HAIG    REPORT:    GoTo [on this page] HaigReport's Menu Of Themes of Menus for our thousands of pages
TIPS for
Navigating HaigReport:  If you arrived at this page, referred from a Search Engine such as Google et al, your URL link will NOT have an #Anchor/Marker to take you to the relevant spot on this page.  In that case, we do recommend that you view our "Latest HaigReport Promotions" of recent additions to our websites, by Clicking Here.  It will open in a new Browser window. 

If
you Click Here, you will be taken, usually, to the specific Unique Content on this page, for which you were most likely seeking.  However, if you Click Here, you will be taken to the Top of the HaigReport Header, below on this page. 

However, if you have arrived at this page from another of our Website pages, your link will usually have an #Anchor, also called a marker, which will take you to the intended specific spot on the page where that marker is positioned.  In fact, it will probably take you there prior to your reading this.  Moving to that Anchor is the final step in the loading of this page.

 HAIG     REPORT:   Is now on  twitter  [from 2nd June, 2013]  link to us HERE on twitter     See our Twitter Strategy    

 HAIG    REPORT:  SEE: Russell Mathews' COMMENTARY:    Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] current TOPICAL commentary on GOVERNMENT, politics & business     Press to READ       Press for MENU   

 HAIG    REPORT:    WANTED:
Healthy female "dog" to breed with Parson Russell Terrier, to produce ASSISTANCE DOGS.   Rochedale South QLD 4123
I wish to breed from my Parson Russell Terrier. He is a trained assistance dog. He has a wonderful nature. The breed of his mate could be varied or a cross; eg Parson Russell Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier, Beagle, Bull Terrier, Bull mastiff, Staffy, and/or Fox Terrier plus many others. She does not need to be "pedigreed". I am very protective of my dogs. She will become very valuable to me and become one of my assistance "dogs". If we can assist each other, please contact me on my contact form, including your email address and your landline phone number so I can phone you to discuss. 

Because I am disabled and have an LLB [so therefore understand the Law surrounding disabilities and assistance dogs] I am now branching out to providing Assistance dogs to disabled persons [even if disabled in only a minor way and so not even realizing it]. This is not a business proposition but rather just a very necessary service I can offer to the community.
Many people have a disability and do not realize their ailment or "problem" is by law, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [DDA], classified as a "disability". This is especially so for people getting on in years, and who have a dog, and are maybe moving to accommodation where they are told they cannot take their dog. In a majority of cases, those people cannot be legally forced to surrender their animal/dog.
I will be assisting those person who already have dogs, but are being forced, unlawfully, to dispose of them because maybe they are moving accommodation. I can train your existing dogs to be assistance dogs and provide the documentation as required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [DDA]. I do not intend to charge for this, but just maybe cover some marginal costs.

 Click here  to Learn how your Personalized Alert Notice [IMMEDIATELY ABOVE] is prepared by our HAIG Unique Visitor Algorithm: [HUVA] or  Click here  to see your UNIQUE Personalized Alert Notice in a new Browser Window.


Index: Corrupt Qld Judiciary:Chief Justice Paul de Jersey:


My logo, my TRADEMARK, is the MRI of my skull, showing gross assymetry,aka DEFORMITY = ugliness and target of bullies. The HAIG REPORT: the EVIDENCE My logo, my TRADEMARK, is the MRI of my skull, showing gross assymetry,aka DEFORMITY = ugliness and target of bullies.

   It is Our legal, social and moral DUTY to EXPOSE CRIME, FRAUD & CORRUPTION plus Lying and Hypocrisy in Public Life, Including Judges & magistrates 
 

Fraud, Corruption & attempted  MURDER 
covered-up by Queensland police, EXPOSED 

Corrupt Qld Judiciary: Chief Justice Paul de Jersey/ header.php

   Corrupt Qld Judiciary:
 Chief Justice Paul de Jersey 

Does the CMC have the bribery evidence to control him?

commonheader.php

Reg. Office: 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia, Qld. 4067, Australia.  
Editor-in-Chief:  Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA      EMAIL us anytime:  Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay. 

Appendix (a): The Doneley Family and Their Litigation Case History:

http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS  => Click HERE <= 

/PHPincludesCorruptQldJudiciary/includedMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php

Menu: Corrupt Qld Judiciary: Chief Justice Paul de Jersey

/aaaaMenu/Menus/includedDDMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php Coming soon to this very spot: One Drop Down Menu: DDMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php ../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php ../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php /PHPincludesCorruptQldJudiciary/includedMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php

Menu: Corrupt Qld Judiciary: Chief Justice Paul de Jersey

Publications by John Alfred SALMON: retired Bank Manager, [for NAB].

  1. THE UNTOUCHABLE BANKS: An exposé of banking process and legal deception; by John A Salmon
  2. Problems Experienced by Bank Litigants in the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Queensland



considerevidence.php

Consider the evidence! Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay.  


Appendix (a): The Doneley Family and Their Litigation Case History:

/PHPincludesCorruptQldJudiciary/includedMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php

Menu: Corrupt Qld Judiciary: Chief Justice Paul de Jersey

/aaaaMenu/Menus/includedDDMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php Coming soon to this very spot: One Drop Down Menu: DDMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php ../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php ../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php /PHPincludesCorruptQldJudiciary/includedMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php

Menu: Corrupt Qld Judiciary: Chief Justice Paul de Jersey

Publications by John Alfred SALMON: retired Bank Manager, [for NAB].

  1. THE UNTOUCHABLE BANKS: An exposé of banking process and legal deception; by John A Salmon
  2. Problems Experienced by Bank Litigants in the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Queensland



http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS  => Click HERE <= 

../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php ../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php

Appendix (a): The Doneley Family and Their Litigation Case History:

/PHPincludesCorruptQldJudiciary/includedMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php

Menu: Corrupt Qld Judiciary: Chief Justice Paul de Jersey

/aaaaMenu/Menus/includedDDMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php Coming soon to this very spot: One Drop Down Menu: DDMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php ../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php ../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php /PHPincludesCorruptQldJudiciary/includedMenuCorruptQldJudiciary.php

Menu: Corrupt Qld Judiciary: Chief Justice Paul de Jersey

Publications by John Alfred SALMON: retired Bank Manager, [for NAB].

  1. THE UNTOUCHABLE BANKS: An exposé of banking process and legal deception; by John A Salmon
  2. Problems Experienced by Bank Litigants in the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Queensland



PHPincludes/includedWrittenByRussellMathews.php
Web-site, Written, Coded, Produced and Directed by
Russell G H Mathews
BCom BSc LLB BA

International Disability Rights Advocate
invoking
UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
& UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Image
CLICK on image => My Election HOMEPAGE

View list of my WEBSITES and Bulletin Boards
Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html

Appendix (a): The Doneley Family and Their Litigation Case History

Appendix (a): The Doneley Family and Their Litigation Case History



Preamble:

John Justin Doneley and his wife Anne Therese Doneley purchased a leasehold grain growing property containing 4383.96 hectares for $434,000.00; it will be described as Lot 9. This property is situated some seventy kilometres north of St George in South East Queensland.

Further development was proposed in the form of installation of irrigation equipment estimated to cost $96,000.00. Together with carry-on expenses, the National Australia Bank agreed to advance the sum of $300,000.00. This all-up limit comprised a Farm Development Loan for $250,000.00 plus a $50,000.00 come and go working overdraft limit.

The leasehold property formed part of a property known as "Beardie" which was often described as the aggregation. The separate freehold property was subject to the issue of two title deeds which were described as lots 1 and 14 and contained 517.988 hectares and 259.859 hectares respectively.

The freehold consideration to purchase Lots 1 and 14 was said to be $78,000.00 and was apparently sourced from a family trust where Connellan Nominees Pty Ltd was the Corporate trustee. The beneficiaries of the trust were the Doneleys’ two sons, Sean George Doneley and Matthew Justin Doneley, whose dates of birth were 3 July 1975 and 10 January 1977 respectively. Some years later, the corporate trustee, Connellan Nominees Pty Ltd, was replaced by HB 6 Pty Ltd. It further transpired that two years down the track saw corporate trustee HB 6 Pty Ltd appoint Anne Therese Doneley as trustee pursuant to a Deed of Appointment executed on 7 August 1987.

Connellan Nominees Pty Ltd, in its capacity as trustee, leased the trust lands, freehold Lots 1 and 14, to Justin J Doneley and Anne T Doneley as joint tenants. This dealing took place in 1985. The freehold Lots 1 and 14 were subject to a lease attracting a 50 year term with a nominated rental of $1.00 per annum. The lease conditions gave Justin Doneley and his wife exclusive use of the trust property. Lease maturity extended to 2034 meaning, at the time, that Justin Doneley and his wife had the exclusive use of the trust lands until they were 59 and 57 years of age respectively.

Due to the drought conditions which prevailed at "Beardie" in 1985, the Doneleys found it difficult to adhere to the budgetary forecasts and, as a consequence, were unable to meet repayments and comply with the conditions as originally approved by the bank in September 1984.

During the four year period to the first half of 1985, JJ Doneley and his wife were enveloped in an ongoing series of financial difficulties in running the aggregation. The National Australia Bank were continually pressing for their customers’ accounts to be conducted on a regular basis and the Doneleys had endeavoured to refinance their bank debt with other financial institutions without success.

During the mid-1987 period, the Doneleys were required to develop and improve their irrigation systems to comply with Water Resources Commission requirements. The Doneleys only survived by the receipt of monies from family resources.

In March 1988, the National Bank assessed the Doneleys’ application for further borrowing on the basis that AT Doneley was prepared to give the bank a mortgage over the trust freehold title deeds described as Lots 1 and 14. The bank declined to assist making further advances on this basis and simply stated that the proposed security was not acceptable to the bank. JJ Doneley was eventually to learn that the trust did not have the power to give security to secure advances to third parties.

