Summary of argument in support of an application for special leave to appeal from the full court of the Federal Court 271/2001 heard 5^th November 2001 delivered Sydney 9^th November 2001.

PART 1 - SPECIAL LEAVE QUESTIONS

Question 1: Did the Full Court err in its decision in saying that no basis in fraud existed, when there was clear uncontradicted evidence of instances of fraudulent and unconscionable conduct over a long period of time.

The documents in Volumes Exhibits 1 to 4 (before Beaumont J) and in Exhibits B1 to B60, C1 to C35, D1 to D21 and E1 to E4 and in a further volume exhibited before Madjwick J in answer to purported requests for particulars. 

All these documents proved inter-alia:

1. the Commonwealth Bank of Australia used created credit outside the Reserve Bank guidelines and has pursued those who gave evidence to the banking inquiry relentlessly, on these issues; and

2. Politicians, judges, law enforcement officers and lawyers have all sworn an oath to act on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s behalf which they have clearly failed to uphold. Her Majesty swore the Coronation Oath on June 2^nd 1953. A part of the coronation oath is:

Archbishop to Queen Elizabeth II: ‘Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgements … and in particular in relation to Australia.’ 
Queen Elizabeth II replies: ‘I will.’

The judgment of the Full Court clearly establishes that as a proposition:

1. It is not a crime to apparently forge signatures e.g. cut and paste;

2. It is not a crime to alter documents;

3. It is not a crime to change account numbers from a private investment account to a company account which are two separate legal identities without the victims knowledge then deny knowledge of same until it suits C.B.A. to transfer commercial bills (on C.B.A.’s counsel advice transfer $750,000-00 from company to Rigg before litigation);

4. It is not a crime to open a No. 2 Account in the Rigg’s company without their knowledge or authority. The bank statement for the No. 2 Account was sent to the Rigg’s by ‘mistake’;

5. It is not a crime for bank staff and bank lawyers to swear false affidavits false statements and commit apparent perjury in trying to cover up;

6. It is not a crime to apply troublesome interest at 25% then backdate troublesome interest and not to send bank statements and no advice to Riggs (over $500.000-00);

7. It is not a crime to withhold evidence on subpoena or on a notice to produce repeatedly;

8. It is not a crime to give apparently false evidence under oath;

9. It is not a crime to charge shadow ledgers without the victims knowledge (over $500,000-00). This document on shadow ledgers was sent to our lawyers while we were in litigation, we had no prior knowledge of shadow ledgers. Shadow ledgers are a deliberate fraud on the Commonwealth and each and every taxpayer and the Riggs in particular;

LC Anderson, a C.B.A. lawyer, signed this document and also signed a letter to the Sheriff to have the Riggs evicted from their home;

10. It is not a crime to sell foreign currency loans, Swiss Franc loans or simulated foreign currency loans. These loans were promoted by the Commonwealth Bank Treasury at seminars, however, the funds did not exist and were created with no financial backing. Not one dollar of foreign indebtedness was incurred. C.B.A. then used the falling Australian dollar to increase interest rates to their victims. It was a contractual pretense (the loans were created). Swiss bankers have confirmed that no Swiss Francs came into Australia and they were prepared to give evidence at the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration (Reference: Australian Banking Industry) in 1990 – 1991 (‘the 1991 Inquiry’). Mr Rigg addressed this matter to the 1991 Inquiry in his verbal evidence and his submission of 1700 pages. To date, the 1991 Inquiry has only released 334 pages of Mr Rigg’s submission Volume 13. Mr Rigg wrote to the House of Representatives asking for a copy of C.B.A.’s reply to his submission. The House of Representatives replied stating that C.B.A. had asked that their reply be held commercial in confidence. The 1991 Inquiry was, however, a public inquiry. Mr Rigg has never been able to get a copy of C.B.A.’s reply even under subpoena why?;

A comment from a Swiss banker which is in Hansard ‘the bank officers in Australia who enticed Australian business people and farmers into Swiss loans in 1984 to 1986 are nothing short of criminals and should be in gaol.’ Senator Paul McLean addressed this matter in the Senate when he tabled approximately 80 cases of bank malpractice including Tony Rigg’s case history and the Rigg Incident. This evidence was filed in the federal court;

11. It is not a crime to sell victims properties to C.B.A. or receivers mates at fire/sale rates for example a private treaty sale. Stephen Henderson Rogers of LJ Hookers, Nowra (K Davey is the licensee of LJ Hookers, Nowra.) assisted in the private sale of our factory complex by arranging a sale to Zenix Pty Ltd. Mr Rogers admitted under cross examination that there was no ‘for sale’ sign on the factory and it was not advertised for sale. Mr Rogers admitted in the Supreme Court of NSW that LJ Hooker staff at Nowra are family friends of the purchaser (Zenix directors are J & M Gray) of the Rigg’s factory complex and that their daughter worked for C.B.A. as secretary to the C.B.A. manager.

