 |
 |
Con•tu•ma•cious: Obstinately disobedient or rebellious; insubordinate; resisting legitimate authority. Specifically in law, wilfully disobedient to a lawful order of a judicial or legislative body, or showing wilful contempt of its authority.
By Gi Linda
Eager to sell prior to development approval, a new video marketing 867 prospective dwelling sites with "tribal title" at Nightcap Village has been released online, further promoting a false narrative that has been endorsed for over three years by four decisions in Kangaroo Courts in favour of the dominant commercial interest.
On a fanciful level playing field where lawyers are not paid agents of deception, where all lives mattered and all voices were heard, truth would be upheld and justice would be done, with fairness to impecunious victims.
Dancing on a tilted stage where justice follows the money, my personal experience has been a shocking eye-opener, to say the least!
On July 17, I was informed by email from Rose Litigation that their clients, two plaintiffs who brought defamation charges against me in NSW Supreme Court in 2017, have now filed charges of contumacious contempt of court because I continue to denounce their false narrative as snake oil.
The defamation case was filed in 2017, after I published information about a land-share scheme at Mt Burrell in which I and other investors lost our life-savings during 2014-2016.
During 2017, under adjudication of Justice Lucy McCallum, two applications by the plaintiffs for urgent interlocutory injunctions failed to suppress publication of allegations of fraud.
Lawful Injustice
Two years after the defamation case began, a 6-day trial in August - October 2019 was heard in two parts by Fagan J, who reserved judgement for six months before deciding in favour of the plaintiffs.
During the trial I presented evidence, based on my personal experience and the evidence of other investors, that the plaintiffs offered sale of dwelling sites without development approval, taking money from people and giving nothing in return.
The Judge decided that this represents incompetence, not fraud. I was ordered to pay damages of $400,000 and the plaintiffs' legal costs estimated about $1 million.
In May 2020, injunctive orders were made restraining me from publishing my opinion that since 2015 the conduct of the two plaintiffs has been highly dishonest and dishonourable.
At the same time, one of the blogs was hacked. Defamatory imputations were posted and falsely blamed on me. Numerous websites were published anonymously using metatags related to Nightcap Village, but with garbled content, and wrongly attributed to me.
The plaintiffs used the orders to induce Google Corp to remove blogs documenting events of the last four years that involve the land-share scheme.
 |
| Lawful Injustice - Blog removed by Google Corp in 2020 |
But the plaintiffs are not satisfied with abusing legal process to achieve a gag on legitimate discussion of matters of public interest.
Since 2017, they have published several websites making vicious ad hominem attacks against me and other investors who also claim to have been defrauded and who continue to seek justice. Similar slanderous attacks are repeated in Nightcap Village newsletters published by the plaintiffs, and promotional videos featuring "celebrity" associates Tyler Tolman and Max Igan.
The plaintiffs now claim that a book in progress that I co-author and edit, currently published in blog form at the domain nightcapnightmare.com, violates the injunctions.
The contempt claim surmises that dishonour is imputed to the anonymous second plaintiff. In our book he is called "Mr X".
Hiding behind a screen of anonymity since 2014, using only initials for identification, Mr X has appeared at public events and in marketing videos selling dwelling sites without development approval. It may seem incongruous that from 2017-2019, he insisted before the Court that he had no significant role in the venture, except for support in an "IT capacity" and as a bankrupt shareholder in Nightcap Village.
Mr X currently introduces himself to potential new funders as the "project director". His contempt charge complains that although in the blog-book "Nightmare on Minjungbal" his real name is withheld, with a little research readers can discover his identity.
Defining the supposed contempt as "contumacious" makes it in effect a criminal offence, punishable by fines and imprisonment. A hearing date set for July 24 does not provide reasonable time to prepare a defence.
My request for reasonable time to prepare a response to their request for my imprisonment, was refused by the plaintiffs.
Nightmare on Minjungbal
"Nightmare on Minjungbal" is a a book in progress; a compilation in blog form of accounts by several authors, revealing how "Dreams turn to nightmares when Sovereignty Activists seize a land-share venture, with a battle for justice fought on the tilted stages of Kangaroo Courts".
"Nightmare on Minjungbal" reveals how investors lost life-savings in the land-share scheme that began in 2015 as "Bhula Bhula Village Community" and is now called "Nightcap Village," or "Nightcap on Minjungbal".
I am one of 20 investors who provided in total over $2 million to purchase two properties at Mt Burrell in 2014-15. We were promised dwelling sites with co-ownership of land in exchange. The marketing representations were not fulfilled, and our dreams soon turned to living nightmares that still continue.
Notice of Constitutional Matter
I contend that the claim of "contumacious contempt of court" is part of a "SLAPP" action. "Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation" is a corruption of legal process typically used by a bullying party to discredit and harass opponents, and to silence the legitimate dissent of victims.
 |
| Free Sprrech *Conditions Apply |
In response to the contempt charges, I have requested a 28 day adjournment to prepare a defence and cross-claim. A process has been initiated to move this case and other related litigation for adjudication before the High Court of Australia.
Constitutional matters are involved, with suppression of freedom of discussion on matters of public concern involving the marketing of "tribal title" to dwelling sites prior to development approval, on properties that were paid for by investors who received total failure of consideration in exchange for their funds.
In this case, it is my experience that false narratives established errors of fact before NSW Supreme Court of Defamation, resulting in misapplication of law and imposition of gag orders. This interferes with the true exercise of justice and advances dominant commercial interests under colour of law by constraining legitimate freedom of discussion on matters of public concern.
