top of page
    • 10 min read

PSA: White Collar Crime - Credit Corp and its lawyers in Australian Courts.

Disclaimer: The information provided below is supported by what transpired in the Sydney District Court and NSW Court of Appeal court proceedings based on court transcripts, affidavits, representations, documents and legal resources (legislation, rules etc). The notice is subject to change and amendments as more information and documents may be made available. Documents can be accessed in the hyperlinks provided.

Odtojan Bryl Lawyers, Ms Odtojan and Mr Bryl have been defamed and framed in the NSW Court of Appeal judgments of Justices Leeming and Kirk (Mr Miles Condon SC case), and Justices Basten and White (Mr Nicolas Ford and Mr Thomas Glynn's cases) where OBL was never mentioned in the limited procedural leave to appeal hearings (approx. 1.5 hour) and where Ms Odtojan's and Mr Bryl's careers have been threatened. The substantial facts, representations recorded in the judgments were not ventilated at the hearing. The justices recorded evidence they created for the defendants (who were not at the court hearings nor did they give any evidence to support the recordings made by the justices in their judgments). The justices have threatened and intimidated a victim and witnesses, who are yet to give evidence and have recorded in their judgments that there is no evidence, disregarding witnesses, the documents put to them and the law including the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW )(EA), in particular, s 91 EA. The Justices were given notice by Ms Odtojan in her Affidavit, in her written submissions and in her emails to the Justices of their conduct of recording facts, representations and evidence which were either not ventilated at the court and/or created by the Judges. Justices Basten and White went as far as applying the Credit Code to a non-existing contract. No contract was before them at the court hearing, yet they refer to the contract in the judgment. 

This is a public interest case of great importance. Notices, correspondences, and reports from 2016 onwards will be made public. 


What is this notice about?​

  • Over a decade of on-going alleged fraud/improprieties by Credit Corp and its lawyers, Mr Carlos Toda of Certus Partners / Piper Alderman, which pertain to indictable offences, administration of justice offences, impersonation of legal practitioners, concealment of criminality/improprieties, corruption, circumvention and contravention of the national credit laws, court rules/processes, which stem from the alleged original act by St George Bank of its non-compliance with the credit laws where it failed to form a credit card contract and provided an unsolicited credit card. The unsolicited penalties alone attract approx. $2.5M under the ASIC Act, payable to the Commonwealth of Australia. This is just one case of many. 

  • For the period of 2016 to date, reports were made to NSW Office of Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC) and Professional Standard Department (PSD) of the Law Society of NSW who systematically closed those reports without investigation of the reported legal practitioners/persons who engaged in acts set out above. Reports were also made to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), to former Attorney General (Mr Mark Speakman) and former NSW Governor-General (Mr David Hurly). Notices were given to Credit Corp CEO Mr Thomas Beregi and Board of Directors of Credit Corp, to St George Bank, Westpac Banking Corporation and more. 

  • Credit Corp and its lawyers Certus Partners (principal Mr Carlos Toda) /Piper Alderman lawyers (partners Ms Anne Freeman and Mr Florian Ammer) had allegedly perpetuated the fraudulent act by St George Bank (STG Bank) relying on false representations of a non-existing credit card contract. STG Bank and Credit Corp letters record 'you are in breach of the contract', a contract they are ware  does not exist. The said lawyers signed and filed a statement of claim in the NSW Local Court recording that Credit Corp has legal rights to make a claim under a credit card agreement, misleading the court of the nature of their claim under a credit contract. No cause of action (the specific terms breached/defaulted under their alleged contract) are pleaded in the claim. See  Credit Corp Mr Carlos Toda statement of claim (SOC) / Credit Corp's Piper Alderman amended SOC 

  • The NSW Local Court proceedings Odtojan ats Credit Corp (2014/00219407) is a Australian case of great public importance as it reveals that there is an alleged established covert unlawful modus operandi by an ASX-listed public company, Credit Corp Group, through its incorporated legal practice, using the court system across Australia, to obtain judgments based on false claims with patterned conduct of pleading credit contract as a mere statement that the contract is the credit card number or credit loan number and where there are no specific terms breached under the alleged contract (cause of action). This case demonstrates the extent of fraud/improprieties that will be committed in the NSW Local Court Sydney, NSW Supreme Court Costs Assessment Process, the NSW District Court and NSW Court of Appeal. Once the judgment is fraudulently obtained, further acts of fraud are perpetuated in order to conceal the original fraud by officers of the court, Credit Corp lawyers Piper Alderman (7 lawyers and paralegals) /Certus Partners (Mr Carlos Toda and Ms Kelly Witts)/ Counsels Mr Sebastian Hartford Davis (Banco Chambers) and Mr James Willis (Eight Selborne Chambers), St George Bank, Westpac Banking Corporation, barrister Mr Nicolas Ford (Edmund Barton Chambers), principal solicitor Mr Thomas Glynn (Glynns Lawyers) and Senior Counsel Mr Miles Condon (New Chambers).

