Love for Life

May 2007

We are the Cristian family, Fiona, Arthur, Jasmin, Emma, Frances and baby Xanthe. In 2001 we bought a beach house on the northern tip of Jervis Bay, in a village called Currarong on the South Coast of New South Wales, Australia. Since 2003 Fiona became the sole title deed/owner of the house.

We lived in the house for around 18 months before Jasmin started school and have spent other extended periods there. We moved away from the area (2003/2004) due to schooling concerns and, since then, we have rented the house out on a short-term holiday rental basis. Due to more than 1 year of working very long hours per day, marketing The Elements Beach House on the internet (search engines and listings), holiday rental bookings was a success with the beach house being booked for more than 90% of every year, producing an average income $62k per year. With this income Fiona was able to cover the interest payments on the mortgage, rent a home in Bowral so that children could go to the local Rudolph Steiner school and have enough money left over to cover all food requirements and other expences.

Fiona is not liable for any capital gains tax or land tax and her home is not an investment property. Neither Fiona nor Arthur own or have any interest in any other property, private or commercial.

During the course of 2005, we decided to renovate the downstairs part of the beach house to extend the holiday rental possibilities to over $80k per year and to have somewhere we could live in the future, while still renting out upstairs. Through broker, John Hartney of Mortgage Fastrack - Kangaroo Valley NSW, we investigated various refinancing options before settling on a Line Of Credit from Macquarie Mortgages (part of Macquarie Bank).

From July to August 25th 2005 we received three line of credit (LOC) approval documents from the bank and these confirmations encouraged us to sign the loan contract with the experienced Macquarie Mortgages authorised agent and broker John Hartney as witness.

The day we received and signed the loan contract August 25th 2005 was the first time we became aware that the actual lender was Perpetual Limited and not Macquarie Mortgages.

It turns out that a man with two hats "James Angus", was contractually employed by both Macquarie Mortgages Pty Limited and Perpetual Limited at the same time. James Angus created, signed and mailed the Macquarie Mortgages LOC approval documents and the loan contract for Perpetual Limited.

Strangely up until December 2005, five different approval documents for the LOC were created and mailed to us at different times by James Angus, but through Macquarie Bank stuff ups, Fiona and Arthur unknowingly signed a loan contract, created by James Angus, for a completely different Macquarie Bank product called a Macquarie Mortgage Saver Home Loan - Principal & Interest (MSHL).

Arriving in the mail 25th August 2005 at the same time with the loan contract were letters of approval for the LOC and armed with these confirmations, we signed what has now become the disputed loan contract before Macquarie's experienced authorised agent and broker, John Hartney of Mortgage Fastrack, who himself was fooled by this misleading document and the letters of approval for the LOC.

The only reason why Arthur and I were drawn to sit at the table with John Hartney and sign the disputed loan contract was the letters of approval we received from James Angus. We were seduced and tricked by James Angus into signing a Macquarie Bank loan contract for a product we never applied for or was approved to be supplied to us by Macquarie Bank.

Not knowing Macquarie in-house terminology and being under extreme pressure due to Macquarie delaying the settlement dates twice (17 days), without explanation, Fiona signed her soul away to this uncompromising ferocious beast of doom and gloom. Nowhere in the loan contract does it explain in layman's terms exactly what specific product features are being provided, and how this particular product will perform.

A principal and interest home loan product operates very differently from a LOC product. A LOC works just like an overdraft where you can draw down to the approved limit or deposit as much as you like from one month to the next and pay only monthly interest payments on the outstanding to the bank. But with MSHL you pay both monthly principal & interest payments and you cannot draw down any further funds at any time, regardless of what amounts you may have deposited. This meant our monthly re-payments to the bank were around $1500.00/$2000.00 more than we budgeted. It also meant that we could not financially operate the way we had planned.

Even worse was the fact that the bank also charged us a higher interest rate from the very beginning of the loan contract than the agreed interest rate they promised to provide.

