Hello fellow YouTubers and especially my fellow Australians my name is Randolph workus Papa to my children and Mr workus to all those under 25 I will now explain how lawyer Jim committed the crime of fraud how he swindled everyone that trusted him lawyer Jim deliberately blurred two separate development applications into
One after he discovered the property to the West Was landlocked due to the 1974 floods video 4 of my original series when theft is legal is a detailed video that explains that as a result of the 1974 floods in Brisbane the only access to this parcel of land was via a bridge
That was washed away over Whitten Creek in indrill and that the Brisbane City Council were unable to fund the construction ction of a replacement many of the documents that I am referring to had been removed from the FI file that was publicly available at the Brisbane City Council in 2008 I
Filed a a separate Freedom of Information application to view the original files at the Brisbane City Council in September of 2012 after the ultimate loss in the Supreme Court you need to imagine you are in a casino playing poker and you catch the dealer shuffling cards and then dealing from the bottom
Of a pack when he deals his own hand that is what lawyer Jim did and how he managed to collect $442,000 in 1988 lawyer Jim submitted the original complete development application for the subdivision of Lot 2 into 11 Lots plus common property on the 10th of March
1987 with a handd drafted Amendment to the plan that depicted another easement area that was never mentioned purporting to access to the land on the western boundary of Lot 2 after months of negotiations between the architect of the estate and the Brisbane City Council lawyer Jim mischievously posted a
Separate one-page letter dated the 9th of March 198 87 to the town clerk of the brisban city council one day previously that letter was completely independent to the original development application submitted on the 10th of March 1987 during the months after the original application was submitted and
As a result of a council requisition lawyer Jim had to seek written permission from the previous owner of our land to Commander his original driveway and in return Grant him an easement over the common property or carriageway of the future estate that requisition was never to be over just
Part of the common property but all of it he was to be treated as an equal within the future development as per the other 11 lot owners why else would he give up his own entire Drive his own land to only be given minimal access over the common property that went
Around the entire perimeter of his own land the letter was drafted by lawyer Jim which was referred to as the burnt letter that letter was signed by the previous owner of our land and even boast a reference number on that letter yet it was made to look as if it was
Drafted by the the original owner the letter was particularly vague and is cleverly drafted to assist in creating confusion if decipher at a later date it was pure skull dugery the original development application for the group title plan was submitted on the 10th of March 1987 the development was granted
Development approval on the 9th of July 1987 lawyer Jim then organized his surveyor to draft a separate easement B plan dated the 28th of July 1987 over the original Lot 2 to provide access to the land to the West knowing that lock 2 was already subject to a development
Approval on the 9th of July 1987 just two weeks earlier at the time of commissioning the surveyor on the 28th of July 1987 the landowner to the West had no idea none idea that law gym intended to offer them an access easement for the sum of $50,000 neither did the town planners at
The Brisbane City Council the original development approval required 4 M of Green Space either side of the original 6m main carriageway into the estate eastand B has drafted on the 28th of July 1987 was 6 M wide and was drawn on the western boundary of the the
Original lot too lawyer Jim knew the same land was subject to Landscaping simultaneously it was a con as he knew that land could never be relied upon to provide access to the land at the West as that as a subject land he was offering for sale was to be landscaped
With vegetation as Green Space a condition of the original first application the foi request of the original documentation in September of 2012 revealed that land owners to the West were approached by La Jim with an offer to access an easement for the fee of $50,000 over the original lot to in late August
1987 they immediately employed a town planner to write to the town clerk to discover if the Brisbane City Council had forced that easement obligation or requ Quest over lot two as a condition of the subdivision of lot two as they had been pleading with the council to
Rebuild an access bridge that had been washed away due to the 1974 floods the town clerk replied to the town planner representing the land owners to the West that no such condition was imposed on the development approval and that offer was purely at the instigation of developer lawyer Jim
Lawyer Jim knew the Green Space of the future group title plan 11 lot subdivision would inhibit a two-lane thoroughfare over the original lot two he was pedaling as his easement B proposal the only way access could be sold to the land owners to the West legally is by sharing those funds with
The previous owner of our land and gaining his permission as lot one our land legally owned 50% of the land of the main driveway facing the Main Street it is the land that I own that I decided to fence by placing a steel Post in the
Middle of the road to bring matters to a head in September 2005 please view video three and four of the original series lawyer Jim rather than share those funds chose to blur the two application developments together as one and then ultimately signed a contract to collect the agreed amount of
$442,000 selling access upon registration of the easement B that benefited the land to the west and no easement was ever registered in favor of our lot lot one it was a criminal act of deception and lawyer Jim was acting as a lawyer as confirmed by lexon Insurance when lexon financed lawyer Jim’s
