Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, New South Wales
Underwood v Gaudron  NSWCA 269
heard by Basten JA; Macfarlan JA; and Ward JA\
1. Bias in the Media
I wrote to Louise Hall recently, a journalist known as a “Court Reporter” with the Sydney Morning Herald, on behalf of Helen Underwood (Mary Genevieve Gaudron’s and Kathryn Teresa Gaudron’s sister). I alerted Louise Hall about the outcome of the Appeal, because when Helen learned she had lost her case for a Family Provision, she was too upset to reply, especially because Hall had refused to acknowledge Helen’s previous emails. Louise Hall had curtly emailed Helen to ask her about the outcome of her Appeal as she couldn’t be bothered to attend either the hearing or handing down of the judgment.
I also alerted Louise Hall in this initial email to my previous post that said her reporting was “… a blight on the moral landscape” because instead of unbiased reporting, press-titute Louise Hall covered the story about the initial trial, favouring Mary Gaudron, the former High Court Judge.
Helen knew that the Fairfax media machine would continue to lie about the Appeal and that the Sydney Morning Herald would not report on the case, or if it did, it would be a short notice of the outcome only. There would have been no in-depth research to report the facts of the matter. According to George Orwell’s famous book “1984”, the omission is the worst type of lie.
As you would expect any bought and paid for press-titute for the Fairfax boys would laud Mary Gaudron’s glorious attributes to the Australian people in order to perpetuate the myth that Australian’s courts are fair and equitable and we live according to the rule of law, when in practice the opposite is true. Australia is in fact a lawless country whose Constitution was never ratified, and is apparently for sale to the highest bidder.
After Louise Hall announced the dismissal of the appeal on her twitter post, I posted a reply that dared her to write an article on the court case without bias and from a moral standpoint, specifically addressing the question of where is equity and remedy. I doubt Louise Hall knows the meaning of the words, let alone be capable of writing a essay that would pass the litmus test, a crucial and revealing test in which there is one decisive factor. If she did have any morals, BIG Brother (the cabal who run the media) would not stand for taking out one of their own, unless of course it was in their own best interests to do so.
Unfortunately for Louise Hall, she has missed out on the chance to break the story, but as many of us are waking up to, the press is no longer independent and unbiased. Unfortunately the job of educating the public is left to unpaid educators like me to tell the story.
2. Three Disturbing Factors
As all press-titutes do when giving a favourable head-job to their slave masters; Louise Hall ignored three disturbing factors. The first being that the subject of bias in hearing the case for Family Provision cannot be avoided; the second was that Helen was poor, and thirdly that she was morally due her share of the estate.
3. Questions That Need Answering
Of the four children, Helen is the only one to not receive a cent, and the one that the court has heaped the costs onto. What did Helen do to deserve the ire from her family? Helen’s affidavits have asserted blame onto her conniving and cunning sister Mary. Regardless, we must ask why the Mother’s Will was changed from leaving the estate to all four children to only Mary and Kathryn towards the end of her life.
Another important question that needs to be answered was what provision had the father made for the children especially considering his death predated the mother’s death, and that at the time of his death, divorce proceedings were underway.
The final outcome of the Trial and Appeal were especially strange considering Brother Paul suffered a severe disability due to a childhood accident. Wouldn’t both or at least one of the parents want to leave a sizeable sum to Brother Paul to cover future employment problems and health care?
The most important question of all is why didn’t the Trial Court and Court of Appeal take these questions into consideration when making their decision? Although Brother Paul was only named as an interested party in these proceedings, the facts surrounding his role within the family structure certainly clarify Helen’s assertions in her Affidavits.
4. A Small Estate
Helen is by no means a greedy woman. She would have only received a comparatively small sum from the estate, but to her this small sum would have meant so much more. It would mean a new life in private accommodation giving her a new start. She could afford to buy some shoes and some nice clothes, some medical care, a car, update her computer, or even buy a caravan and travel the country.
However it wasn’t the money that motivated Helen to pursue her share of the small estate. It was the principal of the matter that was the driving factor. Due to the dysfunctional family relationships, she had an axe to grind and wanted to confront Mary about her behaviour towards herself and her brother. According to Helen’s affidavits she has known Mary as a serial liar, beginning her quest for fame and glory by using her mother’s favour to get what she wanted, to the exclusion and detriment of her siblings. Kathryn was known for taking sides that were the most beneficial for her.
As you will see, there are good reasons why Mary Gaudron does not like to dwell on the past and doesn’t like bad press, as reported in Pamela Burton’s unauthorised biography.
5. A David and Goliath Battle
Helen Underwood, the little sister of Mary Gaudron is the epitome of the mythical David, the underdog. In legal terms Helen’s economic status is known as impecunious, meaning she is seriously disadvantaged. Helen survives on a small pension and carer’s allowance for her much older ex-husband of $450 per week. She was self-represented, is not a lawyer although she partially completed her law degree and is self-taught, being a forensic accountant by trade. To make matters worse she had to travel from Brisbane to Sydney in New South Wales to conduct the lawsuit.
On top of that she had no immediate access to legal representation or legal aid, no immediate access to precedents in NSW using Austlii, having only her own research skills to depend on. To top that off, she was simultaneously confronted on a daily basis with the possibility of an eviction from her housing commission unit because she dared complain about the poor sanitation; having faeces (not hers) flood her unit because the Government failed to address the plumbing problems in the unit block. She is still facing a possible eviction due to the three strikes and you’re out policy of the Queensland government.
In direct contrast Mary Gaudron is Goliath of a figure in legal circles and the history of Australia. She receives a judicial pension of $6,000 per week plus entitlements which equates to over $312,000 annually. We should all feel sorry for the former High Court Judge (she who cannot be named) who obviously cannot manage on her judicial pension and her property portfolio (Struggle Street, I think not!).
She owns the townhouse at Lilyfield, an inner Sydney Suburb valued at $900,000 plus; a Beach House property at Greater Mackeral Beach in Northern Sydney on the Newport peninsula with a minimum value of $750,000; two properties in the Loire Valley, France (no value disclosed), all the while being Director of Hefano Pty Ltd which owns/manages fifteen (15) units in Newtown, a unit at Elizabeth Bay, both inner Sydney Suburbs, up to here admitted to. Her first husband just died. A Google Search shows Juan Investments Pty Ltd owns/manages units, the number not known with a possible location in Neutral Bay, Newtown. The net yearly property income for a singular person as employee is some $315,000 (also $6,000 per week).
That means the former High Court Judge, now retired, is on a weekly income somewhere in the vicinity of between $6000 and $12,000 per week. That’s up to a whopping $624,000 per year.
To top it all off, the subject of bias cannot be avoided due to her sister’s special status in the legal community, being a former High Court judge, and being senior to the judges sitting in the Supreme Court of Appeal. Mary Gaudron was a specialist expert in the field of succession law and family provision law, receiving the Sydney University Medal for Succession Law.
While Mary Gaudron is a protected species, having easy access to case precedents, and open access to corruption at its worst, Helen was resigned to use the light of truth, often calling on her strong belief in Archangel Michael to help see her through difficult times. Helen said that the ordeal of the trial and appeal was a “… pressure cooker from start to finish … the sheer severity and serious disadvantage was hell”.
6. The Two Page Will
The two page Will generated a 105 page judgement from the initial trial with a transcript of 129 pages, while the Appeal totalled 39 pages of transcript, with all submissions ignored, generating a Dismissal Judgement of just 37 pages. This alone makes one wonder how a two page Will could generate such a long judgement yet be so glibly dismissed on Appeal. It doesn’t make sense for reasons that will be explored in further detail below.
7. The Trial
Helen was prepared to run the case on her own, however the trial judge recommended Helen have legal representation, and the barrister assigned for her on a No Win No Fee basis was Therese Catanzariti. This is where Helen’s problems started. Therese Catanzariti was incompetent and was infatuated by the Defendant, Mary Gaudron.
Barrister Therese Catanzariti failed to object to the Judge’s decision not to record a transcript; failed to read into evidence an important affidavit, and wouldn’t listen to her client’s directions. Helen accused her of being unable to comprehend the English language.
8. The Appeal
Helen found out that Ruth McColl was the original judge set down to hear the Appeal along with Basten J. and McFarlan J., however Ward J. was substituted for McColl J. at the last minute. Helen had previously found out, after speaking to a lawyer friend that McColl was ruthless, and that Basten J. was being put in the same position as Dyson Heydon, having to make a decision on his own previous decision, and that McFarlan J. was the thorough gentleman.
After doing some research on the internet, Helen found that McColl J. Had said this on Mary’s Wikipedia page: “Former President of the New South Wales Bar, Ruth McColl, described Gaudron’s contribution to Australian law as “an extraordinarily humanising effect… the strong views she expresses in cases involving discrimination and like issues, are very influential and important in the development of the law in those areas.” Helen immediately rang Karla in the Registry and told them she wasn’t happy with McColl J. and warned Registry that she would immediately put McColl on Notice.
During the Appeal, the problems in the Lower Court were to be exasperated by the lack of acknowledgment of ‘apprehended’ bias that is the ‘appearance of’ not the ‘actuality of’ bias, whereby Helen was required to prove actual bias. There was also a presumption of infallibility.
