Golly Pericles.. you, complaining about "High Salaries" of commercial enterprises ? :)

*reminder* 'Christian' enterprises are held to an even higher standard.

Lawyers.... well Jesus said it first and best I think.

Luke 11:46 "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers.

all I can say is 'Amen'.

Ok, Boaz, I'll bite.

>>Golly Pericles.. you, complaining about "High Salaries" of commercial enterprises ? :) *reminder* 'Christian' enterprises are held to an even higher standard.<<

OK, name one.

Name a 'Christian' enterprise (what's with the parentheses?) and then describe the higher standard to which it is held.

And yes, as it happens, I do object to the payment of obscene salaries, in any environment, commercial or in public service.

I particularly object, though, where the profits are made from enterprises that acquire public assets - that you and I have paid for - and proceed to gouge monopoly profits from them.

I can assume from your question that you approve of megabuck salaries? I expect you see them as a manifestation of that peculiar Aussie value, that someone who earns loads of money must be very smart.

You probably think Ned Kelly was a great guy too, don't you?

For those interested, in 1985 I created the document ADDRESS TO THE COURT and it has since been used in all levels of court, including the High Court of Australia, in both civil and criminal cases. I am not a lawyer, but a “constitutionalist” and an Attorney.
I also published in 2003 a book INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
More over, in 2006 a case in the County Court of Victoria was adjourned pending the Director of Public Prosecutions proving “jurisdiction” as I assist the unrepresented Defendant in the case and we have set up a maze of constitutional arguments. When the barrister indicated not wanting to respond to the constitutional argument the judge specifically ordered him to do so and gave him 3 months. Well the time has passed long ago and he failed to address the issues. Then again, being aware I had defeated the Commonwealth DPP after a 5-year legal battle on the same grounds now raised in this case.
In the USA many States had in fact banned lawyers belonging to the BAR to practise in their Courts. This went on for decades, until the lawyers got the power to overturn that ban.

Then again the incompetence by judges is shown by their ill-conceived 14 November 2006 judgment about the so-called WorkChoices legislation in regard of which I am publishing this week a book exposing what the judges kept out of their judgments even so it was relevant to the issue before them. Such as “CIVIL RIGHTS”, “FACTORY LAWS”, etc.

Far to many judicial officers are abusing their powers as to prevent an unrepresented Defendant/party to present his/her case, hence my book setting out how the ADDRESS TO THE COURT makes it more of a level playing field.
Not uncommon lawyers asking me; “Why are you making it so difficult?”. Seems that when the tables are turned onto them then they cannot handle it.
The current case before the County Court of Victoria is challenging the validity of State constitutional changes, validity of judges presiding, validity of the Courts, and numerous other matters

Evan Whitton is quite right.The general public do not realise that their legal system is dishonest. It has little to do with truth and much to do with money for lawyers.At first I thought it was the finest legal system in the world, then I encountered the notorious dingo case. It was evident that Mrs. Chamberlain was innocent,- all witnesses agreed with her story,- yet she was convicted in all four common law courts and only freed when the French system [the judicial inquiry] was used. This caused me to doubt the common law. Doubt increased when I sued a laser surgeon for negligence on ruining my eyesight. The court refused the usage of a textbook on ophalmology and optical scripts from OPSM; then it allowed the Defense to exclude a professor of ophalmology from court. It showed no interest in truth at all and was certainly guilty of scientific fraud.
Anyone interested in justice and 'the fair go' should read Whitton's works to learn about the origins of the strange jurisprudence which haunts this fair land of ours.

Regretfully most people can identify themselves with how lawyers far too often in my view are getting away with this.
And, likewise judges also.

I would prefer to return to when it were respected citizens who would adjudiciate rather the "Lair for hire" turned judge.

For some decades members of the bar were outlawed to practice in the Courts in the USA but then they got their hands on power and changed all that.

Not uncommon judges ask me to leave the court room (I refuse because it is an open court) because they dislike that I sit in the public gallery noting what they are saying and then expose their DOUBLE STANDARDS in my books. (See my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com also)

While there are what I would say honest judges, I view they are far and few in between.

Judges are supposed to reflect the communities standards, but more and more become a law onto themselves and ignore the legal rights of many unrepresented Defendants or unrepresented parties. At least, that is my view.