Found Deceased Australia - Melissa Caddick, 49, Sydney, NSW, 12 Nov 2020 #7

[drsleuth]

Orders from Interlocutory Hearing 25th may

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD1220/2020/3902911/event/30687158/document/1777249

 

[Redrunner]

Orders from Interlocutory Hearing 25th may

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD1220/2020/3902911/event/30687158/document/1777249

Thanks for that, so a gag order, right?

 

[Morrisa]

From Kate

Melissa Caddick: Uncertainty over conclusions from post-mortem on remains, court hears

 

[Redrunner]

From Kate

Melissa Caddick: Uncertainty over conclusions from post-mortem on remains, court hears

6 officers working on the brief for the State Coroner for a 19 June 2021 deadline, might be tight, considering no forensics on the foot, its going to take months, and thats only one issue. Time is money and money is time.

 

[Mr Murphy]

Thanks for that, so a gag order, right?

A gag order! This is ridiculous. The fact that ASIC is an independent Australian government body that acts as Australia 's corporate regulator is paying for the Contradictor makes this a matter of public interest. Let alone the fact that she scammed so many people. This is the Federal court protecting their own....

 

[Patriciaf]

I find it sad that the investors have had to spend money themselves over the past few months to obtain legal advice and, yet, the judge is having a barrister appointed to represent Melissa to insure that everything is fair for HER, to fight for her family to keep what assets, bought with investor funds, remain. It seems that the investors, many of whom can ill afford to lose any more money, are once again being made the victims. Enough is enough. This is adversely affecting their mental, emotional and physical health. Whilst they are being personally held responsible for fighting for their stolen money, Melissa is being treated to free legal representation. The taxpayer, through ASIC, is now going to be footing the bill for her.

And, let me put to rest the perception that the investors were just "greedy" -- many of them are near retirement, or already retired, are older individuals, who have worked hard their whole lives, and are now facing the prospect of having to the spend the rest of what's left of their life, trying to pick the pieces, surviving on a government pension, struggling with a future that seems pretty bleak. If you want to talk about fair, then WHAT IS FAIR ABOUT THAT FOR THEM?

 

[stormbird]

A gag order! This is ridiculous. The fact that ASIC is an independent Australian government body that acts as Australia 's corporate regulator is paying for the Contradictor makes this a matter of public interest. Let alone the fact that she scammed so many people. This is the Federal court protecting their own....

The way I read the order (I don't have any legal training): IMO it says that anyone observing the hearing is not allowed to make a recording of it (in other words, they can't make an audio recording or a video recording or a photograph of anything in the hearing) but they are allowed to take notes and they may publish a report if it's fair. (Is this correct?) I think that's probably standard practice for all courts?

And IMO the order also says that paragraphs 12 to 14 of the latest ASIC affidavit* can't be published or disclosed. The paragraphs relate to Annexure IA-32, which is listed in the index of documents shown on page 2 of the affidavit (or p.3 of 164 of the PDF). We're probably not allowed to speculate about the information that's not shown to us, but IMO it likely has nothing to do with the Federal Court.

*The order is talking about an affidavit affirmed on 17 May 2021, which appears to be the one filed on 26 May 2021, available from the list at ASIC v Melissa Caddick - Online File

or this link goes straight to the file: Redacted Affidavit of Isabella Lucy Allen (PDF, 6 MB)

 

[stormbird]

I find it sad that the investors have had to spend money themselves over the past few months to obtain legal advice and, yet, the judge is having a barrister appointed to represent Melissa to insure that everything is fair for HER, to fight for her family to keep what assets, bought with investor funds, remain. It seems that the investors, many of whom can ill afford to lose any more money, are once again being made the victims. Enough is enough. This is adversely affecting their mental, emotional and physical health. Whilst they are being personally held responsible for fighting for their stolen money, Melissa is being treated to free legal representation. The taxpayer, through ASIC, is now going to be footing the bill for her.

