AEJIS LEGAL

Aejis Legal Report
on the representation of Warren Russ - Process Server
by "Aejis Legal" lawyers in Brisbane

CATCHPHRASES: lies to the court, lies incorporated into judgement, fabricated evidence, fraud on the court, security for costs when defence is futile, when security for costs used to stifle the plaintiffs claim in circumstances of a futile defence, wasted time of the courts.

Queensland Licensing Prefer Warren's Lies
Queensland Courts Prefer His Lawyer's Lies

1.
Complaints to Queensland Industry Licensing Unit at Office of Fair Trading about this wayward Process Server were an absolute waste of time. I found them to be totally inept and useless, because they fall over themselves to believe the serial lies of this Process Server and Evidence Fabricator, that they have licensed to operate in Queensland.  So in November 2017 the matter resulted in a CLAIM being filed in the District Court in Maroochydore Queensland against Warren Nigel Russ (Process Server) - Queensland License No. 1103122 and his company Commercial & Process Services Australia Pty Ltd.
2.
This is a recent and factual Court Report regarding how the Queensland Courts protect this Process Server who, totally without lawful authority, trespassed multiple times including sneaking around inside our private fenced property at night, illegally breaking and entering into the property and the dwelling on the property, and illegally taking possession of property at the behest of my ex-Trustee in Bankruptcy (I was made bankrupt after losing a legal attempt to shut down a family of online crooks) and the Trustee's firm of negligent Solicitors, who eventually sold the property without the consent of the beneficial owner (my wife).
3.
My wife and I are aged pensioners and we acted for ourselves in suing the  Trustee. At mediation the Trustee did provide substantial compensation to my wife. I received no compensation because I was not a beneficial owner, but merely a tenant. While I was being unlawfully evicted from my tenancy of the property back in September 2015, I made it absolutely clear to this Process Server that I would be suing him should I find the grounds. He ignored my warning and continued with his illegal activities.
4.
I have found substantial grounds, so now that suing him has come about he cries poor and sees fit to have his lawyer Scott Argles of Aejis Legal in Brisbane (ARGLES) mislead the District Court on 29 March 2019 by way of a collection of lies initiated by this Process Server, who also happens to swear to false content in his affidavit to the Court. The effect of these lies then follow on to the Supreme Court of Appeal, all while he and his lawyer fail to comply with a Court Order made over a year ago, not to mention the wilful failure to comply with the Rules of the Court.
5.
Ironically the Process Server has technically admitted in his defence pleadings (that he drafted himself), the very facts that his lawyer misled the Court about.

More on this is at Queensland Law Report...

A POTENTIAL AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW  FACTOR OF THIS SAGA
6.
It is a fact (probably much to their dislike), that lawyers are subject to the provisions of Australian Consumer Law (ACL) - Application of Australian Consumer Law to Lawyers. Along with their duty not to mislead the Court, section 18(1) of the ACL (which is part of the federal Competition and Consumer Act) simply states that: “A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive”.
7.
To make section section 18(1) actionable, there has to be a loss caused by the prohibited conduct. That loss was caused by the costs orders against me as set out above.
8.
A lawyer's paramount duty is to the Court and the administration of justice, not to the lawyer's client. The only facts that a lawyer can put to the Court are either uncontroversial/publicly known, agreed/unchallenged, or the ones which they submit the court should accept (i.e those in dispute) and there must be evidence available to support these alleged facts.
9.
Facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim that are admitted as per the TABLE are not in dispute, and by the failure of the Defendants to comply for over a year, with Court ordered particulars regarding their alleged lawful entry to the property, strongly suggests that there are no particulars in existence to support lawful entry.
10.
As such SCOTT ARGLES and his firm of AEJIS LEGAL (who also claim to offer "trusted experience" in Trade & Commerce (and who also operate AEJIS MIGRATION with targeted service to China, Hong Kong and Taiwan)), need to explain how the Court has not been misled to my detriment, and explain why I shouldn't file the matter in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Federal Court of Australia.



