Garth Eaton

Garth Eaton - prosecutor in the criminal prosecution of Justice Spender and Others.

Garth Eaton represented a group of Australian investors who were defrauded by an inventor purporting to be the sole author of a mechanical car parking design.

The Europark System was a fully automated mechanical car parking system which was developed by Garth Eaton’s Companies, Staff and Franchisees over a period of nearly five years.  They contributed over A$4,000,000 to its development.

The technology was also funded, in part, through the awarding of the highest Australian Export Market Development Grant (A$250,000) in 1993, plus World Bank funding (US$1,000,000) in 1991, provided to the European manufacturers contracted under Agreement by Eaton’s Companies.

What followed was a nightmare involving the fraudulent conduct of an inventor, Government bungling, Judicial corruption and cover-ups which destroyed years of work and millions of dollars invested.
 

It has been said that the abuse of Judicial Office is ‘a crime more heinous than murder’.

As this website unfolds, readers will be confronted with the conduct of an Australian Federal Court Judge, Justice Spender, who sat as Trial Judge in a Matter brought against Garth Eaton, his Companies, his Directors, his Staff, his Franchisees and his Investors by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in May 1996.

In the Judgment brought down by Justice Spender, ten months after Trial, he referred to Garth Eaton as a ‘glib grandiloquent rogue’.

It is difficult to understand why a Federal Court Judge, by making such a remark, would effectively step from a Bench to demean not only himself but the Australian Judiciary. But then, our Jeffrey Spender is a notorious street-fighter.  He is no ordinary Judge.  He is a former criminal Prosecutor who came from that side of the tracks which more often than not would prevent any Prosecutor from penetrating the ‘Establishment’.

And so, his excessively aggressive profile made him the right man for a job that required him to blatantly abuse his Judicial Office in order to protect Officers within the ACCC.  Protecting them meant preventing the likelihood of an unliquidated damages Class Action being brought against the ACCC by Garth Eaton, Directors, Staff, Franchisees and Investors.

In contrast to Justice Spender’s description of Garth Eaton, he described the fraudulent inventor, Willem Van Der Horst (former employee of Eaton and then Complainant to the ACCC) as a ‘decent and honest witness.’

And yet, during the course of Trial, the Judge had sufficient evidentiary material before him, in both written and oral form, to clearly determine that Willem Van Der Horst had perjured himself no less than sixteen (16) times.  The Brief of Evidence, supporting subsequent criminal charges brought against the Judge, defines the material which determines these areas of Perjury (Giving False Testimony) and will be made available to bona fide interested parties.

Three months after the Judge declared Garth Eaton a glib grandiloquent rogue and Willem Van Der Horst a decent and honest witness, Van Der Horst was finally charged by CIB Officers under Section 427 of the Queensland Criminal Code ‘False Pretences’ (49 charges).  This was the result of State Police working closely with Eaton’s Group for over three years.

A decent and honest witness, Justice Spender??  And you knew of these impending charges during Trial.

Six months later in October 1997 Justice Spender’s influence over the Director of Public Prosecutions caused these charges to be dropped.

Van Der Horst could be forgiven for believing he was now immune to criminal prosecution.  With this new-found power, an already violent and mentally unbalanced man decided to take on the world with what he considered to be the personal endorsement of his conduct by a Federal Court Judge.  An endorsement which served to encourage and heighten his violence. 

In April 1999 Willem Van Der Horst was savagely stabbed to death by his business partner, Marten Dol.  But was this man the only killer?

Could it be said that Jeffrey Ernest John Spender (Federal Court Judge), Alan Ducret (Regional Director of ACCC), Terence John Guthrie (then Assistant Director of ACCC) and Peter John Toy (then Principal Solicitor of AGS) contributed substantially to the murder of Willem Van Der Horst?  Would this be drawing such a long bow, given their support for the unlawful and violent conduct of the victim; support that caused the uncontrollable escalation of his violence to a point where it became intolerable to his murderer?
 
Now, let’s break up the criminally defaming remark, ‘glib grandiloquent rogue’.


Glib

It became obvious during the Trial that the Judge had little or no experience within the arena of Patenting.  Because of Garth Eaton’s knowledge of Patenting and Intellectual Property matters, it was he who examined and cross-examined all witnesses. 

