Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nicholas N Chin on August 31, 2012 at 10:26am

A "DISHONEST" LAWYER WHO HAS NO VICTIMS. HOW CAN YOU LABEL A LAWYER AS DISHONEST WHEN HE IS USING THE TRUTH TO FIGHT THE INJUSTICE? THE TRUTH IS FOR EVERYONE. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Cox on August 31, 2012 at 10:32pm

I was going to post a reply last night but got distracted as many discussions with some of my customers over many years gave me much insight into the Laws such as the point that Australian Law system was actually based on the Military Subset of Westminster British System due the Fact Australia was originally a series of Penal colonies.

I believe there is much unexplored fertile ground regarding the Federation of the Colonies into States that when federated  formed the Commonwealth of Australia.

It is likely that due to the Requirement of Separation of the Political and Legal Arms of Government that there are many aspects that have never been properly explored Legally or in fact Politically,For instance Politically there is minimal allowance for control of the Courts and the Courts in their Place are supposedly Limited in applying any Political slant on Legal activities.

Regarding your very valid point about conflicts of Interest and the totally untenable nature of the Legal profession being able to or allowed to operate  as self adjudicating I would consider a close look at the Original Position of the "Crown" when it comes to the Courts in relation to the British House of Lords as I think it may well be that any examination and adjudication regarding the Legal profession and the Powers allowed to the Courts may well still reside in the British House of Lords,Certainly there is an avenue to explore in that area.

The best defence may well be through the auspices of a Constitutional lawer,Something no doubt the Courts would be poorly equiped to handle as in this Area both Politicians and the Law have mainly operated both Illegitimately and disengenuously.

This could be the real can of worms so to speak they have no ability to challenge on as it has the potential to move the whole shebang outside the Juristiction they are used to operating in and is just Interesting enough to pique the Interest of the British.

 

After all being based apon the Westminster System our whole Political and Legal landscape will twist then in knots as they have become complacent in their own stupor,For under the system it is Illegal to enforce one Law and in so doing break another, And when precedent has been set in for instance passing an Illegal Act or otherwise then by rote any Act following on from same is inherently Illegal by definition as any action derived from an Illegal act must be found to be Illegal in the same fashion as the originating action.

A good pointer from where I am coming in this regard is that in Australia very few Laws as such are passed they are instead Enacted as an Act,Potentially bacause that is utilised as a way around the illegitimacy of being able to actually pass a Law in some areas of contention.

 

There are supposedly exemptions written into the Federation Articles of memorandum whereby the Powers of the Commonwealth are curtailed in some instances regarding usurping State Juristiction,and conversely some areas whereby State Powers are supposedly unable to usurp Commonwealth Powers or Juristiction,This minefield aspect is what leads me to think there is some area whereby the House of Lords may well have overall Authority especially on the Legal prefession areas where by the whole system was set up to operate as an Adjunct to the Crown in enforcing the Rules and Rights of the Crown ,That being the House of Windsor and the British representative of such the House of Lords.

 

If nothing else this aspect could provide some thought provoking lively discussion in Legal Circles and potentially tie up in knots those whom dare to judge another in blatant disregard of conflict of interest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nicholas N Chin on August 31, 2012 at 11:44pm

Richard De Sina commented on Whistleblocked! Lawyer Faces Lifetime Ban for Exposing Legal, Judic....

in response to lawyerocracyontrial:

James Johnson B.Ec (Hons). LLB. Mem CLA. Mem MEAA. Journalist. Whistleblower. Independent Documentary Maker Mail: PO Box 6137 Point Cook Victoria Australia 3030 Mob: +61 (0)401 865 914 @JamesJohnsonCHR Thursday 30 August 2012 6:00 am General Immediate Media Release IGNORANCE IS NOT STRENGTH. LAWYEROCRACY IS NOT BLISS. “The thought that the State has lost its [...]