At inception, C.B.A. valued the Rigg’s factory complex in 1986 for $1.3 million dollars then sold it in 1994 for $725,000-00 to Zenix Pty Ltd.

Our home was sold to S & N Gould by Scott Baxter of Ray White Real Estate, Nowra, in conjunction with LJ Hookers Rural Office, Sydney (at fire sale prices).

C.B.A. valued the Rigg’s home in 1986 at $180,000-00 and sold to S & N Gould for $187,000-00 in 2000. We do not know how it was sold as we have again been denied discovery. C.B.A. then leased the Rigg’s home from S & N Gould with a C.B.A. manager now the tenanting the Rigg’s home;

12. It is not a crime to destroy healthy businesses that would have been of great benefit to the community at large and to earn export dollars. Mr Rogers, LJ Hookers, Nowra, assisted in the destruction of the Rigg’s business when the sheriff evicted the Rigg’s from their factory. The sheriff handed the property to Mr Rogers on C.B.A.’s instructions. Dick Markwell Locksmiths changed the locks on the factory;

13. It is not a crime to destroy the Rigg’s healthy business that was not in default and had the financial support from Austrade and BHP and other companies for exports (defrauding the Commonwealth). This is in evidence and in Hansard.

Evidence given to the 1991 Inquiry and to the Supreme Court action by Austrade, BHP, Shoalhaven City Council and others show that the Rigg’s company was a market leader in it’s field of expertise. The Rigg’s could have built hospitals and houses for third world nations, with the help of the United Nations, and had 10,000 homes to build in Malaysia. BHP and Austrade paid for advertising throughout South Eastern Asia. Many Australian companies would have supplied expertise and materials in support of these actions. With all this expertise, the Rigg’s company could have assisted the rebuilding of East Timor;

14. It is not a crime to force victims onto welfare when those victims would have been self supporting and would have assisted with creating jobs for the unemployed;

15. It is not apparently a crime for courts to deny full and open discovery;

16. It is not apparently a crime for courts, to strike out subpoenas issued by the court;

17. It is not a crime for law enforcement agencies (officers of the crown) to turn a blind eye to these crimes.

Senator Stone read a letter into Hansard from DN Sanders, former Managing Director of C.B.A., which mislead the Senate, the Court of Appeal NSW and the people as it was not the truth;

18. It is not a crime to sell commercial bills and not present them for payment to the victim or not to sell them on the open money market and apparently forge the victims signature on the bill of $750,000-00 (see Tony Rigg case history in Hansard) This is contrary to the Bills of Exchange Act;

19. It is not a crime to act contrary to the Reserve Bank Act which states ‘it must be good for Australia and Australians’;

20. It is not a crime to have victims arrested and charged with a crime when the victim did not commit a crime and was then found guilty;

21. It is not a crime for Receivers of Rents to act in dereliction of duty. Mr Rogers of LJ Hookers was appointed as Receiver of Rents by C.B.A. C.B.A.’s Memorandum to Mortgage T340042 clearly states ‘the receivers are responsible to the mortgagor.’ The Rigg’s did not know of the existence of this Memorandum to Mortgage until they were in litigation. C.B.A. used this document against the Riggs. Although C.B.A. appointed Mr Rogers, he has never given the Riggs any documentation or informed them of defaulting tenants, the lapsing of leases or the sale of the factory premises to his mates. Mr Jones, C.B.A. lawyer, phoned our former solicitor Mr A Broad saying C.B.A. had accepted an offer of $725,000-00 for the factory complex;

22. It is not a crime for real estate agents to arrange private treaty sales of victims properties to their mates at fire sale prices (refer to no. 21);

23. It is not a crime for Mr DF Alston, a senior C.B.A. manager in Nowra, to demand an additional $80,000-00 to settle (extortion) after the agreement had been signed. Mr DF Alston’s name appears on the troublesome interest documents. The Riggs were to pay C.B.A. $980,000-00 in two installments in 1990 but the Riggs could not pay this amount in the time frame because of the Receiver of Rents dereliction of duty. C.B.A. then evicted the Riggs and sold the factory complex in 1994 for $725,000-00. C.B.A. valued the factory complex in 1986 at $1.3 million dollars. The Riggs had to sign a public apology written by a C.B.A. lawyer Mr RG Matthews saying that the Rigg’s lawyers had seen the banks files and that there was no fraud (this is not true).

