|
|
 |
|
| JUSTICE NICHOLAS SUPREME COURT SYDNEY NSW
| |
|
|
Emotional Bullying a
lot has been said in Australia about this but never in the Court Context. This form of violence Phillips Fox used on a daily
basis against my daughter and me. To protect her I took VRO against Uni
legal Rep just to be faced with Police Ignorance and Judge Spigelman silence and
as a result of this I lost custody of my younger daughter | |
|
|
Former
Federal Court Judge Branson HR Commissioner is a strong supporter of anti-bullying campaign and fights this under Don’t Stand By, Stand Up |
DUE TO EMOTIONAL ABUSE & DISCRIMINATION,
LUCK OF DUTY OF CARE AND VICTIMIZATION (OF MY YOUNGER DAUGHTER AND MYSELF), I DECIDED TO CLOSE MY CASE IN THE S C |
|
|
|
|
The
Hon Justice William Henric NICHOLAS IN WIKIPEDIA |
|
Judge
in the Supreme Court of NSW - SYDNEY |
|
Tuesday, October 28, 2006
PROCEEDINGS 20372 / 04 | |
|
|
Justice NICHOLAS, I ask you to rise and to take the oaths of office, the oath of allegiance and then the judicial oath |
|
I’m told that as long as my case is ‘active’
in the Supreme Court in Sydney, I cannot lodge the same case to another Supreme Court. The same matter cannot be heard in
two different courts in the same time. As it was obvious how much power Phillips-Fox has in the court and the way they run
‘Hearings’ or however they call that process, I decided to close my matter. |
|
Firstly I could not proceed
in this Court, as I found extremely difficult to be FORCED to witness disrespect towards the Court and the Judge at every
Hearing. I was raised differently, grow up in county where the judge was respected by
everyone and was in chatge of the court process. I found myself in situation where criminals employed in Phillips-Fox
Law Firm were in charge – not the Judge. When innocent people come to the court to address injustice (despite the possible
outcome that we might agree with or not) we need to feel SAFE. Judge is there to make that happen. How secure I was, that
was up to the Philips-Fox. Judge could not protect me. Not just me, but his own reputation as well. I didnt know what to do,
didnt know that this can happen and didnt know how to deal with this. |
|
Secondly my health was the barrier as that was CLEARLY the card Phillips-Fox
were playing. I could not go along accusing the Defendant of the crimes they did and in the same time witnessing the defendant
legal Rep to do the same. It was extremely stressful. |
|
I knew how court proceedings look like. I knew it would be difficult
without legal presentation to go against the most powerful legal firm in Australia but I was ready for that. If they are that
smart, good for them, I was in peace with that. However the Hearings were not opportunity for Phillips-Fox to use their skills
to win this case - their strategy was based on felony, perjury, and breach of any Policy that stands in the Supreme Court.
I did not know that those things can happen and did not know how to deal with this. |
|
Maybe the hardest part were complains to the Chief Judge and his passive
approach towards my case. |
|
I did not wish to attend any more Hearings. Despite letter to Judge Spigelman informing him of my decision, Phillips-Fox would not let me go. When
I stop coming to Hearings they would set-up the next Hearing in a month or so, so my case was active. I did not have the choice. |
|
After 25 months in this court I was given opportunity to have the
Hearing in front of the JUDGE. I did not know that every person introduced to me as the Judge actually was Ass or Master.
Even when the direction was made for the Judge and the Jury the ‘Judge’ put in charge of my case was the Master.
For those 25 months I was kept in belief that I had a Judge in front of myself. That was never the case. I found this detail
from the barrister I was just chatting in the waiting room, before my case was heard. |
|
My case was on the Hearing list - wrongly spelled but it was there.
