Shame on Cromptom and Albury Police

The man in this story, who’s’ life was destroyed for telling the truth, and expecting criminals to be charged, has more integrity than Magistrate Michael Cromptom.

I have always believed that Cromptom was being pressured into acting corruptly towards myself, but told that it was the right thing to do, so that I would not escape ‘justice’, after disproving the evidence presented against me, at all times.

However, the actions of Magistrate Cromptom on 14 September 2017, when he refused to call matters which were listed for mention, then refused to verbally acknowledge those when I bought them up to him, yet convicted me of all of them after I’d walked out of the court room, shows very clearly, that when faced with exonerating the innocent and ending all of this torture for myself, he chose to protect Magistrate Murray, corrupt court staff and corrupt local police instead.

Shame on him. His career will continue, as will those of the police who like to engage in unlawful actions, due to the cowards at Albury police station who refuse to come forward and identify their commanding officers as being corrupt. Also for refusing to point the finger at their fellow officers who break the law, and are dealing in drugs.

Yet the truth always finds it way out in the end. And your careers and conciences will all suffer in the long run, for allowing yourselves to be roped into engaging in dishonerable and illegal conduct, when you could have stopped it in its tracks.

The following article is a very interesting read, and shows just how corrupt the police, the church, and the government in this country, really are.

 

They destroyed Denis Ryan’s police career. Now they admit he was right all along

John Silvester

On the ground floor of the Victoria Police Centre is the Honour Board For Courage that lists the names of nearly 500 police who risked their lives in the line of duty.
But in policing there are two types of courage.

There is the instinctive act of physical bravery and the moral type that requires the strength of character to uphold the law when pressured to compromise.

When former policeman Denis Ryan walked in to meet present Chief Commissioner, Graham Ashton, he knew his name would never appear on the honour board, although he is a hero who was prepared to sacrifice his career on a point of principle.

He refused to buckle when his bosses wanted him to ignore a paedophile priest and then was hounded from the job in a conspiracy that many believe went all the way to the chief commissioner’s office.

Now, 44 years after he was forced to resign because he cared more for children than his professional future, he has been vindicated in the very office where his career was destroyed.

It was only a few words and a handshake but when Ashton formally apologised on behalf of the police force it was the final vindication for a man who refused to be crushed by two powerful institutions.

Advertisement

“Denis wouldn’t look the other way. He acted with propriety and courage and it is a testament to his character. We can’t right the wrongs of history but we can acknowledge and learn from them,” Ashton said last week.

So why was an honest cop hounded from office for trying to do his job? First we must look back to a time where the police force was poisoned by secular interests and some cops put church before duty.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/national/they-destroyed-denis-ryans-police-career-now-they-admit-he-was-right-all-along-20160811-gqq1x2.html

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Wanted: For Crimes Against Justice: Michael Cromptom ‘Magistrate’

scan0022.jpg

scan0023 cromptom comp p2 edit.jpg

scan0024

scan0025 cromptom aff p2 edit

From: Tracey Burt
Sent: Monday, 18 September 2017 1:46 PM
To: complaints@judcom.nsw.gov.au
Cc: investigations@abc.net.au; icac@icac.nsw.gov.au; ADR_Directorate@agd.nsw.gov.au; auburn@parliament.nsw.gov.au; contactus@lecc.nsw.gov.au; director_justicelegal@agd.nsw.gov.au; Office of the General Counsel; fairfield@parliament.nsw.gov.au; keira@parliament.nsw.gov.au; liverpool@parliament.nsw.gov.au; leader.opposition@parliament.nsw.gov.au; lozza28682@hotmail.com; maitland@parliament.nsw.gov.au; mail@edgea.com.au; newcomplaints@humanrights.gov.au; Office of the General Counsel; Ombudsman; Premier; Rebecca Jeyasingam; senator.brandis@aph.gov.au; secretary@jca.asn.au; service@igt.gov.au; walt.secord@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Subject: Magistrate Michael Cromptom

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find attached Judicial Complaint, as emailed to your office on the weekend, signed and witnessed. The original signed copy has been posted to your office today.

Please find also attached, signed statutory declaration regarding the conspiracy jail me for breach of bail conditions, Mr Cromptom tried to enact, on behalf of Tony Murray, the Registrars (being Elizabeth Leathbridge and/or Belinda Brady), both of whom have recently had to be investigated for matters of collusion with the friends of Gwen Bradley, being Janice O’Bryan and Susan Ward, as mentioned in all statements, and complaints,  made in relation to these events, and all of those same people aforenamed.

For my evidence in this complaint, I wish to include, and therefore attach:

  1. The affidavits created for my applications for motion lodged in November and December 2016.
  2. An affidavit prepared in July of this year, which was to accompany an application for a permanent stay in the charge bought against me by NSW police officer Constable Jonathan Minehan on behalf of Gwen Bradley and Susan Ward, but which I was unable to lodge online, with the Dowling Street Local Court.
  3. The results of the investigation by the Office of the General Counsel of NSW, dated July 2017
  4. Export of online court list, from nsw justice website, dated 14 September
  5. I believe you already have a copy of a complaint from myself, regarding Magistrate Cromptom and Murray playing games with my applications for motion, lodged earlier this year, which I would also like to submit evidence for this new matter. I believed you failed to post me a decision for that complaint.
  6. As previously emailed to you this morning, the two affidavits made to the Supreme Court of NSW dated September 2017.

Yours sincerely

Tracey Burt

I will have to forward the affidavits from November and December 2016 later, I can’t seem to find a scan of those. My files are messed up a bit, after having to purchase a new laptop a few months ago.

 

From: Tracey Burt
Sent: Monday, 18 September 2017 2:09 PM
To: complaints@judcom.nsw.gov.au

Subject: Additional Affidavit

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find attached application for motion, regarding Ward, lodged on 12 December 2016.

I’m not sure I have a scan of the one I attempted to lodge in February 2017, regarding any matters involving Janice O’Bryan. That was the one the court clerk refused to accept.

It was handed to Magistrate Cromptom at hearing on 13 February 2017. He failed to address it, apart from to illegally start the new applications for extensions of their ADVO’s by Ward and O’Bryan, and then asked them if they would agree to motion. They replied that they did not, the prosecutor had already indicated that she did not.

Magistrate Cromptom asked me where I lived. When I replied Tweed Heads, Ward and O’Bryan burst out laughing and pretended that I was lying. Yet it is those two liars and their lies which have kept me in Albury for the past 2 years. My drivers licence still shows an address near Tweed Heads, being Murwillumbah, on the front of it. It has not needed to be renewed in the years that I have been travelling between Albury and Tweed. The address on the back has been updated, whenever I was in permanent accommodation.

I believe that did not address the applications for motion, nor the obvious reasons for them, yet Magistrate Cromptom handed down a decision at hearing in April 2017, that he had dismissed them all. He gave a guarantee that Magistrate Murray would be excluded from all matters, and they would be heard by him personally from that point.

The following month, Magistrate Murray claims to have part heard the new ADVO applications by Ward and O’Bryan, and escalated them into being Acts of Parliament. He made a ruling that I would be excluded from lodging any evidence. I had not done so previously, and had stated at hearing in June 2017, that I would be relying on the original evidences submitted for the original applications.

Susan Ward claims those applications were awarded to herself and her mother, at a private hearing which I was not informed was going to occur. Granted without any questions asked of them, were her words, or without any reservations. Yes, because Magistrate Murray want them in place, to use them to jail me, for naming him as a pedophile on the blog which displays evidence of his corruption in all of the matters against me, the obviously and confirmed involvement of Gwen Bradley of the CJC, and all with the continued assistance of two different Registrars.

I believe you have lost the right to summon me into any court house in NSW, from this point on.

Cromptom’s behaviour on 14 September 2017, deliberately protecting the witness from answering any questions at all, shows that both he, the prosecutor and all of the court staff know that she has been lying, and that will come out under cross examination.

You have lost the right to summon me to any court in NSW, due to the continued refusal to act in any way towards me that is fair, impartial nor just. You have defied my common laws rights, as a citizen of this country. You are in violation of the laws you are supposed to serve, not me.

You have lost the right to summon me to any court in NSW, due to having refused the right of the accused to have the complainant cross examined in court.

You have lost the right to summon me to any court in NSW, when you allow Magistrate Tony murray to dismiss all defence evidence, because it shows that I am the victim, and the complainants are liars. Why do you think they have had to rely so heavily on Gwen Bradley being able to affect the outcome of all these hearings, and use local police to bring false charges against me one after the other.

I will make application to the Supreme Court of NSW for a permanent stay in all proceedings against me, at the Albury Court House, due to crimes against justice being committed there on a regular basis by resident Magistrate Tony Murray, fill in Magistrate Michael Cromptom, and any Registrar, and all court clerks.

Yours sincerely

Tracey Burt

 

I went to the Albury court house on 11 November 2016, after having been assaulted by Albury police two weeks earlier, armed with a medical certificate asking these corrupt assholes for a month off these proceedings, due to the injuries received in the assault by police.

I also had with me the application for motion, asking that the charge bought against me by the mediator at the court house, being Gwen Bradley, be vacated to another court house, anywhere else in NSW.

The clerk said that Cromptom was on the bench and would give me a quick hearing about those matters, after lunch. I went home and came back at 2pm. At 4pm I was still sitting there, in extreme discomfort from sitting on the hard seats, and other aches and pains.

When I was going to leave, they finally ushered me in. The pretend Registrar that day was being extremely nice, and had said that they had already marked that I would have to miss the next hearing, due to the medical certificate I’d already emailed to them.

Cromptom saw me limp into that court room that day. He looked shocked for a few moments, before recomposing himself. I had to hold on to my own right arm, because the tendons and muscles on my shoulder felt like they were about to break.

I handed up to him that day the following statutory declaration, about refusing to appear there ever again. It was he who refused motion, months later, on direction from Maggot Murray, and now has assisted Murray to try to jail me today, by playing games with the legal processes which were supposed to occur on Thursday of last week, being 14 September 2017.

What a sick gay cunt he must be.

And lets not forget that it was this same Magistrate, who refused to conduct a hearing into their ADVO applications against me, and dismissed us all from the court house on the day that was to occur. He’d already decided that the matters would be sent to mediation.

Which is why the complainants have never been made to prove their allegations in a court of law, and have avoided being cross examined by the accused, at all times.

So, I have to now believe that his decision on that day of 5 February 2016, was pre-arranged by Maggot Murray.

Don’t let the hearing occur, or the complainants will be shown to have made false allegations, and committed acts of perjury.

That can’t happen, because they are friends of Gwen Bradley. 

The court has listed the hearing of four of the charges of breach,  now that I have been ‘reconvicted’ of the one which ‘proved’ the complainants allegations, on the two year anniversary of the day that Murray had perverted the course of justice, and was going to impose a mandatory jail sentence on me, for having committed an ‘act of violence’ against one of the protected people, while they held an interim ADVO against me.

But the incidence of violence never occurred. But since, neither did any of the things the complainants alleged in their applications and supporting statements, I guess I can be convicted of other things that didn’t happen.

I freely admit to all of the breach charges. That I attempted to contact BDS Huon, to ask them to step out of the way, and let this family fight occur, without them using their resources to protect the aggressive bully, being their staff member.

However, its worth noting, that on the day Gwen Bradley had me arrested and assaulted, I’d been emailing Kerry Lloyd, warning her not to get involved on BDS Huon’s side, and appear in court on their behalf, as she did not know how much corruption she would be getting herself involved with. Seems like I was too late, she had already given an affidavit to the police, pretending that she supported Susan in being allowed to gossip about clients affairs, and that she believed that Susan had a right to be applying for an ADVO to stop me advising them about that.

Police were at my door within hours of me sending those emails. Of course, I have the copies to prove that.

 

 

 

From: Tracey Burt
Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 11:35 AM
To: local_court_albury@agd.nsw.gov.au; local_court_albury@agd.nsw.gov.au; liverpool@parliament.nsw.gov.au; leader.opposition@parliament.nsw.gov.au; auburn@parliament.nsw.gov.au; coordinator@msb.org.au; dubbo@parliament.nsw.gov.au; director_justicelegal@agd.nsw.gov.au; daviddonovan@independentaustralia.net; Office of the General Counsel; Enquiry Management; fairfield@parliament.nsw.gov.au; farrer@aph.gov.au; investigations@abc.net.au; keira@parliament.nsw.gov.au; maitland@parliament.nsw.gov.au; marlene007@live.com.au; mail@edgea.com.au; newcomplaints@humanrights.gov.au; Office of the General Counsel; Premier; Rebecca Jeyasingam; senator.brandis@aph.gov.au; secretary@jca.asn.au; service@igt.gov.au; sussan.ley.mp@aph.gov.au; walt.secord@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Subject: Violation of My Constitutional Rights

Dear Corrupt Court Clerk

It appears that my only chance of halting the injustices your court house continues to inflict upon myself, is to take you to the Federal Court.

Instead of taking Local Courts NSW to the civil court system in that same state, as per my statement of claim issued earlier this year, I believe I would be better to get these matters out of the hands of any NSW court.

I have not prepared my application to the Federal Court, and need to do some more research into that. However, while I prepare my appeals, and notices of motion, I will be doing just that, at the same time.

I understand that the first step in that process is to notify every Attorney General of each state in Australia, that I am about to take this step.

However, I also understand that when a citizen of NSW attempted to do this, to end the nightmare he was being put through in the NSW court system, he was arrested for sending those emails, and jailed for four months.

Therefore, I will avoid that step. As you are aware, you tried to jail me yesterday, for seeking to take matters to the Supreme Court of NSW.

However, since I have been emailing members of parliament for months about these same issues, and have recently taken to emailing members of the opposition, I believe I have already fulfilled that requirement.

Also, both Gabrille Upton and the current Attorney General of NSW have consistently refused to acknowledge my emails over same, and continue to ignore my pleas for assistance. Both of those people have supported Gwen Bradley in having me assaulted by police, put on false charges and false bail which she could revoke any time she needed to protect herself and her friend Susan Ward. They have allowed her illegal charge against me to remain on the court lists, and relisted it to set a date for hearing as recently as 14 September 2017.

This is your last opportunity to resolve these matters before I take this next step.

Previously I would have been happy for the false allegations and false convictions to just have been withdrawn and ended.

However, I do believe that after two years of having been falsely convicted of false allegations, by way of illegal conduct by your Magistrate Tony Murray, thirty court hearings (most of which were a waste of time), and the expenses and discomfort incurred along the way, I now feel entitled to some compensation. I will be seeking that in the Federal Court system, and not your own.

I also note that you have set the date for the hearing of four illegal charges of breach, against an illegally gained and unserved ADVO, on the two year anniversary of the day that Magistrate Murray first perverted the course of justice against me, being 15 February.

Sincerely

Tracey Burt

scan0026

edit genuine resolution.jpg

 

Notice of Appeals

These forms, plus an application for the fees to be waived, was emailed to Albury Court House, about half an hour ago.

Interruption from this post: I just saw a car drive through my accommodation complex, that was very similar to that owned by Terry O’Bryan. I tired to see if it was him at the wheel, but was too  late, and was unable to do so.

I guess they are checking to see if I am here, so they can send police, over that post that appeared this morning, or are going to give the address to Wayney Burt. O’Bryan won’t be happy about his long time buddy Gwennie being shamed here as well. But that’s his wife’s fault, and his step-daughter’s, not mine!

Anyway, once these are lodged, their current ADVO/AVO’s will be suspended until the appeal hearing. Not sure how that affects the Interim Orders imposed back in February.

Maybe that is why O’Bryan is trying to act now. Maybe he has been tipped off by court staff, that by tomorrow, their orders won’t protect them. If the Interim ones are negated, I will be able to walk right up to all of them, and hand them summonses to civil court.

However, I had no plans to do that at the moment. Since O’Bryan’s wife squandered all of their savings, I’d be better of chasing NSW Police and NSW Justice for a substantial amount of compensation.

If I change my mind about that, I’d have to wait for them to sell their house, before they can pay me, for this two year attack on my life, that actually began 20 years ago. They’ll still be able to afford a nice 3 bedroom home, somewhere in Albury. I wouldn’t drive them onto the streets, like they do to me, by phoning around telling people not to let me stay with them.

Maybe I should release that post now, since I am picking up on a bad vibe again, for the first time today.

scan0029

scan0029scan0031

scan0031

 

If O’Bryan did just drive through my complex, looking for my car, he came within 10 metres of me, sitting near my front window.

I think he just violated the AVO held by his wife, which also ‘protects’ him.

 

As usual though, they are able to violate any orders the court issues, because they are friends of Gwen Bradley.

Maybe I should just release that post now, just in case they catch me unaware.

Na, but I will time it to publish every hour now, instead of setting the clock for 3 or 4 hours time.

If I forget, or fall asleep, and I was about to have a nap, then again, it is because they are approaching me, and mean to do me harm, for recording the truth here, about all that has happened.

The don’t like truth.

It destroys their lies.

It humiliates them, due to those same lies.

It proves, they lie.

 

 

 

Transcripts Prove That I Received No Fair Hearings, Just Convicted of False Allegations

RSB:SND 99/16
23/11/15
IN THE LOCAL COURT ALBURY

MAGISTRATE MURRAY
MONDAY 23 NOVEMBER 2015

SUSAN GAY WARD AND JANICE EVELYN O’BRYAN v TRACEY GWENDOLINE BURT
Complaint Apprehended Domestic Violence Order

Complainants appeared in person No appearance of defendant

SPEAKER: The applicants in that matter, Janice O’Bryan and Susan Ward are before the Court. I’ll just call Ms Burt again, she was here before. (not true, I had no idea this hearing was even happening, until I was served with the Interim Order he issues))

HIS HONOUR: Sergeant, in respect of Tracey Burt and the application for Ms O’Bryan, I do not have a statement of service. In respect of Susan Ward I do not have a statement of service regarding Ms Burt either.

Can I firstly deal with Janice O’Bryan, who’s that? Ma’am is that you? Ma’am, you’re Janice? Ma’am, unfortunately the application has not been served on the other party and the Court can’t make any order as a matter of fairness – just stand in front of the microphone for me.

Your application has not been served on Ms Burt, so the Court can’t make a final order without that taking place. Do you seek a temporary order for your protection between now and when the order is served?

COMPLAINANT O’BRYAN: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Has anybody spoken to you about that?

COMPLAINANT O’BRYAN: No.
HIS HONOUR: Can your officer just speak to the lady? And is Susan Ward present?

COMPLAINANT WARD: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: That’s you ma’am? Can the officer just speak to the two ladies about what happens when matters are not served and they’ll be asked to come back into Court, give some short evidence. I expect I’ll be making interim orders but if the officer wouldn’t mind explaining that to them?

HIS HONOUR: Just take a seat just for a couple of minutes and somebody will speak to you.
SPEAKER: Okay.

HIS HONOUR: Ms O’Bryan come forward and I’ll explain it to you, just come up to the witness box and just remain standing ma’am when you get up there please.