Whenever the name on the document “Mary Genevieve Gaudron” was viewed it would instantly summon an apprehension of bias by any hypothetical observer. The trial judge’s instruction to court reporters to only record the orders on the day and not a transcript, therefore did not record the actual details before the court and the fact that an important affidavit was not read into evidence was evidence of protecting another Judge. Helen also valiantly tried to get evidence admitted into the Appeal that was not in evidence at the time of the trial.
During the Appeal, the penny seemingly dropped for Ward J. that there were four different versions of the same Will, however they sought to trap Helen by putting incorrect words in her mouth. The decision was initially reserved.
9. Proof the Appeal Was Pre-Judged
Helen was so glad to have received what appeared like a fair trial; however a lawyer friend said to her that the appearance of a fair trial is a misnomer because “if they were inclined to not allow your appeal, it explains why you got such a good hearing. They often do that, if you are going to go down”.
Further the Judgement in favour of a Dismissal did not refer to the nineteen Acts and Rules Helen was referring to. She used the case of Collette and Knox  QSC 132 (unrep) McMeekin J, an unreported case in Queensland which does not appear in the references in the Judgement. This is an extremely important case as it has become known as the “Collette Principal”, including Barrister Treston’s writings on “Succession: Emerging Issues”. The mere fact that these cases were not included in the references of the Dismissal of the Appeal proves the decision was written prior to the Appeal being heard.
10. Criticism of Mary Gaudron on Wikipedia Backs up Helen and Paul’s Affidavits
Wikipedia states that at the time of her appointment to the High Court in 1987, the New South Wales legal magazine Justinian (magazine)published anonymous remarks saying that “a melancholy catalogue of sins of omission and commission … ” ought to have weighed against her appointment, and that she held “an emotional disposition inappropriate in a holder of judicial office.” When Gaudron announced her retirement, an anonymous academic said that … among the other High Court Justices, Gaudron was “erratic” and “certainly not among the court’s greats.” Another anonymous academic said that Gaudron’s Labor connections had delivered unearned promotion.
11. Intention, Corruption and Bias
Gaudron hates her own sister so much Helen alleges she has had to resort to forgery, misappropriation, misrepresentation and maladministration to ensure that Helen was left destitute. Mary Gaudron took money from the estate for her own purposes in order to pay a private arrangement between herself and her brother Paul resulting from their father’s death in 1982. Mary Gaudron loves her brother so much she tricked him into signing a form that stopped him from seeking any further monies from the estate.
Gaudron was so used to lying about her sister, she stooped lower than low by committing perjury, deception and misleading the Supreme Court NSW to pervert the course of justice and everything in-between to ensure her sister did not receive any money or property or even a memento whatsoever. Gaudron hid their mother’s death intentionally and Helen was never to find out in time. The family joined in by keeping the death hidden from Helen. Gaudron resorted to the full length breadth and depths of legal mis-conduct (professional and unconscionable) in order to not notify Helen who was an interested litigant. This barely “allowable” method of conduct would only have been known to her being a specialist expert in Succession Law and Family Provision Law,
Gaudron has relied on access to corruption at its worst. She could not face loss of her public standing on merit and has to be the protected species by buddies in the judiciary. Whatever happened to their judicial oath?
12. Brother Paul Exposes Mary’s True Nature
Brother Paul’s Affidavit corroborates Helen’s contention that her sisters and extended family purposely kept the death of her mother from her. Mary’s true colours were exposed when Paul lost his leg in an accident as a young boy; his father advised him that he and his late mother did not seek compensation for his accident on advice from his sister Mary and her university lecturers. At the same time Paul’s father promised that he would leave him the house and all his property, as his way of providing Paul with some form of compensation for the accident. Not only did Mary prevent Paul from receiving any form of compensation to go towards medical expenses, she thought it fitting that $80,000, a mere fraction of her annual salary, was sufficient for his future medical expenses and care.
13. Explosive Family Secret of Aboriginality Revealed
There were some explosive family secrets revealed such as her brother Paul, DNA tested, proved his aboriginality, and therefore there is a strong probability that Mary, Kathryn and Helen are also aboriginal. Paul admitted his aboriginality in an affidavit, stating that his many medical expenses are paid to him through the Australian Government Closing the Gap (CTG) programme. This revelation has many contentious implications for the Mabo hearings. Mary Gaudron’s biography would be inaccurate if it did not also record that she was also the first aboriginal to be appointed to the High Court.
In Helen’s Affidavit she stated “In the event the death or incapacity of one or both defendants prior to the conclusion of these proceedings order the verification of the family’s aboriginal bloodline by accessing documents held by Births, Deaths & Marriages New South Wales or elsewhere”. Of course now she is still denied the ability to claim ‘next of kin’ status; not an executor/administrator or a beneficiary under her mother’s will, with the documents protected by the mother’s privacy. Even though the case has been dismissed the bloodline will in time be verified as Helen does further research.