  • Credit Corp, a publicly listed company, with its lawyers has created a modus operandi of in the form of a syndicate enriching themselves by committing systemic acts of fraud against the public who can be individuals/ businesses/ deceased estates etc across Australia, where the said syndicate uses the court system to obtain judgments by making false claims pleading they have legal rights to make claims under credit contracts. By engaging in the said fraud, they avoid and circumvent credit laws and applicable multi-million dollar penalties under the ASIC Act, Australian Consumer Law (ACL), National Credit Protection Act 2009, and National Credit Code). ​

  • The NSW Court of Appeal (NSWCA)  (Justices Leeming, Kirk, Basten, and White) and District Court judges (Judge Norton and Judge Ainslee-Wallace) and Judicial Registrar James Howard have all disregarded evidence/documents and applicable legislation including the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (EA), its sections s 55, s 91 , omitting material facts, issues and/or evidence/documents put before them. 

  • A contempt of court  for past 9 (nine) years in non-compliance with the Notices to Produce and Court orders by Credit Corp/Piper Alderman lawyers/Mr Sebastian Hartford Davis (who signed Notice to Produce dated 17 Dec 2015 which became an order of the court). The notices ordered production of the credit card contract, legal authority, applicable insurance contract/policy and more.  These notices and court orders were raised before the judges in the District Court and NSWCA. The said notices  were disregarded and omitted in their respective judgments. NSWCA Justices created a narrative contrary to what transpired in the Local Court proceedings.

  • The following three proceedings before the NSWDC and NSWCOA pertain to civil tort damages cases against three legal practitioners, a Senior Counsel, barrister and principal solicitor, who are alleged to have committed fraud against their client, their alleged conduct is recorded in their respective statements of claims (see links below), as follows:

  • The above defendants, Mr Ford, Mr Glynn and Senior Counsel Mr Condon, in summary, are alleged to have committed fraud against their client. See the respective claims via above links.​

  • A party to proceedings (a witness and a victim of the alleged fraud/criminality pleaded in her personal civil tort-damages claim), is threatened in court proceedings, for exercising her legitimate civil, legal and constitutional right to make a claim in the NSW District Court against her former legal representatives (who  are above-mentioned), and for exercising her legal right to seek leave to appeal (permission to have leave hearing in the NSWCA) appealing an interlocutory order/judgment by District Court Judge Norton. 

  • The party's career as a legal practitioner, her business (law practice), and her marriage/family has been threatened, implicated, and defamed where such matters (business, legal profession, marriage etc) were not mentioned/ventilated in the procedural leave to appeal hearings nor was it put to the party to answer, yet the NSWCA justices Leeming JA and Kirk JA (Mr Condon SC case), and Basten AJA and White JA (Ford and Glynn case) made such recordings in their respective judgments, by ambush. See below.​​

  • This is a public interest case where there is a denial of access to justice and where judicial officers/officers of the court are alleged to have engaged in conduct which constitutes interference with the administration of justice and which undermines the integrity of the courts and the legal profession. ​​​​

  • Judicial and court officers interfering with the the administration of justice, not limited to the following:​​

    • Judicial Registrar interfered with the prescribed timeframe for defences to be filed and attempted to dismiss the plaintiff's three separate statement of claims against Mr Ford, Mr Glynn and Mr Condon SC before those statements of claims were served on Mr Glynn and Mr Condon SC and before the parties were heard at the first court mention. See District Court Judicial Registrar James Howard

    • Threatening and discrediting witnesses before they can give evidence and where there has been no final hearing. The defendants never attended the court proceedings in the District Court and NSWCOA, nor did they file/give any evidence.

    • A party to proceedings being threatened for exercising her legal and constitutional rights to make a claim against her lawyers who have statutory, legal, fiduciary and contractual obligations to their client.  The client/legal practitioner contractual relationship is disregarded and not recorded in the District Court and NSWCA judgments.

    • Recording facts, representations and evidence, by ambush, in judgments, which were not ventilated in the procedural and leave to appeal hearings and creating narratives and evidence for the benefit of the defendants, where there is no evidence in support.

    • Advocating and giving evidence for the respondents. Recording in judgments, representations and evidence for the defendants where no evidence was given by the respondents, who were not present during the court hearings.

    • Disregarding and/or omitting relevant material facts, issues, documents/evidence, the applicable legislation (credit laws, such as the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (NCCPA), National Credit Code (NCC), and Evidence Act EA).

