ALECOMM

"Banker's Lies, Crime and Suicide"

Details

Category: Uncategorised

Created: Tuesday, 30 July 2013 08:42

Written by John A Salmon

WOULD YOU PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THE ENCLOSED LETTER WIDELY OF RETIRED BANKER JOHN A. SALMON TO THE UNRESPONDING JUDGE THOMAS, AND REASONS FOR PUBLISHING THE DOCUMENT?

 After writing the book “BANKER’S LIES, CRIME & SUICIDE” while in jail after being corruptly destroyed financially by the criminality of an evil bank, I have now published this book through Amazon and Kindle. As a well experienced and long standing bank-victim who has spent sixty years working hard and injuriously to produce food and fibre for our nation and to accumulate a few million in assets—to be down-sized to a state of an impecunious-Centerlink-recipient by the treacherous bastardry of the three equally evil predominance’s of present day society—being POLITICIANS; LEGAL /JUDICIARY; and the most evil of all, the central-bank usury KAZARIAN-ASHKENAZISM. After serving six months of a BANK MANIPULATED TRUMPED-UP two year sentence handed down by the malicious Justice Manus Boyce—three Appeal Justices unanimously found me not guilty, but scathingly condemned Boyce as having “erred” (fu.ked-up) on five counts in his directions to his illegitimately reduced eleven person jury.

Then again, I look around and see what the THREE evils have accomplished in their objective of removing the Australian people’s social, wealth and property rights in my lifetime. They have reduced my peers in agricultural industries in numbers by 50%, and those who remain to an all time record debt burden of $70 billion; they have reduced those of the unsubsidised manufacturing fraternity to impoverishment and almost nonexistence; they have allowed much of the superannuation wealth of the people to abscond through the frivolous hands of the yuppie (young urban professional) to treat and invest experimentally and often delinquently; and almost worst of all, have treacherously removed the peoples Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900 and deceivingly replaced its common-law with their corporatized Australian Constitution and civil-law abomination. Their culpability for this treason should be lifetime imprisonment.

Worst of all, this evil treasonous-trio has succumbed to the international financial dominance of the central banking Kazarian-Ashkenazim and have unilaterally mortgaged the entire Australian land mass and its people to the  U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission of Washington USA, Registration No: (0000805157), as collateral to support the usurious US$ 1.2 trillion of created-cost-free borrowed encumbrance placed upon the Australian people. In addition to our people enslavement, these evils have created a strangulation of global debt being US$ 135 trillion, and this is in addition to the $600 trillion global DERIVATIVES debt—wilful acts of treason—outrageous criminality that should be punished with a death sentence—not by an air breathing life in prison.    

I, Colin Uebergang, the sole Director of SUN PUBLISHING PTY LTD, feel duty bound to publish the enclosed portion of a 16 page letter sent to a retired Supreme Court justice in the public interest. I also feel entitled to do so, as I have personally experienced the evil intentional malevolence of the fractional reserve banking fraternity who have been allowed to intentionally conceal and conduct their fraud with the collusive self-serving intent of the Fabian politicians and malevolent judiciary—all of which has occurred without a justifiable word from the retired and gutless senior banking executives—bar ONE—John Salmon.          I hold 15,000 pages of documented evidence to support all allegations made.

After experiencing the financial destruction and social humiliation of myself and family by the corrupt systems mentioned, and after reading countless court transcripts relating to the similar malevolent treatment of other, books such as “THE WEB of DEBT” by Ellen H. Brown, and more recently reading the           “THREE CROOKED KINGS” by Matthew Condon, and the expressively explicit “LOVE LETTERS FROM the BAR TABLE” by Shane Dowling, also the latest release “THE SLIDING SCALE of JUSTICE in QUEENSLAND” byProfessor Evan Jones; I believe I have legitimate entitlement to divulge the enclosed document which has been signed-off by John A. Salmon, addressed to retired supreme court Judge J.B. Thomas, and hereby published in the public interest, as it is obvious corruption reigns rampant in the judicial systems of Queensland, a system which is pompously administered by the profligate — Chief Justice de Jersey.