With the settlement not occurring until Fiona Cristian was in the midst of tightly scheduled renovations [September 19th 2005 - Bank staff, knowing we had seven weeks to complete renovations, caused two unexpected delayed settlements, the first for unknown reasons and the second due to house valuation expiring. Settlement finally occurred on 19th September 2005. Delayed settlements made it impossible to pay local trades-people on time causing loss of manpower and setting back the completion date by three weeks. Knowing we could not complete renovations on time, we tidied up outside of beach house and vacated the job-site. We incurred huge losses.], the skullduggery was not noticed, even while funds (fiat) were being drawn down from a remote location. It was not until the first payment was due on November 1st 2005 that the problem was noted. Both Fiona's husband, Arthur Cristian, and the Macquarie broker, immediately contacted Macquarie staff who admitted the mistake and said they would rectify the error.

James Angus was responsible for this switch. The bank tried to withdraw over $6000 from Fiona's ANZ bank account. This was $1500 to $2000 more than we expected to pay per calender month. We did not have extra money to cover these charges.

We contacted bank staff, which admitted the problem and agreed to fix it. Over a period of 6 months we kept telling the bank that we would not pay them any money to avoid validating this fraudulent contract and will only start paying them when we received the correct LOC loan contract (product) they agreed to supply. We kept contacting bank staff who kept admitting there was a problem but continued to do nothing about it for six months, bar offering twice to amend the contract to an interest only home loan at our request (we made no such request as we still wanted a line of credit). They then organised private contractors to change the locks on the house without prior warning, as their solicitors sent a letter to an address we had not resided at for nearly five months, even though we had been receiving other bank correspondence including 6 monthly bank statements at our new address. Holiday tenants were left locked out, forcing us to find and pay for alternative accomodation for them, late in the evening.

With help from contacts outraged by the actions of the bank, we reclaimed the house four weeks later in May 2006, by changing the locks. Less than two weeks later, one of our helpers, Joe Bryant, a well-known anti-bank campaigner, was shot through the hip and tortured for one and a half hours in his home by two masked men. He and his wife, both in their seventies, were hog-tied, gagged and left helpless. The culprits have still not been found. This event upset us greatly but left us more determined to fight for justice.

After being served a Statement of Claim for Possession in the Supreme Court of NSW - Case number 13403/06 - Common Law - by Perpetual Limited in July 2006, we have ended up fighting for our house, which we seem set to loose through no fault of our own. Our journey through the courts has been a huge learning experience, as we became self-litigants after our legal representation condoned fraud on the part of the banks and refused to act according to our best interests. "The Bank have tried everything to bully me into submission," Fiona Cristian said. "In May 2006, they greedily changed the locks on my house without warning, causing extreme stress until, with the help of friends, I changed the locks and continued my rights as the rightful owner of my home some weeks later." Up until this time, the Cristians were in regular communication with Macquarie staff trying to get them to provide the LOC product ordered and approved.

In the Perpetual Limited Statement of Claim, they are claiming their right to reclaim the house due to default of payments. The Plaintiff's Barrister, Steven Mark Golledge, another 3rd party contracted agent, readily admits in court that his client does not dispute the circumstances detailed in Fiona Cristian's Defence, Cross Claim and Affidavits thus far. The Perpetual Limited claim rests solely on the basis of default of payment and their legal rights over the registered mortgage. "The fact that the entire situation has occurred due to Macquarie Bank staff stuff ups is not a consideration for them," said Fiona Cristian to Justice Peter John Hidden. Outside of court, Fiona Cristian said, "It all comes down to the fact that I unknowingly signed a piece of paper that I never would have signed had I not been misled by the Notices of Loan Approval that arrived at the same time as the misleading and confusing Loan Documents."

"Why is it that Perpetual Limited and Macquarie Bank are immune from serious breaches of Trade Practice? If I ordered a Toyota Camry and was supplied with a Ford Falcon the dealer would be obligated to correct the error or cancel the contract. This is not the case when you are dealing with financial lending institutions. It appears that their financial power is God and they can do what they like to anyone. The fact is, this situation is just not fair but that does not seem to be an issue."

"Both the approval documents for the Macquarie Executive Choice Line of Credit and the Perpetual loan contract for the Macquarie Mortgage Saver Home Loan, were signed by James Angus clearly indicating that he is the only other 1st party to the loan contract besides us. It also tells us that he is the creator of the loan contract on behalf of Perpetual Limited as Manager of Operations and the creator of the approval documents for Macquarie Mortgages as Authorised Officer."

