The vision grows as newly fleeced asleeple with eyes wide shut stumble into the rabbit-hole, and discover why the Cheshire Cat is grinning!
From its inception in 2014-15, the land-share development was a life-style dream that became a living nightmare, as investors saw hopes and resources brutally ripped away. Broken relationships, trauma and heartbreak were all that was left for most after the nascent development was hijacked by a hidden agenda.
The original vision for an intentional community as a land-share venture was birthed in 2014 by Andrew Cody, who found the land and joined with Mark Darwin to raise finance to buy two properties at 3220-3222 Kyogle Rd, Mt Burrell, NSW.
 |
| Baiting with "alternative lifestyle" lures |
What some investors didn’t know, was that unseen behind the curtain were other “sovereignty activists,” who had a hidden plan that only became fully evident after Mark Darwin disassociated from the “Inner Circle”.
The land-share venture was at first called Bhula Bhula Village Community. Investors who raised concerns about the failure of Mr X to transfer land title to control of investors, lack of accountability and apparent money laundering, were marginalised, demonised and driven off the properties they had paid for, without restitution of funds.
Neighbours and local communities observed with growing concern as the conflict escalated until the sovereignty activists had forced all the investors off the land, occupying the property and seizing land title for themselves.
Then began a long quest for justice with blog-wars shaping public opinion and painful, costly court appearances, but it was the extreme malice, vicious threats, harassment and bullying that shocked the disenfranchised investors most.
It is evident that five years after a starry-eyed start to the imagined “Village Community,” the sovereignty activists are positioned to execute a phoenix move on June 19, to transfer control of the land asset to one of the companies in their network, and so divest liability to unwanted creditors.
The marketing is new, but a cat’s meow is as old as the hills.
In Australian courts, news reports and blogs, victims of an Australian land-share venture warn that sovereignty activists are selling dwelling sites in a land-share venture, now called Nightcap Village, that has been advanced without development approval.
Since 2014, these "Freemen" have swallowed-up much goodwill by making promises muscled by contrived urgency to induce payment of money to them. However, the marketing promises were not fulfilled, and the dream quickly became an ongoing nightmare, as life savings were sucked into a black hole and disappeared, with nothing tangible in return expect hurt and harm.
Under a functional legal system, such dishonesty could be stopped, but as "Freemen" relying on a false narrative and perjured affidavits, sovereignty activists intend the courts should bow to them.
As a result, those who lost life-savings have been denied justice for more than three years in four jurisdictions: the local Magistrates Court, NSW Supreme Court, Qld Federal Court, and Qld Federal Court of Appeal.
The Bhula Bula Village Community Fiasco
During 2014-15, the sovereignty activists controlling the venture called Bhula Bula Village Community at Mt Burrell, NSW, sold the dream at public events, and secured finance without adequate contractual procedure.
Potential investors trusted promises about legal advisers, legal structures and process, financial management, potential and permissible land use, property management and the status of development applications for land-share occupancy.
The required payment was $40,000 from mid 2014, then rose to $80,000 in February 2015 and increased to $120,000 by July 2015, with uncertain caps on the maximum number of intended participants.
During 2014-15, investors provided $1,913,000 in purchase monies for land, with additional loans and payments of superannuation. These purchase monies were not registered. Most were held on trust by “Community Lawyer” Wroth Wall, principal of Wall & Company Lawyers.
The purchase monies were made in promised exchange for co-proprietary interest in property, through membership of a registered Incorporated Association that was intended to be the beneficial legal owner of the Property.
On May 8, 2015, the Association “Together in Harmony Incorporated,” Registration Number: INC1500616 was registered with Fair Trading.
In June - August 2015 a video and a Legal Structure Diagram were supplied to potential investors. The video and the Legal Structure Diagram present an “unconventional” confusing legal structure that inserts an apparently unnecessary additional private Company as “trustee” of a supposed “trust fund” that appears intended to be owned by the Incorporated Association with transfer of a sole share by the purchasing Company to the Incorporated Association.
This convoluted legal structure was legitimized by trusted Community Lawyer Wroth Wall and Czech lawyer Michal Hajeck, who later abandoned the venture.
On June 22, 2015, the Company, Wollumbin Horizons Pty Ltd, was incorporated.
Two different “trust deeds” provided to Investors purport to establish a “trust fund” to be controlled by “Unit Holders”. Terms of the “deeds” provide prospective “Unit Holders” with membership in “Bhula Bhula Community Village” and supposed control of assets, but not co-ownership of the Property purchased with Investors’ funds, as had been promised.
On June 23, 2015, the second deed of trust purported to establish the “Bhula Bhula Community Village Trust” for the purpose of managing assets on behalf of its beneficiaries, while also enabling transfer of communal assets to private ownership.
The Company was appointed as “trustee” of the “Trust,” but the Trust Deed was not executed or registered.