And, let me put to rest the perception that the investors were just "greedy" -- many of them are near retirement, or already retired, are older individuals, who have worked hard their whole lives, and are now facing the prospect of having to the spend the rest of what's left of their life, trying to pick the pieces, surviving on a government pension, struggling with a future that seems pretty bleak. If you want to talk about fair, then WHAT IS FAIR ABOUT THAT FOR THEM?

Hi Patriciaf,

I agree about the unfairness of everything and the fact that the victims shouldn't be blamed for what Melissa allegedly did to them.

Just on this, though: "The taxpayer, through ASIC, is now going to be footing the bill for her."
I'm guessing the idea is that ASIC is footing the bill for the community, not for Melissa. It's in the interests of the community that every legal matter is dealt with fairly. (That's the theory, IMO.) If only one side of the argument is represented then there could be a perception that there hasn't been a genuine weighing-up of the evidence (or whatever it is that they'll be doing in court for this case).

 

[bearbear]

more people blindly trusting someone else to manage their money.....

A former Sydney financial adviser accused of defrauding a dozen people of almost $3.3 million says he feels for those who have lost their savings.

From May 2017 to March 2020, Gavin Fineff took funds from 12 people meant for shares holdings and diverted them to his own bank account, court documents allege.
Former Sydney financial adviser charged over $3.3 million fraud

 

[Trooper]

more people blindly trusting someone else to manage their money.....

A former Sydney financial adviser accused of defrauding a dozen people of almost $3.3 million says he feels for those who have lost their savings.

From May 2017 to March 2020, Gavin Fineff took funds from 12 people meant for shares holdings and diverted them to his own bank account, court documents allege.
Former Sydney financial adviser charged over $3.3 million fraud

The thing re fraud investments, et al.. is...there is, in the law , a veneer of perspective along the lines of seeing the venture as gambling... as if the scammer defeated the odds, and the victim knowingly gambled their money and should , at the very least, cop all losses on the chin. There really isn't a lot a person who has been skinned of all their lifesavings from an investment service /person can expect of the law to rectify the situation.

Civil law and criminal law tends to hold the nose and look the other way ..

And there is a lot to be said for that outlook. There is no doubt that 'financial services' exist, along with their cousins, 'financial advisors', so to speak , to encourage people , to persuade people that that spare $100,000 you have lolling about gathering dust can be made to work for you, with a bit of help , and with only a small fee to pay for that inside knowledge.

It is very appealing to a large strata of the population. Which is how financial advisors and their services manage to flourish.

Bookies flourish for the same reason. But you will never find the law backing you to sue a Bookie. ( Generally, the horse itself is as honest as it can be ) It is all a matter of caste and status. But both do the same thing, your smart Bookie,, and your smart financial advisor. One is considered low, and one considered high class , and that is the only difference.

 

[bearbear]

The thing re fraud investments, et al.. is...there is, in the law , a veneer of perspective along the lines of seeing the venture as gambling... as if the scammer defeated the odds, and the victim knowingly gambled their money and should , at the very least, cop all losses on the chin. There really isn't a lot a person who has been skinned of all their lifesavings from an investment service /person can expect of the law to rectify the situation.

Civil law and criminal law tends to hold the nose and look the other way ..

And there is a lot to be said for that outlook. There is no doubt that 'financial services' exist, along with their cousins, 'financial advisors', so to speak , to encourage people , to persuade people that that spare $100,000 you have lolling about gathering dust can be made to work for you, with a bit of help , and with only a small fee to pay for that inside knowledge.

It is very appealing to a large strata of the population. Which is how financial advisors and their services manage to flourish.

Bookies flourish for the same reason. But you will never find the law backing you to sue a Bookie. ( Generally, the horse itself is as honest as it can be ) It is all a matter of caste and status. But both do the same thing, your smart Bookie,, and your smart financial advisor. One is considered low, and one considered high class , and that is the only difference.

yes, very true, it really is a gamble, always that hope of "winning" big wherever you invest your money and amusing how one group is looked down upon as low class

 

[Redrunner]

A gag order! This is ridiculous. The fact that ASIC is an independent Australian government body that acts as Australia 's corporate regulator is paying for the Contradictor makes this a matter of public interest. Let alone the fact that she scammed so many people. This is the Federal court protecting their own....

