[continued from previous message]

>>> PRIVATE STREET on the edge of the CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT shared
>>> with a TELSTRA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, there was prepared a report dated
>>> 16 MAY 2000 in response to a TP00/55 as a Notice of an Application
>>> for Planning Permit where the property holder (ie. typical ITALIAN
>>> MAFIA engaged within #1621 / #1772 - ANTI-STATISM which is
>>> incompatible with COMMONWEALTH / RULE OF LAW / MONARCHY / FAIR
>>> GOVERNANCE as democracy) on the other side of the road had
>>> substantial opportunity to repeatedly object to numerous planning
>>> permits in the knowledge of their own intentions, thereby causing
>>> ourselves financial distress and property loss of our primary #39 -
>>> RESIDENCE which was contributed to by the expense of legal action by
>>> impetus of their haughty cultural (JULY / AUGUST) self entitlement
>>> and disrespect.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/10/25 08:25, dolf wrote:
>>>> Returning again to our explanation involving unresolved INSURANCE
>>>> MATTERS OF VCAT 500 OF 2000 which we allege are relevant to this
>>>> VCAT REFERENCE: XXXXX / 2025 as an assertion of an ILLEGALITY
>>>> DEFENCE given the "PROPOSITION OF HISTORICAL #1621 / #1772 - ANTI-
>>>> STATISM". At our last appointment with the MEDICAL SPECIALIST @
>>>> CONSULTING ROOMS, CENTRAL GIPPSLAND HOSPITAL on 2 MAY 2025, we
>>>> requested action as CLOSURE of a DELIBERATE PROTEST EVENT OF 21 / 25
>>>> AUGUST 1999 MEDICAL INTERACTION which resulted within improper as
>>>> false characterisation within POLICE COMPUTER RECORDS that, despite
>>>> my reasonable attempts to have those improper entries amended due to
>>>> their capacity to effect an ADVERSE CONSEQUENCE upon my AUTONOMY and
>>>> HUMAN RIGHTS, which as a deficiency has prevailed to this day and as
>>>> we foresaw have spiralled into a most recent SLANDEROUS SCENARIO as
>>>> GROUNDS being INSUBSTANTIAL FACTS FOR THE ORDERS BY THE CLOCKTOWER
>>>> MEDICAL CENTRE AS CASE NUMBER: Q11839982 of 30 AUGUST 2024 and
>>>> withdrawn at a DIRECTIONS HEARING ON 31 OCTOBER 2024, without
>>>> explanation.
>>>>
>>>> That document conveyed details of PETER RIDDELL’S submission as
>>>> CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL FOR AXA GLOBAL GROUP INSURANCE being a TRANS-
>>>> NATIONAL CORPORATION made to the VCAT EXTRA-ORDINARY DIRECTIONS
>>>> HEARING of 5 DECEMBER 2001 in the mischievous and wrongful
>>>> misrepresentation of my two telephone calls as the basis of a false
>>>> report to police and perjured evidence.  The following is a
>>>> transcript (which may contain transcription and conceptual errors
>>>> due to reduced audibility) dated 11 FEBRUARY 2004 obtained from
>>>> tapes provided by the VICTORIA CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
>>>> (anti-discrimination list) as proceedings of 0936 hours 5 DECEMBER
>>>> 2001 before DEPUTY PRESIDENT MS. CATE MCKENZIE presiding over CASE
>>>> NUMBER: A500 of 2000 in the matter of AUSTRALIAN CASUALTY & LIFE
>>>> (AXA GLOBAL GROUP INSURANCE) and MARK CAPECCHI. The proceedings were
>>>> conducted by telephone hook-up.
>>>>
>>>> THE D.PRESIDENT: Telephone?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. Mr Riddell, you are appearing by
>>>>
>>>> MR RIDDELL: Yes, madam, I appear by way of telephone. I also have
>>>> SHANNON LINDNER with me who is a solicitor in the actual legal group.
