Grounds of Appeal
1. That his honorable Judge Burchardts has made the error on, that in his view, that there is not sufficient cause, within the meaning of s 52 (2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, that a sequestration order, ought not be made. By reference to Judge Burchardts' reasons for judgment: Paragraph 73, 74, 77. Judge Burchardt's opinion, based on that he has not yet seen the full evidence.
1) The appellant Yan Liang hereby states, that evidences and proofs, are available. And will be ready for Federal Court of Australia's Appeal. Which will establish that L V Property Investment Pty Ltd and associates, were doing Fraud. Judge Burchardts said "L V Property and Mr Limmer appear to have succeeded on each occasion" was also an error. the past record was, that in No. 1088 of 2012 of the Supreme Court of Tasmania matter, that Ms Yan Liang and her lawyers, Leonard Ferandez Barristers and Solicitors, have won an appeal, and did set the wrong judgment aside. which allowing Yan Liang's party, as the Hobart 3 properties and 114 lots development land areas' in fact first mortgage lender, and its 5 years proceedings' financial lender, continuing to counterclaim her home loan and interests amount, that lent into, and carried the Hobart subdivision land project, since 6/11/2007. In July/2012, L V Property Investment Pty Ltd and associates, have defaulted Yan Liang's party mortgage loan and interest repayment of $785,000 due on 6/11/2010. Thereafter, incurred further damages, to Yan Liang's family.
2) His honorable judge Burchardts said "fraud is a very serious matter requiring cogent proof." That Yan Liang's party totally agrees. Then Judge Burchardts said "such proof is simply not available" was an error. Conspiracies to take large financial advantage of others, planning to default, doing fraud with dishonesty, were normally very hard to find evidence. especially if the fraud which planned to take large financial advantage, were premeditated in-between professional parties, as so called "white-collar crime Australia", it was almost impossible, to find enough evidence for a long time. But however, these evidences somehow, suddenly came out from several third parties' words and emails, from those illogical and strange things were kept happening in the past, from many contradictions of statements, from abnormal behaviors, and from leaked out hidden agreement and document. after putting all these jigsaw puzzles together with other facts, then realize Ian Heylen of Welcom Pty Ltd and Christopher Allan Limmer and its new company L V Property Investment Pty Ltd were doing fraud.
3) His honorable Judge Burchardts actually realized Christopher Allan Limmer of LV Property Investment Pty Ltd was dishonest, reference to his reasons for judgment paragraphs 11 and 12, paragraphs 36, paragraphs 41, which he has mentioned part of my affidavits and oral submissions at court hearing, and he realized how hard the damages has impacted on me and on my family. It was another error made by Judge Burchardts that led to his judgment, reference paragraph 32 and paragraph 55 of reasons for judgment, on 11 June 2014, said by Judge Burchardts "Ms Liang commenced the proceeding by seeking to file further materials." "I declined her permission to file further material in Court." "from time to time that she was offering to provide to the Court numerous documents that were plainly on the bar table before her, but I did not accept them. no formal application to tender any document was made. Her submission were, I regret to say, somewhat chaotic in their character". Which this meant, the evidences were existing, but was not organized in the right manner, therefore, these evidences have not yet been reviewed by Court.
4) The evidences were not able to lodge at the Federal Circuit Court on time, before Judge Burchardt, although several extension times, were kindly given. But due to unexpected extraordinary circumstances, the appellant Yan Liang, during May/2014 to July/2014, who was a victim as defaulted mortgage lender creditor, and a victim as defaulted owner creditors, was totally relay onto Public Trustee, on behalf of her husband James Longmuir, who lives at nursing home since year 2006, to pay rent for their teenage son Alastair Longmuir and herself. Which during these several weeks, in May to July/2014, Public Trustee has changed an officer, who has stopped the rental payments and maintenance, and kept asking Yan Liang to re write new applications and arranged appointments and meetings for about 7 times. without rental payment, lacking of food for the child, Alastair Longmuir left school and home, went to live in at his classmates' houses, my mother was in hospital in China, I therefore was wondering why I could not contact her at home by phone calls and by email at the time. not enough money for going to internet to do any paper work, could not print out and organize evidences for each party and Federal Circuit Court to review before the hearing. At the time, the appellant was in depression and lacking of many days' sleep therefore was exhausted. But has managed borrowed some money drove from Adelaide to Melbourne, with chaotic materials were on the bar table, for his honorable Judge Burchardts to have a look, but they appeared in a mess form, and have been rejected. The appellant will write affidavits, and put all important evidences together, for Federal Court of Australia, to review these past years' facts with available evidences.
