You are on page 1of 5

Dear Mr Pakula,

In regard to your email below, can you please provide us with an update.

Furthermore, as you are aware the Courts have a division designated to handling such complaints
against judges and judicial members, (please see here:, however to date no response has been made
whatsoever from this division in regard to our complaint, hence why your involvement and intervention
is understandably needed.
Scepticism has grown when we discover that this division is actually run potentially by the very same
judicial members who may be involved in the complaint itself or obviously their colleagues, thus
certainly and ironically lacks impartiality and fair-mindedness, and hence potentially why no response
has been made to date.
Chief Justice Ms Warren has been clearly notified about this, and it is rather unacceptable for her to
be ignoring it.

Please note, we have sent 3 emails following up on our complaint on - 14 April 2016, 4 May 2016 and
14 June 2016, and yet as mentioned not a single reply whatsoever has been made.

Essentially Mr Pakula we are seeking the following to occur, based upon the unsatisfactory handling
of our matter

1. A retrial (with a jury) on the basis that:

a. judges who presided over our matter had substantial financial interests with the NAB (please see
supporting transcripts attached) who ethically ought to have recused themselves, especially when a
self-represented litigant is involved against a bank, and had actually protested about it. There are a
very clear precedents for what ought to be done and seen to be done when judicial members have
relationship or interests with a party in litigation, but regardless of such authorities and precedents, it
is simply a matter of ethics and integrity, and it puts our judicial system into disrepute when such
basic moral fundamentals are ignored or devalued. We really dont need a precedent or an authority
to tell us that judges who have a relationship to a party in litigation (especially a financial one) should
not be sitting on those cases do we!?
For your interest we conducted our own public survey as well and the results are clear. Judges
should have NO financial interests in our banks when residing over banking matters!
Please see survey results attached.
b. Pro Bono Barrister Paul Hayes, that was assigned by the court under the VBPBS (Victorian Bar
Pro Bono Scheme) at the last moment to address our matter, has confirmed categorically that the
judges (J.Whelan & J.Santamaria) were WRONG! - in establishing that he had expressly
abandoned the pinnacle ground to this case.
Please see attached their judgement, and Paul Hayess submissions proclaiming that the Judges
were wrong!.

We simply want a fair hearing (i.e. with a jury, community members, not bank shareholding judicial
members) to determine:

a. whether NAB breached the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. S83 and the
ACL (as we still do not have a clear determination on this ground) and therefore our
house returnedor rather now fair remuneration of our losses suffered. This is a very
relevant precedent that needs to be made in our era where debt and banking conduct
is under intense examination, it is certainly of public importance as you can
b. the consequences for NAB and their counsel - Mr Adam Segal, falsifying evidence &
statements in trial in order to affect judgment in their favour. See attached trial
transcript excerpt for your perusal.
(i.e. NAB pronouncing that we did not pay them in order to save our house, as per
their deed) when it was determined by the courts that we did in fact pay them, and
therefore a clear undeniable perjurious offence.
You see Mr Pakula the controversy here is the bank itself pronounced in trial that
their deed was available to us and therefore we merely just needed to pay them the
sum of $299,000 to save our home by the 15 April 2013. We paid the NAB the sum of
$299,000 on 20 March 2013 (Please see copy of bank cheque attached), almost a
month earlier, which now the judiciary confirms.
However the judiciary shockingly sidestepped around this and established that Mr
Hayes (our pro bono barrister) for some bizarre reason expressly abandoned this
critical ground, which proved without doubt that NAB did lie in court, and furthermore
the deed was available as NAB themselves stated on 20 March 2013.
And interestingly enough J.Whelan even pronounced at the commencement of the
hearing that this whole case is all about whether the NAB deed was still available at
20 March 2013 because clearly we had paid them on that date.
Please see attached that transcript excerpt.
So what does the judiciary have to say for themselves when the bank itself
proclaims in trial that their deed was available at 20 March 2013?
We know they received payment on that date, so what it is going on here?