LIES more LIES & FABRICATED EVIDENCE & FRAUD:

Fabricating Evidence > section 126 CRIMINAL CODE QLD.
Pleadings are formal court documents that serve to give notice of the nature of the claim and defence being litigated.
Summary Judgment is a mechanism for deciding cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that a trial is unnecessary.
Application for Summary Judgement was based on the Defence pleadings not disclosing a reasonable defence.
And that it was reasonable to assume, that ARGLES did not want to amend those pleadings by ignoring an invitation to do so.
Summary Judgment will not be achieved if there are issues of fact or law to investigate, in such a case, the matter should go to trial.
The substantial avoidance in the Defence pleadings created multiple deemed admissions, thereby not disclosing any issues of fact or law.
So without a mandate from the Court to withdraw the deemed admissions pursuant to Rule 188, ARGLES introduced his LIES.
FABRICATED EVIDENCE is not an issue for trial, and attempting to portray it as an issue, is ATTEMPTED FRAUD on the COURT.

On the basis that the Defence (as amended in June 2018) did not disclose anything other than being futile, by emailed letter dated 1 March 2019, AEJIS LEGAL and SCOTT ARGLES lawyer/solicitor  were given notice of an intention to apply for Summary Judgement, and an invitation was extended to them for the Defence to be further amended because of its state of hopelessness.

It was also offered to amicably settle this matter by way of mediation so as to save legal fees of the Defendants. That notice, invitation and offer was essentially ignored apart for an offer of 1,000 dollars from Christian Moore proprietor at AEJIS LEGAL to settle the matter. That offer was declined and an Application was subsequently made to the District Court for a Summary Judgement regarding Declarations based on the state of the Defence pleading that contained a substantial amount of avoidance creating deemed admissions, and being somewhat unintelligible. At the hearing on 29 March 2019, and without warning, written & oral LIES were provided to the Court via ARGLES submissions regarding the state of the Defence to a judge that was clearly pressed for time. Those submissions were not in accordance with the Defence document as it was then, and as it currently is now (January 2020), but unfortunately they were accepted by the Judge thus causing unreasonable and plainly unjust orders and it appears, his Honour may have pre-judged me to be "querulous" or having potential "schizophrenia", as is recorded below. At the time of the hearing and since then, ARGLES has made no application for leave to withdraw the deemed admissions in order to amend the Defence to be competent and adequately particularised, so as to accommodate the following LIES he made to the Court on 29 March 2019 in order to create fictitious issues of dispute that were in fact not pleaded, which resulted in the costs order against me, which arguably enlivens section 18 of the ACL, and a potential for the order to have been obtained fraudulently. Probably irrelevant to a matter of fraud or section 18, the High Court has recently curtailed the immunity to prosecution relating to lawyers > A shock to lawyers’ immune systems.

