Contact - Terence Goldberg

Do you have a similar story? Then let us know.

Pertinent excerpts

Jon Lindsay

“The one question that remains front and foremost in our minds is why would Terence Goldberg, a principal of a large law firm, pass and provide fraudulently obtained moneys to a man with convictions for child sex offences, and why would Terence Goldberg be cavorting with such an individual in the first instance?”

Wrongful claims

“You will see in the narrative of this Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs that Turner Freeman makes the false claim that it acted for the church, while also making various other improper and wrongful claims.”

Church not a defendant

“Terence Goldberg files an Application with the Court for assessment of his costs, and in such, fraudulently claims to have acted for the Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated, being the sixth defendant in the above Court proceedings. The sixth defendant, in fact, was (and remains as such on the Court record) an unrepresented party.”

Swelled sum

“Despite the Judgment obtained against Enmore Spiritualist Church in the amount of $124,661.90, Turner Freeman subsequently claimed to be owed the now swelled sum of $185,802.62.”

Invalid meeting

“On 29 May 2014, Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers attended a meeting of supposed creditors at the offices of Jones Partners, 189 Kent Street, Sydney. Terry Goldberg was the only attendee at this supposed meeting of creditors.

However, NSW Fair Trading has confirmed that Turner Freeman Lawyers was paid all moneys supposedly owing to that firm on 20 December 2012. If, as we are informed, that Turner Freeman Lawyers was paid in 2012, then Terry Goldberg’s attendance at this meeting of creditors is clearly fraudulent.”

Monies to Michael Jones

“Terence Goldberg, in that meeting, put forward the proposal to pay Jones Partners the sum of $55,780. As the meeting was invalid, those moneys should not have been paid to Jones Partners out of any moneys owned by Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated.”

UCPR

“Terry Goldberg does not once state in his affidavits that he acts for the sixth defendant. And besides, a solicitor is statute barred from acting for both and opposing parties in any Court proceedings. See Rule 7.25 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.”

Law Society

“The Law Society and the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner’s turning of a blind eye and mishandling of the issue can be found at https://www.fumbart.com.”