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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Is it time lawyers obeyed the law.

Is it time lawyers obeyed the law.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Everyone probably including Kevin Rudd seem to be intimidated by lawyers in Australia today. It seems to be that because they made a hostile take over bid from inside to take over Australian Government, while simultaneously making the same push in Britain, that everyone is terrified of them, and no one at all seems to want to do something about them.

The greatest enemy of good government is the legal profession. If they were loyal to their country, or even honest, they would admit that their takeover has been less than beneficial. The enormous amount of resources wasted every year running nine separate Parliaments all passing laws that oppress individuals and enrich the legal profession, should have been prevented by the enactment in 1900 of the Australian Constitution.

Because the legal profession is virtually a government within the government what the Parliament of the Commonwealth does is practically irrelevant. I have cited with approval the amendments made to the Trade Practices Act 1974 in 1995, that should have seen homelessness abolished and ended by 2000, but the election of a lawyer led government saw that frustrated. It is not even the lawyers who sit on the High Court who really govern. It is faceless men who pull the strings by which they dangle.

We all debate here about relevant issues, but none of what we say is of any importance because none of us has any possibility whatsoever to do anything about our concerns, because as huffnpuff says, they, the lawyers cartel, control all the umpires. Over the past six years I have been in every State and made applications to every Court except the Family Court, and seen the systematic degradation of all the people who would seek justice. I have seen it in the Family Court too, and in the last 12 months we saw a little girl thrown off a bridge by a frustrated father, all because he could not see any way to vent his fury at the lawyers. He went mad, and so many do the same. They lie, they cheat and they govern us
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 9:58:53 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
PtB,

Do civilian Justices of the Peace, who are not lawyers, have reserve powers to arrest or cause to arrest wrongdoers? Do they have any judicial power over and above witnessing signatures?

O.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:34:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The haste with which Kevin Rudd moved to guarantee the big four banks deposits, to ensure that the monetary system did not collapse, is probably the reason he has refused numerous requests so far to repeal S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, and have the Governor General disallow Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules. The monetary system would come under enormous pressure if the Banks were required to obey the law as made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The banks lobbied to be exempt from the Trade Practices Act 1974 and were accommodated, but the Parliament of the Commonwealth at the same time enacted the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001.

This would be a marvelous enactment to protect consumers from the banks, if it was freely enforceable. It is not. It gives concurremt jurisdiction to the courts of the States and Commonwealth, in all financial matters including banks and insurance companies, and provides draconian penalties for breaches, but the whole Act is controlled by a Minister. However Chris Bowen sponsored amendments to the Act and in Act no 116 of 2008, changed the word Court to court to comply with S 79 Constitution. This is a positive step in the right direction, although he has not in fact changed it throughout the Act, just in respect of unconscionable conduct.

There is an institution that dates back to 1533. It is called the Office of Notary Public. In 1533 the Pope was stopped from appointing Notaries, by the Parliament and Henry VIII and the right to do so was vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury. This ancient Office is in force throughout Europe and the United States, and it is currently being exercised in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia sometimes by appointment from Canterbury and sometimes by appointment by the Supreme Court.

There are a gross number of frauds now being perpetrated on banks customers, by dodgy solicitors, some of whom are not even registered by State Governments through the Law Society. It should be mandatory for a Notary Public to witness mortgages.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:49:44 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
G'Day All, Huffnpuff I can understand your frustrations. I have all the paperwork of my Son's case where there has been Alterations of Court file documents, the Solicitor that was sacked by the parents that turns up as the Child representative, the care application in the wrong name, The charge of No Adequate Provision dismissed 15-7-1997 the same Magistrate on the 16-7-1997 then stating there is no contention by the applicant that Adequate Provision is not being met for the child,the care application signed by a trainee D.O & not even a delegate of the D.General & a NZ'der handling an Aboriginal childs case, the witnesses all in-laws & a couple of nieghbours, outright perjury, the list goes on. Representations from both my local & federal members & the Ombudsman & ICAC says that there is nothing to investigate.Thanks for your time.Dave
Posted by dwg, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 12:25:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the 16th October 2001, the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) came into effect in Australia, and its provisions can give every Australian back his freedom. The Act provides definitions in its Dictionary that are part of the Schedule that a Commonwealth public official includes anybody entitled to take action under an enactment. A Commonwealth public official includes any person who holds or performs duties of an office established by or under a law of the Commonwealth and an individual who exercises powers or performs duties conferred on a person by or under a law of the Commonwealth.



The two laws reproduced here are laws of the Commonwealth.

Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) S 13 and 15F

Unless the contrary intention appears in the Act or regulation creating the offence, any person may:

(a) institute proceedings for the commitment for trial of any person in respect of any indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth; or

(b) institute proceedings for the summary conviction of any person in respect of any offence against the law of the Commonwealth punishable on summary conviction.

CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 15F
Civil rights not affected

Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any person aggrieved by any act or omission which is punishable as an offence against this Act to institute civil proceedings in any court in respect of such act or omission.

The further law that applies is the definition of Commonwealth entity, in the Dictionary. Once you claim your right to be a Commonwealth public official, you become a Commonwealth Entity, and all the protection of the Commonwealth Criminal Code descends upon you. The benefit of Ch 7 Criminal Code, devolves upon you, once you become a Commonwealth entity, and you can insist on the Proper Administration of Government. This is not something that is not happening now, because lawyers are administering the government. If you are interested in becoming a Commonwealth public official, have a look at the website of www.communitylawass.or
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 4:08:48 PM
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
The lawyers of Australia are not all bad. They are by and large a monopoly profession, but every now and again one bobs up, like Sir Maurice Byers, at 78 and takes on a controversial case, on behalf of a downtrodden, and much put upon individual.

If a case is properly put and argued, most lawyers in practice recognize where the justice of the case lies, and will go along with the decision made. However when a decision is obscure as so many of them are, often being seen to decide a different question to that originally asked, then it can take years before a significant decision is accepted as a true statement of the law.

Bryan Pape, a State Rights Barrister and law Lecturer from Armadale, recently got the reasons for the decision handed down against him by the High Court in April, to allow the Commonwealth to pay taxpayers a bonus. That bonus gave lots of people an incentive to lodge their Tax Returns, come clean and collect $900.

There are seven Justices on the High Court and while I do not believe they are doing a superb job, sometimes they do a good job, and five out of seven pontificated on the effect of S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth). Two failed to mention it, but it is significant because they recognize that the Parliament of the Commonwealth is not a completely Sovereign body, and what they make as law can be wrong if it is not within the confines of the Constitution. The real problem is so few lower courts recognize they also have this power.

One such case is Yanner V Eaton, a case where a Queensland Aboriginal took a crocodile for food, and was charged under Queensland law with taking prohibited wildlife. This was when Rob Hulls was a legal aid solicitor in Mt Isa, Queensland took it to the Court of Appeal, and they directed a conviction. Hulls won in a High Court Challenge, on the grounds that S 15A and the Native Title Act overruled Queensland Statute when in conflict
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 23 July 2009 5:14:57 PM
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. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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