He continually used the term ‘mechanical advantage’ when referring to design enhancements.  This term is used widely by Patent Attorneys simply because there is no point in lodging a Provisional Patent if a mechanical advantage cannot be clearly identified.  A mechanical device may have a number of mechanical advantages over an existing Patented product, or expired Patent.  These features are then enshrined in a Provisional Patent.

The following has been taken from the Transcript of Trial.

HIS HONOUR:   Unless there be any misunderstanding about this, are you saying that you cannot have a patent for an improvement on an existing patent?

MR. VAN DER HORST:   That’s correct.  Oh, you probably know better, your Honour, but that is what I’ve been told, and in fact Vihorlat was nice enough to show it to me.

MR. EATON:     Mr. Van Der Horst, you are an engineer?

MR. VAN DER HORST:  Yes.

MR. EATON:     Are you aware that it is common practice for a lot of engineering shops to investigate the substance of various patents for the purpose of designing their way around them, that is to find a mechanical advantage?

MR. VAN DER HORST:   Yes.

MR. EATON:   Rather than...?

MR. VAN DER HORST:   ... I’m well aware of that, Mr. Eaton.

MR. EATON:   And that is called technology development, is not it, Mr. Van Der Horst?

MR. VAN DER HORST:  Yes. And then it gets searched in the patent office all over the world and they will not be able to patent it.

[At this stage the Judge is becoming frustrated and impatiently turns to Van Der Horst in the witness box and loudly cuts to the chase.]

HIS HONOUR:  You can patent a better mousetrap, cannot you? ... If it is significantly different from another mousetrap, yes.

[The Judge has now dishevelled the witness who is sitting back in the box contemplating his next answer - this is where Eaton made his fatal mistake.  He stepped in to qualify the meaning of the Judge’s mousetrap scenario.]

MR. EATON:  And it has a mechanical advantage, Mr. Van Der Horst?

[The Judge has already made it quite clear that he isn’t having a bar of anything uttered by Eaton.  He is infuriated with Eaton’s qualification of the term ‘better mousetrap’ and literally barks the following words.]

HIS HONOUR:   Well, mechanical advantage is a glib phrase...

MR. EATON:  I am sorry, your Honour.

 [Eaton was not sorry for having used the industry term, mechanical advantage, but only for having naively upset the Judge.]


Hence the word “glib” in the Judge’s Ruling.

Grandiloquent

According to the Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary, the word ‘grandiloquent’ is described as follows:  “Using or having a pompous style of speech, full of words which ordinary people do not understand.”

Given that Garth Eaton had to rush home to look this word up in his dictionary, isn’t the Judge being grandiloquent? - and certainly given his overall demeanour - as those who have met Justice Spender would attest to. 

If we listen to a Lawyer, Doctor, Patent Attorney, Property Developer etc., anyone from outside these professions can quickly become lost through the use of jargon common to each of these professions.  The dictionary does not go on to define the term ‘ordinary people’.  However, a Doctor may well become an ‘ordinary person’ when listening to a Lawyer.  As a consequence, does the Lawyer fall within the definition of ‘grandiloquent’?

Rogue

The word ‘rogue’ was wilfully used by the Judge to criminally defame Garth Eaton.

Criminal Defamation is an area of defamation that is used to financially compromise or totally destroy the financial security of another through the unlawful characterisation of that person or persons. 

But then, the word ‘rogue’ must have been uppermost in the mind of our colourful Judge.  To explain:

 As a Prosecutor within the Solicitor General's Office (now DPP), Spender, in his earlier days, was appointed Prosecutor in the Russell Island Land Fraud case.  After 109 days of Trial and millions of Taxpayer’s dollars he entered the Brisbane District Court one morning and declared ‘Nolle Prosequi’ which in short means ‘cessation of prosecution’.  In less grandiloquent terms, the Trial is over.

The presiding Judge, Justice Miller, then closed the books by dismissing the Jury and releasing all seven (7) defendants (accused).

Many of the Legal profession in Queensland were rocked by Spender’s conduct. 

We will leave it to readers to follow his subsequent career and his meteoric rise to the dizzy heights of Federal Court Judge.

AND ANOTHER:

During Justice Spender's legal career, he was subjected to a full investigation following allegations that he had misappropriated Public Moneys.  He survived, as one would expect.

–        AND NOW FOR THE DETAIL   –

A true story of corruption from the Bench down. Corruption which destroyed the financial security and personal welfare of so many innocent Australian Investors.

