“Are you taking bribes?”
In a letter to John McKenzie, 22 August 2022
Monday, 22nd August 2022
Mr John McKenzie
Legal Services Commissioner
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 75 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr McKenzie
Re: Corruption within the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
As you know, and as is obvious to a great many people watching the antics as taking place within your office, you are deliberately turning a blind eye to serious solicitor misconduct, and indeed have been doing so since commencing in the role of legal services commissioner.
The question I and others are asking is why you are in fact doing so.
Are you taking bribes?
Yours faithfully
“If we look at the OLSC’s annual report of 2020/2021, the OLSC received a total of 2714 complaints in those 12 months. Out of these 2714 complaints, disciplinary action was taken by your office against seven of the persons complained about, or in percentage terms, this equates to a disciplinary rate of 0.26% of complaints received.”
In a letter to John McKenzie, 6 May 2022
Friday, 6th May 2022
Mr John McKenzie
Legal Services Commissioner
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 75 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr McKenzie
Re: Office of the Legal Services Commissioner – corrupt conduct
You have offered no comment or response to any of my recent letters regarding your ongoing protection of solicitors carrying out acts of wrongdoing. Sadly, there is no question as to the wrongdoing concerned. Justifiably, we need to delve a little more deeply into the goings on of your office.
If we look at the OLSC’s annual report of 2020/2021, the OLSC received a total of 2714 complaints in those 12 months. Out of these 2714 complaints, disciplinary action was taken by your office against seven of the persons complained about, or in percentage terms, this equates to a disciplinary rate of 0.26% of complaints received.
Now, of course, it is a possibility that complainants to your office are completely unrealistic in their expectations and are needlessly making complaints just for the sake of wasting their own time as well as yours. This, of course, is utterly implausible.
However, if we proceed to the Google search engine and seek out reviews of your office, the overwhelming consensus is that the OLSC is protecting solicitors, with some commentators even using the terms of a ‘corrupt and broken system’ in place.
Unfortunately, we know as fact that you are deliberately covering up the wrongdoing of solicitors, and yet there is no recourse to the general public in respect to the decisions you are taking. As you well know, there is no appeals process in relation to any decision as made by you. One can seek an internal review, yet any review as sought by the said member of the public is instantaneously rejected and dismissed by no other person than yourself (as in fact mentioned on page nine of the aforesaid annual report).
In the extremely unlikely event that a solicitor receives a reprimand, he or she can appeal that decision via the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. However, there is no mechanism for a complainant to do so other than to make an application to the Supreme Court of NSW. People understand quite well that this is not a viable option, and in truth such could prove disastrous in both financial terms and in terms of mental wellbeing.
We need to come to my own protracted history with you. You are very well aware that you have very deliberately covered up the criminal wrongdoings of Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers.
You are fully cognisant of Terence Goldberg’s fraud upon the Court and Mr Goldberg’s contempt in the face of the Court, and yet you lie repeatedly and readily to protect him. Very clearly, you feel the authority of the Court does not apply to you or to other various members of the legal profession.
As you know, Mr Goldberg acted for four individuals in Supreme Court proceedings (2009/00291458), yet in an application for costs as subsequently filed with the Court, Mr Goldberg dishonestly claims to have acted for five parties in those proceedings, and evidently did so to make improper financial gain. The fifth party for whom Mr Goldberg claimed to have acted in such proceedings was in fact unrepresented and was also an opposing party to Mr Goldberg’s actual clients, such being the four plaintiffs in the matter.
You are also aware of Mr Goldberg’s continued criminality with Mr Goldberg making a large number of fraudulent statements in various documents in order to take all monies as owned by the party for whom he did not act, being the sixth defendant in the above said proceedings, and clandestinely creating two entities to receive those monies.
It is a statement of simple fact that Mr Goldberg could not have carried out his misdoings without assistance having been provided to him; assistance which you have offered quite liberally. That statement is made neither lightly nor flippantly.
The system as it stands is open to abuse, and as we can see is being abused quite openly. As previously stated to you, we need to understand why you are behaving the way you are, and also we need to understand if you are benefiting financially or indeed in any other way for doing so. There must be a reason for your extraordinary conduct.
Lest there be any doubt in relation to the above claims as made in relation to Mr Goldberg, I once again attach affidavit as sworn by myself on 12th March 2022 which outlines Mr Goldberg’s criminal activities, and which you first received some six weeks ago. Quite predictably, no acknowledgement has been received from you or your office.
Given your blatant and open disregard for the rule of law and equally for the authority of the Honourable Court, I copy this letter to the Court for its due consideration.