HIS HONOUR: Take a seat please ma’am, make yourself comfortable.

<EXAMINATION BY HIS HONOUR

Q. Ma’am, your full name please?
A. Janice Evelyn O’Bryan.

Q. Just have a look at this document for me. Ma’am, just have a look at that document, that’s an application you made. Hopefully you read the document before you signed it?

A. Yes.

Q. What’s contained in the document is true and correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you hold fears based upon that information?
A. (No verbal reply)

Q. Just hand that back to the lady for me. Just give me a minute to read it myself. Ma’am in simple terms, the police have not been able to serve Ms Burt with a copy of the application, all right? Because she has not been served I cannot make a final order until she’s been given a copy of it, and that’s – if the Court’s satisfied she’s been given a copy. Once that happens if the lady does not attend Court, the Court can make a final order in her absence, but I can’t do it until she’s given a copy of it, all right? The other thing is ma’am, that do you know of any reason ma’am that the lady would have to go within 100 metres of 858 Union Road? Any other friends, relative within that distance? A. Her son lives with us.

Q. How old’s the son?
A. Twenty-three.

Q. You’re not working at the moment?
A. Me?

Q. You are not working?
A. No.

Q. Ma’am did somebody assist you insofar as the orders that you sought? Did you draft these yourself?
A. No, no, someone at the courthouse.

Q. Ma’am, is a little bit difficult to enforce in those terms. I’ll take a short adjournment, I’ll be adding a different clause which will prohibit the lady from using basically the internet to publish the material.

HIS HONOUR: So I’ll just take a short adjournment, the Court will resume very shortly.

HIS HONOUR: IN RESPECT TO THE MATTER NOW BEFORE THE COURT I AM SATISFIED THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE MAKING OF AN INTERIM ORDER. 5

THE INTERIM ORDER MA’AM IS NOW MADE IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:

THE PERSON IS NOT TO ASSAULT, MOLEST, HARASS, THREATEN, OR OTHERWISE INTERFERE WITH YOU, OR ANY OTHER PERSON WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP. ANYBODY LIVING WITH YOU, HUSBAND, PARTNER, CHILDREN, THAT TYPE OF THING.

NOT TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT INTIMIDATES YOU, OR STALK YOU, OR ANY OTHER PERSON WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP.

FURTHER, NOT TO GO WITHIN 100 METRES OF THE PREMISES IN WHICH YOU MAY FROM TIME TO TIME RESIDE, THE NOMINATED PREMISES BEING XXXX UNION ROAD GLENROY.

NOT TO APPROACH WITH 50 METRES. SO THERE IS A TOTAL PROHIBITION, SO THERE IS 50 METRES SO THAT YOU KNOW THE DISTANCE, AND THE LADY DOES AS WELL.
NOT TO DESTROY OR DELIBERATELY DAMAGE OR INTERFERE WITH YOUR PROPERTY.

THE OTHER CONDITION IS MA’AM, THE DEFENDANT IS NOT TO USE EQUIPMENT CONNECTED TO A TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK IN THE COMMISSION OF, OR TO FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF A BREACH OF THESE ORDERS BY HIMSELF OR ANOTHER PERSON.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDER TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK HAS THE SAME MEANING AS IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1997, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE ONGOING PUBLICATION OF A BLOG “GARY BURT RIPS OFF HIS YOUNGER SISTER TO BUY HEROIN”.

Ma’am, unfortunately those orders have no effect until the order is served on Ms Burt. The order is then in place until 14 December. Before you leave speak to the officer, give her your contact details and they’ll ring you when the order’s been served.

You’ll get a copy of the order in the next three or four days in the mail, but it doesn’t start until it’s served on the other person, all right? Make sure you come back on 14 December. If you’re not here and the other lady is the Court would normally dismiss your application. So it’s really important you come back. Just leave your contact details with the senior constable before you go.

That completes your matter today.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW

Ms Ward, just come up to the witness box please and remain standing.

COMPLAINANT WARD, AFFIRMED(10.49AM)

HIS HONOUR: Thank you ma’am, take a seat and make yourself comfortable.

EXAMINATION BY HIS HONOUR

Q. Ma’am, your full name please?
A. Susan Gay Ward.

Q. And again ma’am, you’ve read the application no doubt before you signed it–
A. Yes.

Q. –satisfied yourself that what’s contained in the application is true and correct?
A. (No verbal reply)

Q. Ma’am listen carefully You satisfied yourself that what was contained in your application is true and correct and you hold fears based upon that information?
A. Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Again I’m satisfied there is reasonable grounds for making the order.
Q. Ma’am, BDS Huon, Griffith Road Lavington, is that a part of a large shopping complex or something? A. No it’s out of the shopping complex.

Q. Do you know of any other lawful reason why the lady would have to go within 100 metres of that address? A. Well she may go to the shopping complex, yes.

Q. How far is the shopping complex from where you work? A. Across the road.

Q. And the 2/6 Brent Court is your home address? A. Yes.

Q. Know of any reason why she’d have to go within 100 metres of that?
A. No.

Q. Ma’am if I indicate she’s not to enter or loiter within 20 metres of your work address, that would allow the lady to go shopping in the other complex? A. Yeah.

HIS HONOUR: I AM SATISFIED THEY ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR MAKING THE ORDER. ORDER MADE IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:

MANDATORY ORDERS, (3) NOT TO ENTER OR LOITER WITHIN 20 METRES OF THE PREMISES IN WHICH THE PROTECTED PERSON MAY FROM TIME TO TIME WORK, NOMINATED PREMISES BEING BDS HUON, 338 GRIFFITH ROAD LAVINGTON; NOT TO GO WITHIN 100 METRES OF THE PREMISES IN WHICH THE PROTECTED PERSON MAY FROM TIME TO TIME RESIDE, NOMINATED PREMISES BEING XXXX BRENT STREET LAVINGTON; FURTHER, NOT TO APPROACH WITHIN 50 METRES OR CONTACT HER BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER; NOT TO DESTROY OR DELIBERATELY DAMAGE HER PROPERTY.

AND AGAIN THE SAME TERMS THE ADDITIONAL ORDER REGARDING THE INTERNET.

Q. Again ma’am, what I said to the other lady, equally applicable to you. The order has no effect until it’s served. Most people like to know when that happens. Just give your contact details to the officer at the bar table. Make sure you also come back on the 14/12 as well.

A. Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW 20
MATTER ADJOURNED TO 14 DECEMBER
.14/12/15
IN THE LOCAL COURT ALBURY

MAGISTRATE MURRAY 5
MONDAY 14 DECEMBER 2015

SUSAN GAY WARD AND JANICE EVELYN O’BRYAN v TRACEY GWENDOLINE BURT
COMPLAINT
Apprehended domestic violence order

Ms F Garwell for the Complainants/Defendants
Defendant appeared in person
TRACEY GWENDOLINE BURT v SUSAN GAY WARD

COMPLAINT Apprehended domestic violence order

Complainant/Defendant appeared in person 20
Ms F Garwell for the Defendants/Complainants

GARWELL: There’s two lots of matters your Honour. If I could deal with the matter involving Sue (as said) Ward as the applicant and cross-AVO where she’s the defendant?

HIS HONOUR: Yes.
GARWELL: I have service your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Firstly, can I deal with the matter in which Tracey Burt is the applicant, and Susan Ward is the defendant?
GARWELL: Yes your Honour. Ms Ward is before the Court.

HIS HONOUR: Who’s appearing for Ms Burt?

GARWELL: I appear as duty solicitor for Ms Ward.

HIS HONOUR: Who’s appearing for Ms Tracey Burt? That’s you ma’am? Stand up please. Just come forward to the microphone. Ma’am you’re still seeking to continue with your application?
DEFENDANT: Yes sir.

HIS HONOUR: And you appear for Ms Ward?

GARWELL: Yes, as duty solicitor your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Since when have Legal Aid started doing these matters?

GARWELL: There’s a domestic violence duty solicitor who’s appointed by Legal Aid for Mondays your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: That’s fine. Your client’s position regarding the matter please?

GARWELL: She agrees to an interim order without admissions and opposes a final order your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: MATTER ADJOURNED TO 18 JANUARY 2016 AT 9.30AM

(7) NOT TO APPROACH WITHIN 50 METRES, RATHER THAN JUST NOT TO APPROACH. 15
And would the lady have any reason to go within 50 metres of her as well?

SPEAKER: No.

HIS HONOUR: Ms Ward, stand up please, just move to the microphone on your right hand side.

Hand down service orders in respect to that matter.

Ma’am, you understand the application is granted, or an interim order is granted between now and 18 January in terms identical to the application. The only thing that has changed is (7) not to approach, not to approach within 50 metres. So you know the distance and the lady does as well. Apart from that ma’am, everything else, and that is by consent without admissions, interim order made.

SPEAKER: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: In terms sought. ADD NOT TO APPROACH WITHIN 50 METRES TO CONDITION NUMBER 7. 35

Now Ms Burt, in respect of that matter it’s really important that you understand you are the private applicant, which is number 1. You must file your material in accordance with the orders made by the Court and then Ms Ward has to do the same thing.

In simple terms, if either of you fail to comply with the orders then quite clearly if you fail to comply with it ma’am, the order would normally be dismissed, and ma’am, if you fail to comply the order would normally not be made to finality.
That completes that matter.

The next matter is Susan Ward and Ms Burt as the defendant. Now you’re appearing for Ms Ward?

HIS HONOUR: Ma’am, you can take a seat please.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

DEFENDANT: Your Honour could I ask a question?

HIS HONOUR: Just give me one minute. Yes.
DEFENDANT: Why does she have Legal Aid when she has a full time job?

HIS HONOUR: Check that with Legal Aid. You may have the same option to you as well ma’am, so – certainly Legal Aid did not normally cover these types of matters. Ms Garwell’s indicated Legal Aid now does, so.

Now ma’am, do you oppose the making of the order as well?

DEFENDANT: Yes, I plead innocent, I reject it.
HIS HONOUR: That’s fine. Ma’am you agree to the temporary order that was in place when you walked into Court being continued until 18 January?

DEFENDANT: I don’t think it’s relevant, but if the Court chooses to do so. I have not made any threats to Susan Ward, I have not contacted her. I’ve been in Albury for a year and she’s been making threats towards me. I was told I can’t go to my parent’s house because she wants to beat me up. These threats have continued for a year and then she sent me a menacing email–

HIS HONOUR: Stop, stop. I’m not concerned with it at this stage.

DEFENDANT: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: You’ll be given the opportunity of placing all this material before the Court, but again in respect of this matter, because it’s a separate application, I hand down orders in respect of this matter to you both and the INTERIM ORDER MA’AM WHICH WAS IN PLACE WHEN YOU WALKED INTO COURT IS TO CONTINUE.

DEFENDANT: Okay.

HIS HONOUR: Make sure that when you’re dealing with the matters, this applies to you both, that they’re separate applications, so you must file the material in respect of each of the matters you have before the Court today.
The last matter is Janice O’Bryan and Tracey Burt. Now who is Janice – that’s you? Now – no, just stay there ma’am, please. Is that Janice O’Bryan, you’re appearing for her?

GARWELL: I appear for Ms O’Bryan your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Now Ms Burt, this is a separate application. Do you oppose this application as well?

DEFENDANT: Yes I do.
HIS HONOUR: Again ma’am, YOUR MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 18/01 – THIS ONE AS WELL AT 9.30 FOR COMPLIANCE CHECK.

And I hand down orders in respect of that as well.
INTERIM ORDER IS TO CONTINUE

SO THE ORDER FOR MS O’BRYAN CONTINUES, THE ORDER FOR THE OTHER LADY.
Make sure ma’am if you don’t understand what you have to do that you have that explained to you by the registry staff, because if you don’t comply with the orders made by the Court, in simple terms your applications will be dismissed or you’ll have orders made against you.
So apart from that, that completes your matters today. Same with the other matters as well, thank you.

DEFENDANT: Thank you

 

 

IN THE LOCAL COURT – ALBURY
MAGISTRATE MURRAY
MONDAY 18 JANUARY 2016

SUSAN WARD AND JANICE O’BRYAN  v  TRACEY BURT

PART HEARD

Complaint Apprehended Domestic Violence Order
Complainant appeared in person
Defendant appeared in person

HIS HONOUR:  Can I firstly deal with the matter of Burt and Ward.  Who is Tracey Burt – is that you ma’am?

SPEAKER:  Tracey Burt’s at the microphone there your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Ma’am I’m dealing with the matter in which you are the applicant, or protected person – Ms Ward is the defendant.  Where’s Ms Ward? Ma’am, you’re not legally represented?

COMPLAINANT WARD:  No.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Burt, you filed the material, and Ms Ward, you’ve picked up Ms Burt’s material and also filed your own in respect of the matter in which you are the defendant?

COMPLAINANT WARD:  Correct.

HIS HONOUR:  Ma’am, that’s correct as well?

DEFENDANT:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  I’m now dealing with the matter in which Ms Ward is the applicant and you are the defendant?

DEFENDANT:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  And again in respect of that you’ve both filed your material and obtained a copy of the other person’s material as well?

DEFENDANT:  Yes.

COMPLAINANT WARD:  Correct.

HIS HONOUR:  I haven’t read this material but whoever the magistrate is obviously will do that.  How many witness statements in respect of firstly Ms Ward do you intend to call in which you’re the applicant and defendant, because I expect some of them are going to be the same?

COMPLAINANT WARD:  How many witnesses am I going to call?

HIS HONOUR:  How many witness statements.  Because you’ll be restricted only to the people whose statements you’ve provided.

I’d indicate to you both if people other than yourself have provided statements, if they are not here for cross-examination the Court normally would not admit that evidence.

COMPLAINANT WARD:  I’m not calling anyone other than my mother that I provided a witness statement for.

HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Well if that’s the case ma’am, do you have anybody else apart–

DEFENDANT:  I have one witness statement in there from XXXX XXXXX, he’ll be there on the day to testify.

HIS HONOUR:  That’s fine, as long as they’re both there, because if they’re not here for cross-examination the statements basically just don’t come in.

Now is 5 February a suitable date for you both?

COMPLAINANT WARD:  I have to check with work but–

DEFENDANT:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  You better go and check now, do it quickly, unless there’s a very, very good reason ma’am.

COMPLAINANT WARD:  What day does it fall on?  Monday?

HIS HONOUR:  5 February is a Friday.

COMPLAINANT WARD:  Yeah.

HIS HONOUR:  So that date is suitable?

COMPLAINANT WARD:  Yeah.

HIS HONOUR:  Ma’am suitable?

DEFENDANT:  Yes, fine.

HIS HONOUR:  Both matters are to be heard at the one time, 5/2/2016 at 9.30.

Both the interim orders are to continue in identical terms between now and the 5/2 and you both understand the matters in which you are the respective defendants.

DEFENDANT:  Yes.

COMPLAINANT WARD:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  And you agree that both matters be heard at the one time?

DEFENDANT:  Yes.

COMPLAINANT WARD:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  Can I just say that if you haven’t got legal representation that’s fine, you don’t have to be legally represented, but you’re still going to be bound by the rules of evidence in respect of the matters now before the Court and you really should get some assistance regarding basic rules of evidence, how to ask questions, et cetera.  Because it’s a big call to ask people to abide by the rules of evidence but that’s what the law says.

BOTH MATTERS ADJOURNED TO 5 FEBRUARY 2016 AT 9.30AM TO BE HEARD TOGETHER.  BOTH THE INTERIM ORDERS TO CONTINUE IN IDENTICAL TERMS.

HIS HONOUR:  And that completes the matters today.

COMPLAINANT WARD:  Thank you.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms O’Bryan.  Now ma’am you filed your material?

COMPLAINANT O’BRYAN:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  And again you’ve both obtained copies of the statements that you both filed?

DEFENDANT:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  Now in respect of the other matter, do you wish to have this matter ma’am where you are the applicant dealt with at the same time as the other matter as well?

COMPLAINANT O’BRYAN:  Might as well yes.

HIS HONOUR:  Ma’am you agree with that as well?

DEFENDANT:  It doesn’t–

HIS HONOUR:  Well there’s going to be commonality between the statements, it’s just a matter of common sense—

DEFENDANT:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  –it’s going to be – ma’am, the comments that I passed to the other two ladies equally applies to you.  The rules of evidence apply to this application as people find it a very frustrating experience.  So I suggest that you basically both go and get some fundamental advice as to how these matters are dealt with.

ALL MATTERS TO BE HEARD TOGETHER.  INTERIM ORDER IS TO CONTINUE.

In simple terms, if either of the parties don’t turn up, if you are the applicant in the matter and the defendant does not turn up the applicant would normally have the orders made.  If the defendant does not turn up, sorry – the defendant turns up and the applicant does not, the matters would normally be dismissed.

So the matters where you are applying for the order if that person does not turn up the matter would normally be dismissed, and equally importantly if the defendant does not turn up the orders would normally be made.

Other than that, that completes the matters today.

DEFENDANT:  Thank you.

COMPLAINANT O’BRYAN:  Thank you.

 

 

IN THE LOCAL COURT
ALBURY
MAGISTRATE CROMPTON

FRIDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2016

R  v  Tracey BURT
OFFENCE         Contravene apprehended violence order

COMPLAINT     Apprehended violence order(2)

Sergeant S Lewis for the Informant
Accused appeared in person

HIS HONOUR:  Just come forward to the bar table.

WARD:  Both of us?

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  I’ll start with you, ma’am, what’s your name?

O’BRYAN:  Janice O’Brien.

HIS HONOUR:  Janice O’Bryan, and you are?

O’BRYAN:  The mother of Tracey Burt.

HIS HONOUR:  Who are you?

WARD:  I’m Susan Ward.

HIS HONOUR:  You’re Susan Ward.  Tracey is not here, is that right?

WARD:  Apparently not, no.

HIS HONOUR:  She’s been called.  I’ve had a look at all of the paperwork in this matter and I’m going to refer this matter to the Community Justice Centre for mediation.

WARD:  No.  We can’t do mediation, it won’t work, sir.

HIS HONOUR:  I am going to make that order, I am going to refer you to mediation and if it doesn’t resolve at mediation then you can come back to court.

WARD:  It won’t work she’s not here.

HIS HONOUR:  What I can do is I can wait a little bit longer to see if she turns up or I can just make the order now.  What do you want me to do?

WARD:  We’d like to resolve it if we can somehow.

HIS HONOUR:  I understand that.  The legislation provides that the Court is to refer these matters to mediation unless there’s a very good reason not to do so.  I’ve looked at the paperwork.  If it happens to be the case that it can’t be resolved at mediation then you will have an opportunity to come back to court, do you understand that?

O’BRYAN:  Yeah.

WARD:  Sir, just the longer it takes the more she has the opportunity to keep breaching and ringing my work and emailing and coming in and it’s getting embarrassing. (This statement is purjery, completely untrue)

COURT OFFICER:  Your Honour, Tracey Burt is here.

HIS HONOUR:  Just come forward, ma’am, just stand right there beside the sergeant.  I’ve had a look at the paperwork in these matters and I am going to refer them to the Community Justice Centre for an attempt at mediation.  If the mediation is not successful then the matters will come to back to court for a hearing.

ACCUSED:  Okay.

HIS HONOUR:  I am going to refer these matters to the Community Justice Centre for mediation and they will be listed back before this Court on 18 March.  Someone from the centre will contact you and make a time.

WARD:  Sir, excuse me.  We have a friend that works in the mediation and we’d like to make sure she’s totally exempt from it and not involved in the mediation.

HIS HONOUR:  I’m sure that can be arranged.

WARD:  Tracey has abused her in the street just recently so we need to keep that lady totally out of it

ACCUSED: And I had to lodge a complaint about her to the ICAC. (This sentence was left out of the official transcript, but was clearly heard by the court and my witness who was in attendance)

HIS HONOUR:  When the people from the centre contact you you can make sure that you tell them that piece of information and I’m sure they’ll make arrangements.

WARD:  Sure, yes.

HIS HONOUR:  You can go now, just speak with the Court Officer who will get your details.  Thank you.

ADJOURNED TO FRIDAY 18 MARCH 2016

 

Defence lodged in relation to the criminal charge of contravene ADVO, prior to the hearing, and which the Magistrate had already read, with the rest of the ADVO applications lack supporting evidence, and strong defence evidence and case evidence in my application against Ward.

 

Defence Statements To Address New Charges Bought Against Tracey Burt by Susan Ward via Police

I have lodged a complaint with the ICAC about Gwen Bradley of the Community Justice Centre’s unofficial involvement in all of these proceedings, and in particular of myself having been charged with this new offence. I have lodged a complaint about her with her employer as well.

I have lodged a complaint with the Police Commissioner’s Office about the Constable who ‘arrested’ me. I have lodged two complaints with this court house, about these proceedings Susan Ward has taken against me, this being the second of those.

I attended Albury Police yesterday morning to ask for an event number for being informally charged in my own home, for a crime I did not commit. The desk policeperson gave me a copy of Constable Weekley advice to this court that I had been officially charged with breaching the Interim AVO Susan Ward has against me. I was not aware that I had been charged with anything officially, until I read the ‘arrest’ documentation, already forwarded to the court.

Upon arriving home after having read the document on the bus, I phoned Albury Police station to advise them that what Constable Weekely has written in his Fact Sheets, and in particular in the ‘Full Facts’ section, is not true, nor correct. That he has tried to frame me.

The policeperson who claimed to be the supervisor of the Albury Police station at the time, hung up the phone on me twice. He gave his name as Sergeant Tim Whimpleman and refused to listen to my advice that he copy and preserve Constable Weekley’s recording of my voice, because his version of its contents was being now disputed by myself. This was after I advised him of the deceptive way Weekley had gone about getting the confession. I then had to phone again to be able to continue my advice that the statement of the account of the interview by Weekely, was full of falsities and lies.

  1. Constable Weekley has written that I made a statement that I wanted to have my sister fired, when not only did I not say that, he did not even ask that question. This makes it very apparent that he was sent specifically to gain that answer, and even though he did not, is now claiming that he did. He never asked me why I wrote the letter to Susan Ward’s boss, in a way that allowed an answer from myself from my own recollection of events.
  2. Constable Weekley did not inform me that I was being formally questioned and about to be charged. He implied he was at my house to discuss what appeared to be a breach, bought to their attention by Susan Ward.
  3. Constable Weekley did not inform me of my rights, nor that any recording of my voice could be used as evidence against me. He claimed that allowing him to tape certain parts of the conversation would make it uneccessary for me to attend the station to discuss the matter. He implied the matter was trivial, his visit informal, and did not advise me that I was about to make any kind of statement in relation to a crime with which I was being charged.
  4. Constable Weekely then produced a faint photo copy of the letter to Susan Ward’s employer, dated 4 Dec 15. He asked me if I had written it, and I stated into the phone/microphone that I had.
  5. He then produced the original copy of documents I had lodged with the court on 11 Jan 16 for Susan Ward to collect, before our court appearance on 18 Jan 16. He showed me one statement in particular, written within the 9 page statement to the court, and asked me if I had written it. The statement said that I wrote and delivered the letter because we were playing a game of tit for tat, and it was now my turn again. I stated that I had written that sentence, and that yes, that’s all the situation has ever been.
  6. He asked me if I had lodged the document with the Albury Court House a week prior, again nominating the date of lodgement as being 11 January 2016. I replied that I had lodged the paperwork he was holding in his hand with the court, on that date.
  7. I am aware that he was holding the original print out that was lodged with the court for Susan Ward to receive. I had printed one set in coloured ink, after running out of black, and then the court copy in black once I had replaced the ink cartridge. He had the green copy which belongs to Susan, not a photocopy of her paperwork. He must have been required to hand the paperwork back to whoever gave it to him, as Susan needed it to prepare her defence.

That was the end of the interview. He and the other officer who had waited outside left the premises and had gone out of sight. Constable Weekley returned several minutes later and handed me an infringement notice of some kind. I thought I had just been fined, not charged with a criminal offence.

Constable Weekley was already very aware of the date of the next hearing, for the AVO matters. He suggested at the end of the ‘interview’ he would ensure that it was heard on that same date as the AVO matters, for my own convenience. He was very certain that he could arrange that, and the matter would be deal with on that date, alongside the AVO application itself.

The following day I attended the Albury Police station to get an event number, and the names of the officers involved in that ‘interview’. It all seemed a bit strange to me, and I suspected that it was actually an act of harassment against myself organized by Susan Ward and her neighbor Gwen Bradley, carried out by officers of the Albury Police force.

I discovered that not only did it appear to be just that, but that the officer had gone on to deliberately frame me for a breach of the AVO being falsely sought against me.

  1. I believe I was not meant to receive a copy of that statement of arrest, and did so quite by chance. I was never advised to pick one up from the police station, nor told he would be writing one. The desk clerk at the police station assumed I had been told to pick it up, and printed it out and handed it to me.
  2. Constable Weekley wrote in his “Full Facts” document that I had to him that I had written and delivered the letter to Susan’s boss specifically to have Susan fired from her job. That is a complete lie. I did not say that. In fact my reason for doing it, was in the hope that he would force her to drop her complaint against me.
  3. Constable Weekley claims that I made a full admission to knowingly and willingly breaching the AV. That is also not true. I advised that I believed that I had not done so, when I had deliberately not approached Susan Ward, nor her workplace, had done so to comply with the AVO. I stated that I truly believed I was innocent of any wrong doing, or breach at all.
  4. I was not given the chance to offer a real reason why, except for when he wanted me to confirm the written statement that it was all merely a game of tit for tat. I did confirm that I wrote that. He never posed the question again, in any other form, and I never gave any other answer.
  5. Constable Weekley writes that Susan Ward advised that she became aware of the letter I had written to her boss on Monday 11 Jan 16. The same day I had lodged it with the court evidence.
  6. He states that the letter was ‘then’ located by the victim’s employer at his former residence at 26 Sarson Road, Lavington. Jon Williams, Susan Ward’s boos is then nominated as being a witness as to the fact that I had slipped it under his garage roller door, just as I had described in my statement to the court, and that’s exactly where he found it.
  7. Susan had advised him that it was there by phone or while still at work, and either he was sent by her to collect it, or they arranged to meet there that night and collect it together.
  8. I request that Mr Jon Williams be summoned to appear in court on 5 Feb 2016, to confirm which of the above is the case. Also, whether he read the letter addressed to his company, BDS Group, or gave it to Susan Ward unopened. I was unaware of his name until I read the policeman’s report about it, so it was not addressed to him personally, but to the company itself.
  9. I request that Mr Jon Williams testify under oath about how long he has known about the allegations I have been trying to make to him about Susan Ward, and how long he has been assisting her to have this AVO against me, to silence me about same.
  10. I request that Mr Jon Williams explain to the court why he allowed Susan Ward to steal mail to his company, then gave her time off work to go ahead with claims that I might approach her boss to warn him about her, when they both knew that I already had done so, and failed.
  11. Susan was aware that he had not read the letter, but then had me charged by police for writing it to him a week after she received it. I want Susan Ward charged with theft of mail and personal documents. My own copy of her AVO application was included in the envelope.
  12. The above is a very serious matter as far I as I can see. Her boss and Susan working together to have an AVO preventing me from speaking to him about her. That’s very questionable dealings on his part, not only with myself, but with Albury Court House.
  13. Constable Weekley states that my intentions for leaving a letter for his company were unknown to Jon Williams at the time. If this is true, then Susan Ward intercepted and stole the letter by way of deceiving him of its true content.
  14. Susan had already received a copy of it herself, in the same evidence and statements she had picked up from the Albury Court House that day, 11 Jan 16. She did not need to read Jon Williams’ copy to know what it said. She was fully aware of what it said, when she set about obtaining it.
  15. Constable Weekely claims that Susan attended Albury Court House again on 12 Jan 2016 to pick up more documents regarding our cases. However, all of her documents had been lodged the day before, both for her case against me and mine against her. She had nothing left to pick up on 12 Jan 16.
  16. She has made this untrue statement to pretend that she had not read the letter, until after Jon Williams provided her with a copy of it.
  17. On 12 January I lodged my defence and evidence against Janice O’Bryan. That is all that was available to be picked up that day. That evidence and statement did not include the line quoted by Constable Weekley in his Facts Sheet. It comes from the documents lodged the day before, and which Susan acknowledges she picked up on that same day.
  18. Susan admits that she saw those statements on 11 January 2015. She admits that her employer Jon Williams retrieved the letter she saw had been written to him around that same time. Yet she appeared in court on 18 Jan 16, and said nothing to the magistrate about it being a breach, or that she wanted to stop proceedings, as they were no longer valid.
  19. Instead, Susan Ward went straight to the police station after the hearing, or the very next morning. She knew for a fact that her boss had never read the letter and never would be able to. She had prevented my contact herself, without an AVO, yet still went ahead asking for one, and then had me charged for breaching it the very next day.

 

And the Albury Police are supporting her in all of this? Why is that? Therefore, I am not only refuting this charge and ‘arrest’ by Constable Rowan Weekley, I ask the court to take note of the fact that he has done this, as a deliberate act of harassment and intimidation, possibly designed to drive me out of town, and to fail to appear. I have lodged a complaint about him with the Office of the Commissioner, and I will be asking that he be charged with falsifying evidence, and false arrest.

I refute this new charge, and state that it was an elaborate attempt to not only frame me, but to intimidate me from continuing to defend myself against untrue and unsupported accusations. Because I have maintained my innocence, and dismissed and disproved most of their evidence by way of the real evidence, they are now desperate to intimidate me and to save themselves from being exposed as false and vexatious litigants.

I have made a complaint to the ICAC about Gwen Bradley, as I don’t believe that Susan Ward has any influence over the Albury Police force, but that Gwen Bradley certainly does.

Albury police person Senior Constable Richardson then refused to take a statement from me, about sexual assaults by Wayne Burt against myself when I was a child and pre-teenager.

At first she refused to see me in private, but made me start outlining the offences while standing at the front counter of the police station, with two other members of the public present.

She made notes on a scrap of paper only, an evidence tag. She refused to let me make a statement, claiming that detectives would do that at a later time. When I asked if that was standard procedure, she claimed that it was.

I provided Senior Constable Richardson with the pages of evidence from the AVO proceedings between myself, Susan Ward and Janice O’Bryan, stating that since they have been lodged with a court house, I want them followed up on. Especially since police chose to act on one sentence in all that evidence, and chose to arrest me for it. I still have not heard anything from any detectives, or other police about that matter, but intend to follow it through to its conclusion.

Constable Richardson stood outside my premises on the day that Constable Weekley questioned me alone inside the premises. I believe that Senior Constable Richardson was trying to make it appear to my landlady, and her visitor who had also arrived, that she was on guard in case I tried to escape. More police harassment, to protect Susan Ward and her job at BDS Group, Lavington.

I have made reports to the Police Commissioner about these matters also.

 

Signed on this day, 21 January 2016.

 

 

IN THE LOCAL COURT
ALBURY
MAGISTRATE MURRA

MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY 2016

R  v  Tracey BURT
EX PART

OFFENCE             Contravene AVO
COMPLAINT        Apprehended violence order (2)

Sergeant Harris for the Informant

No appearance of or for Accused       

 

HIS HONOUR:  Sergeant the matters of Burt have been restored to the list but only the applications

PROSECUTOR:  The matter of-

HIS HONOUR:  Burt–

PROSECUTOR:  –Burt?

HIS HONOUR:  –B-U-R-T.  Quite clearly in respect of those I was advised that one of the people – I can’t remember who – has been charged with a criminal offence of a breach;  I just want to find out what’s happening in respect of those matters because quite clearly the criminal charge should be dealt with before the other DVOs that’s all.

PROSECUTOR:  Oh right, yes your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  It’s not in the list today but I had requested the – well not I had requested, directed that the charge be restored to the list as well.  So we’re just having an inquiry made.  Who was the defendant in the matter of Burt?  There’s Tracey Burt, Janice O’Bryan, Susan Gaye Ward and Tracey Burt.

SPEAKER ONE:  Ward and O’Bryan are here sir.

HIS HONOUR:  Is Ms Tracey Burt here?

SPEAKER ONE:  Outside I think.

HIS HONOUR:  And just both of you stand up please.  Just come up to the microphone for me.

COURT OFFICER:  There’s no appearance of a Tracey Burt, your Honour.

SPEAKER TWO:  She was here.

SPEAKER ONE:  She came in before sir.

HIS HONOUR:  Just wait one minute.  Madam Sheriff just take one of the ladies outside;  they don’t have to speak to the lady but if they can point out the lady to you.

SPEAKER TWO:  I’ll go mum, you stay there.

HIS HONOUR:  As I understand it one of the parties sergeant has been charged with a criminal offence and quite clearly the criminal offence should be dealt with before the AVO is dealt with, that’s all.

PROSECUTOR:  Yes your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Ma’am do you know if yourself or one of your – either of your daughters have been charged with a criminal breach of the order?

SPEAKER ONE:  Yes, Tracey Burt.

HIS HONOUR:  Tracey has?  Thank you.  Just give me one minute. 

SHERIFFS OFFICER:  Tracey Burt can’t be located your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  If that’s the case the papers for 18 March need to be restored to the list today.  I just wish to explain to Tracey Burt, who’s one of the people involved in the matters now before the court, that quite clearly if the lady’s been charged with a criminal offence regarding a breach of the order the court would deal with that matter before dealing with the private applications.  That’s the reason the matter’s been referred(as said) to the list and if there’s breaches, or alleged breaches of orders it’s not appropriate if they’re acts of violence for the matters to be referred to mediation.  So they will not be referred to mediation.

I just want to see – hopefully if the lady has been here and she’s left of her own accord so be it, but I just want to have the court papers brought in and I’ll formally vacate 18 March.  So don’t go too far away, thank you.  As soon as those papers are located I’ll deal with it straightaway

Just sit down ma’am, it should be about five or ten minutes before the papers come in

MATTER STOOD IN LIST

HIS HONOUR:  Next matter please?  Sergeant in respect of the matter of Burt there was related charge matters in respect of an alleged breach by  Ms Tracey Burt, and I’m not certain who the protected person was, but quite clearly the matters – that matter should be dealt with before the other related domestic violence applications are dealt with.  And unfortunately the notice that was sent out to the lady only indicated the domestic violence matters, it did not refer to the charge.  Now even if the lady was here – if she’s not here I’m going to adjourn it for a period of two weeks, and, if the lady is not here on the next occasion, the court may even deal with all these matters in her absence

SO IN RESPECT OF THE CHARGE MATTERS THEY ARE RESTORED TO THE LIST TODAY’S DATE

NO APPEARANCE AND THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO THE 29/2/2016 AT 9.30.  REGISTRAR OF LOCAL COURT NOTIFY DEFENDANT IF SHE FAILS TO ATTEND MAYBE DEALT WITH TO FINALITY

She’s not on bail so that – AND VACATE FORMALLY THE 18/3

In respect of the AVOs;  now is Janice O’Bryan present firstly?  Ma’am that’s you

O’BRYAN:  It is

HIS HONOUR:  That matter is also – I VACATE THE 18/3 AND REFERRAL TO CJC IS REVOKED.  MATTER ADJOURNED TO THIS COURT ON 29/2/2016 AT 9.30.  Just excuse me for one minute

Ms O’Bryan and Ms Susan Ward stand up please?  Just come forward to the microphone.  Because Tracey Burt was charged with a criminal offence the determination of the criminal offence should take place before your matters are dealt with, all right

WARD:  Yes

HIS HONOUR:  Quite clearly the criminal charge could not be referred to mediation, it has to be dealt with by the court,-

WARD:  Mm-hmm

HIS HONOUR:  –that’s why the matter was brought back before me at my direction today because I was going to formally vacate the date of 18 March

In respect of the matters now before the court the charge against Tracey is now going to be adjourned for a period of two weeks with an indication in a letter that’s to be forwarded to her, if she fails to attend the court may deal with the matter in her absence on the next occasion, in which case she’d normally be convicted and, depending upon the nature of the conviction, orders would be made for a domestic violence order if she is found guilty of the criminal offence.  So you don’t go through the process of the civil proceedings, there’s no need to.  The law is if you’re found that you’ve breached an AVO, which we haven’t found that as yet, but if the lady is found guilty of it there’s no need for the court to consider the other matters

All the matters have gone over to the 29th with a notification that the lady attend in respect of the matters which she is the applicant, and the criminal charges in which she is the defendant, and the two related personal violence orders, or AVOs, in which you are the complainants and she is the defendant, all right

So all matters to the 29th.  Make sure you’re both back here on that date.  If you’re not here and the lady is you would normally have your applications dismissed.  Similarly if the lady is not here, one, I’d normally deal with the criminal matter and then upon the criminal matter being determined the court may also independently of that deal with the other matters as well.  So if there’s no satisfactory reason why she’s not here basically the court can deal with it in her absence, all right

O’BRYAN:  ..(not transcribable)..

HIS HONOUR:  So you understand that

O’BRYAN:  Yes

WARD:  Yes

HIS HONOUR:  That completes your matters today, thank you

O’BRYAN:  Thank you

WARD:  Thank you.

 

IN THE LOCAL COURT – ALBURY
MAGISTRATE MURRAY
MONDAY 29 FEBRUARY 2016

R  v  Tracey BURT

OFFENCE         Contravene apprehended violence order
COMPLAINT    Apprehended violence order(2)

Sergeant A Coombs for the Informant
No appearance of or for the Accused

HIS HONOUR:  I firstly deal with the matter in respect of Susan Ward and Tracey Burt.  Who is Susan Ward ‑ that’s you, ma’am.  The matter was relisted by the Court and I do note the Court vacated the orders for the referral of a CJC, bearing in mind there was incidence of violence.  In respect to that matter the matter then came before the Court on the last occasion when the matter was adjourned.  The lady was present but left without further explanation, she is not here at 10.30.  Ms Ward, you’re seeking to continue with your application?

WARD:  Yes, your Honour.

EXHIBIT #1 COURT RECORD AND STATEMENT OF SERVICE TENDERED, ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION

HIS HONOUR:  I AM SATISFIED THE COMPLAINANT HOLDS FEARS IN THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT, THERE IS NO APPEARANCE OF THE DEFENDANT NOR ANY REASON WHY SHE IS NOT HERE.  IN LIGHT OF THAT, THE FINAL ORDER MADE.

PROSECUTOR:  Your Honour, is there any way we could tighten them up because of the continued breaching, that she not be allowed phone, email.

HIS HONOUR:  THE FINAL ORDER MADE FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM TODAY.

Ma’am, if there is an application for variation of the conditions you’re going to have to make that but the order itself is in place in respect of you and that lady now.  In respect of the matter of which Ms Burt was the complainant and Ms Ward was the respondent, again there is no appearance of the complainant at 10.30 or any reason placed before the Court for a non‑attendance.  The defendant is present and again I note the same orders were made and indicated that the matter may be dismissed if she fails to attend.  There is no reason for her non‑attendance today.

THAT MATTER IS MARK DISMISSED.

 

 

IN THE LOCAL COURT – ALBUR
MAGISTRATE MURRAY
MONDAY 29 FEBRUARY 201

R  v  Tracey Gwendoline BURT
EX PART

OFFENCE             Contravene AVO
COMPLAINT        Apprehended violence order

 

Sergeant Coombs for the Complainant O’Bryan

No appearance of or for Defendant

HIS HONOUR:  The next matter is Miss Janice Evelyn O’Bryan, and again that lady – ma’am is that you

COMPLAINANT:  Yes

HIS HONOUR:  I note she is present, and again there’s no appearance of Tracey Burt at 10.30.  Again there’s no reason placed before the court for the lady’s non-attendance, and, again, that matter is dealt with ex parte.

 I note the evidence relied upon by the applicant and the lady is, as I said, not here.   That matter is dealt with ex parte.

 I AM SATISFIED THE COMPLAINANT HOLDS FEARS AND THOSE FEARS ARE REASONABLY HELD.  SO A FINAL ORDER MADE FOR 12 MONTHS IN TERMS OF INTERIM ORDER.

 HIS HONOUR:  That completes the three domestic violence matters, and in respect of the charge matter I note there’s no appearance of the defendant today as well.  And I do note that some private DVOs were referred by another magistrate for mediation.  These are charge matters and I had requested that the matters be – or directed rather the matters be returned to court on the 15/2 because quite clearly these are not suitable matters for referral to the CJC as quite clearly they are police prosecutions, they are not private matters.

 In respect of that I also requested the court to notify the lady if she failed to attend the matter may be dealt with in her absence  So far as that there’s no appearance of that defendant again at 10.30. 

Matter dealt with pursuant to s 196.  Statement of facts please?

 PROSECUTOR:  Your Honour I hand up the facts and record.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes in respect of the matter now before the court I do note the breach has been established and the antecedents.  There’s no other prior matters of a similar type.

THE LADY IS CONVICTED AND FINED THE SUM OF FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS.

That completes the matter.  Thank you, you’re both free to go

COMPLAINANT O’BRYAN:  Thank you.

 

Murray claims ‘there is no reason for her non‑attendance today’, yet I had sent the following email or letter to the court house on 15 February 2016, the day I walked out of their trap, and pretence at mediation.

However, I had changed my mind after issuing this letter (can’t find it atm) and had planned to attend the above hearing. I got fluid on me knee, and was unable to go. Murray was furious at appeal, when I could produce medical evidence to show why I hadn’t been able to walk into the next attempt to spring their trap, on 29 February 2016.

Also, notice that he was dealing with O’Bryan’s matter and the police prosecutor was representing her in her civil application, when they both deal with the allegation of breach of Ward’s Interim ADVO.

 

 

IN THE LOCAL COURT
ALBURY
MAGISTRATE CROMPTON

MONDAY 11 APRIL 2016

R  v  Tracey Gwendoline BURT

OFFENCE Contravene apprehended violence order

APPLICATION TO REVOKE APPREHENDED VIOLENCE ORDER

(It was supposed to be an appeal of the conviction of breach on 29 February 2016, but was listed as an application to revoke. I did later make application to revoke, in August 2016)

 

Sergeant Harris for the Informant
Accused/Applicant appeared in person
Accused/Applicant off bail

HIS HONOUR:  All right.  The application for annulment I’ve got before me and I’ve read the paperwork you’ve attached to it.  So the matters came before the Court on 29 February and there was no appearance by you.  Why do you say you were unable to be at court on that date?

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  I’d had to go to the doctor on the Friday before.  I had fluid on the knee, my knee had swollen up and it was difficult to walk, so the doctor had sent me for a scan and she’d put me on a high dose of  anti-inflammatories, so all weekend I was off the planet on this painkillers.  On the Monday I did get out bed to come but my mind was unable to focus and I was not supposed to be walking around, I’d been ordered to bed rest.  So I didn’t appear.

But on the other hand I had appeared before yourself on 5 February on what was supposed to be the trial for these matters and you sent it to mediation and advised me to leave the courthouse, which I did, and the applicant stayed around badgering your clerk that they weren’t satisfied with your decision and then they had mediation revoked and myself found guilty without being able to defend myself.  All the evidence showed that the AVOs were false and that they were lying.  They provided no evidence for their cases at all and on that very same day that they overturned your ruling as I encountered them in the street when they left the courthouse, Terry O’Brien then called myself and my witness a fuckwit, so they breached their own AVO on that day, and then on 19 February, Janice O’Bryan’s son, who started this whole fight, wrote a blog and put it on the internet–

PROSECUTOR:  I object to all this your Honour–

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  –about me.

PROSECUTOR:  I object to all this your Honour.  The matter before the Court today is whether or not she could attend court.

HIS HONOUR:  Today we’re focused only on the question of whether or not I should annul the conviction that was recorded in your absence.  So the question before me today is solely one as to why it was that you say you were unable to attend court on 29 February.

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  Mm-hmm.

HIS HONOUR:  Do you have any material from the doctor about this condition that you say you were suffering at the time?

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  I didn’t get a medical certificate cause I have needed to go back and see her one more time which I didn’t have.  I did have – it might be in my other papers that I didn’t bring – I did have a copy of a blood test she ordered me for on the same day, so it shows I was at the doctor on the 26th, she gave me a referral for a blood test and a scan.  I went and had the scan on my knee because she was worried it was a blood clot behind my knee, so once they ascertained it was fluid on the knees I went back and got that result and then she gave me another thing for another blood test and I didn’t go and have that because at first I was on the anti-inflammatories and I was so rundown I started taking iron and protein, so–

HIS HONOUR:  Well just wait one moment.  This is what’s going to happen.

I’m going to give you an opportunity to get material from the doctor–

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  Okay.

HIS HONOUR:  –which supports what you say was your situation.  You say you went to the doctor on the 26th.  This matter was listed on the Monday the 29th.

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  You say you were on medication and you weren’t able to attend court on that date.

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  That’s right.

HIS HONOUR:  I’m going to give you an opportunity to get something from the doctor.  I’m going to put this matter over for one week.

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  Okay.

HIS HONOUR:  All right.  The matter goes over to–

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  However, in what I was saying before your Honour, the conviction only stands if the AVOs stand and as I was about to say–

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I understand—

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  –the people breached their own AVOs before they were even awarded so they shouldn’t have been awarded.

HIS HONOUR:  Today is not the day for that argument. Today is simply about whether or not the conviction should be annulled and I’m giving you an opportunity to get some medical material in support of your application.

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  Yes, that’s not hard.

HIS HONOUR:  Now just give me one moment.  Right, this matter goes over on the application for one week, that is the 18th, back before this Court and you can supply that material to the Court on that occasion, all right?

ACCUSED/APPLICANT:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.

ADJOURNED TO MONDAY 18 APRIL 2016

 

This document is the first transcript I received from the court. I was deliberately not supplied with the above transcripts, which show why I was convicted, by deceit, before the appeal hearing. It was the first transcript which I had noticed had been severely doctored by staff at Albury court house.

I spoke in the same clear voice all the way through. They pretend not to hear key points of my defence. They won’t even enter the name of my illness into the transcript, being degenerative disc disease, amongst other associated conditions.

They edit out some of Murray’s more outrageous behaviour, and the mocking of myself that occurred when I asked the prosecutor and Magistrate to be allowed to see the police brief, and merely pretend that I wanted the letter from Superintendent Quarmby denying me access, tendered into evidence.

 

IN THE LOCAL COURT
ALBURY
MAGISTRATE MURRAY

MONDAY 18 APRIL 2016

R  v  Tracey BURT

OFFENCE         Contravene apprehended violence order

Sergeant S Lewis for the Informant

Accused appeared in person

HIS HONOUR:  Ma’am, the matter was adjourned to enable you to get outstanding medical certificate and other documents.  Are you ready to proceed with your application today?

ACCUSED:  Yes.

<ACCUSED, SWORN(3.23PM)

<EXAMINATION BY HIS HONOUR

HIS HONOUR: Ma’am there’s a large amount of material that’s been tendered to the Court.  I’ll just hand this to you, can you identify what material, if any, that you wish to rely upon in support of your application?

ACCUSED: There’s a statement about the events of my arrest that I’ve written specifically for this hearing but then I’ve also put in the defence that should have been heard when the case was listed for 5 February and we were all dismissed from the courtroom that day.  They both are basically the same thing, I just added the other one because it was more detailed and written when it was all fresh in my mind.

HIS HONOUR: The orders were made on 29 February.  What I need, ma’am, is for you to identify what material you wish to rely upon in support of your application.  Stand up to the lady and just show it to her.

ACCUSED: That’s taken from ..(not transcribable).. I rely on the personal reference from a friend and there’s a supporting statement for the application ..(not transcribable).. I’m not worried about the other ones they’re ..(not transcribable)..

HIS HONOUR: The material that you don’t rely upon, just take that out of the material that you’re just leafing through at the moment.

ACCUSED: Okay.  The other reason ‑ I didn’t appear in court on the Monday.

HIS HONOUR: Ma’am, we’ll come to that shortly.  The material that you don’t intend to rely upon just remove that please.  Hand the other documentation back to the Court officer, take a seat.

ACCUSED: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: The application it relates to is a charge that you breached a domestic violence order, is that correct?  The material in support of the application, the first document is just page 1 of 1, as you describe it, that’s 54, 55.

ACCUSED: That’s the statement from the initial cases that Susan Ward took her information from that had been lodged with the Court, that page had been lodged as part of a nine page statement.

HIS HONOUR: Ma’am, just wait for a minute.  I’m only concerned with the breach of domestic violence order which relates to this.

ACCUSED: That’s what I’m saying, that’s where I described it to the Court and then when Susan Ward saw that description advising the Court that I had written a letter to her boss and delivered it to his home address.  She then used that information to have me arrested for writing to his work but she also, she was aware he didn’t live at that address any more and that the letter had actually been sitting there for six weeks unread at that stage, and she phoned her boss at home after hours and got him to drive and meet her at his property that he owns that he doesn’t live at, and then he opened up the garage door for her so she could get the letter.

HIS HONOUR: On the 5/2 you were before the Court self represented and the matter was adjourned to 18 March.

ACCUSED: No.  It was sent to mediation, your Honour, and then I was told I could leave the courthouse, and after it was sent to mediation these people reversed the magistrate’s decision.

HIS HONOUR: That’s an order made by the Court because quite clearly the power in the Court to refer that matter to arbitration, in my view, does not exist.  The matter was then adjourned to be restored to the list on 29 February 2016.

ACCUSED: The next hearing that you mentioned on the 15th or the 18th, I did come to the Court that day and I thought it was for mediation, and when I got here and found that I was on trial again I left.  Then it was adjourned to the 29th and that was the one I couldn’t attend.

HIS HONOUR: On the 15/2 you were aware that the matter was before the Court and you left before the Court dealt with the matter.

ACCUSED: Last I’d heard I was to go mediation so I thought the letter was for mediation.

HIS HONOUR: Listen carefully to the question.  You came to the Court on the 15th.

ACCUSED: Yes, to attend mediation.

HIS HONOUR: You knew‑‑

ACCUSED: No, I did not know I had been summoned here for some sort of hearing and conviction, and that’s all it was, it was supposed to be a little hearing for me to be convicted and fined and that’s that other document that I’d just taken back.  I’d already lodged this to be read on the 5th.

HIS HONOUR: Just wait one minute.  Have a look at that document for me, did you receive that document and for the purpose of the record there it’s a notice of listing addressed to Ms Burt at ..(not transcribable).. Street, Albury.  Just have a look at that document for me, did you receive that document?

ACCUSED: Not put like that, no.  I thought it was for meditation.

HIS HONOUR: Just wait one minute.  Did you receive that document?

ACCUSED: No, no.  What I received was something else and ..(not transcribable).. 3.29.50 but it didn’t say anything like that because like I say, when I came here I thought it was for mediation.  When I found out that it wasn’t for mediation I left that day, and then I was going to attend the next hearing.  I was advised that it was adjourned to the 29th and then that was the one I couldn’t come to because I was sick, I’ve got the medical for that.

HIS HONOUR: You accept that you were supposed to be before the Court on 29 February, that’s correct?

ACCUSED: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: How did you know that you had to come back to court on the 29 February if you didn’t receive any notification?

ACCUSED: I got that in the mail.

HIS HONOUR: The document you were just shown that is the document you’re talking about.  What document are you referring that you received.  Sit down, ma’am.

ACCUSED: It was advice the matters were adjourned on the 15th until the 29th.

HIS HONOUR: Do you have a copy of the document that indicated that to you please?

ACCUSED: No, I don’t.

HIS HONOUR: Did you keep all your court material in one bundle?

ACCUSED: I’ve got a big bundle at home but I didn’t bring it today. I did have all my papers on the day I came for mediation.

HIS HONOUR: But you were aware that you had to come back to court and received an advice from the Court for you to be here on 29 February?

ACCUSED: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Why didn’t you come to court on that day?

ACCUSED: I was at the doctor’s, I’d been to the emergency room the Thursday night,

HIS HONOUR: Do you have any evidence ma’am of the fact that you were unwell and unable to attend court on that day?

ACCUSED: I beg your pardon?

HIS HONOUR: Do you have any evidence of the fact that you one, either told the Court that you were unable to come to court or the fact that you had a medical condition which allowed you not to attend court because you basically just couldn’t do it?

ACCUSED: I told the magistrate that last week, that that’s why I couldn’t come.  I had to go to the doctor on Friday, I had fluid on the knees, I was ordered to bed rest, I got up on the Monday morning to come to court and I was‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Ms Burt, stop.  Do you have any medical evidence, ma’am, which supports the fact that as at 29 February you were unwell and so unwell that you could not attend court?

ACCUSED: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Please produce that to the Court.  Show that to the Sergeant.

ACCUSED: May I speak for a moment though?

EXHIBIT #1  LETTER FROM DR THAVAKUMARAN TENDERED, ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION

HIS HONOUR: This is a document under the hand of Dr Thavakumaran which says this:

“This letter is written on the request of Ms Tracey Burt, that she attended our clinic with tender distal medial thigh, close to left knee joint, on 26/02/2016.  Then was investigated and treated, probable diagnosis was soft tissue injury and a natural history.  Her pain was expected to last a few days.”

HIS HONOUR: Ma’am, even accepting that, there’s no indication why you did not attend court on the 29th.

ACCUSED: I explained to the magistrate last time, I was on high doses of anti‑inflammatory and I could barely think, and I got up for court that day and my leg was still swollen, she’d ordered me bed rest and I thought I can’t defend myself when I can’t think clearly of being on high doses of medication all weekend and I was for the next few days after that.

HIS HONOUR: Have you spoken to the doctor about your inability to attend court on 29 February?

ACCUSED: When she printed out that letter she said to me, is that enough, and I could have said to her, “No, write more”, but I didn’t I just said, “No, that’ll do”, because that was all the magistrate asked me for, a letter to show that I had been there on the Friday, and ordered to bed rest and swollen knee and was on high doses of medication.  I’d also wanted to lodge documents on that Friday and going to the emergency room the night before meant that I didn’t have them finished, prepared, and so then I wanted them lodged on the Friday so that the magistrate would have seen them before the hearing on the Monday, so again I would have had to come here without being able to lodge some of the things I wanted to lodge, and I’ve got those with me today, and one of them is an email to this very court advising that Janice O’Brien and Susan Ward had breached their own AVOs when Janice O’Brien’s son wrote a blog about me and put it on the internet.

Now the original AVO applications were because I’d written a blog about my family which contained true stories of life with them and then on 19 February Janice O’Brien’s son wrote a really foul and abusive blog about me and put it on the internet and their orders weren’t issued until the 29th, so they’d breached it on the 19th and then they were granted on the 29th, ten days later.  So I have here a copy of the email to this courthouse advising them of that.  They tell me approach police, I’ve got that email here.  I put in two on line requests to Albury police about the breach, two notifications, so I’ve got an email here that they sent me on 27 February to advise me that they hadn’t recorded it and wouldn’t investigate it.  I’ve got an email from Western Australian police showing where I’d lodged the complaint with them, and they actually took some action and tried to phone my brother and he wouldn’t answer the phone, and they advised me to take a restraining out on him.

So on 23 February I have Western Australian police telling me to take out an AVO on the same person that these people claim they took an AVO out on me to protect.  So I have that letter from the police, there was also another breach by that party on 5 February where Terry O’Brien called myself and witness a fuckwit as we were walking away from this very courthouse, and so again.  They shouldn’t have been awarded their AVOs when firstly all ‑ they were unproven, and then they were only granted to them because of this so‑called breach that the police have put forward in a charge and then they go and write a blog about me before they even get that ruling.  Now the other reason I’ve applied to have it annulled is because I have put in a whole pile of complaints about the arrest.  It was done in a way that was unlawful and then he wrote in his arrest document that I’d confessed to it and I’d confessed that I’d done it deliberately, and none of that is true and I have been contacting police ever since that day asking them to listen to the recording and then I asked them to provide me with the documents that I needed to be able to challenge it in court and they’ve withheld them at all times.

So I’ve got a copy here of the blog that Janice O’Brien’s son ‑ well actually it was written by the daughter‑in‑law and she pretends to be my brother, pretending that she has knowledge about me.  She writes at the end, “This was all written by Gary Burt with no help or influence”, but it’s written by his wife, and all of the AVO applications say that I was attacking them, my sister‑in‑law for no reason when this was the sort of thing she was saying about me that made me attack her.  So I was retaliating then.  They put AVOs out on me for retaliating and then straight away she goes and retaliates, posted on 19 February, “Hi, world, I’m the unfortunate brother of the mentally sick, drug addict, Tracey Burt, 35 years of constant drug taking has fried her brain”‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Ma’am, you can stop.  In respect to the matter now before the Court, the matter is adjourned to this Court on How long before you can see this Dr Thavakumaran, is he or she your regular doctor?