The Rigg’s lawyers had not seen all of the C.B.A.’s files and even today cannot get the evidence ten years later. The public apology appeared in the local papers of the South Coast Register and the Nowra News. The Riggs were prepared to go along with this and get on with their lives but did not realise that C.B.A. would set them up again;

24. It is not a crime for C.B.A. lawyers not to produce documents, especially when they are officers of the Commonwealth under section 75(v) of the Australian Constitution Act 1901 (Imp);

25. It is not a crime to charge compound interest to victims (see Tony Rigg Case History in Senate Hansard);

26. It is not a crime for judges claiming to ‘act on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II and the Coronation Oath to hand down judgments against the laws of the land and against the Queen’s wishes.’ A quote from the Coronation Oath is: 

Archbishop to Queen Elizabeth II: ‘Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgements.’

The Queen answers: ‘I will’;

27. It is not a crime to commit crimes against humanity, shatter lives, steal properties, cause suicides with the protection from authorities and without fear of prosecution (e.g. Parliament, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Federal Police, Australian Securities and Investment Commission, State Police, State & Federal Attorney-Generals, State and Federal Ministers for Justice, State and Federal Directors for Public Prosecution, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the National Crime Authority, the Reserve Bank, the Australian Tax Office and others). All of these agencies were asked to act with all refusing.

It is a waste of time going to law enforcement agencies, when you are a victim of bank crime in Australia?

28. It is not a crime to charge nearly 50% interest when the victims sign a contract to pay 6% to 7% interest (usury?);

29. It is not a crime for C.B.A. to sell a victims home at a firesale price then C.B.A. lease the victims home and have a C.B.A. bank manager live in the victims home. Is Keech v Sandford (1726) as referred to in Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178 no longer applicable law in Australia?;

30. It is not a crime to bankrupt victims on forged documents;

31. It is not a crime to force victims to live in rented accommodation after being asset-stripped and to live below the poverty line;

32. It is not a crime to use the sheriff to evict C.B.A. victims from their factories and homes based on forged documents;

33. It is not a crime to inflate debts by troublesome interest, backdating troublesome interest, shadow ledgers, compound interest to deliberately mislead the court and give false testimony for tax benefits to C.B.A. and without providing proof of debt to the victim.

We cannot get evidence and we still do not have the bank statements, despite the Senate Inquiry of 2000 by Senator Chapman into Bank Statements and Shadow Ledgers. We still do not have disclosure on how this bank reached its figure on the alleged indebtedness.

34. It is not a crime to put a healthy company into liquidation by forged documents. Price Waterhouse were the liquidators who corresponded with C.B.A. lawyers;

35. It is not a crime to have Mr Rigg arrested in a public carpark and charged under the Enclosed Lands Act. The property was not enclosed and Mr Rigg has an all grounds appeal in place;

36. It is not a crime for a C.B.A. lawyer Mr J Lanser to have a subpoena struck out by the magistrate before Mr Rigg’s trial in a criminal matter, telling the court the documents sought were irrelevant;

37. It is not a crime for a magistrate to change the date of the trial and say Mr Rigg has to pay for new subpoenas although subpoenas had already been paid for and served by Mr Rigg; and

38. It is not a crime for the police officer to change his story in the witness box under oath (perjury) so Mr Rigg would be found guilty and the magistrate saying that Mr Rigg should have known where the boundary was. The property was not enclosed and the magistrate refused to allow Mr Rigg to use Hansard in his defense. 

Mr Rigg was standing outside the District Court in Nowra with his brother after the Court was closed talking to Snr Constable Nicholson, the officer that arrested Mr Rigg. C.B.A. bank manager Mr J Griffith then emerged from the closed court sometime later.

1 to 38 are all contrary to the Commonwealth Crimes Act but are also in breach of the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1994 as in effect in 2001.

Officers of the crown have apparently abandoned their oaths of office and abdicated their positions of office.

We believe this was a deliberate asset-stripping operation by C.B.A. (see no.9) deliberately undermining the economy of Australia when C.B.A. was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Federal Government.

