annulment application
A.  That’s correct.

Q.  You obtained a transcript of those proceedings?
A.  Yes.

Q.  I show you a document. Is that a copy of the evidence given by Ms Burt on the section 4 annulment application in relation to this matter?
A.  Yes, it is.

ACCUSED:  Objection.  Constable Weekley wasn’t present that day.  How would he know what was said?

HIS HONOUR:  Hold on.  He’s being asked if that’s a copy of the transcript, that’s all he’s being asked, not if he was present.  He was asked did he obtain a copy of the transcript.


HIS HONOUR:  And he’s being asked if that’s the copy of the transcript.

PROSECUTOR:  Correct.  It’s stamped.  It has got the Local Court documentation on it.  I tender that.

ACCUSED:  Yes. (They did show me that, and I agreed to allow it to be entered into evidence. Later that night I recalled it was all tampered with, and that I should object at the continuation of the hearing)


(I do recall them showing me this document, and not objecting to it, and wondering later why they did bother to introduce it at all. I think it was to counteract the transcripts I had included in my brief, and which shows the perversion of the course of justice. I laughed to myself later that the transcript of the appeal merely shows more of the same, by Murray and police. So in hindsight, I don’t think they did show me any of the documents listed above, and that would be why I didn’t say that they were lies. That is how badly this transcripts has been played with, adding in things like that, and which I will never be able to prove, because NSW Justice will refuse to release a copy of the audio recordings, and those can be doctored as well. Just like Weekley and Albury police deliberate tampered with and edited his illegal recording of our informal conversation. Another reason I should have been granted motion)


Q.  How long have you known Jon Williams for?
A.  Sorry?

Q.  How long have you known Jon Williams for?
A.  Most of the year. (I believe he replied ‘over a year’)

Q.  Did you meet him through this stuff (these matters) ?
A.  As part of this investigation. (not true, he said it was not from these matters, implying that he knew him before they started)

A.  You were pretty chatty and friendly out the front, I noticed, was why I asked.

Q.  So you say that you came to my house at 8.40am on Tuesday 19 January?
Q.  That’s correct.

Q.  Yet in this (introduction to the) interview, or the transcript of tha,t it says that you were in my company at 8.33am and about to start a formal recording
A.  Sorry?

Q.  How do you explain that?
A.  Your question is, sorry?

(I believe statements I made are missing here, and should occur again later on but don’t. I asked him to explain why the introduction gives the time as being 8.33, and himself being in my company, when both police witness statements say that they knocked on my door at 8.40am. I also stated that there is a noise which shows up on the recording, at that same 8.33 point, which sounds like the reversing signal of a car. Also that my landlady’s sister arrived around that same time. I put it to the arresting officer that he actually recorded that part in the police car, out the front of my house, before he and the other officer walked up the driveway and to my door)

Q. What time – all right, I’ll make myself clear. (Now they try to blend what should have been said, as show above, with the next question, so I will divide this paragraph here and change it to being a question in its own right))

Q. You claim that you made a formal recording with me.  I have claimed in the statement of defence I lodged before the first hearing of the charge that you did not inform me that we were going to do a formal recording.  You told me you had come to my house to do – have an informal chat about what might have been a breach and you asked my permission to record just a few of my answers to use as notes when you got back to the station.  Is that correct?
A.  That’s incorrect.

(Question missing here, as indicated by my statement below. I asked him why he recorded my answers onto his mobile phone instead of using his note book. When he refused to answer clearly, I bought up the fact that all other arresting officers had used their notebooks, except for him)

Q.  Do you deny that? Okay.  Well, every other charge I’ve received a breach (brief) for all of the other police officers have made their notes in their notepad and they’ve been able to pull out those notes later and provide them, (and I was also able to read those. But in your case I cannot, because you took your notes on your personal mobile phone, which I have no access to) but all you’ve got is a recording on a mobile phone.

HIS HONOUR:  Is there a question?

ACCUSED:  Okay. (Yes, why did he record me on a personal mobile phone

Q.  Why didn’t you issue me a court attendance notice with the statement of facts? (Why didn’t you give me a copy of your statements of facts/arrest documentation?)
A.  You were issued with a field court attendance notice. (Bullshit, that topic is introduced by the Magistrate, and as I recall, this officer refused to answer many questions but the transcript does not reflect that)

Q. By accident when I went down to the police station the following morning to make a complaint about your suspicious behaviour the day before — (again, proves I had asked him about his statement of facts.)

HIS HONOUR:  Hold on.  Isn’t it the witness’s evidence that he tried to hand you the field CAN and you wouldn’t take it?  (Not what Cromptom said to me was a question, stating that I had written in my defence statements that I had torn up the document handed to me by Weekley on that day)

ACCUSED:  I’ll just come back to that. (I was still wanting to address his statement of facts, and why he never gave me a copy of that, until he served his brief 10 months later, ready for the re-hearing)

HIS HONOUR:  Well, no.  (You wrote in your defence statements, that you tore up ….)

ACCUSED:  I’ll – I’ll – no.  (not what I said, I said I am leading up to that, if you will allow me to continue)

HIS HONOUR:  Hold on.  Hold on.  Your question to the witness is, “Why didn’t you issue me a court attendance notice?” and his response is, “You were issued with a field court attendance notice.” (not true, I asked about his statement of facts, and which I received a copy of from every other arresting officer, including himself for his second charge against me, along with the summons to court)

ACCUSED:  Infringement notice like a fine like a traffic fine.  He wrote it out.  He went down to the car. (I agreed with the Magistrate that in my defence statements I wrote that he wrote me out an infringement notice, after having gone down to his car and returning with it, but again, that was not what I was talking about at the time, and the Magistrate bought it into the conversation)

HIS HONOUR:  What’s the – what’s the question and what’s the relevance?

ACCUSED:  Well, I was going to come to that.

Q.  Why did you issue me an infringement notice advising me to be in court on 5 February and then when I go down (to the police station I am handed the summons to court and your statement of facts) – and also in your documents, your transcript, (this is just dribble they have put in to confuse what is being said, however the next part of the text does follow on from other questions/statements I made)

(in your recording it shows you stating) it does say that you state, “You’re under arrest.  I’m satisfied there’s a breach.  Now, I will give some documents to the magistrate and you don’t have to worry about it.  You just show you for court and the magistrate will have those before him.”  You’re talking about your statement of facts and your arrest document.  I was entitled to see that, wasn’t I?  So why didn’t you give me a copy of that yourself?  (Every other arresting officer has come around and served me with the paperwork – moved from where it should have appeared above)

HIS HONOUR:  Just let the witness answer the question.

(But he was refusing to answer, is why I had to keep on asking)

A.  You were handed the field court attendance notice or attempted to hand the field court attendance notice advising of your date. The facts of the matter had not been arranged at that time.  (He did not say that, or I would have stated that he prepared them as soon as he returned to the police station, as shown by those same documents)

HIS HONOUR:  What’s your next question?

(I believe I also bought up that he was very aware of the date of the hearing for the ADVO applications, and deliberately listed the charge for that same date, so again, did not need to rush to advise me of the date. Also it was not going to come up for just over two weeks, so he had ample time to supply me with a proper summons, and his statement of facts.)


Q.  Well, we’ll come back to the other one. You say you came to do a formal interview with me.  I’ve participated in two formal interviews with police and two 30 years ago.  There was always two police officers present.  (I believe this has been moved and should appear below) If you came to my house to do a formal interview why did only you enter the premises and you didn’t bring Bonnie Richardson in with you to oversee it?
A.  She did not wish to come in.

Q.  I beg your pardon?
A.  She did not wish to come in.

Q.  Why not?
A.  I can’t answer that.

Q.  Shouldn’t there be two officers present when you’re conducting a formal interview?
A.  No.

Q. I’ve participated in two formal interviews with police and two 30 years ago.  There was always two police officers present. (I believe this has been moved and should here instead of above)

Are you sure? And when Constable Marianne Walker came to do a formal interview with me she brought a recording device that she sat on the table, turned it on and did not touch it until the interview was over.

PROSECUTOR:  I object.


Q.  You only had you mobile phone.

HIS HONOUR:  Just hold on.  What’s the objection, sergeant?

PROSECUTOR:  He’s being asked an interview conducted with Constable Marianne Walker and what Marianne Walker did.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, the witness can’t give evidence about what the other person did.


Q.  Is it normal police procedure to record formal interviews on a personal mobile phone?
A.  No.

Q.  So why did you do it rather than use your police notepad?
A.  That’s all I had available. (He said he did not have his notepad with him)

HIS HONOUR:  Right, next question.


Q.  You didn’t have a piece of paper to write my answers down on? (Not said like this)
I had a piece of paper, it’s a notebook. (Not said, he had already denied having his note book with him)

Q.  And Bonnie Richardson had one too when she was standing right outside the door. (I asked him why he didn’t ask to use her notebook since he claimed to not have his own with him, or even ask me for a piece of paper to write on)
I do not know what she had. (Refused to answer, shrugged his shoulders)

Q. Well, all police officers carry their notebook, don’t they? (Not said, I was again asking him why he used his mobile phone to record our conversation and not a proper recording device or a his notebook)
A.  I’m not aware of what other police officers do. (Not said at all)

Q.  So then the next point is you said to me that you wanted to just record a few of my answers for notes and I agreed to that. You asked me to state my name and date of birth and I allowed you to record that and throughout the conversation you were going like this pretending to hit Pause and Record, Pause and Record, Pause and Record, weren’t you?
A.  No. (No reply)

Q.  Well, how come your interview is all broken up into different sections? When you open it up the – the file in a sound editing program you can see that it’s all different sections strung together?
A.  No. (No reply, shrugs shoulders)

Q.  I put it to you that you could only record a certain amount on your phone so you were stopping it and starting it to capture each section and even in your transcript you’ve got little time notes here. So I put it to you again that that gave you ample opportunity to edit that recording, especially when you were only pretending to record when I said yes and no but that was the opposite, you were turning it off and on.  You were turning it off when I said yes or no and turning it back on (after I had replied).  You recorded that whole interview illegally, didn’t you? (without my knowledge)

Q.  Yes, you did because you had led me to believe that you were only going to record some of my answers for notes. You never stated it was a formal interview.  You never stated that anything I said would be used in court against me and it’s your word against mine because the other officer, who should have been a witness to what went on, stayed outside leaning on my landlady’s car.

So now it’s your word against mine in a court of law (and I wrote this document – makes no sense).  Now, the other thing, so you say I had agreed to this fully recorded formal interview.  I say that I didn’t.  I say you recorded that conversation illegally and then at the end of it you stood up and said, “I’m satisfied there’s a breach.  You’ll be charged and I’ll give some documentation to the paper – to the magistrate.”  (Do you agree with that? – not said. I pointed out that it is actually shown in that recording that he says he will give documentation to the magistrate, that I don’t have to worry about, again showing that he was not planning to give me a copy of his arrest documentation. He was only going to give it to the court, and which was proven later on, by the police and the court)
No. (no answer)

Q.  Anyway, we’ll move on. So the next morning I went down to the police station because I had found your behaviour very suspicious and especially when you then stood up and said you were satisfied there was a breach and both of you officers left.

HIS HONOUR:  What’s the question?


Q.  And then you came back five minutes later with this infringement notice you’d written out telling me to be in court on 5 February. So I went down to the police station–

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Burt, Ms Burt–


HIS HONOUR:  –what’s the question?

ACCUSED:  We’re coming to that.

Q.  I went down to the police station the next day and they printed out a copy of your court attendance notice and statement of facts. This is what I’m asking.  Why didn’t you personally ensure that I was given a copy of that?

HIS HONOUR:  You’ve already asked him that and he’s already said the facts weren’t ready. (This is not true. If he had said that I would have argued. The statement of facts were prepared within an hour of him leaving my house, and given to me the next day by a civilian clerk. Weekley could have served them that afternoon, or the following morning)


Q. So I didn’t have a car then and I read it on the bus on the way home. When I got home I phoned the Albury Police Station and I asked to speak to the supervisor.  I was put through to a man who wouldn’t give his name or rank and when I asked who he was he said he was Tim Wimple – Tim Winkleman.



HIS HONOUR:  –I don’t see what the relevance of this line of questioning is.

ACCUSED:  You will in a moment.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, Ms Burt–

ACCUSED:  I’m getting to it.


ACCUSED:  I – I told Sergeant Winkleman that I wanted to make a complaint about Weekley’s conduct the day before and the sergeant hung up the phone on me.

Q.  Why did he do that?

HIS HONOUR:  Just wait.

PROSECUTOR:  I object to that.

HIS HONOUR:  Just wait.  This witness couldn’t possibly give evidence about what the other officer did and in any event–

ACCUSED:  I’m ringing to make a complaint about him (Weekley), and they’re hanging up the phone on me.

HIS HONOUR:  –what is the relevance of any of this?

ACCUSED:  I believe that the supervisor already knew that he had framed me and had written this document and that it had been presented to the Court–

HIS HONOUR:  Just wait.  Just – just wait.

ACCUSED:  –with (out) my knowledge.

HIS HONOUR:  Just listen – just listen to me.  I’m going to ask you again to stop berating the witnesses.  This is not an opportunity for you to do that.  The officer has sworn – been sworn and he’s giving his evidence.  You’ve got a right to ask him questions which are relevant to this charge.  Now, the fact of the matter is that I’ve got here in front of me the transcription of the handheld electronic interview.  That document is in evidence.

ACCUSED:  Well, it shouldn’t be, your Honour, because as I’m saying–

HIS HONOUR:  That’s a legal argument that you can have with me.  It’s not – it’s not for you to question this witness about it.  (Not said)

ACCUSED:  That’s what I’m getting to with Tim Wimpleton.  I was phoning to ask them to listen to the recording and compare it to what he had written and rather than agree to do that, they hung up the phone on me.

HIS HONOUR:  But how has that got anything to do with this witness?

(Prosecutor objected saying Weekley can’t answer for other officer’s actions)

ACCUSED:  Well, I’ll have to summon Sergeant Winkelmann to the next hearing (and ask him in person then. I might have to call Superintendent Quarmby as well)

HIS HONOUR:  Right.  Have you got – have you got any other questions of relevance for this witness?


Q.  So they hung up the phone on me twice and wouldn’t – didn’t want to talk about the fact that I was going to make allegations of misconduct against you. It was like they already knew that the misconduct had occurred and they didn’t want to hear about it.

HIS HONOUR:  What’s the question?  What’s the question for this witness?  Rather than just talking at the witness, ask the witness a question.

ACCUSED:  Right.

HIS HONOUR:  So you don’t have a question?

ACCUSED:  I’m trying to get him to answer–

HIS HONOUR:  There’s – there’s–

ACCUSED:  –give his opinion of why the – okay, I’ll move on.

Q.  All right. Why did you (finally) give me a copy of this transcript in November last year
A.  That’s when the brief was called. (He did not say that, and it makes no sense. A brief should have been prepared at the outset for the prosecutor to use on 5 February 2016 when it was listed for hearing. I also should have been given access to that recording/’police interview’ prior to that hearing, and prior to the appeal)

Q. Not only did Sergeant Winklemann refuse to let me – give me access to this, I’ve got a letter in writing from the police superintendent telling me I am not allowed to hear the recording that you made that day.

PROSECUTOR:  I object.

HIS HONOUR:  What’s–


Q.  So when you took this to court on 5 February–

HIS HONOUR:  Just stop – just – just – just – I can’t say it any – I can’t say it any more plainly, I can’t say it again.  You’re not assisting me.  You’re berating the witness.  There are no questions of relevance.  I’ve given you ample opportunity to cross-examine this witness and it’s just getting us all nowhere.

ACCUSED:  Well, I–

HIS HONOUR:  And you – and you continue to speak over me.  You continue to frustrate this Court.  Look at the time.

ACCUSED:  That’s not my fault what time of day we started.  (That was caused by having to wait for Jon Williams having to be phoned to come and appear)

HIS HONOUR:  There is a lot of business before this Court not just your case.

ACCUSED:  And it all depends–

HIS HONOUR:  Don’t argue with me.  (I don’t believe this was said, and has been added in. The Magistrate was aware that he had already dismissed one matter to another time, so that this hearing could occur and have the rest of the day to do so. Plus he ended the hearing early in the end, we could have had another half an hour or so, had he not ran away at the time. The prosecutor had to call him back to do the bail hearing shown below)

ACCUSED:  Mm-hmm.


Q. You’re excused, officer.

ACCUSED:  I would like to put one more question to him.

HIS HONOUR:  No. You’re excused.

(I also bought my cross examination of him back to the question of the discrepancies between the time he recorded the introduction to his interview, and the time that they knocked on my door. This has been left out completely.)


HIS HONOUR:  Now, this–

ACCUSED:  I’d like to know why he didn’t appear in court on 5 February (when this charge was first listed for hearing).

HIS HONOUR:  This matter will have to go part heard before me.  We’ll have to get the diary and we’ll have to fix a further date.

PROSECUTOR:  Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Just excuse me one second.  Sergeant, for this matter there’s one more witness.  Is that right?

PROSECUTOR:  I have one more witness, your Honour.


ACCUSED:  And can we summon Sergeant Tim Winkelmann for the next hearing?

HIS HONOUR:  Just wait one – just wait one moment.  Sergeant, I’ll put it over to 14 September part heard before me.  Is there bail for that charge?

PROSECUTOR:  Not for that charge, no.

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  All the other matters are trailing behind waiting for this one to be completed, yes?

PROSECUTOR:  Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Burt, if you wish to issue a subpoena for a certain person to attend at court, that’s a matter for you.  Sergeant, there’s this application to vary.

PROSECUTOR:  Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  That’s a private application.

PROSECUTOR:  There’s two, your Honour should have two before you.

HIS HONOUR:  Hold on.

PROSECUTOR:  They’re private applications.

HIS HONOUR:  Hold on, just give me one moment, please.  I’ve only got one here.

PROSECUTOR:  Your Honour should have one for Susan Ward who’s before the Court and one for Janice O’Bryan–

HIS HONOUR:  Hold on.

PROSECUTOR:  –who’s not before the Court and Ms Ward can explain to your Honour why that is.

HIS HONOUR:  Just hold on one moment.  I only seem to have one.

PROSECUTOR:  There’s two on the list, your Honour, so you should definitely have two.

ACCUSED:  I’ll have to summon Superintendent Quarmby as well for the next hearing since I can’t ask any of the police–

HIS HONOUR:  Just – just wait.

ACCUSED:  –questions that I need to ask.  (These statements were made above, when relevant. Moving them to here makes it appear that I am just going on and ignoring what is really happening. I would have been arguing the new ADVO applications, once he started mentioning them)

HIS HONOUR:  Just wait.  The first one is – Ms Ward is the applicant.  You’re Ms Ward, are you?

WARD:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  This is your application.  You can just take a seat, Ms Burt, for now.  This is your application and your application is to vary the final order which was made on 29 February 2016 and extend it by two years.  Is that right?

WARD:  Correct.

HIS HONOUR:  When does the current order expire?

WARD:  It expired on 29 February 2017.


WARD:  17.

HIS HONOUR:  I understand that, yes.  Just hold on one second.

ACCUSED:  Obscenity.  (???? Lol, I said sorry for having the year wrong, quoted above)

WARD:  Tracey, please just wait your turn. (She did not say that)

HIS HONOUR:  Can I extend an order once it’s expired?

PROSECUTOR:  The application has been lodged before the expiry.

HIS HONOUR:  Before it expired, thank you.

PROSECUTOR:  That’s my understanding anyway.

WARD:  I lodged the application in January.  (February actually, and then illegally mentioned and started by Cromptom on 13 Febrary 217)

HIS HONOUR:  Just hold on one moment.  So you rely on the material which is in your application?

WARD:  Correct.

HIS HONOUR:  I’ll just read that.  You can have a seat if you like.  Right, I have read the application.  Ms Burt, you understand what the application is?


HIS HONOUR:  And I take it that you do not consent to the making of the order.  Is that right?

ACCUSED:  (No, and) I do not consent to being heard at the Albury Local Court.  Susan Ward’s initial application involved false allegations.  The order never came into effect because it was never served.  It was only granted by way of a perversion of the course of justice created by Gwen Bradley, employee of the CJC contracting through this courthouse who’s Susan Ward’s next-door neighbour and in an attempt to save her rental income pushed these false applications through and had me convicted of allegations I was innocent of.

HIS HONOUR:  Okay, so–

WARD:  Your Honour, can I – can I reply?

HIS HONOUR:  Just one moment.  I’ll give you an opportunity in a moment.  So you don’t consent to the making of the order.

ACCUSED:  No, and I will be lodging another application for motion because as I said earlier, Susan Ward provides Gwen Bradley with the evidence of the charge brought against me (by Mrs Bradley) on 22 October.

