ANZ 25-01-18

Glenn Thompson. 14 Coutts Street Bulimba QLD 4171

Mobile 040 886 7885    Email  glennt@cvcoupling.com

25^th  January 2018

Mr. Ross Ward

Senior Collections Manager

ANZ Bank.

Concealment of Criminal corruption, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice & Judicial Corruption.

Under instruction from you, by email of 18^th January 2018 Ms Susan Forrest of Gaddens said;

• Our client has requested that you provide it with the supporting documents in respect of your assets and liabilities (as requested in our email of 19 December 2017).  By way of example only, this would include a copy of your latest rates notice.
• Further, you have advised that you would like a period of 6 months to bring the account back into order and then continue to operate it within its limits.  Our client has requested that you provide details of what amounts will be paid and on what dates during the requested 6 month period so that it can properly consider your request.

As detailed below paragraph 2 of that email contains express and implied misrepresentations of fact and circumstance which I cannot and will not be party to or provide credence to.

As you are well aware my proposal of 8^th December 2017 was not that the Bank provide “a period of 6 months to bring my account back into order” per se but was in fact a proposal that the Bank provide me with a six month period during which time, amongst other things, I would seek to address the high crime and corruption which caused my impecuniosity and in particular I would seek to have the Bank provide me with an Authoritative Statement of the corrupt and fraudulent facts and circumstances surrounding the mortgagees sale of my land by the Bank’s subsidiaries MCL/Esanda.

You are also well aware that I anticipated that the provision of such Authoritative Statement could lead to the circumstances where I could bring my account into order or at least that my position was no longer hopeless.

On the face of it you are now seeking to make my proposal and consideration of my proposal appear to be an ordinary commercial request which the Bank can consider on ordinary commercial grounds.

I will not be party to such misleading transformation..

Fortunately I made very careful record of facts and circumstances precedent to my proposal. They include;

• In  October 1989 the ANZ Subsidiaries MCL/Esanda sold my land in overtly fraudulent circumstances known to the then directors, executive, officers of and acting solicitor for those subsidiaries.
• In 2006 Justice Robert Osborn of the Victorian Supreme Court fraudulent fabricated purported Reasons for Judgment which were contrived to conceal and deny the fraudulent circumstances of the Mortgagees sale and thereby conceal the corrupt and criminal conduct of the now Major General Justice Greg  Garde in conspiracy with John Norman Price who was solicitor for the Bank’s subsidiary which conducted the fraudulent mortgagees sale.
• In the period 2007 to 2009 substantial further judicial corruption sought to conceal the entire corrupt chain to those times..
• In 2009 I authored the website http://courtsontrial.com to expose many things including the circumstances of the mortgagees sale and the serial judicial corruption.
• In 2014 at least two supreme court judges, probably Garde and Osborn conspired with one another and with the court security officer Mr. Garry Ryan to maliciously and corruptly intimidate my webhost to have him remove my website from the web.
• In 2014, after the the efforts of the two judges and Garry Ryan failed  the then Victorian Attorney General, Robert Clark, conspired with the Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor , Ian Lee, to fraudulently misrepresent the provisions of the BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 – SCHEDULE 5 and to corruptly intimidate my webhost and his hardware lessor to censor the web by having them remove my website from the web.
• Due to the truth of my allegations neither the corrupt judges or the Attorney General could seek or obtain court orders to restrain me or censor the web so they were unsuccessful and I  then also exposed their corrupt and probably criminal conduct by publishing it on my website.
• Corrupt Courts, Corporations and Government, and probably ANZ,  have a tried and true method of concealing crime and corruption and that includes ignoring essentially voiceless complainants/informants.
• In 2015 I devised a plan to expose the corrupt chain, including serial judicial corruption to that point.  That plan was to have the directors of ANZ Bank do their public duty to authoritatively assist me to expose the fraudulent circumstances of the mortgagees sale after which I would well and truly expose the serial judicial corruption and have at least Osborn and Garde incarcerated.
• To that end I provided the Bank with sufficient unequivocal documentary evidence of the fraudulent circumstances surrounding the mortgagees sale of my land and requested that the Bank and its directors provide an authoritative statement as to the circumstances of and surrounding the mortgagees sale.
• Being cognisant of the probability that the Bank and its directors were also corrupt at least to the extent that they would seek to deny and conceal or at least not admit the corrupt conduct of subsidiaries and executive and officers I was gentle with ANZ and as far as possible limited my request to one which would authoritatively expose the corrupt conduct of the now Major General Justice Greg Garde and John Norman Price and which corrupt conduct the entire justice system, including the Attorney General were seeking to conceal.
• My intention at that time was to be gentle on ANZ and not mention or include the extensive corrupt conduct of the Directors and officers of the Bank’s subsidiaries and to thereby leave the bank and its subsidiaries and officers essentially untarnished and the Bank more inclined to accede to my request
• I was after much larger fish than the minnow Bank subsidiary officers and directors.
• The Bank and its Directors repeatedly refused to do their public duty to assist to expose the crime and corruption related to the subsidiaries and which they had sufficient evidence of.
• By letter dated 3^rd November 2017 I set out that my impecuniosity and consequent default on a loan from the bank were indivisibly linked with the abovementioned conduct and I proposed a without prejudice conference to discuss those indivisibly linked matters.