The courtroom was full of clients, lawyers and Plaintiffs. I could not believe that I would have the chance to speak to the
Judge. |
|
Defendant legal side arrived – this time it was 3 of them. The
new lawyer I have meet last time, the Councilor I raised allegation against and the third person who was of great concern
to me. |
|
As I was waiting to be called this man would come closer and just
gaze at me. It was frightening. Councilor and the lawyer were in the Courtroom, but this man was in waiting room. He did not
approach me nor said a single word to me nor was intimidatory-close, but he was looking intently at me. He was very tall,
huge man, his presence was disturbing and all the fears about Authority, abuse, just made me panicky. |
|
The Judge called my case at 10 am. The Councilor replied on Uni behalf
than I told the Judge that although I am closing this matter I would like to tell the Court why I am taking this action –
you can not JUST lodge the case than out of blue moon decide to withdrew. This is the court. |
|
Judge felt uncomfortable about my statement. |
|
JUDGE How about if you let me to finish few things than I will hear you later. |
|
PLAINTIFF Your Honor I will be brief there are few issues |
|
JUDGE Don’t go far, I will call you soon. |
|
I did not understand what his Honor meant by “few things”
I thought I’m one of those ‘things’ so I ask |
|
PLAINTIFF Your
Honor when that would be? You mean today or… |
|
JUDGE Yes,
today, just little bit later. Don’t go far, I will call you soon. |
|
|
|
WAITING ROOM I took
the seat in the waiting room. I did not know that “the soon” would be after 1pm. Every now and than Councilor
and the lawyer on the way out for breakfast or brake briefly told me what’s happening in the Court. I did not wish to
have any contact with the Councilor. My understanding was that if you have criminal record you cannot be in the Court in the
role of barrister. I accused this Councilor of serious breach of Law, despite my accusation Phillips-Fox sent him to this
Hearing, like ‘nothing happen’. But it did happen and his edgy attendance, desperately trying to be ‘cool’
told me how serious Phillips-Fox took my allegation. |
|
The man of concern would join the ‘Team’ from time to
time. Three of them would go behind the corner out of my eyesight whisperings, than this man would peek at me than again three
of them would hide behind the corner in the waiting room whispering. |
|
After the lunch the ‘Team’ went into the courtroom and
I was waiting in the waiting room for the Judge to call, as it was only one case left. But this man stood opposite of me and
was looking firmly right in my eyes. I was alone with him, everyone else went out as the last case was in front of Judge and
there were nobody except two of us in the waiting room. |
|
I tried to avoid his glare, felt so uncomfortable in my skin and he
knew how I felt. It was obvious. He was not ‘into’ Hearing that was crystal clear, BUT was with the Phillips-Fox
and I was the subject of their interest. I finally look straight in his eyes. To me, at that moment, this man looked exactly
like Contract Killer from the murder mystery. I was craving to tell him that when you lose your children there is nothing
else to live for. And if his job was to remove me – can he do that quickly? Don’t
let me suffer I have had enough. That’s how much I cared about my life right there. . |
|
As his presence made me anxious, I went into the Courtroom. |
|
DEFAMATION HEARING
JUDGE had finally call |
|
JUDGE So,
there is some email of concern… |
|
I could not believe what I was hearing. For those 2 years, nobody
ever asked me about defamatory email, how that affected me, what it did to my husband, the trauma that my older daughter went
through when accidentally read the defamatory email left open on my desk, my younger daughter distress and trauma of divorce,
separation of our family, financial difficulties we went through and the sell of our house, place where we were so happy.
I could not believe that although the Court room was empty – only the 2 people and the courtroom staff with the Judge
were there – I will finally tell all of that to someone who is an expert in defamation and understand the consequences.
|
|
Everyone in university knew about the truth, about abuse of students,
about my case – but when email were sent to reach as much staff as possible many academics could not believe that the
department might possibly go that far, none of them knew for sure that the email was defamatory |
|
|
DLA PHILIP-FOX Your Honor, yes the email sent to Judge Spigelman dated.. |
|
PLAINTIFF What email? |
|
DLA PHILIP-FOX
email sent to Judge Spigelman dated Tuesday, September 26, ‘06 where you stated that you wish to close this case |
|
PLAINTIFF I sent a few
emails, please read the email in full so I would know what email |
|
JUDGE you cannot make an orders here
or to tell Councilor what to do |
|
PLAINTIFF I
apologize |
|
JUDGE email
of concern is addressed to Judge Spigelman dated Tuesday, Sept 26, '06 |
|
PLAINTIFF O,
those emails. Can you read it please? |
|
JUDGE you
cannot ask the questions here. I’m the one who asks |
|
PLAINTIFF I apologize your Honor. May I read the email in full? |
|
JUDGE No,
because that is not my concern |
|
PLAINTIFF So,
I wish to close this matter in your court and you do not wish to know why? |
|
JUDGE Yes
|
| PLAINTIFF Why? |
|
JUDGE As I said you are not one who
asks the questions |
|
PLAINTIFF
|
|
JUDGE There
is no point to read it, |
|
PLAINTIFF
|
|
JUDGE Well.