The bank reversed their decision to accept security over the trust title deeds in June 1989 and advances were made by the bank in the newly constituted name of the Doneley Pastoral Co. In this regard, AT Doneley gave the bank a Registered Bill of Mortgage over the two freehold title deeds, being Lots 1 and 14, together with Registered Mortgage over the fifty year lease. The bank already held a Registered Memorandum of Mortgage over the leasehold portion of the aggregation.

Only three months passed before the Doneleys were experiencing renewed financial difficulties and the bank was asked to advance further monies, which they did. Within six months down the track, the Doneleys accounts were continually being brought to the notice of the bank’s administration due to their state of irregularity.

The chronic status of the Doneleys’ accounts continued despite the fact that the bank formally approved further funding in October 1990. Just over three months down the track the bank issued Formal Demand under the date of 31 January 1991. The Demand listed the sum due on that account of the Doneley Pastoral Co – Overdraft Account for the sum of $369,259.92 and John Justin Doneley and Anne Therese Doneley Farm Development Loan for the sum of $304,273.96.

JJ Doneley was so shocked with the bank’s precipitative action that he wrote to the Managing Director of the NAB, Don Argus. Doneley’s action was instrumental in granting him and his wife a reprieve from the bank against proceeding with immediate foreclosure action.

During the next ten months, the Doneleys’ financial difficulties continued to prevail which culminated in the bank issuing Formal Demand for the second time on 28 May 1992 to JJ Doneley and his wife. This time the sum due amounted: to $632,283.15 on account of the Doneley Pastoral Co whereas the Farm Development Loan in the joint names of JJ and AT Doneley remained static at $300,000.00.

On the 16 July 1992, the NAB issued a Form 7, being a Notice to Exercise Power of Sale vide the Property Law Act 1974, listing both freehold title deeds Lots 1 and 14 in the First Schedule. In the Second Schedule, it nominated the account of the Doneley Pastoral Company – Overdraft In Reduction Account for the sue of $654,296.56.

On the 24 September 1992, the bank raised a Bad and Doubtful Debt Report wherein total liabilities were stated to be $948,084.00. This amount was represented by the liability in the name of JJ & AT Doneley at $300,000.00 and Doneley Pastoral Co at $648,084.00. At that point in time no amounts had been written off.

My comment follows on the vital issue which enables the bank to reverse their decision of early 1988 when they refused to accept the offer of trustee Anne Therese Doneley to give security of the freehold trust deeds when the bank makes the decision in June 1989 that it is in order to accept the freehold title deeds over Lots 1 and 14 as bank security.

Most readers of this Doneley family saga would naturally conclude that the most vital issue was that JJ Doneley and his wife's banking relationship over the past six years was one of constant turmoil. Although a turmoil banking association is undoubted, there are vital hidden factors which need to be highlighted to the reader.

I should initially point out that the Doneleys' purchase structure of the grazing property "Beardie" was most unusual in itself. Although it is not uncommon for a property to comprise both freehold and leasehold title, I would suggest that it was unusual to have a situation where the registered proprietors of the freehold and leasehold properties have been registered in totally different names. In 1984 at the time of property purchase, the freehold portion of "Beardie” is under the control of a person whose relationship with a part owner of the leasehold land being that of brother-in law. If that relationship becomes strained at any time, then difficulties of a varied nature could arise where the property is purchased in whole as a going concern and then a bank accepts only one portion of that property for bank security purposes, then a bank could face problems down the line when it comes to a climax of selling that security as mortgagee in possession. The distinct possibility of restricted market value could lessen a lender's chances of debt recovery.

When I first examined the NAB's discovered documents, I immediately noticed that the bank had not discovered any copy of their firm search of the Doneley Pastoral Co. This was a prerequisite for the bank before they could make any attempt to prepare their security documentation available for presentation to the borrower and others who may be required to execute the bank's documentation.

In 1989, this bank policy I would suggest had been in force for over 38 years. If my recollection is correct, during the 1960's the Registry in this State of Queensland of Business Names held these records where one would search. During my banking career in the early 1960’s, one of my duties was to act as Search Clerk in the bank's State Securities Department and conduct a registered firm search at the request of the bank's branches in Queensland.

I also noticed from the bank's discovered documents that the St George branch where the Doneley accounts were conducted that records raised in the branch did not record the registered firm number which is usually allocated to the business name at the time of registration. I further noticed that the bank's issued Formal Demand notices for recovery action issued, in 1991 and 1992, all recorded the Doneley Pastoral Co firm name incorrectly as "Doneley Pastoral Company".

All NAB St George branch records from May 1989 to 1990 would indicate to the bank's auditor that firm registration had taken place and that the registered name was Doneley Pastoral Co where the registered proprietors were recorded as John Justin Doneley, Anne Therese Doneley and Anne Therese Doneley as trustee under the Nomination of Trustees No H504228. These facts are recorded in the branch manager's initial Line of Credit Application dated 13 June 1989 which was submitted to his Regional Manager Redgen whose approval date is 30 June 1989. It is also pertinent to point out that this Line of Credit Application dated 13 June 1989 has a box section for completion titled, "Trust/Legal Impediments to be Resolved". The branch manager inserts, "Refer to Memo from Securities Services d. 30-5-89". This latter mentioned document is a bank discovered document which makes no mention of a firm registration search of Doneley Pastoral Co.

The only relevant document in the bank's possession is an "Application For Registration of a Business Name" bearing the date of 5 June 1989. This application was alleged to have been sent to the bank by Justin Doneley and his wife's solicitor, Justin O'Sullivan, senior partner of Justin O'Sullivan & Edgar, P O Box 4, Dalby, Q. 4405, to Corporate Affairs for registration.

It was with the foregoing knowledge in mind that I contacted Justin Doneley to acquaint him of my concerns about the registration of the business name, Doneley Pastoral Co, and to ascertain his response to my queries. Justin Doneley advised me as follows:

Sometime in May 1989, the, Water Resources Commission made a public announcement that water licenses would be issued to property owners in the St George district. This announcement by the Commission not only indicated to the Doneleys that they would most probably benefit from the issue of these licenses, but that the NAB would have also been aware that certain of their customers would benefit, one of those being the Doneleys and that they, the bank, would stand to benefit substantially in the financial sense.

This assumption proved correct because Justin Doneley was able to hand to his bankers his letter received from the Water Resources Commission dated 2 June 1989 wherein the contents indicated to the bank that the Doneleys had their Application for an annual irrigation allocation of 825 Ml from the St George project approved. This approval would have the effect of substantially increasing the market value of “Beardie” by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Water Resources Commission approval of 2 June 1989 flows from the Doneleys' resubmitted application to the Commission in 1986/7 when they applied for an increase in existing approvals to irrigate 30 hectares on the freehold portion of "Beardie".

It was Justin Doneley's opinion that NAB St George Branch Manager Trevor King had prior knowledge of the "Beardie" approval through a contact in the Water Resources Commission and that he passed on this information to his immediate superior, Regional Manager Redgen. I strongly lean to the view that Justin Doneley's thinking here is correct because the branch initiated an internal memorandum known as a Loan Check List dated 18 May 1989 which sets out security document process required to perfect bank security, allied with the fact that the St George Branch Internal Memo - Lending, dated 26 May 1989, records that the Doneleys have received approval for increased lending of $100,000.00 subject to taking additional security by way of mortgage over the freehold property portion of "Beardie".

Regional Manager Redgen had undoubtedly adopted the view that possession is nine tenths of the law, so let's get the security over the freehold title deeds forthwith (which was achieved on 30 June). It is fair to say that at this point in time, viz May/June 1989, the Doneleys' financial position was very precarious indeed. Expenditure had been committed on the basis that Anne T Doneley would be receiving $500,000.00 from the family trust and these monies had not been received. This trust was controlled by her brother, A M Connellan. Because of this non-payment, the Doneleys had been served with a bankruptcy notice while other creditors had been pressing.

On the 6 June 1989, Justin Doneley and his wife spent most of their working day in the offices of their solicitor, Justin O'Sullivan. Justin Doneley had had many conversations with his solicitor over recent months with the aim of initiating legal action against his brother-in-law for non-payment of trust monies to his wife.

The major purpose of the meeting with Justin O'Sullivan on this day was to ascertain whether their financial predicament could be resolved in some way. Meetings took place intermittently with Justin O'Sullivan throughout the day; the Doneleys were aware that Justin O'Sullivan had had telephone discussions with NAB's Regional Manager Redgen, the solicitors who set up the trust and the accountants who prepared the accounts for the trust. Sometimes the Doneleys were in Justin O'Sullivan's office when these discussions took place. Justin O'Sullivan was also made aware that Redgen was in contact with the bank's specialists in bank security matters. At the end of the day, Justin O'Sullivan informed his clients that they could leave in the comfort that all issues had been resolved and that they were both to call at the bank on the 8 June 1989 and sign all documentation.

Justin Doneley and his wife called at the NAB's St George Branch as instructed and signed the bank's documentation as presented to them. Justin Doneley noticed that his wife was required to give the bank a mortgage over the 50 year lease of the trust property. Justin Doneley also noticed that the bank had in their possession a copy of firm registration application for the Doneley Pastoral Co dated 5 June 1989 which had been faxed to the bank by his solicitor, Justin O'Sullivan.

This was the first occasion that Justin Doneley was to learn that the business name of Doneley Pastoral Co was to be registered with the bank making advances in that name. There had been no mention of this factor in the office of Justin O'Sullivan on the 6th instant.

It was with the foregoing facts in mind that Justin Doneley contacted Justin O'Sullivan just to ensure that what the bank was presenting to ham and his wife was in order. When these matters were discussed, Justin O'Sullivan simply laughed and told him, "let them take the security, its worthless". These events have all taken place after the bank became fully aware that the Water Resources Commission approved the "Beardie" 825 Ml water allocation from the St George project on the 2 June 1989.