Yours faithfully
“It is more than obvious that you are unwilling to fulfil your duties as Legal Services Commissioner. You have been providing favour to Terence Goldberg for quite some time, and indeed it has been more than obvious for quite some time.”
In a letter to John McKenzie, 21 April 2022
Thursday, 21st April 2022
Mr John McKenzie
Legal Services Commissioner
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 75 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr McKenzie
Re: Dishonest conduct – covering up of criminal activity
You have provided no comment to my letter to you of 14th April 2022, nor to my knowledge have you fulfilled the statutory requirements as set down in sections 465(2)(a) and 465(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW).
It is more than obvious that you are unwilling to fulfil your duties as Legal Services Commissioner. You have been providing favour to Terence Goldberg for quite some time, and indeed it has been more than obvious for quite some time. Without any sense of irony or shame, you wrote to me on 2nd June 2015 and complained that you were insulted and offended at the suggestion that you were acting corruptly, while knowing full well that you were doing so.
Let us look at your letter of 2nd June 2015 (copy attached). In such, you admit that Terence Goldberg has made false statements, however, you provide the caveat that perhaps Mr Goldberg had done so mistakenly, or perhaps he did so on instruction from his clients (while in dispute with same), and yet you have never once asked Mr Goldberg as to why he has done so. You are fully aware that such false statements provided Mr Goldberg and his associates with substantial and fraudulent financial gain.
Let us come back to sections 465(2)(a) and 465(2)(b) of the LPUL which state that you must report suspected offences to the NSW Police You consistently refuse to do so. Yet, you had no such qualms in contacting and sending the NSW Police to my front door while claiming to be harassed by my writing to you. Your conduct requires examination.
Yours faithfully
“Needless to say, had you informed the NSW Police that the Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated was not Turner Freeman’s client (in Supreme Court proceedings 2009/00291458), it is obvious that Mr Goldberg and others would have been charged with a number of counts of fraud.
I am minded to believe that your present reluctance to perform your correct and proper duties in accordance with sections 465(2)(a) and 465(2)(b) of the LPUL is because you were untruthful during your interview with the NSW Police in the first instance.”
In a letter to John McKenzie, 14 April 2022
Thursday, 14th April 2022
Mr John McKenzie
Legal Services Commissioner
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 75 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr McKenzie
Re: Duty to report suspected offences – section 465 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law
I refer to the above and to my affidavit as sworn on 12th March 2022; a copy of which was provided to you on 24th March 2022, and with such affidavit laying out succinctly the fraudulent activities of Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers. I enclose a copy of such for the purposes of reference.
I (once again) bring your attention to sections 465(2)(a) and 465(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (“LPUL”) which provides for and states that you must report suspected offences to the NSW Police and make available the relevant documentation when doing so.
In the latter part of 2015 you were interviewed by the NSW Police as part of an investigation into Terence Goldberg’s fraudulent conduct. Needless to say, had you informed the NSW Police that the Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated was not Turner Freeman’s client (in Supreme Court proceedings 2009/00291458), it is obvious that Mr Goldberg and others would have been charged with a number of counts of fraud.
I am minded to believe that your present reluctance to perform your correct and proper duties in accordance with sections 465(2)(a) and 465(2)(b) of the LPUL is because you were untruthful during your interview with the NSW Police in the first instance.
We need to understand as to how you advised the NSW Police in such interview in the latter part of 2015, and I await your response.
Yours faithfully
“Mr McKenzie, your behaviour is not normal, and you are quite clearly abusing your position of legal services commissioner while attempting at the same time to systematically gaslight and belittle those who bring complaints to your office, the very people you are supposed to assist.”
In a letter to John McKenzie, 13 May 2020
Wednesday, 13th May 2020
Mr John McKenzie
Legal Services Commissioner
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 75 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr McKenzie
Re: Criminal conduct
You have not responded to my letter to you of 27th April 2020, nor have you provided any response to my letter to you of 29th April 2020. While neither letter is directly connected with the other, they both address the criminal activities of two separate Sydney solicitors.
Let us speak firstly of my letter of 29th April 2020, which relates to the criminal activities of Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers. It is fair to say that you have actively gone to great lengths to conceal Mr Goldberg’s unlawful activities and protect Mr Goldberg from all proper aspects of the law.
Lest there be any doubt at all in relation to the above allegation of criminality on the part of Mr Goldberg, find attached copy of correspondences to Mr Goldberg of 4th November 2019 and 12th February 2020. I also attach copy of correspondence to Mr Michael Jones, liquidator, of 30th March 2020. You have been provided with copies of the said letters on a number of different occasions. As can be seen, the wrongdoing is carried out in plain view.