Ms. Susan Forrest of Gaddens solicitors then arranged a telephone conference for 24^th November 2017 which I understood and was led to believe was to discuss the “indivisibly linked” matters.

My suspicion as to her and ANZ’s disingenuousness  was aroused when Ms Susan Forrest refused to provide the name of the Bank officer who would be attending to authoritatively discuss the “indivisibly linked” matters.

After initial introduction Ms Susan Forrest opened the conference with the bald faced false statement;

• “The purpose of this teleconference  today is as a result of Your request to speak to someone from ANZ in regards to your liability under the loan agreement for which you have received notices of default”

I immediately pointed out to the effect that my request was not as stated by Ms Susan Forrest but was in fact to discuss the “indivisibly linked” matters.

I then observed that you, the collections manager, did not have the authority to discuss the “indivisibly linked” matters.

The telephone conference then continued for one hour and nine minutes during which time I repeatedly told you that my ability to meet my obligations substantially lies with exposing the corruption and that the Bank could assist me and hasten the process by providing an “Authoritative Statement” as requested in my earlier letters.

During that conference the following exchange took place;  (Ross’ words in bold, mine normal)(intermediate comments redacted)

• what do you need from us.
• 6 months
• can you make any payments in that 6 month period.
•  I just told you, right at the moment I can’t eat.     I will not promise what I cannot promise.
• The bank can provide opportunity
•  I will be requiring the Bank to stand up.  — there’s an  endless chain of people who wish to conceal and deny and fail to stand up in respect of crime and corruption and serious errors of law.
•  In 6 months I will progress the matter one way or the other
• what do you see as the timeframe for all of that to play out.
• I reckon if I got something from the Bank — authoritative statement from the Bank then things could occur rapidly – probably in the order of a couple of months.
• If the Bank assisted me with an authoritative statement then things could occur very rapidly.
• I need a proposal from you as to what your resolution is.
• I will need a week or 10 days and what I will be continuing to seek is assistance from the Bank with regard to some authoritative statement.  

Ms Susan Forrest then interjected and said to me;

• Ultimately it a matter for you what you put in the proposal but I  suggest that you do not make the two dependant on each other.

Then in closing the final exchange was;

•  You understand that I cannot promise a damn thing within the 6 months but if I am in a hopeless position at that time I will sell and settle with the Bank.
• well I would like you to document that please.

Then in the exact terms suggested by Ms Susan Forrest I made a written proposal dated 8^th December 2017.

My proposal was;

• That my proposal was without prejudice to and independent from the matters which I say exist between the Bank and myself.
• That the Bank allow me a six month period to bring the account into order.
• If my position was hopeless at that time I will willingly conduct an orderly sale and settle with the Bank.

Notwithstanding your request that I not link the two you and Ms Susan Forrest were both absolutely aware that the six month period was to provide me with time to address the fraud and corruption which led to my impecuniosity, nothing more, nothing less.

I have now received the abovementioned   email and it appears to me that you are purporting to make my request and your consideration of it appear to be an ordinary commercial request and consideration and I will not compromise myself by appearing to accede to such transformation.

As to paragraphs 1 of your email I now claim and assert a contingent asset of perhaps $10,000,000 or much more and that contingent asset depends upon the Bank and its Directors doing their clear public duty as detailed below.

As to paragraph 2 of your email I re-assert my clear statement during the telephone conversation; “I just told you, right at the moment I can’t eat.     I will not promise what I cannot promise“

Your email appears to me to be entirely disingenuous.  Unfortunately I am not surprised.

