ORDINARY SUMMONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN ... - Love for Life

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. The Appellantseek Orders granting leave to appeal from the wholedecision oI Justice William NICHOIAS of the Equity Division of the SupremeCourt of New South Wales.3. The ADpellant further seek Orders tor the immediate stay of the Ordersmade on the th June 2007 by the Equity Division ol the Supreme Court olNew South Wales.4. That the Costs of the appeal be paid by the Opponents.By reasons ol pre- judgment and other conduct since 7'" oJ June 2007NOCHOLAS J. was seeking to intimidate the Appellant and her family,and on 8th June 2007 his Honour acted in a biased manner and ignoredauthorities and relevant evidential documents and denied the Appellantsprocedural lairness by not granting sufficientime to the Appellantoprepare her case, which included evidence of Fraud on the part ol theResDondent Corporation which has obtained orders from the SupremeCourt to take possession of a property owned by the Appellant)2.3.4.5.On 8rh June 2007, Justice NICHOLAS relused to allow the Appellant toread submissions, which provided evidence of the Fraud which theRespondent has perpetrated upon the Appellant since 25 August 2005and upon the Court since 14 July 200€On th June 2007, Justice NICHOLAS ignored the submissions made bythe Appellant in Jull disregard of the civil rights ol the Appellant and of theUN Treaty Against Corruption in force in Australia since 6 January 2006.Justice NICHOLAS prevented the Appellant from a full investigation of afraudulent contract which the Respondent alleges gives it the right to sellthe property located at 40 Warrain Crescent, CURRARONG NSW.The Respondent, by reasons of lraud perpetrated upon the Appellantand upon the Court, cannot be assisted by the Courts to maintain theJraud and to continue to damage the Appellant, and the Courts cannotmake legal, illegal acts.The Appellant has civil rights pursuantPart5, 14, 16,25, ottheInternational Covenant on Civiland Polilical Rights, and the Courtscannot deprive the Appellants of those rights.
:7.8.on the 12rh June 2007 Justice Nicholas made orders to remove aregistered caveat lodged by a party (Mr Pedro Alfaro) who was not aptrty to these proceedings and who has a charge on the propertysince 27'n August 2006.Justice Nicholas without giving procedural faimess and without asummons issued to the r;gistered caveator'Mr Pedro Alfaro', and inhis absenc€, made the orders in favour of the respondent forlheremoval of the caveat, which constitutes a violation of civil rights andhis actions amounts to the violations of the Australian Treaty againstcorruDtion, in force in Ausfal,a since the 6n January 2006'On the 'l4s June 2OO7 the caveator discovered by chance that JusticeNicholas had made orders to remove Mr Alfaro's caveat Also' MrAlfaro attended the duty judge of the Equity Court, Justice Nicholas-,*and Mr Alfaro requesied an urgent stay of the orders made on the12"'June 2OO7 by Justice Nicholas, and his honour stated that Mr Alfarohad to ftle a iummons and should advice the other party of theproceedings before he would deal with this matter.The respondent has brought the caveator Mr Alfaro who is not a partyto the p;oceedings and has never been a party to these.proceedings'into the proceedings without advising him and without his consent'The resDondent with malicious intentions to damage and to sell theappellants property has made fraudulent documents in thesepioceedings in a combined conspiracy with Justice Nicholas10. The actions of Justice Nicholas fur$er amounts to bias and tocollusion and corruption in a combination to assisthe respondent andin concealment offraudulent mortgage upon which the applicant wasdeceived into signing the fraudulenl contract, upon which therespondent now alleges the righto the sale of the property.11. On the 14s June 2007, Justice Nicholas indicated that he was awarethat the resDondenl was seeking settlement of the appellar{s propertyon the 12h June 2OO7 and this why the respondent was seeking anorder to remove Mr Alfaro s caveat so that the respondent could settlewith another purchaser on the same day 12n June 2007
Page 1: Form 59RuleORDINARY SUMMONS FOR LEA
Page 5: APPELLANTFamily nameGiven nameAddre

ORDINARY SUMMONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN ... - Love for Life

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?