Indeed, you have, over a prolonged period of time, been provided with evidence of Terence Goldberg’s criminal wrongdoing (including Court documentation), all the while dismissing all complaints against Mr Goldberg, and at the same time turning a very wilful blind eye to his misconduct. As you know, such misconduct on the part of Mr Goldberg as brought to your attention is not limited to the content of the attached correspondences.
Now, let us deal with my letter of 27th April 2020 regarding Michael Croke. As at the time of writing, Mr Croke has been taken into custody and is facing a lengthy prison sentence. When reading the news reports regarding Mr Croke, he is regularly termed as disreputable, unethical, or even ‘dodgy’.
Given Mr Croke’s undisputed reputation, again, I ask you how many complaints have been made to your office about Mr Croke, and how many of those complaints were summarily dismissed by you (as it seems is your general habit)? I refuse to believe or accept that your office received only one complaint about Mr Croke.
Mr McKenzie, your behaviour is not normal, and you are quite clearly abusing your position of legal services commissioner while attempting at the same time to systematically gaslight and belittle those who bring complaints to your office, the very people you are supposed to assist.
If it has escaped you, the covering up of criminal conduct, whatever benefit to yourself, is deemed as corrupt conduct, and as such, it must receive public attention. I therefore copy this letter and its attachments to Kate McClymont of the Sydney Morning Herald.
Yours faithfully
“You remain fully aware that Terence Goldberg abused Court processes in order to fraudulently claim a debt which was not in fact owed to either him or his firm. You are also fully aware of the ensuing money laundering activities of Mr Goldberg; which you continue to ignore. Very obviously, your actions are deliberate.
Questions remain outstanding as to why you are behaving in the manner as outlined above. Clearly, you would not be doing so without some form of benefit to yourself.”
In a letter to John McKenzie, 30 October 2019
Wednesday, 30th October 2019
Mr John McKenzie
Legal Services Commissioner
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 75 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr McKenzie
Re: Corruption
Despite having had ample time to do so, you have declined to provide any response to my letter to you of 5th September 2019 (copy attached).
You have at all times failed to deal with the criminal behaviours as exhibited by Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers, and it also strongly appears that you provided false information to the NSW Police in order to hide Mr Goldberg’s unlawful activities and protect Mr Goldberg from all proper avenues of justice.
You remain fully aware that Terence Goldberg abused Court processes in order to fraudulently claim a debt which was not in fact owed to either him or his firm. You are also fully aware of the ensuing money laundering activities of Mr Goldberg; which you continue to ignore. Very obviously, your actions are deliberate.
Questions remain outstanding as to why you are behaving in the manner as outlined above. Clearly, you would not be doing so without some form of benefit to yourself.
I copy this letter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, among others.
Yours faithfully
“Despite the large number of complaints regarding Terence Goldberg’s unlawful activities, Mr Goldberg remains without any form of sanction by either your office or those around you. The question remains outstanding as to why you have consistently gone to untold lengths to protect Terence Goldberg from the weight of the law.”
In a letter to John McKenzie, 5 September 2019
Thursday, 5th September 2019
Mr John McKenzie
Legal Services Commissioner
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 75 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr McKenzie
Re: Corruption
You have not responded to my letter to you of 22nd July 2019.
I remain keen to understand as to how you advised the NSW Police during the fraud investigation into the allegedly criminal dealings of Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers.
Indeed, and it goes without saying, that if you had been truthful during the NSW Police’s interview with you regarding Terence Goldberg’s improper activities, Mr Goldberg would subsequently have been charged with a number of counts of fraud.
Of course, I was not present during that interview, and am therefore unable to comment on exactly what took place, however, what I can say with an absolute certainty is that you have lied to me and to others to protect Terence Goldberg regarding Mr Goldberg’s issues of wrongdoing and misconduct. Given your history, I am inclined to believe that you have lied to the police also.
Despite the large number of complaints regarding Terence Goldberg’s unlawful activities, Mr Goldberg remains without any form of sanction by either your office or those around you. The question remains outstanding as to why you have consistently gone to untold lengths to protect Terence Goldberg from the weight of the law.
I copy this letter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, among others.
Yours faithfully
“In April 2018, Terence Goldberg, in completely separate Supreme Court proceedings (2015/00354540), while again being the plaintiff, made more false statements in Court, and again in the witness box, claiming that that the sum of $30,000.00 as belonging at that time to Ms Roseanne Beckett was in his firm’s trust account. As you well know, those monies were not in Mr Goldberg’s firm’s trust account.”
In a letter to John McKenzie, 18 June 2019
Tuesday, 18th June 2019
Mr John McKenzie
Legal Services Commissioner
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 75 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr McKenzie
Re: Corruption
I refer to the above.