If you think this is bad, there is a new Texas story involving a lawsuit where the federal judge threatened the person with "death" in a civil lawsuit. The case involves a lawyer billing scam supervised by a federal judge. In the apparent scam, a Dallas business owner (the "victim") had all possessions seized, without any notice or hearing, prohibited him from hiring a lawyer, and essentially ordered him into a bizarre civil lockdown. The business owner has been under this civil lockdown order for nearly two years, and is prohibited from having a lawyer, from owning any possessions, from freely traveling, from working, etc... http://LawInjustice.com has details about this disturbing case and some quotes from the judge: THE COURT: "I'm telling you don't screw with me. You are a fool, a fool, a fool, a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don't understand that, I can make you understand it. I have the force of the Navy, Army, Marines and Navy behind me." THE COURT: "You realize that order is an order of the Court. So any failure to comply with that order is contempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Petterson on September 1, 2012 at 6:16pm

http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=201995

Texas Federal Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. charged with Corruption in Looting Over $4 Million



In Texas, federal Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. has been charged with corruption.

The case involves an individual named Jeff Baron and a company that he owned, named Ondova Limited Company[1].

Ondova Limited Company was a successful Internet company, accredited by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), that pioneered innovative software in the early days of the Internet....

Jeff Baron was a successful, high-tech entrepreneur that created and pioneered innovative software during the early days of the Internet. Until about four months ago, Jeff owned a successful multi-million dollar business and a multi-million dollar trust that he established to fund research for a cure to insulin dependent diabetes, an illness that has afflicted Jeff since very early childhood.

In July 2010, Jeff settled a lawsuit that had forced one of his companies into bankruptcy (Jeff, himself, has never been in bankruptcy). Upon settlement, the bankruptcy was funded with almost two million dollars so that all the creditors would be paid in full and his company would be returned to him.

After the settlement, one of the lawyers filed a request to be paid...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nicholas N Chin on September 9, 2012 at 8:34pm

I was accused by the regulator with its cronies in their capacities as prosecutor and judge at the same time, again and again.  The accusations against me have been decided many times again and again with no findings of guilt of professional misconduct. The last findings is a double-jeopardy of the same facts.  No judge can rule on the same fact matters twice as it is against the rule of res judicata.  Why they do it? I do not understand unless it is to do an absolute wrong to an innocent person. 

Stephen Cox said:

I was going to post a reply last night but got distracted as many discussions with some of my customers over many years gave me much insight into the Laws such as the point that Australian Law system was actually based on the Military Subset of Westminster British System due the Fact Australia was originally a series of Penal colonies.

I believe there is much unexplored fertile ground regarding the Federation of the Colonies into States that when federated  formed the Commonwealth of Australia.

It is likely that due to the Requirement of Separation of the Political and Legal Arms of Government that there are many aspects that have never been properly explored Legally or in fact Politically,For instance Politically there is minimal allowance for control of the Courts and the Courts in their Place are supposedly Limited in applying any Political slant on Legal activities.

Regarding your very valid point about conflicts of Interest and the totally untenable nature of the Legal profession being able to or allowed to operate  as self adjudicating I would consider a close look at the Original Position of the "Crown" when it comes to the Courts in relation to the British House of Lords as I think it may well be that any examination and adjudication regarding the Legal profession and the Powers allowed to the Courts may well still reside in the British House of Lords,Certainly there is an avenue to explore in that area.

The best defence may well be through the auspices of a Constitutional lawer,Something no doubt the Courts would be poorly equiped to handle as in this Area both Politicians and the Law have mainly operated both Illegitimately and disengenuously.

This could be the real can of worms so to speak they have no ability to challenge on as it has the potential to move the whole shebang outside the Juristiction they are used to operating in and is just Interesting enough to pique the Interest of the British.

 

After all being based apon the Westminster System our whole Political and Legal landscape will twist then in knots as they have become complacent in their own stupor,For under the system it is Illegal to enforce one Law and in so doing break another, And when precedent has been set in for instance passing an Illegal Act or otherwise then by rote any Act following on from same is inherently Illegal by definition as any action derived from an Illegal act must be found to be Illegal in the same fashion as the originating action.

A good pointer from where I am coming in this regard is that in Australia very few Laws as such are passed they are instead Enacted as an Act,Potentially bacause that is utilised as a way around the illegitimacy of being able to actually pass a Law in some areas of contention.