HIS HONOUR:  Just wait.  Thank you.  I know that you don’t consent to the making of the order.  Now, I’ve read your application.  That’s the material you rely upon for the variation application, yes?

WARD:  Yes.  I’ve lodged it with the Court.

HIS HONOUR:  You’ve lodged it with the Court.

WARD:  Yes.  I had to lodge it by 20 April I think.  I’ve lodged all that.


WARD:  It should be in a big plastic tub.

HIS HONOUR:  Sergeant, I know this isn’t a police matter but–

PROSECUTOR:  On the last day service for the defendant was extended because she didn’t comply with the orders so I’m hoping the defendant now has filed all her material that she relies on.  If that’s the case then your Honour can just give the matters a hearing date.

(Above was not said, and the prosecutor should be having nothing to do with the civil applications. That paragraph is a complete fabrication, and Murray had already made his ruling, as per the Interim Order, that I was not allowed to lodge any material after having missed the lodgement date.

HIS HONOUR:  I’ll put it on the same date, 14 September for hearing.

PROSECUTOR:  Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Now, what about the other one?

ACCUSED:  Before you go on I’ll just put on the record I haven’t filed in relation to Ward’s new application.  There’s no point.  Last time I filed a defence and they saw that I had beaten her Gwen Bradley had to pull a big switcheroo and have me convicted so I didn’t even bother lodging a defence because that just gives this Court time to find ways around it and exonerate Ward and convict me. (I also stated at some stage, that since they were extensions, I would be calling for their original evidence to be re-examined as their allegations were never proven in court, due to Weekley’s charge of breach)

HIS HONOUR:  It’s listed for hearing on 14 September.  If you haven’t filed anything in compliance with the timetable that was given then that’s a matter for you.  Now, the other one is–

PROSECUTOR:  Is Janice O’Bryan and that’s Ms Ward’s mother and Ms Ward says she filed a medical certificate with the registry about why Ms O’Bryan is not here today.


PROSECUTOR:  But they should run together and I believe Ms O’Bryan has filed all her material.

HIS HONOUR:  14 September for hearing.

PROSECUTOR:  Thank you, your Honour.

ACCUSED:  Actually I believe they should be run separately.  I’ve realised the other night Janice O’Bryan piggy-backed a ride on hers.  It was granted on that breach (against Ward’s Interim ADVO – Weekley’s charge, as applied to both applications)

(Both the prosecutor and magistrate exclaimed ‘NO’ at the same time, at the idea of separating the hearings)

HIS HONOUR:  Just wait – just wait – just listen to me, Ms Burt.  Both matters, 14 September.

PROSECUTOR:  And I believe that Ms Ward indicates that there was an interim order made on the last occasion.  She just wishes that to extend to the hearing date, please.

HIS HONOUR:  Interim order is to be continued.

PROSECUTOR:  And on Ms O’Bryan’s one as well, thank you.

HIS HONOUR:  The interim orders will continue.

ACCUSED:  I’ll just say I’ve already advised the courthouse that if they continue with these applications I’ll be suing this courthouse for perverting the course of justice against me, false convictions, defamation of character.


This claim of a short adjournment is bullshit, and my witness would attest to that. Cromptom ended proceedings formally and completely and dismissed all concerned. Ward and her party of lying police officers all left the court room.

I had served the police prosecutor that day with a copy of the brief against Bradley’s charge. She tried not to accept it. Which must have reminded her to made sure they addressed my bail application, which had also been lodged prior to the hearing.

She instructed the clerk to go to the Magistrate’s chambers and instruct him to come back out had hear the bail application. We had to wait about 10 minutes for him to come back out.

During that time, myself and my witness had a little argument with one of the sherriffs. If the recording was still running, it would have recorded that. My witness had asked me why I wasn’t packing up to leave, when everyone else had already gone. I replied that they had called the Magistrate back out, for a bail hearing. The Sherriff came over and scolded us that we are not allowed to talk to each other while I am at the bar, and he is in the audience. I laughed, and stated that since court wasn’t even in session, that hardly mattered. He stated that it did. I replied that he had witnessed the complainants being aggressive and rude to me at hearings, but is now going to be a witness for them and their claims that its me who does that to them at the court house. He denied that. My friend pointed out that he must be lying, since he had gone all red and done something else while denying it (I can’t recall what that was atm)



HIS HONOUR:  I understand there’s an application to vary the bail.

ACCUSED:  Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Just give me one moment, Ms Burt.  I’ll hear from you in a moment.  So this is the bail that relates only to that one matter?

PROSECUTOR:  The only one matter that Ms Burt is on bail for, that’s ending in 944. (Gwen Bradley’s charge, for which I was put on false charges, assaulted, illegally searched and illegally detained)

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you, just hold on one moment.  Ms Burt, your application, I’ve got it here, so your application as I understand it is that bail ought be dispensed with, correct?


HIS HONOUR:  What are the bail conditions?

ACCUSED:  That I not offend Gwen Bradley.

HIS HONOUR:  I don’t think the conditions would be worded that way.  What are the conditions?

PROSECUTOR:  No.  My understanding is the conditions are the AVO conditions:  must not assault, molest, harass, interfere with, intimidate, stalk, must not contact.

ACCUSED:  Yes, that’s pretty much it.

HIS HONOUR:  So there’s the comply with the AVO is the condition of bail.  Are there any other conditions?

PROSECUTOR:  I don’t think there is.

ACCUSED:  There is no AVO, yes.

PROSECUTOR:  –for Ms Gwen Bradley so it’s police bail so the police actually put the conditions of an AVO as her bail conditions because there actually is no AVO in force and that’s just not to assault, molest, harass and not to contact I believe and to be of good behaviour is the other condition.

HIS HONOUR:  So Ms Burt, you’re asking for bail to be dispensed with.


HIS HONOUR:  Sergeant, is it opposed?

PROSECUTOR:  It is, your Honour.  There is no AVO in place for the protection of Ms Bradley.  Given the nature of the offences, I would submit they’re appropriate conditions.  There’s nothing about residence or reporting or sureties or anything like that.  It’s simply not to assault, molest, harass, otherwise interfere with, stalk, intimidate or contact the alleged victim in the matter.

HIS HONOUR:  So there’s no AVO in relation to Ms Bradley in place.

PROSECUTOR:  These are just to ensure that there’s some sort of protection in place for Ms Bradley until these matters are determined.

HIS HONOUR:  All right, thank you.  Yes, Ms Burt, what do you want to say about this application?

ACCUSED:  Ms Bradley was emailing me delivering insults and mocking me for weeks before she had me charged with sending her two emails … and they were simply forwards of complaints to the Attorney-General’s Department about police in these matters of breach … and Gwen Bradley is named in all of them as orchestrating it on behalf of Susan Ward … legally she cannot bring a charge against me for lodging valid complaints against her.

Secondly, we had been communicating beforehand.  I’d advised her I wanted to summon her to court for one of these breach matters.  The other thing is I forwarded those two emails to her and I’ve recently discovered that at 9am the morning that she found them she forwarded them to Susan Ward.  She then had to wait for Susan Ward to come home from work so that they could discuss them and she went to the police the next day claiming offence after she discussed them–

HIS HONOUR:  But as to the question of whether or not you should be on bail‑‑

ACCUSED:  And then after she had me charged she emailed me.

HIS HONOUR:  Just wait.  Just listen to me.  The question is whether or not the application to vary your bail should be granted.  Now, what do you want to say about that?  Why should I grant that application?

ACCUSED:  Because it’s an illegal charge.  The police cannot win the case because they do not have my IP and telecommunications account which is mandatory for them to gain a conviction of a telecommunications offence so there will be no conviction and the defence evidence shows that Gwen Bradley was stirring me up beforehand.  All of the allegations in the arrest are false and I will be lodging a private prosecution against Gwen Bradley charging her with conspiracy to bring false allegations.  The other thing is I was assaulted by police.  I’ve suffered three months of pain and two weeks after doing that to me Gwen Bradley sent me an email … she registered with my blog to leave a message telling me – mocking my illness, mocking the fact that I’m sick when she caused it, half of what I was going through then, and instructing me to hurry up and get well so I can come to court and be found guilty of all of Susan Ward’s false allegations.

HIS HONOUR:  All right, thank you.

ACCUSED:  So she broke bail, she broke the AVO conditions.

HIS HONOUR:  All right, I’ll give my decision on the application now.

There is an application before the Court to vary bail.  Ms Burt has been on bail since 22 October 2016 in relation to the charge.  Section 17 of the Bail Act provides that a bail authority must, before making a bail decision, assess any bail concerns.  The applicant’s application is that bail ought be dispensed with.  The bail which is in place has conditions – there is a general good behaviour condition and police conditions which are similar to those of an AVO.  Section 18 of the Act sets out the matters which are to be considered in an assessment of bail concerns and those matters include “the bail conditions that could reasonably be imposed to address any bail concerns in accordance with section 20A.”  Section 20A(2) of the Act provides that:

“A bail authority may impose a bail condition only if the bail authority is satisfied that:

  1. a) the bail condition is reasonably necessary to address a bail concern, and
    b) the bail condition is reasonable and proportionate to the offence for which bail is granted, and
    (c) the bail condition is appropriate to the bail concern in relation to which it is imposed, and
    (d) the bail condition is no more onerous than necessary to address the bail concern in relation to which it is imposed, and
    (e) it is reasonably practicable for the accused person to comply with the bail condition, and
    (f) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the condition is likely to be complied with by the accused person.”

Having regard to all of that, I am satisfied for the purposes of s 20A that there is a bail concern and that the conditions are reasonable and proportionate and that they are no more onerous than is necessary to address the bail concern.  The application to vary bail is refused.



I do believe that I addressed all of the relevant issues though, involving this arrest.

The court already had a copy of the letter to Jon Williams, and my admission that I had written and delivered it and why I had done so.

They also had confirmation from Ward that BDS Huon had received the letter, via Jon Williams, after he found it at a house owned by himself.

So what this charge really involves in Weekley’s claim that I admitted to him during a formal interview that I wrote and delivered that letter for no other reason than to have Ward fired from her job.

That is the issue the court should be looking at. I believe I have demonstrated that I dispute the arresting officer’s claim, and have done since the day after he ‘charged’ me, and why.

  • He did not state that we were about to have a formal interview, nor have my permission to conduct one.
  • Two officers were not present, and a personal mobile phone is not the correct way to record an official recording to be used in a court of law.
  • I assert that the confession is not valid, since the document has been tampered with and edited, after the informal conversation took place. This was confirmed by a qualified sound engineer, but who neglected to write that all down for me in a report.
  • The officer deliberately concealed his statement of facts, and his evidence, prior to hearing of the charge, and did not bother to prepare a brief for the prosecutor, nor appear in court on the date that it was listed for hearing, being 5 February 2016.
  • The only evidence the police did really introduce or tender into evidence, was the transcript of the appeal hearing, and which Weekley was not present at, and therefore had no knowledge of what went on there.


Why is this even relevant, and the real issues ignored?

Oh, because its happening in the Albury Local Court, where corruption and lies are the only things considered and acted on, and truth tellers are severely punished, fined and stuck with all of the court costs.

Which is why I now have to take matters to the Supreme Court. As readers of the blog saw, I was not allowed to appeal the granting of the extensions of the ADVO’s, because the court will only allow that to be held here in Albury.

I refuse to set foot in that court house, after Cromptom used the hearing after this, to set a trap to jail me.

Therefore, I cannot appeal this conviction and fine, in a district court, because again, Cromptom and Murray will refuse to let it be heard elsewhere, and will have already any new Magistrate to cover up for them and their corrupt lying asses.


The picture below is taken from a lady’s post on facebook. She was raped by a police ‘man’ in Goulburn, NSW. As usual, the PIC and Ombudman’s Office refused to investigate, and left the offender on the streets, and working at the same police station.

Our Superintendent Quarmby operated that same police station in the years following. He also seems to support officers harassing members of the public who have valid complaints to make against NSW police. . I wonder if he learned that while working there. Minehan and Mifsud certainly believe in strong arming their victims into silence. Where did they learn that behaviour from?









Lots of Editing of the Transcript for Jon Williams

I received this two days ago. After noticing all the editing that had been done in the earlier parts of the document, I didn’t bother finishing going through it that day.

However, below follows a severely doctored transcript excerpt, where Williams answers have been deliberately changed, and to remove the instances of purjery, where he claims to not have been aware of any federal regulations which require all taxation accountancy firms to protect their clients information from being leaked.

Back later with Weekley’s cross examination. I haven’t read it yet, but I notice that he swore under oath on the stand that his ‘statement of facts’ regarding my arrest were all true and correct. I should have objected to it being tendered at that point, but being an amateur solicitor in a venue where the court likes to cheat, I wasn’t made aware of that.

However, I had objected to it being used in any court, to the Police Commissioner, the Police Integrity Commission and the NSW Ombudsman’s Office, due to it containing only lies. Which again is why he submitted no evidence in his first brief to the court, the police superintendent refused me access to his ‘formal recording’, which is an illegal recording, and again was not tendered to the court, until this hearing, as part of the police brief, but then addressed at hearing.

Its also alarming that the doctoring of transcripts is still occurring at the Albury Local Court, despite myself having lodged four complaints about that to four difference agencies, and all of these latest transcripts have been heavily edited as well. Yet still cannot fail to disguise the stench of corruption, surrounding all of these events.


‘BDS Huon respect their clients right to privacy, and were not investigated by any agency’ Leasa Brown. lol.



HIS HONOUR:  Now, Ms Burt, we’re going to make a start in this hearing today.  Obviously you can see we’ve had a lot of matters before the Court today but we’ll make a start and then we’ll go part heard.  It will have to be put over to another date for conclusion but we’ll make a start with it today, all right.

ACCUSED:  Could I just clarify something as well?  I didn’t email my – serve my brief on police until yesterday via email so I just wanted to make sure they’re operating from the same brief that I’ve supplied to the Court and that I’m using.

PROSECUTOR:  Your Honour, Ms Burt supplied a bunch of material to I believe the officer in charge who is not in court.  This is a criminal matter.  There are certain aspects of it like the court transcripts that can be admitted into evidence but the typed statement which she has provided that won’t from my perspective be allowed into evidence.  She’ll have to give that verbally.  There is certain evidence of course like the transcripts that can be admitted into evidence.

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  We’ll get to all that when we get to the defendant’s case.  We’ll leave it at that then, thank you.  So we’ll begin with the first witness.  Ms Burt, the witness will be sworn and will give their evidence and you’ll have an opportunity to ask the witness questions.


HIS HONOUR:  But I would appreciate it if you could try to focus your mind on just this one very particular charge that we’re dealing with today and we’ll try to get through the evidence of each of the witnesses in the most efficient way that we can.

ACCUSED:  Yes, except I do have an application regarding bail in Gwen Bradley’s charge.  I would like the Court to hear that today.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, just hold on.  Firstly, we’re dealing with this matter and we’ll be having the evidence of the first witness.


HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.

PROSECUTOR:  Your Honour, the prosecution is going to start with Mr Jon Williams.



Q.  Can you please state your full name?
A.  Jon Charles Williams.

Q.  You’re the director of BDS is it Huan?
A.  Huon.

Q.  Huon, Griffith Road, Lavington. That’s correct.
A.  That is correct.

Q.  You’ve been a director of that company for the past 15 years?
A.  Yes,

Q.  Ms Burt’s sister Susan Ward, I don’t know if she still is, is she still an employee of the business? (Asked by Magistrate)
A.  Yes, she is.

Q.  So at the time of the allegation that we’re talking about, 4 December 2015, Ms Susan Ward was an employee of the business?
A.  Correct.

Q.  How long as at December 2015 had she been employed in the business?
A.  I don’t – I can’t remember fully. I would say probably three, four years.

Q.  I’ll take you to 3 January 2015. You attended your former residence and that’s XXXXXX Road, Glenroy.  Is that correct?
A.  That’s correct.

Q.  What happened when you went there?
A.  I went there to collect something out of the garage because it was my vacant house.

HIS HONOUR:  Sorry, I’m sorry, what date is this?

PROSECUTOR:  The third of–

WITNESS:  3 January 2016.

PROSECUTOR:  That’s correct.

HIS HONOUR:  3 January 2016.


ACCUSED:  Yes, that’s correct.

PROSECUTOR:  Sorry, I said the wrong date – I’m fixated on 2015 – 3 January 2016.




Q.  You went to XXXXX Road in Glenroy?
A.  Correct.

Q.  That’s your former residence, it was vacant?
A.  Yes.

Q.  What happened when you went there that day?
A.  I just went there to clean the letterbox out because it had been vacant for probably eight months, clean the letterbox out and get something out of the garage so I did that. My bins were in the garage because the previous neighbour was using them and so I threw what was in the – contents of the letterbox in the – all junk mail in the recycle bin, picked up I think it was a battery charger, I wouldn’t – can’t be a hundred per cent sure on that one and was leaving and I noticed an envelope under the door which I picked up.  It was – it had – it was an envelope from like Centrelink or Family Assistance Office or something like that so it wasn’t something I was – you know, an organisation I deal with so I was about to throw it in the recycle bin and I think I turned my hand and I noticed that it was addressed to BDS Group, so – which is the former business name which is now BDS Huon, so.

Q.  When you say under the door which door are you talking about?
A.  The roller door of the garage.

Q.  Then what’s happened?

So I’ve taken that. I had my daughter with me so I didn’t even really look at it.  I put it in my briefcase.  Over the course of the next – because I was off work on that Monday because I was babysitting my daughter – I had a bit of a look at the contents of the envelope.  It was four typed pages that was just – there was accusations from Ms Burt to the receptionist, Ms Ward.  I really couldn’t finish the document because it was just a big family feud and it was just too hard to read.  I sort of dismissed it, put it in my briefcase.  I was off work for the next two days with my daughter but then probably on Wednesday night because the contents was alleging that one of the – that – that our receptionist was telling a client – divulging client information I thought, look, I’ll give it our HR manager for review which I did was on Thursday 7 January and I said, “Look, Sue has stayed in my house, I think for independent reasons I’d prefer not to be involved in anything that you deal with, so you need to take this matter up – if you believe it needs to go further, take it to Ross and Larry,” who were the two other directors of the business at the time.

Q.  We’ll just take a step back there. You say that there were allegations about your receptionist and when you say receptionist are you referring to Susan Ward?
A.  Correct.

Q.  So there were allegations about Susan Ward releasing client privileged information
A.  Yes, yeah, yeah.

Q.  You said that Sue had previously rented the former residence. Again are you referring to Susan Ward?
A.  Yes, sorry.

Q.  That’s okay.
A.  So she’s rented my house in 26 XXXXXX Road, yeah.

Q.  So that’s the residence that we’re talking about?
A.  Correct.

Q.  She previously rented that, 26 xxxxxx Road?

Q.  So as a result of that you decided to give it to your HR manager?
A.  Correct.

Q.  Some time later in November 2016 police came and spoke to you about this matter, took a statement from you? (11 months later, letter is dated 4.12.15)
A.  Yes. Rowan – Senior – Constable Rowan Weekley asked if I would, you know, provide a statement, a witness statement and I said, yes, didn’t have a problem.

Q.  You said you received this letter. I’ll show you four documents.
A.  Thank you.

Q.  Is this the copy of the letter that you say that you received at the residence of XXXXXX Road on 3 January 2016?
A. Yes, that is pretty well it. Hard to tell exactly without reading obviously and it was in coloured writing and it did have a little note on the back of the fourth page. (No, it was printed in black. Ward’s copy was brown and hard to photocopy, and my defence statements green. I don’t think this was said at all, and he had the letter with him, printed in black ink)

Q.  Okay.
A.  So that’s – that is missing slightly the–

Q.  So apart from the four pages you say that there was also something on the back–
A.  Yes.

Q.  –in a little coloured note?
A.  No, it was a handwritten note.

Q.  Handwritten note?
Because I actually brought it along just in case.

Q.  You’ve actually got a copy?
I’ve got the original. (in my pocket)

Q.  Can I get you to produce the original, please.
A.  Do you want that?

Q.  Yes, I’ll have a look, please. Thank you.  So this is – this is what you’re saying – this is the original that you received?
A.  Correct.

Q.  Thank you.
Q.  And, sorry, I can’t tell you what’s on the back because it’s – as it’s been in my possession for probably 18 months and I still haven’t read the full contents of it because it’s just a family feud document.



(Proceedings paused while Cromptom read through the whole letter, and the note on the back. From this point on he is fully aware of the full contents of that letter)

Q.  Are you familiar with item 6 of the Tax Practitioners Board Code of Professional Conduct?

Lots of changed text here. Williams had immediately answered no. I laughed out loud and asked him again. The prosecutor did not object, at this point)

PROSECUTOR:  Your Honour, I object to that; relevance.

HIS HONOUR:  What’s the relevance, Ms Burt?