2. There was evidence before his honorable Judge Burchardts, that the amount of the primary debt, set out in this Bankruptcy notice, requested by L V Property Investment Pty Ltd and forced onto the appellant Yan Liang, was a little in excess of $6,000.
1) That the said amount was for legal fees ordered in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, between the same parties, the Appellant Yan Liang and L V Property Investment Pty Ltd.
2) It is a possibility that finial orders between the parties in these actions as to the issues and as to costs could be materially different in relation to who pays and in what amount or amounts.
3) Although the appellant is now self representing, but since her loan and interest has been defaulted, thereafter incurred many related events of damages, the appellant has already paid her lawyers for more than $50,000. each of these lawyers, can forward a statement. and for Supreme Court of Tasmania Court matters, several hearings were actually in relation to Mr Nathan Munting's applications, Yan Liang has flown from Adelaide to Melbourne to Hobart, or flew from Adelaide to Sydney to Hobart for around 10 times, plus accommodation needs, at least $20,000 air plane tickets fees and accommodation costs, has been paid.
4) That there are serious issues, of equity amount on properties, and disposition first mortgage loan and false valuations of lands and unlawful title transfers that are litigated in that Supreme Court of Tasmania, that the appellant's defaulted home loan and interest amount which used by development lands and project, were far greater than the amount of costs, as set out in the bankruptcy notice of $6,116.25. Reference to reasons for judgment, paragraph 5, the procedural history of the matter.
5) the appellant hereby, again, especially points out to Ferderal Court of Australia, that Christopher Allan Limmer and associates, has advised his conspiracy partner, Ian David Heylen of Welcom Pty Ltd, claimed a fraud bankruptcy, when all development lands' valuations were increased, with planning permits were in places, and were still under the Heylens' and Welcom Pty Ltd's names, have not yet been sold. Ian Heylen through his emails, that has informed many people, these development lands, were expecting revenues of several million dollars profits. and wrote, these lands' values were largely increased. reference to paragraphs 35 reasons for judgment. However, associated with Limmer, has made Heylens claimed themselves bankrupt, then could hand over these lands to banks and pretending these development lands and properties were brick homes. Thereafter, instructed bank staff, to value it at below cost price, with Ian Heylen's wrong hidden instruction. which enabled Christopher Allan Limmer to deal with banks later on, with intentions to take large financial advantages and default lands' creditors as they have already planned. Hidden agreements were in between Heylen-Limmer. As his honourable Judge Burchardts understood appellant at the hearing and wrote "it is asserted that the bankruptcy of Heylens was a fraud advised by Mr Limmer." In Supreme Court of Tasmania, Christopher Allan Limmer gave his associate Judge Holt pressure, by inside his affidavit, wrote about himself might claim bankrupt. Therefore Judge Holt had no choice, but had to in favor of Limmer's party at the time, orders were set out by Mr Munting. But it was such a contradiction, for in other parts of the Limmer's affidavit, he admitted it was a $12 million dollar project, people could easily realize, these development lands, had much higher values than brick homes.
6) In all the circumstances and in particular the ongoing litigations in between the parties, at Supreme Court of Tasmania matters, the appellant Yan Liang, besides according to law, claiming her $785,000 defaulted repayment, she has also aimed to help some other innocent people to get their financial equities back. As the appellant believed the development lands' true worth, can easily recovering at least part of these people's credits, Courts can realize these development lands have attracted huge amount of the interested parties, after the appellant shows the past evidences. The several court matters, were also involved the parties, such as Ian David Heylen and Welcom Pty Ltd, and La Trobe Financial, which I may make petition that signed up by other people, to against Heylens and Welcom P/L who was doing fraud, and to against Christopher Allan Limmer and L V Property Investment Property Pty Ltd if necessary. As to allow the Supreme Court proceedings, to go ahead properly, enable it to reach final judgment, the appellant's party needs Federal Court of Australia to set this bankruptcy order aside. In fact, that the first respondent L V Property Investment Pty Ltd as creditor, as for the reason of his solicitor Mr Munting's fee of $6000, could not reasonably claim, that in the middle of the ongoing Supreme Courts proceedings, in between the same parties, to have suffered or be at risk of suffering prejudice, by the setting aside of the sequestration order.
3. The second respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, filed an affidavit on 7 March 2014, states that appellant Yan Liang needs to pay her wholly due tax amount $233,891.19. reference to paragraphs 15 reasons for judgment.
1) Paying tax is everybody's obligation, if he or she was working or doing business. As the appellant, I am more than happy to pay my tax.
