Statement of Claim

Form 3B (version 5)

UCPR 6.2

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

COURT DETAILS
Court / LOCAL
Division / GENERAL
#List
Registry / BURWOOD
Case number
TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff / DAVID GREGORY MURPHY
First Defendant / ROAD AND MARITIME SERVICES
Second defendant / OFFICE OF STATE REVENUE
FILING DETAILS
Filed for / DAVID GREGORY MURPHY,Plaintiff
Contact name and telephone
Contact email / 8214 8397, 0419 605 365

TYPE OF CLAIM

Mercantile Law - Sale of Goods an
d Services - Work done

RELIEF CLAIMED

1For provision of Legal Services at KC rates to uncover an admitted fraud, $30,000.

2For KC legal fee costs for work done turning upon the facts and admissions risked and converted to a Messianic Asheric wager win due to the latches of the defendant, $29,990.

3Court interest.

[If you are making a liquidated claim (ie claiming a specific amount of money), include the following information:]

Amount of claim / $ 30,000
Interest / $
Filing fees / $
Service fees / $
Solicitors fees / $
TOTAL / $
PLEADINGS AND PARTICULARS

1) The Plaintiff sues for his Kings Counsel Law Therapy Advocate legal fees being charged for 30 hours at the rate of $1,000 per hour of primarily the RMS as that State Government Department party who executed a since admitted fraud upon Messiah’s carriageway on the evening of 17th March 2012 in contravention of Commandment 7, thou shalt not steal, so as to evidence a second response to the Plaintiff’s effective service of process on the evening of 16th March 2012 in such a fashion as, similar to the contrived event of the night before, to recover by way of a penalty notice of 22nd March 2012 for $265, giving rise to an enforcement order of 18th October 2012 for $330, which was in time satisfied under threat of loss of license, the $289 forgone the night before at the Hellenic Club, subject of the other matter filed today that travels with this matter, which the plaintiff would be duty bound if at fault to pay to Richard Shiner, the driver, and perhaps to undermine Him for the benefit of a defendant or defendants in his 50 year Supreme Court Accession matter whereby by this action one (the 5th) and perhaps more of the defendants acted.
2) The Plaintiff, as all around admitted and evidenced Messiah in His concurrent Supreme Court Accession Matter proceedings, 2011/327194, and since Messiah is the promised Advocate, (John 14:16, 16:7) is certainly entitled to charge for His retained KC legal fees as Messiah as an invited to the Bench at age 12 Legal Advocate and was in this matter retained as such by a caught in a funnel trap Mr Richard Shiner when his representation by a Minister of Parliament failed and the Plaintiff was thus put to a great deal of work to secure part 17.3 admissions which were in part to spare me a share in Mr Shiner’s invented fine as I was in the car at the time and he was giving me a lift.
3) The Plaintiff sues for a part 17.7 Judgment upon Admissions pursuant to the admissions of the defendants on 15th June 2012 and confirmed upon 9th January 2013 and again on 16th July 2013 and again for good measure with service of this Claim on 23rd October 2013. The defendants having all put to them served no notice of dispute within 14 days pursuant to any of the personal services by Messiah which notice of dispute would have been very easy for them to do in compliance with the rules if they had any case and had not been caught red handed.
4) In the alternative should the Plaintiff not succeed as per His Royal standing as Messiah, King of Kings, Advocate, in obtaining his Royal Advocate fees of $30,000 ($1,000 for each piece of silver with interest) then he seeks in the alternative the $29,990 residual after astutely risking $29,990 ($24,490) and the defendants allowing it to accrue again pursuant to an Asheric offer that it took up that it would win when it had admitted all per the rules, based presumably on its ability to again pull strings, and was in effect by not taking the $10 settlement option evidencing to the Court that it wished Messiah to be paid the full amount of fees that it may quite properly visit their costs internally upon those that performed the fraud. There is nothing wrong with reducing one’s fees claim to $10 in return for prompt payment which is rejected evidencing that something is amiss or the defendant is on side. As primary target I was approached to do legal work for the victim which no one else could or would do. The defendant by rejecting the $10 offer and allowing the total work claim to revert to $30,000 is admitting to the Court that it thinks my work is worth the full amount of $30,000 for bringing a fraud to the attention of the Court.
5) In the alternative consistent with the precedent position taken by the second defendant in earlier correspondence that the plaintiff is only not entitled to the earlier $10,000 but no such opposition was made to the $9,990 issuing from the then costs offer, ignorantly made that the plaintiff would not succeed in securing His full fees as legal fees in court, so the $10 need not be paid, the Plaintiff in the alternative sues for his Asheric bet offer entitlement of $29,990 which the defendant by their own volition permitted the fees to escalate to refusing to pay even the $10 which the plaintiff’s friend spent on conference food when the second defendant had the money obtained under duress and for the defendants to avoid court election process in hand. The $29,990 arises from an Asheric wager that the defendants will bet that all will be in the bag when they go to court and the plaintiff in the alternative seeks the sum of his Asheric win being $29,990 as the defendants have admitted all per part 17.3 so I seek my fees won (the $30,000 less the $10) for work that I was called upon to assist a victim of fraud upon the King’s (Messiah’s) road and coercive blackmail duress thereafter visited upon him by the defendants so as that this matter for which I had made in time Court election not come before the Court and the defendants have a showdown with the KC Messiah and the fraud be found and the defendants be free to repeat the scam as many times as possible and have me charged for theft in regard to the $289..
6) Not only did the defendants supply no Notices of Dispute within the required time or at all but sought to pull the matter from the court list so they would not lose and be found out for their fraud upon many motorists on the night but the defendants had a generous opportunity to settle for $10 and did not quibble with the plaintiff obtaining his $9,990 winnings for having been called upon to do legal work as a legal person called to the bench in his Accession legal matter. Further King’s costs have been incurred of $30,000 with an offer to settle after having admitted all for just $10 but the plaintiff has taken an Asheric bet that they will not settle for $10 despite having admitted all and will prefer the $30,000 less $10 precedent having already indicated they only oppose the full amount rather than the amount I win under the generosity Asheric bet offer. So to summarize they admit all per the rules, they have an offer to settle for $10 and they do not take it and pay me off because I am Messiah and hence an Advocate and now wish to pay the full amount having made comprehensive part 17.3 admissions.
7) Quite simply having had everything put to them the defendants served no notice of dispute within 14 days so I am entitled to a part 17.7 judgment upon admissions – in the tandem matters - and thus my Royal KC advocate costs or certainly the Asheric residue.
8) Messiah is entitled as Advocate to his respective legal fees for work forced to be done in response to the defendant in his other matter trying to undermine his standing and credibility to gain a collateral advantage in another matter due to the defendant being exposed and having no defence and so reverting to chicanery.

