The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 21 reasons you won't get justice from the adversarial court system > Comments

21 reasons you won't get justice from the adversarial court system : Comments

By Evan Whitton, published 7/4/2003

Evan Whitton provides 21 reasons why Australia's court system is not always just

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST”, Attorney (not-being-a-lawyer) and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal matters I have for example defeated the federal lawyers after a 5-year legal battle on all constitutional grounds I raised and succeeded in the appeals.

I discovered that lawyers lacked competence in constitutional provisions and limitations and judges fabricating whatever suits them! In particular judges of the High court of Australia, such as with the 14 November 2006 judgment about WorkChoices legislation I detected they concealed from their judgments relevant details/information as to pretend that the legislation was constitutionally valid and by this conned all Australians. In regard of which I published a book on 27-5-2007 to set out how the judges conned us.

Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking-on-the-role-of-an-advocate)
"As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court."

My blog at and see also website;

PEOPLES POWER; reclaim constitutional and other legal rights and hold judges and politicians legally accountable
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Wednesday, 19 September 2007 1:54:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy