web analytics

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 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 (with both of those two long-time acquaintances of Terence Goldberg being members of the church).  It has since been shown that Terence Goldberg had a direct hand in the setting up of the said sham entity.

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.

“I am a partner in the firm Turner Freeman and in that capacity have care, conduct and control of the matter on behalf of the plaintiffs.”

Terry Goldberg, in his affidavits of 24 and 25 November 2009

“The constitution of the original and now defunct entity provides that on the winding up of such that all assets belonging to it be provided to a likewise association or charity.  It would appear that Turner Freeman therefore created likewise associations to receive those assets.

It remains pertinent that at the present moment in time, the ACNC website states that the abovementioned Trust now holds the amount of $517,980.00 in its account.  The ACNC website also states that the said Trust had expenses of $492,307.00 in the financial year of 2016/2017.  The cause of these expenses and where these funds went is presently unknown.”


In a letter to Turner Freeman Lawyers, 4 November 2019

 

Monday, 4th November 2019


Mr Terence Goldberg
Turner Freeman Lawyers
Level 12, 160 Sussex Street
Sydney NSW 2000


Dear Mr Goldberg

Re: Supreme Court proceedings 2009/00291458-001

I refer to the Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs as filed with the Court by yourself on 23rd June 2010 in relation to the abovementioned Supreme Court proceedings.  In such Application you state on multiple occasions that you acted for the Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated.

As you are well aware, the Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated was listed as the sixth defendant in the abovementioned Supreme Court proceedings.  You are also well aware that the sixth defendant remains on the Court record as an unrepresented party, with no firm of solicitors acting on its behalf.

Given that you acted for the four plaintiffs in such proceedings, and given also that the sixth defendant was unrepresented in same, can you please explain to me your claim that you acted for the Enmore Spiritualist Church in such Application to the Court for assessment of your firm’s professional costs.  As can be seen, the situation and your actual statement are distinctly dichotomous, as well as such scenario being a breach of Rule 7.25 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules which states that a law firm cannot act for both and opposing parties in any same Court proceedings.

Further, in that same document, you explicitly state that there were only five defendants, when in fact there were six.

You are also well aware that the premises of 2 London Street, Enmore, was sold in June 2011 for $965,000.00 in order to pay your claimed debt of $124,661.90, although documents state that your firm was in fact paid the sum of $188,303.60 (on 20th December 2012).  Given other claimed and disputed debts against our now defunct church, the monies remaining should have been in the region of some $700,000.00.

On perusing the website of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, it is stated that in the financial year of 2016/2017, the remaining monies as belonging to our now defunct church were placed into a Trust, with such Trust having been set up by your firm.

Also, as per the same website, an amount in the region of $985,447.00 entered such Trust in that period.  As can be plainly seen, this sum is far in excess of the remaining monies as belonging to the original entity.

Given the appearance of a distinct conflict of interest, are you able to explain your input in the creation of such Trust, and are you also able to explain the origins of the seeming excess of such funds?

At this point it is worthy of mention that your firm was in fact involved in the creation of two separate entities; one of which being the abovementioned Trust.  Both of these said entities have been set up as charities with almost identical names, with the sole objective of the said Trust to provide funds to the second created entity.  The second entity at this moment in time has no particular function, and holds little funds in its account, and a long-time acquaintance of yours, at the time of the second entity’s inception, was registered as the public officer of such.

The constitution of the original and now defunct entity provides that on the winding up of such that all assets belonging to it be provided to a likewise association or charity.  It would appear that Turner Freeman therefore created likewise associations to receive those assets.

It remains pertinent that at the present moment in time, the ACNC website states that the abovementioned Trust now holds the amount of $517,980.00 in its account.  The ACNC website also states that the said Trust had expenses of $492,307.00 in the financial year of 2016/2017.  The cause of these expenses and where these funds went is presently unknown.

Also, and despite a number of various correspondences to you, the divergent statement that you acted for the sixth defendant (an unrepresented party) in Supreme Court proceedings when you acted for the four plaintiffs remains without any plausible or cogent explanation.

I also attach to this correspondence a previous letter to you of 15th November 2016 which relates directly to the above and which remains without any sort of reply from you or your firm.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience if any of the above is incorrect.

I copy this letter to various authorities, and I look forward to your swift response.

Yours faithfully

Click here for the pdf version of the above letter to Turner Freeman Lawyers:  2019 11 04 – Letter to Terence Goldberg – excess funds
“I am not satisfied there is sufficient evidence to persuade the Tribunal that Mr Goldberg acted other than on instructions in making the statements, or that he knew such statements were false, untrue or baseless at the time he made them.”

John McKenzie, NSW Legal Services Commissioner, 2 June 2015

Click here for the pdf version of the above letter to John McKenzie of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner:  2017 11 28 – Letter to John McKenzie – Terence Goldberg, fraud
“Mr Terence Goldberg representing Turner Freeman Lawyers discussed updates regarding the setting up of the association’s new Trust. Mr Goldberg advised that the lawyers of Perpetual Trustees are currently reviewing the Deed that Turner Freeman Lawyers have prepared with regards to the new association, which will be called ‘Congregation of Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated’.”

