08/06/2019
OPEN
Opinion suggests that as there are funds to pay for legal action and other purchases, this would appear to indicate intention to not pay debts of over $10,000.00 as ordered by the courts. If there had not been allegedly deceptive conduct and victims left without a cent after being taken advantage of, and the subsequent refusal to pay restitution when judicially ordered to do so, then the exposing of a sickening and debilitating situation to bring matters to a close, and for the prevention of another occurrence, would not have been a progressive action. If the debts are payed, then all this goes away or further legal action will ensue.
Sueing victims for monetary damages is futile as the applicant already has all their assets.
Given the poor clarity and quality of the C & Ds, these observations can be made out but not with certainty. These C & Ds have used templates from the U.S., for use in the U.S., under U.S. law. As the legal action would appear to be held in the U.S., the statute of limitations of a U.S. state that is to be indemnified has not been stated. The C & Ds are incomplete as the statements that are apparently factually untrue have not been identified. Harassment is by direct contact, which has not been documented.
Parts of the defamation C & D have been cut and pasted into the harassment C & D 2nd paragraph, as the editing and wording suggests a sub-page which doesn't exist.
Service via a social media platform is not accepted method of service in State of Victoria in Australia.
The signature on the defamation C & D appears to be crossed out or is different.
End opinion.