even if you read it would not make any difference. |
|
PLAINTIFF |
|
JUDGE It will not change a thing…is
that obvious to you? |
|
I
did not know how to ask without asking but I knew I had to ask. |
|
PLAINTIFF Yes
your Honor however it would make me feel much better, I would be grateful to be given opportunity to read this email' |
|
JUDGE NO. |
|
PLAINTIFF
I
understand it will not change what you have already decided however I would feel much, much better it would mean a great deal
to me Your Honor? |
|
JUDGE Ok |
|
I took the email in front of the Councilor and read it very slowly. After every sentence I
would look at the Judge but his head was down |
|
Judge Spigelman on Law and Order |
|
Sack
them: Opposition seeks legal advice THE NSW Opposition is seeking legal advice from J Spigelman to call an early election Sep 2008 |
|
Top judge need for rights bill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corruption undermines everything the law enforcement community
works towards. It impoverishes whole communities, and threatens the safety and security of the many for the benefit of a very
few
Organized
crime is considered as one of the major threats to human
security impeding the social, economic political and cultural development of societies worldwide |
|
| |
|
|
|
To HON JUDGE Mr. SPIGELMAN |
|
1 Decision |
|
Due to lack of trust re; Court Proceedings, Confidentiality, Duty of Care and Credibility of the Supreme Court
in Sydney I have decided to close my matter 20372 / 04 |
|
2. Court Expenses |
|
|
|
EVIL
PHONY
BANDIT SUE BEACH | | |
I refuse to pay any Court expenses due to the breach of the Policy and the Contract.
between the Court
and the Plaintiff I believe that you, Your Honor, President of the Supreme Court, owe me reimbursement for the breach of agreement.
However being aware ‘how system works’ and ‘who system protects’ I expect that I will never see the
Justice in your Court. I will take this matter somewhere else On the other hand - money is money and someone has to pay the
bill. I am sure that you will take some actions in an effort to force me to repay the huge costs that University acquires
So, Hon Mr. Spigelman – do me a favor, take me to Court with the Judge and the Jury. Please involve Police and allow
that this crime that happen in your Court be fully investigate |
|
NOT JUST THAT SHE BREACHED EVERY POLICY IN THE SUPREME
COURT - THIS CRIMINAL HAS GIVEN HERSELF PERMISSION TO PLAGIARISE THE SIGNATURE OF THE LAWYER EMPLOYED IN HER OFFICE. THE LAWYER
LEFT UNI PERMANENTLY. MS SOLICITOR WON THIS CASE | |
| DLA PHILIP-FOX Your Honor we wish to
pay all legal expenses for the Plaintiff |
|
PLAINTIFF Your Honor I have made serious allegation and statements in this email. I ask for your response towards allegation
I have raised |
|
JUDGE
That email is not my concern |
|
DLA PHILIP-FOX Your Honor we wish to
pay everything. About the defamatory email from Jo Gaha it happened 6 years ago, long ago it is status barred out of time |
|
PLAINTIFF Your Honor would you please respond? |
|
JUDGE If defendant wishes to pay legal costs I will allow that |
|
PLAINTIFF I refuse that offer and University
do not have any right to do that without my consent. The bill should be forward to my address and when and how I’ll
pay it is between the Court and me |
|
JUDGE Ok, if you do not wish defendant to pay your bills, than, I will not make any order regardless court fees |
|
PLAINTIFF Who will pay the bill?
Don’t you think your Honor that I should be punished; as it looks like that Phillips-Fox won this case? |
|
JUDGE In this
court we do not punish people. |
|
PLAINTIFF Councilor I need to ask you what
is the outstanding amount that you wish to pay for me |
|
JUDGE
You
do not need to know that and the Councilor do not need to respond. However I need to say to you that you should be grateful |
|
PLAINTIFF To whom and what for? |
|
JUDGE
To the University for their willingness
to pay the fees for you |
|
PLAINTIFF Your
Honor, those people are criminals – they are supposed to pay. |
|
JUDGE; MAYBE THEY ARE, BUT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE.
