Page v Rankine

[2020] NSWSC 902

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Page v Rankine [2020] NSWSC 902

Hearing dates:

15 July 2020

Date of orders:

15 July 2020

Decision date:

15 July 2020

Jurisdiction:

Equity

Before:

Ward CJ in Eq

Decision:

1.   Order that the notice to produce to Court issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, dated 12 June 2020, is set aside.

2. Order pursuant to ss 61 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, that the notices of motion filed by the defendant on 15 June 2020 and 23 June 2020 be set aside, with liberty to the defendant to file within seven days an amended notice of motion limited only to:

(a) an application for an extension of time to comply with orders made on 30 March 2020 pursuant to r 1.12(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW); and

(b) an application to set aside or vary the orders of Hallen J made on 30 March 2020 pursuant to r 36.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

3.   Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the notice of motion filed by the plaintiff on 23 June 2020.

4.   Order that any notice of motion filed by the defendant in exercise of the liberty granted by me will be returnable for directions before me at 8.30am on 28 July 2020.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Probate and administration of estates — Contentious proceedings

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Interlocutory applications — where application to set aside notice to produce and notice of motion — where notice to produce and notices of motion imprecise, misconceived and otherwise incompetent

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 61, 63

Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW), s 93

Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 78 r 48

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 1.12(1), 18.7, 34.1, 36.5

Cases Cited:

Douglas Corporation Pty Ltd v Currico Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 113

Norris v Kandiah [2007] NSWSC 1296

Penrith Rugby League Club Ltd v Brown [2004] NSWSC 1182

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

James Michael Page (Plaintiff)
Anthony John Rankine (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
C Birtles (Plaintiff)
No appearance by the defendant

Solicitors:
Bartier Perry Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)

File Number(s):

2019/00400798

Publication restriction:

Nil

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. HER HONOUR: This is an application by notice of motion filed on 23 June 2020 by the executor, James Michael Page, of the estate of the deceased, the late John Rankine, seeking two kinds of relief: first, that a notice to produce to Court issued by the defendant to the plaintiff and dated 12 June 2020 be set aside; second, orders pursuant to ss 61 and/or 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (Civil Procedure Act) that the notice of motion filed by the defendant on 15 June 2020 be set aside with liberty to the defendant to file an amended notice of motion limited in two respects (as set out in prayer 1 of the orders sought in the notice of motion).

2. I interpose here to note that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the defendant in the virtual courtroom on the hearing of the application. However, I was satisfied that the defendant was aware of the application, and that it was listed for hearing before me today, and I proceeded to hear it pursuant to r 18.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR). I considered it appropriate to proceed to hear the application in the absence of the defendant, in circumstances where the defendant was on notice of the application and it was difficult to imagine, having regard to the text of the notice to produce and the 15 June 2020 notice of motion, any argument that the defendant could sensibly or credibly maintain to sustain either the notice to produce or the (respective) notice(s) of motion (which should be set aside for the reasons set out below).

3. On the application, the executor has read two affidavits sworn by him (those being affidavits of 17 December 2019 and 23 June 2020); and an affidavit of service of John Larue sworn 16 June 2018 (as to service of notice by the executor calling on the defendant to take procedures within three months of service to prosecute claims related to the estate). Reference is also made to the summons dated 20 December 2019 and the notice to produce issued by the defendant has been tendered as an exhibit. I have also had regard to the affidavits filed by the defendant in the proceedings.

Notice to produce

4. Turning first to the notice to produce, the application to set aside the notice to produce is on the basis that, amongst other things, it impermissibly seeks discovery, which is not permitted by r 34.1 of the UCPR. It is noted that the paragraphs of the defendant’s notice to produce do not identify specific documents and do not seek documents in a manner that is distinct and free from confusion.

5. In that regard, reference is made to the authorities in relation to notices to produce, including Douglas Corporation Pty Ltd v Currico Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 113 (see at [29] per Harrison AsJ); Penrith Rugby League Club Ltd v Brown [2004] NSWSC 1182 (see at [8] per Young CJ in Eq, as his Honour then was); and Norris v Kandiah [2007] NSWSC 1296 (per Brereton J, as his Honour then was).

6. The objections raised to the notice to produce have real force. Broadly speaking, the documents sought in the 15 paragraphs of the notice to produce are expressed to relate to allegations of identity theft, subversion of the operation of the intestacy laws of North Carolina, tax evasion, money laundering and terrorism financing involving the deceased or his (unidentified) agents, none of which appears to have any relevance to claims against the estate in the present proceedings in this jurisdiction.