Proceedings when we attempted to include him as a defendant 23 years after the Swindle one has to ask why would lexon Insurance Finance this claim would any other professional Indemnity insurance company anywhere in the world practice ing the Westminster system of Justice Finance a corruption claim against a
Lawyer 23 years after the event over his own development the only possible explanation would be is that they knew the outcome before the event nothing else makes sense lexon Insurance lawyers lawyer Ben then sought summary judgment against my ex-wife and I in early 2011 maintaining that the result we had achieved at the
End of 2008 was the best I could hope for based on the opinion penned by John Gallagher QC I on the other hand decided to rely on the property report Penn by lawyer bill as he maintained we were protected the whole time by iper of 1997 I now know the opinion by John
Gallager qc’s main focus was designed to mislead me and my wife I will come to that in my next deposition video part four after months of fees the matter Was Heard by Chief Justice the Jersey who ultimately decided in our favor as he maintained our proceedings were far too
Complex to be dismissed on a simple summary dismissal application and he suggested we revisit our statement of claim and re resubmit an amended version of that claim I won the case as Leon’s applications was dismissed and we were heading to trial or so I thought in the background within the
Supreme Court both sets of proceedings our claim against the body corporate and the case against lawyer Les lexon insurance was being managed by Justice Peter Lions a property expert lexon insurance lawyer Ben submitted another application seeking clarification of the Judgment by Chief Justice de Jersey stating he had actually won the
Proceedings as we had no chance of winning that case based on the opinion pinned by John Gallagher QC and his assistant it was a not it was what was called a notice of contention please understand understand that I’m attempting to simplify into layman’s terms a complex story that really isn’t
Very complex but the legal fraternity profit by making matters far more complex than they need to be in August of 2011 immediately after our decisive win against lexon Insurance Justice Peter Lions takes control of both sets of proceedings and The disput Returned to court four more times before ultimately hearing the notice of
Contention application for summary judgment in October 2011 I attended every one of those proceedings and Justice Peter Lions kept asking our Barrister lawyer Tom under what statutory Authority are you seeking protection to which loyer Tom kept replying iper of 1997 I thought it was most unusual but
But I now know Lions was actually addressing lawyer Ben and suggesting an alternative Way Forward but neither party took the bait after 6 months of deliberation lawyer Kathleen was advised that Justice Peter Lions would be handing down his judgment 4th of April 2012 6 months later on the day lawyer Kathleen my
Elder son and a friend of mine attended the courtroom when Justice Lions appeared before us and provided judgment in our favor we were elated then the most unusual thing happened our Barrister or lawyer Tom went to hand up a prepared order requesting the judgment to be sealed in
Our favor when Justice lines refused and stated that he would seal such order at a later date the date was the 28th of April was nominated I noticed weird Body Language by lawyer Tom but assumed everything was normal I had no experience as I trusted everyone involved lawyer Ben and lawyer Jackson
On behalf of lexon insurance on or about the 12th of April submitted an appeal application to the court of appeal because we had won the proceedings now why would they do that if I hadn’t I had made sure that I attended every court hearing and had pinned the 28th of April
Into my calendar I suspect the month of April was also used to conduct these proceedings as it was a month full of holidays including the Easter 4-day public holiday and the Anzac Day public holiday it was designed to put us off guard the the reason I suspect this is
That the documentation Lions refers to must have been common knowledge to anyone practicing property law in Queensland as those documents hadn’t really seen any substantial amendments from 1964 through to 1986 other than those included in 1978 and in total the to town plan consisted of only approximately 100 60 Pages
Lawyer Jackson had submitted another application to the registry office at the Supreme Court on the 24th of April which was to be heard on the 2nd of May 2012 exactly 28 days after the original Judgment of 4 April 2012 in our favor I now know that our lawyers lawyer
Kathleen and lawyer Tom attended another hearing on the 20th of April 2012 which with Justice Peter Lions sealed an order against us how is this possible I mean we won the case on the 4th of April 2012 as I had judgment to prove it I stress I
Trusted everyone involved on the 28th of April the senior lawyer Jackson appeared on behalf of lexon insurance and the original judgment wasn’t sealed or discussed by anyone in the courtroom and as it turned out it was never entered into the original court file are known now that Justice Peter Lions had no
Intention of ever sealing the original correct Judgment of the 4th of April 2012 and that any thinking nonbiased person without a vested interest will appreciate the obvious this evidence will be submitted to you in part four of my deposition series which will focus on the corruption and cronyism by Justice
Peter lions lawyer Mark QC and lawyer Jackson on behalf of lexon insurance and the body corporate of golders Le Park the day Justice Peter Lions overturned his own original correct decision against us on the 2nd of April 2012 now please like And subscribe to my YouTube or Rumble Channel or visit my
Website when theft is legal.org for access to the original 12 video and please sign our change.org petition so you can learn just how corrupt the Queensland Judiciary really is and the subsequent cover up by the Queensland government these crimes are as fresh today as they were when I first complained in
2015 it is a Birthright to be given a fair trial and due process I didn’t get one please View and make up your own mind see you again soon and always remember she’ll be right mate never fear Randolph is here thank you for listening to Me yeah
source
