of this also.

Of all the channels I have complained to and provided proof in good faith - nothing else has been done!

The Judge in the trial (Justice Williamson) used the Asset and Liability Statement provided by Lawyer #1 when deciding what I could have afforded had I received my funds from Lawyer #1! This Asset and Liability Statement was many Thousands of dollars short of what it should have been - and should have been seriously questioned and NOT used as Judgment reference.

The Judge, Lawyer #2 and an accountant in court, did have the correct Asset and Liability Statement (completed by an Accountant in the court report), this was referred to by them ALL, a number of times, but not used in Judgment. The result being that I was awarded next to nothing compared to what I should have been.

Court transcript page 179 Lawyer #1 (Mr Galt) said himself: "I have to be a bit careful here because there were two statements, one was incorrect. This is the correct one".

It was the incorrect one, that was used by Justice Williamson in the Judgment.

Because the incorrect Statement was used by the Judge, anyone reading the judgment from my case will believe I did not have the funds to do what I had claimed there had been enough funds for.

Indeed when my late husband was ill in hospital before he died, he had with the help of his son, detailed on paper his expectations of this so that no problems could arise. And asked his son to be Executor of the will. (When my step son mentioned to Mr Galt that his father wished for him to be Executor, the response he got left him feeling he was not needed)

He had also written in those instructions that I, his wife, was to have Power of Attorney of the Estate. Those papers had been given to Lawyer #1 by my stepson approx two weeks after his father died. In turn those papers were passed to Lawyer #2 from Lawyer #1. The Judge also had copies in Court. (These papers I did not see until 1989, when I asked Lawyer #2 for papers I wished to see. He assumed I was referring to the 'instructions')

Transcript page 185 when Mr Galt had been questioned about selling the Practice etc without Probate. Justice Williamson said: "Isn't it the cart before the horse to start dealing with the Assets before you have got Probate?"

During the summary Justice Willamson said while Glaring down at me: "These people who pick on Lawyers!" I felt shocked! I was the one totally stressed out at what I was being put through, on top of all I had been put through all the years prior to getting to court. It was NOT my fault we were in Court!!

He also went on to say regarding Mr Galt not having Probate to handle the Estate (nor was he Trustee, nor had Power of Attorney): "We won't get into that!!"

I WAS ENTITLED TO A FAIR TRIAL - I DID NOT GET THAT!
THE COURT HAS AN INHERENT JURISDICTION
TO SET ASIDE A JUDGEMENT THAT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD

Since 1992 I have been trying to get an inquiry to:

a) what took place during the years before I got myt case to court;
b) what took place at court;
c) what has taken place since then; expecting, as is my right, a new Trial.

I have asked the appropriate Law Societies, Members of Parliament, Ministers of Justice, Police and a Lay Observer.

I was told either to get another lawyer, or that it is a police matter, or that it is a Law Society matter. It is both a Police and Law Society matter, but no one has helped me.