I am still to hear from you in relation to matters of the fraudulent and criminal conduct of Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers. Although, given your past conduct, I imagine I will be waiting a very long time.
You have proved yourself to be a very faithful foot soldier to Mr Goldberg in your endeavours to cover up Mr Goldberg’s transgressions; of which there have been many. Let us take a brief look at the history between Mr Goldberg and yourself, and the said covering up thereof.
Firstly, you have repeatedly turned a blind eye to Mr Goldberg having provided false statements to the Supreme Court of NSW in an Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs in order to create a false and fraudulent debt where in fact no debt was owed. As you know, those actions caused the winding up of an incorporated association, and with Mr Goldberg and his friends thereafter improperly taking for themselves the rest of the substantial funds belonging to that association.
As you also well know, the resulting funds as belonging to that association made their way into a Trust as set up by Terence Goldberg, with those and other funds of an unknown origin seemingly arriving in such, and with close to $500,000.00 apparently and subsequently disappearing from the said Trust.
However, and unfortunately, it does not end there. In July 2017, complaints were made to your office about a Court stamp seemingly having been forged on documents, with those documents not actually having been filed with the Court. You summarily dismissed those complaints, claiming that it was a Court matter and not a matter for your office to deal with. That of course, was a lie on your part. Terence Goldberg just happened to be the plaintiff in those proceedings (2015/00259781).
In the same Court proceedings relating to the above, Terence Goldberg made a number of statements on oath in the witness box which were provably false, and again, a complaint was thus made to your office. Again, you personally summarily dismissed that complaint, and again, lying while doing so.
In April 2018, Terence Goldberg, in completely separate Supreme Court proceedings (2015/00354540), while again being the plaintiff, made more false statements in Court, and again in the witness box, claiming that that the sum of $30,000.00 as belonging at that time to Ms Roseanne Beckett was in his firm’s trust account. As you well know, those monies were not in Mr Goldberg’s firm’s trust account.
Again, a complaint was made to your office in relation to the disappearance of Ms Beckett’s money. Roseanne Beckett tells me that when your office wrote to Terence Goldberg in relation to her complaint, Mr Goldberg wrote back to the OLSC, refusing to provide the information requested, while at the same time claiming that I, while masquerading as Ms Beckett, had made the said complaint. I believe this was in fact a signal to you to dismiss such. You duly and summarily did so, and again, lied to Ms Beckett in so doing.
In relation to the same Court proceedings in which Terence Goldberg was the plaintiff and Roseanne Beckett the defendant, a then colleague of Mr Goldberg’s wrote a letter to the solicitor acting for Ms Beckett making wild and untrue allegations about me, claiming that I was a ‘dangerous individual with a documented history of violence’ and also alleging that I and Ms Beckett had both conspired to and had partaken in criminal activities together.
A complaint was made to your office by both myself and Ms Beckett in relation to same, and again, and of course, both complaints were summarily dismissed, with neither myself nor Ms Beckett receiving any proper reason or explanation for the said dismissals.
So you see, the list is long, is it not? However, what can be plainly seen is that there is one common factor: The same solicitor is involved each and every time.
It is also just as plain to be seen that you are acting corruptly and dishonestly in order to provide advantage and benefit to one particular individual. There must be an explanation as to why you are doing so.
How can I, or any other member of the public for that matter, receive fair treatment by a parliamentary appointed commissioner, when that commissioner’s actions are not only perfidious and untrustworthy, but also ostensibly criminal in nature.
Yours faithfully
“As stated previously to you, this has all the hallmarks of a criminal network at play, and given the very deliberate protection you have offered to the wrongdoers in this matter, it more than strongly appears that you are playing a central role in that network.”
In a letter to John McKenzie, 12 June 2019
Wednesday, 12th June 2019
Mr John McKenzie
Legal Services Commissioner
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 75 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr McKenzie
Re: Fraud and corruption
As you well know, I have repeatedly brought to your attention the matter of fraud and the activities of seeming money laundering on the part of Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers. You have just as repeatedly turned a blind eye to such and duly ignored my correspondences and have taken no action whatsoever, despite the unequivocal evidence as laid before you on multiple occasions.
You are well aware that Terence Goldberg’s law firm created a Trust via Perpetual Trustees in order to receive funds as obtained by fraudulent means, and you are also well aware that an excess of unexplained funds also made their way into that Trust, with such Trust having received the amount of just under $1million some time in the latter part of 2016.
You are also well aware that the sole object of the said Trust, as per its Deed, is to provide funds to a sham entity as also set up by Terence Goldberg, with that sham entity being headed by a long-time acquaintance of Mr Goldberg, ie Mr Jon Lindsay.