ACCUSED:  It’s their requirement to protect the confidentiality of their client information at all times from being leaked to outside parties.

ACCUSED:    And your business can have its licence suspended or terminated if you fail to protect your clients’ information.

HIS HONOUR:  Is that a question? (I didn’t ask that as a question, so this answer is a fake line)

ACCUSED:  I asked if he was familiar with that item of the code of conduct.

HIS HONOUR:  I’ll allow it, sergeant.


Q.  Are you familiar with it?
A.  I’m not familiar with the specific section but I understand that you’ve raised a complaint with the board and (not true, he said that he was not aware of it at all, implying that he had no idea what it related to. All of the text around this question, his replies and my further questions have been edited and changed)


Q.  Are you aware that you’re under investigation again at the moment?
A.  No, I wouldn’t.

Q.  No? (Well I have lodged new complaints against you recently and which are in motion)
So I haven’t received any documents to – to indicate that.

(Real statements missing here too, you can see that this is not flowing properly)

Q.  Well, they’ve been supplied with all of your police witness statements and everything.

PROSECUTOR:  Your Honour, I object to that.  What is the relevance of an investigation that’s not associated with this case? (Don’t think this was said)

HIS HONOUR:  I’m struggling to see the relevance, I have to say, Ms Burt.

ACCUSED:  I advised BDS Huon that their receptionist was committing a crime.



Q.  She is forbidden by the Tax Practitioners  (federal) regulations to gossip outside of work hours about your clients’ personal affairs and financial circumstances and because these regulations are in place you are entitled (required) to have her sign a confidentiality agreement when she started work with your company.  Is that correct?
A. She would sign an employment contract via our HR manager, yes.

Q.  Would that have covered confidentiality?
Yes, it would. (changed again, he tried to say that she had only signed an employment contract, which is why I pushed him to admit that it included points about client confidentiality, as it is a regulation that they must have her sign one)

Q.  So then when you were advised that she was breaching that—(those regulations, why did you side with her and start attacking me?)
A. I was advised by your letter about your accusations against her so in that regard they were placed in the hands of our HR person who then spoke with two other directors, not myself, because as I said, I had – I thought I had an independence problem and they – they’ve then interviewed Ms Ward to determine if there was – if the matter should be taken further.

Q.   I gave two examples of information that her mother knew about people that had come from Susan and it was about their financial situation. She – she knew the man who lived across the road was facing bankruptcy–



Q.  She knew that a man that I’d run into at a nightclub had sold one of his houses and was having financial problems, that was Peter XXXXXX.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Burt, sorry, the entitlement you have is to cross-examine this witness on the evidence he’s given.  The evidence – you’ve heard the evidence he’s just given so that’s – that’s the part that you’re allowed to ask him questions about.  I’ve got this letter which is admitted into evidence as exhibit 1.

ACCUSED:  Yes, and I’m just pointing out the fact that letter contains two examples of things Susan Ward’s mother shouldn’t have known about other people.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, you can ask the witness – you have asked the witness about the letter and he says – he’s given evidence that he placed it in the hands of the PR (lol) person, so what more do you want to ask him about the content of the letter?


Q.  You didn’t think to ring me up and ask me for any more information? I provided my phone number at the bottom of the letter.
A. No. As I said, I – I thought I may have had a conflict if there was a problem so for me correct protocol was to pass it on the HR person and have it dealt with by the two independent directors.  Probably furthermore that, you know, the only client that I saw mentioned in the letter was, as you just said, Peter XXXXXX  who is not someone that I have any idea – he’s not a client of mine personally so I don’t know his affairs so I couldn’t determine the validity of the information so there was nothing for me to do with that information apart from pass it on to someone that could determine the validity of the information.

Q.  And neither of them bothered to try and – the HR manager or Ross Griffin – no one bothered to phone me up and ask me for more details.

PROSECUTOR:  I object.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, the witness can’t give evidence about what other people did or didn’t do.


HIS HONOUR:  This witness can only give evidence about what he did.


Q.  So according to Susan Ward’s statement she was then called into the office on 7 (11) January as you said and was told that it had been given to Ross Griffin, she’d been dobbed in by me and Ross Griffin sought legal advice and according to Ms Ward that legal advice was that I couldn’t prove these allegations against her in a court of law.

PROSECUTOR:  I object to that question.


PROSECUTOR:  How is this witness meant to know?

HIS HONOUR:  This witness can only give evidence about what he saw, what he heard, what he did.

ACCUSED:  Yes.  He said he gave it to them to deal with and they decided I couldn’t prove it in a court of law.

Q.  So then you all attacked me instead and had me charged for writing that letter to you.

HIS HONOUR:  But Ms Burt, this is not an opportunity for you to ventilate your grievances.  The witness is here to answer questions about his evidence and his evidence only, all right?

ACCUSED:  Yes.  After 18 months–

HIS HONOUR:  I’m not interested in any of that. (Gives me a lecture about how to cross examine and that questions can only relate to statements given to police)

ACCUSED:  (How am I supposed to know how to cross examine? And from what I have read recently -) The Court should have appointed me a lawyer by now. (after 18 months of being unrepresented)

HIS HONOUR:  Don’t speak over – do not speak over me. (Was not, was simply replying to him trying to admonish me)

ACCUSED:  Okay.  I’m just saying–

HIS HONOUR:  I’m not–

ACCUSED:  –I read recently the Court should have appointed me a lawyer so you can’t blame me that I don’t have one.(This was not how this was said. What I have written above is closer to the truth)

HIS HONOUR:  Now, again I say to you, you can question this witness about the evidence that he’s given but there is no utility and it is not assisting me for you to question or to attempt to question the witness about matters which have nothing to do with this charge.  It’s a very specific charge.  If you are not able to focus your questions in the appropriate form then there will be no purpose in me allowing you to continue to cross-examine this witness at all.

(Yet the charge is about writing to the company, advising them of her misconduct and her ADVO application, and them having me charged for that. I think I am sticking to the issues, when I question him on the legality of his companies actions, and that of not investigating Wards)

ACCUSED:  Okay, well, I do have some further questions for him, your Honour.


ACCUSED:  I was going to summon Ross Griffin today so that I could ask him those questions. (maybe we should do that, ask him why he then had me charged for phoning him about these issues).


ACCUSED:  I wasn’t organised in time to do that so I thought I could put them to Mr Williams since he’s the part owner of the company and was the one that found the letter and handed it on.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, but–

ACCUSED:  But I will move on if you like, yes.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.


Q.   So coming back to the Tax Practitioners Board. On the day after I was arrested by Constable Weekley I’d been ringing the police station about that and they were hanging up on me so I phoned your office. Now, it was nearly time for Susan’s lunch hour to end.  I knew that I couldn’t phone if she answered the call and that I would have to hang up but, she didn’t answer the call, so I (was put through to) rang and I advised Ross Griffin I was going to put in a complaint to the Tax Practitioners Board about you, the company, and not investigating this and I did so.  Then I received a letter from the Tax Practitioners Board informing me that your company had advised them you would deal with the matter in-house.

PROSECUTOR:  I object again.  This witness has given evidence that he has no – he handed it over.  They’re questions for the other people.

HIS HONOUR:  You can ask this witness if he knows that that occurred.


HIS HONOUR:  And then he can give his response.

ACCUSED (Below my questions are changed slightly, but his answers  are expended and changed, to make it look like he was co-operating. He stated his company had not told the TPB anything at all. Which is why I bought up the letter I had at home confirming that they did. Looks like someone in the office at the court house is very determined to protect BDS Huon)

Q.  Are you aware that your business was contacted by the Tax Practitioners Board about my complaint?
A. Yes, I was. I’m not a hundred per cent aware that they then put it back to us to say that the matter would be dealt with internally.  As I said, I’d passed the matter on so, you know, I was trying to keep independent of any inquiries.

(Why is the court house protecting this man, and his employees, by editing their words? You still cannot disguise the she is the one accused of a crime, and that the company covered it up. But as the Magistrate points out, I am the one accused of a crime here, not him, and certainly not her)

Q.  Well, I have a letter at home that they sent me in February saying that your company had advised them, and I do believe it was Ross Griffin that did it, that you would sort the matter out in-house. They would have been aware that Susan Ward’s behaviour was illegal. They would have been aware of your obligation to punish her and not the whistleblower.

HIS HONOUR:  Is there a–


Q.  And you told them that you would sort it out in-house.

HIS HONOUR: Ms Burt – Ms Burt–


Q.  And you didn’t. You (let her go to police) went to police, and you called police in on 16 February and tried to have me charged for phoning your office about being arrested.

HIS HONOUR:  Is there a question?

ACCUSED:  Well, no, okay.  There’s not.

Q.  But when I did phone your office it was to ask if I could speak to a higher manager than you because you appeared to have allowed Susan Ward to have me arrested so I wanted to speak to someone above you–

HIS HONOUR:  What’s the – Ms Burt–


Q.  –and then I was put through to Ross Griffin who was your equal partner.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Burt do you have a question for this witness?  You’re not assisting me.  What you’re doing is you’re – you’re berating the witness.  Now, is there a question?

(I think the above is changed, to make it look like I kept asking him the same question, and therefore bullying him.)

ACCUSED:  I am just trying to demonstrate, your Honour, that once they were advised that their employee was breaking the law and seeking an AVO against me in the courthouse to prevent me telling them that, that once they became aware of that they worked with her to try to have the AVO granted.

HIS HONOUR:  All right.

ACCUSED:  So that then I couldn’t ring them–

HIS HONOUR:  Just – just wait.

ACCUSED:  –about the crime.

HIS HONOUR:  Just wait.  If you have a specific proposition that you want to put to this witness, you can put it to him and then the witness will have an opportunity to say whether he agrees or he doesn’t agree.  This is called the rule in Browne v Dunn.  So if you have something specific you want to put to this witness you put it to him and then he’ll have an opportunity to respond.  Do you understand?

ACCUSED:  Okay, yes.

HIS HONOUR:  So go ahead.

ACCUSED:  I’ve forgotten my question now that I was going to ask him next.  Just give me a minute.

Q.  So that letter also states that Susan is taking out an AVO against me to prevent me ringing the company to advise you of her crimes. Don’t you think that’s a bit of an admission of guilt that if she was innocent she wouldn’t have sought an AVO preventing me from contacting you?

HIS HONOUR:  Just let the witness answer.

PROSECUTOR:  I object.  Your Honour, she’s asking about someone else’s admission of guilt.  How can this witness answer that?  He can answer that he read the letter and that’s what the letter contained but how is he to say that this is an admission of Susan’s guilt her taking out an AVO?  Does he even know anything about the AVO proceedings?

HIS HONOUR:  Well, look, I think – I think that Ms Burt is entitled to ask the witness questions about the content of the letter.  The letter is in evidence.  What weight it has is a question for me ultimately.

(The letter contained a copy of her ADVO application, just to show him that it was the truth, and so he could see what it was asking for, for me not to contact that company about her misconduct).

PROSECUTOR:  My only concern is that she’s saying, “Do you agree that that is an admission of guilt by Ms Ward?”  How is he meant to–

HIS HONOUR:  Well, he can’t possibly know that.

ACCUSED:  I am asking if that’s his opinion.

HIS HONOUR:  Right.  Just ask the question and the witness can answer it.


Q.  I’m just saying, wouldn’t you assume that she was guilty if she took out an AVO to prevent me from phoning you?

PROSECUTOR:  He can’t answer that question.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, that’s right.


Q.  But yes, the AVO was described in the letter. He was advised that she’s taking legal action against me through the courthouse.  You were also advised that if word of that got out it would make your company look pretty silly, your receptionist sitting here arguing that she has a right to gossip about their clients’ personal affairs after work.
A.  I’m sorry, what is the question?

Q.  That the letter said this could all get very embarrassing for your company once word of that started to get out.

A.  Which is why as – as I said when I was asked the question by this lady that I didn’t fully read the contents of the letter because I really – now that your Honour has read it – I really couldn’t get through it. I saw the words basically gossiping.  I saw one client name that was not my client.  I decided that I was not the best person to take the matter further.  I decided I may have a conflict of interest because Ms Ward had stayed at my house so I passed the matter on to the HR person and advised our HR person that she would need to deal with the other two directors over the matter.  I’ve tried to read the letter again in the – in the – over the course of 18 months and I’m afraid I just can’t get through it so it was – it was a waste of my time and so I passed the matter on,

Q.  The letter also describes your receptionist coming to my house on rented property on 6 November and making threats against me and I didn’t know it at the time but the lady that owns that house is a client of yours so your receptionist came to one of your clients’ house threatening to beat me up over this big family drama – and I would like to make this point – this is a big family fight. It had no place in a courtroom.  (Yet his company let her take it there, and by using them as a shield)

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Burt, just hold on, just wait.  You have – you will have an opportunity at the end of all the evidence to make submissions to me about why it is that you say that the prosecution can’t prove this charge.  But this witness is here to assist the Court and he has given his evidence.  You’ve been given an opportunity to cross-examine him.  You’ve asked him about the letter.  I’ve allowed it.  This is not a place for you to badger these witnesses.  Now, unless you have a proper question for this witness I’m going to excuse the witness from any further cross-examination.


Q.  My question was going to be, so when I emailed Kerry Lloyd on 5 February and advised her what Susan Ward was doing and what these proceedings were about, you later had me charged by police (for phoning you about having been arrested).
A.  No, I didn’t later have you charged.

Q.  Susan did but all your staff has given witness statements.
A.  No, all of our staff haven’t given witness statements.

Q.  Not all of them but ones involved have.
A.  I’m assuming that ones involved have.

Q.  Yes, so you’re helping her to have me charged with criminal offences–
A.  No.

Q.  –for mentioning the embarrassment that she’s bringing upon your firm in this courthouse.

HIS HONOUR:  Just wait.  Just wait.  Is there an actual question, again I’m going to ask you.

ACCUSED:  That was the question, how can you–

HIS HONOUR:  It’s not a question.  You’re accusing the witness of various parts of conduct that have nothing to do with this charge.  The witness is not on trial.  You’re the person who’s charged with an offence here, not the witness.

ACCUSED:  I’ve had four charges brought against me after this one and they all tie back to this one about the fact that I had advised this company that Susan Ward stops in at her mother’s place nearly every afternoon after work and spills the contents of everything she read about people (in their files).

Q.  And I’ll tell you something, Mr Williams–

HIS HONOUR:  Stop it.  No, you won’t be telling the witness anything.  You’re not assisting me.  This cross-examination is over.




I also see that during the ‘bail’ hearing that followed, Magistrate Cromptom did not actually set a date for mention or hearing of the charge that it related to. Just sets my next bail check in with the court, for the same day as the continuation of this hearing of Ward’s charge.

Yet the Registry later lied and said that they did. Which meant, I should have even bother to appear for the continuation of this hearing on 14 September 2017. By then the court had seen that not only could I defend myself on paper, with my submissions and evidence to the court, but I could do so at hearing as well. Not as well as a solicitor would have of course, but well enough for them to refuse to let the hearing continue, when it was listed to do so. They had to refuse to allow Ward to answer any questions, at all, which made me abandon the hearing.

Albury Local Court has too much to hide, and too much riding on this one conviction to give it a fair hearing. It should have been moved to a new venue for that reason, and they refuse to allow it for that same reason.

Without a conviction for this police charge, all of their others, and continued harassment and bullying of myself, over the past two years, falls down.


Exhibit produced by Jon Williams, who bought the original letter he claims to have never read, and passed on to Leasa Brown to deal with. Leasa later went on to say that Ward was exonerated by BDS Huon, who never conducted any real investigation. Brown goes on to accuse me of lying about the whole situation on google review. But it was Brown who posted lies to that platform, including that BDS was investigated and then exonerated, then changed that to read that they had never been investigated and didn’t even know how the TPB and IGT even were. And implied that Ward had some other reason to seek that ADVO against me, and that I was only accusing her now of gossiping about their client’s affairs, because I was annoyed about the ADVO and frustrated at not being able to contact her directly.

Yeah right. Would you trust a liar to do your tax return?

Depends what they lie about.

If they lie about protecting my information when they don’t, then no, I would not use that service. I was also alert other people to the fact that they don’t, and therefore, deserve no business, no trust from their clients.


The start of the hearing above follows. I haven’t made any or many notes through it, but it doesn’t matter, but I still won’t post the one for Weekley until I have actually read it, and can make side notes pointing out untruths and real truths.

I was so sick I wouldn’t have minded if they had adjourned us that day, instead of dismissing the case that was next in line, moved up when the court had to phone Jon Williams and tell him that I hadn’t let them brush over his non-appearance, and that he must come down. Instead they part heard it, and adjourned it for three months, when we ran out of time.

Considering that they refused to let Ward be cross examined at the next hearing, they should have just let her testify that day instead.

She was having a panic attack by the time the other two witnesses had appeared. My witness told me that Ward started abusing her police minders at that point, and carrying on saying that ‘she should not have to do this’. He thought it funny that she went off at them after they’d held her hand all day.

But also, why should she not have to prove her case in court? From the moment they lodged those applications, and then swore under oath that they were true, in the witness box at a hearing held deliberately in my own absence and ignorance, she was in line to have to prove them. Regardless of her friendship with Gwen Bradley. Yet still has not been asked to. Why?



2016/00020395  –  R  v  Tracey BUR

OFFENCE  Contravene prohibition/restriction in apprehended violence                        order

Sergeant Lewis for the Informant
Accused appeared in person

HIS HONOUR:  I mention the matters of Ms Burt.  Now, sergeant, there’s multiple matters here.

PROSECUTOR:  Yes, your Honour.  There’s only one matter in for hearing and that’s the matter ending in 075.

HIS HONOUR:  075, that’s the contravene.

PROSECUTOR:  That’s the first one in time.

HIS HONOUR:  That’s the first contravene and it’s part heard.  What did we get up to on the last occasion?

PROSECUTOR:  Your Honour heard the notices of motion and after that standing it down your Honour marked yourself part heard so the hearing hasn’t started officially but your Honour marked yourself part heard after dealing with the notices of motion.

HIS HONOUR:  Right, and what about all–

ACCUSED:  Excuse me, I didn’t understand any of that.

HIS HONOUR:  All right.  We’ll come back to you in a second.

ACCUSED:  I can’t hear what she’s saying.

HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Just – just repeat it, thank you, sergeant.

PROSECUTOR:  Your Honour dealt with the notice of motion filed by Ms Burt on the last occasion.  After dealing with those notices of motion your Honour marked yourself part heard but the hearing itself has not started.

HIS HONOUR:  That’s right, thank you, and all these other matters, they’re all following, are they?

PROSECUTOR:  They’re just following and the next one in time will get a hearing date after your Honour deals with this matter.

HIS HONOUR:  Okay.  So the one listed for hearing today is the one ending in 075.

PROSECUTOR:  Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  That’s the charge of contravene which is 7pm 13 January 2016 at Lavington, correct?

PROSECUTOR:  Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Okay, and how many witnesses are there?

PROSECUTOR:  No, sorry, your Honour, 13 January – the indictment should read between 6am and 9pm on 14 December 2015 at Lavington.

HIS HONOUR:  The one that I’ve got for hearing is 7pm 13 January 2016.

ACCUSED:  The police officer changed the paperwork.  Originally he charged me for the crime on 13 January.  Then in the new issue he charges me for having committed it on 4 December not the 14th, the 4th.

HIS HONOUR:  Was it amended, was it, sergeant?

ACCUSED:  Yes.  He issued a new statement of facts.

(This was stated a bit later on. I let them fumble around not understanding why they both had different dates of the offence for the same charge and brief, before pointing out to them that the officer had changed the date in the brief he’d prepared in November, while the original paperwork from January gave the date as 13 January. They change the text to make it appear the prosecutor and the Magistrate worked that out between themselves, and I just confirmed it. My witness would disagree with their version.


ACCUSED:  Your Honour, could I just say that I’ve got diarrhoea and I’ve been nauseous since I woke up so if I say I need to be excused I really do.

HIS HONOUR:  All right.

ACCUSED:  And may I sit down?

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, you can sit down.

ACCUSED:  I’m struggling to stand here.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, you can sit.  Sergeant, so was it amended, was it?

PROSECUTOR:  I believe – well, according to Ms Burt.  My indictment in my brief says December.  The allegation put to Ms Burt – yes, the indictment should be 4 December 2015 and that’s what my indictment says.

HIS HONOUR:  We’re on the one ending in 7075?

PROSECUTOR:  Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  I’ve got 7pm 13 January 2016.

ACCUSED:  I was at home on 13 January and I’ve got witnesses that can prove that.  I committed no crime.

HIS HONOUR:  All right.  I just want to make sure that we’ve got the right charge.  So Ms Burt, you say you were served with a different date?

