38. 2004 – Statement of Claim

Woe to him who gets evil gain for his house, to set his nest on high, to be safe from the reach of harm.


1. Police and fire brigade
2. Police report
3. Lawful access
4. Apprehended violence order
5. Statement of claim

1. Police and fire brigade

On 8 April 2004, I noticed that some work is being carried out in the premises and because I was still lawfully entitled to enter the premises I wanted to see if maybe finally they were willing to rectify the problem with the wall.

This was the  first  time that I attempted to enter the premises since Mr. Vokelatous changed the lock of the front door.

Inside I saw Mr. Vokelatous’s tradesperson Greg Barnes who presented himself as a council contractor, and another worker.

At that stage I wanted  Sydney Council officials officers to inspect the preemies as I had concerns about the solutions for the structural problems that were advised by  Mr. Johnston but they requested the police to prevent my entry to the premises and invited the fire brigade. (Ex. 1-10, p 406-415).       

2. Police report

On 8April 2004, my eviction is “not applicable”, Event No. 20040444  (Ex. JA 1-3, p 498-500).

This event bears out my legal right to enter the premises.

Mr. Vokelatous’s tradesmen told the police that Sydney City Council had contracted them.`

“who has been contracted by City of Sydney Council to secure the structure’s damage”

“Police have spoken with POI 1 (myself) and POI 2 (a friend of mine) who stated that there is a current Lease in place and therefore will not and are not required to leave the premises. POI 1 has produced a document from the Land Titles office stating that the Lease he holds on the premises is current until 2007. Police have spoken with the Land Titles Office who has confirmed that the Lease held by POI 1 of the premises is current, therefore his wanted eviction by POI 3 is not applicable.”           

3. Lawful access

On 15April 2004, I rightly had access to the property, Event No. 20657449 (Ex. JB 1-2, p 501-502).

“ongoing dispute between the POI – being a tenant who was evicted last June – and the Informant who is renovating the property on behalf of the Sydney City Council.”

“The POI rightly had access to the property until PM when he was given an updated document from the Department of Lands stating that he was no longer on the Lease.”

4. Apprehended violence order

On 10 December 2004, Mr. Vokelatous and his family were granted at the local court, an AVO against me for twelve months. (Ex. EO 1, EP 1,EP 1,p 214-216).

On 23rd November 2004, I received through Glebe Police Station a complaint and a summons to appear at Balmain Local Court for the hearing of an application for an AVO against me.

In the complaint Mr. Vokelatous requested an AVO to protect him, his wife and his children from me.

i           Mr. Vokelatous declared

“The complainant leased a commercial property, located in Glebe, to Mr. Vokelatous for a period of 17 months… Mr. Vokelatous was locked out of the property in June 2003”.

“Since that time (June 2003) Mr. Vokelatous has been the victim of harassing telephone calls to his home telephone number and abuse whenever Mr. Vokelatous has seen him enter the commercial property. The harassment continued until March 2004, when the complainant traveled overseas ”

“The harassing telephone calls continued while he was away culminating in the complainant’s wife reporting the incident to the Police vide Event Nos 20657449 on 15th April 2004 & 20186275 on 19th April 2004.”

“The calls stopped and recently started up again on his return in September 2004. In September 2004 the complainant received a telephone call during this time when Mr. Vokelatous said, “if you don’t talk to me I will get you. You will see what will happen to you.”

“On 11/11/04 at approximately 4pm the complainant entered the Glebe property and Mr. Vokelatous who works next door yelled out to him “You are a crook. I will see you in court. I’m going to put a caveat on your property.”

ii          Until May 2004 I did not know that Mr. Vokelatous resided in Sydney or his telephone number. (Ex. HI 1, p 405).

On 25 May 2004, when I received under my request of Freedom of Information from Sydney City Council a photocopy of a fax that was sent from the building service and planning policy with Mr. Vokelatous regarding rectification details. On that document was written Mr. Vokelatous’s  phone number and address and I did not have it before I received the document.

From the time I entered the Lease till June 2004 I didn’t even know Mr. Vokelatous had come back to live in Australia and no longer resided at his hotel in Lefka Island, Greece.

iii        There is no mention of harassment in the police report because it did not occur. (Ex. JA JB, JC p 498-503).

These allegations that Mr. Vokelatous’s wife (Join Defendant) had reported the incident to the police are not born out in any of the police reports, which do not mention her name at all. In fact those police events reports dealt only with Mr. Vokelatous’s lawyer and tradesmen in theirs  attempts  to prevent my entry  to the premises site.

iv        After I have noticed that someone had entered the site I called for the first time to the  Defendant’s  home in Sydney.

In this call I only succeeded to tell Mr. Vokelatous , “ if you  won’t talk with me it doesn’t mean that I will disappear”. This phone call lasted less than 20 seconds as Mr. Vokelatous  hung up the phone.

On 21st September 2004 I sent a fax to Mr. Vokelatous and his lawyer, Mr. Cassimatis, concerning the matter. (Ex. Ek 1p 210).

At the listing of the AVO summons, Mr. Vokelatous did not have witnesses and he claimed that: I bombarded him with faxes, I shouted at him that he is a crock and that I took  pictures of him.  

As Mr. Vokelatous did not have questions to me ,the Judge questioned me and I said words to the effect of “ I send Mr. Vokelatous 3 faxes, I took pictures of the preemies and he appears in one picture and  I said to Mr. Vokelatous that he is a crock”.

As the Judge realized after quite a while that we were summons for listing and not for the hearing we were asked if we are willing to continue in to the hearing.

5. Statement of claim