In the financial year of 2016/2017, the said Trust had expenditures of $492,307.00, and as the only object of the said Trust is to provide funds to the aforesaid sham entity, those funds therefore must have been transferred into the account of the said entity.
However, the said sham entity has very recently provided its supposed financial report to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (as published on the ACNC’s website) and therein is held the claim that the sham entity holds the paltry amount of $4,700.90 in its bank account, and with its assets supposedly totalling $12,500.90.
I attach a copy of the sham entity’s supposed annual statement for the period of 1st January 2018 to 31st January 2018.
As you can see, there is a very clear discrepancy, with the disappearance of nigh on half a million dollars.
The questions raised therefore are where has the money gone and why have you provided assistance to those carrying out distinct acts of fraud and money laundering?
As stated previously to you, this has all the hallmarks of a criminal network at play, and given the very deliberate protection you have offered to the wrongdoers in this matter, it more than strongly appears that you are playing a central role in that network.
I also provide as attachments to this correspondence my letter to Ms Radhika Withana, barrister, of 8th April 2019, my letter to you of 3rd May 2019, and my further letter to you of 24th May 2019. Despite the clear laying out of criminal conduct in such letters to you, you have not provided any response, with you choosing silence as your best (or only) option.
I copy this letter to the NSW Police as well as to others.
Yours faithfully
“As set out in the attached letter of 8th April 2019 to Ms Radhika Withana of counsel, and as above, the criminality is quite obvious, and yet, you have chosen at all times to turn a blind eye to such, and in so doing you have consistently provided direct assistance and protection to the wrongdoers in this matter.
The outstanding question is why you have done so, and continue to do so.”
In a letter to John McKenzie, 3 May 2019
Friday, 3rd May 2019
Mr John McKenzie
Legal Services Commissioner
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 75 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr McKenzie
Re: Fraud and corruption
This letter is to be read in conjunction with my letter to Ms Radhika Withana, barrister, of 8th April 2019. A copy of such is attached.
I write to you further to my E-mails to your office of 22nd November 2018 and 17th April 2019, with both of those E-mails providing seeming further evidence of fraud and money laundering on the part of Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers. You have declined to provide comment or even respond to those E-mails.
As you well know, Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers provided fabricated statements to the Court to create a debt where no debt was owed and against a party for whom he did not act. This fraudulently created debt, and by both your and Mr Goldberg’s own admissions, caused the winding up and liquidation of an incorporated association.
As set out in my letter to Ms Withana of counsel, such liquidation brought about the sale of the association’s only asset (a building) with such sale realising the amount of $965,000.00. After paying all alleged creditors, funds in the region of $700,000.00 should remain. The liquidator, for reasons known only to himself, held on to the those remaining funds for five years before distributing such funds to a Trust, with that Trust having been set up by Mr Goldberg’s own law firm.
We can only hazard a guess as to the ongoing ‘administration costs’ having eaten into the residual monies during that time, but for the sake of argument let us put a conservative figure of $600,000.00 as remaining at the point of the distribution of those funds. Personally, and due to the nature of the persons involved, I believe that figure to be far lower.
As per a letter from NSW Fair Trading of 17th October 2016, the remaining funds as belonging to the now defunct association were to be distributed to the abovementioned Trust and in the financial year of 2016/2017 such Trust received the amount of $983,471.00, which, and as you can plainly see, is far in excess of the residue of the original entity. You have been made aware of this excess on a number of occasions. The source or sources of this excess are unknown.
You have also been made aware on several occasions that in the same financial year of 2016/2017, funds to the amount of $492,307.00 were diverted from the said Trust and provided to a sham entity, as also set up by Terence Goldberg, with that sham entity being headed by a long-time acquaintance of Mr Goldberg. The above figures allude to a fifty/fifty split having taken place.
As per the present day financial records, the sum of $517,980.00 now resides in the said Trust, ostensibly defying the objectives of the Deed of such Trust. The said Trust has also been set up as charity, with such charity being out of the reach and scrutiny of the Australian Taxation Office. The abovementioned sham entity also shares this status of a charitable body, and therefore enjoys the same freedoms.
It strongly appears that the said Trust was created by Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers, with the assistance of Perpetual Trustees, as an unscrutinised storage point to not only hold monies as obtained by fraudulent means in the first instance, but also to hold and store other monies, as at the moment of unknown origins.
As set out in the attached letter of 8th April 2019 to Ms Radhika Withana of counsel, and as above, the criminality is quite obvious, and yet, you have chosen at all times to turn a blind eye to such, and in so doing you have consistently provided direct assistance and protection to the wrongdoers in this matter.
