Sunday, 23 March 2014

Corrupt lawyers – why you should seek them out and use them!

After initially publishing this on my blog, I was written to and threatened with defamation by Corrs. Now that I'm am in the US and Chicago I believe that not only veracity, but also the US First Amendment rights extended to all people, citizens and others, should protect this particular piece of discourse.

If a lawyer will do anything to win, including risking their job by lying to a court, wouldn't that be the kind of commitment you would like?

This was the postulate from some of my counsel as to why I shouldn't publicise the corrupt activities of Mr Matthew Critchley from Corrs Chambers Westgarth in Melbourne.

The argument is simple.  If a lawyer is prepared to risk their entire career then that is a lawyer that is truly committed to your cause. All you get from publicising a lawyer's criminal behaviour is infamy and greater success for that lawyer.

Mr Critchley was truly committed to the cause of my adversary in the Federal Court of Australia. The unintended consequence of me publicising his perversion of justice is likely to be his improved profile and billings.

It turns out there was good reason for Mr Critchley to take on this risk.  When he was exposed, the Federal Court of Australia – Victoria, did nothing.  Our courts often have close relationships with their fellow participants in the legal fraternity.  As a consequence, there is a reluctance to maintain the justice system's rules and be just.  Clearly, people like Mr Critchley know this and are happy to risk their livelihood and their potential incarceration as they know the courts are weak with respect to the treatment of lawyers.  There is no moral hazard.

This is a problem for the justice system in Australia.

My case has highlighted concerns with respect to the judiciary from the behaviour and of Davies J and Gordon J especially.  At least with hubristic judges that lack impartiality there is a right to appeal.  With legal representatives that lie and mislead there is no such right.

Infact, Honourable Justice Jessup made exactly this point with regard to Mr Critchley in the matter Boobera Lagoon v Corrs Chambers Westgarth & Zomojo Pty Ltd (FCA VID 1066/2013) where he wrote in His Honour's judgment paragraph 30:
“Furthermore, the order was made in, and the documents related to, a proceeding which was ongoing. In those circumstances, counsel for Zomojo made it clear that his client accepted that it was subject to the usual restriction that the documents could not be used other than for the purposes of the litigation: Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125, 154-155 [96]. Given the experienced level of representation which Zomojo enjoys in the Hurd proceeding, I could see no reason to determine the present application by reference to an assumption that this restriction would not be respected.”
Honourable Justice Jessup does indeed make a good point. Legal representatives as officers of the court should be accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, though His Honour is now the docketed judge, His Honour is clearly not familiar with the Critchley antics in the Zomojo v Hurd proceeding. Similar thinking as this also lends to the reasons why I was denied to represent the corporates in court, even with a barrister in attendance. The FCA deems that part of the reason legal representatives are required to be used by a corporate is because solicitors, as an officer of the court,  can be held accountable as their careers are on the line.  If only that were true.

Whilst wealth and not culpability shapes outcomes, distortions from abusive lawyers without a prospect of realistic moral hazard corrupt the system to the point of hopelessness for those that mistakenly view the justice system as “just” rather than the broken contract resolution that it truly is. Justice has no place in the system.

If you want to win your case you need to learn from my mistakes.  Don't hide behind the truth.  Don't use ethical legal representatives.  You should use your influence and patronage to encourage favour from the judiciary and registry.  You should call Mr Critchley and give him your case if you want an outcome in your favour.  Just as my opponents, obfuscated and lied, Mr Matthew Critchley was also prepared to express false outrage and lie to the court.

Truth and ethics are for stupid people.  Call me stupid.  You should call Corrs Chambers Westgarth and get Mr Critchley on your side, but only if you want to win.

Happy justice,

--Matt.


____________________________________


Addendum


I'd like to go into detail regarding the many lies of Mr Matthew Critchley and perhaps the obfuscation and memory loss of Ms Janet Whiting before Honourable Justice Tracey but I don't think you'd find it all that interesting.  I think there is one thread you may find amusing but that I find terribly sad. I guess it is a pure form of gallows humour. One day in a far, far, away land, far away from justice in the land of the Federal Court of Australia - Victoria...