GOOGLE SEARCH


THE SUMMARY OF THE FOLLOWING LIES, are not only lies in fact, they are also lies because they do not represent the state of the Defence pleadings at any time within the period between November 2017 and January 2020. As to the FABRICATED EVIDENCE, the transcript shows that it was brought to the attention of his Honour Judge Cash DCJ QC. However his Honour chose to address the matter by making a warning about such a claim unsupported by evidence. Having only received the fabricated evidence at around 7pm the evening before the hearing, I was hardly in a position to collate and provide that evidence. This provides an example of myself being required to provide evidence, while the bullshit produced by ARGLES was readily accepted without evidence, given that it was not in accordance with his client's Defence pleading.
1. LIE > “The Defendants have not admitted the allegations of the Plaintiff referred to in paragraph 1 of the application”
On 29 March 2019 in the District Court ARGLES knew full well that the Defendants had in fact technically admitted those allegations because of a failing:
• to plead to the Statement of Claim allegations in their Defence pleading; and
• thus pursuant to UCPR 166(1) the allegations were adopted as admitted by way of the Plaintiff's Reply, see yellow cells in the TABLE; and
• the Defendants had failed to comply with UCPR 296(2), and depose any response to the allegations; and
• the Defendants had not made application to the Court for leave to withdraw their admissions pursuant to UCPR 188, subsequent to being invited to do so on 1 March 2019.
Authority on amending pleadings is set out by the High Court in: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 see 111 to 113.
2. LIE > “Service of the documents at the property were effected pursuant to the legal requirements in statute”
A Court Order on 31 August 2018 to provide particulars of lawful entry to the property, and lawful entry pursuant to the Statutory Rules of Entry, have never been complied with, which ARGLES was well aware of.
3. LIE > “The tenancy at the property were [sic], it is submitted, lawfully terminated under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008”
ARGLES was well aware there had been no termination, which was deemed admitted in the Defence pleading, see yellow cells in the TABLE.
4. LIE > “A person ought not seek damages for the same alleged loss twice”
I received no damages from the Trustee, and ARGLES was well aware of this and the fact that my wife had received the compensation that he was referring to.
RED HERRING - Damages were not in issue, because the summary judgement application was for declarations not damages.
5. FABRICATED EVIDENCE > “There were items left in the backyard and “humpy”, some distance away from the house, but in my view they had no commercial value”, contained within the Second Defendant's self-serving affidavit sworn 28 March 2019 at paragraph 18, which can be found in the following Dropbox location. It is noted that the Process Server's photos in his affidavit, so as to further a FALSE claim that the property had been abandoned, SELECTIVELY OMITTED photos of the items under the house and in the backyard which included 2 x 6 metre Shipping Containers.
Given the fact that there were numerous (approximately 45), personal items of value underneath the high-set house and in the backyard which included 2 x 6 metre shipping containers to which the Process Server had locked by affixing high tensile padlocks, no sane person could possibly reach a conclusion of "no commercial value", or be innocently mistaken as to the value, and ARGLES who has since been served with my affidavit of substantiation (1.8Mb), must currently be aware that his client's affidavit is potentially fabricated.
6. AND on 19 June 2019 in the Appeal Court :
LIE > “There were items in the backyard and “humpy”, some distance away from the house, which had no commercial value”, ARGLES adopted as fact, the fabricated evidence contained within the Second Defendant's self-serving affidavit sworn 28 March 2019.
Given the fact that there were numerous (approximately 45), personal items of value underneath the high-set house and in the backyard which included 2 x 6 metre shipping containers to which the Process Server had locked by affixing high tensile padlocks, no sane person could possibly reach a conclusion of "no commercial value", or agree with that conclusion, after having been served with my affidavit of substantiation (1.8Mb).
AND ARGLES did not correct the matters at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
7. AND on 6 December 2019 in the District Court :
LIE > “There were items in the backyard and “humpy”, some distance away from the house, which had no commercial value”, ARGLES adopted as fact, the fabricated evidence contained within the Second Defendant's self-serving affidavit sworn 28 March 2019.
Given the fact that there were numerous (approximately 45), personal items of value underneath the high-set house and in the backyard which included 2 x 6 metre shipping containers to which the Process Server had locked by affixing high tensile padlocks, no sane person could possibly reach a conclusion of "no commercial value", or agree with that conclusion, after having been served with my affidavit of substantiation (1.8Mb).
AND ARGLES did not correct the matters at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
8. • As a result of the LIES & FABRICATED EVIDENCE taking me by surprise thus affecting my ability to respond, and the failure of ARGLES to comply with UCPR 296(2), the Court was misled on 29 March (as reflected in the Judgement), and my summary judgement application for declarations was dismissed and I suffered a costs order.
• So any future application in 2020 pursuant to UCPR 188 for leave to withdraw admissions, should be subject to a costs credit to me.
9. Instead of LIES & FABRICATED EVIDENCE, ARGLES could have taken the proper approach regarding amending the Defence, as set out in the Appeal Court by his Honour Justice Jackson at paragraphs 26 and 27 of Green & Ors v Pearson [2014] QCA 110. However ARGLES did not do that but instead, preferred the delinquent route that he took. And at paragraph 23 of that Authority, his Honour provides an example of the workings of "Deemed Admissions", and along with consideration of the merits of a defence, at 54 it is shown that the appropriate order in such circumstances is "Costs in the Cause", not costs due and payable now, which is what I am blessed with.
10. THE WASHUP IS CLEAR. LIES & FABRICATED EVIDENCE is being used to facilitate delay in the proceeding so that ARGLES and the Defendants can knobble the proceedings by way of an order for Security for Costs for $43,000 that they know I cannot pay. They know that they have no realistic defence, and that Security is the only weapon in their amoury, which in my view is another lawyer's dirty trick, because LIES & FABRICATED EVIDENCE is being used to facilitate it. And the Courts... well from my perspective it appears that they are turning a blind eye to get me out of their system.