From minutes of ‘meeting of creditors’ at Jones Partners (liquidator), 29 May 2014

Click here for the pdf version of the above letter to John McKenzie of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner:  2017 11 27 – Letter to John McKenzie – inducement
“It has been made known to you on innumerable occasions, over a protracted period of time, that Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers could not have acted for the sixth Defendant in Supreme Court proceedings 2009/00291458-001, as not only did Mr Goldberg act for the four Plaintiffs in such proceedings, but that the sixth Defendant was in fact an unrepresented party. A simple telephone call to the Supreme Court of NSW can, and will, confirm such.”

In a letter from Symn Waters to John McKenzie, 31 August 2017

Click here for the pdf version of the above letter to John McKenzie of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner:  2017 11 27 – Letter to John McKenzie – resiled from previous position
“In this matter, we acted for Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated, Reverend Patricia Cleary, Caroline Allen, Miranda McCarthy and Matilda Vila collectively and as individuals.”

One of Terence Goldberg’s many untrue statements in an Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs, as filed with the Supreme Court on 23 June 2010

Click here for the pdf version of the above letter to John McKenzie of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner:  2017 09 06 – Letter to John McKenzie – response to letter of 31 08 2017
“I do not accept the statements you have identified as being false, misleading and untrue, namely statements that:
i. Mr Goldberg acted for the Sixth Defendant in Supreme Court proceedings 2009/00291458-001 (the 2009 Proceedings)
ii. The Plaintiffs in the 2009 Proceedings brought their action on behalf of the Sixth Defendant.
were in fact false, misleading and untrue.”


John McKenzie’s untrue statements in his letter of 7 August 2017

Click here for the pdf version of the above letter from John McKenzie of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner:  2017 08 31 – Letter from John McKenzie, OLSC – no further responses – received on 05 09 2017
“Clause 30 of the Constitution of Enmore Spiritualist Church Inc is in the following form:
’30. lf upon the winding up or dissolution of the Church there remains after satisfaction of all its debts and liabilities any property whatsoever, the same shall not be paid or distributed amongst the Members of the Church, but shall be given or transferred to some other institution or institutions having objects similar to those of the Church and which shall prohibit the distribution of its of their income and property amongst its or their Members, and if this provision cannot be satisfied then to some charitable object.'”


In a letter from Michael Jones (Jones Partners, liquidator) to Church member, 7 November 2012

Click here for the pdf version of the above letter to John McKenzie of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner:  2017 08 31 – Letter to John McKenzie – corrupt conduct
“Your claim that Turner Freeman acted with four of its clients as Plaintiffs and another of its clients as a Defendant, in the same proceedings, is an utter nonsense and defies logic, as well as the rule of law.

The Order as made by Justice Bergin in proceedings 2009/00291458-001 prohibited any Plaintiff from seeking or indemnifying their costs against any Defendant in the same matter, and that is exactly what took place, with Terence Goldberg suing the sixth Defendant to pay his clients’ costs, having used deceptive methods to do so.”


In a letter from Symn Waters to John McKenzie, 10 August 2017

Click here for the pdf version of the above letter to John McKenzie of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner:  2017 08 10 – Letter to John McKenzie – false statements
“And I was acting for the sixth defendant [in Supreme Court proceedings 2009/00291458-001]”

“The plaintiffs bring their action on behalf of the sixth defendant and that is what happened…”

Terence Goldberg’s untrue statements on oath in the Local Court, Sydney, 26 February 2016

Click here for the pdf version of the above letter from John McKenzie of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner:  2017 08 07 – Letter from John McKenzie, OLSC – false statements – received on 09 08 2017
“The point of my letter of 2 June 2015 was that even if the statements were in fact false, misleading and untrue, as you contend, that would not necessarily result in disciplinary action being taken against Mr Goldberg.”

John McKenzie, 7 August 2017

Click here for the pdf version of the above letter to John McKenzie of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner:  2017 08 07 – Letter to John McKenzie – Court stamps
“The Chairperson advised that the quorum requirements set out in Regulation 5.6.16(2) of the Corporations Regulations had been met and that a quorum was properly present.”

From minutes of non-quorate and unlawful meeting of creditors at Jones Partners (liquidator), 29 May 2014, in which Terence Goldberg was the sole attendee and not a creditor of the association

Click here for the pdf version of the letter to John McKenzie of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner:  2017 08 02 – Letter to John McKenzie – copied to the Court
“I ask you the question, and I place an emphasis upon such question: On what basis do you, your office and the Law Society repeatedly and continuously maintain your position that Terence Goldberg acted for the sixth Defendant in proceedings 2009/00291458-001?”

In a letter from Symn Waters to John McKenzie, 27 October 2016
No response was received

Click here for the pdf version of the letter to John McKenzie of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner:  2016 10 27 – Letter to John McKenzie – on what basis