The outstanding question is why you have done so, and continue to do so.
Yours faithfully
cc Ms Radhika Withana, Barrister
Monday, 8th April 2019
Ms Radhika Withana
Barrister at Law
12 Wentworth Selborne Chambers
12th Floor, 180 Phillip Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Ms Withana
Re: Proceedings 2018/00197067 and 2018/00214619 – conduct of Mr John McKenzie
I understand you act for Mr John McKenzie, the NSW Legal Services Commissioner, in Supreme Court proceedings 2018/00197067 and 2018/00214619, wherein two separate individuals have commenced proceedings against Mr McKenzie while seeking a judicial review in relation to decisions as made by the OLSC.
In order to prevent and avoid possible professional embarrassment to yourself, you need to be made aware that Mr McKenzie actively and routinely dismisses complaints as made to his office, despite egregious and seemingly criminal conduct on the part of certain legal professionals.
While I am unable to comment directly on the Supreme Court of NSW matters of 2018/00197067 and 2018/00214619, I am most certainly in a position to comment on the activities of Mr McKenzie and his turning of a blind eye to solicitor wrongdoing and misconduct. My tale is thus.
In November 2009, I was named as a defendant in Supreme Court proceedings. There were six defendants in those proceedings with an incorporated association being named as the sixth defendant in the same matter. The said sixth defendant was an unrepresented party, and remains as such on the Court record. The only Order made in those proceedings (2009/00291458-001) was that each party was to pay their own costs.
Pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings, Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers filed an Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs (“Application”), making the improper claim in such Application that he had acted for the sixth defendant. In fact, Mr Goldberg had acted for the four plaintiffs in the matter.
Despite having acted for the four plaintiffs only in the aforementioned Supreme Court proceedings, Mr Goldberg names his four actual clients and the sixth defendant as respondents in his Application to the Court for his costs. Mr Goldberg in such Application also claims that there were only five defendants in the said proceedings.
Clearly, as the association in question was an unrepresented party, as well as being a defendant in the matter, Mr Goldberg’s claim that the incorporated association was his client is clearly false. Mr Goldberg’s equal and separate claim that there were only five defendants in the proceedings is also totally false.
Mr Goldberg’s actions were an obvious attempt to create a debt where in fact no debt was owed. As events proceed, it becomes even more obvious and indeed plainly evident that Mr Goldberg’s actions are unlawful.
Terence Goldberg’s fraudulent claim that the sixth defendant was indebted to his firm caused firstly a judgment debt to be issued by the District Court, Sydney, in the amount of $124,661.90 against the sixth defendant, which then caused and brought about the winding up of the association. A short time later during the winding up of the association, Terence Goldberg, and despite the amount stated in the obtained judgment debt, claimed to be owed the swelled sum of $185,802.62. Such disparity remains unexplained.
The only asset owned by the sixth defendant, the premises of 2 London Street, Enmore, was sold in June 2011 for the sum of $965,000.00 in order to pay the claimed debt by Turner Freeman Lawyers.
Turner Freeman Lawyers was paid the sum of $188,303.60 by the liquidator on 20th December 2012. Further, it was a long-time associate of Terence Goldberg, while claiming to be owed the paltry sum of $85.00, who originally put forward the resolution to wind up the association. That associate of Mr Goldberg is a man by the name of Mr Jon Lindsay.
I mention Mr Lindsay directly as the majority of the remaining funds, as belonging to the sixth defendant, have since made their way to a sham entity, with that sham entity being headed by Mr Lindsay. Terence Goldberg had a direct hand in setting up the said sham entity, with Mr Goldberg and Mr Lindsay having been acquainted with each other since at least 1999. At creation, the said sham entity was registered to the given home address of Mr Lindsay. There was and is no functioning entity at this address (3/349 Bourke Street, Darlinghurst).
On 29th May 2014, some 17 months after Turner Freeman Lawyers was paid in full of the debt claimed, Terence Goldberg attended a ‘meeting of creditors’ at the offices of Jones Partners, the liquidator. Of course, as Mr Goldberg’s law firm had been paid in full some 17 months prior, Mr Goldberg’s attendance at this ‘meeting of creditors’ is again clearly and obviously improper. Also, Mr Goldberg was the sole attendee at this meeting, therefore rendering such meeting null and void due to a breach of s 5.6.16(2) of the Corporations Regulations. Your client was made aware of this breach on 17th August 2016.
At such meeting of creditors, as per the minutes of such, Terence Goldberg discusses the creation of a Trust. It transpires that Mr Goldberg created such Trust via Perpetual Trustees, and on inspection of the Trust Deed relating to same, its only objective is to provide funds to the already mentioned sham entity, as also created by Turner Freeman Lawyers.