I received a phone call from a potential customer and investor from Singapore (we'd previously not proceeded with the consideration of a potential investment offer) who was not happy.  Let's refer to him as Mr X.

Mr X was annoyed that he had received an unsolicited approach for talks around commercial opportunities from Zomojo Pty Ltd's Dr Greg Robinson, my opponent in the law case.  Mr X had studied law at the University of Liverpool and questioned how Dr Robinson had received his details. I said that perhaps his details had been picked up from the discovered or subpoenaed items.  This made Mr X less happy as he understood better than I how wrong this was. I didn't really understand at this stage the importance of this which is essentially known as the Harman Principle due to the important case of Home Office v Harman's ruling on implied undertakings.

I went to my counsel to ask what we should do as Mr X was rightfully not happy.  They understood immediately how important this was and explained the significance.

I wrote a short affidavit explaining what I knew to be true that Dr Greg Robinson had written two emails to Mr X seeking commercial opportunity.  This was put to the opposing counsel, Mr Critchley, and he wrote back with indignation and fury denying it all.  Mr Critchley “threatened” that if the affidavit was not withdrawn he would put it to the court and ask the court to take action against me.

From the correspondence it could be implied that Mr Critchley was speaking on behalf of his client Zomojo Pty Ltd and Robinson but it wasn't explicitly stated.  We assumed that perhaps the client was lying to Mr Critchley and Mr Critchley was of the belief that no such emails took place.  That would explain Mr Critchley's outrage and distinctly funny shortage of adverbs in expressing such.

We asked Mr Critchley directly was it true that Robinson was also denying the claim and more outrage came back from Mr Critchley.  Mr Critchley wrote to Gordon J of the FCA expressing his outrage.

Frankly I was getting a little nervous as this went on.  Was my memory and recollection of the conversation flawed? Mr Critchley's approach was working I guess as I was starting to have self doubt and I didn't have the emails to refer to.  I tried contacting Mr X but I wasn't getting through.  I later learnt that he had been told by his counsel not to correspond to me on the matter.  I understand now that Mr X had endeavoured to provide the emails to the court under the basis of the existing subpoena they had already complied with on the basis of continuing disclosure but all that happened was they received voluminously expensive reasons as to why they did not have to disclose which just frustrated Mr X.

Eventually I received the emails forwarded as Mr X had grown frustrated enough to just get on with it. I suppose his internal counsel must have cleared this as the simplest way forward.

I was especially glad of this as my recollection was correct and the emails were a little bit more damning than I recollected.  Robinson said he didn't know Mr X and apologised for contacting him out of the blue.  Robinson expressed a desire to replace us with a commercial arrangement from Zomojo Pty Ltd.  Pretty damning. Again, we presumed that Mr Critchley simply must not know.

Then in court, Robinson was cross-examined on the matter.  He dropped a bomb shell that took us by surprise whilst Mr Critchley was sitting at the bar table.  Robinson described how he knew about the privileged use of documents which is why he had Mr Critchley assist in drafting the original email! Extraordinary. Not only had Robinson lied. Mr Critchley had lied to us, lied to Gordon J and the court, expressed indignation outrage and threatened us.

Mr Critchley sat quietly at the bar table which indicated that he didn't object to Robinson's evidence. This was an admission of his own lying as you can't let a client make a false statement.

It was quite the bombshell.  The senior partner's involved with the case wrote a letter to Corrs with words to the effect of “...never before in our sixty years of combined legal experience...”

Guess what the Federal Court of Australia did?

Nothing.

The lesson for Mr Critchley? There is no moral hazard.  Crime does pay.

____________________________________

Some selected quotes from Mr Matthew Critchley:

On behalf of our client, and Dr Robinson personally, we emphatically deny that either our client or Dr Robinson has in any ws contravened the implied undertaking in relation to discovery by making contact... The bare allegation that Dr Robinson ask Mr ... whether he was "interested in doing a deal with Zomojo Pty Ltd in place of Zeptonics Pty Ltd" is completely false and is denied in the strongest possible terms.
 
