Quality Control_ Files Archive
Date created: 20/09/2022
Developer: Engineer Afsaneh Cooper
Form 32A [Defendant] Abstract
Developer: Engineer Afsaneh Cooper
Form 32A [Defendant] Abstract
The following archive as a color rectangle is called: Accordion. Clicking on right side + sign will open a Pleat of this Accordion. Each pleat contains various files with its own file names. Pleats are numbered for the project team who work on these files. Accordion_Pleat 1, means you open this web-page after you received your poster by email. Then you click on + which belongs to pleat 1 and find the file you were referred to. Download the file. Please only share the following files with authorities in Shire, Court, Ombudsman, Minister, etc. If you have any technical issue contact the developer whose name is written at the top of this web-page. Click - to close the pleat.
Transcripts of the MCF [Listing cnference, hEARING, TRIALS-1, General Application Hearing, tRIAL-2, dELIVERY OF FINAL ORDERS
1. Transcripts of the MCF: Listing Conference-Form 53 [Claimant], trial-1, Form 32A Hearing, Trial-2, General procedure Application hearing, Trial-3, Delivery of Final Orders in MCF [SEE FILES c1-c7]. SAT 2006-2009 [Zone 9l-10l bRADFORD RETAINING WALL]c8, City of melville 2006-2008 [sEE FILES V1-V3]
| C1_C2_C3_645_2020_Transcripts_2020-March_2021.pdf |
The following File is abstract for part of above transcripts written by the defendant only:
| C1_C2_C3_645_2020_Transcripts abstract_2020-March_2021 |
The Following 4 Files C4 to C7 are Transcripts of 4 court Hearings: 20/8/2021, 13/4/2022, 27/7/2022 ans 26/8/2022:
| C4_645_2020_Transcript_A.Hills-Wright_20-8-2021.pdf |
| C5_645_2020_Transcript_T.Darge_13-4-2022.pdf |
| C6_645_2020_Trascript_N.Lemmon_27-7-2022.pdf |
| C7_645_2020_Trascript_N.Lemmon_26-8-2022.pdf |
The Following File C8 is State Appeal Tribunal Transcript regarding Precast Bradford Panel and Post retaining wall installed at #64 next to South-West boundary:
| C8_CC883_2009_SAT_Transcripts_T.Carey_12-10-2009.pdf |
The Following File V1-V7 are Transcripts of City of Melville V A.Cooper, and File SAT is Transcript of
A.Cooper V City of Melville:
A.Cooper V City of Melville:
| V1-V7_FR8581-FR8585_Transcripts_Hogan_Musk_Michelides_12-4-2006_30-3-2007.pdf |
The Following File [Claimants'_land_#62...] includes legal information and Structural Engineer's certification to prove only #62 needs 11m long retaining wall and not #64
| Claimants'_Land_#62__in_South_West_Boundary_needs_Retaining_Wall_not_Defendant's_Land_#64.pdf |
The Following File: [12_orders_in_Form 23....] is taken from Form 23 of the defendant which was lodged to eCourt portal on February 2022.
| 12_Orders_in_Form23_Application_General_Procedure_Claim_A.Cooper_26-2-2022.pdf.pdf |
| 1. References_Authorities_Court_Relisting_2022.jpg |
The Following email could not be sent to recipients because of limitation of volume of files they can receive by email. Therefore you can use the content of the following email, but the attachments of the email are all in Pleat 1 in this Accordion as you see above. I have changed the File names received from court yesterday. The transcripts are C4 to C7 WHICH BELONGS TO Case: FR/GEN/645/2022. Find them above in this pleat 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5. Email Exchange with SC
6. aTTACHMENTS FOR SC EMAILS
7. Form 2-[aFFIDAVIT-d-Payments] was served electronically & by registered post to claimants
Defendant's Form 2-[Affidavit-D-Payments] was amended on 21/09/2022 by registered posted letter sent to claimants Desai and post office served Rajendra Desai to his hand and got signature from him on 21/09/2022. Also 86 pages of this Affidavit was served to him by defendant through her MCF Case FR/GEN/645/2020 Registered business email [elearning@ewindfly.net] on 1/4/2022 prior to Geneal application hearing 13/4/2022. Please see pages 11-12 of the following Amended Form 11 which is registered posted letter served by Australia post to Rajendra Desai claimant in this case.
| Amended_Form_11_Affidavit_of_Service_Form_2-D-Affidavit-Payments.pdf |
In the following pleats 18 and 19 of webpage: Litigation Files, you can find defendant's Amended
Form 2-[Affidavit-D-Payments] which she lodged to ecourt portal on 19/5/2022 to be read by magistrate of trial 27-7-2022. This affidavit proves the claimants have 18 building issues in their property at the boundary which have prevented the defendant have a secured dividing fence of 30m long since 6/1/2022 and these issues has occupied all her career and rental benefit times she could spent on herself to be spent on claimants' building issues rather just a day fence installation. So, the legal cost for the defendant in Form 2-D was ignored by magistrate because Form 2-D was attached to Form 23, Which included three Affidavits: A, B, D [C was not typed] and only B was about retaining walls and Mr Woodford my probono lawyer who had not read all of these in debt tried to simplify these pack Form 23 to only Fence type matter and ignore the building issues of claimants which took all defendant's time to present to magistrates in this case. On 26/6/2020 magistrate only understood claimants have only dividing fence installation issue, and defendant has only retaining wall issue to enforce its cost onto claimants. They could not understand they also have 18 building issues!!! So, Form 2-[Affidavit-D-payments] was lodged on 1/4/2022 to ecourt portal by defendant and electronically was served to claimants [not by registered post] due to time was spent on first draft of Form 2-[Affidavit-C-Deed of release]. But period 2/4/2022-12/4/2022 was not enough for production of this Deed of release affidavit in typed, scanned, sworn at JP, Elodged, served by registered post to defendant. So Only Affidavits A,B,D were produced, A, B were served legally but D was served digitally but Form 11 for service was lodged in court. If you follow the instruction of the following poster Litigation Files, you can open a webpage that in its pleat 18 and 19, Amended Form 2-[Affidavit-D-payments] is recorded and all splits which you can upload easily are there to see what are building issues which prevented me having fence since 6/1/2022. Then ask yourself questions:
Q1. Did these building issues exist during prosecution period of shire Jan. 2006-Aug. 2008?
Q2. Had Shire considered 18 building issues at #62 also could adversely affect the dividing fence stability during prosecution time or the Shire intentionally ignored those building issues at #62?
Q3. Did these 18 building issues at #62 caused fence damages on 9/7/2005 party incident at #62 or their 5 party guests and tenant climbing over capping of the fence on 9/7/2005? If yes, then why did Shire prosecuted the defendant for three years [2006-2008]? Could defendant get compensation from claimants in this procedure [FR/GEN/645/2020] for Deed of release been breached for claiming against the defendant for same instability of dividing fence due to 18 building issues at #62 which they never maintained these building issues?
Q4. Who should pay for breaches of Claimants for Deed of release they had signed? Who pays for instability of dividing fence for same building issues?
Q5. Does defendant owe any money to claimants for dividing fence? Should SGIO payments for 50% of fence dated 2020 be refunded to them and claimants pay for all Dividing fence cost and retaining wall costs and their building issues maintenance cost?
Form 2-[Affidavit-D-Payments] which she lodged to ecourt portal on 19/5/2022 to be read by magistrate of trial 27-7-2022. This affidavit proves the claimants have 18 building issues in their property at the boundary which have prevented the defendant have a secured dividing fence of 30m long since 6/1/2022 and these issues has occupied all her career and rental benefit times she could spent on herself to be spent on claimants' building issues rather just a day fence installation. So, the legal cost for the defendant in Form 2-D was ignored by magistrate because Form 2-D was attached to Form 23, Which included three Affidavits: A, B, D [C was not typed] and only B was about retaining walls and Mr Woodford my probono lawyer who had not read all of these in debt tried to simplify these pack Form 23 to only Fence type matter and ignore the building issues of claimants which took all defendant's time to present to magistrates in this case. On 26/6/2020 magistrate only understood claimants have only dividing fence installation issue, and defendant has only retaining wall issue to enforce its cost onto claimants. They could not understand they also have 18 building issues!!! So, Form 2-[Affidavit-D-payments] was lodged on 1/4/2022 to ecourt portal by defendant and electronically was served to claimants [not by registered post] due to time was spent on first draft of Form 2-[Affidavit-C-Deed of release]. But period 2/4/2022-12/4/2022 was not enough for production of this Deed of release affidavit in typed, scanned, sworn at JP, Elodged, served by registered post to defendant. So Only Affidavits A,B,D were produced, A, B were served legally but D was served digitally but Form 11 for service was lodged in court. If you follow the instruction of the following poster Litigation Files, you can open a webpage that in its pleat 18 and 19, Amended Form 2-[Affidavit-D-payments] is recorded and all splits which you can upload easily are there to see what are building issues which prevented me having fence since 6/1/2022. Then ask yourself questions:
Q1. Did these building issues exist during prosecution period of shire Jan. 2006-Aug. 2008?
Q2. Had Shire considered 18 building issues at #62 also could adversely affect the dividing fence stability during prosecution time or the Shire intentionally ignored those building issues at #62?
Q3. Did these 18 building issues at #62 caused fence damages on 9/7/2005 party incident at #62 or their 5 party guests and tenant climbing over capping of the fence on 9/7/2005? If yes, then why did Shire prosecuted the defendant for three years [2006-2008]? Could defendant get compensation from claimants in this procedure [FR/GEN/645/2020] for Deed of release been breached for claiming against the defendant for same instability of dividing fence due to 18 building issues at #62 which they never maintained these building issues?
Q4. Who should pay for breaches of Claimants for Deed of release they had signed? Who pays for instability of dividing fence for same building issues?
Q5. Does defendant owe any money to claimants for dividing fence? Should SGIO payments for 50% of fence dated 2020 be refunded to them and claimants pay for all Dividing fence cost and retaining wall costs and their building issues maintenance cost?
| pleat_18_in_litigation_files_web-page.pdf |
| pleat_19_in_litiogation_files_web-page.pdf |
