ASIC Theage February 25 2015

Why was the Legal Services Board so upset that Sgargetta and his US housebuyers went to the US law agencies about a Hush Deed? A year later ASIC laid charges on the ANZ. The other banks are waiting to see what ASIC has on them. So why was Michael McGarvie trying to find out what the SEC's witnesses knew. To: [email protected]
Subject: National Australia Bank, Gadens and Sgargetta & Waldron

Dear Mr Adams,


I believe you may have spoken to my wife and her parents lawyer who attended to a serious current matter that we have been suffering.

Certainly not wishing to bore you with the details, but this situation has manifested to such incomprehensible levels where we have unequivocal evidence of perjury and concealment of facts and evidences by the National Australia Bank and the GADENS law firm.

However what may be of interest to you was a recent deed that was provided to me and my wife in order to stop us from publicising and/or pursuing them for their wrong doing.

My wife and her parents Mr & Mrs Waldron are American citizens and were buying a home in Australia to reside near us.

The original matter began over 6 years ago which simply involved me and the bank, where the banks negligence caused a collapse of settlements, and sparked a serious dispute which reached national news last year.

A string of negligence and unconscionable conduct by the bank, and where their lawyers walked into a territory that they had to deceive the Supreme Court in order to win this now 6.5 year dispute and litigation is evidenced and available.

What is now of interest to the public and media is that judges presiding over the case had significant shares in the bank, and the offences of perjury and misconduct occurred right in court under their noses yet were evaded by these judges. The evidence is simply court transcripts and affidavits so there is no matters of interpretation or perception here, it is clear.

We have had a plethora of barristers confirm that the judges did a number on us in this matter to let the bank and their lawyers off the hook with criminal offences that is embarrassingly apparent.

For your interest I have attached the hush deed they provided us, with amendments our lawyers required, as the original deed they provide us was far too unethical and we certainly were not going to sign it as it was.
The bank rejected the amendments. We lost the home and face serious financial collapse.

I am willing to discuss this matter further with you but didn’t want to overwhelm you with the level of issues in this matter, as they are long and extensive.


Kind regards,

Elliot