 

There are supposedly exemptions written into the Federation Articles of memorandum whereby the Powers of the Commonwealth are curtailed in some instances regarding usurping State Juristiction,and conversely some areas whereby State Powers are supposedly unable to usurp Commonwealth Powers or Juristiction,This minefield aspect is what leads me to think there is some area whereby the House of Lords may well have overall Authority especially on the Legal prefession areas where by the whole system was set up to operate as an Adjunct to the Crown in enforcing the Rules and Rights of the Crown ,That being the House of Windsor and the British representative of such the House of Lords.

 

If nothing else this aspect could provide some thought provoking lively discussion in Legal Circles and potentially tie up in knots those whom dare to judge another in blatant disregard of conflict of interest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nicholas N Chin on September 9, 2012 at 8:39pm

Everyone knows you cannot act in the dual capacity of a judge and a policeman at the same. Such a decision is tainted by bias and is null and void. Do lawyers and judges and prosecutors do not understand this basic?  It is an under statement that they do not understand the basic and yet people in high places refused to budge from their position.  Is this not proof of conspiracy? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nicholas N Chin on September 24, 2012 at 9:35pm

Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice in R E G I N A-v- DEB BARAN GHOSH BAILII Citation Number: [1982] EWCA Crim  found at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1982/2.html quoting Viscount Dilhorne in Scott v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1975) A. C. 819 at 836 said:

"As I have said, words take colour from the context in which they are used, but the words 'fraudulently' and 'defraud' must ordinarily have a very similar meaning. If, as I think, and as the Criminal Law Revision Committee appears to have thought, 'fraudulently' means 'dishonestly', then 'to defraud' ordinarily means, in my opinion, to deprive a person dishonestly of something which is his or of something to which he is or would or might but for the perpetration of the fraud be entitled. "

Nicholas N Chin said:

A "DISHONEST" LAWYER WHO HAS NO VICTIMS. HOW CAN YOU LABEL A LAWYER AS DISHONEST WHEN HE IS USING THE TRUTH TO FIGHT THE INJUSTICE? THE TRUTH IS FOR EVERYONE. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nicholas N Chin on September 24, 2012 at 9:39pm

: Lord Lane continued:

“Nor is there anything in R. v. Landy itself which justifies putting theft and conspiracy to defraud into different categories. Indeed the Court went out of its way to stress that the test for dishonesty, whatever it might be, should be the same whether the offence charged be theft or conspiracy to defraud. This is clear from the reference to R. v. Feely (1973) Q. B. 530, which was a case under section 1 of the Theft Act. Having set out what we have for convenience called the subjective test, the Court in R. v. Landy continue:

"In our judgment this is the way the case of Feely should be applied in cases where the issue of dishonesty arises. It is also the way in which the jury should have been directed in this case..... "

Nicholas N Chin said:

Nicholas N Chin said:

A "DISHONEST" LAWYER WHO HAS NO VICTIMS. HOW CAN YOU LABEL A LAWYER AS DISHONEST WHEN HE IS USING THE TRUTH TO FIGHT THE INJUSTICE? THE TRUTH IS FOR EVERYONE. THERE IS SIMPLY NO DEPRIVATION... 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nicholas N Chin on September 24, 2012 at 9:43pm

Nicholas N Chin said:

: Lord Lane continued:

“Nor is there anything in R. v. Landy itself which justifies putting theft and conspiracy to defraud into different categories. Indeed the Court went out of its way to stress that the test for dishonesty, whatever it might be, should be the same whether the offence charged be theft or conspiracy to defraud. This is clear from the reference to R. v. Feely (1973) Q. B. 530, which was a case under section 1 of the Theft Act. Having set out what we have for convenience called the subjective test, the Court in R. v. Landy continue:

"In our judgment this is the way the case of Feely should be applied in cases where the issue of dishonesty arises. It is also the way in which the jury should have been directed in this case..... "

Nicholas N Chin said:

Nicholas N Chin said:

A "DISHONEST" LAWYER WHO HAS NO VICTIMS. HOW CAN YOU LABEL A LAWYER AS DISHONEST WHEN HE IS USING THE TRUTH TO FIGHT THE INJUSTICE? THE TRUTH IS FOR EVERYONE. 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion