Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers represented four individuals, ie the plaintiffs, in proceedings heard in the Supreme Court of NSW.  Pursuant to those proceedings, Terry Goldberg misleads the Court by claiming in an Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs that he acted for the sixth defendant in such proceedings, when in fact that sixth defendant was unrepresented.  Terence Goldberg then unlawfully sued that sixth defendant to pay the legal costs of his clients.

The sixth defendant, an association, was then wound up and its building sold to pay such costs with the substantial residual funds belonging to that association making their way (via a Trust) to a sham entity based at the home address of two long-time acquaintances of Terence Goldberg, ie Jon Adrian Lindsay and Miranda McCarthy (aka Mandy Miami), at 3/349 Bourke Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010.  It has since been shown that Terence Goldberg had a direct hand in the setting up of the said sham entity, as well as the Trust which was used to channel the said funds.

The above bears all the hallmarks of fraudulent activity (see section 192E of the Crimes Act 1900).  The above also defied the only Order made by the Court in those proceedings which was that each party was to pay their own costs.

Significantly, the sixth defendant had accrued no costs, and as there was no Order made for one party to pay the costs of any other, Terence Goldberg was prohibited from claiming costs from any defendant, which he went on to do.  In this matter, Terry Goldberg makes a myriad of misleading and conflicting statements in a number of various documents, all seemingly to his benefit.

The above has been made known to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (the solicitor conduct overseer) and the Law Society of NSW, with both of those bodies turning a blind eye at all times.

Some would have you believe that the matter is complex, when, in fact, the matter is simplicity in itself.  Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers could only have sued Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated for his legal costs if the church had been Turner Freeman’s client.  The church was not Turner Freeman’s client.

As Terence Goldberg acted for the four plaintiffs in the matter and also named the church as the sixth defendant, therefore placing the church in opposition to the four plaintiffs, it does not take a legal mind to deduce that the church was not his client.  Also, and which is also obvious to all and sundry, if the church were Terence Goldberg’s client, it would not (and could not) have been left as an unrepresented party in the said proceedings; which it was.  Any suggestion that the church was Turner Freeman’s client is clearly absurd.

See below a selection of letters to and from John McKenzie, the Legal Services Commissioner.  You will see that Mr McKenzie, like Terence Goldberg, also makes statements which are unable to be true.  Click on the letters to view a pdf version.

A list of the Court documents involved as well as other pertinent documents relating to this matter can be found on this site’s other page by clicking on this link or by choosing ‘The Evidence’ in the menu. You will see that all Court documents demonstrate quite clearly that Terence Goldberg did not act for Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated in any capacity.