2) The Deputy Commissioner of Australian Taxation by far should realize, that the first respondent L V Property Investment Pty Ltd, and its director Christopher Allan Limmer's misconducts with others, was actually the cause of, defaulted Yan Liang's home loan and interest repayment. Thereafter the default, all her properties have been one by one sold, therefore, the appellant Yan Liang hasn't yet paid the tax amount of $233,891.
3) The appellant did not regard any person's tax amount as "debt", or regard Australian Taxation as the "creditor". for none of us has borrowed money from the Taxation Department. People were according to their incomes and business activities, do their best, to contribute his country, by carrying on all sorts of jobs and business. But in fact, the issued Tax due amount, was only a much smaller amount, comparing with the rest of the incomes and business profits, that were entitled as the tax payer's personal assets. It appeared as such a contradiction, that the appellant's tax duty is more than $230,000, but the appellant was living inside her car and then sleeps on the floor until today. which parties, have taken financial advantages of the appellant's past 23 years' assets? that were all consisting inside her several real estate properties, and also lent inside the related Hobart development lands.
4) His honorable Judge Burchardts has made error on his conclusion on is Ms Liang able to pay her debts? reference to paragraphs 66, Judge Burchardts said " it is quite clear on the materials as they stand that Ms Liang is not able to pay her debts," " Her own materials have suggested that from time to time, she has been all but destitute, living in a car, it would appear, over the Christmas period last year." reference to paragraphs 67, said "a figure of $1,000 per week would not suggest that Ms Liang is able to pay the enormous amount clearly owning to the supporting creditor." The appellant hereby must point out, that Judge Burchardts has indeed made an error, on that he has misled parties to believe, that appellant's current or future income sources, is or will be responsible to pay the due amount Tax to commissioner of Taxation. But the genuine fact is, every person's due amount of tax, was actually a part of the past years' incomes or business profits, which the appellant's past financial asset, would be far more than enough, to pay the issued tax amount owed. Current income has current tax assessment; future income will incur future tax.
5) As Judge Burchardts read that Public Trustee was paying the Appellant $1,000 per week on behalf of her husband James Longmuir. Which James indeed since year 2006 has been admitted to a nursing home due to Health condition by Royal Adelaide Hospital and by his other family members. Obviously, that my husband has not been working since year 2006. But for the past 8 years until today, he has never been on any center link payment and he is not on government pension. This because of although he is not working, but there was past years' incomes and financial asset, which he has worked 30 years for Australian government, also worked with me in properties renovations and shop business. Therefore, in this men-made crisis of L V Property Investment P/L and other parties, together were taking financial advantages of me, he can still support his child Alastair Longmuir and me through the Public Trustee. The question is, if a person without working for past 8 years still has large amount of finance, then where are my past 23 years' financial assets? that I have always been worked in business and employed people working together. The homeless photos of I was trying to survive in hot weather of Adelaide when living inside my car, were with registrar of Tasmania. As I have mixed up these photos that were taken on many different dates, but printed on papers without separate them according to the individual date, the registrar have not yet given them to his honorable Judge Burchardts. Reference to reasons for judgment paragraph 12 and 13. If anyone thought or said, that the appellant Yan Liang has lost money through bad investment, that I hereby state, that I have never involved into any sort of "investment" things, I was either as the property's owner, or as the properties' true mortgage lender, that these properties and lands, were agreed as my loan and interests' repayment's securities. by doing renovation works, improvement works, by gaining planning permits and changing the lands' uses, highly increased the properties' and lands' revenues of rental incomes and future profits, all related properties' and lands' valuations in relation to the appellant were actually increased. but by far all have been financially defaulted by the parties, who were bullying and taken advantages of the appellant. This unjustified situation, was an alarm and warning for societies, that to prevent this kind of horrible events, do not happen again, to innocent Australian families and especially to their children. that the Federal Court of Australia, should set the 9 January 2014 Sequestration Order aside, to let the Supreme Court matters take its course, to improve relevant real estate and property laws, improve judicial system, by combining the property and land titles legislations, valuations law, associated criminal laws together, and make a principal guidance, towards power of sales, to prevent large financial fraud, on properties and lands sales and on tittles transfers. The report will be given to Parliament and to Australian securities and investment commissions.