7. There is no objective justification for requiring production of those documents in circumstances where the Court has already made orders barring the claims by the defendant. The sole remaining issue in the proceedings, to the extent that the defendant properly makes an application to that effect (and I interpose to note that the defendant has not yet done so at this stage), is whether the Court should vary or extend the time for compliance with the orders made on 30 March 2020 for the defendant to commence separate proceedings.

8. For those reasons, the notice to produce should be set aside.

Notice of motion

9. As to the 15 June 2020 notice of motion, it is useful to set out the background to the proceedings which is as follows.

10. The deceased died on 13 July 2016. Probate of the Will of the deceased, dated 18 October 2007, and a codicil of the deceased, dated 24 May 2010, was granted to Mr Page, who is a solicitor, on 23 December 2016.

11. A notice of intended distribution of the estate was published in January 2017.

12. In July 2017, the defendant communicated with the executor as to certain assets of the estate that he claimed. Those assets fall within four categories.

13. The first comprised certain rings belonging to the defendant’s late mother, who died in 1989. A copy of the probate of her Will is annexed to Mr Page’s affidavit. There are, I am told, two surviving executors of that Will, one of whom is one of the beneficiaries of the deceased’s Will. In relation to that matter, the executor has deposed to the enquiries that he has made as to the whereabouts of the rings: the whereabouts of two of the rings is unknown; meanwhile, one ring, I am told, has been provided to the defendant.

14. The second category relates to an ING bank account, or some ING bank accounts, in the defendant’s name. The executor has made enquiries in relation to that account, or those accounts, with ING Direct, but has been informed that the bank will not provide any information as these are not accounts in the name of the deceased.

15. The third category relates to certain transactions claimed to have been made by one of the beneficiaries of the deceased, Melissa Rankine. The executor has deposed that he has made enquiries in relation to that matter and that an agreement has been reached with Ms Rankine (without admissions) for there to be an adjustment to her interests under the Will to take into account certain of those transactions.

16. The fourth category is a “forfeiture” claim in relation to matters raised in respect of the medical treatment of the deceased before his death. I understand that that claim has not been pursued by the defendant in the proceedings that the defendant had issued in the United States of America.

17. On 30 March 2020, Hallen J made orders effectively requiring the defendant to file any notice of motion in relation to his claim on the estate within a specified time. His Honour noted that the defendant had indicated that proceedings previously commenced in the United States in the General Court of Justice of North Carolina, Superior Court Division, Catawba County were to be commenced in the United States District Court, Western Division of North Carolina, Statesville Division, within 14 days.

18. His Honour ordered that, in the event that any proceedings were not filed and served within 21 days, the claims of the defendant be barred pursuant to s 93 of the Probate and Administration Act1898 (NSW).

19. His Honour noted that, in the event that the defendant commenced the proceedings, the summons would be dismissed. His Honour also ordered that, in the event that the defendant commenced the proceedings, the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings calculated on the indemnity basis be paid out of the estate of the deceased; but, in the event that he did not commence the proceedings, the plaintiff’s costs be paid by the defendant.

20. The defendant did not commence the foreshadowed proceedings within the time specified. The effect of Hallen J’s orders therefore is that claims of the defendant in relation to the estate are presently barred.

21. The notice of motion that has been filed on 15 June 2020 by the defendant seeks various orders. The orders sought are in the following terms:

