THE COURT CASE 

We are the Cristian family, Fiona, Arthur, Jasmin, Emma, Frances and a baby due late February 2007. In March 2001 we bought a beach house on the northern tip of Jervis Bay, in a village called Currarong on the South Coast of New South Wales, Australia. Fiona now owns the house.

We lived in the house for around 18 months before Jasmin started school and have spent other extended periods there. We moved away from the area due to schooling concerns and, since then, we have rented the house out on a short-term holiday rental basis. Our website is www.theelements.cc, if you would like to see the house.  

Fiona is not liable for any capital gains tax or land tax and her home is not an investment property. Neither Fiona nor Arthur own or have any interest in any other property, private or commercial. 

During the course of 2005, Fiona decided to renovate the downstairs part of the beach house to extend the holiday rental possibilities and to have somewhere family could live in the future, while still renting out upstairs. Through a broker, we investigated various refinancing options before settling on a Line Of Credit from Macquarie Mortgages (part of Macquarie Bank).  

From July 27^th to August 25^th we received three line of credit approval documents from the bank and these confirmations encouraged us to sign the loan contract with the experienced Macquarie Mortgages (MM) broker as witness. The day we received and signed the loan contract was the first time we became aware that the actual lender was Perpetual Limited (PL) and not MM. 

Bank staff, knowing we had seven weeks to complete renovations, caused two unexpected delayed settlements, the first for unknown reasons and the second due to house valuation expiring. Settlement finally occurred on 19^th September 2005. Delayed settlements made it impossible to pay local trades-people on time causing loss of manpower and setting back the completion date by three weeks. Knowing we could not complete renovations on time, we tidied up outside of beach house and vacated the job-site. Fiona incurred huge losses. 

It wasn’t until our first interest payment was due in November 2005 that we found a problem; Fiona’s bank account was debited for an amount over $1200.00 more than expected. After speaking to the bank we discovered that they had issued us with the wrong product/contract, exchanging the line of credit agreed upon for a principal and interest home loan at a higher interest rate, a completely different product that we had previously rejected. We ordered a box of apples and they delivered oranges. We made it clear that we were not prepared to validate this fraudulent and misleading contract and would not make any payments until the correct contract was issued. 

Bank staff admitted the problem and agreed to fix it. We kept contacting bank staff who kept admitting there was a problem but continued to do nothing about it for six months, bar offering twice to amend the contract to an interest only home loan at “our request” (we made no such request as we still wanted a line of credit). They then organised private contractors to change the locks on the house without prior warning, as their solicitors sent a letter to an address we had not used for nearly five months, even though we had been receiving other bank correspondence at our new address. Holiday tenants were left locked out, forcing us to find and pay for alternative accommodation for them, late in the evening. The bank trespassed, broke and entered Fiona’s home and caused damages without having a court order for a writ of possession nor being in the company of a Sheriff as required by law.  

With help from contacts outraged by the actions of the bank, we reclaimed the house four weeks later by changing the locks. Less than two weeks later, one of these helpers, a well-known anti-bank campaigner was shot through the hip and tortured for one and a half hours in his home by two masked men. He and his wife, both in their seventies, were hog-tied, gagged and left helpless. The culprits have still not been found. This event upset us greatly but left us more determined to fight for justice.

After being served a Statement of Claim for Possession in the Common Law Court by PL in July 2006, we have ended up in the Supreme Court of NSW, fighting for Fiona’s home, which the bank intends on stealing from Fiona, through no fault of our own.  

Our journey through the courts has been a huge learning experience, as we became self-litigants after our one and only legal representation, condoned fraud on the part of the banks and refused to act according to our best interests. Even with all the evidence at hand, solicitor Paul Kean from Macedonie Christie Willis ignored legal remedies we later found in current law books such as Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Mercantile Law), Unconscionable Conduct (Contract Review Act), Tort of Deceit (Tort Law) and Section 36 (1) of the Consumer Credit Code.  

Of all the remedies available, Paul Kean could only find one, hesitantly at that, under Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act. Paul Kean also disclosed Fiona’s sensitive personal financial information to the plaintiff’s lawyers without her approval or instructions, as well as not acting on instructions we gave him, so we immediately dropped Macedonie Christie Willis to save ourselves from ruin. We realised that lawyers on both sides of the fence will gang up to protect banks similar to the mafia protecting their business interests, quietly amongst themselves.  