ACCUSED: Yes, she is, but she was going away next week she told.

HIS HONOUR:  Ma’am, your matter is adjourned to this Court on 9 May.  The defendants are to obtain a further medical document regarding the defendant’s inability to attend court on 29 February 2016, it should be supported by the medical includes the following because at the moment, this medical certificate is totally devoid of merit.

You must indicate that you were not able to attend court rather than being merely unwell, must specifically address the nature of the illness or injuries suffered by you and the reasons why you could not attend court on that day.  When you will be able to attend court the further medical certificate must specifically address why you are not able to come to court even for a very short period of time, and if you are not able to travel to court why it cannot be dealt with by way of audio visual.  I also remind the medical practitioner of the public guidelines issued by the AMA regarding the issuing of such certificates.  Make sure, ma’am, in the Registrar of the Local Court to notify to notify you of that.  I mark this as being part heard as well.

ACCUSED:  Your Honour, my visibility is degenerative‑‑

HIS HONOUR:  Ma’am, just stop.  Your matter is going to be adjourned to 9/5.  I particularly draw to your attention the form of your medical certificate.  If the medical certificate does not include the material that I have requested I expect it would have a very substantial and detrimental effect on your application so if in fact the material which I have requested is not before the Court on the next occasion that document which is a medical certificate, with respect, is just a nonsense.  It does not indicate why you are not able to attend court in any way, shape or form.

You are unrepresented, if you were represented your solicitor or barrister would have requested a more detailed medical certificate, I am directing that that take place.  If the latter is not obtained and the medical certificate is only the matter before now before the Court then quite clearly on the evidence before the Court at the moment there is no medical reason why you could not attend court.

Just go out to the Registry, you will be given a copy of the document, make sure that you abide by it.  This will be handed to you in a written document so make sure you get it before you go.  Attached to it will be some comments that were made by Barrett J on 15 December 2009, that should also be included in the order, and just make sure that the lady signs for it.  If you don’t understand it, speak to the registry staff because quite clearly if the medical certificate is not before the Court in that form on the next occasion, just repeating what I said earlier, it’s very detrimental to your application.

ACCUSED: With respect I had told the magistrate‑‑

HIS HONOUR:  That is all, ma’am, stop.

ACCUSED: That was what he asked me for to confirm my‑‑

HIS HONOUR:  Ma’am, listen carefully.  If you wish me to proceed on the basis of the application and the medical certificate now before the Court I will.  I indicate to you that it’s basically nonsensical, it doesn’t say why you cannot come to court on the date.  If you wish me to proceed on that basis I’m happy to do it.  That would be to your detriment.  If you wish to include the additional material then I will afford you the opportunity of having this letter, showing it to your doctor.  Hopefully he or she may say, “Look, you’re well enough to attend court”.

If they say that then quite clearly that will have an effect.  If they say you are not well enough to attend court, that obviously will impact as well but absent that, if you wish me to continue with your application today I will but that’s going to, on that information, not provide any medical evidence as to why you could not come to court.  If you wish me to proceed with it I put you on notice of that very issue.  If you don’t wish me to proceed with it and you wish the updated medical certificate I’m happy to grant you the adjournment.

ACCUSED: No, I’ll proceed now.

HIS HONOUR:  That’s fine, I’ll withdraw those orders.  I will leave these orders on the Court file insofar as that’s concerned because quite clearly the evidence before the Court insofar as medical certificate is concerned is woefully inadequate.  I also note that I have afforded Ms Burt the opportunity of seeking an adjournment to enable those issues to be identified, the lady has elected not to do that, so I vacate the application to 9 May 2016.

HIS HONOUR: What additional Ma’am, would you like to give?

ACCUSED: As I said I’ve got emails to the Courthouse to the police.

HIS HONOUR: I need to know why you did not attend court on that particular day.

ACCUSED: I consulted the doctor on the Friday, she didn’t know whether I had a blood clot behind my knee or fluid on the knee, she suspected it was fluid on the knee.  She sent me to get a scan, she said if I could get in there by lunchtime she’d have the results by that afternoon and if it was a blood clot then she would let me know and call me back in for treatment.  She advised me to keep off my feet for a couple of days and she prescribed me anti inflammatories.  The chemist told me to take an extra one for the first couple of days until the swelling went down.

I didn’t ask her for a certificate on that day because I still intended to come to court on the Monday but on the Monday when I got up, as I told the other magistrate, I couldn’t think clearly, I’d been on these anti‑inflammatory all weekend, my leg was still swollen so it was going to aggravate it again to come, and I hadn’t been able to lodge the documents that I’d wanted to beforehand, which I would like to lodge now, which as I say is advice to the Court and the police about a major breach of Janice O’Brien’s AVO by her son by writing this nasty blog about me.  I’ve also got a six page letter here‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Just wait one minute.  None of that is relevant to the application before the Court.  I wanted you to concentrate on why you did not attend court on the 29th knowing that you had to attend court.  Anything else you wish to say?

ACCUSED: Yes.  I would also like to say that the constable makes out in his arrest document that I’ve admitted to the crime freely and did it willingly whereas I always have said it was unintentional breach, I did not approach my sister, I did not approach her workplace, I wrote a letter to her boss and delivered it to his home address on a Saturday morning advising him of the AVO, hoping that he would make her drop the charges.  That was the main reason I did it, hoping he would make her drop the charges, and instead she called him up, met him at the property and she took the letter, the letter that was addressed to her workplace because I didn’t know her boss’s name, it was addressed to BDS Group, Lavington, and she convinced him to give her the letter.

HIS HONOUR: Just be very careful about what you are saying to the Court about requesting a person not to attend court or not to give evidence in respect to the matter the commission of a very serious criminal offence so bearing in mind the application really is only as to the merits of the annulment of your conviction recorded in your absence‑‑

ACCUSED: Well I’m talking about the conviction now, I’m giving my defence.

HIS HONOUR: Anything else?

ACCUSED: I don’t believe I was guilty and that’s why I’ve asked for it to be annulled, not just because I wasn’t here but because I was tried on a statement that I’ve been trying to talk to the police about for months about it being false, and the way he conducted the arrest when he came to the door and he said, “I’m here to talk to you about what might have been a breach”.  I said, “What, are you going to fine me a thousand dollars and lock me in goal for a year”, and he laughed and he said, “No, nothing like this, this is an informal interview” ‑ an informal interview.

HIS HONOUR: Anything else?

ACCUSED: Then at the end of it he stood up and said, “All right, I’m satisfied a breach has been committed, you’re under arrest, appear in court”, and also, like I said, I never admitted it to him.  He claims that I did and he recorded it onto his phone and he never did.  I admitted writing the letter, I admitted where I delivered it to, that was all I admitted to, and he claims he has a full confession from me on his phone.

Now the other thing I tried to bring up a few minutes ago when you wouldn’t listen, here’s a letter from Superintendant Quarmby of Albury Police Station saying I will not be provided with a copy of the audio recording, “unless you proceed to hearing in your matter at which time a copy of the brief will be served on you”.  So the matter was heard in my absence and then I made this annulment and the prosecutor objected to something last week but never offered me the brief.  So that’s why I’ve brought this today to lodge as evidence too.  The police are saying I can have a copy of the brief when it goes to hearing, well we’re at hearing, where is my copy of the brief?

HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to tender that letter, do you wish to place that document before the Court?

ACCUSED: Yes.  I’ve got a list here of all the evidence that I want.

HIS HONOUR: Just the letter, take the letter out, show that to the Sergeant, and I’d like to hear you, sergeant, so far as relevance is concerned.  Why do you say, ma’am, that’s relevant as to why you were not here on 29 February?

PROSECUTOR: I object to this on the grounds of relevance.

EXHIBIT #2 LETTER FROM SUPERINTENDANT QUARMBY OF ALBURY POLICE STATION, ADMITTED FOLLOWING OBJECTION

HIS HONOUR: Anything else, ma’am, you wish to say?  Just give me a minute to look at it.  Anything else?

ACCUSED: Email to this courthouse advising of Janice O’Brien’s daughter in law’s‑‑

HIS HONOUR: What date please?

ACCUSED: 19th of the 2nd.

HIS HONOUR: The relevance of that material, to ask why you did not attend court on the 29th?

ACCUSED: The relevance of it is that the AVOs had not been granted at that stage they were still at ..(not transcribable).. and I’ve been charged with breaching one so if they’d breached them before they were approved how can I be charged with breaching it on the same day that they were approved if they’ve breached it themselves 10 days before?

HIS HONOUR: I’m just not understanding what you’re saying to me.  Repeat that to me.

ACCUSED: They breached it on 19 February when I walked out of the courthouse‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Forget about any breach that you’re alleging against you.  Just concentrate on your alleged breach which occurred on 13 January.

ACCUSED: No, it didn’t, your Honour.  I was at home on 13 January, I committed no crime on 13 January, and I have witnesses to prove that.  Susan Ward took her boss to get the letter, intercept the letter, on the 11th or 12 January but I was at home on the 11th and 12 January.  I had visitors up from Melbourne on 12 January, we went out photographing ancestral places and then that evening there was three of them at one place and me at another and we were sending photos to each other via the internet, so I have proof that I was out with them all the day and home all that evening.  So the arrest, the charge, is wrong saying that I did anything on that day other than go out with friends.

HIS HONOUR: Anything else, ma’am?

ACCUSED: Another thing I’d like to tender to the Court.  Like I say, these advices of breaches.  I advised the Court that they’d breached their AVO before it was awarded.  The Court told me to tell Albury Police, I advised them on line.  I advised Western Australian police, Western Australian police acted.  On 27 February, Albury police advised me that they’d done nothing about it and then two days later their AVOs are granted, two days after Albury police have advised me that they won’t have done it, and ten days after this courthouse has said that it’s got to go via police.

Well Albury police did nothing but Western Australian police did and I’ve got this email from them advising me to take a restraining out on my brother so if he got my mother to take a restraining order out on me then police over there tell me to take a restraining out on him, you know, what’s the point, it would just be better for none of us to have any but if you want to I’ll go ahead and take a restraining order out on him.  I also have here a six page letter outlining harassment by Albury Local Police of myself including a phone call at five minutes to midnight on the evening before I was due to appear in court on 5 February, and that has been confirmed, it was investigated, and the officer said that he rang to talk to me about one of my complaints at five minutes to midnight, and then tried to tell the investigator that that was a quite reasonable time to ring.  I’ve also tried to lodge a complaint with police about my older brother sexually molesting myself when I was younger and none of that is mentioned in the evidence.

HIS HONOUR: No, ma’am.

ACCUSED: Police have refused to investigate that‑‑

HIS HONOUR: None of it is relevant.

ACCUSED: Yes it is‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Ma’am.

ACCUSED: ‑‑ because the three people who have applied for the AVOs have now lied

HIS HONOUR: Ma’am, Ms Burt, if you continue to talk over me I’ll just finish your application.  None of that is relevant to why you did not attend court.

ACCUSED: What I was going to say is all three of them have now lied to a police investigation and said that my brother didn’t molest myself and my sister, and all three of them know that he did.  So what I mean is that they’re people of no character, they’ve made false complaints against me in a court of law, they’ve then been able to enlist police to harass me, they’ve gone around and done the same thing that I’ve done to them.  They’ve lied to a police investigation and covered up sexual assault by her son‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Ms Burt, Ms Burt, stop, stop.  Do you have mental health problems?

ACCUSED: No, I don’t actually, no, I don’t.

HIS HONOUR: Ma’am, listen carefully to what I’m saying to you.  If I ask you to stop, stop.  There is no point in rambling on like this, it has to be relevant evidence.  Any other relevant evidence that you wish to place before the Court?

ACCUSED: No, but it’s been four months of appearing here in trials and never being allowed to say a word in my own defence, and all of the defence evidence that I submitted‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Thank you, stop.

ACCUSED: ‑‑was ignored.

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you, stop or you will charged, you will be charged if you continue to disregard what I have to say to you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION
THE WITNESS WITHDREW

HIS HONOUR:  , I’ll hear your submissions as to why you should have the application granted.  Yes, what would you like to say?

ACCUSED:  I was always innocent, it was an unintentional breach, your Honour, and so therefore I feel that the fine of $560 in total is a bit excessive for a breach that was unintentional.  I was arrested in an unlawful manner and then not given the chance to defend myself in court.

HIS HONOUR:  Ma’am, just so I understand it.  You say that you accept that it was a breach, what occurred was a breach.

ACCUSED:  No, I don’t accept that it is.  A breach would have been to approach my sister at her workplace.  I approached her boss at his home address on a Saturday morning and he didn’t even live there, and he didn’t get the letter till six weeks later when she rang him up and told him it was sitting there, and took him around to it.

HIS HONOUR:  Anything else you wish to say?

ACCUSED:  No.

HIS HONOUR:  There is an application been brought by the defendant that pursuant to s 4 of the Act.  So far as that is concerned I do note that it is a very broad interpretation of the remedial provisions that are contained in that part of the legislation.  Insofar as that is concerned I do note that it is the same test that applies in domestic violence matters as it does for criminal proceedings but this is in fact a criminal proceeding brought quite properly pursuant to s 4 of the relevant Act.

Quite clearly the evidence which is undisputed before the Court is that the lady was aware of 29 February as being the date upon which she had to come to court.  Certainly insofar as that is concerned the lady was found guilty in her absence, there was no appearance of her at 10.30.  Importantly, the application indicates in simple terms that she was on medication, had an order to rest up and diagnosed with fluid on the knee three days prior, and the arrest was questionable, lodge a claim for compensation.

So far as that is concerned there is ample evidence to indicate that the lady had received and was aware that she was supposed on 29 February 2016.  It is clearly clear as at 10.30 on that particular date the lady had not attended court.  I also note insofar as that is concerned that the lady was aware that if she failed to attend court, in my view, on that date she had received notification from the Court that final orders may be made in her absence.

Quite clearly the evidence before the Court, exhibit 2, the letter from Dr Thavakumaran is woefully inadequate.  I do note that the Court indicated to the applicant, Ms Burt, that it would afford her the opportunity of addressing the deficiencies in the medical evidence before it.  The Court had indicated that, and I quote the orders that I had intended to make the defendant’s inability to attend court due to medical reasons should be supported by a medical certificate which includes the following the information:

(1) The medical certificate must specifically indicate that the person was not fit to attend court rather than she was merely unwell

(2) The medical certificate must specifically address the nature of the illness and injury suffered by the person the reason why she could not attend court on 29 February 2016.

(3) The medical certificate must specifically address when the person will be able to attend court in future including the reasons or rationale for this opinion.

(4) The medical certificate must address the issue, if applicable, as to why she was not able to come to court on 29 February s 16 even for a very short period of time.

(5) Whether or not she was fit enough to travel to some other location for evidence to be given by some other means, via audio visual.

(6) I also note the Court would have reminded the medical practitioner of the public guidelines regarding the issuing of such certificates.

I specially note insofar as that is concerned the observations made by Barrak J in the decision of Alija Magjarraj v Asteron Life Ltd [2009], a decision of the Supreme Court.  His Honour said this at para 22 and 23:

“All too frequently judges see cryptic written statements from medical practitioners referring to some undisclosed and undiagnosed medical condition culminating in the assertion that a person is unfit to attend court or unfit to attend a court hearing.  To the extent that such statements are put forward as evidence about the state of the person’s health and the extent to which impaired health may incapacitate a person from participating in court proceedings the statements fail the most fundamental test for the reception of expert evidence.  All unexplained and unfathomable statements of that kind must be simply rejected out of hand as evidence of anything.”

He continued on para 23:

“Doctors probably do not realise they are engaged in an exercise in futility when they issue such certificates and expect courts to treat them as evidence, if indeed that is what the doctors do expect.  These are matters about which professional organisations within the medical profession really ought to consider informing their members.”

As I indicated, the shortcomings in the report under the hand of the doctor which is exhibit 2, I have highlighted to the defendant the evidentiary insufficiencies of the medical certificate was explained to the applicant, also the fact of the absence of that material which I had requested would substantially, and to her detriment, operate against the defendant because there was, on that material, insufficient evidence to ascertain any proper reason why she was unable to attend court.

The defendant elected not to seek the adjournment that she was going to be granted and quite clearly insofar as that is concerned wished the matter dealt with today.

I AM NOT SATISFIED THAT THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE GRANTED.

I AM SATISFIED THAT SHE WAS AWARE OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING, AND CERTAINLY ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS, THERE IS NO PROPER REASON PLACED BEFORE THE COURT AS TO WHY THE LADY WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND COURT.

THE S 4 IS REFUSED FOR THOSE REASONS.

Albury Local Court – Guilty of Corrupt Dealings

So … I walked out on todays proceedings. I have no idea what the result was, but the complainants, who’d remained behind, didn’t look all that happy when I observed them leaving the court house, already just about finished my coffee. However, it might not have been the result which didn’t please them, and I still might have bad, but appealable, result in the mail.

I exported a copy of the court list for today, as shown online on the nsw justice website. 8 charges were listed against me, 5 for mention, and 3 for continuation of hearings which had started previously.

I had applications for motion, a change in venue, for 7 of those matters. I didn’t lodge them at the office, prior to the start of hearing, due to their staff refusing to accept the last one I’d tried to lodge, and accused me of being ‘abusive’ for insisting that they did.
So I was going to hand them straight up to the Magistrate, and would have given the same reason above for not having lodged them at the office, prior to hearing.
I was surprised that they did deal with matters early, and so the Magistrate ended up being disrespected in a partially full court room. He created that.

When he first started to go through the list that morning, my matter was called. He stated that they would proceed with one charge against me that day, as they allotted time to each matter before the court. He then dismissed me.

I started to walk away, and went back to the mic and stated that other matters were listed for hearing and mention that day as well. He pretended that there were not.
I stated that the charge bought against me, by their court house mediator, was listed for mention, and for a date to be set for hearing. I was bailed to appear today, for that matter. He pretended it did not exist, on his list. I stated that I had a notice of motion to lodge in relation to it.

I then bought up the hearing of two AVO’s against me, also scheduled for hearing today. The ones which are an Act of Parliament. He again, looked blank. I stated that I had notice of motions to lodge in relation to both of those as well.

I allowed him to dismiss then. I failed to mention that I had four motion notices of motion, to lodge against all of the other cases which were listed for mention, on todays date, by the court house itself.

He called a short and untimely recess after this, and disappeared into his chambers, while the court pretended to sort some other person’s matter a bit more.

I had noticed when I arrived the criminal charge against me was on the list outside the court room. It wasn’t until a bit later that I noticed that that AVO applications weren’t listed, as they would have been there under the applicant’s names.

They didn’t realize the implications of this either, until the short recess was called. They didn’t look too happy when they returned to the court room after it.

So, he calls the matter again, not long after. Again, I was surprised they were going to hear it in front of witnesses in the form of the public. They try to call their first witness straight away, and again ignore the fact that the court had been advised, when a date for hearing was set, that I would be calling one witness.