Upon receiving that email I reviewed my very good  record of the telephone conference and found;

• Susan Forrest said;
  • “the bank understands what you are asking for but the two are not linked in its mind. You have a primary obligation to pay and the things you’re asking ANZ’s assistance for have nothing to do with that liability.”
• You said;
  • “I have made inquiries  and the passage of time has made it difficult to understand anything about this.”  

At the time I considered Ms Susan Forrest’s comment to be nothing more than typical  lawyer double talk which sought to obfuscate and avoid the true issue.

• Manifestly my liability is separate from what I say is the Bank’s duty to stand against crime and corruption known to it and/or readily ascertainable by it.
• In immediate reply to Ms. Forrest I stated the self evident fact that my liability was never an issue it was my ability to meet my liability which  was directly related and which was in issue.

As to your comment about passage of time I merely point out that all of my allegations are founded on the hard copy and flagrantly fraudulent documents which I have provided to the Bank and the effluxion of time does not and cannot render them and the flagrant corruption evinced more or less difficult to understand.

I now suspect that the telephone conference of 24^th November 2017 was a sham and the true intent was to sweep the founding corrupt conduct and the banks refusal to assist under the carpet.

I now choose to fully implicate and expose the corrupt conduct of the contemporary  directors, executive and agents of the Bank’s subsidiaries and to test the true integrity, or lack thereof,  of the Bank and its present  Directors.

In this part I demonstrate that Justice Robert Osborn fraudulently fabricated purported Reasons for Judgment as a direct consequence of the overtly corrupt conduct of MCL Finance  and Esanda and their Directors, officers and agents.

The present Directors of ANZ will stand up and authoritatively assist me to expose this chain of corruption and if they do not I will easily and comprehensively  expose and represent them as tawdry corruption bystanders and unfit for their positions. (Which many people already suspect but cannot explicitly show.)

Known and readily evinced facts;