1.   The variation/clarification of Judge Hallen’s Order of March 30. 2020, in which Hallen required (a) James Michael Page answer Anthony John Rankine before a US Court, (b) in a manner consistent with the rules of such US Court, Anthony J, Rankine must file and serve on James Michael Page a US Complaint, conforming with the US Iqbal/Twombly rules of pleading (not NSW rules), and do so within 21 days, (something the movant took exception to during the hearing with Judge Hallen, because Iqbal pleading is arduous, and the US courts were Covid restricted, as of Friday, March 27, starting Monday, March 30) and (c) James Michael Page must give answer, or otherwise default. Stymied on Friday, April 17, 2020, in the Statesville Division which was completely locked shut, movant used the drop-box process in the Charlotte Division on Monday, April 20, 2020, and was further stymied by that court’s new and sudden “document quarantine and disinfection rule” (meaning no same day docket, clerk stamping and summons issue). That same day, after movant had returned from Charlotte, and gotten a PDF document scanned, movant telephoned Janet Tan, and emailed a PDF of the US Complaint as filed-via-dropbox, as well as US Form AO399, Waiver of Service of Summons - pursuant to US FRCP Rule 4(d)(1) as Page is a Rule 4(f) party, servable under Rule 4(f)(1) as well as 4(f)(2) because Page was directed to receive such service pursuant to Hallen’s order, ie not play ostrich as has been Page’s concealment tactic since July-2016. Movant asks the Court to find he has fulfilled the requirements of Judge Hallen’s order, and/or vary Hallen’s restrictive 21 day order in the interests of justice given the pandemonium caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, (as noted in Australian Governor-General David Hurley’s Quarantine Order, and the public statements of his boss. Queen Elizabeth, the monarch of 67 UK subjects who died on 9/11 in New York), i.e. slowdowns to nations the world over, NSW and US courts being no exception. Plaintiff has removed Phillip Hallen from the US Complaint, as Hallen demanded things outside his control and sphere of knowledge in terms of accomplishing things in 21 days conforming to US law.

2. Pursuant to UCPR 10.19, movant requests the court to order the persons of “James Michael Page”, “Janet Tan”, “Garland Hawthorn Brahe” (identity/person Tan conjured into existence to circumscribe the statutory 3 month rule, and pre-emptively serve a Summons the defendant under Section 93 of the Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW)) and the “Estate of John Rankine” to answer the attached Amended Complaint (superceding [sic] the original 21 day rushed complaint), captioned Rankine v. Page et a!., 5:20-CV-49-KDB, and mail/file their responsive pleadings to: Clerk of Court, US District Court, 401 West Trade St, Room 210, Charlotte, NC 28202, with a copy to the plaintiff, Anthony J. Rankine, 5072 16th St Dr NE, Hickory NC 28601 Tel: [phone]. Given the pandemonium, movant has no objection to the above defendants taking 45 days to make answer.

3.   Order James Michael Page pursuant to the pre-filied Form 29, Order of Production, movant has filed concurrent with this pleading, directing James Michael Page, and all alter-egos, such as “Garland Hawthorn Brahe”, to yield up without delay the documents sought via discovery request Form 24, Notice to Produce to Court, also filed concurrent with this pleading.