The remaining funds belonging to the original association were then released by the liquidator some five years after the fact and diverted into the Trust (as created by Terence Goldberg), and then diverted once more to the sham entity, headed by an acquaintance of Mr Goldberg (as also set up by Mr Goldberg). I do believe the said activity is termed as ‘money laundering’.
Despite all the said information having been provided to the Legal Services Commissioner on several different occasions, the Commissioner remains inactive and has not once questioned Mr Goldberg in relation to any of the above, despite the obviousness of the criminal behaviours involved. In fact, Mr McKenzie, in correspondence of 25th July 2017 states:
“ …I have not reported Mr Goldberg to the Police as I do not believe there are reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Goldberg has committed an offence.”
It must also be mentioned that Mr McKenzie has repeatedly claimed, in writing, that no offence has occurred as the said incorporated association was Turner Freeman’s client. However, it has been pointed out to Mr McKenzie that this is neither logical, nor is it legally possible, due to the fact that the association was a defendant in the abovementioned proceedings and was also unrepresented. As you (and Mr McKenzie) would know, a solicitor is unable to act for both and opposing parties in the same proceedings (Rule 7.25 of the UCPR) and also cannot leave a client unrepresented in Court proceedings.
Mr McKenzie, in later correspondence of 17th November 2017, changes his position and by this time makes the correct claim that Turner Freeman in fact acted for four individuals. However, and despite his change of position, Mr McKenzie has still to seek any information from Mr Goldberg regarding his activities, and has also yet to ask Mr Goldberg as to how he claimed to have acted for the association as stated in an Application to the Court in seeking his costs, when such, by Mr McKenzie’s now own admission, is a false statement.
Mr McKenzie has made a large number of written statements to me which are unable to be true, however, Mr McKenzie refuses to explain both his untrue statements and also his reasons for turning his head in the other direction to the clear and obvious wrongdoing as repeatedly brought to his attention.
In relation to my writing to the Commissioner on a large number of occasions regarding all the above, I attach for your perusal and careful consideration correspondences to the Commissioner of 10th August 2017, 31st August 2017, 6th September 2017, 27th November 2017, 28th November 2017, 19th February 2018, and 21st November 2018. Such correspondences provide a sample of my letters written to the Commissioner in relation to the issue at hand.
You will see from such correspondences to your client that there is not only a clear pattern of cover up and of protection of the solicitor concerned, ie Terence Goldberg, but also of the outlining in very clear terms of the fraud that has taken place. The Commissioner’s turning of a blind eye must be deliberate.
Given the Commissioner’s deliberate behaviours, I have grave concerns as to the workings of his office, and it is due to those concerns that I write to you. I greatly fear the plaintiffs in the matters in which you are involved will be prejudiced by the Commissioner’s actions. I understand that the above matter does not directly involve the said plaintiffs, however, the Commissioner’s conduct is more than questionable. If Mr McKenzie is providing untrue statements to me, it would indicate that he is doing the same to other complainants.
In relation to the preceding paragraph wherein I speak of the Commissioner providing untrue statements to other complainants, find attached copy of correspondence from Mr McKenzie to Ms Roseanne Beckett of 25th June 2018.
You will see that Mr McKenzie dismisses Ms Beckett’s complaint as made to his office about the same solicitor (regarding an entirely separate matter), however, you will also see that Mr McKenzie breaches Rules 52(4)(a) and 52(4)(b) of the Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015 in so doing, and provides untrue statements to Ms Beckett in order to dismiss the said complaint.
In relation to the above paragraph, find attached copy of letter from me to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner of 29th June 2018. Despite it being made known to the OLSC that the Legal Profession Uniform General Rules had been breached in relation to the dismissal of Ms Beckett’s complaint, no corrective or remedial action has been taken by that office, notwithstanding the said breach. As stated above, there is a very clear pattern to events.
In order to provide fairness and transparency, I provide a copy of this correspondence and its attachments to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner.
I look forward to your response.
Private and Confidential
17 April 2019
Dear Mr Waters
Supreme Court proceedings 2018/00197067 and 2018/00214619
Your correspondence with Ms Radhika Withana of Counsel
I refer to your email to Ms Radhika Withana of Counsel dated 16 April 2019, that referred to your previous letter to her dated 8 April 2019.
Also by letter dated 8 April 2019, you provided this office a copy of your letter to Ms Withana of Counsel.
