Laser Bucket Grader Scraper Pull Pan or Laser Bucket grading scrapers have now a new feature fitted, this does provide loading / unloading and grading decreased HP used over and above the below. This ablity is only avaliable with Dugong Grader Scrapers. A further 40 to 80 % fuel saving. With correct operater training and control provide a smooth transit into a new energy tractor supplied market. Nothing will match a DUGONG. How the Dugong Grader scraper Laser Bucket Pull Pan is against the competition?
Rear wheel Grader Scraper assist, only on some models. A special Grader Scraper feature to help load and unload pull pan with half the hp, a massive fuel saver for any laser bucket. This will not help the competitors, as their design may make it inaffective or damage the machine. The required HP for each Laser Bucket will not change the operation will result in a large fuel saving. Grader Scraper operation with new electric powered tractors will seem less of an issue to contractors and the like.
A link will be posted here to purchase online or contact the email below for further info.
RE: Picture Gallery above of farm photos. No doubt, the owner knew the size of this facility which he owned for 20 years, was as large as predicted. Thanks to locals helping me provide this information. An ACN company requiring explanation, in particular the red circled area where works have been carried out.
To those whom are entering the home to look for or get an inside lead on the new design and or snooping generally congratulations to you, the people if any that you work for or been hired to intrude are now under my investigation for a statement to the police. The people whom are following in motor cars outside the home, the same can be expected. The information you seek, if you have not found it already it would be greatly appreciated if you would stop trying to find it. This also applies to family as we have not spoke in decades
03/09/2021 Honesty on behalf of the court/staff representatives, instead of state run cohesion exploiting situations, to be obtuse in positions of authority. Shit head behaviour. Uncomplying in compleling.
Clients and bankers. Please note. The defendants claim to have informed his solicitor ten years before the matter goes to court and be believed on his word over a solicitor is unacceptable, given his file with that solicitor was tendered to the court. The NSW judicial system and its government has an obvious lie and cover up and has no pride or self respect seemingly protecting a township notorious as those like Griffith Leeton and surrounding towns with people like this. It is noted the NCAT matter refusing access to the property to conduct a survey. The solicitor also from Griffith and the continuing solicitor unable to bring the matter to an end with a survey for his client. And or a clear mandate regarding the Murrumbidgee Irrigation members contract for the year starting 01/07/2000. Accept the photo evidence provided by a local surveyor is a clear wrong submission to the court.
Court judgements / docs of the below are released with the NSW Police FOI NCAT matter.
The Defendant million dollar claim is granted without any proof of purchase from a solicitor or any other written agreement relating to the equity being for sale. Discrediting the plaintiffs version of discussed facts, events and subject matter. The defendants refusal for access to the dam facility is now considered an act of guilt regardless of any incriminating issues that could arise should a survey be carried out. This will apply more broadly to the members contract issued by Murrumbidgee Irrigation for the year 2000 beginning in June. The NSW Public health order is noted to be still in affect.
Letter to Government officals outlining whom is running the towns in the district Police and Lawyers in Griffith.
To bankers the NSW State land holder/stake holders, Murray Darling Basin stake holders, the broader National plus state farmers federation and farmers in general. The matter below is in contradiction with the words in context stake holders. A very disturbing abuse of privilege as a stake holder, is brought to the attention of you, as news. This despicable act will go on as a crime and you should report such behaviour, call out people whom do such things along with solicitors representing in local areas like city slickers. If you wish to toggle the the facts the front page picture water way it is said to be, 6-7 megalitre maximum full level, a survey of the area before the fence underlines this, this is taken to be its size, the clients word suffices, the water way is 1200 metres long, so the water can be pumped up at the highest point, it has been built against the grade of the field next to it, refused access by the court to have a survey done. What can one do but laugh at the despicable lawyers, operators of the community to access a group claiming to be family.
A long standing issue and countless attemps at resolution.
The base of the defendants case. A contract drafted locally by solicitors and undestroyed evidance.
The defendant was unaware the agreement entered into, did not include what they wanted (shares in an irrigation company Murrumbidgee irrigation), is rejected by the plaintiff. A mystery expectation is made good.
The defendant: Unaware of water act 2000 and or meaning, since repealed or other wise. Privitising meaning to water rights in 2000, used by them (members contract) issued by Murrumbidgee Irrigation despite having a collection of licenses with them. Water channel on property (pictured on home page) its size and context to the property. Refuses to accept wrong indication dispite evidence. Dispite a property sharing agreement. Unaware ownership of property, in violation of an agreement relied on. Disputes court judgement for NSW GIPA application to local council for members contract from Murrumbidgee Irrigation. The mother of the defendant claims her husband has alzheimer's disease to the court, he is excused from giving evidance. Many months later the husband instructs a lawyer to sell to another family member a valuable property.
The plaintiff rejects the defendants assertions under oath. The defendant instructed his lawyer to dissolve a sale of land contract, without the lawyer understanding the defendant thought it contained shares in an irrigation company. The plaintiff rejects the defendants case as it was fabricated from nothing. Ignorance in this instant is an unacceptable answer as they were aware every other time they purchased. A thanks to Noyce Salmon D"Aquino of Griffith the defendants solicitor for allowing me to rest in peace with the expert help they provided. No facts were provided with supporting evidence. Franks Final Grade believes the defendant mocked and taunted the court with vague references, seeking to clarify later. The defendant could have dispelled the issues with evidence from the original source and did not. The defendant is litigating to hide the truth created by his lawyer. Below are facts in the matter.