4.   Remove James Michael Page and his associates as the Executor and Trustee of the Estate of John Rankine, which comprises property looted from (a) Anthony John Rankine and (b) the Estate of Patricia M. Y. Rankine. Such property is protected by affirmative laws, no “proof of a negative” is involved. Basis for removal: Page has actively concealed (a) John Rankine’s theft of the property of the Estate of Patricia M. Y. Rankine, such property is protected by affirmative inventory laws (comparable to firearm and automobile registration laws), (b) theft of property of Anthony John Rankine, such property is protected by affirmative recordation laws at the Australian Securities Commission (in short Rankine/Page has one set of books for the ATO, and another set of books for ASIC), (c) the active use of one or more “Anthony John Rankine” and/or “Anthony Rankine” doppelgangers, in violation of affirmative 100 points of identity laws, to carry into fruition the pre and post death scheme Page and Rankine designed and executed to conceal John Rankine and his confederates’ involvement (as aiders, abettors, harbourors, and facilitators) in a multitude of crimes, including tax evasion, money laundering, terrorism funding and expertise provisioning culminating in mass murder that occurred on US soil, during a period where John Rankine was beholden to obey a US Court Order, but rather executed crime-via-doppelganger as his “revenge on America” response to that Order, and (d) Page’s concealment of the criminal activities of Melissa Anne Rankine, whom, upon uncovering John Rankine’s crimes, used her discovery to compel John Rankine (slowly succumbing to dementia) to alter his Will via codicil, pay her for her silence, and when John Rankine’s dementia became so profound that Melissa Rankine’s extortion were met with blank stares, Page refashioned the proceeds of crime as “gifts”, being counterfeiting and AMLCTF violations Melissa Rankine engaged in while looting a “John Rankine” ING account (where ING and she assert she had John Rankine’s “Power of Attorney”, something affirmative law states is a notarized document). Page also conceals many forged “John Rankine” signatures on “Cash” cheques on an ING associated NAB account, cashed by Melissa. Page also conceals the extortion that caused Katrina J. Rankine to pay Melissa “Fuck Off” money amounting to $45,000 in the last month of John Rankine’s life. Page refuses to protect the “Estate” from the marauding of Melissa and/or Katrina. A choice of culprit and restitution is essential to make whole the estate. These stolen funds represent stolen fees owed to the Probate Court, pursuant to fee schedule, being some $350 in 2016. Movant also asserts ING took part in this conspiracy because of the doppelganger “Anthony John Rankine” account at ING established by John Rankine on January 25, 2001 (in violation of affirmative 100 points of identity law}, and that Page and Melissa Rankine fashioned that identity fraud into a means to extort ING/NAB’s complicity in disregarding month over month AMLCTF Act violations. Page has refused to hand over any document relating to violations (a) through (d), above. Page’s mission is not an “Estate” matter, rather it is execute post-death concealment that pre-death concealment failed to accomplish. This also explains why Page, instead of replying and identifying himself to the movant’s attorney in Goulburn, namely Tim McGrath of Johnson & Sendall, after July 28, 2017, Page erected the “Garland Hawthorn Brahe” (GHB) canard against the US- based pro se defendant in order to create dilitation and keep the defendant in a state of quandary and forfeit of legal representation. On December 20, 2019, Page did another switcheroo, by dialing “off” the GHB canard, and in his own name rushed to the NSW Supreme Court, invoking a British Colony of NSW probate law of 1898, because Page was informed that movant had submitted a complaint detailing tax and AMLCTF violations to the Australian Senate on November 15, 2019. Any dutiful “Executor and Trustee” would have acted to (a) protect federal rights, (b) uphold the superior law of Australia as a nation of States, (under Section 1 of the Australia Constitution Act, legislative power is vested in the “Queen” entity (ie Elizabeth A. M. Windsor) as one third of the “Parliament of the Commonwealth,” the other two third entities are called “Senate” and “House of Representatives”. Under Section 61, the “Queen” entity is the sole holder of executive power, namely the Donald Trump/Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Australia. - Australia is not a 1898 collective of suzerain colonies answerable to Westminster/Buckingham Palace), and (c) protect movant from all crimes of other persons, both federal and state. Please remove Page, and appoint an executor and trustee who wears duty like a fine tailored suit and abhors crime.

22. Criticism is understandably here made by the executor of the relief that is sought in the notice of motion (and the lack of concision and clarity with which the notice of motion is expressed). It is submitted, and I accept, that the notice of motion does not comply with the orders that were made by Hallen J nor does the notice of motion clearly identify the relief that is sought arising out of the proceedings. (On its face, the notice of motion would be liable to be struck out as being in the nature of an embarrassing document, as that expression is understood in relation to pleadings generally.)

23. It is noted, for example, that O 4 of the notice of motion seeks orders removing the plaintiff as executor of the estate. Relief of that kind is not interlocutory relief which arises in these proceedings and, furthermore, such an application would ordinarily need to be pleaded (see Pt 78 r 48 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW)). It is further noted by the executor that such an application appears to be incongruous with the barring order that was made by Hallen J on 30 March 2020.

24. As to O 3 of the notice of motion, this seeks orders compelling production of documents via a discovery request and should be set aside for the reasons given in relation to the notice to produce that I have dealt with above.

25. As to O 2, which seeks orders compelling the plaintiff to answer the complaint in the North Carolina proceedings, for the reasons that have been put forward in the submissions for the executor, that relief is also misconceived and does not arise in these proceedings.

26. As to O 1 of the notice of motion, to the extent that it gives rise to any claim for relief that would, or may, arise in these proceedings, it seems to suggest that the defendant is seeking a finding that he has satisfied the requirements of Hallen J’s earlier order and/or seeks a variation of that order in the interests of justice (see at line 20 of the order sought). However, it goes well beyond any such relief (and seems to include material in the nature of submissions).

22. In my opinion, the notice of motion is not in a proper form and does not clearly identify the relief that is sought. It is, in my view, apt to confuse and will not facilitate the speedy determination of the real issues in the proceedings.

23. I note the overriding statutory mandate pursuant to s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act for the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute. This notice of motion does not facilitate that purpose (nor, I note, does the notice of motion that has been e-filed by the defendant on 23 June 2020 do so and, therefore, of the Court’s own motion I will also set that second notice of motion aside – as to which, see below).

24. Therefore, the 15 June 2020 notice of motion should be set aside (but with, as the executor accepts would be appropriate, liberty to bring an amended motion limited to the sole issue of relevance at this stage of the proceeding).