Justin Doneley was to find out some years later that a Business Names Extract issued by the Department of Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading revealed that only two names were registered as carrying on business in the name of Doneley Pastoral Co and those persons were John Justin Doneley and Anne Therese Doneley and the registered date was 21 June 1989.

So what we have here is that all bank securities involving the Doneley Pastoral Co have been drawn incorrectly and are therefore irregular and void. It must also be pointed out that, on 8 June 1989 when the signing of bank documents took place, Anne Therese Doneley as Trustee Under Nomination of Trustees No H504228 and John Justin Doneley were required to sign a bank Guarantee and indemnity for $100,000.00 which was dated 8 June 1989. This is what the bank's discovered document, Record of Securities, reveals to me. I must also point out that in another bank discovered document, it is indicated that the aforementioned Guarantee and Indemnity for $100,000.00 was signed by John Justin Doneley and Anne Therese Doneley.

This Guarantee and Indemnity for $100,000.00 became an obsolete security in the bank's records, was replaced by another Guarantee and Indemnity at an increased amount. Many Guarantees and Indemnities which were raised during the period to May 1992 also were determined as obsolete documents by the bank and were never discovered. However the main fact is that the Guarantee and Indemnity which was relied upon at the time the bank issued formal Demand in 1991 and 1992 is believed to be drawn to secure advances made to the Doneley Pastoral Co was also not discovered. Non discovery by the NAB of these vital documents would seem to me to be one of design.

It can readily be seen that there is an almighty rush on the bank's part to obtain security over the freehold title deeds with water rights attached. Regional Manager Redgen would have known once' they held "formal" security they would always win out in the long run. This is exactly what happened as the reader will learn.

Since my recent discussions with Justin Doneley concerning the firm registration of the Doneley Pastoral Co and its variant implications he has called at the Business Names Section of the Department of Fair Trading and they allowed him to sight a photocopy of Justin O'Sullivan's original Application for Registration of a Business Name on account of the Doneley Pastoral Co dated 5 June 1989.

What was revealed to him was that under Section 6 of the Application titled, "Individual/s or Corporation to be Recorded as carrying on business under the above Business Name:" was the name appearing as, “DONELEY ANNE THERESE 'Beardie', St George. 4887 (As trustee for SEAN GEORGE DONELEY AND MATTHEW JUSTIN DONELEY)”.

The intending member of the Doneley Pastoral Co as described in the foregoing paragraph, viz, “DONELEY ANNE THERESE ‘Beardie’, St George. 4887 (As trustee for SEAN GEORGE DONELEY AND MATTHEW JUSTIN DONELEY)" had all been crossed out. One must assume that the aspect of cross out has taken place in the offices of the Doneleys' solicitor, Justin O'Sullivan & Edgar, and it will be most probably be at the hand of Justin O'Sullivan himself.

Was this why Justin O'Sullivan was laughing when he informed Justin Doneley, "let them lake the security it's worthless"? In the Supreme Court of Queensland litigation recited as 2285/1995 which I will record in more detail. It will be seen that what Justin O'Sullivan tells Justin Doneley is 100% correct with respect to the bank advancing monies to the Doneley Pastoral Co after Doneley’s wife, AT Doneley, had given the NAB security over the trust freehold title deeds.

The reader of the Doneley/National Australia Bank saga to date would naturally pose the question to himself, was the bank engaged in a "STING" operation here? And further, what was Justin O'Sullivan's state of mind at the time?

The clear fact is that the bank's Assistant Securities Services Officer RN South informs the St George Branch Manager that, "no power has been given to the trustee to guarantee third parties and pledge assets in support.” Yet bank discovered documents reveal that the bank has apparently insisted that Anne Therese Doneley sign four Guarantees and Indemnities in favour of herself as Trustee under Nomination of Trustees No H504228 for $100,000.00, $132,000.00, $250,000.00 and Unlimited, bearing the dates 8 June 1989, 22 November 1989, 17 May 1990 and 24 September 1990 respectively.

The prospect of a planned "STING" operation by the National Australia Bank may not be as outrageous as one might think.

Let us take a brief look at the case history of Chris Cameron for a moment; he was later told by a senior employee of the National Australia Bank that his borrowings were set up to fail.

Chris Cameron had a long term association with the NAB and he always trusted them. In 1992/3 Cameron borrowed certain monies from the NAB to set up a lot fed lamb project on his grazing property in the Chinchilla district situated west of Dalby in the State of Queensland. Cameron received very strong encouragement from the bank in what might be described as a unique project of its time. It was might be described as a showcase property which was visited by overseas dignitaries.

Shortly after the appointment of a new branch manager who had control of Cameron's account, the manager sought an inspection of Christopher Cameron's property. At this inspection, the new manager advised Cameron that his lamb feed lot business was to cease and no further cheques should be issued, without prior bank approval. Some months later, after much procrastination, Christopher Cameron was forced to walk off his property with barely the shirt on his back.

After a year or two of this tragic situation taking place, Christopher Cameron had a need to discuss his NAB disastrous association with the NAB's District Manager in Toowoomba, Mr Douglas Neil. Neil informed Cameron that he had examined his file and it revealed that the bank had structured his borrowings so that he would not succeed. (This remark of Neil is stated by reference to a Statutory Declaration sworn on 29 May 2004 by Christopher Cameron.)

The Cameron experience was only eighteen months after NAB obtained direct security over “Beardie" freehold title deeds from Anne Therese Doneley in June 1989. This security had been rejected by the bank in the beginning of the previous year.

The National Australia Bank's main purpose in conducting their business is to generate income. If it means that there is a need for their employees of the bank to engage in a scheming process, so be it. Senior banking personnel will always support their subordinate staff when this type of activity comes to their notice. The senior administrative employees of the bank know full well that if litigation eventuates to extricate the bank from the mire, then success is virtually guaranteed because they have the contacts at the highest echelon of the legal profession. This of course includes the judiciary.

I will now relate individual matters concerning the Doneley family litigation saga.


The Doneley Family Litigation Saga

Documents and transcripts of proceedings etc indicate that members of the Doneley Family were engaged in Supreme Court of Queensland litigation from December 1992 to June 2003. It is not clear how many individual Supreme Court of Queensland litigation actions in which family members have been involved; however I believe that it reaches eight and most likely beyond.

It needs to be highlighted at the outset that this extraordinarily complex stream of litigation hinges essentially on the fact that the NAB had security only over that portion of the aggregation that was of marginal value (the leasehold). The water licenses issued by the State Department of Natural Resources and Water and the water storage facilities applied to the two smaller freehold portions of the aggregation, vested in the name of the trust. The convoluted litigation and the change of trusteeship are all devoted to ensuring that the NAB ultimately gains control of the freehold lands for disposal at its discretion.

I propose to highlight the first three litigation actions in which the Doneley Family members were engaged; however I will also refer to sundry other court documents which I consider are relative to events. These three court actions are described as No 1881 of 1992, No 2285 of 1995 and No 7367 of 1998.

The documents in my possession indicate that extreme bitterness developed in 1998 when Doneley Family members believed that Anthony JH Morris QC, who had been appointed trustee of "The Doneley Trust" by justice de Jersey on the 10 September 1997 and replaced John Justin Doneley, was guilty of defrauding all members of the Doneley Family and also the Estate of Anne Therese Doneley Deceased, former wife of John Justin Doneley.

The allegation of defrauding Doneley Family members can be confirmed by perusing the contents of the Affidavit of Anthony John Hunter Morris QC sworn on 25 June 2003. This Supreme Court of Queensland document recites the action, as, 'In the Matter of Sections 68 and 96 of the Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) and In the Matter of Anthony John Herbert Morris as trustee of the Doneley Trust'.

The contents of this Morris Affidavit indicate that thirteen letters had been received by the Doneley Trust solicitors which threatened further claims against AJH Morris QC. Further information provided by AJH Morris QC in his affidavit indicates to the court that John


Justin Doneley had informed certain members of the Senior Bar that he believed that Morris had committed perjury. Morris further advises the court in his affidavit that JJ Doneley has made complaints against him to the Queensland Police Service Fraud Squad and to certain Federal and State Members of Parliament.

On the 8 March 2006, the Queensland Parliament State Member for Maryborough, Mr Foley, tabled an Affidavit sworn by John Justin Doneley on the 23 February 2006 wherein Doneley deposed to the following:

"Clause 23 I consider that my two sons have been defrauded by Morris QC and Morris's ability to do so has been ratified by the Supreme Court of Queensland through the 'services' of the Chief Justice de Jersey.

Clause 25 The actions of Morris QC, Barrister-at-Law as described within this affidavit could not have been reached, I would suggest, without the collaboration of Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey.

The contents of these two clauses as above clearly indicates the state of mind of John Justin Doneley and needs no further explanation.

My observations concerning the three recited Doneley Family litigation actions as listed above are as follows.

1. No 1881 of 1992 where the National Australia Bank was Plaintiff and John Justin Doneley as Trustee under a Nomination of Trustees H504228 was First Defendant and John Justin Doneley as Executor of the Estate of the late Anne Therese Doneley as Second Defendant. (This action originally commenced in December 1992 with the Second Defendants recited as John Justin Doneley and Anne Therese Doneley.)


The No 1881 of 1992 litigation originally commenced as an Application for Summary Judgement by the bank. However the bank conceded that the filed affidavit material caused a draft defence and counter claim.

The grounds of the counter claim did not claim any misrepresentation with the facts surrounding the formation of the Doneley Pastoral Co. The fact was that no one really thought that a bank, particularly the National Australia Bank, would knowingly engage in deceptive and deceitful process. So the matter was not fully ventilated and the bank was pulling out all stops to ensure that the issue never came into the court arena.