Neither the settlor of the trust nor the company director signed the trust deed and no property or other asset was settled or intended to be settled in the trust, apart from a prospective $20. “Bhula Bhula Community Village Trust” does not exist, except as a fictitious paper entity that was imposed to defeat promised co-ownership of the property by investors as members of the Incorporated Association.
Neither the settlor of the trust nor the company director signed the trust deed and no property or other asset was settled or intended to be settled in the trust, apart from a prospective $20. “Bhula Bhula Community Village Trust” does not exist, except as a fictitious paper entity that was imposed to defeat promised co-ownership of the property by investors as members of the Incorporated Association.
On June 30, 2015, the Company entered into a contract to purchase the property being Lot 20 in Deposited Plan 7557 14A and 7557 14B, and Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 1148316. The property was purchased using $588,459 of Investors’ money, together with a mortgage of $550,000.
The Contract was authorised by “Community Lawyer” Wroth Wall with the purchaser being “Wollumbin Horizons Pty Ltd t/as Bhula Bhula Village Community Trust”. Bhula Bhula Village Community Trust” does not exist. On payment of the purchase price of $1,175,000 the Company became the registered owner of the Property.
Instead of transferring ownership of the Property to the registered Incorporated Association, providing purchase money investors with promised shared proprietary rights to the land, the private company controlled by the director remained legal owner of the property and the company was designated as supposed “trustee” of the invalid “Trust”.
The self-appointed company director issued to himself a single share in the Company of value $1, becoming sole owner and controller of the company’s land asset.
An “Application Form” attached to the improperly executed “Trust Deed” requesting a “Unit” in the fictitious “Bhula Bhula Community Village Trust” was signed by some who by renouncing their promised proprietary interest in the Land enabled the “unconventional” manoeuvre to substitute an invalid “Trust” for the promised Incorporated Association.
Disenfranchised purchase money investors, instead of becoming co-owners of the property, received conditional inclusion as “Members” of a supposed “Community,” being holders of “units” in an invalid “Trust” owning nothing.
Twenty one "contingent creditors" with a "just estimate" of claims amounting to zero or $1 were admitted for voting purposes only; not for any beneficial remuneration, however these ”Unit Holders" claim that a debt is owed to them by the Company t/as a non-existent “Village Community Trust,” acting as unregistered "trustee" of an unexecuted “Community Village Trust.”
Despite receiving assurances by the Administrator that liquidation would be in their best interest, disenfranchised “Unit Holders” who paid for the land are not recognised by the Administrator as authentic creditors of the Company, since their supposed "debts" of $0-1 arise from unregistered transactions with the dishonourable company Director that are unenforceable. Supposed debts to "Unit Holders" due to failure of these "unconscionable contracts" were therefore not incurred with the Company concerned.
The Administrator, Vincents' Steven Staatz, assured contingent creditors without valid claims on the Company that they would benefit from voluntary liquidation, in consequence the majority admitted for a debt of $0 voted for liquidation, expecting to get their money back from sale of an asset they do not own.
The Administrator encouraged false expectations of favourable outcomes. He led "Unit Holders" in an improperly executed “Trust” with no legal relation to the Company, and no connection between their investment and the asset, to falsely believe they were legitimate creditors of the Company and would benefit from liquidation.
The Administrator also accepted dishonourable director-related transactions without question, to the detriment of legitimate creditors. These "contingent creditors” voted in favour of liquidation, so their invalid majority outweighed the legitimate vote against liquidation.
A supposed "committee of inspection" of "contingent creditors" that voted to undermine the interests of authentic creditors subsequently made improper secrecy agreements with the company director and the Administrator.
In 2017, controllers of the venture initiated a campaign of harassment, stalking defamation and intimidation of opponents, including a SLAPP action in NSW Supreme Court, which, following two failed injunctions, they won after three years.
The “Community Solicitor,” Wroth Wall, testified regarding his participation in the venture in an affidavit Aug 2018. Prior to the purchase of the Property he received applications for “Units” from some potential investors," but he did not warn them of known land-use restrictions.
In light of the evident prohibition on rural land sharing communities on the designated Property, he advised that it was appropriate to obtain planning advice prior to contracting for purchase of the Property. He says his advice was rejected by the controllers of the venture who instructed him to proceed with the purchase without comprehensive planning advice.
The “Incorporated Association” called “Living in Harmony” that was supposed to provide investors co-proprietary interest in the land, was switched in June 2015 for a private company “Wollumbin Horizons Pty Ltd” owned and controlled by the director. A single share in the Company (WH), value $1, was issued to the director.
After completion of the Property purchase, the single $1 share in the Trusteee Company held by the director was not transferred to the Incorporated Association and none of the Units in the Trust were issued.
Neither Community Solicitor Wroth Wall nor the controllers of the venture informed investors of the switch from an Incorporated Association to a private company owning the land. Nor did they explain the implications: that the land to be purchased would be owned and controlled by the director personally, and not jointly owned and controlled by investors, as offered.
