Legal Notes

In part 1 of this three-part crime mystery, deception by the Australia Tax Office's legal representatives is revealed in documents prepared by the Australian Government Solicitor while representing the ATO in court proceedings.  In part 2, the mystery deepens as exceptional events unfold rapidly after efforts to silence a whistleblower are derailed by legal advice.  Finally, in part 3 of this three-part series, motives are exposed and explanations for the puzzling mysteries at the end of part 2 are discussed. Is it a case of a culture of maladministration or are reasons for "men behaving badly" more villainous? More villainous actions are carried out by other government agencies. This is not a "culture problem" confined to the Australian Taxation Office. The web of a singular criminal purpose spreads wherever the opportunity exists.  The Australian Customs Service Parallel The ACS has used its "power to destroy" in ways that mirror the ATO's conduc...

 Documents filed with an Application for Leave to appeal  An application for leave to appeal from judgement of a High Court justice  - refusing to grant leave to file an application for constitutional writs  - to challenge an interlocutory judgment of a Federal Court justice where rights to apply for special leave to appeal have been eliminated in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.  The application for leave to appeal, dated 4 June 2026 - with an introduction => " A long and winding road to overturn a July 2025 Federal Court judgment ", from a judgment of Edelman J dated 13 May 2026, that rejected the following application dated 24 April 2026...  The documents filed with the above application for leave to appeal:  Order of Edelman J made 15 May 2026 , rejecting the application for leave to file an application following a judgment by Gordon J on 24 April 2026 requiring leave to file an application lodged on 22 April 2026.  Re...

The Federal Court judgment of Justice Thawley of July 2025 Does the Commissioner of Taxation have a hold over one or more judges of the Federal Court? The Australian Taxation Office has a well-worn tactic to avoid complying with its Model Litigant Obligation.  Under the Legal Services Directions, Commonwealth entities and their lawyers must act as model litigants, which requires maintaining the highest ethical standards. This includes not requiring another party to prove a matter that the Commonwealth knows to be true.  It is said that "The Commonwealth's obligation to act as a model litigant is codified under Part 5, Division 2 of the Legal Services Directions. This duty ensures  [sic, fails to ensure] that the government and its agencies behave with complete propriety, fairness, and honesty in all litigation and civil claims."  In reality it ensues no such thing.  When confronted by a claim supported by evidence that the Commissioner of Taxation has failed to ...