The trial hearing for recovery and possession of the lands by the NAB as mortgagee commenced on the 7 December 1995. However, shortly before the trial commencement, the two sons of JJ & AT Doneley, Sean George Doneley and Matthew Justin Doneley, sued their parents, various members of the Connellan Family (AT Doneley was a Connellan) who set up the trust arrangement in the first place, and the National Australia Bank. This action attracted the recital No 2285 of 1995. The No 2285 of 1995 litigation will be dealt with in the next segment.

A Directions Hearing to adjourn the No 1881 of 1992 took place on the 4 December 1995 before Justice Shepherdson. This adjournment was sought by counsel for SG and MJ Doneley who were the First and Second Plaintiffs. His Honour dismissed the Application; however the National Australia Bank gave an undertaking that they would not sell the trust property.

The No 1881 of 1992 trial hearing was conducted from the 7 to 11 December 1995 before Justice Moynihan who adjourned the trial on the final day due to the ill health of AT Doneley. AT Doneley died on the 12 May 1996.

On the 31 May 1996, the instructing solicitors for the NAB


brought on an Ex Parte Application to have John Justin Doneley replace his wife Anne Therese Doneley under Nomination of Trustees No H504228 following her death on 13 May 1996.

This Ex Parte Application, which attracted the recital No 1881 of 1992, took place before Justice de Jersey on the 31 May 1996 who ordered that John Justin Doneley be appointed as trustee of the trust as described in the previous paragraph. This appointment involved the freehold portion of the grazing property known as "Beardie"; these freehold lands were described as lots 1 and 14. Justice de Jersey further ordered that John Justin Doneley be vested in person under the Nomination of Trustees No H504228.

JJ Doneley had no prior knowledge of this Ex Parte Application. Doneley was to learn many years down the track that, following his appointment as trustee, his name should have been registered on the two title deeds at the titles office; it never was registered.

JJ Doneley instigated inquiry in March 2002 and was advised by the Official Solicitor for the Public Trustee of Queensland that he, the Official Solicitor, was responsible for having him appointed as the new trustee vide Section 16 (2)(b) of the Trusts Act 1973. The Public Trustee further advised Doneley that his appointment was done at the direction and request of the NAB's instructing solicitors, Flower & Hart.

Once Justice de Jersey had formally ordered that AT Doneley be replaced by her husband JJ Doneley as trustee, there should have been an automatic ongoing process by the Public Trustee to have JJ Doneley's name registered as owner on the two title deeds at the titles office in Brisbane. The Public Trustee did not proceed along these lines. The Public Trustee informed JJ Doneley that his instruction not to proceed came from WT Haseler, senior solicitor for Flower & Hart, the NAB's instructing solicitors who had control of the litigation.

This instruction of WT Haseler is one of calculated deception because if JJ Doneley was to formally become the registered owner on the two freehold title deeds, it most certainly would have frustrated the litigation process which was under way at that point in time.

The trial hearing before Justice Moynihan recommenced on the 5 August 1996 and proceeded for a further four days. Justice Moynihan accepted by leave on the 8 August 1996 an affidavit deposed to by WT Haseler, the solicitor in control of the NAB file. The contents of this affidavit brought to the notice of the court that there was said to be a bona fide amount owing to the NAB for the sum of $1,513,409.98.

Haseler apportions this debt as follows:

“(a) Account No 04-452-8370 Doneley Pastoral Company

Balance as at 8/8/86 $1,213,409.98

(b) Account No 95-551-0521 John Justin Doneley and Anne Therese Doneley

Balance as at 8/8/96 $ 300,000.00

What this means in my view is that the bank is saying to the court, 'Your Honour, we are owed a lot of money and we want it repaid. Hand down your decision accordingly.'

The crucial point here is that Haseler has not exhibited any bank statements or internal bank documents to verify that debt. Moreover, I would say that at this point in time, viz 8/8/96, that the bank has written off their debt.


The Doneley Pastoral Company debt @ $1,213,409.98 as at 8/8/96 needs to be contrasted with the NAB's Formal Demand raised under the date of 25/5/92 wherein the Doneley Pastoral Company sum due is stated to be $632,283.15. How has the 8/8/96 figure been arrived at? The NAB doesn't provide any confirmatory documentation to the court, and the court simply accepts any figure which is given to them. The court does not consider whether the person providing this vital information has any standing in the document itself.

The No 1881 of 1992 litigation hearings raised 697 pages of transcript of proceedings. Mr Brandis, senior counsel for the NAB, presented his final address to His Honour which highlighted the following matters.

The clear thrust of his address boils down to this: we do not have to prove the bank's securities, i.e. the securities taken by the bank in June 1989 when they accepted a registered mortgage over the two freehold title deeds etc; we do not have to prove how the said sum due, via $1,533,156.74, was arrived at; we are simply seeking possession and control to act pursuant to the bank's securities.

What a great argument; why have the litigation at all?

It doesn't matter whether the NAB has wilfully engaged in deceptive process to obtain their security over the freehold title deeds. His Honour does not even insist on a certified registered firm search of the Doneley Pastoral Co. JJ Doneley and his late wife's accountant gave evidence and stated that both Justin Doneley and his late wife were the registered agents and trustees.

The accountant’s evidence here is incorrect. Firstly by referring to the Application for Registration of a Business name dated 5/6/1989 for the Business Name, 'Doneley Pastoral Co' by the Doneleys' solicitors, O'Sullivan & Edgar, dated 5/6/89, exhibited to the court in the No 2285 of 1995 litigation, one learns that the Application, seeks to register the-following names as Carrying On Business: John Justin Doneley, Anne Therese Doneley and Anne Therese Doneley (as trustee for Sean


George Doneley and Matthew Justin Doneley). It further transpires that O'Sullivan & Edgar exhibited a copy of their Application For Registration of a Business Name to their letter dated 6th June, 1989 addressed to The Manager, National Australia Bank, 62 The Terrace, ST GEORGE. 4487.

It transpires that I hold a certified copy of a Business Names Extract created on 10 September 2002 issued by the Queensland Government, Department of Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading. This search record indicates to the reader that the firm name of Doneley Pastoral Co was registered on the 21/06/1989, attracted the Registration Number: BN3709000 and reveals that persons carrying on business were John Justin Doneley and Anne Therese Doneley.

The facts in relation to the circumstances surrounding the Doneley Pastoral Co business name registration as far as JJ Doneley and his wife are concerned are as follows. On the 5 June 1989 JJ Doneley and his wife attended the offices of O'Sullivan & Edgar. The Doneleys spent all day with their accountant, senior partner Justin O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan was in contact with all relevant parties throughout the day, viz NAB, the trust accountants,. the trust solicitors and the instigators of the trust arrangement in the first place, AT Doneley’s brother, Anthony M Connellan.

Late in the day on the 5 June 1989, Justin O'Sullivan informed the Doneleys that everything had been arranged and to go to the NAB St George the next day when the bank would have documentation to be signed. The Doneleys proceeded as instructed and they learnt for the first time that a registered firm name of Doneley Pastoral


Co was to be a name which would borrow certain monies from the NAB. The Doneleys’ interview with the bank took place on the 6 June 1989. At this interview, JJ Doneley not only learnt about the business name of the Doneley Pastoral Co, he also became aware that the bank was to take security over the trust freehold lands, Lots 1 and 14.

Justin Doneley thought that it was advisable to seek confirmation from his accountant as to what the NAB was asking him and his wife to do, i.e. give security over the trust property. When JJ Doneley spoke to his accountant, Justin O'Sullivan, his acknowledgement was represented by loud guffaw. O'Sullivan responded by saying, "let them [NAB] take it, their security will be worthless". JJ Doneley has relayed that story to me on many occasions.

In my view, what transpired regarding the Business Name Registration of the Doneley Pastoral Co makes the trial hearing of 1881 of 1992 a farcical one. It's nothing more than a scam on the bank's part as far as process is concerned and Justice Moynihan plays along with that scam.

The way I see it, no other interpretation can be placed on the situation when the facts as outlined above are known.

The opening remarks of Justice Moynihan prior to the commencement of addresses was, "the proof of your case has been very much a formality. I mean, in other words, simply proving the security documents and default and. so on." The response from the NAB's senior counsel was, "that's right". The fact is that the bank's counsel made no attempt to prove his client's security.

The security I am talking about here is the NAB's security which supported advances made to the Doneley Pastoral Co. The bank had not perfected this security and they knew this. What's more, the bank's counsel was also very well aware of this, I would suggest. The bank was well aware that their security was unenforceable because their own internal documentation confirmed this state of affairs.


The transcript of proceedings reveals that the level of debt in the Doneley connection name was raised from time to time and the immediate response from the NAB's counsel, Mr Brandis, was "we do not have to prove the debt, your Honour, my client is simply seeking possession of the lands, it is a recovery of a land action.”

Justice Moynihan handed down his judgement on the 12 September 1996. His Honour dismissed the Doneleys’ Counter Claim and gave possession of both leasehold and freehold lands to the bank. His Honour's judgement severely damaged the credibility of JJ Doneley which was to have further deleterious effects.

It will be seen that Justice de Jersey has played a minor role in this particular litigation. However it is the strong belief of JJ Doneley that de Jersey's action to preside over the NAB’s Ex Parte Application was engineered by his 'close friend' Anthony JH Morris QC. In the light of other information known concerning the association between the two, I hold the view that Doneley's thinking here is correct.


2. No 2285 of 1995 where JJ Doneley's two sons, Sean George Doneley and Matthew Justin Doneley, were the First and Second Plaintiffs respectively and JJ Doneley as trustee was the First Defendant, JJ Doneley was the Second Defendant in his own right, his brother-in-law and his wife, Anthony Michael Connellan and Margaret Elsie Connellan, were the Fourth and Fifth Defendants respectively, while the National Australia Bank was the Third Defendant.