    • Circumventing and contravening s 91 EA. Determining issues of fact based on the opinion of another judge/judgment. The judges in the District Court and NSWCA have been put on notice of s 91 EA prohibiting reliance on the opinion of a judge in previous proceedings, however, they all proceeded to circumvent and contravene s 91 EA, which is against their judicial duties and against the administration of justice. 

    • Determination of issues of fact/evidence/credit which is beyond the jurisdiction of a procedural/leave to appeal hearings. Such determinations can only be made at a final hearing. 

    • Respondent's lawyers impermissibly giving evidence at the bar table without producing any evidence in support. The judicial officers and Judicial Registrar not addressing the issues when put to them about the respondent's conduct, condoning the respondent's lawyers conduct of misleading the court and not asking them to respond to the issues raised about their conduct nor asking the respondent's counsels to produce evidence in support of their statements made to the court regarding the contract. 

    • Disregarding and omitting side-by-side evidence of respondent's lawyers tampering with court documents. Tampering court documents is an offence under s 317 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

    • Recoding there is no basis /evidence for allegations in the applicant's claims where the Justices did not go through the extensive allegations in the three claims of approximately 25 pages (Condon SC), 40 pages (Mr Glynn) and 50 pages (Mr Ford) and where it is not the jurisdiction of the leave to appeal hearing to address evidence.

    • Wilful omissions in the judgments of the material facts, issues, documents/representations and evidence in support of the plaintiff's claims which was put to the DC Judges and NSWCA Justices in the procedural/leave to appeal hearings.

    • The applicant and her advocate referred to the regulatory body, OLSC, using their profession of legal practitioners against them with their business and livelihood threatened where such matters were not ventilated nor put to the plaintiff /advocate to answer at the limited procedural leave to appeal hearings.

    • A person who makes an accusation intending a person to be the subject of an investigation of an offence, knowing that other person to be innocent is an offence under s 314 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

  • Judges' oath:  'Australian judicial officers take before appointment includes a promise: “[to] do right to all manner of people according to law without fear or favour, affection or ill will” (Steven Rares, What is a quality judiciary? https://www.ajoa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/P04_02_26-Potential-document-on-Australian-Judiciary.pdf  para 26 p28)

  • It is against the administration of justice and against ethical and judicial duties for a judge to record any facts, representations and/or evidence that was not ventilated at the hearing they presided. Neither, can  judge create any narrative, facts nor evidence or record in their judgment matters that are not relevant to the case or go searching for information to use against a party to proceedings to record ad hominem attacks on a party in their judgment. 

  • Any false recording on a legal instrument, a judgment, is a very serious matter, and capable to constitute an administration of justice offence under Part 7 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). 

  • The judicial officer who made such alleged false records on the judgment cannot continue to be in their judicial public office. Judicial officers have made an oath in their appointment to the judiciary, to act with honesty, are to be in good fame and character and to uphold the laws and the administration of justice. The public should never have to doubt the integrity and honesty of a judicial officer. Judges have a positive obligation and must report themselves if they have engaged in conduct that is dishonest and which undermines their judicial duties and integrity of the courts and the administration of justice. They cannot continue to be in judicial positions once they engaged in dishonest conduct. 

  • For the protection of the public and integrity of the courts and legal profession, we call for the said judicial officers to report themselves to authorities and remove themselves from judicial office - where the Judges are fully aware of their conduct which goes against the administration of justice and are alleged to have recorded false facts, representations and created narrative and evidence for the benefit of the defendants, concealing the defendants' alleged fraudulent conduct involving indictable offences. ​

  • Judgments in the District Court and NSWCOA proceedings, uniformly disregarded the evidence/documents in support of the plaintiff's claim, the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), particularly s 91 EA, the credit laws (NCCPA and NCC) and recording facts, representations and evidence not ventilated and/or nor put to the party in the interlocutory/leave to appeal hearings.​

  • The various reports made to legal regulatory bodies, OLSC and Professional Standard Department (PSD) of the Law Society of NSW, not limited to the following, for the period 2016 to 2019.


SEE FULL NOTICE ==> PUBLIC NOTICE.


Disclaimer: The notice is based on what transpired in the NSW District Court, NSWCA and Local Court proceedings in the above-mentioned cases based on court transcripts, court documents, Defendants representations and written documents and advice. The information is subject to change where any corrections, amendments or additional information may be required. For queries, please contact: oblawyers.media@gmail.com

Tags:

Comments

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
  • Facebook Classic
  • LinkedIn App Icon
  • Twitter Classic
  • Google Classic
Follow Us
bottom of page