CSI austech???????
lol CSI austech
There would not have been any questions raised about you if you had simply identified yourself and told your story at the start.
No one is here to give you a hard time, but there are people that have lost money to Michael Munday that are interested to hear what is happening. If you can keep us uptodate with whats happening via this thread, it would be appreciated.
allover (26-02-12)
Beer4life. What do you have to do with michael's case? Just asking because that used to be his nickname on forums. And you seemed to be a bit strong pointed about me giving up info on my case. Anything anyone can find out about this guy?
I'm flabbergasted and insulted. I've used this nick since circa 1999 on many forums. Apart from stepping on a few toes, have never been embroiled in any activities that you imply.
The point of my post was an attempt to take some heat off you.
I don't need your gratitude. How to win friends and influence others.
Last edited by beer4life; 26-02-12 at 07:41 PM.
This thread just gets better. All we need is an outcome.
No, beer4life is not involved with him in anyway (I will vouch for him) and is disappointed I am sure to learn that your brother also used that name on other forums.
beer4life (27-02-12)
H8MUNDAYS - Your parents name also appear in court lists often lately. (Directions hearing - Crown & Gleeson Lending Pty Ltd V S Munday and C Munday - just one example) Does this have anything to do with this or do you know about this? This company does business loans without the need for financial documents. Loans are short term, done over the phone ( no application form) all you need to do is sign the loan doc.!!!!!!!
Also Michael has a criminal hearing on the 29th Feb - do you know what this relates to?
I was also wondering why you haven't reached out to other victims on here to try and build your case against him. ie prove what his character is or sort of person he is and that you are not his first victim. Getting other victims to testify about their dealings with him would only strengthen your case.
Have you and your brother ever been in court before for anything?
Gee, His Parents must be so proud.
Crown and gleeson I don't know about the circumstances. As for my reaching out do others, my case against him is iron clad he won't and can't get away with it. He will definately be found guilty. Parents would be in trouble because of Michael they have also had to remortgage their house for $50000 in the past to get him out of debt. Beer4life my apologies for the insult but as you can understand I had to see if it were Michael trying his ways again.
beer4life (28-02-12)
This is a good example of what we mean by seeking some clarity. You can't have a case against him in which he'll "be found guilty". If you are bringing a civil action against him, then you can win that but he can only be "found guilty" in a matter brought by a prosecutorial body, eg. the DPP.
That's why you've been asked if you can elaborate on exactly what actions/charges you know or believe have been brought against Munday and further, whether your credit card matter is one of you against him.
If it is just a civil matter between you & Munday (as has been suggested previously), you are free to provide the relevant facts and I'm not sure why you haven't done so already - it would seem a fairly logical thing to do. And if it is a civil case, you might also tell us if the authorities are considering any criminal proceedings against Munday for the fraud you're alleging and what happened/is happening re the bank against you or the bank against him?
In principle, that is incorrect. An individual can conduct a criminal prosecution, although that is not likely what is happening in this instance.
Certainly he is free to do so but it would be a very illogical thing to do. Why should he telegraph his moves by blabbing to all and sundry through this forum? It seems that he is as much a victim as anyone else, if not more so. There may be advantages for himself and other victims in co-operating but that would be better done privately (e.g. by pm) rather than in public. It would be surprising if his brother is not monitoring this forum.
I'll hand it to you, you really have amused me. Rarely do I find such cause to literally rofl.
Private prosecution for alleged credit card fraud! They say a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing ... just as a little bit of Google in the hands of the unknowing is hilarious.
But then you outdo yourself with "telegraph his moves". That's as good as it gets. You should be doing stand up.
Last edited by MavAF; 03-03-12 at 10:46 PM.
a bit of topic, but why would anyone have a credit card limit of $35,000.
Well your eminence, perhaps you should work a little harder on your reading and comprehension skills and express yourself more precisely.
What I said was "In principle, that is incorrect. An individual can conduct a criminal prosecution,..." I was careful to add "..although that is not likely what is happening in this instance." What part of the latter proviso did you not understand?
I said nothing about credit card fraud. That was only one of the matters mentioned and it is not clear which matter/s H8Mundays was referring to. There are apparently a number of cases current or imminent, some criminal and some civil. From what H8Mundays has said, it is highly unlikely any of the criminal proceedings were initiated by him but that possibility, however remote, theoretically exists so I did not exclude it.
Instead, I refuted the unconditional nature of your statement which DID exclude it.
Incidentally, the target of the link I posted has curiously disappeared. For those interested, here is an alternative:
As to your eminence, I think when beer4life enquired about your qualifications, he was referring to legal or academic qualifications, not the size/status of your ego.
I admit to some scepticism. It is difficult to believe a qualified / experienced person would suggest to a litigant that they should disclose the details of their impending case, civil or criminal, on a public internet forum, especially a forum where the other party to the proceedings has also been a participant.
If you think that is funny, you are welcome to continue destroying your credibility. I don't intend to waste further time on it.
warbo (04-03-12)
that's the only thing you've got right.
if only you had any I wouldn't be wasting my time with this response.
If you had any credibility to destroy it would be in ashes.
It's unfortunate that time must be wasted dealing with the bunk you have brought to this Thread but it's at least a relief to hear that you will not be wasting any more of my time having to reply to it. I hope you keep to it.
"In principle, that is incorrect" was a foolish statement.
Now had you instead said something to the effect of:- "What you have written is absolutely correct in the current context but strictly speaking an individual can bring private prosecutions - which have ABSOLUTELY NO APPLICATION in the current context. And if I knew what private prosecutions actually were and what they involved in the real world, I would not be making such outlandish statements" ... then yes, you would have made a point instead of simply causing unbridled amusement. But unfortunately that wasn't the case, was it.
Do you even have the slightest inkling in what situations private prosecutions would be considered, let alone discussed?? Ignorance is highly annoying but never more so when it emanates from people attempting to comment on matters of which they have zero knowledge and understanding. All it does is muddy the waters for the simple and amuse/annoy the intelligent.
As for your defence, it's weak on many grounds.
1) In relation to H8Mundays, we are ONLY talking about the FACTS in relation to his allegations of credit card fraud. That is entirely clear to any intelligent person from both his post and my reply.
2) Only a fool would interpret my statement as being unconditional in an irrelevant context. The statement was entirely accurate in the context of H8Mundays case in so far as we know of it.
3) The rest of your defence is so off point and irrelevant as to not merit comment.
Unfortunately, all that people like you achieve is to distract from the important matters at hand. There are some people who seem to go through life looking for relevance by playing spoiler, hoping to appear intelligent (and generally failing miserably), when they have no knowledge or genuine interest in the salient matters.
Anyone with even a modicum of grey matter can read through this Thread and easily identify those who have some knowledge of the relevant issues/matters and those who have absolutely none.
It's a free world and everyone is free to comment but the quality of the commentary from some who are just "chiming in" goes beyond the concept of redundancy.
As the great Abraham Lincoln used to say:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
A concept that many people would do well to remember.
Now Mr 'amus you've raised the issue of my qualifications. I chose not to state them at the first casual enquiry because people generally don't like having qualifications shoved down their throats but since some insecure folk have pushed the point, let me set them out.
Australian Legal Practitioner (more commonly known to the general public as Lawyers/Solicitors & other terms not fit for publication), duly admitted to practise as a Barrister and Solicitor in Australian jurisdictions and holding inter alia the degrees of Bachelor of Laws & Master of Laws from arguably the 2 finest Law Schools in Australia with more years of experience in practise than I'd imagine Mr 'amus has been at school (and that is not putting you down - I'm confident it's an accurate statement).
Now we're not meant to get personal in responses but there is only so much inanity intelligent people are willing to tolerate.
Your foolishness may be amusing but you detract from the purpose of the Thread - and at this juncture it is to find out if H8Mundays (if he is who he says he is and in the position he says he's in) can provide any helpful information & news for the many victims of Munday. So it would be better for them if all energies were directed to that cause.
Finally, you sink further into the mire when you ponder:-
You again show how a little misconceived knowledge is a dangerous thing exacerbated by your regular failure to read/comprehend with care.
H8Mundays has been asked by a few people, including myself, to "provide the relevant facts", ie. like many have done before him.
For example, many of those stung in the Yadnum scam provided facts along the lines of:-
"I sent funds to Munday as consideration for the purchase of goods; I have not received those goods; Munday is not responding to phonecalls/emails etc; I am initiating proceedings to recover said funds".
For the slow ones amongst us, these are what are known as facts.
Here's another hypothetical example for the slow ones:-
"I allege Munday applied for credit in my name. The first I knew of this was when the bank contacted me. The bank has shown me the relevant application forms in my name and the signature that appears is not mine, etc. etc."
Are the slow ones finally cottoning on?
But no, Mr 'amus who appears to have watched too many pseudo legal dramas thinks, "my oh my, oh golly gosh, better not "telegraph" all those secret "moves" in this major litigation to opposing Counsel and the population at large, all of whom must be watching avidly" ... and "ooh, ooh, I heard someone on the news once say a matter was 'sub judice' - ooh, ooh, better look that up on Google and see if I can use it in a Thread."
It's comical but also tragic ... at least beer4life had the good sense to let the matter rest.
Look, you may have your heart in the right place thinking you'll win some brownie points by trying to outwit the arrogant lawyer but you've let your insecurities get the better of you and are consequently posting without sense and counter-productive to the best interests of the victims of Munday.
So why don't we just get on with the real objective, ie. advancing the best interests of the victims of Munday.
NB: The last part of your nick is unfortunately quite apt as far as this Thread goes ... but the first part could do with replacement ... here's a clue:- what most people should do with your postings in this Thread.
Last edited by MavAF; 05-03-12 at 10:05 PM.
TrentK (05-03-12)
Reschs (05-03-12)
Bookmarks