We are certain that if these 2 matters are put before community members (a jury) to make a decision,
that a more factual and diligent one will be made in our favour as it rightfully should.
However quite simply the judiciary are stopping this from occurring.
Mr Pakula you can establish quite quickly and logically, that it is rather obvious that it would no doubt
solidify that NAB and their counsel committed perjury in trial, by submitting that no payment was ever
made, and the judiciary certainly cant have a self-litigant being successful against a bank and their
equally sized conglomerate law firm Gadens for such a serious offence.
It is certainly embarrassing, so instead we will establish that the ground was abandoned by the pro
bono barrister!?

As it is right now we are left with judgments that express the following in regard to the 2 final core
reaming matters -

1. NABs conduct in regard to their payout notice was unsatisfactory

(negligent) in many ways, but they didnt do it deliberately, thus not
[Mr.Cosgrave [2014] VCC 48 7 February 2014 Para. 70 & 71]
[Mr.Whelan & Mr.Santamaria [2014] VSCA 159 30 July 2015 Para. 75

2. Paul Hayes abandoned the void & severable ground which was to
bring to light that NAB gave false evidence in trial, and most
importantly had confirmed that their deed was available
and therefore payment was made and ALL that was required from us
to save our house.
[Mr.Whelan & Mr.Santamaria [2014] VSCA 159 30 July 2015 Para. 7 & ]

So misapplication &/or avoidance & evasion in point (1) and complete abandonment in point (2) is
what we have been provided from the judiciary to be considered a job well down in ensuring all
elements and grounds were thorough litigated and determined. So Evasion & Abandonment is what
the judiciary has produced for us?
The way this case and matter has been handled by the judiciary clearly has been inadequate and
unacceptable, and we urge for your intervention Mr Pakula so these mishaps are appropriately
Please appreciate Mr Pakula that 9 pro bono barristers were drawn into this case, and as per the
VBPBS rules they will only take on cases if there are overwhelming merits, clear and factual evidence
and of some public relevance. Clearly these criteria were firmly ticked.

Unfortunately however a culmination of fiscal retainer constraints within the VBPBS, mixed in with the
misconduct or misunderstandings or inappropriateness of the judiciary and/or case handling, we are
left with losing our house, livelihoods and overall health and wellbeing.
Justice should not be a cunning game played amongst legal practitioners, or overly rigid and tightly
constraint protocol which prevents the truth from prevailing, nor should it be only proffered to the
but it seems to be the situation that is bouncing around our courtrooms.

Clearly what we have been left with is not justice, in anyones view, and we ask that you please use
your position to ethically and morally address this matter with Chief Justice Ms Warren &/or the
appropriate Senators or authorities in order to have this rectified.
It does not take too much effort or resource to establish that there has been some serious judicial
mishaps in this matter when all the evidence and issue are associated totally to in-court conduct. That
of itself ought to certainly raise serious concern, that our grievance is not about just being unhappy
about decisions by our judiciary, but rather the conduct, avoidance and evasion of matters that almost
strategically barricaded the truth from succeeding relating to in-court conduct, and it is only
reasonable to have it rectified. We can assure Mr Pakula that if a jury made a determination on the
above remaining grounds, as opposed to misapplication and abandonment, we would be satisfied
with that whatever that decision is.
And that is what this complaint is about - The in-court conduct that buried/sidestepped the truth and
prevented honest justice from occurring.
Mr Pakula this isnt just about our case, but what it represents systemically and communally and we
urge for your immediate attention.

Please let us know if you need further clarification on anything outlined.

Thank you.



From: []

Sent: Tuesday, 14 June 2016 1:06 PM
To: Elliot Sgargetta
Subject: Re: Complaint - The Judiciary gave NAB our house based on perjury and false

Good Afternoon
I write to acknowledge receipt of your email to the Attorney-General, the Hon Martin Pakula
Your correspondence is currently being considered.

Kind Regards
Office of the Hon Martin Pakula MP
Attorney-General and Minister for Racing
Level 26, 121 Exhibition Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
PH: 03 8684 1111 E:
The content of this e-mail and any attachments may be private and confidential, intended
only for use of the individual or entity named. If you are not the intended recipient of this
message you must not read, forward, print, copy, disclose, use or store in any way the
information this e-mail or any attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or

destroy all copies of this e-mail and any attachments.

Our organisation respects the privacy of individuals. For a copy of our privacy policy please
go to our website or contact us.