6) Here are the figure of more than $2 million dollar financial asset, that were inside several real estate properties, by far all have been taken large financial advantages, by several parties, which including Christopher Allan Limmer and his new company L V Property Investment Pty Ltd. And his honorable Judge Burchardts has actually realized this situation. reference to his reasons for judgment paragraphs 36 " Ms Liang said her properties in China and South Australia were all now gone, and if understood her correctly, she may have asserted that there were 10 such properties, of which six were lost because of conduct of Mr Limmer. Ms Liang also dealt with renovation work which, as I understand it, may have taken place in relation to the South Australian property, but the submissions were so scattergun they were hard to follow." and then in paragraphs 41: "Ms Liang said that she had paid a deposit for the land in Tasmania and that it should therefore be hers, and she asked how the land, now worth $2 million, could be sold for $600,000. She said she could prove she was the first mortgagee. She referred to the values of property in Tasmania as possibly being $1.5 million, and if this was so, she would be able to reclaim the money and pay her tax and other liabilities."
7) Here is the list of properties, which have been sold in year 2012 and 2013. that all have financially defaulted the appellant, either as properties' lender creditor, or as the owner creditors. Which according to property and land title legislations, and according to relevant criminal law sections, these land titles gained by fraud sales process, or gained by sales of property, based on land titles documents were in error, then these land titles by law were not valid and were instantly void. These properties are:
1. 22 Northcote TCE Gilberton South Australia SA 5081. Land title document were in error. Renovations have been done. Forgot to do report and reject the council rate's value. Transferred at less than the certified land value which valued by bank SA in year 2011 at $650,000 for its land only, at $1000 per square meter, regardless the house value is on top of the land, needs $250,000 to $300,000 if do replacement. Without auction. Reansfered at $550,000. Below the land value. Defaulted owner creditors and lender creditor, which were appellant and family member $200,000 to $300,000.
2. 221a Lenah Valley Road, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7008. Defaulted appellant planning permits process incurred 5 years costs, advertisements fee. The 114 lots planning permits, included 66 lots subdivision planning permit which was for this property and land area.
3. 9 Sawyer Avenues West Moonah Tasmania 7009. Defaulted appellant's home loan and thereafter 5 years bank interests lent to carry on the year 2008's settlement and the development project process, achieved 114 lots subdivision planning permits for the area, 44 allotments for this property and its land area.
4. 48 Creek Road Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7008. Defaulted appellant's home loan and further lending of 5 years bank interests to carry on the December year 2007's settlement and thereafter planning process 114 lots subdivision permits, 4 lots for this property and its land area.
Above no 2, 3, 4 properties and land areas, sold by fraud sales process, and transferred at fraudulent brick home prices base on hidden false valuations. Documents were all in errors. Mr Nathan Munting did not mention appellant's caveats D 5872 D 5873 caveats, which have not yet been canceled by court and were forbidden the land titles transfers. Defaulted the appellant $785,000 due on year 6/11/2010.
5. 20 Northcote TCE Gilberton South Australia 5081. Land title document was in error. Done property extensions in year 1996/1997. the appellant have not yet and forgot to report to land title department and reject its council rate value which misled the sale. Extension building records was with local Walkerville Council. Transferred at much less than the area's land value's only price, which would be $970,000 at $1000 per square. the house on top of land needs $450,000 for replacement. Transferred at $750,000, without auction. defaulted the appellant and her family $400,000-$600,000.
6. 173-175 Port Rd Hindmarsh South Aistralia 5007. land title document was in significant error, also sold by fraudulent sales process, with hidden false valuation. The singing school and hostel's renovations through year 2008 to year 2013, the last part of finance that enabled to finalize the works, was came from the appellant's 2 apartments sold in Beijing China in year end of year 2012, put into the properties' improvements. Without auction. Defaulted appellant $700,000 plus.
Above mentioned 6 properties plus 2 apartment in china has consisted more than $2 million dollar financial asset, which appellant have earned incomes and profits during the past 23 years' works and business. $85,000 or more of family member's past asset as further financial damage also needs to claim and pay back to innocent parties. Further caveats will be lodged on these defaulted properties, with Public Trustee's assistance.
4. His honorable judge Burchardts was asking in his reasons for judgment Is Ms Liang able to pay her debts? (question on page 14) Is there other sufficient cause why a Sequestration Order should not be made?
1) The appellant hereby states, the appellant is according to law claiming the defaulted financial equities or claiming the properties back, and able to pay the tax amount $233,891.91.
2) The Sequestration Order should not be made, as the Appellant will need to put caveats then remortgage some of these above mentioned titles, then redeem the current parties on land titles out, so they can have their money back, or use it to buy other property instead. Which borrow bank's loan to remortgage, cannot have a Sequestration Order that against the appellant Yan Liang. When bank according to property's and land's true justified valuations to remortgage, at the same time, the appellant will borrow out the suitable equity amount to pay deputy commissioner of taxation wholly and pay Mr Munting's fee.