Having regard to the gravity of the allegation... such conduct is entirely irresponsible and ill-becoming of the legal profession. 
Our client and Dr Robinson require that by 1pm today: 
     1. The allegation be unconditionally withdrawn; and
     2. You provide us with details of any third party to whom your client or your office has repeated the allegation to.
All rights are reserved in relation to this issue, including rights against your office.
You have now openly conceded that you do not hold the emails.  This is devastating.
Your conduct in making an allegation of this nature and gravity without any supporting material and misleading the Court in the matter I have set out is entirely irresponsible. 
The bare (and false) assertions made by Hurd in his Affidavit do not absolve you. 
The allegations are irrelevant to the question and are scandalous. 
If you seek to file the Affidavit of Mr Hurd, and the Court is not willing to strike it out, we will seek to test Mr Hurd's oath. Please ensure he is present in Court in Melbourne for cross examination. 
Your email is offensive. We have repeatedly advised you that the allegations are denied by both Dr Robinson personally and our client.
____________________________________

Follow up: A complaint has been made to the Legal Services Commissioner.  They seem to be taking it seriously.  The initial complaint letter can be read by following this link. Note that though Mr X's details, and the details of his company at the time, have been redacted from this link to avoid any unnecessary disclosure or embarrassment, most of the content is from the public record of VID 1478/2011 Exhibit 11 or from the court transcripts.

Monday, 10 March 2014

Exablaze / Zomojo - Another day, another lie

Sometimes a company lies and misleads so often that they embarrass themselves. Zomojo and Exablaze are having trouble keeping their intricate deceptions consistent.


Dr Matthew Chapman - More Lies

In this particular situation, it is not clear what is the lie and what is the truth. This should come as no surprise as the companies have a history of lying to and misleading the courts and their customers.

Previously, from the witness box in Federal Court, Greg Robinson admitted to abusing privileged documents with the assistance of his legal representatives. The legal representatives knowingly lied in written correspondence to the court, made abusive allegations and partook in threatening behaviour only for their client, Greg Robinson, to admit to undertaking the abuses with his lawyers' assistance during the trial whilst the same legal representatives looked on from the bar table.  The presiding FCA judge, Gordon J, did nothing. The legal representatives continue to be allowed to practice law and continue to be entrusted with privileged documents as officers of the court.

Recently Zomojo has been pushing a line that Zomojo Pty Ltd's Matthew Chapman should have access to certain confidential documents to Honourable Justice Jessup. It has been repeatedly stated that Chapman is an officer of Zomojo Pty Ltd.  I guess he is the Chief Technology Officer even if he is not a legal officer.  Perhaps that counts.  In the last month this line of truth has been pushed again in court and Chapman was granted access to confidential documents on the basis that he is an officer of Zomojo Pty Ltd.

However, Zomojo and Exablaze speak with forked tongue.  On Matthew Chapman's LinkedIn page you'll find that he represents that he is no longer part of Zomojo Pty Ltd.  He claims he finished with Zomojo Pty Ltd in May 2013 which is many months before the claims in court.
Extract from: http://au.linkedin.com/in/matthewchapman on 10-March-2014
Clearly Dr Matthew Chapman is lying with one representation as they are mutually exclusive. Both positions cannot be true.

The continued corruption of justice would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

So, is Chapman lying to Exablaze's customers so they are not aware that when he talks to them they are sharing information with a proprietary trading competitor?  Is Zomojo Pty Ltd lying to the court so that they can maximize their benefit or information gain from their continued lies to the court?  Which is the truth?  Which is the lie?

All we can deduce for certain is that Exablaze and Zomojo treat either the court or their customers with contempt.  Which is the true lie is not clear but we don't need to know the truth as their own conflict clearly pronounces that you should be careful where you place your trust.

Caveat emptor.

--Matt.