THE FABRICATED EVIDENCE & LIES ARE CURRENTLY BEFORE THE HIGH COURT
High Court Report

MORE IS UNDERWAY it's an ongoing project... 
  Need a similar activist website, or any bespoke website?
  Fully Responsive Design for Desktop, iPad and Mobile Viewing.
  From AU$250 + Domain registration.
  Includes 1 year FREE hosting   CONTACT GORDON 

MORE UNDERWAY :
1. “Service of the documents at the property were effected pursuant to the legal requirements in statute”
LIE - A Court Order on 31 August 2018 to provide particulars of lawful entry, has never been complied with.
2. “The tenancy at the property was lawfully terminated under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008”
LIE - There was no termination, which is deemed admitted in the Defence pleading.
3. “A person ought not seek damages for the same alleged loss twice”
LIE - I received no damages from the Trustee, which the lawyer was well aware of.
4. “The Plaintiff is obliged to indemnify the Trustee pursuant to their settlement, which it is submitted would extend to damages under these proceedings, which make these proceedings otiose”
LIE -The Settlement Deed does not include any such indemnity.
5. “The Plaintiff is obliged to indemnify the Trustee pursuant to their settlement, which it is submitted would extend to damages under these proceedings, which make these proceedings otiose”
LIE -The Settlement Deed does not include any such indemnity.
1. Cash had the Plaintiff’s Applications before him that would substantially bring the litigation to a conclusion.
2. Instead of hearing the Plaintiff’s Applications Cash decides to hear an Application for Security for Costs by Defendants on the basis of 2 previous costs orders against the Plaintiff.
3. The first of those costs orders, was for $5,138.76 costs which was made by a Cash decision (the CASH DECISION).
4. The Second of those costs orders was from a failed appeal of the Cash decision and where the amount of costs had not been demanded from the Plaintiff.
5. That failed Appeal is now the subject of an Application to the High Court regarding Justice Philippides ignored the Plaintiffs argument in a two and a half page judgement which took all of 4 months and ten days to prepare.
6. One of the Plaintiff’s Applications that Cash refused to hear were based on the errors of Cash in the CASH DECISION and a Supreme Court authority that said that Cash was in error to award the $5,138.76 costs in the first place because of the requirements for Natural Justice.
7. I refer to State of Qld v Nixon and Ors [2002] QSC 296 at [7], regarding a summary judgement application, where Muir J found :
“Because of considerations such as these, costs of summary judgment applications are something reserved or made the parties’ costs in the cause."
AND at [9] :
“The defendants further submit that there were other grounds relied on by them to resist the application and that the merits of those grounds were not fully ventilated on the hearing. The merits of those grounds were not immediately apparent, hence the emphasis on the natural justice point. In those circumstances, it is desirable that the question of costs await the outcome of the proceedings. Accordingly, I propose to order that the costs of and incidental to the application for summary judgment be reserved.”
8. So in effect Cash was to deliberate on a Security application based on his costs order that should have not been made according to the Authority relating to the exercise of Natural Justice.
9.
10.