I have known John Alfred Salmon since 1992. His reputation as an honest person is well known. I met John because of his past banking experience, being employed by the National Australia Banking for thirty six years. Over the twenty years of our association, I have spent many hours engaged in discussions relating to the malevolent behaviour of banks in general along with their incestuously collusive relationship with senior members of the Queensland judiciary.

In more recent times John has directed me to documents from the public domain which have demonstrated demonstratively the criminality that has taken place in the banking and legal system of Queensland, all of which points to the trespass of property and social rights by politicians of all party persuasions.

However, at no time has John Salmon provided me with sensitive documents requesting me to publish them in any form. I have made the sole decision to do so with documents sourced from existing published files in the public interest.

However, because of the critical nature of the information, I made the decision to release the information to the public in order to inform them of the professional criminality which is occurring within the Queensland judicial system.

In order to reduce the possibility of being accused of scandalising the judiciary,  I take a first-mover initiative of quoting and levelling the judiciary, in particularly Chief Justice de Jersey, with corrupt practices upon the people of Queensland and because of my legal obligation and elegance to the Commonwealth Australia Constitution 1900 (UK) and the Crimes Act of 1914; the latter of which, states in Part 11 Offences;

               Section 24 Treason; (2);

         A person who:

(a)      receives or assists another person who is, to his knowledge, guilty of treason in order to enable him to escape punishment; or

(b)      knowing that a person intends to commit treason, does not give information thereof with all reasonable dispatch to a constable or use other reasonable endeavours to prevent the commission of the offence; shall be guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life.

24 AA Treachery:

(1)      A person shall not:

(a)    Do any act or thing with intent:

(b)    To overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or

(c)     sabotage;  

Penalty: Imprisonment for 15 years.

(The politicians and the legal fraternity have committed all the above crimes)

All efforts should be made by the recipients of the following information to have the mainstream media do their responsible public duty and inform the people of this professional malevolence.

Colin Uebergang

Director: Sun Publishing Pty. Ltd.       ACN: 102912210

24^th July 2013     This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY AS A MATTER OF NATIONAL URGENCY

THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXTRACTS FROM A SIXTEEN PAGE LETTER SENT TO MR JAMES B. THOMAS—A RETIRED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ON THE 24 FEBRUARY 2012.

Mr James B Thomas

2 Stratford Street

MOGGILL

Q‘LAND 4070

24 February 2012

Dear Mr Thomas

As soon as I became aware (per courtesy ‘Earsay’ column in the Courier Mail on 17 October 2011) that you had authored a book titled, ‘An Almost Forgotten World, Jim Thomas’s Memoirs’, I automatically felt compelled to address you on certain judicial administration matters (after I had read your book). That need has been fulfilled, especially so since Des Houghton’s Courier Mail Insight article of 24 December 2011.

Mr Thomas, as a strong supporter of the judiciary who has become very much disillusioned by events of recent years, I am heartened by the tone and content of your book.

Your view that justice should prevail for all people contrasts markedly with the conduct of our Courts in many proceedings that I have attended and observed, reviewed or been a party to, over the past 20+ years. I see, in your book a gleam of light at the end of the tunnel, insofar as the concept of real “justice for all” is concerned.

Your role as presiding judge in a particular Queensland Court of Appeal hearing (recital below) has been brought to the fore by the publication of your book I am also aware that you have published three editions of “Judicial Ethics in Australia” and I have read the second edition of that tome.

Since my retirement have advised numerous small business clients – usually victims of bank “sting” operations involved in bank litigation against their lenders. During this past 23 year period, I have gained knowledge in judicial administration where a bank is a litigant. I thus have some knowledge of some of the legal members whose names you mention in your recently published book.

This communication would not have been raised if you had not presided over Supreme Court Appeal hearing No 3447 of 2001 held on 22 November 2011 where the NAB was the Respondent (Plaintiff) and Sante and Rita Troiani were the Appellants (Defendants). (Your fellow justices were Chesterman and Atkinson.)