This is where I advised them, of what they pretend occurred above)

ACCUSED:  Yes.  The original paperwork he put the date of the offence as the 13th.  Then when he issued a new brief in November last year he’d changed the date to 4 December.  That was the date that the letter was written and delivered to Jon Williams’ house–


(This part followed once they had both occurred that explained the different dates on their own individual paperwork)

ACCUSED:  –to avoid the AVO restriction of not being allowed to approach BDS Huon.

HIS HONOUR:  Okay.  Hold on.  Yes, sergeant.

PROSECUTOR:  So your Honour, my instructions from the officer in charge – and I apologise because my indictment says 4 December 2015 – that is the date of the offence, that is what the indictment should reflect and that is definitely charge ending in 075.

HIS HONOUR:  So you want to amend it to 4 December?

PROSECUTOR:  It should be between 6am and 9pm.

HIS HONOUR:  Hold on, between–



PROSECUTOR:  –and 9pm on 4 December 2015 at Lavington.

ACCUSED:  I’d question the legality of that, charging me with having committed a crime on one date and then six, seven months later or when was it, January to November, ten months later, then he charges me with a crime on a different date.

HIS HONOUR:  But you were served with a copy of the amended notice?

ACCUSED:  Yes, I was.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, sergeant, that’s the CAN that we’ll be proceeding on?

PROSECUTOR:  Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  How many witnesses are there?

PROSECUTOR:  Three, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  There are three witnesses, all right.  Ms Burt, there are three prosecution witnesses.  We’ll be making a start with that today.  You’ll have an opportunity to ask those witnesses questions after they’ve given their evidence.  I understand that you’ve been attempting to issue subpoenas for this hearing.  Is that right?

(Not true, she said there would be three police witnesses, plus Ward and Williams. The other two chicken out, after they say me grill Weekley and nearly make him cry 😉

ACCUSED:  Yes and no.  I’ve got one for the police to provide a record of service but Constable Weekley charged me under the interim AVO so proof of service doesn’t really matter so much for this one but for the next four that you’ll be trying to set for hearing–

(A solicitor might disagree with that, and say that this charge is still not valid, without a final order proving that it was proven in court, and that order having been served)


ACCUSED:  –then I would like to see proof of service.  I’ll also be lodging a new application for motion after today due to new evidence discovered last week when I was preparing my defence against Gwen Bradley’s charge.


ACCUSED:  You claimed that Gwen Bradley and Susan Ward have nothing to do with each other’s matters before the Court.  It turns out Susan Ward provides the evidence for the police charge Gwen Bradley brought against – had police bring against me.

HIS HONOUR:  Right.  Just hold on.  Before we get into that–

ACCUSED:  So that proves collusion once and for all, your Honour, I’m sorry.

HIS HONOUR:  We’re just trying to focus on the matter that’s listed for hearing today.

ACCUSED:  I’ve got this subpoena to give to the prosecutor regarding a valid record of service and in lieu of that then I’ll need the serving officer to testify.

HIS HONOUR:  Hold on.  When you say service what you’re saying – you know that you’ve been served with the court attendance notice, yes?

ACCUSED:  I’m talking about the final order of Susan Ward’s ADVO.  That’s what I want proof of service for.

HIS HONOUR:  I thought we’d already been around this issue, sergeant, hadn’t we?

PROSECUTOR:  Your Honour, the court officer showed me the subpoena that’s lodged.  It hasn’t officially been served.

HIS HONOUR:  Hasn’t been served?

PROSECUTOR:  In relation to the hearing before the Court today, it is the interim order that we’re relying on.


PROSECUTOR:  There is a final order made.  That’s not what I’m relying on in this hearing.

HIS HONOUR:  And you’ll be tendering an interim order?

PROSECUTOR:  The interim order.

HIS HONOUR:  And there’s a service document for service?

PROSECUTOR:  Just to clarify the issue I have been shown the subpoena.  I’m getting the officer to go to the registry, photocopy the one in my brief and just for completeness I will give another copy to Ms Burt so that she has that.

HIS HONOUR:  Of the interim order.

PROSECUTOR:  That is the one I’ll be relying on today.

(Yet in the police brief, Weekley actually tendered a copy of the final order, and which remains unserved. She still has not given me, nor the court, a copy of the interim either)

HIS HONOUR:  Right, okay.  So this subpoena to NSW Police, Ms Burt, is unnecessary.  The officer is going to serve you another copy of the interim order.  That subpoena is struck out.

ACCUSED:  I didn’t request one for the interim order.  I have a copy of the interim order.  I was served – when the final orders were made on 29 February in my absence, a few days later I was served a copy of Janice O’Bryan’s ADVO.  I was not served a copy of Susan Ward’s.

HIS HONOUR:  Hold on.  That subpoena is struck out.  The next one, you’ve issued or you’ve attempted to issue a subpoena to the registrar of the Albury Local Court.

ACCUSED:  Yes, I have.

HIS HONOUR:  Do you stand by that subpoena, you wish to subpoena that person?

ACCUSED:  Yes, all right, we’ll do that today. (Not what I said, I said I didn’t have time to look for her that morning to serve her, and was too sick to pursue it at that present time)

HIS HONOUR:  Well, the subpoena hasn’t been issued in a proper form. (Crap, plus the she would have been out of her office, and the court house, so that I could not serve her)

ACCUSED:  All right, well, we won’t bother with that.

HIS HONOUR:  All right.

ACCUSED:  We’ll just go ahead with the hearing.  However, there is one more thing I’d like to say.

HIS HONOUR:  Just hold on.  Just – just – just wait.  You’ll be given an opportunity to speak in a moment.  That subpoena is struck out.  Sergeant, you’ve got three witnesses, you’re getting another copy of the interim order.

PROSECUTOR:  Yes, your Honour, just so there’s no confusion–


PROSECUTOR:  –to make sure she understands that that’s what we’re relying on.

HIS HONOUR:  Right, so, Ms Burt, this charge, the one that we’re having a hearing for today, is the charge of contravene a prohibition or restriction in an AVO–


HIS HONOUR:  –and the police are relying on the interim order that was put in place.


HIS HONOUR:  The allegation is that you contravened it between 6am and 9pm on 4 December 2015 at Lavington.


HIS HONOUR:  Do you understand all of that?

ACCUSED:  Yes, I do.

PROSECUTOR:  So there’s no confusion because there are interim orders and final orders–


PROSECUTOR:  –can I give a copy of that one we are relying on?

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, please do.

PROSECUTOR:  Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  All right, so the way that it will work is that the police will call their witnesses in turn, they’ll give their evidence.  You’ll be entitled to cross‑examine them and ask them questions but I’d ask you to focus your mind on this one charge–


HIS HONOUR:  –which is the first hearing we’re having.

ACCUSED:  Yes.  Could I say with the witnesses, I’d indicated to police I wish to cross-examine Jon Williams.  He’s provided police with a witness statement and I don’t see him here today.

PROSECUTOR:  He’s coming, your Honour.  I’m instructed by the officer in charge that he is on his way.

HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Thank you.  What we’ll do then is, Ms Burt, I’m just going to take a brief adjournment to give you an opportunity to look at that document and I’ll come back on shortly.  Thank you.



In looking through my records, I don’t have a copy of an Interim Order, served at the outset. Maybe I gave that to Jon Williams in that envelope. I did include something from the court to confirm the grounds of her application, and the date of the next court hearing.

However, what I saved and named “Interim Order” on my computer, is actually just a copy of her application, showing a court date of 14 December 2015. I also have a copy of the same document, scanned and saved under the name “ADVO application”, which shows the date of 23 November 2015, a date which had already passed by the time I was given that document.

Maybe I gave my copy to Jon Williams. Maybe I didn’t. I hadn’t appeared in court at all when I wrote to him, so nothing given to me at my first court appearance, or posted to me afterwards was sent to him. Just something from the initial documents served on me.

Maybe I never had one? Mr Williams and Leasa Brown are the only people who would be able to confirm which documents I did attach to the letter.

Police never gave me a copy of any interim order on that day in court either, as far as I remember. I was sick, and the person I’d been renting a room off had kept me awake until after 2am, knowing that I had hearing. He didn’t want me to win in court, because he knew I would leave town once I did.

The reason I was not quite prepared, was because he had visitors on the day before my hearing, and I got nothing done. The day prior to that, I drove to town and swapped cars with my son, because mine had died once and was still not properly fixed. I didn’t want it to not start on the day of court, so again, instead of preparing paperwork, I went to arrange that.

Ward claims in her insults to me, posted to this blog on 16 September 2017, that I wasn’t organized with my questions with her. Yet I was, very organized, apart from having fixed typos that no one else would see, as the document containing my questions to her was to be read out verbally, by myself. Instead, those questions were published here, when the Magistrate refused to allow her to be asked, nor to answer any questions.

Yet I sometimes laugh at how stupid they all look when the Judicial Commission has to listen to the tapes, and hears me instructing them on what is going on.

But do you get the feeling when you read these transcripts, that they all played a role at pretending to read documents, pretended that they were evaluating and considering the information contained within them, while ignoring the real crimes that were committed by the complainants and the arresting officers, or court staff?

They continue to pretend that I was guilty of criminal conduct, knowing full well it was the complainants who should have been charged with making false complaints in the first place? Police never interviewed or spoke to me about any of these events, or my own behaviour, until the court wanted to bring criminal charges against me just to pretend that their friends the complainants really did have a case.

They are pretending to go through the motions at hearing, but without ever touching on the real issues or examining anything. They just get some activity onto the record, to pretend that things were done in accordance to law and procedures, even though that activity had absolutely nothing to do with law, order or justice.


Ward feared taking the stand so much, and having to tell her lies to my face and let me dispute them, that they were all ready to protect her from that and not let it happen.

ADVO unproven in court, both times, as far as I am concerned, and now same with the first charge of breach.



The subpoena being discussed at the hearing above was one to the Registrar requesting that she produce a copy of the allegation of the incidence of violence which saw matters revoked from mediation.

Now it turns out, by way of Ward’s cross examination by the police prosecutor, that the document does exist.

The document which saw matters revoked from mediation, now appears to be the document the prosecutor refers to, and which has always been denied to the accused. Ward’s letter to the court, and BDS Huon’s email, confirming that I had contacted the company, and Ward nearly got in trouble at work, for gossiping about their clients business with her mother, every afternoon after work.

Now that document is sitting at the court house, waiting for me to pick up, according to the clerks there.

Why didn’t they just give it to me back at the start of June, when I had issued the subpoena requesting it? That would have saved a lot of confusion back in September.

They only agree to give it to me, once I’ve been convicted again, and by way of  it.

But I do believe that the only reason they want to give it to me now, is so that they can slap final orders on me, for the latest orders illegally awarded to these lying bitches, and start charging me against those.









Framed in the Albury Local Court

I’ve been busy for the past three days working on this book instead of blogging.

The first edition was put together in haste, while preparing to be arrested and sent to jail.

I’ve now had time to go through the book and clean up the errors which were made due to that process.

I’ve added another chapter, and the new information about Magistrate criminally corrupt Cromptom fining me $4,000 last week, to punish me for being innocent.

Bear in mind that judgement reinforces that the NSW government, and its Magistrates, believe that it is ok for a police officer to come into your home, frame you for a crime, and then offer not evidence of that ‘crime’ to the court at hearing.

It also means that it is ok for police to make illegal recordings of informal conversations, and claim that they are formal interviews, after editing the recording. Also to record the opening introduction to same in the police car, before approaching the person who will be set up.

But most of all, it again confirms that Albury Court House has no problem at all with people who lie in court, and in their submissions to same. Perjury is now officially legal in NSW. Telling the truth is punishable by hefty fines, or a term in jail.

Or is that only if you are up against friends of friends of the court’s own employees?

Its also legal or Susan Ward to gossip about BDS Huon’s clients’ personal and financial affairs outside of the office. I’ll  advise the Federal Government that they need to rewrite their legislation and regulations, regarding that issue.

Or again, is that only if you have friends employed at the local court house?

If I can sell about 450 copies within the next three weeks, I can just pay that fine, and not have to bother appealing to the Supreme Court.

Its not possible to appeal that conviction at the Albury District Court, because I won’t walk into that court house. Since the court will claim that it must be appealed there, where the judgement was made, then the Supreme Court is my only option of lifting the matters up and out of that cesspit of corruption and deceit.

So the book is ready, and available for purchase. The cost is $18 AUD, plus about $7 postage. $9.50 covers printing costs, and a small commission to the publishing site. I will receive $8.50 royalties form each copy sold, for my defence fund.

Regardless of how many it sells, and despite the fact that both Ward and O’Bryan will try to have me charged for it, as a breach of their new illegally gained ADVO extensions, I still  firmly believe that I have the right to defend myself from their lies.

Albury Local Court convicting me of their lies, does not deny me the right to continue to protest my innocence. Especially in light of the corrupt and illegal things the court did to have to award them the winners. This was mainly achieved by Maggot Murray dismissing all of the defence evidence.

I see from the transcript of 20 June 2017, that Magistrate Cromptom has done that again this time. Wording in that transcript has been changed, where the prosecutor said she might object to some of the statements in my brief.

Well, the court never went through the defence brief, so those were never discussed in court.

However, in the doctored version of that transcript, the police prosecutor now states that she objects to my defence statements, and that they will have to be given verbally by myself in court, if they are to be considered.

So written defence statements are not acceptable and will not be taken into consideration at the Albury Local Corrupt Court.

I guess that’s the other reason they drove me out of the hearing on 14 September 2017, so that the defence never got the chance to read those statements out loud, into the microphone and onto the transcript, while under cross examination myself.

Further proof, that the accused are not given any chance to defend themselves, at the Albury Local Corrupt Court.

The book focusses on that first arrest by Con Rowan Weekley, who had framed me on instruction from Gwen Bradley of the CJC,  so that her friends could win their false allegations.

Then it covers the defence statements for the charge that Bradley bought against me herself, during which I was assaulted, illegally detained, illegally searched, and put on new false charges, again, so that her friends could with their false allegations, and those later being made by police on their behalf.

I’ve ordered some new copies. I will post one to the police station, so that Weekley can take it home and give it to his children, or his parents, for Christmas.


 0  0  0  0  0  0


My new book, Framed in the Albury Local Court, is now available.

I need to raise $4,000 within a month, to pay the fine associated with one of the arrests addressed in this book.

If you miss the Jerry Springer Show, and love a good real life family drama, then you will enjoy this book.

If you are interested in court proceedings, and miscarriages of justice, the book will be of interest to you.

If you are researching corruption within the NSW Judiciary, there is information that will give you an insight into some of the ways they go about framing and convicting innocent people.

Either way, it is an expose of corruption and misconduct, by people who had the power to fine or jail me, to cover up for their own illegal actions.

A true story of the abuse I suffer at the hands of my family, and what they did to me when I tried to break free of them.

They used their connections at a local court house, in a town where I had not lived for nearly 40 years, to have me convicted of false allegations, assaulted by police and then finally jailed.

I was not jailed for any real crimes against them or anyone else, but to cover up for the crimes committed against me during these proceedings by employees of the court house, NSW Justice and the complainants themselves.

All of which were all abuses of process, abuses of justice and truth and more abuse of myself by the family who manipulated them into doing it.


o  o  o  o  o  o  o

The book is printed and shipped upon each order. It will arrive within 4 days of you purchasing it.

I know what I will be giving my friends for Christmas this year. 🙂

And despite all that Janice O’Bryan has done to try to stop me, and destroy me, I can say now finally say that I am a writer, and who has published three books now.

That is something I have always wanted to do, write and earn a living from that.

Once I’d sent my son away, for his own safety a few years ago, I’d started to blog and write about the experience I was going through. I finally had the time, and I certainly had plenty to write about.

That process was stopped in its tracks by these vexatious court proceedings. Over or not, they have not only not stopped me from being all that I can be, but have instead assisted in that process.

This blog has increased my reader base, and this new book is just another achievement I can put on my writing resume.

I also no longer have to worry about writing about things that Janice would claim to be embarrassed by.

If she’s not embarrassed about lying in court, then I don’t think a book about aliens and divine beings could hurt her too much.

Even more so, now that we have all disowned each other, and will never have any contact ever again. Once I no longer have to appear in court against them that is.

How I long for that day to arrive ….



How Much Can A Liar Lie?

I’ve been meaning to post these emails for the past little while.

They show what I was really doing during the time between the hearing on 5 February 2016, where Magistrate Cromtpom dismissed all maters to mediation (including the allegation of criminal breach), and when matters were revoked, and the hearing on the 15 February occurred. I walked out on that ambush, and was convicted a fortnight later when I was too sick to attend and defend myself.

I’ve always thought these emails are what prompted Murray to give me leave to appeal the conviction of the first charge of breach in the district court.

They were supplied to the Judicial Commission, as supporting evidence for my second complaint against him. The instructions for lodging one of those states that all of the information provided to the Commission would be provided to the Magistrate being accused of misconduct. I had nothing to hide, so that didn’t phase me.

At the first revoke hearing in August, the court played games and messed me around. Ward couldn’t get the day off work to attend, and defend her ADVO, so the court pretended that she hadn’t been served. I was due to be convicted of two more charges of breach a couple of weeks later, as far as the court was concerned, so they had no intention of revoking, or holding that hearing my application had created.

At the second one though, Murray suddenly played innocent and asked if I had been convicted of a breach against Ward’s ADVO. He knew full well that he had convicted me of one, in acts of misconduct on 15 and 29 February 2016, and then denied an appeal on 18 April 2016.

When I affirmed that I had, he stated that he could not revoke an ADVO that had a charge of breach against it. But he suggested that I did appeal it, and gave me special leave to do so.

The office staff were stunned. Tried to say he could not, but then they found he could, and they had to book the hearing.

Maybe he just didn’t count on the district court hearing my appeal. It did, and set aside the conviction. Murray was free to revoke, in August last year.

However, when I went back for the third revoke hearing, after he’d been advised of that result, he’d already convicted me of the other two allegations of breach, and dismissed my application to revoke. However, I lodged a statutory declaration swearing that the final order had never been served, and which is the truth, and that renders the charges invalid.

Unless the court wants to claim that they are, because an interim order was served. But the criteria to have been granted an interim one were never met, and then there is the issue of the application having been made under a false name, and then signed under the legal name.

Back to the point, I wondered if these emails, and which I would have produced in the district court, and any other higher appeals, were what had made him think he should back down. I believed that Bradley would have been the one who talked him out of that, because she had do much to loose if their orders and charges were dismissed.

Don’t forget that I was convicted by Murray, by the way of judging that the contents of O’Bryan’s ADVO application were all true, of being a mentally ill drug addict who was stinging so hard for a fix I’d been trying to blackmail her for money to buy drugs.


Subject: Re: Good morning
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 09:49:17 +1100

I am happy to pay for the whole lot now & will talk to XXXX about what she wants to do a bit later on. When you get the final quote for the job let me know & I will put enough money into your account to cover it including any other costs that are associated with getting the job completed.

I want you to gather any receipts for anything you have paid for, including a rough calculation of data doing research etc. I think we should add all expenses where we can & use that as a base to set the price per copy.

I am not oblivious to the amount of hours you have willingly & lovingly applied to the whole production not only of the Pearce/Braidwood Book but also the extended Braidwood family book including yours which some family members may like to have as well.

When you see this the court will be over so I just want to say that I hope it went well for you.xx

Love Cuz.


From: Tracey Burt
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: Good morning

Hi there

Court was disappointing in that it didn’t all end today.

As I said in the text message, Susan was still trying to argue that it needed to all be dealt with today, because I was ’emailing and phoning’ her boss. The judge didn’t care.

She also bought up that I had verbally abused their friend ‘who has been helping them’ in the street one day, so I pointed out to the court that I had lodged a complaint with her to the ICAC, to justify my anger and behaviour.

Josh and I arrived 10 or 15 minutes late, and they had already started without us. Then I was merely asked to come forward while the judge explained to me that he has ordered it to be sent to mediation, and then we come back in a month’s time.

It seemed like Susan was already arguing with him about that decision when we entered the room, and when I had officially accepted it, kept trying to push him into changing his mind.

They didn’t come out for a long time. They were harrassing the clerk court when we left, outside the court room itself, and must have continued to do that for a long time. Josh and I got bored and left, went to get him some cigs, and then went back towards the court house, through the shopping centre, and encountered them.

Our two opposing groups were walking towards each other, so Susan and Janice walked into a shop to avoid  the eye contact that was already happening. Terry didn’t join them, but seemed to have called Josh a fuckwit as we walked past. I guess they are annoyed that his witness statement in just a few short sentences, shot down their lies.

He also said they were glaring at him in court, trying to intimidate him into not supporting me. They just cannot grow up.

Mediation is going to be extremely difficult, when they never negotiate, only ever demand and have tantrums when they don’t get their own way. Also having to sit there with them, when I really never want to see them again will be distasteful.