Subsequent notice of motion of 23 June 2020

30. On 23 June 2020, the defendant e-filed a further notice of motion, seeking the following relief:

1.   US citizen defendant seeks an order for the court to appoint a “Guardian Ad Litem”, who shall be fully remunerated by the Estate of John Rankine, to function as an “Identity Concierge” for the real, human Anthony John Rankine of [address], United States, [telephone number]. The Guardian Ad Litem’s first job to ensure that under no circumstances, is a NSW court under a pre­-federation law of 1898 going to compel me to walk one inch in the shoes of a doppelganger-in-terrorism erected by the plaintiff in federal criminal confederation with Garland Hawthorne Brahe, Janet Tan, John Rankine via the Estate of John Rankine, the RICO terrorism concealment and control center “[address], (in rem party)”, ING Bank (Aust) Pty Ltd. ING Group N. V., Debra Chin, Susan Gai Rankine, Sylvia Emmett, Arthur Emmett, Alexander W. Street, Gerard Farley, Melissa Anne Rankine, John Larue, Abel Moldinaro, Hugh Davis North, and Michael C. Landreth.

2.   Service of Process (Physical NSW Location): Pursuant to the court’s direction, the Guardian Ad Litem, as well as, Joanne McCauley, [address], Australia, are the persons whom the court/Page can contact in NSW and “serve process” as you call it. Joanne McCauley acts on my behalf in unravelling the tax and AML/CTF crimes committed under the doppelganger identity “Anthony John Rankine” and which the aforenamed federal criminals are attempting to foist upon me, a real person, only because my name is identical.

Judgement on the Pleadings: Plaintiff Page’s own Affidavit paragraph 14(b) reveals that Page orchestrated some mystery person in his office to act as his canard of “willful blindness”, whereupon this canard of “Willfui blindness” person contacted ING Bank. Page provides no date when the “contact ING Bank” activity he orchestrated supposedly happened. The bottom line is: ING Bank knows James Michael Page is part of a terrorism concealment program (not just me). ING Bank properly refuses to facilitate terrorism activities. Page’s own Annexure “D,” as he references in his Affidavit 4(b), discloses an application form for opening an ING Bank Savings Maximizer Account. The signature on that form is the identical signature of the “John Rankine” whose Will, James Michael Page claims the right to operate on as Executor and Trustee, an office he took back from Garland H. Brahe. See Page’s own Annexure “H” where Garland H. Brahe was the person who jammed a Section 93 Notice in defendant’s face in Hickory, NC -- bottom of page “Yours Sincerely, Garland Hawthorn Brahe” signed via “Janet Tan.” Note the boldface appears on the letter, see annexure, as the typographical style used to denote the names of humans. Furthermore, nowhere is any person called “James Michael Page” (boldface or not) referenced in this document, Nor in another letter from Mr. Brahe, such as the “Seeking Indemnity” in return for a “payoff” letter mailed on February 9, 2018, received February 20, 2018 by defendant. Page failed to furnish a copy of this letter in his “Summons and Affidavit” filed on December 20, 2019. Defendant has provided a copy as Exhibits 6a, and 6b, in defendant’s Form 40 Affidavit of Anthony John Rankine of June 12, 2020, which defendant emailed to the NSW Supreme Court registrar along with Form 20, and payment of $418, as this court directed. Again, boldface for human names is repeated. In short, Garland Hawthorn Brahe is the party-in-interest, not Page who seeks to dupe this court into according him “immunity from liability” under Section 93 of the Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW). James Michael Page is the name of a criminal using subterfuge to skunk out and destroy evidence relating to his and his confederates involvement in the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Defendant states on oath that on January 25, 2001, while John Rankine furnished fake ID to open a doppelganger bank account at ING Bank, me, the real person, was in Washington, DC, at the Inauguration of President George W. Bush. There are witnesses to this hard fact reality. I am a US citizen, not some doppelganger.

I disavow the name “Anthony John Rankine.” After consultation with the guardian ad litem, I will have the guardian ad litem file whatever paperwork is required to acquire a new name, and to the extent I have real taxable income in Australia, also acquire whatever taxpayer identity designator the Australian Tax Office might use.

By reason of the foregoing, this court needs to appoint a guardian ad litem, and John Rankine can pay for the unmasking of his own criminal chicanery and making complete restitution to all his victims.