The following flyer was disseminated throughout South East Queensland during January, February and March 1998

Justice Spender and Others were charged on 15 January 1998

Dear Australian,

If your life has ever been damaged by "the System"

- please read the following and consider.

We need YOUR Help.

Regards, Garth Eaton
 

 

Garth Eaton - Private Prosecutor
in the criminal prosecution of six defendants.

Garth Eaton represents a group of Australian investors who were defrauded by an inventor purporting to be the sole author of a mechanical car parking design. It is alleged, that in reality he had copied an expired American Patent. But this was only the beginning. He then became a competitor and furthered his business interests by skilfully seconding the support of Officers within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Federal Attorney General's Department and a Federal Court Judge. Even when those he had seconded realised they had been duped, there was no turning back - it was either admit they had made a grave mistake or continue with the total destruction of this innocent group of investors in order to protect themselves. And totally destroy they did.

It took the exemplary efforts of the Queensland CIB involving the execution of eight (8) search warrants to finally produce the balance of vital evidence now required to criminally prosecute the defendants listed below:
 

1. Jeffrey Ernest John Spender - Federal Court Judge.
    - "Judicial Corruption" - Twelve (12) charges
    - "Attempt to Pervert Justice" - One (1) charge

2. Terence James Guthrie - Assistant Director of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
    - "Conspiracy to Defeat Justice" - One (1) charge

3. Peter John Toy - Principal Solicitor of the Australian Government Solicitor
    - "Attempt to Pervert Justice" - One (1) charge

4. Ronald Peter Sutton Smith - Solicitor, Walker Smith & Breen
    - "Conspiracy to Defeat Justice" - One (1) charge
    - "Attempt to Pervert Justice" - One (1) charge

5. John Stephen McCarthy - Journalist, Courier Mail.
     - "Conspiracy to Defeat Justice" - One (1) charge

6. Willem Van Der Horst - Professional Inventor
    - "False Pretences" - Thirty-two (32) charges
    - "Attempt to Pervert Justice" - One (1) charge
    - "Conspiracy to Defeat Justice" - One (1) charge
    - "Giving False Testimony" - Twenty (20) charges

All charges are under the Crimes Act 1914

Please note : The above defendants have been commanded to appear at the Magistrates Court Number 1 situated at Herschel Street, Brisbane, on 14 April 1998 at 9:30 a.m. at which time they will be further dealt with according to law.
 


There are 52 Australian families who know they will never recover their losses.
But they do DESERVE JUSTICE

TO WIN... WE NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE

in the form of Secretarial, Office, Telemarketing, Distributing and Financial support.

To offer your assistance either write to:

Garth Eaton
PO Box 155 Sumner Park BC,
Brisbane QLD 4074

or Phone (07) 3279 2455
 


The following list of offences was included in the three (3) Lever Arch files
which contained the "Brief of Evidence" supporting Commonwealth Criminal charges against Justice Spender.
 
OFFENCES - (In Chronological Order)


1. FALSE PRETENCES

Willem Van Der Horst was employed by Garth Eaton's Company, Fentex Pty Ltd on 12 March 1990 to develop a mechanical car parking concept (Long Serpentine Action) which Van Der Horst claimed he had designed.

By May 1990 Van Der Horst had failed to prove his claims regarding the commercial viability of his concept, and the project was then in jeopardy of being closed down.

In May 1990 whilst employed by Fentex Pty Ltd, Van Der Horst intercepted a letter addressed to Mr Garth Eaton from Patent Attorneys engaged by Fentex showing the results of their international patents searches. Van Der Horst never gave the letter to Eaton, as he should have, but secretly (and skilfully) sourced an expired US patent (from a US Classification Number mentioned in the letter). He then copied the design contained in it, holding it out to be his own work (False Pretences) and then filed Provisional Patent Number PK0247 dated 21 May 1990 without Garth Eaton's knowledge.

This "new" design (referred to as the Split Serpentine Action) revolutionised his original concept and saved the project.

As a result of Van Der Horst's new design, in good faith Parktec International Pty Ltd (also owned by Garth Eaton) entered into an agreement with Van Der Horst on 15 June 1990. This agreement offered substantial performance based benefits to Van Der Horst, a salary increase, patents in his own name, and so on.