The trial hearing commenced on the 30 June 1997 with Justice Paul de Jersey presiding. It will be seen that there is a gap of just on nine months from the time Justice Moynihan delivered his judgement in No 1881 of 1992 to the hearing commencement in No 2285 of 1995.

My understanding is that Justice Moynihan had made it known to all parties in this action that he had the carriage of same and would preside at the trial hearing. The instructing solicitor for the Fourth and Fifth Defendants was engaged in a deceptive exercise which he anticipated would force Justice Moynihan to disqualify himself. Justice Moynihan did disqualify himself some time in November/December 1996. Justice Moynihan, at the time of self disqualification, announced that the carriage of the action would now be in the hands of Justice Paul de Jersey from that moment onwards.

JJ Doneley was a self represented litigant for this No 2285 of 1995 action. In the latter half of 1996, I understand that there were many directions hearings. Court costs would be an issue, as well as the threat of surety of costs for JJ Doneley. JJ Doneley was advised in the circumstances to voluntarily declare himself bankrupt. Doneley accepted this advice and he was formally declared bankrupt some time during the final quarter of 1996. It is my personal view that


JJ Doneley's action in this regard proved disastrous for the Doneley Family members. However, JJ Doneley declared himself bankrupt on advice; it was not of his own volition. In my view JJ Doneley's bankruptcy was induced as a victim of an engineered plan. The basic aim of the plan was to defraud members of the Doneley Family and this was later achieved. .

Justice de Jersey presided over the trial hearing from 30 June 1997 to 11 July 1997. After reading the transcripts of proceedings and examining well over a thousand pages of documentation, I am satisfied that JJ Doneley as a self represented litigant was not a recipient of a fair and due process which he was entitled to expect from the court. The fair minded lay observer can confidently say that JJ Doneley was a victim of Justice de Jersey's discretionary power.

On the first day of the trial hearing, Justice de Jersey informs JJ Doneley that he, de Jersey, is a customer of the National Bank, and no party has raised an objection. What does de Jersey mean by 'no party'? The fact is de Jersey had had carriage of this litigation for the previous seven months; there were several directions hearings and de Jersey made absolutely no prior attempt to acquaint JJ Doneley of his existing banking association with NAB, the Third Defendant. This is typical of de Jersey's conduct – I'll use my discretion in any way I see fit. The reader will continue to read right throughout this submission that Justice de Jersey seems to adopt a biased view in applying discretion. Continued transcript study highlights that de Jersey seems to favour his bankers.

What could JJ Doneley do in the circumstances? The three senior counsel representing other parties are ready to proceed. If one proceeds to the transcript of proceedings which was raised on day two, page 82 refers,


we find this interchange takes place:

"HIS HONOUR: No, don't be personal about it. I have told you about that before.

MR DONELEY; I said 'the bank'. I didn't say Mr Brandis – senior counsel for the National Bank.

HIS HONOUR: But even the bank. The bank is a noble Australian institution and let's not be personal even about corporations.''

It can be seen that de Jersey instantly takes up the cudgels for the National Australia Bank. As the Australian public at large knows full well, the banking industry has been progressively losing integrity and credibility in the eyes of the public ever since deregulation of the banking by a Labor government in the 1980's. De Jersey's description, "noble Australian institution" is gratuitous, and pointedly so. I consider his conduct in this instance to be biased and obscene.

However, de Jersey must have been having second thoughts about his "noble Australian institution" remarks because, moving along, we find that this dialogue takes place:

"HIS HONOUR: … Mr Doneley, when I refer to the bank as a noble Australian institution, I am speaking historically. I am well aware of the current criticisms of banks and I assure you that I come to this case with an open mind. You don't have a problem with that?

MR DONELEY: You said you were a client yesterday, I had a joke about this with somebody yesterday and I said, ‘I suppose the judge has an account with millions of dollars in superannuation.’

HIS HONOUR: No, I am only a Supreme Court judge. I am not a QC, not like these people, We have some kinship."

De Jersey proffers a mix of statements here and it is necessary to analyse each. It can be construed from de Jersey's opening comment that de Jersey is attempting to minimise his own status in comparison to senior counsel representing the Plaintiffs and the Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants. I find de Jersey's remarks in this regard as rendered in a wiseacre mode, nothing more.

De Jersey states that he is not a QC. If one refers to Who's Who in Australia 2009, it reveals that under “de Jersey Hon. Chief Justice Paul, AC 2000, BA, LLB (hons), Hon. LLD (Qld)", that de Jersey has been a QC since 1981. It is my belief that de Jersey could have claimed at the time of his QC appointment that he was the youngest ever to be anointed in this regard.

So, what's de Jersey all about here? Can he be classed as a fabricator endeavouring to put a false image before JJ Doneley? It certainly appears so.

This conclusion on my part is further confirmed by de Jersey's statement, "We have some kinship, Mr Doneley.” This statement of de Jersey is totally ludicrous in my view; there is absolutely no kinship in any respect.

After examining bank litigation for the past twenty years, these type of statements are not unusual when bank victims are quietly being led to the slaughter in the court. The fact was that JJ Doneley has lost his grazing property, he is impecunious and he is an undischarged bankrupt. It is obvious to anyone who becomes cognisant of the facts that de Jersey is playing an unctuousness role here.

The critical issues for deliberation in this trial were as follows.

* The circumstances surrounding the contract purchase of the freehold trust lands, being Lots 1 and 14 in 1984, which formed part of the aggregation known as "Beardie": Although JJ Doneley did have some knowledge of this purchase, it was handled in the main by JJ Doneley's long time family solicitor, Justin O'Sullivan of O'Sullivan & Edgar, in conjunction with Anthony Michael Connellan, the Fourth Defendant. Details of the trust land purchase were organised by these latter two.

* The circumstances surrounding the granting of a 50 year lease over the freehold trust lands, Lots 1 & 14 @ $1.00 per annum in 1985 to JJ & AT Doneley: This dealing was consummated by the principal in control of the trust property, AM Connellan. It is known that JJ & AT Doneley were consulted in this matter.

* The circumstances surrounding the business name registration of the Doneley Pastoral Co and the fact that the National Australia Bank then advanced certain monies in this name from June 1989 onwards:

From the information possessed by the writer, it indicates that the business name of the Doneley Pastoral Co came into being following what might be described as a 'roundtable' discussion between Justin O'Sullivan, AM Connellan on behalf of the trust, the solicitors for the trust, the accountants for the trust and certain employees from the National Australia Bank. Justin O'Sullivan presented the situation to both JJ & AT Doneley as a fait accompli.

The circumstances surrounding the improvements with associated expenditure which was made to the trust property by JJ & AT Doneley.

JJ Doneley as Second Defendant was the first to give evidence and it is fair to say that he was given a gruelling in cross examination in the witness box by Mr Bain, senior counsel for the Fourth and Fifth Defendants, AM Connellan and his wife, ME Connellan. This cross examination is spread over 135 pages of transcript of proceedings.

After studying the Doneley Family saga in some detail, the modus operandi of the senior counsel representing the parties involved in the proceedings was to denigrate JJ Doneley and his late wife at every opportunity and to make out that they were cheating on the trust – against their two sons in effect. This is confirmed in address by the NAB's senior counsel when he says, "assisting with knowledge in dishonest and fraudulent design”.

JJ Doneley’s cross examination rolled over to two days; however he was so disgusted with what had taken place during the first day in the witness box that he felt the need to write a nine page letter addressed to justice de Jersey. A copy of this letter was handed to all counsel by JJ Doneley on the morning of his second day of cross examination and Justice de Jersey marked the letter as Exhibit 35.

It is not practicable to detail all contents of this exhibit here; however the opening two paragraphs are as follows:

"I am referring to the MOST UNFAIR TREATMENT at the hands of Mr Bains QC.

"These are my grievances as you indicated you would assist me, being Unrepresented.”

JJ Doneley then proceeded to list 23 grievances in expanded detail. JJ Doneley's most significant grievance was that there had been no confirmation as to whether his long term family solicitor, Justin O'Sullivan, would be called to give evidence. Counsel for the Connellans, Mr Bain, refers to O'Sullivan on many occasions; however he does not indicate to the court his intentions regarding calling O'Sullivan as a witness. JJ Doneley considered from his point of view it was of paramount importance that O’Sullivan should be called as his evidence would be expected to fully inform the court what had taken place.

His Honour proceeded to say that contents of Exhibit 35, page 9, were "scandalous". His Honour then ordered that "those copies" be surrendered and he then proceeded to say, "I will destroy those". JJ Doneley retained his own copy.

Counsel for JJ Doneley's two sons, Anthony JH Morris QC, addressed His Honour on the subject at hand and lent his full support to fellow counsel, Mr Bain. Morris stated to the court that Mr Bain's clients, the Connellans, should not be subject to utterly irrelevant personal attacks.

As far as JJ Doneley was concerned, it was of paramount importance that AM Connellan, the Fourth Defendant, be called to give evidence and be subject to cross examination. JJ Doneley was to hear in court in the afternoon session at 3.57pm, following resumption after a court adjournment, that AM Connellan would not be giving evidence.

This was a shattering blow from JJ Doneley's point of view and he was eventually to learn that his brother-in-law was let off the hook following inducement to certain parties in the proceedings. Of course the Connellans were wealthy people and were able to extricate themselves from the possible mire which they could have been placed if they were forced to give evidence and be subject to the inevitable cross examination. This was a clear act of chicanery on the part of senior members of the legal profession as I see the situation.

When the court reconvened after the adjournment, Mr Bain QC addressed His Honour with the following comments:"We are pleased, on our part, to be able to tell Your Honour that the action in so far as it relates to the Fourth and Fifth Defendants is resolved.”