But in the long run, the mediator might be able to get them to drop their cases, and point out to them, that it will only end badly for them, if they don’t. I will continue with my AVO against Susan though, as she is mentally unstable, and a real threat. That’s all for now.


Subject: Re: Good morning
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 17:17:14 +1100

I was so relieved when you texted me to say that you were out of court already.

I just keep on thinking how hard you have worked on it all & wanted to have a little over to hand back to you that was generated by your own effort, but then I doubt if you would accept it because as you have just explained that you have enjoyed the experience also, although I am sure there were many frustrating moments you went through in the process. mostly not of your own making either.

I thank you for the donation of your time & computer expertise, intelligence & generosity & of the many hours of time you have put in to the project Tracey. I do hope you will be able to find some way of generating some extra income to supplement your pension in the near future. I know Jill has enjoyed helping out with the on-going cost just like I have.

Thank you for the kind words of appreciation Tracey.

When it is all finalized & printed & delivered I will be saddened by the void that will be left. I have so much enjoyed looking for you email to see what you have for me today.

I like to think that I not only found a Cousin a few months ago but a life long friend that I can respect & admire for the rest of my days.

Yes it would have been good to have the court thing over & done with today i can understand your disappointment but never mind they will probably loose more sweat than you for the next month.

I imagine the mediation will be very awkward having to sit there with those that seem to hate you so much for just wanting the truth to be ousted so that justice might clear a pathway to some form of recovery of family acceptance over time. Then again! how could you ever trust them again anyway. Perhaps they will decide to just drop the whole thing.

Thank you for sharing. Take it easy over the week end.

Love Cuz.


Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 17:39:48 +1100
Subject: RE: The Most Beautiful Braidwood Book

Hang in there .

I can only think that them being so angry & aggressive is not doing them any favours. Would be good if it could be settled out of court.



Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:16:37 +1100
Subject: Re: Greatest Print Solution !!!!

This sounds good to me Tracey. I would be happy to buy 3. Not sure what Ken thinks but I reckon he would agree with us. I will give him a ring.

Thank you for going to so much effort to do this.

You are a gem.


From: Tracey Burt
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 6:21 PM
To: XXXXXXXXXXXX ; (cc’d to Gary Burt’s wife by mistake)Subject: Progress

Hi There

I did four hours solid this morning, and then just had to get out for a while. Caught a taxi home, thank you very much Ken. 🙂

Leonie and I have just been sorting out some furniture, so I bought up some way I could get some rent assistance from Centrelink to be able to say on longer.

She instantly dropped the rent by $40, to make me stay, and called me an awesome tennant 🙂 I’m also getting a desk from her 🙂

*XXXXXX had sent me $100 worth of taxi vouchers, to make it easier for me to get around


Subject: Re: Progress
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:59:22 +1100

You are going great guns. what can I say.? Glad you could get a Taxi. Great about Leonie & a desk too. That’s all for now as I know your busy girl.

Love your work.


Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:09:18 +1100
Subject: RE: Can we identify this boy

No worries Tracey.  Don’t stress, your doing a top job.



Subject: RE: Can we identify this boy
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:18:39 +1100

Thanks. Not stressing, but am anxious to see it in all its gory again, in the form of a book. Sure did take some hours though last night. 😦

From: Tracey Burt
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: Book costings

Good morning

I have no cigs today, or one left now. Not sure if I will smoke butts all day or go out and borrow some money from Ziggy. Either way, I might end up too stressed to focus on anything.


Subject: Re: Book costings
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:19:38 +1100

Good morning to you to. I hope you had a good sleep.

I just tried to access my online banking but the slowness won’t let it open, my intention was to drop $50 into your account so you can get some sig’s

Try not to stress over the book wait till you are feeling better

talk later.



Subject: RE: Book costings
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:42:33 +1100


Thanks for the offer of money. I’d already borrowed $40 off Zig the other day, so didn’t like to ask him again. Plus he’s been upset this week about something, Janice upset him the other night, and then I upset him the next day (over not supporting me), so I still don’t know what she did to him as he’s being very distant to me.


Subject: Reference
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:11:44 +0000

Tracey I have spent a little time in the last hour to put this reference together for you.

please let me know what you think & do you approve. Cuz.


From: Tracey Burt
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:37 PM
Subject: RE: Reference

Thank you. That was more than I could have asked from you. I really appreciate it, and all that you said within it. I’ll print it out, and definitely submit it during mediation.

(snip) Otherwise, we will just have to guess at those two costs, when you transfer the money to me. Based on the $550 or so I said last time, I’d think that $650 would be more than ample. I’d have money in the bank to cover it, if there was any shortfall


Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2016 6:01:49 PM
To: Tracey Burt (


See the second reference!! No problem at all.

I will transfer $700.00 to cover Shipping as well. Are the hard backs still available ??

I will have to use my phone to do the transfer but that is ok. It will be easier than going to the library it will be closed now anyway.

I estimate we need 16 soft & 4 hard if that is not possible now then go with 22 Soft.

If you are sure you have the book set up correctly now, then go for it. I will do the transfer now.



Subject: Re: Reference
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:13:35 +1100

Good Morning.

Please confirm if money arrived in you account when you know.

I hope you don’t have any Idiot callers today. It won’t be long now & you will be able to slow down a bit & take it easy.  (MEANING MENTAL HEALTH WORKERS AND CORRUPT DETECTIVES)

I take it the books will be delivered to your address.


From: Tracey Burt
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: Reference

Hi there

I’m up late today. I just checked the bank account, and yes the money is there, all cleared. I’ll skip Ray if I have to, but it would have been good to see him and one last chance to fix that photo of Andrew. I found a letter in the mail box just now. Mediation is set for Tuesday. So no chance of having a copy of the book by then.


Subject: Re: Reference
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:49:48 +1100

Sounds all good. Not much notice of when the mediation is though.

Ray Rang me yesterday to see if I had heard from you, he was worried that you might not be well. It is his Birthday today, he will be 83. He did say he had expected you during the week. I told him you had been unwell for a couple of days.

talk soon.

Love Cuz.


From: Tracey Burt
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 11:10 AM
Subject: RE: Reference

Thanks. I’ll definately call Ray today then, even if I don’t have time to see him. Just uploading now, for the hard cover edition. Getting close now. Should get it all done before I go out. Will let you know, when I am clicking buy, and we can celebrate at the same time 😉
Subject: Re: Reference
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:22:26 +1100

Wonderful!!!! Go Girl Go. You are amazing.!!


Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:09:17 -0500 (USA DATE STAMP – 12 FEBRUARY AUS)
Subject: Your Order Receipt

Order Receipt #11504555
Thank you for your recent Lulu order!

Order Date: 11 February 2016
Order Number: 11504555
Order Total: $654.02


Shipping Address Billing Address Payment Method
Tracey Burt Publishing 834 Lamport Crescent West Albury NSW, 2640 Australia 0452579522 N/A PayPal


Item Quantity Total Price
The Family History of Archibald John Braidwood (Printed) *This item has been automatically discounted as per our special pricing for creators. 4 $44.08
The Family History of Archibald John Braidwood (Printed) *This item has been automatically discounted as per our special pricing for creators. 16 $28.59
Subtotal $633.76
Shipping $13.72
Total $33.98


Subject: Re: Your Order Receipt
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:15:11 +1100

Tracey you must be so relieved to know this exercise is over for now.

When you do the next book you will know your way around it like you know the back of your hand.

What a great job you have done! I am so proud of you.!

Love your work.



From: Tracey Burt
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: Your Order Receipt

Good evening ;P

I’ve been having an offline day, after having read your email this morning. I too am relieved its all over, but so pleased with the result I am just tickled pink, at the same time. I’ve phoned Ray today and he is coming over tomorrow.

In fact, I’m going to take him to lunch, for his birthday. He admitted he had no money when I suggested we could have lunch at a coffee shop, so I said I would shout, from the extra money you’d given towards the book printing costs. We’ll grab something cheap, because I really feel like taking him for a stroll in the Botanic Gardens, so should make it a picnic.

Either way, I’ll make sure its enjoyable for both him and I. Especially when with him praying for me all week, I got through not only unscathed, but had good things happening for me. 🙂 In between we can be doing the Braidwood writings books, and any other projects we want.

I can get an ABN number if I need to, to put money through, to satisfy Centrelink, if I did start doing more with it all.

In fact, it now becomes more important that I insist Janice be charged for defamation of character. If I am to become a writer of local history, I can’t afford to have that crazy woman spreading lies about my mental health around the area.

This all might have just back fired on her more than either of us would have imagined.


Subject: Re: Your Order Receipt
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 09:01:33 +1100

Good Morning Princess!!

You have excelled throughout our expedition & well deserve to sit  back & savour the delight of having achieved such a wonderful project, which should bring a lot of enjoyment to many family members.

I was feeling quite a bit of relief last night to know that you had pushed the GO button & that particular project was completed.

Thanks to your capability I was able to sleep right through the night without waking & then lying there thinking about the little things that you had to keep working at all the time to get it just right.



Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 09:47:27 +1100
Subject: RE: Link to the book online From:

You should be very proud of your work.

I had a good flight to Darwin, will be back in Melb on 23rd but will stay there for a few days before coming home..

Hope all goes well for you Tues.  Good luck.

Luv Jill



I hope you had a nice trip up to Darwin.

We ordered the books this morning, and should have them within two weeks. Here are the links to them both, online, if you wish to show it off 😉

Tracey xo


Subject: Re: Your Order Receipt
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 17:40:08 +1100

I am so glad you & Ray had a good time getting around & having Lunch together, I kept seeing you both sitting somewhere in the botanic gardens & soaking up each others company. Yes he would have thought it wonderful to have someone take him out for a few hours Especially you.

It is good to see that you are beginning to have some sort of a vision to generate some income to enable you to work from home & still supplement your income.

Defamation of character, yes I have had that thought running through my head to for a while now & wondered if you had thought of it to especially if she does not relent with her efforts to discredit you to her friends & the public.

love from XXXXXX & XXXXX. xxoo.


  • Janice O’Bryan had Gary Burt phone XXXXXX just after we had ordered the books, and so he wasn’t speaking to me by the time they were delivered. He lived in Melbourne and would have travelled up to pick up the books from my place. Instead the other person working with us had to get them, distribute the copies locally that had been ordered and printed, and send the rest down to XXXXXX.
  • It was O’Bryan’s email to this same man four months earlier, which triggered the emails which started this latest family fight, and her false allegations made against me down at the local court house, and with the guarantee of her good friend Gwen Bradley that it would be granted. 
  • Susan Ward was aware that I might go through with my threat to contact BDS Huon, after they’d come to my home to assault me on 6 November 2015, and continued to threaten me in the weeks afterwards. I made a post that I might contact BDS Huon now finally, and they were down at the court house within days of me writing that. Yet it was still only a threat at that stage.
  • Which is why I did contact that company, in the end, thinking that they would tell her to pull her head in, and not drag their name through the court, in the family fight that she had started. Then I could have just focussed on O’Bryan’s easily proveable lies, in court, at hearing. That never happened. Once the court had seen the evidence showing how much her and Ward both lied, they perverted the course of justice to protect them.
  • And still are.


Her email to XXXXXX, which triggered my email to her, which is the contents of her original ADVO application.

She’d become aware, after I’d put them in touch with each other months earlier, a friendship which she chose not to pursue, that not only were he and I still friends, but that he’d been up to visit me a few times.

She was also aware that we were compiling the book together, then later cries to him that I am destroying that book by planning to write nasty things about her.


From: Janice O’Bryan
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 7:25 PM
Subject: Headstone


Have just forwarded you $200 for the headstone for Great Grandfather Braidwood, hope it was successful.

I’m not very confident at these things on the computer, you had better let me know if you don’t see it in your account soon.. It’s really good of you to be involved in all this family history.

You seem to be getting along well with Tracey, I don’t know what she leads you to believe but we would dearly love for her to  make an effort and take Ziggy to live with her as it is far to much for us, we have had him for 2 1/2 years now (1 year really) because she was going to put him out on the street as they weren’t getting along, so we had to take him in rather than have that happen, she just doesn’t seem to realise how hard our life is now, he’s hard work and costly and we need to have our life back.

I would expect you don’t say anything to her about this it’s my problem to deal with but it’s hard enough coping with just the 2 of us at our age, it doesn’t matter how much we care about Zig it should not be our responsibility..

Enough wingeing hope you are well, and call in one day to see us.




Now she tries to blame him for the family fight that had erupted, for taking me to see my aunt who he also wanted to catch up with after not having seen her for decades, and then tries to say that I am claiming that all the information gained that day came from him:

From: Janice O’Bryan
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 5:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: Tracey

XXXXXX. This is the result of you and Tracey visiting Stella Burt Tallangatta, you betrayed me by telling her what I emailed to you. I wanted to tell you she has problems but was not sure I could trust you , that proved correct.. All hell has broken out here and my advise to you is stay out of it , I’m sending you a bit of the email’s I am receiving all day and her input of me into the Braidwood family book my lovely Grandmother would die of shame of what is going on here.


Begin forwarded message:

From: Gary Burt <>
Date: 11 October 2015 10:54:04 PM AEDT
Subject: Fwd: Mother

This is the email that Tracey sent me the other day and because I didn’t respond and asked Stella to responded and Stella did in a very kind way, she has since sent us a continuation of emails, even as I am writing this. Her emails are cruel and abusive against first Stella then myself and she is suggesting that everything has come from you. It is late now and I am going to bed, but I will send you the rest tomorrow


From: Tracey Burt <>
Date: 10 October 2015 at 9:11:25 AM AWST
To: Stella Burt <>
Subject: Mother

Hi Gary

I was going to email you soon to say I’d posted another copy of the Braidwood book for you to look at. Instead, mother has been causing dramas, and preventing that from happening yet, but I’ll do so soon.

I was at Aunty Stella’s again last week. Dad only married mum because she got pregnant when they were dating, and then ‘lost the child’. Makes me wonder if there even was one, or if she just wanted to beat Stella down the aisle.

Uncle Bob put a house on the block of land that mother and dad bought in Tatura, and they were supposed to pay him. Mum made dad rip him off. So our house in Lavington, was partly funded by Uncle Bob.

If I get cut out the will, I’d already planned that I will argue that our father left us a house, so we would be provided for. Mum and Terry used that house, and a loan from his employer, to get their house in Wollongong. So all of their properties since then, have been partly funded by our fathers house.

He probably sold his truck to pay it off for her, and why he went back to being an employee, after he’d been thrown out of ‘mother’s house’.

Mother also forced dad into going into business against Bob. Mum and Dad were living in a cabin in a trailer park down at Lake Eildoon when they first married. Dad must have owned or bought it. They sold it to buy the land in Tatura. When they moved up here, and dad said they were going to start a removalist business up here, Bob said he didn’t there was enough work for the two of them. Dad said there would be, and he and mum were gonna get rich. I bet that was her talk.

Bob then had to give dad work, because he wasn’t getting enough to survive. And when he did, he would show up with no petrol in his truck and no money in his pocket. So yes, mum must be the greatest businesswoman on earth 😉

Now the clincher. Stella told me that mum played up on dad. I was too shocked to ask questions. Now I have 1,000. I don’t want to get her in shit with mum though, by asking them.

This is a copy of what I sent to her yesterday. Yes, I insult your wife at one stage, but you guys can’t sort things out, unless Stella takes some of the blame too.

Mum won’t get a copy of the Braidwood book, so neither will Wayne or Susan. I’ll make sure you can download a copy of it. Attached are some photos Stella gave me last week of our nan as a toddler. I can’t even show them to mum, without risking getting cut out of the will (for admitting I went to see my aunt who Janice hates, and made up lies about, and hasn’t spoken to for 25 years).

Yet she desperately loves and wants this book about her and her family. What a crock of shit.

From: Janice O’Bryan
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 5:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: Finished the Braidwood Book


Begin forwarded message:

From: Tracey Burt <>
Date: 13 October 2015 12:48:56 AM AEDT
To: “” <>
Subject: Finished the Braidwood Book

Hope you like what I wrote about you, and my life growing up in your household.  I’m sure all the future descendants of your children, will feel ashamed that their branch, comes from your page.


There are more emails which XXXXXX didn’t send me until much later. I can’t put my mouse on them at the moment, and am going to bed. I’ll post them tomorrow, and a scan of the above bio. Which was never tendered into evidence, but would have been, had been allowed to finished cross examining Ward.

She refers to it, in her notes on my defence statements, and it is mentioned in the original evidence, but wasn’t presented. I couldn’t find my copy of it at the time, and didn’t want to waste ink on printing it again, due to the photograph on it. Had it just been text I would have, but the photo was relevant.

So this is why these idiots did really loose in court. I had copies of all emails and internet activity to prove that they all started the hostilities, and they couldn’t present anything into evidence, because it again proved that.

O’Bryan claims I was sending her abusive text messages, and I know that she did keep them all. But she doesn’t show any to police, or didn’t get any action if she had tried, and doesn’t type any of them up to present as part of her case against me. Again, because there were text messages, but they were not threatening, menacing or abusive. Just the truth about herself and the conditions of hate she has created within her own family, hurt her when she read about it.

Stella Burt and her daughter in Western Australia were the ones sending abusive, libellous and offensive text messages. But of course they weren’t prepared to admit that, and since they were trying to protect themselves from being exposed, from behind the scenes, they didn’t have to submit any evidence or defence of their own disgusting behaviour towards myself.

Again, all of these idiots are trying to cover up 20 years of telling lies, about me, and about each other.

When I was pregnant again, and already had one child, as a single mother, Janice asked me to move home so that she could help me out. I laughed at that and declined. Susan was enlisted to then asked me, and I again declined.  Until life became too hard doing it all on my own, and I finally agreed to.

As soon as I did so, the backstabbing started. Their usual nasty stuff. I was told that Susan was telling people that I probably only moved home to dump my kids on Janice while I went out to party. WTF?

The ‘help’ they gave me over the past two decades, after causing me to move away from where my children’s fathers were, and who might have eventually come to the party if I’d stayed there, is now being spruked as having been too much money, and demanded from them, and they resent every little thing they have done for me during that time.

Now that I have no reason to have any contact with Janice again, because she won’t stop lying about me, and was trying to turn my own children against me once they didn’t live at home any longer, they have done this to me. Claimed that I am only in Albury to scab off them, and try to move in with them. WTF? Any visit with them that runs longer than 10 minutes becomes unbearable.

I don’t have a ‘domestic relationship with my mother’. We have no friendship, spend no time together, and I stopped trying to have any real conversations with her over 20 years ago. When any attempts to do so were met with put downs and scorn. Mainly because she was still smarting over my advice to her and Wayne and Susan. Things have only deteriorated since that point.

But this witch won’t allow anyone else to have any respect or liking for me, again, to punish me for that. She has spread these lies, through Susan and Gary, so that now I cannot even have a relationship with my cousins, or even walk around Albury without being ashamed to be seen as being how she tries to tell people that I am.

Its funny that they say I am a drug addict and welfare bludger, when those are the things that they tried to teach me, when I was a child. Oh, and a slut, despite the fact that I have been celibate for a very long time.

I grew up in a house where alcohol and sex were touted as the best things since slice bread. Then it was the drugs, pot at first then harder and harder drugs. Everyone was screwing around, and getting wasted. I was just trying to go to school and get an education. Susan and Wayne didn’t work for several years after leaving school. Their personal hijinx were far more important than that.

After leaving school, working for a few years, I then fell into their way of life. The only way of life I had ever been shown or taught, to take drugs, and party.

Eventually I found self development courses and books. I found new age religion, and later found God. I’m no born again Christian, but I have developed my own morals and spiritual beliefs, sourced from many different ideologies. I have had incredible spiritual adventures and learnings, and contact with other beings. My friend are aware of all of those things, including XXXXXX above, who got to know me quite well.

I do not lie. I do not steal. I raised two well mannered children, who also understand the spirit world, and that this man made reality is not all there is, but that we still have to conform to it, while it continues to exist.

I do smoke pot though. Does that automatically make me a liar and a thief?

No. I buy what I can afford, and go without when I can’t.

My ‘family’ have all given up their own wild ways. Now they pretend to be upright citizens. They have jobs, homes or are retired from their years in the work force.

Instead, they now lie, backstab, manipulate and play social games against each other, and all of their associates for their own amusement. They continue to lash out at each other and the world, due to the pain of events from long past. They think that if they can blame someone else for their own suffering, that will make it go away.  No, it doesn’t.

So they point their fingers at me, the only way who had found ways to be happy and self confident. They try to take all that away from me, to make me like themselves again.

They pretend that I am on hard drugs, and talk up my penchant to smoke. I haven’t been drinker since my early 20’s. While they have all had to have a few drinks each evening of their lives, to suppress their pain. Pot helps me to release mine, and feel free and happy. Until I run into one of them.

