The legal threats and demands from Baker McKenzie in relation to this site
Sadly, there has been a litany of threats and intimidation emanating from within the Law Society of NSW, which has seen letters threatening court action, an army colleague of the then president of the Law Society making a clandestine visit to my employer’s office with the directive that my employment be terminated, and even two detectives turning up on my front door due to my writing to the Legal Services Commissioner regarding his own concealing of criminality.
The latest act of intimidation is another letter from Baker & McKenzie, advising that the statements on this site are ‘false, malicious, and highly defamatory‘, and that they had been instructed to commence proceedings and seek urgent interlocutory orders. As can be seen below, a letter was written to Baker & McKenzie advising of their non-compliance with the Defamation Act 2005, and also advising of the corrupt nature of their clients. Predictably, everyone has fallen silent.
See below the letters from Baker McKenzie bearing their wild threats (while non-legally compliant), and the responses highlighting further corrupt activity, including within that firm.
Anthony Foley who has overseen the intimidatory tactics in relation to the Law Society cover up and this website.
Andrew Stewart the author of four letters issuing various threats and demands in order to harrass and bring about silence.
Paul Forbes who also issued threats as far back as February 2017 in an attempt to cover up corrupt conduct at the Law Society.
“It is obvious that in your respective positions of Chief Executive Officer and President of the Law Society, both yourself and Pauline Wright sought to cover up the wrongdoing and protect Terence Goldberg from the weight of the law, thereby assisting him in his criminal endeavours.”
In a letter to Michael Tidball, 18 August 2020
Tuesday, 18th August 2020
Mr Michael Tidball
Chief Executive Officer
Law Council of Australia
19 Torrens Street
Braddon ACT 2612
Dear Mr Tidball
Re: Fraud and corruption
On 14th September 2009, four individuals retained Turner Freeman Lawyers to act for them and to seek advices in relation to financial irregularities having been discovered within an incorporated association, in which they were committee members.
Due to the discovery of the said financial irregularities and missing monies, a meeting of the members was called for and subsequently held on 10th September 2009, with the said four individuals losing their positions as committee members of the association. That association was the Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated.
The four individuals commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW, naming five church members as defendants, and also naming the association itself as the sixth defendant. The naming of the association as the sixth defendant would, of course, have had the effect of binding the church into any decision as made by the Court. The four plaintiffs were seeking to declare as invalid the meeting that took place on 10th September 2009.
As above, the four plaintiffs were represented by Turner Freeman Lawyers, the first to fifth defendants were represented by Pigott Stinson Lawyers, and the sixth defendant, the Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated, was unrepresented.
The proceedings were heard in the Supreme Court of NSW on 27th November 2009, with one order only being made by the Court, ie “Each party is to pay their own costs”. The Court declined to make any orders the plaintiffs had sought.
On 23rd June 2010, Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers filed with the Supreme Court of NSW an Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs, claiming in such that there had been five plaintiffs and five defendants (in the said proceedings) and also claiming that he had acted for the Enmore Spiritualist Church (the sixth defendant). Terence Goldberg’s lie was clear and uncomplicated. I attach a copy of the filed Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs.
Having made a complaint to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, the OLSC wrote to me on 27th April 2011 and stated that the matter had been referred to the Law Society of NSW for investigation.
On 7th September 2012, and after a 17 month long ‘investigation’, the Law Society dismissed all complaints against Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers, stating “The Court did not make any order prohibiting the lawyers in the proceedings from recovering their costs from their clients”. As can be plainly seen, the sixth defendant was not Turner Freeman’s client.
The Law Society’s above statement was made despite all Court documents illustrating that Turner Freeman Lawyers did not act for the sixth defendant, and also with no documents stating anything to the contrary.
As you well know, Turner Freeman Lawyers, on the basis of the fraudulently filed Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs, obtained a judgment debt against the sixth defendant, and then entered into a conspiracy with the liquidator to fraudulently obtain all remaining funds as owned by it.
The fraud involved is simplicity in itself.
Yet, despite the simplicity of the criminality involved, The Law Society and the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner refuse to explain their respective positions that Turner Freeman Lawyers acted for the sixth defendant in the said proceedings, and that the church was their client. However, and, of course, that position is indeed unexplainable.
Both yourself and Pauline Wright wrote to me yesterday (separately) stating that the Law Society had dismissed my complaints as made to the OLSC in the first instance and that the OLSC had upheld such.
However, you both decline to state that that dismissal took place some eight years ago in 2012, and you both also fail to mention or comment on the further criminal activities entered into by Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers in the intervening period, with all of such taking place under your and Ms Wright’s watch, and with both of you having been made fully aware of such (also in the intervening period).
It is also pertinent to mention, and given the obviousness of the fraudulent activities that have taken place, a complaint was made to the NSW Police on 5th May 2015. The NSW Police inform me that John McKenzie, the NSW Legal Services Commissioner, was interviewed by them in the latter part of 2015.
It therefore goes without saying that if Mr McKenzie had been truthful during that interview with the NSW Police, Terence Goldberg would have been charged with multiple counts of fraud. No charges ensued.
It is obvious that in your respective positions of Chief Executive Officer and President of the Law Society, both yourself and Pauline Wright sought to cover up the wrongdoing and protect Terence Goldberg from the weight of the law, thereby assisting him in his criminal endeavours.
Coincidentally, both you and Ms Wright now hold identical positions at the Law Council of Australia.
Do you wish to provide comment?
“It is of note that you have been made aware of the said conduct issues on numerous occasions and you have neither replied to any correspondence sent directly to you raising such concerns, nor have you provided comment, with the said conduct issues remaining unresolved.”
Mr Humpreys did not respond
“It is of note that you have not provided any response to my letters of 19th January 2018, 14th February 2018 and 3rd March 2018.
Given that such correspondences raise rather serious concerns regarding the conduct of the Law Society of NSW, your lack of response is rather disturbing, however, given the Law Society’s history with this matter, such is hardly surprising.”
Mr Humpreys did not respond
“Given the OLSC’s silence (as well as your own, may I add), there seems to be a distinct ‘wall of protection’ in operation, however, given the Legal Services Commissioner’s careless contradictory statements and admissions, chinks are beginning to appear.”
Mr Humphreys did not respond
“Given the outlining of improper behaviours in my letter to the Legal Services Commissioner of 20th December 2017, it is somewhat concerning that no response has been received, however, and sadly, it is what I have come to expect.”
Mr Humphreys did not respond