• On 9^th August 1979 the Victorian Registrar of Titles registered the “Rural Residential” Cluster Subdivision number CS1134,
• In November 1979 I purchased a number of residential allotments within CS1134
• On 10^th March 1981 the timeshare company Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments P/L (“WHRD”) was incorporated.
• In the period December 1981  to 1983 WHRD purchased a number of the CS1134 allotments and became my neighbour entitled to a share of the common property
• In September 1983 WHRD entered into contracts of sale to purchase all of my land.
• In about January 1984 I obtained finance from a firm called “Stateside Credit Corporation”.  That finance was secured by second mortgage over my land.   Australian Guarantee Corporation was first mortgagee.
• That finance was to be repaid upon settlement of the contracts of sale.
• In January 1984 Stateside assigned the mortgages to MCL Finance.
• By mid 1984 WHRD  defaulted on each contract.
• When I attempted to then sell the land on the open market the predecessor to Coliban Water, Kyneton Water Board/Trust fraudulently represented that  pursuant to a water supply agreement WHRD owned and controlled the water supply within CS1134 including to my land and that Water Supply and water dependant building permits were not available for my land.
• That representation was palpably not possible at law and was a  manifestly fraudulent circumstance and misrepresentation.
• Because I could not deal with my land, in 1984 I fell into default with AGC and with MCL.
• From that time both AGC and MCL were well aware of the fraud which was causing my default.
• In 1984 AGC attempted to sell the land by mortgagees auction.
• The Water Authority wrote an unsolicited letter to AGC’s estate agent, L.J. Hooker, and made the palpably fraudulent and impossible at law representations in essentially identical terms as it had made to me.
• Four days prior to the advertised auction Mr Des Roberts of AGC cancelled the auction and made a handwritten note;
  •  “If we are being forced to sell without services mortgagor will probably challenge, they have a right to know why property will probably not attract a bid let alone an adequate price“.
    • (Contrast this with the extensive mercenary malicious and corrupt conduct of MCL/Esanda and Directors, officers and agents as set out below.)
• On 21^st November 1985, the then Member for Whittlesea, Mr. Max McDonald MLA described the morally repugnant, palpably impossible at law fraud and conspiracy in the Victorian Parliament and named each of the fraudsters including WHRD.
• The then Minister for Water, Andrew McCutcheon, instituted inquiry.
• The Water Authority and its solicitors, Maddock Lonie and Chisholm (now Maddocks) devised a tag team further fraud to provide superficial verisimilitude to the water supply agreement and to thereby deceive the Minister for Water.
  • Unbeknown to me the Water Authority fraudulently represented to the Minister that WHRD was “the developer” of CS1134.
  • Maddocks fraudulently represented that the Water Supply Agreement was lawful and enforceable and was an agreement for the supply of water to WHRD ( as developer of the whole subdivision.)
  • By letter dated 7^th October 1986 the solicitor Mr. Ian Lonie advised the Minister for Water;
    • “It appears to us that the question of connection of water to Mr. Thompson’s land is a matter between him and Woodleigh Heights Resort Development Pty. Ltd.
• The fraudulent representations of the Water Authority provided superficial verisimilitude to Lonie’s morally repugnant, impossible at law, fraudulent representations.
• Those authoritatively made but palpably false and impossible in fact and law representations were seemingly uncaringly and ignorantly accepted by the Minister.    The Minister and his department then washed their hands.
• By that time I had paid out AGC and MCL was first mortgagor.
• By late 1987 I had been in default with MCL for some three and half years and MCL and its officers and solicitors were intimately aware of all aspects of the fraud and conspiracy and MCL could not exercise its power of mortgagees auction for the exact same reasons as expressed in the handwritten notes of AGC’s  Mr Des Roberts.
• In 1987 and 1988 MCL and its officers and solicitor, Mr John Norman Price conspired with one another and with WHRD and devised a scheme to conceal the fraud,  pervert the course of justice and make the Water Supply Agreement appear lawful and legitimate and thereby knowingly perpetuate the fraud
• The components of that scheme which became known to me at that time are expressly set out and implied in my very extensive,  22 page plus extensive attachments,  letter to Mr. Ian Ferris, Chairman of Directors of MCL and dated 11^th July 1988
• My  letter set out all of the foregoing dot points and the following critical things;
  • In 1987 the Kyneton Council refused permits for WHRD to sell some of its timeshare intended land for ordinary residential purpose.
  • WHRD wished to appeal to the then Planning Appeals Tribunal.
  • At that time WHRD was hoisted on its own petard.  There was no lawful water supply available to the allotments which it wished to sell.
  • At that time, with the knowledge and consent and connivance of MCL and its officers and secretly from me, John Norman Price became solicitor for the fraudster WHRD for the purpose of representing WHRD at the planning appeal
  • At that time I was regularly required to report to John Norman Price.
  • In November 1979, while unaware that Price was also solicitor for WHRD I reported to Price that I had learned of an appeal to the Tribunal and that I intended to appear and make submissions as to the fraudulent and illegal nature of the Water Supply Agreement.
  • By franked mail dated 11^th December 1987 John Norman Price for MCL served a Supreme Court Writ seeking orders for possession of my land. (I continue to hold the original envelope).
  • There was no legitimate purpose for such orders, the land was vacant, unusable and unsaleable and MCL had no intention of offering it for sale and could not offer it for sale.
  • I attended the Court on 23^rd December 1987 to file notice of appearance in opposition to that Writ.
  • On that day I learned that John Norman Price had sworn a false affidavit stating that the Writ was served by mail dated 9^th December and that relying on that affidavit the Court had made default judgment on 22^Nd December 1987.
  • On that same day, 23^rd December 1987, I fortuitously learned that Price was solicitor acting for the fraudster WHRD.   Price refused to confirm or deny that fact.
  • After Christmas, in early January 1988 I contacted Mr. Des Smyth of MCL and informed him of the palpable and irreconcilable conflict of interest and that Price could not act in the interest of both MCL and the known fraudster WHRD.
  • Des Smyth then arranged a meeting at the offices of MCL between himself,  myself and John Price and a number of other MCL officers one of whom I recollect to be a Mr. Miller.
  • At that meeting;
    • I fully explained the obvious conflict of interest and the palpably fraudulent nature of the Water Supply Agreement and that Price could not represent the interest of both MCL and WHRD.
    • Price bald faced asserted that he was representing the interest of my land and MCL by acting for WHRD in that planning appeal.
    • Without reasons or explanation MCL asserted there was no conflict of interest and that it and WHRD had each consented to Price acting for both MCL and WHRD.
    • I then re-asserted my intention to appear at the Tribunal Hearing and set out the unlawful and fraudulent nature and use of the Water Supply Agreement.
  • (I now also have a copy of a letter dated 28^th January 1991 from Mr. David Brahe of solicitors Gair & Brahe to the Victorian Law institute wherein Mr. Brahe asserts)(Price was solicitor with Gair & Brahe)