By 1993, WBB (Wide Bay Brickworks) was the second largest private brick manufacturer in Australia. WBB commanded a staff complement of 135, achieved a net profit after tax of almost $1 million, derived from sales exceeding 14 million dollars; a very notable achievement in anyone’s language. WBB was also exporting products to many Pacific Rim countries while ST had registered patents of more than 40 clay brick products.

The foregoing commentary is a brief illustration of how the NAB goes about their “dirty work”. However, that “dirty work” has to be consummated, and that can only be done, not only with legal profession manipulation, but also the final act of judicial decision handed down in favor of the bank, in this case the NAB.

In the case history before us, that was very capably taken care of by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Paul de Jersey, who issued judgment in favor of his personal bankers, the NAB.

Mr Thomas, at this point, I would like to ask you the following questions:

(i)            Were you aware that the Chief Justice habitually presides over litigation involving his personal bankers, the NAB? (The NAB always wins, be it directly or indirectly.)

(ii)           Were you aware that Chief Justice de Jersey has a fettered relationship with Barrister-at-Law, Anthony JH Morris QC? (Please refer to the CJ’s letter to Morris dated 14 December 1998 – copy exhibited herewith and marked. For your information, a copy of this letter was tabled in Hansard on 30 March 2006.

(iii)          In Summary Judgment hearings presided over by the Chief Justice de Jersey where his personal bankers (the NAB) are a party to the proceedings, he does not disclose his banking relationship?

(iv)          In the NAB’s Summary Judgment Application where Sante & Rita Troiani were the Defendants, recited as No 7759 2000 (when the hearing took place on 19 March 2001), were you aware that de Jersey issued instructions to State Reporting Bureau employees that a transcript of proceedings NOT be recorded? (Refer de Jersey’s letter addressed to Attorney-General Linda Lavarch MP dated 23 March 2006 and tabled by the Minister on 30 March 2006.)

Statutory Declarations in my possession say that at some stage the transcript of proceedings was available, and that de Jersey subsequently issued instructions to the effect that the transcript was NOT TO BE RELEASED. A plethora of such evidence in my possession indicates that de Jersey cannot be believed in these matters.

(v)           Confirmatory searches of the Supreme Court file No 7759 of 2000 reveal that the “Outline of Submissions” prepared by the Troianis’ counsel, Anthony JH Morris QC, was not to be found. (Confirmed by Morris that this is what happened.)

Were you aware that the Chief Justice destroys this vital documentation so that it is not available in an appeal situation if it was to eventuate?

(In my discussions with former Supreme Court of Queensland. judge, Angelo Vasta QC, he assured me that it was standard practice for judges to place “Outline of Submissions” with court records so that the document would need to be reviewed if an appeal was to take place.)

(vi)          Chief Justice Paul de Jersey has admitted that he is the head of the judicial system in Queensland (de Jersey’s Swearing-in Ceremony speech on 17 February 1998 so refers.) The Chief Justice has the ultimate authority of deciding which judge presides over chambers hearings, applications and Trial hearings etc.

There is no doubt in my mind that de Jersey made sure that he presided over the NAB’s Summary Judgment Application v the Troianis.

Do you accept that de Jersey has regularly rostered himself to hear Applications by his personal bankers (the NAB) to ensure that his judgments in favor of the NAB would never be reversed by his other judges, on appeal?

(iv)          Bearing in mind the question I have directed to you in (vi) above, are you aware whether the Chief Justice had a hand in selecting the Appeal panel over which you presided on 22 November 2001?

(I will illustrate to you below that I believe that Chief Justice de Jersey is a willing participant in “judge shopping” litigation.)

THE COURT OF APPEAL HEARING ON 22 NOVEMBER 2001 OVER WHICH YOU PRESIDED:

When Sante Troiani handed me his copy of the transcript of proceedings for this hearing, staring in my face was the handwritten comments of one of his specialist advisors: “This hearing was an absolute disgrace. Troiani ‘snowed’ by legal jargon & manipulation of legal processes – by judges as well as the bank, a disgrace.”

While, at the end. of the day, you and your fellow justices gave The Troianis what they wanted – an adjournment – the fact is that you and your fellow judges should have been able to discern from the evidence before you, allied with the address of Sante Troiani, that there were triable issues to be debated as all Australian citizens are entitled to their day in court.