At the outset, I note you are not a party or otherwise involved in the abovementioned Supreme Court proceedings (“the unrelated proceedings”) in which I am the defendant. As you are aware, Ms Withana of Counsel was briefed to appear for me in these proceedings. Further, I understand that Ms Withana has no involvement whatsoever in your previous complaints to this office, the details of which you have provided to her in your letter dated 8 April 2019.
It is wholly inappropriate that you have corresponded with Ms Withana, my instructed Counsel in these unrelated proceedings. Please note that you will not receive any substantive response from Ms Withana, as you have no involvement in the unrelated proceedings that she has been briefed to appear.
I note you advise that you have provided a copy of your most recent letters to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (“ICAC”), which is consistent with you providing copies of your previous letters to this office to the ICAC. As you are no doubt aware, you are entitled to provide any material to the ICAC, including this letter.
Currently this office has nothing material to add, over what has already been stated on matters that have already been dealt with by this office.
Yours sincerely
John McKenzie
Commissioner
Cc: Ms Withana of Counsel
Tuesday, 23rd April 2019
Mr John McKenzie
Legal Services Commissioner
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 75 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr McKenzie
Re: My letter to Ms Radhika Withana of 8th April 2019 in relation to your conduct
I refer to the above and to your letter of 17th April 2019, as received by me this day.
Firstly, given its content, it appears to me that your letter was written solely for the benefit of Ms Radhika Withana of Counsel (to whom it was copied) rather than being written for my actual attention.
You ascribe me writing to Ms Withana as wholly inappropriate. It is not up to you to declare to whom I should or should not write, and furthermore, I would say that writing to Ms Withana is far less an inappropriate behaviour than covering up solicitor misconduct.
You state in your letter that I have no involvement in Supreme Court proceedings 2018/00197067 and 2018/00214619. Indeed, you are quite correct, however I make that reasonably clear in my letter to Ms Withana of 8th April 2019. I am unsure as to your point.
I note also that your letter makes no actual comment to the content of my correspondence to Ms Withana, nor have you provided any denial to the facts and allegations laid out therein. Again, I am left wondering as to the actual point of your letter.
In the closing paragraph of your short missive, you refer to matters as supposedly dealt with by your office, however, as quite succinctly laid out in my correspondence to Ms Withana of Counsel of 8th April 2019, those matters were in fact never dealt with in the first instance and continue to remain unresolved.
Yours faithfully
cc Ms Radhika Withana, Barrister
“I think at this stage that we can quite fairly and properly state as fact that you are covering up not only issues of serious misconduct, but also acts of criminality. The outstanding question is why you are doing so.”
“You have a longstanding history of abusing your position as legal services commissioner to provide advantage to others. The question remaining is why you are doing so.”
In a letter from to John McKenzie, 26 October 2018
“In two rare moments of clarity you admitted that the statements made by Terence Goldberg were false and also that Terence Goldberg did not in fact act for the incorporated association in question, but actually acted for four individuals.”
In letter to John McKenzie, Legal Services Commissioner, 13 March 2018
“I daresay that you would not be foolish enough to provide untrue statements to the Court in relation to such, but given your past performance, maybe you would indeed be foolish enough to do so.”
Letter to John McKenzie, Legal Services Commissioner, 13 March 2018
“In summary, Terence Goldberg fraudulently created a debt against an incorporated association by making the false claim that he acted for such association. Mr Goldberg then contrived with other persons to wind up such association and pass on the remaining monies belonging to that association to the home address of one of those persons, with that person holding criminal convictions in relation to child sex offences.”
Symn Waters in his letter to John McKenzie of 19 February 2018
“I have put the specific question to you on a large number of occasions, seeking the basis for your claim that Terence Goldberg acted for both the four plaintiffs and the sixth defendant in the same Supreme Court proceedings and you refuse to answer this very simple and straightforward question”
In a letter from Symn Waters to John McKenzie, 20 December 2017
“…arising from Mr Goldberg’s representation of the late Reverend Patricia Cleary and other members of the Enmore Spiritualist Church lncorporated in relation to the litigation that concluded in 2009 and subsequent dissolution of the Church.”
John McKenzie on 17 November 2017
Finally, the truth
“As previously stated, I will not be drawn into any further correspondence with you with respect to my decision not to conduct an internal review. My decision stands and the reasons for it are self explanatory.”
John McKenzie in his letter of 15 December 2017
Despite Mr McKenzie’s above statement, no proper explanation has been received, self-explanatory or otherwise
“As stated in my letter to you of 27th November 2017, the Law Society must seek supporting documentation in relation to complaints, which it did not do and therefore provided clear advantage to the solicitor about whom I complained and improperly dismissed my complaint despite clear conduct issues.”
In a letter to John McKenzie of 15 December 2017