Morris QC responds: "There has never been a suggestion, and there is no suggestion, that they have acted dishonestly or otherwise than in what they perceived based on solicitor's advice to be appropriate in the circumstances.”

His Honour responds: "That would certainly accord with the view I have taken of the case to this point. I grant you leave to withdraw, Mr Bain."

The question which immediately comes to my mind is, why were the Connellans named as Defendants in the first place? The Statement of Claim for this action was surely settled by AJH Morris QC who would have concluded that the Connellans had direct involvement regarding setting up the trust in the first place in 1984, in circumstances surrounding the granting of the 50 year lease of the trust lands for a $1.00 per annum, and the trust involvement concerning the registration of the business name, Doneley Pastoral Co and advances made by NAB thereto.

And so AM Connellan in particular is let off the hook. JJ Doneley has told me repeatedly over recent years that his brother-in-law created the trust for his (Doneley’s) two sons as a tax dodge and such monies which may have been advanced in the purchase of Lots 1 and 14 technically belonged to his late wife.

The circumstances surrounding the registration of the Business Name, Doneley Pastoral Co, was not given the prominence it deserved. It is fair to say that this vital issue was glossed over; the reason of course was that


there can be no embarrassment to the NAB, de Jersey's personal bankers.

The two people who could have informed the court what actually evolved in the formation of the Doneley Pastoral Co were JJ Doneley's solicitor, Justin O'Sullivan, and NAB's Regional Manager, Cliff Redgen. All parties involved, with the exception of JJ Doneley, do not want the truth to be exposed to court scrutiny. That is why Justin O'Sullivan was not called as a witness; however the NAB's Regional Manager, Cliff Redgen, was. Cliff Redgen went into the witness box on the sixth day of the trial and informed the court that he was the regional manager of the National Australia Bank's south west region based at Warwick from 23 June 1986 to 6 February 1990.

Redgen was asked in preliminary by the NAB's counsel to look at certain documents of bank origin and some of these made reference to the fact that, "Mrs Doneley and Doneley Pastoral Co, of whom the partners are Mr and Mrs Doneley and Mrs Doneley as trustee under the particular nomination of trusts. Can you tell us what, if anything, of the circumstances surrounding the establishement of this Doneley Pastoral Co you now recall? --- No, I don't. I don't remember it at all.''

Mr Bain, senior counsel for the Fourth and Fifth Defendants, the Connellans, makes no further mention of the Doneley Pastoral Co name; however he refers the witness to a copy of O'Sullivan & Edgar's Application for Business Name Registration of Doneley Pastoral Co. Redgen is asked, "Do you recall having any conversation with Mr O'Sullivan, the solicitor of the firm, in relation to this matter? Redgen's response was, "No, I don't think I have ever seen that document or heard anything of it.''


Mr Doneley has informed me on many occasions that both he and his wife spent all day at their solicitor's offices in Dalby the day before he and his wife called at the St George Branch of the National Australia Bank the next day and signed all the bank's documentation.

Doneley was aware that his solicitor, Justin O'Sullivan, was in contact with all parties, including Regional Manager, Cliff Redgen. Redgen had to be satisfied from the bank's point of view because he was answerable to his superiors and he had the responsibility in terms of his delegated lending authority of approving the his branch manager's submitted Line of Credit Application which incorporated new lending in the name of the Doneley Pastoral Co.

When Cliff Redgen stated in response that, "No, I don't. I can't remember it at all." to the question surrounding his knowledge of the establishment of the Doneley Pastoral Co, it is my view that Cliff Redgen's denial is false.

How can I arrive at this conclusion? I was in regular contact with Cliff Redgen for a period of two and a half years to round about April 1968. At that time Cliff Redgen was the NAB's branch accountant at their 168 Flinders Street, Townsville branch, while I held the position of branch accountant at the bank’s Ingham Branch. Ingham is located approximately 65 kilometres north of Townsville.

It further transpires that I replaced Cliff Redgen in his position in April 1968 following his promotion to branch manager. I assumed control of all Cliff Redgen's pending lending files and as a consequence was able to glean his lending style.

I have met Cliff Redgen on at least three times since his retirement in 1990 and have also had telephone contact and can say that discussions on past banking experiences were always most common. Cliff Redgen had a very good recollection of significant issues which occurred throughout his career. It is my perception that Redgen’s lack of recall regarding the “Beardie” situation is most uncharacteristic.

I have never in any career or consultancy ever seen the purchase of a grazing property of the likes of "Beardie". The inference is that Cliff Redgen was suppressing the truth simply because he had been schooled up to do so by the bank's legal team. Perjury would have been no problem to Cliff Redgen in the circumstances. If Cliff Redgen had responded to the question truthfully, then it would have been a severe embarrassment to the court in the No 1881 of 1992 trial.

From a banking point of view, both the No 1881 of 1992 and No 2285 of 1995 could be classified as a farce.

My comments on de Jersey's judgement delivered on the 30 July 1997 in No 2285 of 1995 are as follows.

The NAB was ordered to deliver up its securities if requested to do so by the trustee.

In the first eight pages of His Honour's judgement, he outlines the conduct of the banking association involving JJ & AT Doneley to May 1989. His Honour then deals with the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Doneley Pastoral Co. His Honour proceeds to say, "The evidence does leave the circumstances of that 'partnership' shrouded in considerable mystery.”

His Honour contributed to that ‘mystery’, for the simple reason that Justin O'Sullivan was not called to give evidence and the court allowed the Fourth and Fifth Defendants to withdraw from the action. This situation was further hindered by the fact that NAB's Regional Manager, Cliff Redgen, claims that he could not recall any detail of the business name, the Doneley Pastoral Co.


The facts of course were that the legal profession at all levels were active in having the truth suppressed. This was because the NAB had been engaged in deceptive and fraudulent process. The bank did not discover a copy of their firm search as is their normal practice. The bank's lending guidelines state that no advances can be made in a business name until the bank has conducted a search at the appropriate registry and confirmation is held as to who the registered firm partners are.

I concur with His Honour's findings as contained in the next twelve pages of his judgement. The bank could not lose because they were fully secured. The bank most certainly adopted the view that possession is nine tenths of the law and we'll take our chances even though we are well aware that our securities lack perfection. In the meantime, we'll load our interest and charges where possible.

I do think that Justice de Jersey's high level of criticism of the conduct of JJ Doneley's wife and trustee was overly harsh, bearing in mind that, at all times, no step forward was ever taken without seeking professional advice. His Honour determined that not only did AT Doneley breach the trust following her appointment as trustee of the corporate trustee, H.B.6 Pty Ltd, he also found that the NAB, the third defendant in No 2285 of 1995, was also a constructive trustee – meaning that the bank simply holds its interests under its securities on trust for AT Doneley’s two sons as beneficiaries.

His Honour's concluding four line statement in his judgement thanked counsel for their well presented final submissions and thanked the State Reporting Bureau for their successful effort at computer based "real time" reporting which made possible the virtual immediate availability of visible transcript.

Justice de Jersey then made the following declarations:

"1. that the estate of the deceased and the second defendant hold their interest in the lease portions 1 and 14 granted on 21 January 1985 on trust for the plaintiffs;

2. that the third defendant [NAB] holds its interest in the mortgage (granted on 8 June 1989) of the freehold reversion of the said lands on trust for the plaintiffs;

3. that the third defendant holds its interest in the mortgage (also granted on 8 June 1989) of the leasehold interest of the deceased and the second defendant in the said land on trust for the plaintiffs;

4. that the third defendant hold its interest in the bills of sale granted by the deceased and the second defendant on 17 September 1990 – so far as they cover items purchased using moneys distributed by the Connellan Trust for the use of the plaintiffs – on trust for the plaintiffs."

Justice de Jersey then made one concluding and vital statement: "No doubt consideration should be given, if it has not already been given, to appointing a new trustee following the death of Mrs Doneley."

I find this statement of Justice de Jersey strange for two reasons. Firstly, what business is it of de Jersey that a new replacement trustee be appointed? It's none of his business. Secondly, de Jersey himself appointed John Justin Doneley as replacement trustee on 31 May 1996 following the death of his wife. Is there an underlying motive on the part of de Jersey?

It will be seen in the next Doneley Family litigation saga that the aforementioned de Jersey statement concerning the appointment of a replacement trustee triggered a series of events which will indicate down the line that the National Australia Bank will not lose a dollar, despite the fact that they have been ordered to return the freehold title deeds to lots 1 and 14 to the trustee on an unencumbered basis.

The question for consideration at this point is, do various actions involving court procedure represent a smart stratagem of two-fold design whereby it involves Justice de Jersey helping his 'friend' Anthony JH Morris QC and his personal bankers, the National Australia Bank?

2a. The lead up circumstances surrounding the appointment of Anthony JH Morris QC as trustee to replace John Justin Doneley who in turn was appointed as replacement trustee by Justice de Jersey on the 30 May 1996 pursuant to Nomination of Trustees No H504228.

The court filed Summons ordering the parties to attend at the chambers of the Honourable Mr Justice de Jersey on the 10 September 1997 was filed on the 8 September 1997 with the court recital No 2285 of 1995. The Summons sought liberty to apply to have John Justin Doneley in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Anne Therese Doneley, the First Defendant, replaced by Anthony JH Morris QC.

The Summons proceeded to inform the court that Anthony JH Morris QC would be trustee and may exercise all of the powers, discretions set out in Nomination of Trustees No H504228. It was stated that the said trustee would not be entitled to charge any fee or remuneration of any nature whatsoever. Justice de Jersey ratified Anthony JH Morris's appointment as trustee on the 10 September 1997.

