Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #38

[Makara]

Maybe he just did a short version company search that showed only the current directors. Is such a thing available from ASIC? I am not sure. Another thing to ask TZ to explain. He does seem to want to explain himself.

Ali you would think as the agent preparing to sell the Gold Coast property, TZ would have done a complete search, not a just short version. The ASIC site is down for maintenance at the moment so I can't post a link. I'll try again later.

 

[alioop]

I agree Makara and also he would have jumped at a listing given the depressed market so why would he wait a week to do a search when he had instructions to list as he claims.

 

[Maigret]

I agree Makara and also he would have jumped at a listing given the depressed market so why would he wait a week to do a search when he had instructions to list as he claims.

So it seems that TZ is a liar(in my opinion probably) and trying to justify his actions by pretending he was acting 'properly'

 

[alioop]

Maigret I don't know if he is telling porky pies but further questions have to be asked of TZ to explain these discrepancies.

 

[Makara]

I agree Makara and also he would have jumped at a listing given the depressed market so why would he wait a week to do a search when he had instructions to list as he claims.

Exactly!

 

[marlywings]

Gerbil Hunting Season on September 8, 2012 at 9:55 am said....

http://aussiecriminals.com.au/2012/...ptember-24-2012/comment-page-2/#comment-47936

Interesting if this second email is legit. TZ states that he was contacted by a representative of WOTS P/L five weeks ago in regard to selling the Gold Coast property. Five weeks ago! He also states that he was unaware that Allison was a director of WOTS P/L even though he says that he'd conducted a company search with ASIC.

Allison was removed as a director and secretary of WOTS P/L as of 14 August and the documents were lodged with ASIC on 21 August. At the most that is four weeks ago. If TZ had done the ASIC search as he stated, he would have seen that Allison was in fact still a director of WOTS P/L five weeks ago. If he'd done the ASIC search later than he stated, he would have seen that Allison was removed as a director and secretary. Why then does he state that he didn't know that Allison was ever a director of WOTS P/L.

If the WOTS representative contacted TZ to list the Gold Coast property for sale five weeks ago, Allison was legally still a director of WOTS P/L.

Something is very off here!

MOO.

BBM

Maybe it's just me but I'm a whole lot skeptical about all this "explaining" TZ is doing to a complete unknown!!

 

[alioop]

I am less sceptical Marly, I think it sounds like it could be a legit email from TZ. But we don't know at this stage.

 

[Makara]

BBM

Maybe it's just me but I'm a whole lot skeptical about all this "explaining" TZ is doing to a complete unknown!!

Yes Marly that crossed my mind but it seems that the author of that supposed email knows quite a lot about specific dates etc. in regard to when the Dickie's solicitor contacted him, when two formal offers were made on the property on 31 August, when an email was received from GBC's representative on 3 September with one of the signed contracts attached as an accepted offer, and the list goes on. IMO only someone in the know would have access to that information.

No. 7 in TZ's email is quite disturbing IMO. He received an accepted offer from GBC's representative on the afternoon of 3 September. Late that evening TZ says that he was contacted by the Dickie's solicitor asking if the property had been sold. Why didn't TZ let the Dickie's solicitor know immediately that an offer had been accepted?

MOO.

 

[marlywings]

I am less sceptical Marly, I think it sounds like it could be a legit email from TZ. But we don't know at this stage.

The other side of it also is, IF the emails are legit, should TZ be doing all this "explaining" to a complete unknown while the matters are all before the courts & in hands of lawyers??

 

[marlywings]

Yes Marly that crossed my mind but it seems that the author of that supposed email knows quite a lot about specific dates etc. in regard to when the Dickie's solicitor contacted him, when two formal offers were made on the property on 31 August, when an email was received from GBC's representative on 3 September with one of the signed contracts attached as an accepted offer, and the list goes on. IMO only someone in the know would have access to that information.

No. 7 in TZ's email is quite disturbing IMO. He received an accepted offer from GBC's representative on the afternoon of 3 September. Late that evening TZ says that he was contacted by the Dickie's solicitor asking if the property had been sold. Why didn't TZ let the Dickie's solicitor know immediately that an offer had been accepted?

MOO.

I don't know Makara...the whole thing sounds stinky hinky fishy to me.

 

[Liadan]

And why would he be bothered defending his actions? Totally fishy to me too. He owes no one anything - he did a deal and hopefully he did it legally.....

 

[Amee]

wasnt it the same RE Agency that also advertised the Brookfield home for rent. MOO

It was advertised as being available for rent from August 21

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...t-for-460-a-week/story-e6freoof-1226447852628

 

[Makara]

The other side of it also is, IF the emails are legit, should TZ be doing all this "explaining" to a complete unknown while the matters are all before the courts & in hands of lawyers??

Agreed! Me thinks he protests too much. He should have kept his mouth shut!

MOO.

 

[Makara]

wasnt it the same RE Agency that also advertised the Brookfield home for rent. MOO

It was advertised as being available for rent from August 21

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...t-for-460-a-week/story-e6freoof-1226447852628

Great pick up Amee and look at the date! There is something very not right with that house at Brookfield! Who really owns it? :what:

 

[marlywings]

Great pick up Amee and look at the date! There is something very not right with that house at Brookfield! Who really owns it? :what:

From the report about the BC's empyting the Brookfield house...

July 01, 2012

"They sought a periodic lease thereafter,'' said the owner, who did not want to be named. "We've just been going from week to week

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...brookfield-house/story-e6freoof-1226413239229

 

[Maigret]

From the report about the BC's empyting the Brookfield house...

July 01, 2012

"They sought a periodic lease thereafter,'' said the owner, who did not want to be named. "We've just been going from week to week

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...brookfield-house/story-e6freoof-1226413239229

I thought it was owned by who ever owned the day care centre next door ? The church?

 

[chekoutchik]

It that was happening at your law firm that was illegal. There is strict legislation on the management of trusts accounts. There are law society audits to check that trust accounts are being properly kept. Any lawyer caught doing this, would be struck off. It does happen, usually with sole practitioners as they don't have business partners to check them.

Thanks alioop, I understand this is the case in Australia. I was working for a NZ firm at the time although I have worked for Australian firms too. I don't attest to understanding the law and was doing what I was told. There were 2 practices in the firm and many partners.

Anyway, a bit off topic. This recent property sale could be a ploy to prove to the Crown that he does in fact have another plan to pay off his debts. There may or may not be other assets to sell but it could put a hole in the Prosecution's case against him don't you think? :moo:

 

[marlywings]

I thought it was owned by who ever owned the day care centre next door ? The church?

Yes it's in that same report...

The same owners have a childcare centre next door and, when the Baden-Clays leave, the house may be used for training rooms rather than being rented out again, she said.

Asked if she had concerns about how the property would be viewed because of its connection to the tragic case, she said: "I can't say how other people will view it. Certainly, for our own purposes, we'd be very happy to utilise the space.''

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...brookfield-house/story-e6freoof-1226413239229

 

[Maigret]

Bail Application Affidavit perhaps?

I think it was to strengthen the 'no risk of flight' argument
' see I have property why would I escape' never mind he only had a quarter of something with a 300,000 mortgage

 

[Makara]

Yes it's in that same report...

The same owners have a childcare centre next door and, when the Baden-Clays leave, the house may be used for training rooms rather than being rented out again, she said.

Asked if she had concerns about how the property would be viewed because of its connection to the tragic case, she said: "I can't say how other people will view it. Certainly, for our own purposes, we'd be very happy to utilise the space.''

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...brookfield-house/story-e6freoof-1226413239229

BBM.

A bit cold don't you think?