Someone is protecting someone?

 

[Redrunner]

The way I read the order (I don't have any legal training): IMO it says that anyone observing the hearing is not allowed to make a recording of it (in other words, they can't make an audio recording or a video recording or a photograph of anything in the hearing) but they are allowed to take notes and they may publish a report if it's fair. (Is this correct?) I think that's probably standard practice for all courts?

And IMO the order also says that paragraphs 12 to 14 of the latest ASIC affidavit* can't be published or disclosed. The paragraphs relate to Annexure IA-32, which is listed in the index of documents shown on page 2 of the affidavit (or p.3 of 164 of the PDF). We're probably not allowed to speculate about the information that's not shown to us, but IMO it likely has nothing to do with the Federal Court.

*The order is talking about an affidavit affirmed on 17 May 2021, which appears to be the one filed on 26 May 2021, available from the list at ASIC v Melissa Caddick - Online File

or this link goes straight to the file: Redacted Affidavit of Isabella Lucy Allen (PDF, 6 MB)

Not allowed to take notes.

 

[JLZ]

Not allowed to take notes.

No, I agree with Stormbird. " . . . nothing in this order shall prevent any person . . . making his or her own notes . . ." or publishing a fair report.

 

[drsleuth]

The way I read the order (I don't have any legal training): IMO it says that anyone observing the hearing is not allowed to make a recording of it (in other words, they can't make an audio recording or a video recording or a photograph of anything in the hearing) but they are allowed to take notes and they may publish a report if it's fair. (Is this correct?) I think that's probably standard practice for all courts?

And IMO the order also says that paragraphs 12 to 14 of the latest ASIC affidavit* can't be published or disclosed. The paragraphs relate to Annexure IA-32, which is listed in the index of documents shown on page 2 of the affidavit (or p.3 of 164 of the PDF). We're probably not allowed to speculate about the information that's not shown to us, but IMO it likely has nothing to do with the Federal Court.

*The order is talking about an affidavit affirmed on 17 May 2021, which appears to be the one filed on 26 May 2021, available from the list at ASIC v Melissa Caddick - Online File

or this link goes straight to the file: Redacted Affidavit of Isabella Lucy Allen (PDF, 6 MB)

That's the way I read it too Stormbird

 

[Redrunner]

No, I agree with Stormbird. " . . . nothing in this order shall prevent any person . . . making his or her own notes . . ." or publishing a fair report.

"Unless the Court otherwise orders, no person, being a member of the public, who is observing the hearing of the proceeding by accessing any audio or video link may: (a) make any audio or video recording or photograph of the hearing or any part of it; or (b) participate in, or interrupt, the hearing, provided that nothing in this order shall prevent any person, based on what he or she has seen or heard during the hearing: (i) making his or her own notes or record of the proceeding; or (ii) publishing a fair report of the proceeding". So, comment away, feel free, any thoughts. as Stormbird said " not allowed to And IMO the order also says that paragraphs 12 to 14 of the latest ASIC affidavit* can't be published or disclosed. The paragraphs relate to Annexure IA-32, which is listed in the index of documents shown on page 2 of the affidavit (or p.3 of 164 of the PDF). We're probably not allowed to speculate about the information that's not shown to us, but IMO it likely has nothing to do with the Federal Court". Care to specualte/comment further, on something that is not likey to do with Federal Court, are you au fait with this?