It is appropriate that I reflect back for a moment and inform the reader of some of the lead up events from the time Justice de Jersey mentioned the matter of a 'replacement trustee' in his judgement of the 30 July 1997 until de Jersey appointed AJH Morris QC as the replacement trustee on the 10 September 1997.

Anthony JH Morris QC wasted no time in setting up a chain of events which would enable him to have his legal ‘friend' Justice de Jersey appoint him as trustee under the Nomination of Trustees No H504228 to replace the then trustee, John Justin Doneley.

The instructing solicitors for JJ Doneley's two sons, Sean George Doneley and Matthew Justin Doneley, the First and Second Plaintiffs in this action, addressed a letter to their clients dated 8 August 1997, eight days after de Jersey had handed down his judgement and referred to discussions which had already taken place between themselves and Anthony JH Morris QC pointing out that they will be writing to them early the next week and this communication will discuss all ramifications of appointing AJH Morris QC as their trustee.

This following letter dated 12 August 1997 was covered by three pages of advice and exhibited the generalised duties and responsibilities of trustees.

The trust beneficiaries, Sean G and Matthew J Doneley, had made it well known to all involved that they wished to retain the freehold portion of "Beardie". The trust beneficiaries’ instructing solicitors affirmed to this fact in their correspondence to Sean Doneley. The instructing solicitors also felt the need to advise their clients that Anthony JH Morris QG was quite willing to accept the appointment as replacement trustee.

On the 15 August 1997, Anthony JH Morris QC wrote a seven page letter to Sean G Doneley which initially referred to previous telephone discussions which he had had with Sean. The principal aim of this letter was for Morris to offer his services as trustee of the trust property to replace his father. Morris informed Doneley that his father was a bankrupt which now precluded him from trusteeship duties.

The pertinent issue which Morris highlighted to Sean Doneley was to point out that it would be perfectly in order for him to accept directions from him and his brother Matthew to the effect that they were both in unison and did not wish to sell the trust property. Morris proceeded to say that he would accept their written instruction in the matter. Morris further stressed, "I would strongly be guided by your wishes."

Morris did point out in this communication that, "it is very desirable to have at least two trustees, since two heads are better than one. However, if you preferred to have me as one of your trustees, I am willing to do so."

The remaining issue of consequence highlighted by Morris was that while he might charge for out of pocket expenses, he would not charge for his own time. And as an afterthought, Morris thinks it appropriate to inform Sean Doneley that there is formal indication as to whether the National Australia Bank proposes to lodge an appeal against the decision handed down by de Jersey on the 30 July 1997.

A fortnight after Morris raised his letter dated 15 August 1997 addressed to Sean Doneley. Sean Doneley received a letter dated 29 August 1997 from his solicitors, Clewett Corser & Drummond, who had their professional offices in Toowoomba, confirming Sean Doneley's instructions to make an Application to the Court for appointment of Tony Morris as the sole trustee in respect to the two parcels of freehold land. The firm confirmed that the Application intended would replace his father as trustee.

Clewett Corser & Drummond then informed Sean Doneley as follows, "You will recall that he [JJ Doneley] appointed himself when your mother died. However, as far as we know, he has done nothing about registering that appointment." This statement is a distinct lie and it indicates at this very early stage in the proceedings in so far as JJ Doneley's two sons are concerned, that their solicitors are engaged in deceitful process.

As I have previously stated, JJ Doneley's appointment as trustee was formally instigated by the bank's solicitors Flower and Hart, with Mr Haseler instructing the Public Trustee to proceed with the appointment documentation. JJ Doneley did not learn of his appointment until some weeks after it had happened. Not only was the statement false, it was intentionally so in my view.

The letter then proceeded to inform Sean Doneley that they would now prepare the Application to the Court and the procedure to follow. The solicitors informed Sean Doneley that, "Tony will regularly seek your written instructions from you confirming his decisions and/or actions." A copy of this letter was sent to Tony Morris.

The instructing solicitors for Sean and Matthew Doneley then filed an affidavit deposed to on the 8 September 1997 alluding to the fact that Justice de Jersey stated in his judgement delivered on the 30 July 1997 that, "No doubt consideration should be given, if it has not already been given, to appointing a new trustee following the death of Mrs Doneley." It was now pointed out to the court that it was appropriate to appoint a new trustee for Reasons as per Judgement.

The instructing solicitors for the two Doneley brothers then filed a Summons in the Supreme Court of Queensland on the 8 September 1997 wherein the opening remark states, "Let all parties concerned attend the Chambers of The Honourable Mr Justice de Jersey on Wednesday 10 September 1997, at 9.15 o'clock in the forenoon, on hearing of an Application on the part of the Plaintiffs for Orders."

This filed document then proceeded to say that the First Defendant, John Justin Doneley, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Anne Therese Doneley, be removed as trustee and be replaced by Anthony John Hunter Morris.

To support their court Application, the instructing solicitors then proceeded to file in the registry a twelve page affidavit sworn on the 8 September 1997 deposed to by Anthony John Hunter Morris containing twenty one clauses.

The salient features of this affidavit which Morris swore to are as follows: that the Second Defendant, Justin J Doneley, would not be a suitable person to be appointed and Morris is concerned that Justin Doneley may have his own agenda. Morris recognises that it is an unusual proposal that a barrister who has appeared as senior counsel for the trust beneficiaries at a trial now seeks to offer himself as their trustee; if he is appointed, he will not charge any remuneration for acting as trustee. Morris is very protective of the trust beneficiaries; that Morris would not be bound by the views of the beneficiaries if their views were to be considered imprudent to him.

The Application proceeded before Justice de Jersey, as arranged, on the 10 September 1997. In Justin Doneley's opening address, he brought to the notice of His Honour that he appointed him as trustee of his wife's estate last year which followed on from an Application brought on by the bank's solicitors Flower & Hart. His Honour responded by acknowledging that he had a "vague memory of that". There was nothing vague about de Jersey's memory.

His Honour then proceeded to say that he found in the evidence at the trial hearing that Justin Doneley had breached the trust. His Honour then informs Justin Doneley, "The only thing that I am asked to do today, and I presently intend doing it, is to appoint Mr Morris as trustee over the land portions 1 and 14 and the equipment, that's all."

His Honour then proceeds to make several gratuitous remarks about Mr Morris (his friend) e.g. "I think, Mr Doneley, your sons are very lucky to have Mr Morris prepared to act in this capacity. You are very fortunate to have someone like Mr Morris to do it for nothing, Mr Doneley. I wish I had someone like him managing all my affairs; he has a great depth of knowledge of all this now which would be a pity to forego.''

Personally, I find de Jersey's remarks of adulation about Morris as obscene.

Justice de Jersey concluded the hearing by informing Justin Doneley not to bankrupt himself again. Yet I consider that Justin Doneley was a victim of an entrapment exercise when he declared himself bankrupt in 1996.

Justice de Jersey then ordered that JJ Doneley be removed as trustee and that Anthony John Hunter Morris be appointed as trustee of the trust property and that his powers be exercised as set out in Nomination of Trustees No H504228.

In Justice de Jersey’s final order he stated that the trustee shall not charge any fee or remuneration of any nature whatsoever, save and except the reimbursement of any out of pocket expenses, including proper professional fees in obtaining advice or other services from solicitors and accountants in connection with the trust property.

There is no doubt that this final order was at the direct request of Anthony JH Morris QC.

When one reaches the end of this Doneley Family saga, it will be realised that Justice de Jersey’s appointment of Anthony JH Morris QC, his friend, as trustee is one cog in the wheel which forms part of a detrimental process from the Doneley family point of view.

3. No 7367 of 1998 where Anthony John Herbert Morris QC as trustee, appointed by Order of the Supreme Court of Queensland on the 10 September 1997 by Justice Paul de Jersey, seeks by way of Notice of Motion on the Application of Anthony John Hunter Morris for directions pursuant to Section 96 of the Trusts Act 1973.

The Notice of Motion dated 11 August 1998 informs all parties that the motion will be heard before the Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey on the 20 August 1998.

The purpose of this Notice of Motion was to seek the court's approval for Anthony John Hunter Morris as trustee to sell the trust property where the beneficiaries were Sean George Doneley and Matthew Justin Doneley, the two sons of JJ Doneley.

Terms and conditions of sale were contained in the court filed thirty one page affidavit deposed to by AJH Morris QC and a document known as a Heads of Agreement dated 12 October 1998.

The significant issues contained in the Morris affidavit and Heads of Agreement was that trustee Morris could enter into a joint sale arrangement with the National Australia Bank who had control and possession of the leasehold portion of the property known as "Beardie".

In any eventual sale, the proceeds were to be apportioned on the basis where the National Australia Bank received 57 1/2% of the proceeds with the residual 42 1/2% going to the trustee for the eventual disbursement to thebeneficiaries. These apportioned percentages were agreed upon vide the court filed Heads of Agreement.

On the 12 August 1998, Chief Justice de Jersey ordered that Anthony John Hunter Morris be directed to give effect to and carry out the terms of a certain Heads of Agreement between the trustee and the National Australia Bank Limited as set out in the Application.

The trustee in conjunction with the National Australia Bank sold the aggregation comprising both the leasehold and freehold lands known as "Beardie" for the sum of $3.3 million on the 2 December 1998 with settlement taking place sixty days later as per contract condition.


Prior to the sale, all members of the Doneley Family were in dispute at some stage with Anthony JH Morris QC as trustee concerning his decision to sell the trust property. Post sale there have been numerous complaints and concerns by all members of the Doneley Family for the next eight years and it could well be that certain matters relating to the sale by the trustee are still subject to ongoing investigation.

To give the reader some feeling for the extent of the Doneley Family complaints, I advise that the following correspondence has been raised:

6/7/2001 AJH Morris's four page letter addressed to the Barristers Board of Queensland regarding complaints and material from JJ Doneley.

16/5//2002 AJH Morris's five page letter addressed to Detective Sergeant Bernie Conroy, Queensland Police Service, in response to complaints made by JJ Doneley.

12/5/2005 JJ Doneley's eight page letter addressed to Her Excellency, Quentin Bryce AC, Governor of Queensland, re Miscarriageof Justice, Fraud Committed against the Doneley Family by a Barrister – Anthony JH Morris QC.

6/6/2005 JJ Doneley's two page letter addressed to Leanne Clair, Director of Public Prosecutions re Formal Complaint against AJH Morris QC, JG Sennitt (NAB employee) and Flower & Hart for committing fraud.

30/5/2006 JJ Doneley's sixteen page letter addressed to Legal Services – Complaints against AJH Morris QC & others.

The above record is an illustration that the Doneley Family had real concerns regarding the sale of the "Beardie" aggregation.

I would like to reflect and briefly outline certain happenings which took place from the time of AJH Morris's appointment as trustee by Justice de Jersey on the 10 September 1997 until trustee Morris received approval from Chief Justice de Jersey to sell the trust property on the 20 August 1998.

Following AJH Morris's appointment on the 10 September 1997 as trustee by Justice de Jersey, AJH Morris wasted no time in ratifying an agreement with WT Haseler, the solicitor for Flower & Hart, who had control of the NAB file. As a matter of fact, WT Haseler confirms that the Heads of Agreement between the two parties which was to facilitate the joint sale of "Beardie" was signed on the 18 February 1998. This is confirmed by the affidavit of WT Haseler in the Supreme Court of Queensland on the 9 October 1998.

Although Morris states in subsequent correspondence that he discussed the sale with JJ Doneley's two sons, it is evident that it is a matter of conjecture.

ggHowever by referring to Flower & Hart's letter addressed to AJH Morris QC dated 10 February 1998, WT Haseler encloses two signed Heads of Agreement and asks Morris to sign both documents and return one to them. Haseler then proceeds to ask Morris, "When you anticipate appearing before Justice de Jersey". Haseler continues, "The bank cannot start listing or start marketing the property until the result of your Application is known."

The contents of this letter reveal two vital factors. One can glean that discussions have taken place between the parties for a considerable time. The Heads of Agreement is a document consisting of ten pages where numerous conditions are set out.

The second vital factor relates to the fact that one can reasonably deduce that Morris has indicated to Haseler that he anticipates that Justice de Jersey will preside over his Application seeking the authorisation to sell “Beardie”.

At this point, the reader will realise that Anthony JH Morris QC seems to have 24 hour road side assistance to justice, which is Chief Justice Paul de Jersey. The fair minded lay observer is entitled to ask, is this a set up arrangement?

When JJ Doneley's two sons got wind that the sale of "Beardie" was definitely on, they decided to seek independent legal advice through Legal Aid in Toowoomba with Lee Nevison attending.

Nevison's two page letter addressed to Anthony JH Morris QC dated 11 August 1998 stated that "it was somewhat illusory to assess the outcome based on a comparison of land area". Nevison advised Morris that his clients considered that the leasehold land under the NAB's control would attract a market value not exceeding $500,000.00.

Morris responded to Nevison's letter with a five page diatribe raised under the date of 17 August 1998 recording his view on the situation. I do not propose to go into a detailed rebuttal commentary on the contents of Morris’ letter other than to say that most of his commentary is simply fanciful.

This clearly indicated by the contents of paragraph (3), page two, of Morris's letter which states:

"In recent weeks, I have been under increasing pressure from the NAB, to proceed with the application for the court's sanction to their proposal. It reached the point, late last week, of the NAB's solicitor advising me that, unless the action was brought immediately, the NAB would proceed with a separate sale of the land which the bank holds as mortgagee. In these circumstances I had no alternative but to instruct solicitors to file the foreshadowed application, which is now returnable on Thursday [20 August]."

The fact is that the NAB has been holding their leasehold section of the property as mortgagee since 12 September 1996, the date Justice Moynihan delivered his judgement. The NAB has had just on eleven months to sell their interest, but alas, they have chosen not to do so for the simple reason that the market value of this section of "Beardie" is of nominal value only when compared to the market value of "Beardie" as a total enterprise.

Morris’ comments as illustrated above are a total charade in my view and this is supported by the fact that JJ Doneley's two sons consider that as the leasehold portion of "Beardie" is considered a dry block – its market value in its own right would not have exceeded the sum of $500,000.00. This is specifically stated in paragraph two of the Legal Aid letter of 11 August 1998 addressed to AJH Morris QC.


The valuer's comments as above speak for themselves. So when AJH Morris QC states , in his letter dated 17 August 1998, that "(a) The 42.5% 'split' is extremely favourable to the beneficiaries" it could well be that it borders on a situation which could be described as fraudulent misrepresentation.

Morris then proceeded to say that "As the foreshadowed Application has already been filed, it is in any event too late to reopen negotiations."

AJH Morris QC's conduct in his trusteeship is basically crystallised in the sale of "Beardie" as the aggregation. This joint sale combining the freehold and leasehold lands is encapsulated in the contents of JJ Doneley's affidavit sworn on the 25 February 2006 which attracted eleven exhibits and was tabled in the Queensland Parliament by the Independent Member for Maryborough on the 8 March 2006.

Pertinent content of the affidavit is as follows:

"Clause 11: Sometime during the month of July 1998, my family became aware that AJH Morris, Barrister-at-Law had been engaged in deceptive process.

"Clause 16: It enabled me to come to a conclusion that AJH Morris's deceitful matters of process indicated that he was aiming to circumvent the formal process of the Supreme Court Registry.”

What has been the extent of the apparent perverse relationship which the fair-minded lay observer would say exists between the Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey and AJH Morris, Barrister-at-law, both officers of the court?

I should point out that the contents of Clause 21(c) of the Doneley Affidavit deals with the absolute inequality of the 42.5% and 57.5% split and exhibits the valuation of Bill Johnson Real Estate dated at Toowoomba on the 4 June 1996.


linksforumworldrecession
Links to our FORUMS regarding the 21st Century World Recession, SURVIVING IT & PROSPERING.
  1. 21st Century World Recession
  2. Analysis of the 21st Century World Recession
  3. FULL detail of the Analysis of 21st Century World Recession
  4. How to SURVIVE the 21st Century World Recession, & PROSPER
  5. In detail: How to SURVIVE the 21st Century World Recession, & PROSPER.
  6. Looking for Work: Looking for a Job:
  7. How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY doing it!!
  8. FULL detail: How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY doing it!!
  9. FULL detail: How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY FINDING it, and REAL MONEY doing it!!
  10. FULL DETAIL: Looking for Work: Looking for a Job:
  11. Small Business Advisory FORUM
  12. Full Description, Small Business Advisory Forum.
I have addressed this way forward, depending upon one's predilection, based on one's past actions or inclinations: Income from working for an 'employer' or working in one's own business.

  1. Looking for Work: Looking for a Job: How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY doing it!!
  2. Small Business Advisory FORUM
HaigReport Themes

Themes of  Websites
for the
HAIG   REPORT: Group of Websites:
[We expect, in time, to have all of the thousands of pages on the
HAIG   REPORT: group of websites accessible from this Menu of THEMES. Eventually, there will be 20 themes, each with an average of 15 to 20 websites/domains/directories, with each website/domain having an average of 20 pages. This would equate to 20 x (15 to 20) x 20 = 6,000 to 8,000 pages. This menu of Themes will be included near the bottom of each page, in time. With one line of code, strategically placed, this Menu of Themes is now on thousands of pages. We are continually and progressively adding pages to this Menu of Themes of website Menus.]

commonheader.php

Reg. Office: 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia, Qld. 4067, Australia.  
Editor-in-Chief:  Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA      EMAIL us anytime:  Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay. 

Menu: HaigReport'sThemes or Categories of the the Topics of the HaigReport Group of Websites: 
© COPYRIGHT: Russell Gordon Haig Mathews 2002 - 2018

The LATEST ADDITIONS are added to the top:


See  All 67 Domain Names in the HaigReport Group 

© COPYRIGHT: Russell Gordon Haig Mathews 2002 - 2018

Now here are the THEMES:



  1. Commonwealth of Australia Knowingly Employs LIARS, CHEATS and CRIMINALS:


  2. Government Corruption Infecting Corporates; ASX:


  3. New ADDITIONAL platform; Printed Distributed HaigReport NEWSPAPER:


  4. Self Help Law: Do your own Legals/Law:


  5. International: Corrupt Politics & Corrupt religion:


  6. About HaigReport Group of Websites including
    Vote One Russell Mathews:


  7. Russell Mathews [BCom BSc LLB & BA] Commentary additional to the rest of these Websites:


  8. Legal Rights, & BLACKLISTS of parasite residents & tenants in rental accommodation:


  9. RAMPANT POLICE CORRUPTION Exposed by HaigReport Websites; Publicize Your Complaint Here:


  10. Other public sector corruption Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  11. RELIGION Corruption CRIME & PAEDOPHILIA Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  12. Qld Govt Translink wankers & pony spankers Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  13. Corrupt JUDGES, COURTS, & TRIBUNALS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  14. Corrupt LAWYERS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  15. Corrupt POLITICANS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  16. University of Qld Fraud & Corruption Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  17. Corruption at other universities; Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  18. Expose' of Other CORRUPTION, including TELSTRA, under influence of public sector parasites, as exposed by the HaigReport Group of Websites:


  19. Business Promoted by HaigReport Websites:


  20. Finance by HaigReport Websites:

This page is part of the Internet presence of

Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA
View list of SOME of my WEBSITES and Bulletin Boards

Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html


SEE WHAT I PLAN TO DO ABOUT IT!


Image
CLICK on image => My Election HOMEPAGE