How do you know I’m mad? said Alice.
1. Amended Defence
3. Justice Beech-Jones
1. Amended Defence
04.12.13 – Commissioner of NSW Police Force
The documents or things you must produce are as follows:
Records of ‘Event no. 46832048 from Friday 20 January 2012’, and any other records on the police files under the name of ‘Amir Bodenstein – DOB: 17 May 1961’, from the 20 January 2012 until 1 December 2013.
Date of return: 22 January 2014
(served on 05.12.13 – 8.20 pm, Superintendent ‘Mick’ Fitzgerald, Community Meeting, Rex Center, Kings Cross)
04.12.13 – Homeless Persons’ Legal Service
The documents or things you must produce are as follows:
All records that are related to ‘Amir Bodenstein – DOB: 17 May 1961’, from the 20 January 2012 until 30 November 2013.
Date of return: 22 January 2014
(served on 06.12.13 – 1.30 pm, PIAC, Level 7, 173-5 Philip Street & 10.12.13 – 11.40, HPLS, Mathew Talbot Hostel)
04.12.13 – Hope Street Urban Compassion
You are required to produce the following documents or things to the court:
All written reports by Hope Street Urban Compassion’s staff member as mentioned in the letter of an unknown date by Mr Warren Cardwell – interim CEO to the plaintiff, C/ Tom Uren Square.
All other records in which the plaintiff is being mentioned and/or is part of.
Date of return: 3 February 2014
(served on 06.12.13 – 1.20 pm, McCabes, Level 14, 130 Elizabeth Street, Sydney)
10.12.13 – Return date
Please make sure that you have the copy of the ‘noticed to produce’ with the return date of our coming directions on 3 February 2013, which was written & sign by Judge McCallum.
Merry Christmas, Amir Bodenstein
And I believe that her intention were: at 9.00 am.
Happy New Year, Amir
10.12.13 – Privilege to be waived
I am writing in response to your subpoena. We are happy to produce those documents, but I was hoping to speak to you as I need to make sure you realise that if we produce these documents, you will be waiving your legal privilege in relation to all matters in the documents. If you are happy for your privilege to be waived, it would be good to have your signed consent to do so.
Could you please give me a call and we can discuss further?
10.12.13 – Waive my legal privilege
I hereby give my consent to wave my legal privilege in relation to all matters in the documents of my Subpoena of: 4 December 2013.
23.12.13 – The majority of documents
We refer to the Notice to Produce issued by you on our client dated 4 December 2013 (the Notice). We note that the Notice is returnable on 3 February 2014 at 12pm.
We direct your attention to paragraph 3 of the Notice which requires our client to produce “all other records in which [you are] being mentioned and/or is part of”.
In our respectful opinion, paragraph 3 is too broad and ambiguous. The majority of documents sought are likely to be irrelevant to the current proceedings.
Please confirm that the plaintiff will accept production of documents in accordance with paragraph 3 re-drafted as follows:
“All records in which the plaintiff is mentioned and/or is part of which relate directly to the incident on 20 January 2012”.
We will otherwise arrange compliance with the remaining items in the schedule to the Notice by the due date.
We look forward to hearing from you in relation to the above.
23.12.13 – Non compliance
Please be advised that Justice McCallum had strike out paragraph 2 of the Notice, and signed on paragraph 1, 3 and the return date, all to the effect of: ‘your client is required to produce all documents, part of the Poster, by 3 February 2014 at 12 pm’.
I believe that Justice McCallum was clear and fully aware, when she signed on the particulars of the other 2 subpoenas and your client’s Notice.
If your client believes that Justice McCallum was wrong and wish to make changes, your client should consider seeking a relief from a Judge, otherwise your client might be in a ‘non compliance’ with Justice McCallum’s order.
03.02.14 – Hon Beech-Jones J
1. First Defendant to file Amended Defence in 2 weeks.
2. Arguments regarding disposition to the District Court.
18.02.14 – Amended Defense
18.02.14 – Good afternoon, all
Good afternoon, all,
To facilitate the disposition of all contested matters during the Defamation List in the week of 3 March 2014, the judge conducting the list, Beech –Jones J, has made the following directions in respect of all matters listed:
1. Any party seeking any substantive interlocutory order which they reasonably anticipate will be contested, or any party seeking to resist an order that the proceedings be transferred to the District Court, is to send (by email) to his Honour’s associate an outline of submissions no longer than four pages by midday on Wednesday, 26 February 2014, and to serve it on the other parties; and
2. All other parties are to send to his Honour’s associate an outline of submissions in response which is not to exceed three pages by midday on Friday, 28 February 2014.