Fiona then applied for legal aid and was rejected on appeal, on the grounds that legal aid is not available for investment properties.  

We then applied to the NSW Bar Association for a pro bono barrister. On the 10^th October 2006, Arthur chatted with pro bono barrister Richard Killalea. After listening to our story Richard said, “The bank gave you the money, didn’t they? Have you been disadvantaged by the bank giving you the money? Regardless of the banks stuff up with the contract, you drew down their money, didn’t you? The Supreme Court Judge will see your case that way. The bank is running a commercial operation and it is a business and the banks charges are part of the business and these costs, You Will Have To Pay!” 

Each time Arthur tried explaining circumstances, Richard would immediately interject saying, “Stop confusing the issue, Stop beating around the bush. We are dealing with real issues here and keep just to the facts. Stop drifting off looking for avenues.”  

We had to let go of the Pro Bono Barrister because we strongly felt that he was also protecting the banks and was trying very hard to convince us to accept their law. This was when the penny finally dropped and we realised we were completely on our own, ostracized from their law. If it weren’t for men like Joe Bryant and John Wilson who have helped us immensely, we would have been lost in a legal system far stranger than any weird planet encountered on Star Trek.  

To summarize a long series of court visits up to 29.01.07, following are the main events: on 15/11/06, Justice Hidden ignored unarguable evidence of fraud and ordered a writ of possession without determining the family’s cross claim (that the contract was invalid and void). He also said that the case was still continuing (interlocutory). On 05/12/06, Registrar Howe ignored two notices of motion for a stay on the writ of possession and on the 14.12.06 he dismissed them, despite Arthur (acting as Power of Attorney for Fiona) insisting repeatedly that he had evidence to prove that the bank had conducted fraud and that the matter needed to go before a judge. Registrar Howe refused. We were stunned. 

On 22/12/06, Justice Beasley, of the Court of Appeal, admitted there was a problem with the bank’s contract, acknowledging the contract and the cross claim had not been determined by Justice hidden, and then made an offer of inducement, a conditional stay on the writ if all outstanding interest were paid. Arthur accused her of being got at by the bank.  

On a few occasions Arthur told her that she was trying to blackmail him and refused her offer of inducement, which would only validate the contract, protect the bank and establish a precedent. Justice Beasley then offered legal assistance for a pro bono lawyer and barrister to represent Fiona, paid by the state government. Arthur also refused this offer, saying he felt he could do a much better job for the defendant than any other lawyer or barrister in the country.

On 21/12/06, Justice Simpson and again on 19/01/07, Justice McDougall, ignored all evidence, bulldozed ahead and refused to issue stays on the writ. The Supreme Court issued the writ on 08.01.07 and the Sheriffs have been instructed to take possession of the family’s home from 20.02.07, even though the writ has not been sitting in the sheriff’s office for 21 days as ordered by Justice Hidden.

During the case, we realised that both the MM approval documents and PL contract were created and signed (computer signature) by James Angus, Manager Operations for MM and Authorised Officer for PL. If he is real, James Angus is the only other party to the contract and the one who made the switch, yet he has never appeared in court or provided an affidavit.

Throughout our court case, we have been dealing with third parties who have nothing to do with the negotiations, agreement or the formation of the contract. The bank organised a 3^rd party contract altering squad to continue the deception on its behalf in court. Some of those members and supporters are Gerard Thomas Breen and Gary Koning of Dibbs Abbott Stillman Lawyers and Barrister Stephen Mark Golledge.

Along the way, bewildered by the rapid escalation of a seemingly simple problem with a seemingly simple solution (issue a new contract), we have been learning about the financial system, the legal system, and the way Australia is governed. We have discovered that private corporations run Australia and that these private corporations will protect one another to the detriment of justice, fairness, equality and freedom for all citizens.

We thought our problem would be easy to fix but the bank wouldn’t sort it out. We thought the courts would sort it out but we discovered that they are a private corporation only interested in protecting another private corporation.

We thought barristers and lawyers would sort it out but we discovered that many of them are private corporations too, and not interested in taking on a bank.

A question finally dawned on us, “What is it that the bank, the solicitors, the barrister, the registrar and the judges are trying so hard to protect?” 

And along came our answer. THE CREDIT RIVER CASE