"In December 2005 and again in February 2006, we received letters from Perpetual offering to change the principal and interest product to an interest only product "at our request". We pointed out that we had not requested these changes and that we just wanted a new LOC contract reflecting the line of credit we had ordered and were approved for by Macquarie Bank. We told them that we were not willing to start making payments until they had supplied us with the LOC loan contract. To back all this up, we even supplied evidence to Perpetual of a Macquarie Newsflash Special Announcement To All Referrers (mortgage brokers/agents), stating," Effective as of Monday 15th July 2005 the Macquarie Executive Choice has been customised to a Line of Credit (LOC) loan product.""

"We did not sign the loan contract until 25th August 2005, James Angus had sent us three approvals to supply the LOC as well as an LOC settlement notice in September 2005 and another LOC approval in Dec 2005. How bizarre this company is. I even gave them copies of two Macquarie brochures, one for the Macquarie Executive Choice LOC and one for the product we never wanted Macquarie Mortgage Saver Home Loan. Both brochures clearly explain the differences between the two. Even though the evidence we have is cut and dried, clear as daylight, they just keep ignoring the truth and prefer to lie, cheat and continue the collusion.

In court representing Fiona as her Power of Attorney, Arthur asked various Judges on various occasions "What came first, the agreement or the loan contract?" They still won't answer this question! Arthur also stated "Can a mortgage come into existence without a cause for its existence? Can a loan contract come into existence without a cause for its existence? These questions of Arthur's are no different to saying "Can a child be created without the exchange of male sperm and female egg". Isn't it clearly obvious that it was the agreement between the first parties that caused a loan contract to come into existence to reflect the agreement of the 1st parties! Arthur has stated over and over again that many NSW Supreme Court Judges are ignoring the bank fraud to protect the bank at all costs so that no court precedent could be established that would open up the floodgates for tens of thousands of other Australian families and business operators seeking justice for being victims of bank fraud. In Arthur's estimation, he now feels that it is more than likelt that 100,000 cases of bank fraud have occured in Australia since the late 1960's. Also of interest is how all mainstream media has kept a wall of silence most of the time.

"In writing, Fiona said to the plaintiff, "At the time of signing the loan contract, what were we thinking we were receiving as a product?" and "If we actually knew the trouble that we were getting into, do you think we would have signed the loan contract?" To this day we still have not received a reply to either question. We were tricked, bamboozled, lied too, misled, seduced, coerced and cheated by Macquarie Mortgages Pty Limited ABN 23 057 760 178 and to add further salt to the wound this company (Macquarie Mortgages Pty Limited) does not exist and the ABN number (23 057 760 178) is not valid either".

Fiona Cristian continued, "Now Perpetual Limited is complaining about the delays caused by my lack of legal representation and knowledge, but the situation could have been resolved before the end of November 2005 had Macquarie Bank so desired. Every time I go to court I am pressured to get the situation resolved, but I am determined to continue pushing for the time I need to present my case properly and deal with the challenge issued by this multi-billion dollar beast. I do not have eight hours a day to work on my case; my young children take up most of my time and my pregnancy tires me. I am forced to defend myself as I am unable to find legal representation willing to take on a large financial institution at the level I want to take them on."

Beside the pressure to get to judgment, there have also been some strange goings on: on one occasion Fiona arrived in court expecting to go before the Duty Judge, as per the orders given by Justice Malpass, only to find that the matter had been put back before the Registrar. "No attempts were made to inform me," explains Fiona. "On a second occasion, when Arthur arrived at 4.45pm to file some documents for the next days appearance before Registrar Howe, firstly the clerk could not access the file because someone else had blocked it off and when finally the female clerk was able to get in to the file, Arthur was told that there was no longer a listing with Registrar Howe for the following day. Again, there was no attempt to inform us, and we currently have no date set for proceedings to continue. We also have suspicions that our phones and internet connection are bugged, something we are currently investigating.

Even stranger is the fact that Fiona was originally served documents in July under Common Law Division, the official record of proceedings states "Common Law" all the way through and Fiona received confirmation from Justice Hidden on 15th November that the proceedings were being heard in the Common Law Division, yet the stamped court Judgment of the same date states "Equity".
"Under Constitutional Law, Common Law and Equity Law are very different," explains Fiona. "It is only due to statutes pushed through by private corporations that the two have merged. How can they be running a case under one law and making judgements under another? They seem to make up the rules on the run to suit themselves." [Note: The Commonwealth of Australia is a registered private corporation in the USA and so are all Federal and State Government departments including the NSW Supreme Court, Supreme Court Judges, Barristers, Lawyers, The NSW Bar and inludes all NSW & Federal politicians.]