You can see from what I have written above that Sante Troiani’s remarks to you on that occasion were quite prophetic. He said, in seeking further discovery and a trial, both of which were refused him, “If I don’t, your Honour, you may as well kill me now, because I’m dead.” (You will have construed that ST is talking about discovery here.) Sante Troiani is dead; he died almost four years ago without obtaining the justice he sought and deserved, as all bank litigants do. Both he and his wife lost their beloved brickworks not only to bank treachery, but also a “bent” judicial administration in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Mr Thomas, you say to the Appellants, “It’s too late, as I see it, for a Court of Appeal to be asked ...” (re discovery). The 29 page transcript illustrates the permeated statement, “You’re on a fishing expedition”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Haven’t you heard of the word ‘discretion’, or is it a situation where the Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey has got his subordinates in the judiciary “screwed”? It certainly appears that way.

Let me take you forward a few months, Mr Thomas, to September 2001. Chief Justice de Jersey travelled to Cairns on circuit and, lo and behold, he presided over more litigation involving his personal bankers, the NAB, where the predicament of the victim (Anita Bernstrom) is due to a “STING” operation by the bank.

I will not go into the detail of how the Chief Justice made sure that his personal bankers won the day, but I would like to inform you of this fact. NAB discovery did not take place. However the NAB sought fit to exhibit an internal bank document, a printed stationery item titled, “Listed File Action Plan Completion dated 16/II/2000”.

This document refers to events which took place two weeks earlier, yet Chief Justice de Jersey describes it in his judgment handed down in favor of his personal bankers as a “DIARY NOTE”. THIS IS CLEARLY DECEPTION AT ITS HIGHEST LEVEL. It is my view that Chief Justice de Jersey could go down as the most corrupt Chief Justice in Australia’s history.

The NAB discovers and. applies their own internal WBB file documents to suit their own cause. Whether the contents of that document represented a truthful record of events is not known. My experience is that certain statements contained in this document are untrue. That is the typical NAB process.

You also say on page 127, “The strong tradition of disassociation from business activity and the immediate disclosure by the judge to parties of any financial interest is in no doubt responsible for the fact that no problems of magnitude have been thrown up. A register would only need to be considered if judges started withholding their interests.” The fact is that many judges do withhold such disclosure – and the Chief Justice is the primary example in this regard.

The aspect of “judge shopping” is decidedly pernicious, simply because of the incestuous nature of the legal profession. You have indirectly inferred in your book that “judge shopping” could easily be instigated by a Chief Justice (by your writings, concerning Chief Justice Macrossan.) My contention is that this is a long established – even endemic – practice.

I am able to produce records which reveal that Chief Justice Paul de Jersey has presided over Supreme Court of Queensland litigation hearings etc numbering eleven where de Jersey’s personal bankers, the NAB were officially cited as a party to those proceedings.

Given the implications of my FOI Application, allied with the “eleven” statistic as mentioned in the previous paragraph, the extrapolation of import is illustrated when it is borne in mind that the Office of the Director of the Supreme and District Court Brisbane advised the writer on 18 December 2008 that, since Supreme Court of Queensland records were computerised since 1992, the National Australia Bank is recited in litigation matters some 1542 times.

To conclude with respect to the issue of “judge shopping”, the most infamous case involving Chief Justice de Jersey which can be found in my records is the Supreme Court of Queensland Appeal hearing which does not involve the Chief Justice’s personal bankers, the NAB.

The bank involved in this Supreme Court of Queensland Appeal was Westpac Banking Corporation, the bank which paid Paul de Jersey a retainer prior to his elevation to the Supreme Court of Queensland bench in February 1985. (Reference: Queensland Hansard of 30 March 2006, re de Jersey’s letter of 23 March 2006 addressed to Minister for Justice and Attorney General, Linda Lavarch. In the tabled letter, de Jersey advises the Minister “from memory the fee was $1,000.00. The fact is that former Supreme Court of Queensland judge, now a practicing barrister, Angelo Vasta QC, has told several people, including myself, that the fee was $50,000.00.)

John A. Salmon