Mari Finter | Associate to the Hon Justice Beech-Jones
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Tel: 9230 8740 | Fax: 8113 6591
26/28.02.14 – Re: 13/0116865 Bodenstein v Hope Street Urban Compassion
1. I am Amir Bodenstein (‘AB’) the Plaintiff in AB -v- First Defendant: Hope Street Urban Compassion Inc (‘HSUC’) & Second Defendant: Mr George Vlamakis (‘GV’).
2. The two alleged imputations firstly occurred on Friday the 20 January 2012, around 2.20 pm at the HSUC’s Back Shed Cafe (‘BSC’), Woolloomooloo, Sydney, and they were allegedly made by GV who was a Community Development Coordinator while AB was a Volunteer for HSUC which is a faith- based organisation.
3. The first imputation consists of an allegation that AB stole GV’s phone, and the second imputation consists of an allegation that AB made repeated death threats towards GV, all of which were recorded in: a police event, incident reports drafted by GV, and other documents and forms of publication.
4. The alleged imputations are criminal offences, namely the stealing of the phone which is a theft felony and the repeated death threats which are a common assault felony, both of which may carry a Criminal Conviction with a maximum of 7 years imprisonment and of which AB deems as carrying a heavy sting of Defamation Substance.
5. On 18 January 2013 AB commenced this proceeding for Defamation with a Statement of Claim followed by an Amended Statement, and on 6 June 2013 HSUC filed a Defence and it came before his Hon Campbell J, following AB’s Notice of Motion to make HSUC a substituted service for GV and a referral for AB to the Pro Bono Panel.
6. On 7 July 2013 his Hon Campbell J referred AB to a conference with a barrister through the Pro Bono Panel scheme, a short conference of which took place due to the kindness of Counsel Pouyan Ashsar, and his Hon left the option open for further assistance to AB by the Pro Bono Panel scheme with no need to reapply.
7. On 25 September 2013 at the HSUC’s BSC, AB handed GV a copy of the Amended Statement of Claim of 15 February 2013, while saying to GV: “you have been served” to which GV said “is this is mine” to which AB said “yes it is yours”.
8. On 2 December 2013 following a Notice of Motion to strike out filed by HSUC, the matter was brought in front of her Hon McCallum J, the alleged two imputations became clear to HSUC, and her Hon instructed AB a time line relating to Subpoenas.
9. During that same Hearing AB requested Hon McCallum J in accordance with his Notice of Motion of 17 June 2013, to make HSUC an official and formal address service for GV, and her Hon stated that GV: “would be in default and judgment could be entered against him without further notice.”
10. During that same Hearing her Hon McCallum J informed AB that in respect of the marketing material in the form of a poster: “that is a discrete application and since it is now almost 4.20 pm, I do not have time, nor it is appropriate in the way in which it has been brought forward, to deal in this list.”
11. On 4 December 2013 her Hon McCallum J granted AB a leave to Subpoena and Notice to Produce records from: HSUC, NSW Police Force and Homeless Legal Service, all of which complied except that of HSUC which was notified by AB that it might be non compliant with its Notice to Produce.
12. On 18 February 2014 HSUC filed an Amended Defence, which claimed that the publications of the alleged imputations are under privilege of an Employer and NSW Police Force and that the alleged imputations are Substantially True, and on the 28 February 2014 AB will file a Notice of Motion.
Arguments against Disposition
13. It is 2 years and 1 month since the two alleged imputations were first published, 1 year and 1 month since the Statement of Claim was filed, and the coming Hearing on 3 March 2014 is to be the last one before the Call Over.
14. The Plaintiff still lives in the same circumstances as 2 years ago, the HSUC’s precinct is a prominent part of his life, and after HSUC’s Amended Defence of 18 February 2014 the alleged imputations are now more applicable than before.
15. The Plaintiff is self represented in this Case, which necessitates the utmost efficient and diligent supervision of the proceedings by the highest available Court, also faces the challenge of not favoring the Plaintiff because he is poor.