In another example of the plaintiff's habit of twisting the facts, their third party contracted agent Barrister Golledge insisted that Fiona Cristian's property was an investment property when in fact Fiona Cristian pointed out in court that she has lived in this property for more than 15 months within the last three years, that she is not liable for capital gains tax and does not own or have any interest in any other property. How did the third party interloping contractor barrister claim to have grounds that allowed him to dictate terms of a contract that Fiona and Arthur Cristian never agreed to? Was he party to the contract when it was signed?

Fiona and Arthur have also been investigating the plaintiff's legal firm. The banks legal representatives as detailed on court records "Dibbs Abbott Stillman Lawyers" states an ABN number 84 338 278 574 that exists only for DIBBS ABBOTT STILLMAN, a completely different entity. Dibbs Abbott Stillman Lawyers is not a registered business in NSW and operates without an ACN number as well. However DIBBS ABBOTT STILLMAN LAWYERS is registered in Western Australia BN103258827 and also shows an ASIC (Australian Securities Investment Commission) NRGD "Not Registered" "Non Company" status. This ASIC NRGD status also includes the banks contracted 3rd party agent Barrister Steven Mark Golledge as S M GOLLEDGE 062061885.

In spite of numerous protests, on Wednesday 15th November, Justice Hidden made a judgment in favour of Perpetual Limited, but Fiona is not giving up yet. On the contrary, "We are only just beginning" said Fiona." I was only granted a 21-day Stay, instead of the usual 28 days, but I have submitted documents to obtain a further stay so I can continue the investigations we have begun into Contract Law and Corporation Law."

Lack of duty of care and due consideration shown by the bank and its agents in neglecting to supply the correct product have taken a huge toll on the lives of the Cristian family. Through discovery, the evidence now coming to light concerning all banks (Specifically Perpetual Limited - Macquarie Mortgages Pty Limited and Macquarie Bank) solicitors & barristers (The Legal Profession) is clearly an incontrovertible postulation so evident and extent that it requires no proof and therefore has to be considered factual. In the interest of the public and in the interest of justice, Fiona Cristian demands that this wrongful judgment for a writ of possession be immediately struck out and rescinded.

The grounds we are seeking relief are

1. Under the Contracts Review Act - Unconscionable Conduct

2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation

3. Negligence Misrepresentation

4. Incompetence

5. Tort of deceit

6. Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act

7. Under the Real Property Act - S24

8. Under the Consumer Credit Act Section 36

Through their experiences of the legal system thus far, the Cristians have realised the extent to which the corruption of all our systems is affecting the lives of Australians. This has led them to start the Love for Life Campaign, in a call to all Australians to stand united against the disease of corruption currently affecting all our lives.

LEGAL TERMINOLOGY
What The Bank and The Legal System Have Done To Fiona and Arthur Cristian

"For those who understand legal terms, they mendaciously and wilfully created a false perjured brief which they submitted in collusion to the court as evidence against us. It was seriocomic in that it was laughable in its ridiculousness but deadly serious and dangerous at the same time. They conjured up an imaginary legal profess contract based on their poetic, artistic licence. Clearly this was licenciapoetic aruum (which means the legal right to tell lies), by creating a contract as an interloping intermeddling third party. This is a miracle contract based on black-magic because it was authored without us being involved, informed or without our agreement or knowledge (absent reo). We were absent reo (we weren't there). They often convict Australians in absence without them being in court. This is how they show compulsive vindictiveness. This type of legal profession miracle requires thoumaturge (someone who solves devious miracles with legal profession riddles), a promiscuous solicitor/lawyer/barrister prepared to prostitute their profession habitually. It is very traditional classic asmodeus (hebraic demonology legal science) inflicted on public victims constantly."

To précis a long series of court visits up to 29.01.07, following are the main events: on

15/11/06, Justice Hidden ignored unarguable evidence of fraud and ordered a writ of possession without determining the family’s cross claim (that the contract was invalid and void) and saying the case was still continuing (interlocutory).