The
statement Judge made stunned all of us. The Judge kept talking but everyone in the Court were in shock of what he has said.
Everyone. I looked at the Councilor – even he picked up |
|
PLAINTIFF Your Honour, the crime had happen, you cannot make me
silent, and you cannot silent the truth. |
|
JUDGE So you wish to close this case. Do you understand the consequences
of that? |
|
PLAINTIFF Your Honour I wish to close this case in your Court.
But case is not finished. I will reopen this case in another state. The case is closed but not completed. I have received
the information that the PM Howard instructed every state to ignore my case, every Judge is instructed to NOT reply to me,
but I’ll not gave up. I’m not giving up. |
|
JUDGE Ms Simundic, that is not my concern. What I’m asking is to confirm that your decision is to close this
case? Is that correct? |
|
PLAINTIFF
so, you are part
of this injustice. Your Honor I tried so hard to talk to you with respect you deserve, but it’s very difficult |
|
JUDGE
I know |
|
I suddenly
got a horrible headache. I have never experience pain like that before. It was simply reaction – culmination of all
the injustice and the crime I had to put up with. It was just too much. I press my head and felt that I was crying actually,
the pain was so strong that I even did not noticed that I was in tears. There was nothing else to say. I did not wait any
orders, anything; I thank the Judge and left the Court. |
|
INVESTIGATION INTO CRIMES OF MS MEEGAN GREENWOOD |
|
THIS CRIMINAL OF A REGISTRAR WAS PROMOTED TO DISTRICT COURT JUDGE BY (NO OTHER) BUT MR. SPIGELMAN ON HIS LAST DAY AS
A SUPREME COURT JUDGE http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Publications/Speeches/Pre-2015%20Speeches/Spigelman/2011%20speeches%20j%20j%20spigelman%20ac.pdf |
| INVESTIGATION
MARTIN PLACE - SYDNEY - NSW - AUSTRALIA
REGISTRAR
MS MEEGAN GREENWOOD |
|
Two days after the Hearing, on the 25th October I went to Registry
and requested to see my file. If nobody WAS keen to tell me how much money is outstanding than I will find out myself. The
only person in that Registry I raised allegation against was Ms Greenwood the Principal Registrar. However, whenever I made
complain about her, she would cover herself with: “I am aware that you made allegation against my staff and me”.
But it was obvious to everyone what she is doing. The staff that works in the registry always were very professional and behaving
strictly by the law. Ms Greenwood was only person who did not care about policies, what she was supposed to do or not. She
made her own Law and she acted accordingly |
|
So the staff behind the reception desk told me that I have to “seek
permission and after 24 hours I could come to inspect the file. That is the law – I cannot breach the law.” |
|
If nobody else want to breach the law than I requested to see Ms Greenwood.
She is the Registrar who breached every single policy that exist so I thought if she breached one more what difference would
it make? When she met me I told her; |
|
PLAINTIFF I wish to inspect my file but the staff behind the counter ‘make problems’.
Would you be able to do something? |
|
Ms Greenwood went to see the staff I
was talking with, exchange few words than returned to me saying |
|
Ms Greenwood Can you wait 10 or 15 minutes
till they brought your file? |
|
PLAINTIFF
I’m deeply grateful for you actions |
| She did not make light of it; she breaches the law every single day. |
|
Ms Greenwood “Your welcome”. |
|
After 15 minutes I was given the huge file. I asked the staff who
was with me when I made inspection few months ago; is she sure that this is my file? |
|
STAFF Probably not,
as far as I remember your file was all mess and very thin. Let me check. Yes, Vesna this IS your file, but that is not possible,
did you add more documents? |
|
PLAINTIFF I was not here from March. I gave Judge James few documents. Rest of the documents
he included from the family Court file – but this is enormous. Can you investigate this... |
|
Again staff acted professionally |
|
STAFF
Vesna I am not allow to inspect your court file and I cannot make any comment. |
|
PLAINTIFF
I understand that but you need to tell me who had access to my file |
| STAFF According to document in front of me -only you |
|
She did not make any remark but she was taken aback as well as me.
When I open the folder, inside was few folders, properly marked, dated, with the stamp of the registry, the date when it was
lodged and inside every folder was every single document I ever handed in. Every single document was there, even the ‘cuts’
from newspaper that I included related to change of policies. The folder was neat as neat as it could be; now when my case
was closed. |
|
PLAINTIFF
Can you tell me how much are the legal fees? |
| STAFF No, I’m not allowed to do that also. You have to talk with duty Registrar
and he will instruct you or me what to do. Or you can go to see finance manager and ask her if she can assist you. |
|
I told her that I would return |
| REGISTRAR MEEGAN GREENWOOD | |
|
CRIME IN THE SUPREME COURT REGISTRY
MARTIN PLACE - SYDNEY - NSW - AUSTRALIA
Finance Manager SUPREME COURT SYDNEY |
|
I asked the Manager what is outstanding amount and her reply was that
only 2 bills are not paid added that she couldn’t give me further information. She instructed me to see the Duty Registrar
and told me that in my file on every bundle of documents, should be stamp with date of payments and costs. I told her that
nothing is paid, as Judge did not make any order regardless the fees |
|
FINANCE MANAGER That is strange. There are only 2 outstanding amounts, but that is all I can say. |
|
|
|
CRIME IN THE SUPREME COURT REGISTRY
MARTIN PLACE - SYDNEY - NSW - AUSTRALIA
Duty Registrar SUPREME COURT SYDNEY |
|
DUTY REGISTRAR has the same approach.
I was not told about the invoice and how much, instead I was told that is very hard to obtain that info, it would take ‘years’
to collect all the bills… |
|
I asked the Manager what is outstanding amount and her reply was that
only 2 bills are not paid added that she couldn’t give me further information. She instructed me to see the Duty Registrar
and told me that in my file on every bundle of documents, should be stamp with date of payments and costs. I told her that
nothing is paid, as Judge did not make any order regardless the fees |
|
I returned to see the folder and to my surprise I found that every
few months university paid outstanding bills, MY BILLS. They paid on a regular basis just last two bills were not paid. However
on the top of one folder was Ass Harrison’s statement that outstanding fees are ‘held in reserve’ until
final order. Under her statement was application filled by me ‘seeking that the cost be reserved on the basis on my
financial situation and paid by the party who’s defeated.’ My signature was there. |
|
The Judges knew that the fees were paid – but they continue
to threaten me with the bills. |
|
Finally the folder that Councilor had tried to put forward to the
Judge James and me (the offer we rejected on the basis that it was not properly
handed through the registry) was right in front of me. There were no stamps, no signature of any staff behind the Registry
– no evidence that it was lodged properly according to the law and the policy of the Supreme Court. |
|
PLAINTIFF
I’m sorry, I need to ask you who put this folder in here, there is no stamp of the Registry, and I did not do
it, than who had an access to my file? |
|
STAFF
Everyone who want to include document have to lodge over the counter have to be sign by JP, have to be stamped
by S.C. stamp. Judge has right to see your file anytime. |
|
PLAINTIFF
Cannot be. Every document that Judge took on the Hearing date was stamped with his signature. There is nothing on this
folder. I need an explanation. |
|
But this was hard to explain so she returned to her desk. |
|
So all of this what happened in the S.C. was a game for the Judges and Masters. I was never
supposed to be given Judge and the Jury. Those 25 months of my life was ‘fun’ for the Court and the University
was paying regularly ‘the ticket’ to attend this Game. Everything that happen was fake, the Court knew and almost
certainly planed with the Phillips-Fox all of this. For them I was not a person. I was simply mentally ill migrant and the
subject of ridicule. Nothing else. |
|
|
CRIME IN THE SUPREME COURT REGISTRY |
| ALLEGATION
SENT TO CHIEF JUDGE SPIGELMAN | |
|
2006 MARCH 2 |
|
ALLEGATION SENT TO NSW CHIEF JUDGE HON SPIGELMAN |
|
SUBJECT:
20372 / 04 VS v Newcastle Uni - FOLDER TAMPERED - DOCUMENTS MISSING |
|
ATTENTION Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar: Megan
Greenwood |
SERIOUS
ALLEGATION SENT TO NSW CHIEF JUDGE AND SERIOUS BREACH OF DUTY
OF CARE FROM THE CHIEF JUDGE |
|
As you may recall I had contact you a few times. As you could not help me I wrote
a letter of complain asking you and the Registrar to forward it to the Justice Spigelman. I had a serious concern about the
progress of my matter, the way Phillips-Fox behave towards me and ignore any order made by the Court. I asked Justice Spigelman
to overlook this case as many statements made by Registry Officers and Ass Justice Harrison did not seem professional and
correct, something I have confirmed by solicitor/s when asked for independent advice. I assume that Justice Spigelman never
received my letters |
|
As you know Phillips Fox stated once that they will not respond
on any of my allegation and so far they are true to their promise. I have made complains about this too (none of those complaints
were in my folder) |
|
Their behavior towards me is absolutely inappropriate and unprofessional. In the beginning I would
respond to their emails and letters out of courtesy – but I have stopped doing that. As Hearing on 11 May is closer,
documents, folders, emails and affidavits that never were hand in to the registry bombard me. Affidavit is sworn in presence
of another lawyer at Phillips Fox and sent to me. I asked them to cease doing this and stated clearly that only documents
proper handed in to Supreme Court will be read by me. It did not help. I received more than 300 copies so far (all of that
are my letters and emails sent to University) |
|
I am told that those documents are documents on what Defendant will rely and
the same (that’s what they claim) will be handed in to the Judge one day before Hearing. It appears that all of this
will never be proper handed to the Registry and what will be given to the Judge will not be investigated. I have never heard
something like this before nor I have ever heard that any Court allowed this to happen. I assume that the Judge will seek
an extension to read all of this, so the next Hearing might be postponed for the next year |
|
I was left with an impression that all of that was done in an attempt to destruct
me from something and as the only thing what is left is my folder in the Supreme Court I decided to inspect |
|
On Friday 24th January ’06 I went to the Registry and asked for an access to my file. I did
not wish to send fax prior this request as I had some uneasiness about my matter in general. I told the staff there that I
refuse to go until my folder is brought to me for inspection. I left my folder with the documents that I brought with myself
on the counter. I had mobile and keys only. |
|
My folder was bunch of papers, out of order, chaotic, mixed,
pages were missing, my letters to Justice Harrison with crucial evidence that relates to out of time matter were not there.
Nothing was the way it was handed in – numbered and sorted by the date. For this accusation you might find some explanation
and protect whoever did this. |
|
However, the most concerning issue were 2 Notice of Motions
with attached documents. One was my affidavit with the papers of how my matter was handle by Mr. Puplick, Mr. Barbour, Mr.
Debus, and Mr. Rice and finally Ass Justice Hennessy. Those attachments are important and I intended to rely on it at the
Hearing. Affidavit is gone, some of the attachments were missing and only one document was there – re-typed and
submitted as mine. |
|
Another document was my letter directly to Justice Harrison,
the proof that I have contacted Supreme Court years ago seeking advice and was rejected. Since I am seeking extension of time
that document was the basis of my argument. I printed this emails (2 of them)
in format 14, as emails were short and I wanted the Judge to see clearly on what I based my request for an extension of time.
That was missing either |
|
In the same time bunch of documents were added, copied 2 –
3 times and placed inside the folder to make it bigger and more difficult to understand |
|
I asked who had an access to my folder and was told; except
me – nobody else. When I express my concern to the staff - I was told: “That is not possible, if someone wanted
any documents from your folder they would sign in here and take all folder – documents cannot be moved from here”.
