Argles claims to have been admitted as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland for over 20 years, however he appears to have forgotten what is written in the rule book.
ARGLES & AEJIS LEGAL HAVE USED FABRICATED EVIDENCE 3 TIMES IN COURT:
1. District Court on 29 March 2019 before Judge Cash;
2. Court of Appeal on 19 June 2019 before Justice Philippides;
3. District Court on 6 December 2019 before Judge Cash;
In doing so, Argles & Aejis have failed to apply the Australian SolicitorsConduct Rules,
as have been applied by the Federal Court in:
Wavetrain Systems AS v Next Generation Rail Technologies SL  FCA 350
ROBERTSON J stated:
“The circumstances in which the proceedings were dismissed were that the solicitors for the applicant notified my associate on 21 February 2019 by email that the applicant had recently become aware that certain parts of the evidence of Mr Foster in his affidavit dated 29 January 2019 were not truthful".
"The solicitors for the applicant said they notified the Court pursuant to rule 20.1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW) [same as QLD] and apologised unreservedly to the Court and the respondents".
"It should go without saying that false testimony is not to be tolerated and is viewed most seriously by the Court: it goes to the heart of the fair and just exercise of judicial power".
His Honour considered the matter should be referred to the Commonwealth Attorney-General for investigation, in order to decide whether criminal proceedings should be brought in relation to the untrue evidence.
section 126 CRIMINAL CODE QLD and/or section 140 CRIMINAL CODE QLD
In total there are FOUR affidavits filed in the Courts by two witnesses swearing as to the truth of the matter, which exposes the affidavit of Russ to be part fabricated.
SCOTT ARGLES CLIENT:
Warren Russ Evidence Fabricator
Licenced by the Queensland Government
Apart from it being illegal (section 126 CRIMINAL CODE QLD /
section 140 CRIMINAL CODE QLD) it is common sense to those that are IN FACT ethical, to not mislead or attempt to mislead, a Court by way of Fabricated Evidence.
There are also the: Australian SolicitorsConduct Rules
3. Paramount duty to the court and the administration of justice
3.1 A solicitor’s duty to the court and the administration of justice is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty.
19. Frankness in court
19.1 A solicitor must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court.
19.2 A solicitor must take all necessary steps to correct any misleading statement made by the solicitor to a court as soon as possible after the solicitor becomes aware that the statement was misleading.
20. Delinquent or guilty clients
20.1 A solicitor who, as a result of information provided by the client or a witness called on behalf of the client, learns during a hearing or after judgment or the decision is reserved and while it remains pending, that the client or a witness called on behalf of the client:
20.1.1 has lied in a material particular to the court or has procured another person to lie to the court;
20.1.2 has falsified or procured another person to falsify in any way a document which has been tendered; or
20.1.3 has suppressed or procured another person to suppress material evidence upon a topic where there was a positive duty to make disclosure to the court;
20.1.4 advise the client that the court should be informed of the lie, falsification or suppression and request authority so to inform the court; and
20.1.5 refuse to take any further part in the case unless the client authorises the solicitor to inform the court of the lie, falsification or suppression and must promptly inform the court of the lie, falsification or suppression upon the client authorising the solicitor to do so but otherwise may not inform the court of the lie, falsification or suppression.
RULE 20 was applied by the Federal Court in Wavetrain Systems AS v Next Generation Rail Technologies SL  FCA 350