I delayed the witness for a bit, stating we had some paperwork to deal with, arising from or after the hearing started. He didn’t want to do it, but I insisted.

Which reminded me to formally advise him that I had never received any fair dealings in this local court, and that I had no respect for him personally left.

He gawffed out loud and looked surprised. I pointed out that in April he had given me his word about something, and then that word was broken by the court. He again, tried to look innocent and like I was making up wild stories.

So I informed him that at the last hearing I was not aware that Murray had part heard the AVO matters against me, when he had given me his word in April that Murray would not be involved in any matters against me. I said you broke your word.

One document I wanted to hand up to him, was the fraudulent witness list the cop had posted to me before the start of this hearing back in June. He listed the charge as common assault. The Magistrate declared that was not relevant to the case we were hearing today, that this case was about a letter.

I agreed that yes, it was, but this witness list sent to me by the arresting officer listed the charge as common assault and is therefore an act of fraud.

Again, the Magistrate cried that none of that was relevant. Again, I insisted that it was, since the cop illegally recorded a conversation with me, then committed an act of fraud in his paperwork submitted to the court, which claimed he had a full confession. I said, and now, here is that same cop, still issuing fraudulent paperwork, shortly before the hearing begins.

The Magistrate continued to refuse to accept it. So I moved on, also attached to that form, was a document which related to new evidence for this particular case. Evidence that was so sensitive, that police could not provide me with a copy of it, prior to the hearing. They made an appointment, I said, to come into the station to look at it. Yet he didn’t mention any new evidence at the last hearing, and nor did the prosecutor.

The prosecutor is wildly objecting to it being shown to the Magistrate, and claiming that is because she does not have a copy of it. I stated I had a copy for her, and looked through my paperwork, but didn’t find it. But it was too late, the Magistrate had had to agree to have it handed up to him, because of the mention of new evidence.

I stated that the prosecutor should have a copy of that ‘sensitive evidence’ form, and I should not have to supply her with a copy of that. I pointed out to the Magistrate that it was unnecessary for the cop to have posted that to me, when the list of witnesses had already been established, and it is the same ones who have been called, and the one who was about to be called.

So, she is sworn in. The questions she was asked, or the one issue she was asked to clarify, relates to another act of misconduct, I only uncovered in the past week. I won’t go into that now though. The prosecutor was trying to push that agenda, but I was about to address that in my questioning.

So I get to cross examine the complainant in all but 1 of these criminal charges me. She refuses to answer my first question. The prosecutor tries to object to it, the Magistrate almost allows it, until he cottons on to what is happening, then allows her not to answer it.

I keep pressing with it, he’s claiming its not relevant, the prosecutor is objecting to it, and I’m still asking why she applied for the ADVO under her maiden name, and did not show her driver’s licence which listed an address in Victoria, and asking her what year she finally changed her registration details over to NSW. (It was many months after she showed her birth certificate to the Registrar, to start her case against me).

I held up the document, stating that the original summons to court, issued to myself, is not legal because it is issued in one surname, and then signed by a person with a different surname.

The Magistrate got huffy, told me that I would only be allowed to ask her three questions all up, and to make sure I pick my next ones carefully. At the last hearing he dismissed the witnesses claiming I was bullying them, under cross examination. Well they have all bullied me for the past 22 months, why cry when it comes back on them?

I can’t remember what question two on my list was, but again, it met with uproar, from Magistrate Cromptom and the corrupt police prosecutor. When I questioned why she would not answer that, the Magistrate stated I had just used up my second question.
It was then I started to pack up my things. I can’t recall what I was saying as I did so, but as soon as I started to get annoyed, they’d directed the sherrif to get into position behind me, ready to take me to jail for showing contempt to a corrupt court and Magistrate.

I just kept packing my things, and walked out. The hearing must have continued for a little while, as it was nearly half an hour before the complainants left the building.
I don’t know what the result was, but will be appealing it to the district court. Its a shame now that I didn’t lodge my notices of motion, but will try to stay out of jail for long enough to lodge them elsewhere.

The court and police do not have my current address, to post any fine notices, or any result to.

If they awarded the new AVO applications after I left, that was another act of misconduct by the court, because it had refused to acknowledge that they were listed at all today, when going through their own list.

I have met bail conditions by appearing today. I am only on bail for the charge bought against me by the mediator, and which they always list on the same day as these corrupt matters, so that I have to appear.

However, I also have a copy of an email I sent to the court house after the hearing in June, reminding them that they didn’t set a date, nor mention, the charge I was bailed to appear there for that day. I told them they better put it on the list, or they have negated my bail by failing to list it.

They replied that it was on the list for today, and the online court lists proves this. I exported a copy of that. So now it was not mentioned in court today. Therefore, if they try to claim I have breached it, then they are in contempt of the law themselves, again.
If the new AVO applications were not heard in my absence, and were not on the list, then I think the court might have withdrawn those.

And is what I meant by I still might have been convicted today, of one criminal charge of breach an unserved, illegally awarded ADVO, but the complainants were unhappy that they weren’t granted new orders today.
I’ll have to find out about that, because if the latter is true, my gag orders are removed, from this day on.

Thank you again, so very much, to Marlene from the group, People Against the doctoring of court transcripts, for coming up from Melbourne today, to accompany me to court, and to witness the corruption for herself, occurring at the Albury Local Court. This is the second time she has done this for me. Forever grateful, and to her mum who comes too 🙂 xoxo
I managed to get statements onto the record that the court has been found guilty of tampering with transcripts, by the Office of the General Counsel of NSW, and that I have asked for an investigation into the true extend that has been occurring. I worked this into the hearing by stating that a transcript contained in the defence brief of this case has been fixed by order of that same agency, and so now includes my statement that I had lodged a complaint with the ICAC about their mediator, and which had been conveniently left out previously. Which meant that the hearing now needed to update that page in all of their copies of my defence brief.
I advised the Magistrate, when he was refusing to mention the charge bought against me by their mediator, and during which I was physically assaulted, that the defence brief for that was sent to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, who advise that they agree there are many instances of police misconduct involved in that arrest.
I advised that the brief for this charge in motion, is also in the hands of the LECC, who are to due to contact me soon about that. It was lodged a week or so after the other one, and contains information about the fraudulent witness list issued by the arresting officer a few months ago.
So if the court were going to find me innocent, and be done with this charge, they didn’t get the chance. If they were going to convict me of it, to keep all the other things in motion, which they now appear to want to drop and hide from the records, they have done so behind my back and after I walked out of the hearing. The Magistrate was openly protecting the witness. I will appeal his decision in the district court, but not in this town.
Sorry, I didn’t proof read the above, before posting, as I was in a hurry to make a record of it all. I’ll edit it once I’ve finished winding down.
Will email it to some shadow politicians first, and the LECC.
I remember now what my second question was. I stated that the complainant told police that on 3 November I was bombarding another family member with over 100 emails and text messages. ‘No I didn’t’, she said. I replied, ‘its written here on your statement’. That’s when the Magistrate and prosecutor jumped in saying that the question was out of order.
Yet that allegation is the whole basis for her ADVO application, and that of the other ‘family’ member.
Just drafted this complaint to the Judicial Commission. Their failure to do anything about it, will provide me with another chance to take this to the Supreme Court, or the Federal Court.
Just had a call from a private number. Probably cops, wanting to revoke bail because their mediator buddy is identified in the supreme court affidavits. However, I believe that bail is no longer in affect. The bail form shows it expires today, unless a new order is made by the Magistrate, or it is dismissed by same. The charge was not mentioned in court, therefore the bail has expired.
Hopefully I can get this complaint witnessed tomorrow, and into the mail.

Complaint to the Judicial Commissioner

I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, of an address in New South Wales which I will not disclose to Albury Local Court, wish to complain against ­­­­­­­­­­­­ Magistrate Michael Cromptom of the Albury Local Court.

My complaint is as follows:

At hearing on 14 September 2017, Magistrate Cromptom failed to acknowledge 7 charges which were listed for hearing or mention on that day. Two of those charges, were applications for AVO’s made by XXXXXX and XXXXXX. A hearing into those was commenced in May 2017 and was listed to continue on 14 September 2017.

Four charges of breach of an ADVO held by Ward which pretends to have been in force from 29 February 2016 until 28 February 2017, were listed for mention, and a date set for their hearings. I had applications for motion relating to all of those charges with me. I had not lodged them with the office prior to hearings commencing, because when I tried to lodge on in February 2016, office staff refused to accept it, and accused me of being aggressive when I insisted that they did so. For that reason, I planned to hand them to the Magistrate, when he mentioned the charges.

The same applies to the AVO applications made by XXXXXX and XXXXXX. I had with me applications for motion relating to both of those, because Magistrate Murray had part heard them in May, after I had been given an undertaking by Magistrate Cromptom in April, that Murray would be kept out of all of the courts dealings with myself from that point on.

Also listed for mention, and a date to be set for a hearing, was the charge police bought against me on 22 October 2016, on behalf of the court’s CJC mediator, XXXXXX. The court refused motion for that matter in April 2017, but further evidence of collusion between XXXXXX and XXXXXX was discovered after that date, and was submitted to the court as part of the defence brief against that charge, lodged with the court an police prosecutor on 20 June 2017.

I have been on bail for that charge for what has become an illegal amount of time. In failing to mention the matter in court, on that day, Magistrate Cromptom negated the continuation of bail, when he did not extend, or end it.

The only matter the Magistrate would acknowledge was the continuation of a hearing into the first charge of breach, against the interim ADVO which the court pretends protected XXXXXX for the period from 14 December 2015, up until 29 February 2016. The final order of that application was never served on the accused, and the application remains unheard, or proven, in court.

The Magistrate tried to refuse to accept new evidence of fraud by the arresting officer in that matter. The Magistrate then refused to direct the complainant to answer a simple question. The Magistrate then stated that I would be allowed to put three more questions only to her. I asked another one, which she did not answer. When I asked the same question, in a different way, or why she would not answer, the Magistrate stated that I had just used up my second question and only had one left.

At that point, I packed up my belongings, and left the court room. I do not know what happened during the continuation of the hearing, nor what the result was. At the commencement of that hearing on 20 June 2017, the Magistrate protected the witnesses from being properly questioned by the defence. Which is why I would not tolerate the same thing happening again.

The evidence being used against me, was illegal, due to it not having been presented at the hearing of this charge on 29 February 2016. That conviction was set aside in the District court in August 2016, and sent back to the local court to be heard properly. However, they did not rely on the evidence they failed to present the first time, and prepared a whole new brief, and changed the date of the alleged offence.

The hearing of the charge was illegal, due to lack of service of the ADVO. The hearing of the charge was illegal, when I was legally entitled to motion when I made application for same, against this charge on 12 December 2016.

I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believe the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act 1900.

 

Declared at: Albury on 15 September 2017

 

______________________________________

[Karma]

 

In the presence of an authorised witness, who states:

 

I, ______________________________________________     a    ____________________________________

[name of authorised witness]                          [qualification of authorised witness]

 

Certify the following matters concerning the making of this statutory declaration by the person who made it:

  1. I have not known the person for least 12 months, but I have confirmed the person’s identity using an identification document and the document I relied on was:

 

 

________________________________________________

[describe identification document relied upon]

 

 

_________________________________________________                      ____________________________

[signature of authorised witness]                                                         [date]

 

 

I didn’t hand this document to the Magistrate today, I wish I had now, but I doubt that what I did hand him was put on the record anyway, because the corrupt prosecutor was crying about not having seen a copy.

Well didn’t Albury police deny me access to your ‘full confession’ obtained during a formal interview, for most of last year, and prior to my conviction, and during my appeal?

I decided to hold onto it, until I forced the police to play that recording in the court room. However, something I had noticed in it, and planned to quiz the complainant about, was instead uncovered by the prosecutor for me.

It turns out, that BDS Huon did in fact give their employee a copy of my letter to them, advising them that she was breaching client confidentiality regulations, and seeking an ADVO to stop me from advising them of that.

They allowed her to go to the court house with it, and attempt to lodge it as part of her case against me, on 12 January 2016. Yet Jon Williams claimed in his statement to police, made in November 2016, that she was merely shown a copy of that letter.

This issue becomes relevant for matters I will continue to reveal when I have the time.

However, it shows what the Tax Practitioner’s Board has been covering up. That by the time I contacted that agency about that matter, and professional misconduct by the owners of BDS Huon in allowing me to be arrested over it, BDS Huon had already sent her to the court house armed with a copy of it, a week before hand. So the TPB decided right then and there to cover it all up for them. And continue to do so, until this very day.

 

Key Points Relating to the Illegal Recording/Formal Intervie

  1. Snr Con Weekley’s introduction is recorded in the police car, out the front of my house, approximately 7 minutes before they appeared at my door.
  2. There is a sound which nothing in my flat makes audible in the recording.
  3. It might be a car’s reversing sound. That might be my landlady’s sister arriving with her child, and both of who were already out of the car, when police arrived on foot at the top of my driveway.
  4. Weekley initially has me agreeing to his statements, without giving me any chance to reply, except to affirm that I wrote them.
  5. When he states my answers can be used in court against me, there is no audible reply agreeing to that, because I was taken aback by the question.
  6. When he asks me to identify the admission that I wrote the letter, and I affirm that I wote it, I know that I added, ‘and lodged it at the court house last week’. That part of my answer has been deliberately edited out.
  7. How many more instances of that occur, I cannot say. Obviously I could not remember the conversation word for word by the time I had read his account of it, was taking issue with it, and being denied access to it. However, many instances were glaringly apparent to me.
  8. Then he claims that the letter and the page from the defence statements relating to it, were submitted to the court by XXXXXX, pretending that was done as evidence against me.
  9. He puts words in my mouth when he finally asks me if I wrote the letter to have XXXXXX fired, there is room for one word only, that of yes.
  10. I realize then that he had tricked me into making that admission, and so began to speak about the night XXXXXX had come to the same premises, making of threats of violence against me. He’s not so interested in listening to my side of the story.
  11. However, he should have been aware, since he claims to have checked the ADVO records twice, that I also had an Interim order against XXXXXX herself.
  12. He changes the word in the transcript, where I stated I wanted her charged with assault, to read that I wanted her charged with disrespecting me.
  13. Is there a charge for disrespecting someone? He would know there is not.
  14. But there is for attempted assault, and for inciting another person to inflict an act of violence on another person. XXXXXX is guilty of those things.
  15. When I did attend the police station the next morning, wanting to make a complaint, Snr Con Bonnie Richardson was sent to take that complaint. She bought with her an evidence ticket to write her notes on, and nothing else.
  16. Instead of making a complaint about XXXXXX’s attempt to assault me on the evening of 6 November 2015, I instead made one about XXXXXX and sexual assault. Since this is the truthful allegations at the heart of this matter.
  17. Richardson refused to take my complaint. Was that pre-arranged in anticipation of the complaint being made about XXXXXX?

 

 

 

 

I Affirm to The Supreme Court of NSW

I rescheduled this article to publish immediately, when I got home from the court house today, 14 September 2017.

On display below is the application as it appeared when I was going to make it to the Supreme Court of NSW. After realizing I can make application to them to hear a case for motion, or change in venue, from something the registry of that court had said in email, made me realize they probably won’t hear an AVO application there.

So I redid the cover pages, to submit the same affidavits, to the Albury Local court this morning. I’ll scan a copy of those new covers later, to show they were marked to be lodged there, today. I would have explained to the Magistrate that I was no longer seeking motion to the Supreme court, but to any other court in NSW, other than the Albury Corrupt Court.

I never got to lodge those. I think because they were forewarned, possibly from this blog that I had them with me, and so had removed the matters they applied to, from the list, when they opened shop this morning.

 

Original Post below created a few days ago:

Regardless of whether or not I managed to get this lodged, before police and Magistrate Murray jail me, I have set this post to automatically publish itself, if I don’t arrive home to delete it before it does so.

I have left the names of the original complainants in it, firstly because I didn’t want to waste hours of my time blanking the instances of those, and then I thought, that no, it is time again to identify them, if I am sitting in a jail cell due to what they know, are their lies.

Also, because when Murray terminated the extensions for ADVO’s in may, he negated the interim order in place which related to it. I don’t see mention of him imposing a new interim one, but I could be wrong. I’ll have to check the paperwork. So no breach to identify the narcissistic one and the one damaged from the many mental illnesses caused by incest.

scan0004 edit

scan0005scan0006

 

 

scan0010 edit

scan0001ascan0020scan0021

Magistrate Anthony Murray – An Act of Perjury While on His Bench

In court on 6 April, I described the following document as a fabrication, which didn’t reflect the true proceedings of that day. I’d only read it once, after returning home from the corrupted dealings on 13 February 2017, and only thought about the biggest errors in it.

In looking again though, it does actually still show Magistrate Murray committing perjury, from his bench, to protect his co-conspirator, the court house mediator.

He asserts he doesn’t know her, on the first page, but by page 5, has to admit that he works with her at the Albury Court House on a regular basis. On the day in question, he even smiled broadly as he spoke of her. However, at least one person was unable to stop himself from laughing out loud, when he did so.

Then he tries his usual game of belittling me, and pretending that I’m not following, and unable to follow, the proceedings.

Yet it was all simple to me. I’d lodged one application for motion the moth before, which was listed for hearing by Magistrate Cromptom on 11 November 2016, for 12 December 2016.

On 12 December, I arrived with a second Notice of Motion, and tried to lodge it at hearing, but then did as he said, and lodged it at the office. He then made me wait until the end of the day to deal with that one.

The office had changed that one notice of motion, into five, because it related to all matters before the court relating to one ADVO. They had to create a pile of paperwork, by insisting they make a different application relating to each charge. Each was a reproduction of my original. Only Murray pretends that there is just too many matters, and too much paperwork before the court, from him to be able to understand it all.

He most certainly did, and so did I.

On 6 April 2017, Magistrate Cromptom listed the first of the illegal breach charges for hearing again, with the others to be listed one by one after that, at the Albury Local Court, with himself as the presiding Magistrate, or an assortment of others who would be flown down at the tax payer’s expense, to cover for Murray. Meaning, Murray has agreed to be allowed to be disqualified from matters relating to the second set of applications, but still wants Albury Court House and a Magistrate he can control, to convict me of all five false charges, and against the evidence that would exonerate me.

scan0034scan0035scan0036scan0037scan0038scan0039scan0040

scan0041

scan0042

scan0043scan0045

scan0046scan0047scan0048scan0049

scan0050scan0051scan0052scan0053


From: Karma
Sent: Monday, 23 January 2017 11:43 PM
To: complaints@judcom.nsw.gov.au
Subject: The Never Ending Acts of Corruption by Magistrate Tony Murray, Albury Local Court

Dear Mr Schmatt

Please find attached, as promised, complaint number 5 about Tony Murray.

Maybe its time you did something about him. Finally. As previously advised, I will be seeking a review of all of your decisions in the Federal Circuit Court next month, in yet another attempt to end the miscarriages of justice being committed against me, by your corrupt employees at the Albury Court House.

