1	New Evidence Proof that Eleanor Griffiths (accountant) committed perjury at the trial of Bruno Gatzka 2002 that lead him to be found guilty of prejudice to this accountant. Being “guilty” of “Prejudice” to someone is to have them do something you are not authorised to ask them to do.
2	One Griffiths has committed perjury in stating that Carey (original complainant) and Griffiths only spoke twice. Griffiths systematically deceived the Court.
3	Two Griffiths committed perjury in saying that Carey stated Gatzka did not have Carey’s authority to deliver documents to Griffiths and have input into her tax affairs. Gatzka provided Carey with Griffiths phone numbers so that Carey could retain Griffiths in August. Clearly Gatzka could not have prejudiced Griffiths.
4	Three Griffiths perjured herself in giving evidence that Gatzka told her that Carey did not wish to use a local accountant. Griffiths deceit goes to creating false evidence to sway the Court.
5	Four Carey states that she instructed Griffiths to collect tax documents from Gatzka. Further Carey states that she spoke to Griffiths about the preparation details before the tax returns where lodged on the 15^th Sept 1997. At no time was Griffiths prejudiced as she received on going instructions from Carey.
6	Five Griffiths committed perjury by saying that she had not spoken to Carey before tax returns were lodged. Carey reiterates that she retained (told) Griffiths in August.
7	Six Griffiths committed perjury in claiming that she only became aware that Gatzka and Carey had been married during a telephone conversation with Carey in January 1998. Griffiths creation of deceitful statements continues to sway the Court.
8	Seven Griffiths committed perjury in making a false statement that Carey said she had never given Gatzka a power of attorney.
9	Eight Griffiths committed perjury by inventing the existence of a one page loan document. There was only in existence a 25 page formal Mortgage loan agreement dated 3^rd march 1989 duty stamped as paid by the State Revenue Office and prepared by Phillips Fox solicitors which contained a power of attorney for Gatzka. Griffiths level of evidence creation is at its highest.
10	Nine Griffiths has committed perjury in saying that a letter she sent to Westpac bank was for “Carey’s” benefit and not Gatzka’s.
11	Eleven Carey confirms that she has never accused Gatzka of creating the (allegedly) false Power of Attorney. There was agreed evidence at trial in Court that Gatzka had a number of Powers of Attorneys upon which a weak circumstantial Crown case should have had the Judge dismiss the charge.
12	summary At best a Crown circumstantial case charged that Gatzka retained (prejudiced) Griffiths and therefore Gatzka must have (by a secondary layer of circumstantial conclusions) created a false Power of Attorney. On this basis alone the Judge ought have dismissed the charges. Based on the “new evidence” and the trial evidence wherein Gatzka has other Power of Attorneys etc the charges now need to be withdrawn/conviction quashed.