>>>>
>>>> THE D.PRESIDENT: Very well now, this directions hearing has been
>>>> called on as a result of a letter which has been sent by the
>>>> respondents to the Tribunal. The best way I can summarise, in
>>>> effect, what that letter raised were concerns about certain conduct
>>>> of Mr Boek which, as I understand it, has been the subject of a
>>>> report to police. The reason why the Tribunal deals with these
>>>> matters initially at least, unless there is some exceptional
>>>> circumstance that would warrant otherwise by bringing on a
>>>> directions hearing, is so that the Tribunal can, if necessary,
>>>> receive evidence of what the relevant matter is and then determine
>>>> how best to deal with it.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, and in fact every case where a directions hearing is
>>>> held, if there is a request made by a party to appear by telephone
>>>> the Tribunal is very happy to accommodate that request and that is
>>>> in fact what has happened today. Now, I might get you, Mr Riddell,
>>>> to explain what aspects of Mr Boek's conduct have concerned the
>>>> respondents and, of course, I will give you a chance to reply, Mr
>>>> Boek, after Mr Riddell has finished. Very well, Mr Riddell.
>>>>
>>>> MR RIDDELL: Thank you, madam. On 30 NOVEMBER in the morning I
>>>> received a telephone call from Mr Boek, a threatening telephone
>>>> call, advising that he had left a number of messages for me. I then
>>>> accessed those messages on my voice mail and was quite threatened by
>>>> the content of those messages and I had grave concerns for my safety
>>>> and the safety of my family. I, that morning contacted the Victoria
>>>> Police and reported the matter and they viewed the matter most
>>>> seriously. They suggested that I not present myself in the presence
>>>> of Mr Boek, which is why I am presenting myself by way of telephone
>>>> today.
>>>>
>>>> THE D.PRESIDENT: Yes, and as I say, there is no difficulty about
>>>> that. Yes?
>>>>
>>>> MR RIDDELL: Two messages. I have forwarded to the Tribunal a
>>>> transcript of those
>>>>
>>>> THE D.PRESIDENT: Have you a recording of them?
>>>>
>>>> MR RIDDELL: I do and I would like to play that for the Tribunal.
>>>>
>>>> THE D.PRESIDENT: Certainly. May I just, before you do, get my
>>>> associate to take an affirmation from you because given the
>>>> seriousness of the matter it ought to be on evidence.
>>>>
>>>> MR PETER ANTHONY RIDDELL, affirmed [9.36am]
>>>>
>>>> THE D.PRESIDENT: Recording. Thank you. Now, if you would play the tape
>>>>
>>>> MR RIDDELL: If it is not clear please let me know and I will adjust
>>>> the volume.
>>>>
>>>> THE D.PRESIDENT: Certainly.
>>>>
>>>> TELEPHONE MESSAGE ONE: HERE OMITTED AS ADDRESSED ABOVE.
>>>>
>>>> TELEPHONE MESSAGE TWO: "MR RIDDELL, DOLF BOEK. YOU DO REALISE THAT
>>>> IF YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO COME CLEAN WITH YOUR JUSTIFICATIONS OF
>>>> YOUR PAST TREATMENT OF ME THAT AS OF THE NEW YEAR WE WILL NOT BE
>>>> HAVING ANOTHER CONTRACT BECAUSE I WILL NOT BE CO-OPERATING WITH YOU
>>>> FURTHER AND WE WILL ARE MORE LIKELY TO GO TO COURT AT SOME STAGE. AT
>>>> SOME STAGE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RECOGNISE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE
>>>> A BLASPHEMER. YOUR RELIGIOUS CONTEXT HAS NO CONTINUING VALIDITY AND
>>>> SINCE I AM ABLE TO RATIONALLY PROVE THAT WITH A MATHEMATICAL
>>>> MODEL..... YOU ARE GOING TO UNDERSTAND HOW FORCEFUL AND HARD
>>>> METAPHYSICS IS."
>>>>
>>>> MR RIDDELL: That concludes the two voice mail messages.
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of our pre-CONSULTATION NOTE conveyed to the MEDICAL
>>>> SPECIALIST dated 8 JULY 2025, was to proffer current advice on our
>>>> writing a submission within VCAT REFERENCE: XXXXXX / 2025 as a LIFE
>>>> CONTEXT STATEMENT which encompasses that PROTEST EVENT ON 21 / 25
>>>> AUGUST 1999 MEDICAL INTERACTION and over which there is exuded a
>>>> certain self- assuredness and satisfaction expressed within the
>>>> content of TELEPHONE MESSAGE TWO made to CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE
>>>> INSURER on 30 NOVEMBER 2001 as then causal for the EXTRA-ORDINARY
>>>> VCAT DIRECTIONS HEARING dated 5 DECEMBER 2001 conveying their
>>>> misrepresentation as impetus for a strikeout of the matter, as then

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)