2.   An Order directing the guardian ad litem to locate and contact the families/next of kin of ten Australian citizens whose lives were snuffed out on September 11,2001, namely the families/next of kin of; [names and addresses of various individuals].

3.   An Order of Removal of James Michael Page, has been requested by the defendant in a prior Notice of Motion, June 12, 2020, and is appropriate from the reason stated in that notice. The guardian ad litem can hunt down and make report to the federal government of Australia (the rightful sovereign/incl. the US federal sovereign), all evidence going to James Michael Page’s involvement in the concealment of tax evasion, concealment of money laundering, concealment of terrorism funding, and concealment of the methods, means and use of the ING Bank authenticated “Anthony John Rankine” doppelganger of January 25, 2001, which John Rankine harnessed as his “sub rosa” conduit to contact and provide Al Qaeda invaluable intimate knowledge about the structural vulnerabilities of the World Trade Center that once stood in New York, but was subsequently demolished seven months later in a terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.

It is crystal clear I am supposed to be a “Suicided corpse” -- induced to suicide. Yet, I draw breath, and thereby am the unsnuffed inconvenience for terrorists. As per Philip Hallen, I had better open my checkbook and remunerate terrorists for drawing breath, being a living witness, and making report to the Australian Senate, as I did on November 15, 2019, thirty-five days before Page filed his “Summons”.

On Saturday July 16, 2016, around 10am, Arthur Emmett (who works at the NSW Supreme Court as a judicial officer) swiped out my hands, a Boat Navigation License issued by the RTA/MSB. Both Arthur and Sylvia Emmett claimed that a person they orally identified as “Michael Page” needed to have this “Anthony John Rankine” RTA/MSB identity document. I had no idea that this was a doppelganger document, nor any idea they had erected a doppelganger [email address] account with the California company called Yahoo Inc. in order to masquerade as “Anthony John Rankine.” Based on documents I unearthed in July 2017, Arthur Emmett’s actions of identity theft in concert with James Michael Page, as evidence- destroyer-in-chief, makes the reason perfectly clear -- federal terrorism crimes.

Australia will no longer be obfuscating matters to buy time for Page and his confederates to scramble about on a “search and destroy” mission for the 9/11 evidence they missed. Much of the evidence exists by affirmative command under statutory law. Its absence proves deliberate concealment. Australia will no longer be wasting my time, my focus nor money. This is the Guardian Ad Litem’s job, and John Rankine can pay for the lot of it. I have US duties to report crime to US authorities that the Senate of Australia cannot sabotage. Page in concert with a NSW court not interested in substantive issues will not be dissipating my time nor obstructing my duties as a US citizen. Some fifty other countries lost their citizens as a result of the criminal conduct of John Rankine and his confederates. Australia will not be thwarting their sovereign right to complete restitution by attacking me.

31. Although not the subject of the executor’s notice of motion (being filed after that notice of motion), this second notice of motion filed by the defendant suffers from the same problems as (and is even more misconceived than) the first, as should be apparent from the relief sought.

32. It is not appropriate that the time and resources of the Court be wasted on applications of such a nature, nor should the estate be put to the expense of moving to have it set aside.

33. Therefore, of my own motion, pursuant to s 63 of the Civil Procedure Act and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to control its own processes, and having regard to the overriding statutory mandate under s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act, I will set aside the 23 June 2020 notice of motion. There can be no prejudice to the defendant in so doing, since there will be liberty granted for the defendant to file an amended notice of motion limited to the relief that may appropriately be sought.

Costs

34. On the basis that costs would ordinarily follow the event, I will order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the notice of motion filed by the plaintiff on 23 June 2020.

Orders

35. For those reasons, I make the following orders:

1. Order that the notice to produce to Court issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, dated 12 June 2020, is set aside.

2. Order pursuant to ss 61 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, that the notices of motion filed by the defendant on 15 June 2020 and 23 June 2020 be set aside, with liberty to the defendant to file within seven days an amended notice of motion limited only to:

1. an application for an extension of time to comply with orders made on 30 March 2020 pursuant to r 1.12(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW); and

2. an application to set aside or vary the orders of Hallen J made on 30 March 2020 pursuant to r 36.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

3. Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the notice of motion filed by the plaintiff on 23 June 2020.

4. Order that any notice of motion filed by the defendant in exercise of the liberty granted by me will be returnable for directions before me at 8.30am on 28 July 2020.

**********

Decision last updated: 16 July 2020