 

[stormbird]

"Unless the Court otherwise orders, no person, being a member of the public, who is observing the hearing of the proceeding by accessing any audio or video link may: (a) make any audio or video recording or photograph of the hearing or any part of it; or (b) participate in, or interrupt, the hearing, provided that nothing in this order shall prevent any person, based on what he or she has seen or heard during the hearing: (i) making his or her own notes or record of the proceeding; or (ii) publishing a fair report of the proceeding". So, comment away, feel free, any thoughts. as Stormbird said " not allowed to And IMO the order also says that paragraphs 12 to 14 of the latest ASIC affidavit* can't be published or disclosed. The paragraphs relate to Annexure IA-32, which is listed in the index of documents shown on page 2 of the affidavit (or p.3 of 164 of the PDF). We're probably not allowed to speculate about the information that's not shown to us, but IMO it likely has nothing to do with the Federal Court". Care to specualte/comment further, on something that is not likey to do with Federal Court, are you au fait with this?

Redrunner,

I think the court order is talking about the type of report which would only be publishing facts from the hearing: e.g. what happened; who said what. That would be allowed. But if you wanted to do a report based on your own comments or thoughts instead, or speculation, or criticism, or anything else other than just the facts, that wouldn't be allowed. MOO

Re the information in paragraphs 12 to 14 in the affidavit: I don't know anything about it, and all I meant by "it likely has nothing to do with the Federal Court" is that the index of documents in the affidavit (see thread 7 post 427 for a link) shows where Annexure IA-32 comes from. The name of the place gives a clue as to what the information might be about, which is why I don't want to post the name here. (That's probably stupid, but I don't understand what 'contempt of court' covers.)

My opinion only, based on the name of the place: the information is probably suppressed because of privacy reasons, which I'm guessing is probably quite normal when a document is released for public view.

 

[Redrunner]

Redrunner,

I think the court order is talking about the type of report which would only be publishing facts from the hearing: e.g. what happened; who said what. That would be allowed. But if you wanted to do a report based on your own comments or thoughts instead, or speculation, or criticism, or anything else other than just the facts, that wouldn't be allowed. MOO

Re the information in paragraphs 12 to 14 in the affidavit: I don't know anything about it, and all I meant by "it likely has nothing to do with the Federal Court" is that the index of documents in the affidavit (see thread 7 post 427 for a link) shows where Annexure IA-32 comes from. The name of the place gives a clue as to what the information might be about, which is why I don't want to post the name here. (That's probably stupid, but I don't understand what 'contempt of court' covers.)

My opinion only, based on the name of the place: the information is probably suppressed because of privacy reasons, which I'm guessing is probably quite normal when a document is released for public view.

Thank you Stormbird for the clarifcation, sorry for getting a bit antsy, I've gone through the afore mentioned links, and it all makes sense now. The name of the place does in fact provide enough information, therefore its understandly why its suppressed

 

[JLZ]

"Unless the Court otherwise orders, no person, being a member of the public, who is observing the hearing of the proceeding by accessing any audio or video link may: (a) make any audio or video recording or photograph of the hearing or any part of it; or (b) participate in, or interrupt, the hearing, provided that nothing in this order shall prevent any person, based on what he or she has seen or heard during the hearing: (i) making his or her own notes or record of the proceeding; or (ii) publishing a fair report of the proceeding". So, comment away, feel free, any thoughts. as Stormbird said " not allowed to And IMO the order also says that paragraphs 12 to 14 of the latest ASIC affidavit* can't be published or disclosed. The paragraphs relate to Annexure IA-32, which is listed in the index of documents shown on page 2 of the affidavit (or p.3 of 164 of the PDF). We're probably not allowed to speculate about the information that's not shown to us, but IMO it likely has nothing to do with the Federal Court". Care to specualte/comment further, on something that is not likey to do with Federal Court, are you au fait with this?

I don't think it would be in contempt of court to speculate given that I wouldn't be disclosing anything because I haven't read the document and don't have inside information. But I think I won't speculate on this in public for other reasons.

 

[Redrunner]

I don't think it would be in contempt of court to speculate given that I wouldn't be disclosing anything because I haven't read the document and don't have inside information. But I think I won't speculate on this in public for other reasons.

Ditto, on all points.