They run me down, to try to make their own lives sound better. They claim to have raised my children, because they turned out so well. Had they not, it would have been a very different story, that Janice would make up, while having nothing to do with them.

When I first came down to visit, my son said to me, ‘mum you must talk to your niece, she believes all this crazy stuff about you that isn’t true’. That’s been Janice at work, and for decades. Now, instead of me having been able to address that, since the outset of this argument which ended up in court, thanks to Gwen Bradley, Janice has been trying to convince my son now that all those stories she made up are true. She has lied so long and so hard at him, that he has even began to be brainwashed into forgetting the truth, and believing her shit.

Yet she claims to be the victim in all of this, and the loving family person seeking to protect the victims from the aggressor.

But that is not the truth, and the defence evidence showed all of that and more.

Which shows and explains why all of these court proceedings have had to be so twisted and perverted. To be able to declare them the winner, a lot more lying had to be done, and all honesty and fairness removed from the court process.

No matter how long they manage to send me to jail for, they will still be the losers in all of this. Because they loose at everything they do, because they do it for negative and malicious reasons.

And O’Bryan is still lying in court, and then as you saw from her post to this blog on 18 September 2017, still making threats to harm me, if I continue to expose Gwen Bradley and BDS Huon for having used all of their might and contacts, to win a family argument, on behalf of the liars and aggressors.

You should have just let her make a fool of herself, and Susan, instead of making fools of yourselves trying to protect them from being exposed.

I think Cromptom will have to look pretty stupid, when his $4,000 fine is re-examined, when he doesn’t even have the right complainant, and the police ‘evidence’ was all falsified.

Because the truth does come out in the end, Cromptom, and Weekley will be exposed for that fabricated evidence, which you have convicted me against, without even listening to it.

I delivered one copy of the book locally yesterday. To someone who watched some of these events from the sideline. Now he will understand what I was being put through, and by whom, BDS Huon, their employee and her mother.

I didn’t delivered the other ones yet, as I have to wait for the newest version to arrive in the mail, in which I have corrected a few errors. However, I will give two to my neighbours here, so that when they watch police smash down the door to take me away, again, they know the full story of what that happened.

I have nothing to feel ashamed about. I have committed no crimes. The only charges against me were bought by corrupt cops, working on Gwen Bradley’s instructions, to save face for herself and her lying buddies, at the court house. No criminal threats had been made by myself, so no police were involved in any of these matters. However, Ward and O’Bryan should be charged with attempted assault, on 6 November 2015.

I have done nothing wrong at the court house, except defend these lies and applications with truth. The court staff only got upset once I refused to be falsely convicted and continued to fish for any evidence of why that occurred. They are only angry that they have to keep lying, and acting illegally, to cover up for what they did to me, and what they are also doing to other people.

I believe Gwen is the mastermind behind the ADVO rorting going on down there, and which is ruining people’s lives and relationships, all so that Gwen and the boys in blue, and the court staff, can pretend they are in control of law and order and society here. Yeah, jobs, profits and promotions for the boys, while the innocent pay for it all. And their drug dealing of course.

It is no me who has to show remorse, nor hang my head in shame. But the people who should be doing that, are too arrogant to do so, and refuse to do so, because then everyone would know the truth about what they have just tried to do to me, and why.

So they just continue to lie. Under oath, and before Magistrates who are aware they are lying, but that they have to protect them.

Justice will eventually catch up with them all. But I will be long gone before then, and happy to leave them all to continue to suffer for their own sins.

Susan accused me last year of ‘bragging’ about my ancestry books. No, I was not bragging when I bring them up. I am merely trying to point out that or the 7 months leading up to these court dealings, I was doing ancestry research. I tried to share some of what I had learned with my immediate family. They told me to piss off, basically.

But they were worried that I’d been contacting any relatives, and that would blow their lies that I am a mentally ill drug addict, who sits around getting stoned all day.

The books prove that a mentally ill person, addicted to drugs, could not have put them together so professionally, nor in the time frame in which they were done.

The books started the fights, but the books also prove their lies.

That even once they made their false allegations against me at the local court house, and were continuing to pretend that they were under attack from myself, that I just kept on doing what I was really doing. Putting all the information I uncovered, and with the help of XXXXXX, into two books. Books that any other family would like to have and would treasure. But not mine.

Everyone who has seen those books, in their physical form has complemented me on them. I had a right to feel proud of them, and still do.

It is only Janice’s kin who had to slag them off, just because I made them.

And eventually, because they got left out of them, due to their own bad behaviour, and their own court orders.



Gangsta granny replies, once she has a court order to hide behind, and threaten me with. The first time she has spoken to me since I sent her the email of 9 October 2015, asking her to stop lying from me, apart from one day at the court house where she sneaked up behind me, touched me on the head and sarcastically asked me ‘when are you going to stop all this’.

Her and her husband both laughed at my reply that I would continue to defend their false charges, and that they should stop bringing them against me. The thought that was funny, lol. Yet they say I have mental health issues. Of course the registrar declared that no breach on their part, as did the police officer I mentioned it to.

Tracey Burt

I have received the court orders you must abide by for my new ADVO against you and is in place until 13 of September 2019.

It clearly states that you must not use any electronic communication devices such as phone, email, Facebook or any other social media or telecommunications network to defame and intimidate me and that you must remove all blogs related to me that you have posted.

I will give you 2 days to remove all mention of myself and my family, Gwen Bradley and all reference to the BDS Huon accounting group from the internet or I will have you charged with breaching my ADVO.

The penalties are huge at $5,500 a charge and/or 2 years in prison, you would be foolish to ignore this warning, which you do not deserve but I am willing to offer you just once – so no longer presume I will not charge you as I will not take any more of your filth and intimidation.

If you fail to adhere to the current ADVO conditions during the next two years I will charge you EVERYTIME you post anything with the names of the people above or a story with any reference to them.
Janice O’Bryan
Submitted to the blog by Susan Ward on behalf of Janice O’Bryan at her request
18 September 2017

The police and court have become more and more desperate to come face to face with me ever since, so they can bring her new false charges against me, against her illegally gained two year extension of her original bullshit.

And I am still calling her a liar, and the mother from hell two years after she began proceedings for a court order forbidding me to call her that or anything else.

While she runs around making up more and more lies about me, and about this whole situation.

So that is not a confession, to be used in court against me, it is a statement that I have continued to retaliate against her assaults on my life, because the court order comprises the same lies and manipulations that I set out to address with her.

It does not protect her, because it is just more of her continued propaganda war on myself. And I legally do not have to tolerate continued criminal defamation and slander and libel. I am entitled to take action about that.

The first step in a civil suit against all of them, would have involved first asking them to stop the behaviour, preferably in writing, and which I did and emailed to them all.

They committed more acts of criminal defamation and libel, by pretending those emailed requests were an attack on themselves, and libellous. Same as NSW Justice did with Shane Dowling, of Kangaroo Court.

No wonder the Magistrates at the court house can’t keep up with it though, they make no sense in the long run, when they spin their lies. Too many holes, and too many discrepancies.

The court should have been able to recognize that though, and did, which is why they had to pervert the course of justice for those piles of garbage to have been judged to have been the winning submissions.

To the mother from hell

Be advised that I had decided today that I would not administer this site any more. The evil pedo’s of the world are now using it to access my energy, and that affects and infects my own. In fact, they gave me a migraine today, why is why I did not find your message until very late tonight.

You might recall that this site has been on the internet for all of this year, despite your previous illegally gained false allegation orders, and the dodgey interim ones the court encouraged you both to apply for this year, in an attempt to get this blog off the internet.

I would like to point out to yourself, and the readers, that you had nothing to say about it while it did not identify you. Gwen was identified by her position only, at the court house, the Magistrates and corrupt Albury police who enacted all of these personal but illegal soap operas you have continued for another year, were all identified by the blog. They all wanted it removed.

It was not in breach because it did not identify yourself, Ward, or even Bradley by name.

Yet you sat back and allowed all of them to be shamed, hoping they could keep up the corruption long enough that you would never be exposed, for being the real instigator and teller of lies, behind this charade.

You might recall that the first time I allowed your names to appear here, was on 14 September 2017, when once again, both the Magistrate and police prosecutor had to act illegally, immorally and corruptly, to protect Ward and her lies, and therefore those of your own. That was in one post only, which is the affidavits to the Supreme Court of NSW, so no slander or libel in either of those. Your names were not removed because I have wasted so much of my time and energy on this crap, that I wasn’t prepared to waste more on editing those documents, to protect you.

Again, don’t forget there are witnesses to what occurred in the court house that day, and those witnesses and the court room and foyer security footage will not support the lies your daughter posted to this blog. Already the court house is now claiming that I was not actually convicted the other day, that the matter was not yet finalized, as you can see from the emails from the court house on display here.

It was only after your daughter Susan Gaye Ward posted my own name to the blog on 16 September 2017, determined to expose who I was, that I then released some posts I would not have put on the internet, and allowed your names to freely be seen.

Again, your new orders are so questionable its just not funny, and would be overturned the moment I can bypass the corruption of the clerks at the Albury Court House, and get an appeal lodged. In fact, today I uploaded a civil case against Local Court of NSW to the justice website. I had intended to pay for that, if it wouldn’t accept my concession details, but then it was $250.

I didn’t want to pay out that large amount of money, but was trying to lodge by the close of today, so that it would be lodged, and have a date set for it. $10,000 is all I am asking for, but that will give me the funds to continue to fight. The website will be functioning all weekend, maybe I should go ahead and do it, and then arrange for a refund of what the difference between the two costs is. By the time I thought of that, my migraine was coming on, so I haven’t had time to think more about that.

The blog is to combat the lies that you tell, as have all the blogs been. They are legal in that they are justified. They are legal in that they are truthful. They are all sworn and legally binding documents on display here, apart from my own commentaries. The only lies, or criminal defamation of character that occurs within these pages, comes from your own statements, and those of your daughter.

The blog last year was to combat your lies that you obtained ADVO’s against me, because I was here to menace and torment you people. That blog demonstrated you obtained those by having Gwen Bradley pervert the course of justice against me, when I had remained in town to fight your lies, again, out of a sense of self defence, and needing to end your criminal assault on my life, and subsequent abuse of my children that causes.

This blog, created after I had voluntarily removed the other from the internet, in an attempt to sort matters out amicably, once all of the convictions had been overturned.

But no, you still wanted the convictions, to create more suffering for myself, and to continue to pretend to people that your orders were valid and justified.

This blog continues to show that you people are the aggressors, the liars, and the ones using corrupt public servants, to try to win a family fight. One would wonder why you are so desperate, and so nasty.

Because you have twenty years of lying to cover up for. And not just you, but Ward as well and the nasty troll in Western Australia, who was the one that started this war via internet.

I guess all the proof of why I had to dispose of all of my possessions, send my son to Albury, and become transient really makes a fool of you too. When you daughter was in trouble, all you could do was lie, and spin stories that made you the hero, and me the drop kick. As you always do, as does Susan. You destroy my confidence and credibility, in some sick attempt to pretend that you have some of your own.

This time though, I am trying to retain that, by standing up to you two, and destroying your own. You could have stopped this at any stage, but the more you were humiliated by the truth appearing on the internet, the more aggressive and deceitful you, and therefore the courts, became.

I will remove references to BDS Huon from this site, when and if they contact me about it, and make some offers of settlement. Not necessarily of the financial kind, but would involve forcing Ward to drop all of her illegal charges of breach, just so that I don’t have to bother with the formalities of defeating them all at hearing. I meant to prepare the briefs for all of those, which includes all of the defence evidence against them, ready to serve on the court and police, and to post a link to them on this blog.

I will remove Gwen Bradley’s name from the blog, when I have assurance from the Community Justice Centres of NSW that all of the corrupt dealings from the Local Court that Gwen arranged, has been overturned, and undone.

The blog was also updated to expose and shame you both, when you almost had me jailed earlier this week. You created all of those updates, with that sick and inhuman behaviour. By the way, part of the reason that Terry is becoming so nasty, is that evil being I saw walk into your house one night a couple of years ago. It will cause you all to continue to implode.

As stated above, once I post this message, I will consider this blog to be complete. A record of why I have been unable to achieve any happiness, or anything at all, in the past twenty years that I allowed you to stain my own life, so that my children could have some kind of ‘family’, dysfunctional as that was, is, and will always be.

If you are sending me to jail for writing this true story, then it might as well remain on the internet, so that at least this circus has resulted in something tangible.
In the meantime, I’ll continue with my efforts to now turn all of this around on all of you, and beginning summoning all of you into the evil court system.

Local courts might be willing to settle for a $10,000 payment to myself, knowing that is a bargain for what I could take them for. That will just be my fighting fund though, and I’ve already discussed having a gofund me campaign on the police watch site, asking for donations to help me take a civil case against NSW Police, in relation to several serving police officers in Albury.

Once again, I’m not even going to bother to proof read. I have no time for perfection at the moment. Also, again, excuse odd words here and there that don’t fit in, I’m seized up with arthritis and pain, and its very hard to do anything at the moment, especially be on the run from corrupt police, and a family made mentally ill, by its matriarch.

Once again, I point out to you that your new ‘court orders’ will be suspended the moment I lodge an appeal with the district court in Sydney. However, that might still be with the Supreme Court of NSW, since I spend some much time writing those affidavits, all I have to do is change the cover page, to submit them, but asking for different orders that I was seeking last time. Which is all I did last week, for my new applications for motion, changed the cover page to lodge them at the Albury local court, but with the same affidavits.

This site is filled with copies of sworn statutory declarations made by myself, refuting all of the tricks and lies you played after submitting your original ones. Yet you people make none of those, except to police who have no idea what is really going on, and then object when those and ones you submit in private to the court are published in public.

The court refused to allow me to question Susan in court, so the questions I would have asked now appear here, in public, instead. You created that.

I really don’t understand why police even listen to either of you when you walk in there, after all the shame and exposure and complaints you have bought unto them. One day they will just charge the both of you instead, and hopefully include Terry too, since he is covered by your lies too.

On the court records, but not here, with the truth is shown.

I almost deleted my other sites, linked to this one, tonight. Then left them here. But once again, this woman nearly wasted the time and effort I took in placing those things on the internet, for other people to read. But then they reflect the real me. The one she says does not exist, and only her created one does. So I left them there, to once again show, that what I really do with my life, and what really happens in it, is a far cry from the lies this woman creates.

Such a shame, that at her age, she still cannot compromise, cannot negotiate, cannot stop lying and making threats, and cannot communicate with any of her children in any positive way, apart from the one who is happy to play a role in all of her charades, dramas and games of gaslighting everyone around them. Not just myself, anyone they come into contact with, is laughed and ridiculed behind their backs.

Janice O’Bryan was unable to one make new friend, in 20 years of being retired on the Gold Coast. A friend tried to set her up with some of her inlaw relatives, but Janice couldn’t relate to the woman. She was a free thinker, and just too much like me. So Janice came back to Albury, in the hope of having a social life. She has already destroy Gwen Bradley’s career, her long time friend. Her other friends, who were happy they were home, ran away from them while on holidays with her, and don’t speak to her now. She has made a fool of herself in front of all of her relatives, who have seen the games she plays. She does not speak to her own sister, after lying about her 20 years ago, claiming that she had ripped her off over their parent’s will. Therefore none of her nephews speak to her.

Gary spreads her lies about me, to them, so this blog continues to shame both him and his wife for doing that. Again, they created that, because his wife wanted revenge on me, after she started the argument that led her daughter to find out that daddy used to be a junkie. As some relatives also found out, not long after, due to their reaction to that.
And as I say somewhere else on the blog, this is why Janice, Susan and Terry spend every Christmas day alone, ever since they moved back here. No grandchildren present, no other siblings present, because Susan is there.











What is the NSW Judiciary Hiding Now?

I really don’t think that my threat to sue Gwen Bradley personally was enough to drive the disgraceful behaviour stemming from Cromptom at the moment.

I believe it probably has more to do with this bit of information which went around government offices recently:

This post is now released into view of the public, in light of the decision handed down by Criminally Corrupt Cromptom on 22 November 2017

From: Tracey Burt
Sent: Tuesday, 7 November 2017 10:12 PM
To:;;;;;;;;;; Office of the General Counsel; eLodgment_admin; ElectorateOffice Auburn;; Grant_Office_Email;;;;;;;;; ;;; Office of the General Counsel; Ombudsman;; Premier;;;; Vince Blatch; ;

Subject: Magistrate Murray Albury Local Court

It would be worth looking into why this man got such a light sentence, for 15 dope plants, and four guns.

His lawyer was telling him for months he was going to do serious jail time, and incur hefty fines. His lawyer is actually accused of being involved in some of the shady dealings and deals done at same court house.

I gave him some information about Murray, and he already had some, which related to sex offenders in Albury.

By the time he got to court for sentencing, Murray seems to have gone very lightly on him.

(link  to the border mail article provided is removed for this post)

That involved magistrate Tony Murray putting XXXXXX on a community service order, involving 60 hours of unpaid work on one charge and a further 20 hours on another. XXXXXX pleaded guilty to cultivate a prohibited plant (‘small though indictable quantity’), possessing unregistered firearms and three counts of not keep firearm safely.

Seventeen plants with an estimated street value of $31,000 were recovered.

XXXXXX was also convicted and fined $300.


Its not what you did in Albury, that matters, its who you know at the police station and court house that matters the most.

Email ends



I have to change this post. I just found my email to the bloke involved in this, and it is dated after he was sentenced. However, he must have found some way to blackmail Murray into the light sentence he was handed.


Police urge parents on teaching kids ‘stranger danger’ after men try to lure girl into car

POLICE are appealing for information after a teenage girl was approached by three men in a car in southwest NSW.

The Jindera incident is the fourth such approach made public in the past two days, prompting police to renew their call for parents to educate children about stranger danger.

The 15-year-old girl was walking along Creek Street last Thursday about 7.30pm when the men pulled up in a car similar to a Nissan Skyline and demanded she get in.

The girl ran away and contacted Albury police, giving them a detailed description of the men – all of whom are of Caucasian appearance and aged in their early 20s – and the vehicle.

The first man is described as tanned, with a thin build, dark brown hair and light blue eyes, and was wearing a long-sleeved black hoodie with the word “Fox” in white lettering, grey track pants, brown Vans shoes and a dark blue, flat-peak cap with white writing.

The second had a fair complexion, blonde wavy, shoulder-length hair and was wearing a dark green hoodie with a black zip and a dark, flat-peak cap.

The third wore a black hoodie and a purple cap with a symbol on the front.

The car had NSW registration plates in black and yellow that started with the letter “B”, a thick scratch along the driver’s side, a dent underneath the front grill, silver rims and dark blue seat covers.









Transcripts for the Hearing I’ve Been Fined $4,000 + For

The court also sent me today the transcripts for the hearing of 14 September 2017,  in some crazy way thinking that somehow justifies the judgement handed down by Cromptom on 22 November 2017.

When really, it only raises more issues of collusion between the court staff and the complainants, and is more proof that more perversions and corruption have occurred.

They are of course, yet another example of court transcripts being doctored, but which is still unable to hide the bullshit that is going on in the Albury Local Court room.





2016/00020395 R v Tracey Gwendoline BURT
HIS HONOUR: We have the got the part heard matter of Burt. Are you representing yourself today?


HIS HONOUR: The matter of Ms Burt is part heard, how many more witnesses are there?

PROSECUTOR: I have one. I take it though that that will be my lengthiest witness.


ACCUSED: Sorry I didn’t hear what you said?

PROSECUTOR: That that would be a lengthy witness.

ACCUSED: Yes. (“and it will be a very lengthy cross examination”)

PROSECUTOR: My last witness.

(Yet at the outset of the hearing, they said they were going to call 3 or 4 police witnesses, and then only called one)

HIS HONOUR: I will just call through the rest of the matters and I will come back to you.

(He is refering to the rest of the matters on his list from other people, not that he will come back to calling my own matters, but was dismissing me until the start of the hearing. I had started to walk away, then I turned around and went back to the microphone and asked the question below)

ACCUSED: Excuse me, there was supposed to be other matters involving me listed for today. There was mention of the charge brought against me by the mediator of this courthouse.

HIS HONOUR: I don’t know about that. There are a lot of matters here but we are part heard in the one that was last before the Court on 20 June.

(Bullshit, he did not given any verbal answer or if he did, he stated that the only matter he would discuss with me was the hearing that was about to occur, that of write to Jon Williams as reflected above)

ACCUSED: Yes, that’s, that’s

HIS HONOUR: I’ll come back to you in a second I’m just going to go through the rest of the list, thank you.

ACCUSED: Excuse me, I was going to say I’ve got a notice of motion to lodge against the charge Gwen Bradley brought against me and I’ve got notices of motion for the AVO matters that were supposed to be heard today as well. The only one I’m willing to continue in this courthouse is the one that’s in progress.

HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you.


(Cromptom had commented that day that he didn’t appear to have enough time to hear all of the matters listed for hearing that day, and that some were children’s matters and would therefore be a closed court. Yet this hearing into my charge had been listed in June, and you’d think the court would have allocated ample time to hear it, if they were serious about doing so this time. Instead, after going through his list, calls it for the first matter to be dealt with before he started with the real hearings for the day)

HIS HONOUR: I think we will recommence the Burt matter now, just give me one moment. Ms Burt, just come forward.


HIS HONOUR: This is the matter with the H60077075?

PROSECUTOR: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Do you want to call your next witness?

PROSECUTOR: Thank you, your Honour. Susan Ward is my next witness.

ACCUSED: Excuse me, your Honour, before you commence I would just like to advise you that Constable Rowan Weekley has indulged in issuing more false paperwork which amounts to fraud. I’d like to hand this up to your Honour, it’s a witness list for this charge that’s in motion and it lists the charge as common assault

HIS HONOUR: Hold on. What’s this got to do with this matter?

ACCUSED: That Constable Weekley has sent me a witness list for this hearing before it started and he lists the charge as common assault.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that’s not what I’ve got. I’ve got that

ACCUSED: Exactly and that’s what I’m saying, Constable Weekley’s indulging in fraud again.

HIS HONOUR: Just hold on. This is a charge of contravene a prohibition or restriction and this is the part heard matter from June.


HIS HONOUR: So the prosecution has got one more witness to call.


HIS HONOUR: And you’ll have an opportunity to ask that witness questions.

ACCUSED: I would like you to look at this document, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: What’s it got to do with this matter?

ACCUSED: It is showing that the arresting officer – (who is accused of) first he illegally recorded a conversation, then he makes a false statement that he’s got a formal interview on recording, now he’s issuing false paperwork saying I’m charged with assault. Now the other thing that is relevant is that he set up an appointment for me to attend Albury Police Station on 7 June claiming that he had sensitive new evidence that they would not be showing in the courthouse and not be providing to me before the hearing that I had to come down to the station to look at it. So, I would like your Honour to have a look at this document because I want to get it on the record before we get started that the arresting officer has been up to acts of misconduct again.

(Prosecutor was objecting claiming to not have copies of either document. I told her that I did have a copy of one the list of witnesses for her, but that even if I don’t have one of the Sensitive Evidence document, that she should have had one supplied to her by police, since she is prosecuting the matter and police claimed to have new evidence)

I’d also advise that I have sent the brief for this matter to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, they’re currently investigating. They’ve already indicated to me that they’ve found issues of misconduct in it. They have investigated the one that I sent to them a week prior to that which is about Gwen Bradley’s charge. They have also come to the conclusion that there’s gross amounts of police misconduct involved in that as well.

(The LECC issued a decision letter after this hearing, which refutes my claim above. I believe that was deliberate, as the comment about the illegal actions on the part of the arresting officer, and other police officers stationed at Albury, were made verbally via phone call, and therefore never made it to any record that I am privvy to.)

(It’s obvious my next statement has been removed from the transcript, because Cromtpom answers it below. It was, that I had a copy of the infringement notice issued by Weekley on 19 January 2016 to give to the Magistrate)

HIS HONOUR: Right, hand it up to me and I’ll have a look at it. If you’ve got other material that’s not relevant to this matter

ACCUSED: Well, it is relevant.

HIS HONOUR: you’re just

ACCUSED: At the last hearing you questioned me about tearing up the infringement notice that Constable Weekley issued to me on the day that he pretends to arrest me at my house. I have a copy of that, as emailed me (to me by) the courthouse just to prove that that statement’s correct.

I have also got this is another document that outlines all of the police harassment I was put through last year after lodging the complaint about Rowan Weekley and his arrest in this matter. I’d like that on the record. That all occurred after I wrote to Weekley about it.

There’s another issue of housekeeping where in the brief there’s a transcript from 5 February (a hearing) before yourself, that’s being (been) investigated. Issues of the transcripts being tampered with by staff at this courthouse has been investigated (confirmed) by the General Counsel of New South Wales.

Now they agree that a statement I made at that hearing was left out so they’ve reissued the transcript and this time they’ve included my line in it that I have put in a complaint to the ICAC about Gwen Bradley. So, the transcript for that hearing in the brief has now been superseded by this transcript which I have again argued with. They still haven’t used my correct words. They’ve also found another issue with the transcript from 12 December.

I have (had) asked they have only looked at the two issues that I mentioned to them. I have now asked them to go back and look at all of the transcripts for all of these hearings and what else do we have (and check all of the recordings against the transcripts for discrpancies) And that’s all for now.

HIS HONOUR: Right, hand it all up, thank you.

PROSECUTOR: I note your Honour is entitled to look at this, but I object to all of this material. I just wanted to place it on the record.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you, I note your objection.

ACCUSED: I have a copy for the prosecutor of Constable Weekley’s fraudulent paperwork.

HIS HONOUR: There are matters which if you have a complaint about, ought be dealt with by a different Court to this one and you told me that you’ve got some matters with the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. Now that being so, I’ve got these documents and I appreciate that you wish them to be added to the record in this hearing. The prosecution objects to the material but I’m going to accept the material and put it with the court file—

(The decision letter from the Judical Commission claims that he did not enter the documents into evidence, because he claimed they were irrelevant, yet the transcript claims that he did)


HIS HONOUR: Just wait. But as I say, it might be that these are matters that should be somewhere else. I’m focusing on the criminal charge that’s in front of me.


HIS HONOUR: And we are going to proceed with the prosecution witness and you understand that I’m focusing on this charge.


HIS HONOUR: And the prosecution has to prove this charge beyond reasonable doubt.

ACCUSED: Yes, but the Constable Weekley should have given the prosecutor a copy of those documents, the new witness list even though it was the same as the witness list previous to that, but those that form about the sensitive information you’d think the prosecutor would have been given a copy of that by the arresting officer.

(The above sentence has been moved, from where it was stated, to down here where it obviously does not follow on from the conversation in play)

HIS HONOUR: Well, that’s not for me to get into. Sergeant?

PROSECUTOR: Thank you, your Honour, when you say place on the court record, but does not form part of evidence in this hearing?

HIS HONOUR: Correct.

PROSECUTOR: Thank you very much, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Now can we have

ACCUSED: It’s evidence of police corruption.

HIS HONOUR: the witness please. Ms Burt, you can take a seat while the witness is giving her evidence, thank you.



Q. Can you please state your full name?
A. Susan Gaye Ward.

Q. Now you are the defendant’s sister, is that correct?
A. Sorry, say that again?

Q. You are the defendant’s sister?
A. Correct.

Q. Tracey Burt’s sister?
A. Correct.

Q. Now you work for BDS Huon in Lavington, is that correct?
A. BDS Huon, yes, correct.

Q. You’ve worked there since what date?
A. 29 September 2010.

Q. You’re still currently employed there, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. I’ll take you to about 10.42am on Monday 11 January 2016. You were called into a meeting with your HR Manager, Leasa Brown, is that correct?
A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. What happened?
A. She advised me that a letter had been left at John Williams’ home in Sarson Road, Norris Park which was a property I used to rent from John and it was a letter left by Tracey and they were bringing it to my attention.

Q. After that meeting with your HR Manager, later on that evening you attended the police station, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct, with my mother.

Q. Now I take you to about 1.20pm on 12 January 2016. You attended the Albury Local Court?
A. Correct.

Q. To deliver some documents, is that correct?
A. I delivered a letter along with a copy of the letter she left. I was advised to take it down to the Court and try and get it before the Court even though it was outside of the lodgement date, yes, correct.

Q. Now, is this in relation to proceedings that you had before the Court with Ms Burt?
A. Yes.

(Why was I never given a copy of that information or even advised that it had been lodged?)

Q. Now, due to those proceedings before the Court for an unrelated matter, you were collected some documents filed by Ms Burt in relation to that matter, is that correct?
A. Yes, they said I might as well get them while I was there, correct.

Q. Filed in the registry by Ms Burt?
A. Yes.

Q. In relation to an AVO proceeding that was a contested proceeding?
A. Correct.

Q. That was a proceeding between yourself and Ms Burt?
A. Correct.

(Why is the prosecutor playing this game, and trying to deflect from the truth of the situation. My supporting case for my application for an ADVO against Ward was lodged in December 2015, yet they are pretending that was available for her to pick up on 12 January 2016. On the day I did lodged it, a clerk told me that Ward had been phoning them every day asking if I had lodged yet. She was also expecting me to lodge my defence against their allegations, but I knew that I had until mid January to do that. So on the day she attended the court office on 12 January 2016, she was there to pick up my defence statements, lodged on that day and the day after for both her application for an ADVO against me, and same for her mother’s. The cases couldn’t continue if I did not lodge on time, I would have just lost. So those documents were extremely important to them, they would have been stressing to see what I had offered up in defence of the allegations. They were also entitled to see my defence before the next hearing, as part of the protcols of civil actions, and so again, why are they pretending that it was not important for her to pick up those same defence documents and prepare for the hearing? Why are they pretending that the only real reason she went to the court house that day, was to lodge her allegation of breach against me for going ahead and writing to Jon Williams?)

Q. I’ll show you some documents. Are they the documents that you collected from the registry that were filed by Ms Burt?
A. No, they look different.

Q. Look different how?
A. I can’t remember whether the ones I picked up that day were printed in blue ink, green ink, pink ink, but they were her defence documents, you know, where you’re meant to lodge, I think we were to lodge our objections by 29 December.

Q. Can I just have those documents please?
A. But they look different to what I’ve got at home.

Q. That’s because I’ve given you the wrong documents, I apologise. I’ll show you these documents.
A. Each different charge was in a different colour or something.

Q. I’ve given you the wrong documents.
A. Correct.

Q. Those are the documents that you collected from the registry?
A. Yes.

Q. Filed by Ms Burt in relation to the AVO proceedings?
A. Correct.

PROSECUTOR: I tender the bundle of material, I just wish to draw your Honour’s attention to, I’ve tendered the whole bundle out of fairness, but there’s only specific ones that I am relying on. Would your Honour like me to mark that with a Post it note of the specific pages I am relying on?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, please.



Q. After receiving those documents, you read one of the pages?
A. Yes.

Q. It related to what you’d been brought into your HR Manager about?
A. Yes.

Q. The meeting?
A. Correct.

Q. So you took those documents over to Albury Police Station?
A. Correct.

Q. And you made a statement, is that correct?
A. That is correct.

HIS HONOUR: This is your opportunity to ask the witness questions but please try to focus your questions to the matters contained for this matter, for this charge, right?

ACCUSED: Yes. I did mean to say at the start of this hearing that I’d like to advise you that I have no confidence in this courthouse to receive any sort of fair dealings and I have no respect left for you personally. You gave me your word in April that Magistrate Murray would not be involved in any more matters against me and then he had part heard matters against me the very next month. You denied my motion back in April claiming that Murray would be kept out of things and you went back on your word and allowed him to part hear a matter within a month.

So, I just meant to say that at the beginning, so I will now continue. I just wanted to let you know that. At the last hearing I was not aware that Magistrate Murray had been allowed to do that. I had not picked up my mail at the time so I did not become aware of that until, until afterwards.


Q. So Susan Ward, it says in your police station(as said) you moved to Albury in 2010, you told me in 2014 that you keep your car registered in Victoria rather than pay the cost of transferring the registration across to New South Wales?
A. What’s that got to do with the charge?

Q. The fact is
A. Ask a question to do with the charge.

Q. Why did you apply for your AVO in a false name, in your maiden name?
A. I didn’t apply in a false name.

PROSECUTOR: I object to that question.

HIS HONOUR: What’s the objection?

PROSECUTOR: Based on relevance, your Honour.


Q. I was issued with a summons to Court in relation to matters to do with Susan Gaye Burt. You have not used the name Burt since you married over 30 years ago.
A. Correct.

Q. That is my question?
A. Correct, correct.

Q. Why did you apply under your maiden name?
A. I didn’t. I did not. That is incorrect and false.

Q. Why would the registrar put your maiden name on this document?

HIS HONOUR: Just excuse me for one moment.

PROSECUTOR: Your Honour, I object to that.

WITNESS: Your Honour, should I answer the question and explain what happened?

HIS HONOUR: Just excuse me for one second.

PROSECUTOR: I object to that, your Honour, how is this lady meant to know how a registry document came into effect.

HIS HONOUR: It’s of no relevance, Ms Burt.

ACCUSED: Yes, it is.

HIS HONOUR: Excuse me. If you do not mind, I’ll be the one to decide what is relevant and what is not relevant in this Court. Now, ask your questions. Again, I will remind you to try to focus your mind on what’s relevant to this charge. You’re the person who’s charged with an offence here, not the witness. So why don’t you use the time that you have effectively and cross examine her about the evidence that she has given in this Court today.

ACCUSED: Well the document’s not legal when it’s issued in the name of a Susan Burt and signed in the name of Susan Ward, that is the relevance.

HIS HONOUR: Well that’s what you

ACCUSED: That is the relevance.

HIS HONOUR: That’s what you say.

ACCUSED: Now when I applied for an AVO against her I read that I had to show current ID, driver’s licence, I didn’t have to bring any special documents to the courthouse to apply, I had everything I needed in the in my wallet.

HIS HONOUR: Ms Burt. Ms Burt.

ACCUSED: The mother


ACCUSED: did not apply under a maiden name.

HIS HONOUR: Do you have questions for this witness? I’m going to give you an opportunity to ask this witness three questions about her evidence, three questions.

ACCUSED: Three questions?

HIS HONOUR: Correct. And then this matter will be proceeding.


Q. So your next claim to police that on 3 November you emailed me because I was bombarding your mother with hundreds of text messages and emails and had gone crazy?
A. Incorrect.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you, what’s your next question.
Q. The police statement says that. How can you say it’s not correct

HIS HONOUR: That’s another question, you’ve got one left.

Q. What’s your answer—

(Magistrate and Prosecutor both objecting loudly so she could not answer, or be heard if she tried to)

ACCUSED: I won’t even bother. Now, please call the matter that I’m on bail for and mark down that I appeared in Court today and I will appeal the decision that you make after I leave this courtroom to the District Court because of unfair hearings in this courthouse. Constantly. Right from the beginning. She’s allowed to apply under a false name and you’re charging me on a document that is not only illegal because of the signature on the back of it, but because it was never served and you know that and it was granted illegally at hearings that should have been declared as mistrials because Magistrate Murray revoked matters from mediation

SPEAKER: Ma’am, leave the courtroom please. (If this was said, I did not hear him because I was speaking the above angrily at him)

ACCUSED: based on an allegation

SPEAKER: Just leave the courtroom, thank you, ma’am. (Again, if this was said, I did not hear it, but it was obvious to him that I was preparing to leave, I was packing up all of my documents and folders while making the statements above and below)

ACCUSED: of assault that didn’t even occur.

(Accused leaves the court room, without the Sherriff laying a hand on me or even looking like she might. I stopped in the aisle and waited for my friends to pick up their possessions, before the three of us walked out)

WITNESS: Am I excused, your Honour?


Q. Yes, you’re excused.
A. Jesus, thank you.




PROSECUTOR: Does your Honour wish the matter to stand for a short time?

HIS HONOUR: What I will do is I am going to reserve my decision. I’m going to give my decision in the week of 13 November. I’ll be in Wagga, I’ll give it via AVL in this Court. Let me just have a look at that week the Thursday is the 16th what about 2 o’clock?

PROSECUTOR: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Just let me double check the diary. This matter will be for decision on 16 November 2017 at 2pm. There will be AVL link to Wagga. Now, the registrar is to notify the defendant of the decision date.



16 November 201

Mr EJ Schmatt
Chief Executive Officer
NSW Judicial Commission

 Dear Mr Schmatt

 It is surprising to see a man of your age and status resort to telling outright lies. But the corruption and criminal behaviour stemming from the Magistrates who staff the Albury Local Court is far too complex now to resort to your usual tricks and word games used to dismiss all complaints lodged with your office.

In fact I once read an article which describes the tricks one can expect from the NSW Judicial Commission if you lodge a complaint about a corrupt Magistrate, and noticed that all of your correspondences with myself fitted their description to a tee.

You claim that Magistrate Cromptom did acknowledge all of the charges that were listed for mention or hearing on 14 September 2017, and stated that he would deal with them after the hearing into the allegation of breach had occurred.

 That is an outright lie, and the verbal recordings would prove that. Of course, your office and the court itself won’t ever release those to myself, so that I can prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. They won’t even release a typed copy of that transcript, ready for appeal in the District Court.

 Not only did Magistrate Cromptom not say that, he deliberately did not make any audial response at all. He merely looked around the court room, feigning ignorance.

 None of those matters were listed outside of the court room that morning, and if there was any honest clerks working at that court house, then one would have to admit that she deliberately asked Susan Ward what she was there for that day. Ward replied the ‘Burt matter listed on the board’ above her. The only matter that was listed for that day outside the court room, which involved myself.

 Unfortunately I did not think to take a photo of the list to prove that, although I did realize it was significant at the time.

 You then go on to claim that the ADVO hearing was therefore not held in secret. You assert that had I not walked out of the hearing, I would have been present when those matters were called.

 Had the Magistrate not been acting corruptly by protecting the witness from answering questions, and showing showing actual bias towards the complainant, then I would not have abandoned the proceedings.

You claim that I could have asked him to be allowed to ask more questions, but he had just firmly told me that I was not allowed to do so, and any attempt might have seen me charged with contempt for defying him.

 You claim that he let me ask two irrelevant questions, and offered me three more after that, and which I relinquished by walking out.

 Yet again, the actual recording of the hearing would show that is another lie by yourself, seeking to protect this corrupt Magistrate, and who you are fully aware has been seeking to protect Magistrate Murray by these acts of misconduct towards myself.

 I still have the file and print out of all of the questions I intended to ask that day. Every one of them relates to the statements she gave to police. Not one of them is irrelevant as they would have demonstrated that she lied to the court originally, and to police afterwards. She continues to do so, in all of her other statements made to police after that one. Hopefully that will come out at the other hearings, if I am allowed a real opportunity to cross examine her.

You infer that my second question to her was irrelevant, yet it was about her main complaint made to the court in her ADVO applications, and which she had then repeated to police. You would think that quite an important piece of testimony to establish it whether or not it was truthful, that I was attacking her mother via hundreds of emails and text messages, on the date that Ward first approached me, with her menacing and threatening email of 3 November 2015.

You state that my first question was irrelevant, yet it would have shown why she applied for her ADVO under her maiden name. That is what causes the whole document to be illegal, because she signed it with her legal name on the back. It also proves deception, and her desire to have her matters heard at the court house where her next door neighbour and friend, was the ADVO mediator.

And which is why both the police prosecutor and Magistrate would not allow her to answer the question, even after she had agreed to do so.

 It also shows she broke the law when she made her original ADVO application, when she failed to show valid ID to disguise the fact that it was all held in an address in Victoria, and that she had no right to start any court action, in a NSW court house.

 At least you do confirm that the Sherriff and Susan Ward are both lying, when they claim that I had to be ejected from the court room, for misconduct towards the corrupt Magistrate. And which is why I will not appear before him again, nor in the Albury Local Court.

 I also believe Cromptom deliberately incited me to walk out, and the court had deliberately pretended they weren’t going to deal with those matters on that day, so he could award those orders he illegally started on 13 February, and which Murray illegally continued in May 2017, and that is criminal conduct on his part.

No matter how many lies you tell, to try to suggest otherwise.

Yours in absolute disgust of yourself and NSW Justice, as usual
Tracey Burt


Here is the real news Albury – Tracey Gwendoline Burt
Alias Karma Two and many more

(by Susan Ward, BDS Huon, 16 September 2017)

I attended Albury Court House on 14 September 2017 and would like to correct some truths about what actually happened on this day.

Firstly, Tracey did not walk out of the Court room, she was removed by the Sherriff for her open abuse and tirade at the Local Magistrate Crompton.

Secondly you were only given three questions after you continued to ask questions irrelevant to the charge and you were cautioned by the Magistrate about this.

Perhaps you should have prepared your questions like the prosecutor did and state the facts and you would have got more questions in because you dwell on untruths and asked stupid questions which were not the facts or in fact even true.

Unfortunately, your lawyer, that would be you did not prepare that well (perhaps you should try and hire another lawyer, I am sure you have another lawyer within you).

Thirdly the case was in fact finished, you will not get the opportunity to cross examine me again in relation to this charge – 16 November 2016 at 2.00pm is in fact to sentence you via video link from Wagga, perhaps you should have stayed to hear to outcome, oh that’s right you were removed from the court room– try telling your readers the truth for a change.