05/12/06, Registrar Howe ignored two notices of motion for a stay on the writ of possession and on the 14.12.06 he dismissed them, despite Arthur (acting as Power of Attorney for Fiona) insisting repeatedly that he had evidence to prove that the bank had conducted fraud and that the matter needed to go before a judge. Registrar Howe refused.

22/12/06, Justice Beasley, of the Court of Appeal, admitted there was a problem with bank’s contract, and then made an offer of inducement, a conditional stay on the writ if all outstanding interest were paid. Arthur accused her of blackmail and refused the offer, which would only validate the contract, protect the bank and establish a precedent.

21/12/06, Justice Simpson and again on 19/01/07, Justice McDougal, ignored all evidence, bulldozed ahead and refused to issue stays on the writ.

The Supreme Court issued the writ on 08.01.07 and the Sheriffs have been instructed to take possession of the family’s home from 29.01.07, after the writ has been sitting in their office for 21 days.

Along the way bewildered by the rapid escalation of a seemingly simple problem with a seemingly simple solution (issue a new contract), we have been learning about the financial system, the legal system, and the way Australia is governed. We have discovered private corporations run Australia and that these private corporations will protect one another to the detriment of justice, fairness, equality and freedom for all citizens.

We thought our problem would be easy to fix but the bank wouldn’t sort it out. We thought the courts would sort it out but we discovered that they are a private corporation only interested in protecting another private corporation. We thought barristers and lawyers would sort it out but we discovered that many of them are private corporations too, and not interested in taking on a bank.

5th March 2007, We filed Court of Appeal documents in the Supreme Court and have begun a national email campaign to send three documents to all Australian Federal and State Government ministers, senators and representatives, all private corporations as well. We have also emailed the documents to the Governments of Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Vanuatu, Indonesia, Solomon Islands and Malaysia. We consider some of the information we filed in the court of appeal are like atomic bombs to the Judiciary, Politicians and Internationalised Banksters. We are withholding from uploading these particular documents in our website until the appropriate time. However, some of the information can be found in the Latest Updates/Diary/News section in this website. Our next hearing is on Monday 2nd April 2007 in the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal. We are determined to stop the bank from selling our home and to reclaim it.

2nd April 2007

Below is a copy of the 2nd April 2007 court of appeal judgment transcript. Arthur went before President Mason and Justice Handley. We will get a copy of the court/hearing transcript ASAP and post it in this website. They rejected our leave to appeal and the bank now has the clear-way to sell Fiona's family home. When permission is granted we will post all the Judeo-Judaic documents we filed in the court of appeal white folder 1. Summary of Claimants Argument 2. Claimants Reply.

The judges decision was scripted/decided before our hearing. They had their law book already marked out with a precedent (see judgment transcript below) to validate their scripted decision. They were only interested in sussing out what we know and allowed Arthur to talk well beyond the rules of 20 minutes. Arthur knew this and was happy to accommodate. Arthur talked for nearly 1 hour.

The Arrogance of the Judeo-Judaic Law is what we keep coming up against. They can't afford to admit or concede that there is a fault with their Law. The slightest crack in their wall and the whole wall will collapse. Even with the failure of the 8 points of contract law which determines a valid contract, the Judges ignored our legal rights. I went over the Credit River case, how Australia was bankrupted and the gold standard was removed, how we had unarguable proof how banks create money (legal tender-fiat) out of thin air-on their books etc etc. This is what they did not want to see happen/reactivated in the common law court with our case. They now know we can argue against their best barristers and beat them.

They were offering an olive leaf inducement by suggesting we could claim damages. In the meantime they are determined to sell Fiona's home and an Auction sign for May 2007 has been erected outside the house. Well, now we are off to the High Court while we launch the Psychic Reign Music and begin to market it.

Note: All outstanding court, legal and bank costs have been constantly awarded against us by many judges condoning the fraud, and when you add the interest payments (for money/credit-creation that came out of thin air), we are facing a bill that is enormous for us but is trifling for a multi billion dollar corporation. We can't pay this bill and our many years of working to build equity in this home, have come to nothing. At the end of the line, Fiona stands to be bankrupted by the bank as well.