Mr Rigg wrote to Queen Elizabeth II and received a reply from Her Majesty’s Private Secretary saying that the letter had been sent to the Governor-General of Australia (at the time Sir William Deane). Mr Rigg received a reply from the Governor-General saying that the letter had been forwarded to the Treasurer and that he would reply direct to Mr Rigg. That was in February 2001. To date there is no reply. Mr Rigg wrote twice to the Treasurer asking for a reply to his letter. Mr Rigg wrote to the Prime Minister John Howard seeking his help in getting a reply from the Treasurer but also to date no reply either from the Prime Minister or the Treasurer has been forthcoming.

Mr Rigg sent further evidence to the Queen about corruption in C.B.A.. Mr Rigg received a reply from Mrs Deborah Bean, Chief Correspondent Officer for Buckingham Palace on 17^th October 2001 stating that the documents had been forwarded the same day to the Governor-General of Australia Dr Peter Hollingworth. Mr Rigg has not yet received a reply from the Governor –General.

Consistent with that we were refused trial by jury by this court, no reason was given other than inconvenience. Is it because juries would not be sympathetic to banks?

We have been refused legal aid as have nearly all bank victims in Australia and have without hardly any available funds attempted to fight on.

And yet despite all these matters being in evidence before the Full Court of the Federal Court, in effect they said that there was no evidence of fraud nor can we find any basis to say the primary judge was wrong and we can find no basis for going behind the judgment.

The transcript of the appeal discloses that the thinking of this court (by questions to counsel) was in effect, even if there was a history of malpractice, it doesn’t matter because you apparently borrowed the money, that’s your fault, if you didn’t repay. The fraud commenced the day the Riggs signed the contract in June 1985.

Question 2: Did the Parliament of Australia by passing the Evidence Act 1995 section 187(1) repeal or impliedly repeal the provisions of the Federal Court Rules that the bank relied on to demand particulars.

In the light of this courts decision in:

Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1994) 178 CLR 477 and the subsequent provision under 187(1) of the Evidence Act 1995.

It is submitted that the failure of the full court to even consider the issue was an error of law. the clear intent of the respondent bank was to avoid the production of original documents which would have proved serious misconduct by that entity.

It was a weak excuse that was put by counsel for C.B.A. and adopted by the primary judge to say the request by subpoena to the bank was incomprehensible. That was demonstrably incorrect. What is even more important ,when it is considered the majority of the actions by the bank and its officers (including the Managing Director (DN Sanders) were officers and servants of the Commonwealth pursuant to section 75(v) of the Australian Constitution Act 1901 (Imp) and this was the Australian Government’s bank (Bryce v Curtis (1983) 51 FLR 73.

Question 3: Were the applicants denied the right to a fair trial by the failure of the Full Court to recognise there had been this long and bitter conflict with a history of denial to critical documents or inspection of original documents, in the light of established fraudulent conduct as set out under question 1 and in particular Commonwealth Bank v Quade & Ors (1991) 178 CLR 134.

It is important to remember that it was an allegation of fraud, simply solved by the production (in the court if necessary) of the original so called bill, said to have been initialed by Mrs Rigg (not signed?) being held in the record centre at Minto. If the respondents hands were really clean….?

Question 4: Why should the court in considering trial by jury under the Federal Court Act, in the absence of express exclusion of that right by parliament not recognise that mere administrative inconvenience is not a sufficient reason to exclude applicants particularly when bank fraud or serious misconduct is in issue?

Section 3 of the Supreme Court Procedures 1900 (NSW) and other states inter-alia ‘in any action … trial by jury … can only be waived by consent.’

Further, section 30 of the Acts Interpretation Act states ‘the amendment or repeal of any act or statutory rule does not effect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act or statutory rule.’

PART II - BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

1. as summarised by primary judge; and
2. as attached by exhibit N7676/2000 (three pages).

PART III - BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANTS ARGUMENT.

We have set out under the four questions in issue the statement we wish to put in relation to each issue.

PART IV - REASONS WHY SPECIAL LEAVE SHOULD BE GRANTED.

1. The proper construction of the powers of the Federal Court Act are in issue;

2. Equally the power to order particulars under the Federal Court Act and Rules are in issue, when bank fraud or serious misconduct, in light of legislative change;

3. The issue of jury trial under the Bankruptcy Act; and

4. To determine the questions set out in ‘special leave questions’.

PART V - COSTS THE ISSUES ARE OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE IN THE LIGHT OF INCREASING PUBLIC CONCERN OVER BANKING ISSUES.

PART VI - REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.

The applicants wish to supplement this submission with oral argument.

Signed

Anthony Thomas Rigg and Dorothy Anne Rigg

List of Authorities

Keech v Sandford (1726) as referred to in Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178

Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1994) 178 CLR 477

Bryce v Curtis (1983) 51 FLR 73