Result - 32 charges of "False Pretences" against Van Der Horst under Section 29A of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

2. PERVERTING JUSTICE

After Van Der Horst was dismissed from Garth Eaton's employ on 27 September 1991 he set up business in competition to Parktec International Pty Ltd and formed Quicker Parking & Storage Systems Pty Ltd (QPSS).

Peter Smith, Solicitor of Walker Smith & Breen bought 7.5% of the shares in QPSS in consideration of cash, equipment and legal services.

On 9 May 1994 Smith and Van Der Horst made a false complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), formerly the Trade Practices Commission.

The Assistant Director of the ACCC, Terence Guthrie, was quick to believe that Eaton's companies were selling interests in technology which infringed the Van Der Horst patents numbered 606728 and 639347 (Patents developed by Parktec staff whilst Van Der Horst was in Parktec's employ). Guthrie was not advised by Van Der Horst that both patents were and always had been invalid given the existence of the expired US patent by Walker E Rowe (The same patent that Van Der Horst had copied).

Result - One charge each of "Attempt to Pervert Justice" against Smith (Solicitor) and Van Der Horst under Section 43 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

3. DEFEATING JUSTICE

Terence Guthrie refused to grant Garth Eaton and staff an interview at which matters could have been resolved.

Instead Guthrie, Van Der Horst, Smith and a journalist, John McCarthy, fabricated and published an article sufficiently damaging to Garth Eaton to influence the outcome of legal proceedings being brought against him by the ACCC. This article was produced and quoted by Counsel for the ACCC and by the Trial Judge (Justice Spender).

Result - Van Der Horst, Smith, Guthrie and McCarthy have each been charged with "Conspiracy to Defeat Justice" under Section 42 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

4. PERVERTING JUSTICE

Garth Eaton and his Companies were injuncted on 18 August 1994 preventing him from dealing in his own technology.

He was given leave of Court by Justice Drummond to represent the Respondents (Defendants).

Eaton's efforts to bring on the hearing of his Notice of Motion was impeded by Peter Toy of the Australian Government Solicitor and Jeffrey Spender, Federal Court Judge.

This conduct was reported to the Australian Federal Police on 5 October 1995. An investigation cleared them of any wrongdoing. Eaton moved to re‑open the investigation but was counselled to let matters rest until after the Trial.

Result - Toy and Justice Spender are each charged with "Attempt to Pervert Justice" under Section 43 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

5. JUDICIAL CORRUPTION

In full knowledge of the Australian Federal Police investigation into his conduct, Justice Spender accepted the appointment as Trial Judge in proceedings against Garth Eaton and his Companies. At that point Justice Spender had received a benefit in consideration of which he did the following:

During the course of the Trial (26 April 1996 to 1 May 1996) it became obvious that he was protecting Van Der Horst, Himself and Others.

On 26 February 1997 Justice Spender delivered his judgment in which he prevented Garth Eaton and his Companies from dealing in mechanical car parking technology anywhere in Australia.

Justice Spender had now vindicated the conduct of Van Der Horst, Himself and Others, and closed the door on the possibility of criminal and/or civil proceedings being brought against them.

Result -
12 charges of "Judicial Corruption" against Justice Spender under Section 32 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

6. FALSE TESTIMONY

During the course of being examined in the Federal Court, Van Der Horst lied some thirty one (31) times. Many of those lies are clear from examination of documents available at the Trial and from expert testimony at the Trial. Other lies are evident from documents recovered by the Queensland CIB after the Trial.

Twenty (20) of those lies constitute Perjury. However, it has been decided to charge him with Perjury's counterpart under the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

Result - 20 charges of "Giving False Testimony" against Van Der Horst under Section 35 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

SUMMARY

Garth Eaton's commercial competitors in Van Der Horst and Smith (Solicitor) have successfully used the ACCC and Others to engage in a tirade of Anti Competitive conduct against Garth Eaton. He has been effectively boycotted by the very watchdog whose charter it is to ensure the converse. Hence the following charges under the Commonwealth Crimes Act:

Van Der Horst 32 x S29A "False Pretences"
  1 x S43 "Attempt to Pervert Justice"
  1 x S42  "Conspiracy to Defeat Justice'
  20 x S35 "Giving False Testimony"
Smith 1 x S43 "Attempt to Pervert Justice"
  1 x S42   "Conspiracy to Defeat Justice"
Guthrie 1 x S42 "Conspiracy to Defeat Justice"
McCarthy 1 x S42 "Conspiracy to Defeat Justice"
Toy 1 x S43 "Attempt to Pervert Justice"
Justice Spender 1 x S43 "Attempt to Pervert Justice"
  12 x S32           "Judicial Corruption"

Charge five (5) was one of twelve (12) charges against Justice Spender under Section 32 - Commonwealth Crimes Act.