JUDGMENT TRANSCRIPT - 2nd APRIL 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40839/06

MASON P
HANDLEY AJA

Monday 2 April 2007

FIONA CAROLINE CRISTIAN v PERPETUAL LIMITED, FORMERLY KNOWN AS PERPETUAL TRUSTEE AUSTRALIA LIMITED, (ACN 000431827)

JUDGMENT

1 MASON P: We have heard fuller than usual argument in support of an application for leave to appeal. The argument has been presented in written form and through the oral submissions of Mr Cristian, who is the husband of the claimant and has spoken on her behalf.

2 The matter before the court today is whether to grant leave to appeal against the orders pronounced by Hidden J on 15 November 2006. His Honour ordered that the defendant give the plaintiff possession of certain land and that the plaintiff have leave to issue a writ of possession. He made an order for costs. He directed that the matter be listed for further directions before the Registrar for the outstanding matters that were to be addressed in the proceedings.

3 In his reasons Hidden J stated that,

“The simple fact is that a loan contract was entered into for a certain amount of principal at a certain interest rate. The mortgage was signed consistent with that loan contract and to secure repayment of the loan with interest. It is common ground that there has been default in that no payment has ever been made, and in those circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for possession.”
4 It was clear to his Honour, as it is clear to me, that the claimant wants to agitate a wide ranging set of issues against the opponent and, it would appear, third parties, including the broker/agent who was involved in the transaction.

5 Mr Cristian has made allegations of fraud, unconscionable dealing and misrepresentation. Some of these appear to be foreshadowed in the document called, First Cross-Claim Cross-Summons, dated 30 October 2006 that was before Hidden J. Other matters were foreshadowed in affidavits that were read before his Honour and no doubt in the submissions put to his Honour.

6 It is not disputed that a mortgage was signed and registered. It is not disputed that various formalities under the Conveyancing Act 1919 concerning the exercise of the mortgagee’s rights were complied with. It is not disputed that the mortgagee paid money and arranged for the discharge of an existing mortgage over the subject property.

7 In Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia (1972) 126 CLR 161 at 164-5, Walsh J gave a judgment which received the approval of the High Court on appeal (see 126 CLR at 168-9). His Honour said this:

“In my opinion, the authorities which I have been able to examine establish that for the purpose of the application of the general rule to which I have referred, nothing short of actual payment is regarded as sufficient to extinguish a mortgage debt. If the debt has not been actually paid, the Court will not, at any rate as a general rule, interfere to deprive the mortgagee of the benefit of his security, except upon terms that an equivalent safeguard is provided to him, by means of the plaintiff bringing in an amount sufficient to meet what is claimed by the mortgagee to be due.

The benefit of having a security for a debt would be greatly diminished if the fact that a debtor has raised claims for damages against the mortgagee were allowed to prevent any enforcement of the security until after the litigation of those claims had been completed.”

8 Mr Justice Walsh did not state an absolute rule and one cannot overlook that fact. Nevertheless, I see nothing on what has been put to us today or was put before Hidden J to take the case outside of the general principle.

9 Mr Cristian has indicated that various claims are intended to be brought, presumably in what remains of the present proceedings in the Common Law Division. The order and judgment of Hidden J does not prevent those matters being litigated in the Supreme Court.

10 In my view, his Honour would have been in error if he had not granted summary judgment for possession in the circumstances here prevailing.

11 The dispute that is foreshadowed as to the possible misunderstanding or possible misrepresentation - I stress possible - as to the full effect of the loan contract cannot remove the fact that the document was signed and registered and became the basis of the relationship between the parties.

12 If a claim based on misrepresentation or fraud or unconscientious dealing is to be litigated then so be it. But the law, as I understand it, is clear that a party that succeeds on such a claim will be required to give counter-restitution and to repay any benefit that was received in consequence of the transaction that he or she seeks to impugn. The rule stated by Walsh J is in one sense an aspect of that more fundamental principle.

13 Mr Cristian foreshadowed arguments based upon the nature of legal tender in this country. I do not consider those arguments have any merit. They certainly raise nothing relevant to the matter that is before this Court.

14 I propose that leave to appeal against the orders of Hidden J made on 15 November 2006 be refused and that the summons before this court be dismissed with costs.

15 HANDLEY AJA: I agree.

16 MASON P: That is the order of the court.