SIGNATURE

I acknowledge that court fees may be payable during these proceedings. These fees may include a hearing allocation fee.

Signature
Capacity / Plaintiff
Date of signature / 23rd October 2013
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT

If you do not file a defence within 28 days of being served with this statement of claim:

• You will be in default in these proceedings.
• The court may enter judgment against you without any further notice to you.

The judgment may be for the relief claimed in the statement of claim and for the plaintiff’s costs of bringing these proceedings. The court may provide third parties with details of any default judgment entered against you.

HOW TO RESPOND

Please read this statement of claim very carefully. If you have any trouble understanding itor require assistance on how to respond to the claim you should get legal advice as soon as possible.

You can get further information about what you need to do to respond to the claim from:

• A legal practitioner.
• LawAccess NSW on 1300 888 529 or at
• The court registry for limited procedural information.

You can respond in one of the following ways:

1If you intend to dispute the claim or part of the claim, by filing a defence and/or making a cross-claim.

2If money is claimed, and you believe you owe the money claimed, by:

• Paying the plaintiff all of the money and interest claimed. If you file a notice of payment under UCPR 6.17 further proceedings against you will be stayed unless the court otherwise orders.
• Filing an acknowledgement of the claim.
• Applying to the court for further time to pay the claim.

3If money is claimed, and you believe you owe part of the money claimed, by:

• Paying the plaintiff that part of the money that is claimed.
• Filing a defence in relation to the part that you do not believe is owed.

Court forms are available on the UCPR website at or at any NSW court registry.

REGISTRY ADDRESS
Street address / 7 Belmore St, Burwood, 2134
Postal address / Box 235 Burwood 1805
Telephone / 1300 679 272

[on separate page]

[Do not include the affidavit verifying in Local Court proceedings. See Guide to preparing documents for other circumstances where affidavit not required.]

#AFFIDAVIT VERIFYING
Name
Address
Occupation
Date

I [#say on oath #affirm]:

1#I am the [first] plaintiff.

#I am [give details of the capacity of the person making the affidavit and the facts that qualify the person to make the affidavit].

2I believe that the allegations of fact in the statement of claim are true.

#SWORN #AFFIRMED at
Signature of deponent
Name of witness
Address of witness
Capacity of witness / [#Justice of the peace #Solicitor #Barrister #Commissioner for affidavits #Notary public]
And as a witness, I certify the following matters concerning the person who made this affidavit (the deponent):
1#I saw the face of the deponent. [OR, delete whichever option is inapplicable]
#I did not see the face of the deponent because the deponent was wearing a face covering, but I am satisfied that the deponent had a special justification for not removing the covering.*
2#I have known the deponent for at least 12 months. [OR, delete whichever option is inapplicable]
#I have confirmed the deponent’s identity using the following identification document:
Identification document relied on (may be original or certified copy)†
Signature of witness

Note: The deponent and witness must sign each page of the affidavit. See UCPR 35.7B.

______

[* The only "special justification" for not removing a face covering is a legitimate medical reason (at April 2012).]

[†"Identification documents" include current driver licence, proof of age card, Medicare card, credit card, Centrelink pension card, Veterans Affairs entitlement card, student identity card, citizenship certificate, birth certificate, passport or see Oaths Regulation 2011.]

[on separate page]

FURTHER DETAILS ABOUT PLAINTIFF[S]
[First]plaintiff
Name / David Gregory Murphy
Address
[The filing party must give the party's address.] / 8/1 Curtin Place
Concord 2137
Telephone
Email
8214 8397 0419 605 365

DETAILS ABOUT DEFENDANT[S]
First defendant
ROAD AND MARITIME SERVICES
Second Defendant
OFFICE OF STATE REVENUE
/