Lastly is the fact of the interim ADVO orders – you do not have to worry about the ADVO’s being heard on 18 November or at any future court date. Finalised and extended for a further 2 years without hesitation.

Your reading of the disappointment on our faces when we left the court house was misread, in fact we were extremely happy with the outcome but in shock of the day’s events, mostly your abuse and behaviour in the court, so again your powers are letting you down. Was Marilyn and her mother extremely proud of your court behaviour – not sure they will bother with getting the train up from Melbourne anytime soon to support you.

Your blog contains a lot of accusations to several people who have mental illness but it is clear to all who read your blog that there is only one person with the mental illness (and no I do not have a medical degree, just like you do not have a legal degree).

I am sure the police have better things to do than put a hit out on you, just another fantasy from the pot smoking paranoid person that you have become.



Susan Ward


Also note that the court has not provided any advice of what occurred in the District Court on Monday 20 November 2017.

One can only assume that my appeal of the granting of the applications for extensions of their illegally gained ADVO’s, by the same corrupt Magistrate who illegally listed them for hearing on 13 February 2017, and part heard them instead of the two applications for motion (change in venue) was denied.

After having made an informal request to the registrar for motion and the recusal of both Murray and Cromptom from being allowed to decide the above matter, or any matters again, I made the same request to the District Court Judge on 6 November 2017.

Cromptom has been allowed to hand down his latest conviction of myself on 22 November 2017, despite those requests, and despite the fact that I have tried to lodge an application with the Federal Court, about all of the judgements being handed down in all allegations being made against me by Gwen Bradley’s personal friends, at the Albury Local Court.

I had also issued the Attorney General, being the absolutely corrupt Mark Speakmann, a request that he grant a permanent stay in all criminal charges against me at that same court, as it was his employee who enlisted police to bring them against me, so that her friends could win their civil matters.

There was no police involvement in these matters leading up to their civil applications, and their first involvement was when the court had me arrested for writing to Jon Williams, as arranged by Gwen Bradley, and the court then convicted me of that, based on the documents alleging that breach, without making me aware of them, or allowing me to address them. The address would have been simply that the court already is aware of that letter, and my reasons for writing it. I don’t think I really need to address that any further.

However, I did address the police charge, which was then applied to O’Bryan’s interim ADVO.

At no time though was I ever informed by the court that was the case, and been given a chance to defend the police allegations, that it was somehow a breach of O’Bryan’s interim ADVO. Her’s contained no extra clauses forbidding contact with BDS Huon, nor the mention of Ward gossiping about client’s affairs outside work hours, with O’Bryan.

It merely prevented me from contacting her by any means, and the cop who tried to serve it tried to claim it also prevented me from speaking to any that she is related to. Why is that? Been lying to relatives has she, for the past 20 years, and doesn’t want to be shown to be a liar?

Mrs O’Bryan is not related to Jon Williams, and the envelop was addressed to BDS Huon group, and began Dear Sir, as I did not know William’s name. O’Bryan is not a blood relative of the company BDS Huon.

I also told the cop that day that I hardly think any ADVO order could be so broad, and also prevent me from speaking to my own children, both of whom are also unfortunately related to that lying cunt.

I also informed him that her application had been disproven by evidence, and I refused to accept their dodgy court order.

When reading the next transcript, bear in mind that it is shown in this blog that I prepared subpoena’s for the court to issue against both Ward and O’Bryan, back in May or June of this year, asking that they be forced to provide evidence to the court of this mental illness they allege I have.

I have always maintained that any angry emails sent to them were sent out of justifiable anger, not a mental illness that I don’t even have.

The registrar refused to issue the subpoena, and sent me a form to appeal that decision. I did that recently, but the court will only hear that application for that decision by the registrar to be reconsidered, by a Magistrate, if the hearing happens at their court house. Thereby robbing me of the chance to appeal it, as we all know what the result will be – myself served with the final orders stemming from the transcripts shown below, and myself charged and jailed for ‘breaching’ them.

Yet as usual, the protected people are allowed to threaten, menace and attempt to intimidate me with threats of jail and fines, and slander and suffer no consequences for that. Even though they both did the same, within days of those orders being granted.

Back to my point … and O’Bryan is still trying to play the mental health card at this hearing, even after all that occurred.

You are a sick woman O’Bryan. I mentioned in my first angry email to you that your Narcissim has now gone beyond the classification of a personality disorder, and has grown into full on mental illness.

And Susan, well, she might be able to hold down a job using one of her personas, but everyone who knows her outside of her workplace, knows she is mentally unwell, and has been for decades. You keep her that way, by playing her games, and pretending that you are the innocent and good people, and that everyone else around you has no right to be upset by the dramas and bullshit you both cause for everyone around you.

Your court orders have no validity, because of the illegal and corrupt way in which they were granted, and in that they should never have been listed at all, before the court hell bent on convicting me, to protect Gwen Bradley and the Magistrates involved. Also those corrupt assholes working out of the office there, and including all of your pretend registrars.




COMPLAINT     Application to vary apprehended violence order

Applicant O’Bryan appeared in person
No appearance of or for the Respondent Burt (respondent had ‘been asked to leave’)


HIS HONOUR:  Now the next one is Ms O’Bryan.  Now your application to extend the order is that right?

APPLICANT O’BRYAN:  Yes, thank you.

HIS HONOUR:  I’m just reading the application. (Well then he should be fully aware that it is a farce, after all the times he saw them jeering at myself, and making rude guestures towards myself, in the court room in front of him all through the hearings conducted in 2016)


APPLICANT O’BRYAN:  Your Honour, may I ask a question?


APPLICANT O’BRYAN:  Will they be in force even if they’re not served on her because she doesn’t accept them or you can’t find her?

HIS HONOUR:  Well, they certainly will be enforceable at law.  They’re orders of this Court.

SPEAKER:  The interim order will remain in force until the final order is served.

HIS HONOUR:  Until the final order is served.

APPLICANT O’BRYAN:  The other thing is the AVO is not working for us very well because she just continues on the internet to destroy us really.

HIS HONOUR:  I’m sure it’s extremely difficult, I can’t give you any legal advice I’m afraid.

APPLICANT O’BRYAN:  No, but do we have any other options?

HIS HONOUR:  I’m not sure‑‑


HIS HONOUR:  ‑‑is the short answer.

APPLICANT O’BRYAN:  Maybe if she were on a bond or something that would threaten her enough for her to stop doing what she’s doing.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, as I say, I can’t give you any legal advice but as the matters progress through the Court and depending on what the decisions are in the criminal matters ‑


HIS HONOUR:  If she is convicted of the criminal matters there will be a penalty of some description.

APPLICANT O’BRYAN:  Mental health ‑ there’s not mental health help? (Some mental health help would help her, and Susan)

HIS HONOUR:  That’s not something that I ‑ that would be appropriate for me to comment on.

APPLICANT O’BRYAN:  Okay, all right.

HIS HONOUR:  Perhaps there are ‑ have you spoken to anyone at Legal Aid?

APPLICANT O’BRYAN:  Yes, many times, several times they’ve been up to see her they can’t do anything.  (No they have not seen me, but they should examine her and her daughter who is mentally ill – Susan Ward)

HIS HONOUR:  I see.  Thank you.






 COMPLAINT     Application to vary apprehended violence ordeR

Applicant Ward appeared in person

No appearance of or for the Respondent Burt  (respondent had ‘been asked to leave’)


HIS HONOUR:  Can I just mention these matters, Ms Ward is the applicant in one and Ms O’Bryan is the applicant in the other.  Ms Ward, just come forward if you wouldn’t mind.  Now, this is your application to vary ‑ just come to the microphone because it’s all being recorded.  This is your application to vary the AVO.

 APPLICANT WARD:  To extend it, yes.

 HIS HONOUR:  To extend it yes, and this matter was listed for hearing today


 HIS HONOUR:  The defendant was present but is now not before this Court.  I’m just reading the application.  The application will be granted and the order will be extended for a further two years.  It’s not a police matter is it?  You don’t want to be heard?  Thank you. 


 APPLICANT WARD:  Thank you.  Leave?

 HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you. 






2016/00133248  ‑  R  v  Tracey Gwendoline BURT
2016/00139235  ‑  R  v  Tracey Gwendoline BURT
2016/00194166  ‑  R  v  Tracey Gwendoline BURT
2016/00202606  ‑  R  v  Tracey Gwendoline BURT
2016/00315621  ‑  R  v  Tracey Gwendoline BUR

Sergeant S Lewis for the Informant
No appearance of or for the Accused (Accused had asked the Magistrate to call these matters while going through his list earlier on this same day. He refused. Accused had abandoned proceedings in front of this corrupt Magistrate earlier in the same day and left the court house)

HIS HONOUR:  All these other matters should be listed for a future date to set hearing dates.

 PROSECUTOR:  Now that this matter is finished and your Honour is not coming down, obviously your Honour can’t ‑ should not hear the other matters.

 HIS HONOUR:  Correct.

 PROSECUTOR:  It’s my submission that the matters should be put over for Monday, the next one in time can be given a hearing date given that we’re setting hearing dates now either in December or January.

 HIS HONOUR:  Well, if I list all matters on Monday Magistrate Brender will be here and his Honour can fix dates.


 HIS HONOUR:  While I’ve got you here, all of those other matters for Ms Burt, I’m listing them all on Monday for the purposes of dates being fixed for them if possible

PROSECUTOR:  Thank you, your Honour.



WANTED: Be on the look out for this dangerous criminal,
pictured here wandering the streets of Albury on her birthday a few days ago.

She is wanted for telling the truth in court, and then for publishing information
about corruption at the Albury Local court and in cahoots with corrupt
police officers also located in Albury.

She is most wanted though, for making allegations against
Magistrate Tony Murray and Detective Glynn, Albury police,
regarding the rape and murder of William Tyrrell.

A warrant for her arrest has been issued by the Albury District court.



Also, be very afraid if you run into the woman mentioned below.
Even just talking to her will give her reason and ammunition to start spreading lies about you. Its what she does, for a hobby.


Janice sign 2Janice Sign



Subject: Your emails
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 19:51:38


Enough is enough, you have made your points with your emails and letters sent to everyone and (bullshit and lies).

(Bullshit and lies)

I am extremely disappointed that you have decided to tell XXX XXXXXX and Stella Burt in Tallangatta about Wayne and that subject, it is not your right to speak on my behalf and it is time to shut up about this and move on and stop causing trouble for everyone including Belinda, if you do not stop this talk then I will certainly have to think about what action I will have to take against you including telling your children a few truths.

When you are ready to ring my work please do so and I will happily put you through to my boss, you can discuss any issue you have with conversations you heard in my home or Mum’s but the consequence of this will be that at the first working day I have off I will be at Centrelink making things very hard for you, I will make it my mission to have you removed from the disability pension and back to Newstart to make your life even more uncomfortable that it is, could be as much as $300.00 per fortnight to you so have a good look at yourself.

Next if you see me coming I suggest you turn and run the other way and I would also suggest that it is time for you to pack up and leave Albury because once Wayne finds out what you have done including your 10 page letter to Debbie your life will not be worth living, (more bullshit and lies).



Subject: RE: Your emails Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:03:42 +1000


Fuck off mental case.

Yes, I did write to Debbie. She had the right to know. Now I have posted it to the net, and it will stay there, until Gary pays me $220.

By the way, I didn’t read much of your bullshit. I’ve had enough of that over the years.

According to Connie, you have had me cut out of the sluts will, for a crime I did not even commit. At least having all that money to yourself, will mean that you can eat yourself to death a lot sooner.

You don’t even know XXX XXXXXX, so shut the fuck up about him, and what I talk to him about. Cunt.



Now I did mention that both Susan and I had been molested, to my aunt in Tallangatta, but I did not say who had done that. I have always believe that it was Gary Burt in Western Australia who filled them in on that part of the story.

All I had talked about that day was how much Janice has hated me since the day I told her, and some of the awful things she has done to punish me for that.

But there it is, her own admission, that I should not speak on her behalf about what he did to her as well.

That’s because I didn’t participate, and she did. She has a lot to answer for, and if she hadn’t been so willing to drop her pants and let him screw her, then he might not have ever tried to rape me.

Gary Burt and his wife are aware of that situation, from our ‘childhoods’, and his wife alludes to it in one of her emails to me.

Debbie Robertson is the third victim I refer to in the sign above. Her mother could confirm, as could Janice, that Debbie was only 15 when Wayne started dating and then living with her. She turned 16 a few months into their relationship. However, he was in his late 20’s and she was 16. He soon got her addicted to heroin, and prostituted her on the streets of Port Kembla to make money for their habit.

She can’t confirm this, because she committed suicide about 20 years ago.

XXX XXXXXX could also confirm that I told him about it, under duress from himself, long before any of these court actions, designed to cover it all up, had commenced.

He also wrote a reference for me on the day they sent mental health workers to my door, stating that I was of high intelligence and sound mind, because we’d been working on his book every day for months at that stage, and he knew I was sane all of the way through that.

Plus during all of the time we associated, via email and in person, in the 11 months leading up to that. I wrote on another page is this blog, why is this man not allowed to have his own opinion of me. Why must they constantly phone him up and try to change his mind about me?

I’ve been meaning to go back and add to that, when he is the one who I spoke with every day in the several months leading up to these court proceedings.

Ward and I had not only not seen each other for the 18 months prior to these events, we also had not spoken. Prior to that we had not spoken for years, and rarely ever have anything to do with each other.

I’d also not been speaking to O’Bryan in the lead up to these events. XXX XXXXXX (who doesn’t want to  be mentioned on the blog) would also have to confirm, that the argument started when O’Bryan emailed him trying to tell him lies about me.

When he didn’t believe her, or want to listen to her, she started sending him angry emails. I have copies of those, and which continued even after she’d started this court case.

A day after they’d sent the mental health workers, they also obtained his phone number, and Gary Burt phoned him up telling more lies about me.

Yet he had always enjoyed my company, and had just transferred $700 into my bank account for me to purchase the books for him, that we had just published, on behalf of himself and his family members.

I warned Ward last year that I would write about the nail polish game she invented when we were kids on the blog, if she did not stop her false charges and false allegations.

Ward was the first person to sexually molest me, long before Wayne tried. And which also gives cause to wonder if it wasn’t her who molested him first, and again, why she doesn’t want any details of their relationship to come out.

I would have only been about 7 years old when this happened. Dad had left when I was six. I think Janice was in the home for the first year, or some short period, then she started working nights and leaving us all alone. So basically I was left unprotected from abuse of all kinds, from the age of 7 upwards.

Susan and I shared a bedroom back then. She asked me one night if I wanted to play a game she had thought up. I agreed.

She came and got into my bed, laid herself on top of me, and had put a bottle of nail polish between her legs, and started making motions of humping me with it.

I didn’t find anything fun or interesting about the game at all. It seemed pretty dumb to me. I’d never been stimulated sexually by that stage in my life, so even if she did have it in the right spot, it wasn’t given me any kind of sensations or pleasure.

She wanted to play that game on another occasion, and I can’t say how many more after that. I went along with it, since it seemed to make her happy, even though I couldn’t not fathom what the game was supposed to entail.

One night she’d gone to bed really angry and upset. I didn’t know what had happened. To try to cheer her up, I asked if she wanted to play the nail polish bottle game.

‘No”,  she replied angrily, “and if you ever ask again I will tell mum that you did’.

It was then I realized that the game must be naughty and something I would get in trouble for.

So the next few times she asked me to play it, I declined.

Then she stopped asking. I guess she found that Wayne had a bottle between his legs she could play with instead.

She was already being abuse by Mr Cole, a teacher at our primary school by this stage, and which is why she was now seeking sexual gratification in other ways and other places.

I won’t try to bring charges against her for this.

I’ll just punish her here where the truth is told, and not in court where only liars are allowed to be heard.

But now you are starting to see what a sick bitch she really is, and why she is so mentally ill.

And what deplorable conditions I grew up in. Apart from sexually assaulting his sisters, Wayne Burt used to physically beat up our other brother on a regular basis.

When he complained to Janice about that, she treated him like he was mentally ill for saying it, and had a doctor issue him with some medication to calm him down.

Wayne and Susan then spread it around that Gary was on mediation, ‘for being mentally ill’ and tormented him even more. Which is how he gained the nick name of Tablet.

Yet Gary told me that Susan used to disappear into the bedroom with Wayne, whenever she wanted Wayne to bash Gary up for her. So he didn’t just cop a beating when Wayne had the shits with him, he used to get one when Susan had the same.

Janice, apart from when she was working, was doing a great deal of screwing around herself. So on her nights off from work, she was not at home with any of us. Gary claims that some of her longest running boyfriends were actually married men.

Someone dobbed her into Centrelink (Social Security) not long after we’d moved to Queensland, back then. For working and earning money. Janice lied her way out of it, but then got caught when a male friend rocked up and asked if she was working that night. She had to quickly lie her way out of that then too.

It occurred to me recently that the person didn’t dob her in just because she was earning a bit of cash while on the single parent pension. I think the person wanted her reported to welfare, for leaving 4 kids alone every night of the week, and who were drinking and having loud parties, and aside from disturbing the whole street, there was one child there who was too young to be being exposed to it all, nor left alone.

No one every called DOCs on me Janice, nor even ever thought about it. Same can’t be said for you, eh?

I would have been in year 7 in Queensland, or first form had we stayed in NSW, so 11 or 12 years old, when a friend told me that her older sister had told her that my sister is a lesbian. I was a bit nervous the next time she walked in on me getting changed. But since she wasn’t ever home much, that didn’t happen often.

The next year I had to witness one of her boyfriends bite her on the ear, and hold her captive for a few hours in the bedroom, threatening to rip it off if he wasn’t left alone to deal  with her

I’d called mother at work, and she called the police. Janice still didn’t come home. The police had to negotiate him for hours, with myself trying to help. He was angry that she’d played up on him, after their short relationship had ended.

When I was 15, I had to stand there and watch Albury police search Wayne’s room in the house owned by the Lavy Sports club, knowing that he had all sorts of drugs in there. Unbeknown to me though, he had come the night before and whisked them all away, on a tip off they were all about to be busted for the chemist robberies.

He served two and a half years for that. All of this stuff is proveable, none of their lies about me are. Gwen Bradley would have been already aware, that Susan came at John Ivers with a knife one night.

Don McDowell, who also had the misfortune to date her, would confirm that I phone him, at the end of their relationship and told him about her previous relationship with her brother. Susan had given me permission to do that, and in front of Janice O’Bryan.

Don replied that I had just confirmed what he had always thought, that Susan is suffering from the symptoms of severe sexual abuse, and from his guess, that had been at an early age. He offered to arrange counselling for her, but did not want her back.

Her ex-husband, Len Ward would confirm that he took a restraining order out on her, after throwing her out of their home for punching him in the face, at his workplace.

The only restraining orders ever taken out against me were my disability employment agency, who were trying to prevent having to grant a copy of my file, as part of a legal FOI order. And a dickhead in WA, who I took to petty claims court. The restraining order was comprised of lies, and was designed to stop me from being able to serve him, and start my case against him. Neither of those orders achieved what they wanted back then, and neither did these.

I guess when people apply for them for nefarious reasons, it doesn’t help them in the long run. Whereas someone who had actually been making threats of violence or any other kind, would stop, the moment an order was in place.

Who’s mentally ill in this family. Well since Gary and his wife have just stood up for Susan and Wayne in all of these matters, I have to say that they all are.

And the great Terry O’Bryan who’s previous reputation has ensured all of this support from city officials, is just an abuser himself now, after suffering 40 years of abuse at the hands of his own wife, but they aren’t aware of that, having not seen him for the past 20 years.

If I am insane, then it was living with them that sent me that way.

However, I believe that I am not, and there has never been a doctor who has suggested otherwise, not officially or unofficially, to myself.

I do believe a few have accused Janice of being that though. Plus she is the  one who has to take anti-depressants to cope with her own guilt and feelings of self loathing. Same with Susan.

Me, I just blow a joint occassionally, to lift myself up and out of the distress and anguish they cause for everyone around them.


By the way Janice, the person you claim you raised, told me the other night that he has been told by the optometrist that his eye sight is deteriorating rapidly, that he is almost legally blind now.

But you would be too busy telling lies in court to have spoken to him about that, and continue to ensure that he can have no support from myself during this new health crisis, because I will be in jail, and unable to arrange for and attend appointments for him with an eye specialist, to find out what is going on.

Grandmother of the year award? I think not.

Scum of the earth award? I think so, but that title must be shared with Susan Ward, and Gary Burt.


Transcripts for all of the original hearings, and showing the obvious perversion of the course of justice, as it occurs on 15 and 29 February 2016, at the hands of Maggot Murray.