By reading on , you will come to understand the gravity of Section 32 - "Judicial Corruption"

As you read, keep in mind that Justice Spender had sufficient evidentiary material before him, in both written and oral form, to determine that Van Der Horst had committed perjury no less than sixteen (16) times.

Justice Spender also knew that Van Der Horst was the subject of a Queensland CIB investigation into allegations of fraudulent conduct perpetrated against Garth Eaton and his Investors.

The following is one of the twelve charges brought against the Judge - Section 32
 

AND FURTHER (Charge Five)

That between the twenty‑fifth day of April 1996 and the second day of May 1996, Jeffrey Ernest John Spender the holder of a judicial office, having corruptly received a benefit for himself and others on account of which in his judicial capacity in a judicial proceeding between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and International Technology Holdings Pty Ltd and others in the Federal Court of Australia, the said Jeffrey Ernest John Spender then delivered a Judgement on the twenty‑sixth day of February 1997 in which he wilfully erred in fact in that he stated on page 12, paragraph 3

"Mr Van Der Horst impressed me as a decent and honest witness who genuinely felt deeply wronged by the misappropriation of his intellectual property by companies of which Mr Eaton was the guiding spirit."

with intent to

(a) prevent the likelihood of an Australian Federal Police investigation continuing into the conduct of himself and Officers within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Government Solicitor

AND

(b) prevent the likelihood of criminal proceedings being brought against Willem Van Der Horst

AND

(c) prevent the likelihood of criminal proceedings being brought against Ronald Peter Sutton Smith

AND

(d) prevent the likelihood of criminal proceedings being brought against John Stephen McCarthy

AND

(e) prevent the likelihood of civil damages actions being brought against the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Willem Van Der Horst and Ronald Peter Sutton Smith

AND

(f) influence the Directors of Public Prosecutions, both State and Commonwealth, to discontinue any criminal proceedings which may be brought against himself, Officers within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Australian Government Solicitor, Willem Van Der Horst, Ronald Peter Sutton Smith and John Stephen McCarthy
Final Statement


On 29 May 1997 Willem Van Der Horst (Justice Spender's "...decent and honest witness...") was finally charged by the Queensland CIB under section 427 of the Criminal Code "False Pretences".

It had taken Garth Eaton's Group over three (3) years to bring this man to account for his fraudulent conduct.

Unfortunately these charges were laid three (3) months after Justice Spender had ruled in favour of the ACCC and their complainants, Van Der Horst and Smith.

However, there was still a glimmer of hope. Just one (1) conviction out of the Forty Nine (49) charges would have paved the way for the Federal Attorney General to overturn Justice Spender's Ruling.

Justice Spender's life-long friend Royce Miller, then Director of Public Prosecutions, moved swiftly to drop these Police charges against Van Der Horst. It was then that Garth Eaton's Group took action under the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

Extensive information supporting the criminal charges against Justice Spender and Others will be made available on request to bona fide enquirers.

Garth Eaton stands ready to assist all Australians who have been subjected or who are currently being subjected to the unlawful, unfair or heavy handed conduct of Officers within the ACCC.
 


Personal address :

"The fundamental purpose of the ACCC is to prevent Boycotting and Anti Competitive conduct. And yet I have personally witnessed the ACCC's conduct in bringing my Companies to a standstill whilst a competitor (former employee and his Solicitor) moved on to prosper under their protection.

As a result of this protection, our Group lost over $4.2 million.

I will now hasten to add this. It is not the ACCC as a body that must carry the full burden, indeed stigma, for the destruction caused. It was the overzealous, unthinking and at times self-protective nature of a select few within the ACCC and a Federal Court whose conduct alone was criminal in intent.

All these years later we look back and so clearly recognise that those adverse events in the 90's brought about a bonding between all of us far greater than that which existed at the outset.

Today, as a Group, we enjoy commercial prosperity well beyond our greatest hopes.

We have long since overcome, and moved on".




Garth Eaton