16. The District Court is a mix of Criminal and Civil proceedings, while the Court Building of the Supreme Court on Phillip Street is mainly for Civil litigation, and the Plaintiff is already over exposed to criminal environment in his daily life.
17. Between 2002 to 2010, the Plaintiff had an on- going cases in front of the Supreme, Federal and High Courts, and since January 2013 with this proceedings, all of which at the Court Building on Phillip Street, Sydney.
18. The Plaintiff lives on the streets of Sydney for the last five years, and the surroundings of the Supreme Court Building are his most comfortable zone, as he also enjoys the nearby free food supply and his Pro Bono barber at Martin Place.
19. All the Plaintiff’s fees of this proceedings were postponed due to his financial hardship, his debt to the Supreme Court will exceed $2000, and any Disposition might cause accounting bureaucratic complications.
20. This matter was often in front of the Registrar, 2 times in front of a Judge, and because the Plaintiff is self represented most of his dealings were with the Duty Registrar, none of which raised the Disposition spring until now.
21. A few of the Plaintiff’s witnesses have experiences with the District Court, mostly in relation to Criminal offences, and the Plaintiff believes that they would be more reluctant to appear if the matter were moved to the District Court.
22. The Case contains a complex set of legal issues in relation to privileges by an Employer and the NSW Police Force, with a particular of an alleged defamed Volunteer, and with a Defence of Substantial Truth regarding criminal offences.
23. The Plaintiff himself had some unpleasant experiences with the Discreet Court on several occasions, most of which were in a personal criminal context, which also involved him escorting a few of his mates to the District Criminal Court.
24. This matter is of a general public importance because the Plaintiff believes that one should know, that there is no more who will see or who will know, when one comes to use his superior power to falsely incriminate other fellowmen.
Relief Sought from his Hon Beach-Jones J
25.That the matter be stood over to the Defamation List of her Hon Motion Judge, for 1 hour Hearing on 3 March 2014 or any other day at her pleasure, and thus to move forward the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion of 28 February 2014.
28.02.14 – Notice of Motion
1. A Leave for the Plaintiff to file an Amended Statement of Claim on 10 March 2014.
2. An Order that the First Defendant will comply with the Notice to Produce of 4 December 2013.
3. A Leave for the Plaintiff to file a further Notice to Produce on the First Defendant on 3 March 2014.
4. A Leave for the Plaintiff to file a further Subpoena on NSW Police Force on 3 March 2014.
5. An Order that the First Defendant keep the poster marketing material as an Exhibit.
6. Setting the 7 April 2014 or any other near date for a Call Over.
7. Such further or any other Orders that this Honourable Court chooses to apply.
28.02.14 – Affidavit in Support
1. On 4 January 2010, I was found guilty of a Common Assault at Waverley Court House, and I was convicted with S10a with no other penalty.
2. Since 2010 I reside in and around Woolloomooloo, and I had few incidents with NSW Police Force also with the involvement of Constable Meredith, who was the Police Officer in charge of: ‘Police Event no. 46832048’.
3. On 11 November 2013, I sent an email to Ms Felicity Coonan: “Please remove ASAP my photo from your exhibition at the above Charity’s premises.”
4. On 15 November 2013, I received a reply from Ms Coonan: “We don’t want anyone to ever feel uncomfortable about their portraits, but I really do feel your photo and story are so lovely, please let us know if you change your mind.”
5. On 23 December 2013, I received an email from the First Defendant in relation to its Notice to Produce: “The majority of documents sought are likely to be irrelevant to the current proceedings.”
6. On 23 December 2013, I replied to the First Defendant: “I believe that Justice McCallum was clear and fully aware, when she signed on the particulars of the other 2 subpoenas and your client’s Notice.”
7. From 2 February 2014, I viewed the documents that were produce by: HSUC, Homeless Legal Service and NSW Police Force, all of which contains some new information.
Subject: Bodenstein v Hopestreet Urban Compassion; Supreme Court Proceedings 2013/16865
I refer to the above matter. Please find attached the first defendant’s outline of submissions served in response to the plaintiff’s submissions dated 26 February 2014.
Please also find attached the unreported judgments referred to in the submissions.
My instructing solicitor will provide these documents to the plaintiff today.
Ph: (02) 9220 9821
Fax: (02) 9210 0633
Mob: 0414 302 180
3. Justice Beech-Jones
ADD SCROLLING DOCUMENT HERE