I will also be complaining to Mr Brandis about it all. He will really appreciate having me filling up his email inbox each day, until something is done about XXXXXX AND TONY MURRAY WORKING TOGETHER TO CONVICT INNOCENT PEOPLE OF CRIMES WHICH DID NOT OCCUR.

See you in the federal court, you condoner of injustice and unlawful court dealings.

Karma

I don’t seem to have a scan of the signed copy of this, posted to the Judicial Commision in January 2017.

Complaint Against a Judicial Officer

To — The Judicial Commission of NSW

I, Karma, of XXXXXX, West Albury NSW 2640, wish to complain against ­­­­­­­­­­­­ Magistrate Murray of the Albury Local Court.

My complaint is as follows:

At hearing in November 2016, Magistrate Cromptom listed an application for motion for decision on 12 December 2016. Magistrate stated at that hearing, on 12 December 2016, that he would disqualify himself from being able to hear it, but did not rule on whether or not he would agree to a change of venue. I planned to appeal any denial of the application for a change of venue, to the District Court.

At same hearing on 12 December 2016, I lodged a second application for motion, regarding five illegal breach charges, stemming from an unserved ADVO. Magistrate Murray stated that he would hand down a decision on that Application for Motion on 9 February 2017.

Against my wishes, he asked to be allowed to list one of the breach charges for mention on that same date, being 9 February 2017. I stated that none of those five allegations of breach should be listed for hearing until police have provided a signed statement of service.

In checking the court listings online, I found on 20 January 2017, that he has instead listed one breach charge for hearing, and the other four for mention on 9 February 2017. He has not listed the Application for Motion for decision, at all.

Office staff from the court house advised via email dated 23 January 2017, that Magistrate Murray has recorded that he dismissed that application for motion on 12 December 2017. That opposes my recollections of the events and decisions made at that same hearing. I believe this is yet another instance of corruption by Magistrate Murray, to protect his colleague XXXXXX.

I also do not consent to the first application for motion, having been settled without myself having the chance to argue that I had changed my mind about allowing a different Magistrate to hear it at Albury Court House, due to involvement of all staff there, in these conspiracies to bring false allegations against myself. Magistrate Murray will be seeking to cover up once again for his own illegal involvement in XXXXXX’s conspiracy to bring false allegations against myself, and will instruct the replacement Magistrate to rule in a way that brings that about.

When listening to the verbal transcript of the two separate hearings held on 12 December 2016, one in the morning and the other very late in the afternoon, you will hear Magistrate Murray denying knowing XXXXXX at all, and deny that she works at the Albury Court House. A few minutes later, he had to change his own words, and confirm that he does work with her nearly every day, and that she does in fact contract to Albury Court House through the CJC.

Magistrate Murray is now guilty himself of perjury, in his continued attempts to protect XXXXXX from being held accountable for perverting the course of justice in relation to matters involving her personal friends and intimidation of a witness for the defence in those same matters.

Albury Police, who illegally searched my possessions, put me on very questionable bail and once again lie in all of their statement of facts, will be seeking to have me convicted of all of these false charges to conceal their own unlawful actions. Therefore, there will no impartiality in the mind of the prosecutor, who will be seeking to cover up for these unlawful police actions, and to protect the person who instructed them to all act in that manner, being XXXXXX.

I will be once again seeking to take the NSW Judicial Commission to the Federal Circuit Court next month, by way of appeal against the last decision letter sent to me, exonerating Tony Murray of misconduct on 29 February 2016, when he granted two false ADVO applications, which had both been disproven by evidence, and by way of using a false allegation of breach, created by a police officer who was sent to deliberately frame me for same, and then by way of denying the accused access to the evidence police fabricated and then to used in court against me.

I have since become aware of evidence that Con Weekly did not submit to the court on that same date, which would have exonerated me, and therefore is again guilty of tampering with evidence, along with creating a false and tampered with recording of an unlawful interview with myself. I will submit that new evidence to the Federal Circuit Court, in an attempt to have all decisions made by Tony Murray on 29 February 2016, overturned due to corruption of processes.

I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believe the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act 1900.

Declared at: Albury on 24 January 2017                      

       

From: Karma
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017 12:16 PM
To: complaints@judcom.nsw.gov.au
Subject: Re: The Never Ending Acts of Corruption by Magistrate Tony Murray, Albury Local Court

Dear Mr Schmatt

I have been forgetting to post the signed copy of this complaint to you. Rest assured though that it will be posted before the end of this week. And this time, I will be seeking true justice, if not from you, but through the Federal Court.

Might I also remind you of the following statements taken from your own website.

Judicial officers

In a case of attempting to pervert the course of justice, a custodial sentence will be imposed where the offender is a judicial officer: R v Farquhar (unrep, 29/5/85, NSWCCA). The court stated at pp 30–31:

Where, as here, the offence is committed by a person holding judicial office in the judicial hierarchy of the State the attempt to commit the offence strikes at the very core of the integrity of the administration of justice. Such a person is in a commanding position to attempt to pervert the course of justice and when he seeks to abuse his position to achieve that end, public confidence in the judicial system will be lost unless it is made clear that such conduct will bring a prison sentence.

The court made clear that since the public is entitled to expect a judicial officer will be of good character and integrity, previous good character or reputation of a judge convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice will be of far less weight than in a different type of offence: R v Farquhar at p 31. In Einfeld v R (2010) 200 A Crim R 1 at [81], Basten JA said:

… it is beyond question that for a senior legal practitioner and former judge of a superior court to commit offences against the administration of justice is apt to give rise to public disquiet about the integrity of the judicial system. These were offences to which the present status of, and the offices formerly held by, the applicant were of great significance.

There is “a risk that judges will deal more harshly than some would think appropriate with those from within their own ranks”: Einfeld v R at [82]. Notwithstanding that danger, it is accepted that an offender’s status as a senior legal practitioner and former judge rendered perjury and perverting the course of justice more serious than they would otherwise have been: Einfeld v R at [82]. Basten JA also stated at [83] (Latham J agreeing at [196]; RS Hulme J agreeing at [195]) that the applicant’s former positions removed:

… an element of ignorance which might otherwise have diminished the degree of culpability. It was not merely a matter of knowing that it is a crime to lie on oath or seek to pervert the course of justice: it was a matter of understanding the significance accorded to such conduct by the law and the heightened seriousness of offences when committed by a person with the applicant’s background and experience.

Sincerely
Karma

From: Karma
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2017 2:00 PM
To: complaints@judcom.nsw.gov.au
Subject: Complaint against Tony Murray of the Albury Local Court No. 6

Dear Mr Schmatt

Please find attached complaint number six, against Tony Murray of the Albury Court House. I refuse to address him using the term Magistrate, because he does not conduct himself with honour, or with any respect to the laws of Australia.

I will be seeking a permanent stay in all proceedings against me, at the Albury Local court, due to his misconduct, that of XXXXXX of the CJC and Constable Rowan Weekley, who arrested me in an unlawful manner and fabricated evidence, which was denied to the defendant in a deliberate ruse to have ADVO applications made by XXXXXX’s personal friends, awarded, without the defence evidence which had disproven both of those, being considered.

Yours in disgust of NSW Justice

Karma

From: Karma
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2017 3:49 PM
To: complaints@judcom.nsw.gov.au
Subject: Re: Complaint against Tony Murray of the Albury Local Court No. 6

Dear Mr Schmatt

I realized after sending this that I had not attached any supporting evidence. I will scan the 14 pages of lies which have been written up, purporting to be a transcript of the hearings on 12 December 2016, and email those later tonight, along with the new applications from the ADVO holders. You will have it all by morning, along with a scan of the signed complaints, which I will post on Friday.

Karma

Murray 6 p 1 editMurray 6

 

I don’t have anything to hide, yet I am the one who has been found ‘guilty’.

I’m quite happy to have myself and my actions exposed on the internet. But only the truthful version of same, not the one others have been seeking to impose onto me.

 

You wonder why the other people involved in all this, seem desperate to seek some in appropriate gag orders, to cover it all up?

 

Justice in the Albury Court House?
– proven to be contrary to what they work towards there –

False Charge Bought Against Me By Court House Employee

Defence Statements Charge H62294944

  1. Constable Minehan held me in custody while he prepared his CAN and arrest documentation. I was given a copy to take with me when released.
  2. The date it is created is 22 October 2016, at 9.01 pm. It confirms I was apprehended at my property at 7.45 pm that same evening.
  3. In the details of Offences, Number 3, he states I resisted arrest on 19 October 2016, at 12.25pm. I had no contact with police on that day, and was not arrested.
  4. The same details allege I again resisted arrest on 21 October 2016, at 8.20 pm. I had no contact with police on that day either, and was not arrested.
  5. CJC MEDIATOR made her complaint to police on 21 October 2016. Did she and Minehan conspire to take me into custody that night, and charge me with resist arrest regardless of what really happened?
  6. I am charged with sending two emails to CJC MEDIATOR on 20 October 2016, one after the other at 12.23 and 12.24 pm, as per the sequence 1 and 2 of the statement of facts, pages 2 and 3.
  7. The CAN cites the dates of two alleged criminal offences, in Numbers 1 and 2, as having been committed between 19 October 2016, at 12.25 pm and on 21 October 2016, at 8.20 pm.
  8. I had no contact with CJC MEDIATOR on either of those dates.
  9. My internet usage for 21 October 2016 shows I sent two emails in the morning only.
  10. I took my cousin shopping that day and stayed at his house until around 11pm.
  11. Therefore, I was not accessing or using the internet, and was not at home when Minehan came to arrest me on the evening of 21 October 2016 and charges for for an offence on that same date.
  12. This charge must be dismissed, based on the inaccuracies contained in the CAN.
  13. In all instances, Minehan fails to record the correct date of either allegation of criminal conduct, and pretends there were another two instances of the same crimes, on separate dates where none occured.
  14. I believe that to charge me with a telecommunications offence the police must prove the IP address from which the offences occurred, and prove an account with the carriage provider in my name, which matches that IP.
  15. Can the police provide a record of the telecommunications account name, and details of the carriage provider?
  16. In the bail documentation, Sargent Stephen Bosch claims that I have a criminal history. Attached print out of the police records of my criminal history disprove that statement, being two incidents over thirty years ago.
  17. He claims I have been put on bail due to the serious nature of the offences. Sending two emails, containing two words each only, is considered serious enough for jail?
  18. He claims they have a strong case against me, particularly due to the victim’s account of the offence she experienced upon reading those two emails. I have yet to see the victim’s witness statement, and cannot continue to defend the matter until it is provided to me, along with the police brief.
  19. He acknowledges ongoing allegations of breach of COMPLAINANT’s ADVO are just that, allegations, and not one has been proven in court.
  20. He claims I show no remorse, but continue to believe that I have been framed by CJC MEDIATOR, using Albury Police, to assist her personal friends to win what was initially a family argument, and involved no criminal allegations, in court, despite her friends’ applications disproven by evidence. Court transcripts from hearings in February 2016 confirm my claims.
  21. CJC MEDIATOR was not officially involved in the ADVO matters, as no mediation was involved at the outset. When the chance did come up, by way of a court order, CJC MEDIATOR ensured that did not happen, and resorted to using police and false allegations of breach to protect her own credibility after that.
  22. CJC MEDIATOR’s friends ADVO applications had both been disproven by evidence and dismissed to mediation between the parties involved.
  23. CJC MEDIATOR should have left it at that, instead she inflamed the situation and it continues today, and is a demonstration of why there are laws forbidding involvement in matters of personal friends before a court.
  24. The fact that COMPLAINANT provides the print out of the ‘evidence’ on behalf of Bradley to police, again shows and proves this collusion.
  25. Bradley forwarded both of the emails at 9am on 20 October 2016 to COMPLAINANT. would have been at work that day, so they would not have been able to discuss them until that evening. Together they decided on CJC MEDIATOR’s response, to pretend offence, so they can claim the emails to have been a criminal act. Yet it is against the law for CJC MEDIATOR to use her influence and working relationship with local police, to bring a charge against me for lodging complaints about both her and themselves.
  26. COMPLAINANT’s interest in these matters is that the contents of the emails refer to the questionable charges bought against me, and in unlawful manners, by Albury police on behalf of COMPLAINANT. CJC MEDIATOR and police should have been angry at COMPLAINANT, since she was the person who created those complaints by her own behavior.
  27. Sgt Bosch claims I had to be put on bail to protect the victim from my conduct. Yet two and a half weeks later, CJC MEDIATOR used her own carriage service to menace/harass and offend myself.
  28. She instructs me to plead guilty to the allegations of breach bought against me by her friend and neighbor COMPLAINANT, listed for hearing on the same day as this charge.
  29. I have prepared an application for a private prosecution in relation to charging CJC MEDIATOR with the same offence she seeks to have me convicted of, along with intimidation of a witness and other offences.
  30. I have made application to the Albury Local Court to have all of the hearings of all of the allegations of breach of an illegally gained and unserved ADVO moved to another venue, where CJC MEDIATOR can no longer affect the outcome of same.
  31. I had to have those same hearings postponed due to injuries received by way of CJC MEDIATOR instructing Minehan to create a situation where they could rough me up, and then claim resist arrest. My GP can confirm that he documented those injuries.
  32. I believe that bail should be lifted, since CJC MEDIATOR has violated the conditions of same, by way of approaching me herself and trying to generate more conflict.
  33. I believe bail was never required anyway, and was a ploy for police to be able to take me into custody prior to the hearing of the breach charges, to deny me the ability to prepare a defence.
  34. The following weekend this arrest, Constable Paul Evans and Sheridan Mifsud came to my property to serve a brief. Evans appeared very agitated and Mifsud tried to start an argument with me. I lodged complaints with the Police Commissioner’s Office about that.
  35. Constable Minehan deliberately listed the hearing of this charge for the same date as allegations of breach relating to an ADVO held by COMPLAINANT in what I believe was yet another attempt to affect the outcome of same, by CJC MEDIATOR.
  36. Again, this shows that Minehan was aware of the matters between myself and COMPLAINANT going through the court. Police were not able to bring any more charges against me on behalf of COMPLAINANT, to punish me for lodging complaints about them, due to lack of service of the ADVO being questioned by then.
  37. I have been lodging complaints about CJC MEDIATOR for all of 2016, within the justice department and other agencies, about her involvement in COMPLAINANT’s matters before the court. This charge is in retaliation for all of those complaints, and she has no right to charge me for using an online complaints process, to complain about her. In fact, it is illegal for her to have done so, while I have continued to lodge complaints about her, and will continue to do so until all of these false convictions, are overturned.
  38. Constable Minehan stated that I was under arrest, and had to come with him, upon arriving at my property. I asked why I couldn’t drive to the station in my own car, so that I had it to drive home in. He refused, stating that he would call the Sargent to kick down my front door, if I didn’t agree to go with them immediately.
  39. I replied that the Police would have to pay for the damage. Minehan replied that he would claim I was resisting arrest, and would be responsible for the cost of any damage they caused.
  40. While waiting for the Sargent to arrive at my home, Minehan stated I could bring any documents with me that I might want to discuss during questioning. I packed a brief case with all of the defence briefs for the five allegations of breach made by CJC MEDIATOR’s neighbor and friends COMPLAINANT, and other associated documents.
  41. The Sargent arrived at my home so quickly I had only just finished gathering up the documents, and things I would take in my handbag, put on a jumper and shut down my computer. I believe I should have been entitled to reasonable time to do those things, and that I did not hinder or delay arrest in doing so.
  42. Once on the footpath, I took my phone out of my bag to take a photo of this waste of police resources, two cars on a Saturday night, over two emails sent two days prior.
  43. Minehan grabbed my hand with the phone in it, and refused to let go. I asked to be allowed to put the phone back into my hand bag. He then grabbed my bag as well, and Constable Mifsud grabbed the brief case I had in my other hand. Both officers started pulling my arms in different directions, jarring my spine repeatedly.
  44. The Sargent, who had been walking behind us, grabbed the end of my scarf, and pulled it tight around my neck. It broke my necklace, then both came off.
  45. I instinctively gripped my bags when the officers tried to take them. I felt like I was being bag snatched, and it didn’t occur to me that it was police who were doing it, and not to try to keep hold of my belongings.
  46. I relaxed when the necklace had come off, and asked if they would to let go of me so I could pick it up off the ground. Minehan refused, and the Sargent did that, putting both into my handbag. The list of my possessions confirms that both the necklace and scarf were in the handbag, before I arrived at the police station.
  47. Minehan then explained that I would not be allowed to have the bags on my person in the police car, nor in the cell. I let go of them, once that had been explained to me.
  48. They started to lead me to the police van, and I was walking calmly with them. Minehan and Mifsud both still had hold of me by each arm at shoulder level.
  49. They had given my bags to the Sargent, who took them in the police car.
  50. Minehan then started applying undue pressure to my left wrist, bending it hard, and appeared to be trying to break it.
  51. I told him a number of times that he was ‘hurting my wrists’, and asked him to ‘stop hurting my wrists’ several times. Finally I stared him in the eyes and said it in a deep and menacing voice. He finally let go of the pressure then.
  52. Once in the police van, Minehan went around the block first, and then the long way to the police station. We arrived at 7.40 as noted by both police and myself.
  53. The document given to me to sign upon release, acknowledging the contents of my bags, was created 7.38 pm. Proving that the Sargent had taken my bags and searched them before I arrived at the station. I was not informed that they would be searched, nor was that done within my sight.
  54. I was charged by Minehan at the station at 9.01 pm. He did not finger print me, or photograph me, but states that he did.
  55. I was released on bail at 10.55 pm, and forced to walk home.
  56. Sargent Stephen Bosch was the supervisor on duty during my time at the police station.
  57. Constable Minehan now reveals in his brief, that the ‘Sargent’ who attended my premises on the evening of 22 October 2016, was not a Sargent at all, and claims that it was an Senior Constable Quiring. Therefore, they had no authority to force me into custody that night.
  58. I will make application for a private prosecution against CJC MEDIATOR for this charge, and the other five false allegations of breach of an unlawfully gained and unserved ADVO. COMPLAINANT and Con Minehan will be named in that, as co-conspirators.
  59. The fact that COMPLAINANT provides the evidence for this charge, finally proves my allegations of collusion between her and CJC MEDIATOR. The fact that COMPLAINANT has tampered with that evidence, by printing it out in a way that it only shows the addresses of the sender and the receivers, without showing any of the complaint about police, again shows that COMPLAINANT has to deceive the court, to make any of her allegations appear to be valid.
  60. I will be lodging a new application for motion, asking for a change in venue, after making the above discovery just recently.
  61. Also, Magistrate Murray has committed perjury on the bench, on 12 December 2016, in an attempt to cover up for that same collusion between Bradley, COMPLAINANT and her XXXXXX COMPLAINANT 2. I was given the evidence of that while the applications for motion regarding CJC MEDIATOR and COMPLAINANT were still I progress. I believe it is ground to insist once again, that there is no chance of myself receiving a fair hearing at the Albury local court, due to CJC MEDIATOR being a regular employee, and enjoys a close working relationship with the Magistrates.