14. Further Explosive Revelations of Attempted Strangulation
Helen’s affidavit further alleges that Mary attempted to strangle her to death when she was a Baby.
15. Corruption Embedded in Mary Gaudron’s Career
Of course, we don’t believe for one minute that Mary Gaudron succeeded because of her determination. More than likely the real story is that the well-known ladies man, Robert J. Hawke, former Prime Minister of Australia (1983-1991) granted her a favour or two. Did Gaudron open her legs to make the appointment stick?
If you are wondering why the case was dismissed, you need only look at Gaudron’s moral backbone of being a labor (read socialist/communist) sympathiser. Looking at Gaudron’s and Michael Kirby’s connection when younger to the communist agenda, they obviously took the much more time honoured approach of patience, a feature of Fabian Socialism, rather than the raw brutality and police state approach of communism. When I saw Michael Kirby at a legal dinner, he wore his gold symbol of the brotherhood loud and proud. In fact it does seem odd does it not, that in a time of great discrimination against gays and women, that a gay man and a woman would succeed in gaining the highest and most respectful jobs in the land?
In the time of corruption in the Neville Wran and Joh Bjelke-Peterson governments, Gaudron was NSW Solicitor General. She was friends with a number of people of bad character such as Lionel Murphy, a disgraced former High Court Judge; Norman Thomas William Allan(Chief Commissioner of police NSW 1962-1972) and Sir Robert William Askin (32nd Premier of New South Wales 1965-1975). There were many people that joined the divide between Queensland and New South Wales. In the corruption scandal that engulfed the government of Joh Bjelke Peterson and the Wran Government, it is not too far-fetched to say that Mary Gaudron had an interest in keeping the lid on information getting out to the public, because she was directly involved. Could this be the reason she advised the Wran Government that any member of the police be provided with disincentives to block them from coming forward with further information in regard to the Age Tapes. There can be no doubt that Gaudron’s advice helped protect her Labor “mates” including Lionel Murphy.
Sir Robert ASKIN (premier of NSW) and Norman Thomas William Allan 1967 (Police Commissioner NSW) and Shirley Margaret Brifman were involved in the Fitzgerald Inquiry in Qld
Wikipedia states that the allegations of corruption against Askin were revived in 2008 when Alan Saffron, the son of the late Sydney crime boss Abe Saffron, published a biography of his father in which he alleged that Saffron had paid bribes to major public officials including Askin, former police commissioner Norman Allan, and other leading figures whom he claimed he could not name because they were still alive. Alan Saffron alleged that his father made payments of between $5000 and $10,000 per week to both men over many years that Askin and Allan both visited Saffron’s office on several occasions that Allan also visited the Saffron family home, and that Abe Saffron paid for an all-expenses overseas trip for Allan and a young female ‘friend’. He also alleged that, later in Askin’s premiership, Abe Saffron became the “bagman” for Sydney’s illegal liquor and prostitution rackets and most illegal gambling activities, collecting payoffs that were then passed to Askin, Allan and others, in return for which his father was completely protected.”
The young female friend could have been the prostitute Shirley Margaret Brifman who was on Askin’s and Allen’s payroll at the time. Brifman, 35, was supposedly found dead by her teenage daughter Mary Anne and supposedly ended her life in her Brisbane safe house on March 4, 1972, after fleeing Sydney. Police declared a suspected drug overdose, and did not order an autopsy, however in one article it was stated that the daughter claimed that it was not a drug overdose as a person had visited that night and threatened her mother, and in another article the daughter said her mother was overdosing all the time, and still in another article that a woman who visited Brifman handed her a vial of drugs, telling Brifman to end her life or her children would be targeted.
Brifman was due to be the chief witness against a senior Queensland detective in a perjury case. Brifman had been paying graft to corrupt police since the late 1950s, and in 1971 had gone on national television and blown the whistle on officers in both Queensland and NSW. It is believed Shirley Brifman was murdered because she had arranged a live interview with the ABC to blow the whistle on Askin and Allen.
The plot thickens when Helen alleges that at the time of Shirley Margaret Brifman’s murder, Mary Gaudron also lived in the same apartment complex in Elizabeth Bay which was her family home. Helen said that she thought Brifman was shot in the Elizabeth Bay unit, and she never knew anything about her fleeing to Clayfield, Brisbane, which is the story currently circulating in newspapers. Considering the file on Brifman was supposedly destroyed and there was a gag order placed on the file contents for up to sixty years, it is clear that there has been a monumental cover-up concerning Shirley Margaret Brifman’s murder.
16. Losing the Battle to Win the War
In another similar David and Goliath story of the McLibel case in the UK, McDonalds won its court case against some activists, but lost the war of public opinion. While Mary Gaudron may have won the battle over the Will, moral activists can win the war of public opinion, so if you like this story, please make it go viral to force this story be covered on mainstream media.