1
|
- Proof that Eleanor Griffiths (accountant) committed perjury at the trial
of Bruno Gatzka 2002 that lead him to be found guilty of prejudice to
this accountant.
- Being “guilty” of “Prejudice” to someone is to have them do something
you are not authorised to ask them to do.
|
2
|
- Griffiths has committed perjury in stating
- that Carey (original complainant) and Griffiths only spoke twice.
- Griffiths systematically deceived the Court.
|
3
|
- Griffiths committed perjury in saying that Carey stated Gatzka did not
have Carey’s authority to deliver documents to Griffiths and have input
into her tax affairs.
- Gatzka provided Carey with Griffiths phone numbers so that Carey could
retain Griffiths in August.
- Clearly Gatzka could not have prejudiced Griffiths.
|
4
|
- Griffiths perjured herself in giving evidence that Gatzka told her that
Carey did not wish to use a local accountant.
- Griffiths deceit goes to creating false evidence to sway the Court.
|
5
|
- Carey states that she instructed Griffiths to collect tax documents from
Gatzka.
- Further Carey states that she spoke to Griffiths about the preparation
details before the tax returns where lodged on the 15th Sept
1997.
- At no time was Griffiths prejudiced as she received on going
instructions from Carey.
|
6
|
- Griffiths committed perjury by saying that she had not spoken to Carey
before tax returns were lodged.
- Carey reiterates that she retained (told) Griffiths in August.
|
7
|
- Griffiths committed perjury in claiming that she only became aware that
Gatzka and Carey had been married during a telephone conversation with
Carey in January 1998.
- Griffiths creation of deceitful statements continues to sway the Court.
|
8
|
- Griffiths committed perjury in making a false statement that Carey said
she had never given Gatzka a power of attorney.
|
9
|
- Griffiths committed perjury by inventing the existence of a one page
loan document.
- There was only in existence a 25 page formal Mortgage loan agreement
dated 3rd march 1989 duty stamped as paid by the State
Revenue Office and prepared by Phillips Fox solicitors which contained a
power of attorney for Gatzka.
- Griffiths level of evidence creation is at its highest.
|
10
|
- Griffiths has committed perjury in saying that a letter she sent to
Westpac bank was for “Carey’s” benefit and not Gatzka’s.
|
11
|
- Carey confirms that she has never accused Gatzka of creating the
(allegedly) false Power of Attorney.
- There was agreed evidence at trial in Court that Gatzka had a number of
Powers of Attorneys upon which a weak circumstantial Crown case should
have had the Judge dismiss the charge.
|
12
|
- At best a Crown circumstantial case charged that Gatzka retained
(prejudiced) Griffiths and therefore Gatzka must have (by a secondary
layer of circumstantial conclusions) created a false Power of Attorney.
- On this basis alone the Judge ought have dismissed the charges.
- Based on the “new evidence” and the trial evidence wherein Gatzka has
other Power of Attorneys etc the
charges now need to be withdrawn/conviction quashed.
|