 

Fortunately for Magistrate Murray, number 61 went over onto one page on its own. So I simply deleted it, from what has been submitted to the court. I might leave it in place for the re-lodging of the document, after I have made a couple of changes to the brief.

Should be allowable, since the court can change decisions, and police can change all the facts, after hearings.

 

I had a thought today about the two emails they showed me at the station. I identified one as being to the Ombudsman and one the NSW Attorney General. But in putting in the emails for the evidence for defence, I see that they were both to the AG. Which means they have showed me a different one on the night, to what they actually charged me with. That should discount another of their false charges against me. However, I have all three to show as exhibits, in court, so the one to the Ombudsman will still be mentioned, and its contents.

 

Minehan p2 editMinehan p3 editMinehan p4

Turns out the evidence submitted to police for this charge, was not supplied to them by the complainant, but by someone else. Very questionable that. Especially since it had been tampered with, and deliberately omits information which is incriminating for Albury Police.

Another interesting point is, that in failing to submit the text of the complaint contained in the emails about Albury police, the arresting officer then fails to prove his allegations that I refer to court staff as ‘fucking wankers’, or even police as being cunstables.

He only proves that I forwarded two emails to the home email address of the court employee, who then forwarded them to her next door neighbour.

 

The police evidence against me, three email addresses. I won’t bother to post the second page of their evidence, it is identical to this one, apart from the time stamp of when it was sent. The diferences are on the second page, the one they don’t submit into evidence. Why? Because they outline unlawful actions by police, in relation to three of the charges bought against me, by CJC mediator’s co-conspirator.

 

Lying cunt po evidence 2 edit

Conspiracy to bring false allegations. I don’t know why the Department of Justice can’t see that is illegal, and criminal charges need to be bought against the complainants, not me.

 

Bradley1

 

Bradley 2

 

Defence Brief for this charge, which will be ignored by any magistrate at the Albury Local Court. Yet when they arranged for one to fly down from Sydney to hear it, the complainant wasn’t game show her face in court, and hasn’t been game to all year.

Defence Brief H6224944 pdf

 

Letter to police, referred to in the above defence statements:

 

24 March 2016

 

Att: Mr E R Quarmby
NSW Police Albury Local Area Command
539 Olive Street
Albury  NSw  2640

 

Mr Quarmby

I was stunned to receive your letter, dated 29 February 2016, trying to accuse me of making false complaints against members of the Albury Police force.

You state that my previous matters were assessed and declined by your Command. This is not correct. You must not have been made aware of the results of the initial investigations into these matters, and which confirmed all of same to be correct and valid.

The fact that your station then failed to address nor rectify any of the matters, does not mean that they were false complaints.

There are also two matters still uninvestigated at all, and which I would have been happy to drop, but in the light of this new harassment from you, I feel they need to be settled once and for all.

The two outstanding issues are that of:

  1. Constable Rowan Weekley’s falsification of evidence and unlawful arrest.
  2. Is Sgt Tim Whimpleman really an employee of Albury Police and its station.

 

The matters which were investigated, and their results are as follows:

  1. Senior Constable Richardson refusing to take me to a private room when I tried to make a complaint about my eldest brother Wayne Burt, and sexual abuse.
  2. Senior Constable told the investigating officer from the Commissioner’s Officer, who was been Superintendent Forrester on that occasion, that there were no interview rooms available and that she had told me so at the time. This is not true. In fact I could easily see one that was empty.
  3. The investigating officer stated that it is usual procedure for a complaint of sexual abuse to be sent to detectives, and that Snr Con Richardson was just following procedure when she said that is what would be the next step. This matter was ultimately referred to Sen Con Scott Trewello.
  4. Snr Con Trewello then refused to investigate the matter;
  5. Firstly by claiming that it would take him approximately two years to investigate, and I could only expect to hear from him once every 6 months or so, as he got around to interviewing each of the witnesses over that period.
  6. After being provided with more written accounts of the assaults, and the names and addresses of all witness, Snr Con Trewello phoned my house again declining to investigate the matter properly.
  7. Snr Con Trewello then tried to turn the situation around, and alleged that I was only making the charge to get even with my family for applying for AVO’s against me. I refuted that claim, and stated that while they were relevant to the matter, it was not in the way that he was trying to imply.
  8. When I would not agree to allow him to cancel the investigation completely, he became agitated and came to my house with another detective and tried again to accuse me of wrong doing. I offered to get a statement of admission from two of the witnesses, being Susan Ward and Janice O’Bryan during the AVO mediation which was scheduled to occur in the following weeks. He agreed to drop the case until that time. Mediation was later cancelled, and I was instead convicted without a hearing.
  9. Mental Health workers from the Accessline managed by the Albury City Council then showed up at my door, immediately following Snr Con Trewello’s departure. I believe he had them waiting out the front, out of sight from my flat. I have a witness who will verify that I was not overly agitated by his visit, and had not been in any kind of state of ill mental health on that day, nor any of the days prior, going back several months.
  10. I went back to the Albury City Council Women’s Sexual Assault Clinic and spoke to one of the women there about a complaint I had started months before, regarding having Wayne Burt charged with sexual assault. She advised that even though I was now being prevented from attending counselling at Betty’s Place, she was still able to help me take the matter to court, via the police. She contacted Snr Con Trewello, who advised her that he had already looked into the matter and would not take it any further.
  11. Snr Con Trewello then phoned me not long after, and advised that he had contacted all of the witness, and they had denied my allegation. I had warned him they might, but that it should not affect my case. He chose not to agree with that, nor question them any further about why they are doing that, when Susan Ward appears to admit to same, in her email to me of 3 November 2015, and which has been presented into evidence at the Albury Court House.
  12. During his investigation into my first complaints, made online to the Commissioner’s Office, Superintendent Forrester stated that he was not aware of the complaint about Con Rowan Weekley. I explained it to him, and he became agitated for no reason and wanted to end the phone conversation. I have not heard from him again, in relation to that matter, however I was later advised that the complaint about Richardson had been dealt with and finalized, the complaint about an officer from Griffith being somehow involved in my case, explained as him being stationed at the Albury Station now, but still using his old credentials, but no mention at all of the Weekley matter.
  13. I lodged my complaint about Con Weekley falsifying evidence and unlawful arrest with the Police Integrity Commission.
  14. They replied that it wasn’t a severe enough offence for them to investigate and directed me to the NSW Ombudsman.
  15. I replied that was an unfortunate decision based on the fact that Albury detectives now seemed to be acting corruptly towards me as well.
  16. They declined to investigate that, and again directed me to the Ombudsman’s Office.
  17. Recently, I sent them a copy of your letter dated 29 February 2016, they appear to have become agitated by that as well.
  18. On the evening of 14 February 2015, and prior to the hearing of the false charges brought against me by Con Weekley by way of false arrest, I received a nuisance phone call from Albury Police Station. I lodged a complaint with the Commissioner’s Office about that.
  19. The officer assigned to investigate, during a phone call to me about the matter, confirmed that he was able to ascertain that the call was made from the station, at 11.56 pm, by a policeman named Angus. He asked me what Angus had said to me, and I replied that he claimed to have been asked to investigate my complaint about Snr Con Richardson. I was surprised, since I was aware that had already been resolved, although later corrupted by actions of Albury Detectives.
  20. Angus had also stated that he had been meaning to call me for a couple of weeks, and this time of night was the first chance he had to do so. He asked if it was convenient for me to discuss the matter with him then and there. I replied that it was. He then stated that he was unable to do anything about it for two weeks, as Snr Con Richardson was going on leave the next day, and he wouldn’t be able to talk to her about it. He stated he would get back to me after he had done so.
  21. Angus had confirmed all of this to the investigator, who confirmed same to me. He offered as an excuse that while the time of night was a bit late, it was still acceptable in both of their opinion. I disagreed.
  22. I again pointed out that I saw Snr Con Richardson the following day, in uniform and on duty at the Albury Court House, when I attended there assuming it was for mediation, and instead realized it was to be fined and punished for Con Weekley’s false and unlawful arrest. I chose to leave, and fail to appear.
  23. I was stunned that this was allowed to happen, when the original complaint had still not been dealt with, and the charge withdrawn by both him and your station.
  24. While preparing my defence of same, at the rescheduled hearing, I became ill and was put on medication and ordered to rest, for fluid on the knees. I am on disability pension for valid medical conditions, and stress and excessive activity inflame all of those. The actions of your staff have contributed this most recent flareup.
  25. I was subsequently unable to attend the hearing, and was convicted and fined in my absence, and two unsubstantiated and disputed AVO’s awarded against me.
  26. I believe that was the result Con Weekley was aiming for, when he came to my home with Snr Con Richardson on the morning of 19 January 2016, and framed me for a breach of the Interim AVO, which was actually an unintentional breach, if anything at all.
  27. I would like you to explain to me why Con Weekley took such an interest in the matters, and sought to affect the outcome of them, prior to needing to do it to cover up his crime in doing so.
  28. If Con Weekley was part of the team who originally served the AVO paperwork onto me, he told me to be in court on the following Monday. His companion seemed surprised at that, and in reading the paperwork could see that I was not listed to appear until two weeks following. However, I spent the weekend preparing a defence and attended court three days later, only to be told that the case was not coming up for weeks. I took the opportunity to lodge a counter AVO application, against Susan Ward.
  29. My application against Susan Ward was dismissed, in light of the false charge of a breach of her Interim AVO against me. This is unfortunate, when she was the only one making threats of violence, and had already come to my premises in the company of Janice O’Bryan with the intention of harming me physically. Janice O’Bryan continued to threaten me in the week following that, via text messages I later lost from my phone.
  30. On the day the AVO for Janice O’Bryan was served on me by unknown officers from Albury Police Station I noticed that the male had his mobile phone in his hand. It occurs to me that he might have recorded the conversation without my consent, and seemingly without my knowledge. Why was that?
  31. I refused to physically accept the AVO, and stated that I had proven my innocence in the evidence lodged at the Albury Court House. If they chose not to consider that, then their resulting AVO had nothing to do with me. I instructed her to leave the document on the doorstep.
  32. When Con Weekley tried to give me a ticket to appear in court for his false and unlawful arrest, in front of my landlady Leonie Kirkwood, I had refused to accept that. He then placed it on the ground near my feet and stated that I had to accept it. I later tore it up, without reading it.
  33. Therefore, none of your documents have ever been properly served on me, apart from the first service of the notice of the AVO applications by Susan Ward and Janice O’Bryan.
  34. I made another complaint to the Commissioner’s Office, via the online portal, upon receipt of and about your letter, dated 29 February 2016, alleging that I have been making false complaints about police and that all were investigated and found to be groundless. You also warn that you might punish me for same, if I do not stop doing it.
  35. It appears to me that all of the harassment and wrong doing has come from your officers and your station, working in cahoots with employees associated with Albury Court House. Therefore you have no right to accuse me of being the one acting badly.
  36. Is Con Weekley routinely assigned to duty at the court house? I have come to assume that Snr Con Richardson is, and therefore this makes the actions of these two police officers even more questionable. I have alleged that an employee of the CJC has been rigging all of this mischief which has gone on behind the scenes, and is trying to have me falsely convicted as a personal favour to her friends and tennant. Therefore, she might have a close working relationship with these two particular officers, and I might be able to prove this connection now.
  37. I contacted the Commissioner’s Office recently, asking to be providing with a copy of the recording of my voice, made at my house in January 2015 by Con Weekley, ready for an appeal of that charge. I reminded them that I had asked for a copy of same shortly after becoming aware of the false charges, bought about by his unlawful arrest. They have failed to respond to that contact at all, and appear not to have passed that message onto your station.
  38. Please advise why you have failed to comply with this request.
  39. I will be asking that the matter be dismissed, due to this issue.
  40. I have made application to the Albury Court House, to have this charge, conviction and fine annulled. I have advised the Commissioner’s Office, and you would have been advised of same by the court house itself. I hope you will co-operate with rectifying this situation instead of inflaming it further.
  41. I have advised the Commissioner’s Office if this matters are not dealt with properly soon, I will mount a civil case against Con Weekley, claiming compensation for false and unlawful arrest and subsequent harassment.
  42. I believe your officers acted in a manner designed to drive me out of town, and fail to appear so that the corrupt AVO applications would not have to be heard, at a time when I have no vehicle and would have lost most of my possessions had I left via public transport.
  43. You have caused these proceedings to draw out longer than they should have, and mediation which might have settled the matters justly, to be cancelled. You have wasted my time and my energy, and caused me illhealth.
  44. I have already mentioned the smirk I had to endure when I ran into my older brother the child molester recently, and which he would not have been able to do to me, had Snr Con Trewello done his job with any amount of integrity.
  45. The nuisance phone call was the final thing which led to my failures to appear, and ultimately then be convicted of crimes I had already demonstrated I was innocent of. I could finally see I was fighting a loosing battle, and then was unable to lodge my final defence.
  46. I have considered moving house, to escape the harassment by police and their frequent visits which I believe are designed to cause distrust between myself and landlady. This would be very inconvenient for me, especially when I am in a very good rental property at the moment.
  47. I have created and published my first book, starting a month after the AVO proceedings were instigated. Over the following 6 weeks I took that book from conception to production, and every triumph I experienced along the way, in having my first book published, was soured by more court appearance or acts of police harassment.
  48. You have been instrumental in having me convicted of a false charge based around a mental illness I do not even have, and a mentally ill outburst of rage I also never had, just when I have published two books about local history, therefore defaming me and my character.
  49. In relation to the issues regarding blogs, the parties who applied for AVO’s against me did so because of a blog I had written about them on the internet. They had no other evidence of any harassment from me. The Interim AVO was imposed, and now I have been fined for breaching what was a legal blog in the first place.
  50. Yet when the applicants themselves then made a blog about me, full of easily proveable lies and slander, you now state that blogging is not illegal, nor a police matter, and should be dealt with only in civil courts. So why did you act against me, and then not against the other party?

In view of all of the above, I think you should reassess your opinion of who has been harassing whom here, and advise your officers to stop it. Then I would have no complaints to make about you, and no claim for compensation from same. I really feel you are pretending to believe these complaints were false, to cover up for corrupt actions by Albury Police, rather than act to end same.

I reserve the right to take all of these matters furthers, if the harassment does not cease, and the false charge withdrawn by police before, or during, Con Weekley’s appearance at the hearing on 11 April 2016.

In literature I was reading a couple of nights ago, it is stated that making a complaint in writing to a police station, makes it harder for them to ignore it, and not to action it.

Please consider this to be a written request that you investigate the matter of unlawful and false arrest of myself, by Con Rowan Weekley in January 2016.

I also make a formal request for the recording made of my voice at my rented property during the false and unlawful arrest, be played at a meeting between yourself, myself and Con Weekley.

I have also posted a copy of this letter to the Mayor’s office, and had already advised them that I am considering taking civil legal action against at least one of your officers.

With sincere disgust
Tracey Burt

List of corrupt Albury Police officers who harassed me on behalf of Con Weekley, for lodging a valid complaint about him, over this charge of breach. All occurred after having sent the above letter to Quarmby.

Supported by all supervisors/superintendents of the Albury Police Station.

Superintendent Evan Quarmby, condoned it all, and threatened me to cover up for his own staff’s illegal and unlawful behaviours and activities.

Constable Rowan Weekely, framed me twice, claiming I confessed to crimes when I did

Officer Angus Longely, made a nuisance phone call to my home at 11.57 pm, on the evening before a hearing. He stated that he could not investigate Snr Con Richardson, because she was going away on holidays the next day. Yet I saw her on duty at the Albury Court House the next day, dressed in full uniform.

Superintendent Forrester. Refused to act on any of those complaints, and pretended he didn’t get the complaint about Weekley at all.

Constable Jasmine Lamont, Charged me a phone call made on 20 January at 11.57pm on 9 April, in an attempt to affect the outcome of the appeal on 11 April 2016. She cites the date of service of the Interim AVO, which made her charge illegal.

Unidentified officer who served the summons to appear in court, in relation to the above charge, at 11.17 pm, 9 weeks before the hearing was due to be held, claiming they came at that time of night because they were very busy lately. Con Weekley later claimed responsibility for this, in his arrest documents, stating that he sent officers to serve it on me as soon as he had finished preparing it.

Con Mary-Anne Walker, charged me for a blog which had not been in breach, until the AVO holder and her sister in law attacked myself there, and which drove the blog into being in breach. For her evidence in court, she provides a copy of the blog, but deliberately omits the 20 pages of abuse from the AVO holders.  Con Walker ignored my advice that the AVO had never been served on me. She refers to that as ‘going off topic’ during our interview. However, she would have been aware that she had no grounds to charge me at all, based on that advice, but did so anyway.

Constable James Evans. I believe he attempted to jail me one weekend, over the blog, but I refused to go to the police station. Interviewed my landlady, and was told I am not mentally ill, pay my rent on time, don’t appear to be on drugs, and have been a great tenant. He was also provided with information concerning the attempted assault on myself by the AVO holders shortly before they applied for them, and that my landlady had read the AVO holder’s sworn statements to the court in relation to that night, and that both were full of lies and untruths. Constable Evans was advised the final order had never been served, but charged me anyway for ‘breaching’ that AVO.

Senior Constable Marc Barber, refused to provide documentation regarding allegations made against in court against myself, by police, and told me to piss off. Then denied that he said it, to Officer Sorenson who pretends he looked into my complaint, and therefore it didn’t happen.

Unidentified officer who sent mental health workers to my door, when I was posting to the blog, ‘Framed in the Local Court by Albury police’. My landlady confirmed to them that I was acting quite normally when she spoke to me 20 minutes before their arrival, and again, that she has never seen or experienced any unstable behaviours in myself. I told the mental health workers to go away and read the blog, and come back the next day if they still thought I was crazy. They didn’t return.

Unidentified officers who delivered another summons at 10.30pm. At least my lights were still on that time, as I was still awake.

Officer Sorenson Nuisance phone call from at 8.15am about utter nonsense. His return call was at 8am the following morning. I ignored that one, forcing him to phone me back at a more reasonable time.

Con Jonathan Minehan, assaulted me, took me for a joy ride in their van, detained me illegally and searched my possessions without advising he would do so, based on another false charge.

Con Mifsud, took part in the assault on myself. Came back the following weekend, with Con Paul Evans, tried to start an argument with me, so they could revoke my bail.

A ‘Sargent’, who also took part in the assault, who’s name I don’t know. Three ‘officers’ assaulting one little old lady. While two of them had me by each arm, the Sargeant grabbed the end of the scarf I was wearing, from behind me, and pulled it tight around my neck. Minehan identifies him as being Snr Con Quiring, but I suspect he is Sargent Stephen Bosch.

Sargent Bosh, wrote on my bail forms that I have an extensive criminal history, and therefore will be sent to jail for emailing the court mediator who perverted the course of justice against me. This is a false claim, easily disproven by their own evidence.