Before I left I have tried to put the documents in some order without much success |
|
By the end I asked the staff to confirm that I did not take anything
with me |
|
On Tuesday 28 Jan ’06 I went to the Registry again. This time I
have send the fax, previous day, with request for an access to my file |
|
As I expected, SOME of the missing documents were returned. My affidavit
was there, some attachments still missing. |
|
The most disturbing issue was the Transcript
that was submitted by Justice Harrison. that I consider DEFAMATORY |
| ALLEGATION
AGAINST JUSTICE HARRISON | |
|
At the Hearing I asked Justice Harrison: |
| PLAINTIFF "I handed in Notice of Motion in May or March for Hearing in front of the Judge and the Jury and so far
you did not noticed that at all” |
| JUSTICE Harrison replied:
I DIDN’T SEE IT |
|
I
have raised concerns about Justice Harrison’s response, as I found hard to understand that her job is to prepare herself
for the Hearing and yet, overlooked something so crucial. I made written complain to the registrar. |
| On the TRANSCRIPT 28/11/05 Page 6 / point 20 |
| PLAINTIFF “I handed in Notice of Motion in May or March for Hearing
in front of the Judge and the Jury and so far you did not noticed that at all” |
|
JUSTICE Harrison: “I SAW THAT BUT I don’t have to make an order in relation to that unless
you get an extension" | |
|
What I am saying and what is written in the Transcript make one of us
incorrect. Transcript is based on the Hearing that was recorded and you have an access to it. If that is missing (that can
happen in the Court) please let me know. |
|
This quote is just one of many incorrect statements that I found. On
top of everything my English is presented as very poor one, words were twisted, sentences cut in half to sound “bizarre”
and the entire document I found very ‘premeditated’ act. All allegation I have made that involves many powerful
individuals, were not there and the name of The Attorney General, The Honorable Mr. Bob Debus is changed into Bob
Davies. To attend the Hearing with what was there – I do not have the chance. |
|
I believe that you in your role as a Principal Registrar have let me
down for not acting on my very first complaint. I do not need to tell you how this act made an impact on my emotional health.
Although I learned and experience wrongdoing of the Courts through ADB and ADT and this time was more prepared than before
– it did upset me till the point that the staff at Registry were concern how will I travel all the way to Newcastle
“after this”. |
|
I am financially disadvantaged. I cannot come to Sydney on a weekly basis
to make sure that my folder is in order and that something is missing or that Transcript is not “interfered”.
I believe that you should address those concerns. I see this ACT as an attempt to obstruct course of justice. I cannot make
more serious allegation than this one. People are taken to Court and sentenced for similar acts. However we both of know,
nobody will ever take responsibility for this. |
|
I have asked you to respond to my concerns and you did not, so I will
not ask again. To ask you to protect me from this, to give me advice of what to do when the Law is breached or to ask you
to let know The President of the Supreme Court what has happening in His Court – I was rejected before – You will
reject me again. |
|
This letter is sent to the Justice Spigelman – not to his secretary – but to
Him. It will reach the President of the Supreme Court this time with or without your help |
|
Thank you in advance |
|
CC High Court - PM
Howard - Att Gen. |
|
RESPONSE FROM CHIEF JUDGE SPIGELMAN | |
|
2006 JULY 7 |
|
CRIME IN THE REGISTRY - RESPONSE FROM REGISTRAR MS GREENWOOD |
|
RE; FOLDER TAMPERED - DOCUMENTS MISSING | |
|
I am writing in response to your letter received by the Chief Justice
on 15 May 2006. The Chief Justice asked me to write this reply on his behalf. You had written to
the Chief Justice requesting that he comment on a number of issues pertinent to your proceedings 20372 of 2004. |
|
It would not be appropriate for the Chief Justice
to comment upon these issues or to try and intervene in any way on your behalf. Judicial officers may only consider
the cases they are currently hearing and comment upon those cases in the presence of all parties. This ensures that the judicial
officer is not accused of showing bias to a particular party and that the courts administer justice transparently and fairly.
|
|
Although it may be inappropriate for the Chief Justice to comment upon
your concerns, there are a number of organisations, independent of the Court, which should be able to assist. For instance,
I believe you have concerns about the conduct of judicial officers in the Supreme Court. The Judicial Commission of New South Wales is an independent body, part of whose charter is to investigate these
types of complaints. I have attached material outlining the Commission's complaint procedures and contact details for your
convenience. I also understand that you believe the defendant's legal representative conducted themselves unprofessionally
during your proceedings. The Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC) can assist with this complaint. Information regarding the OLSC's operations is also enclosed. |
|
You had also asked the Chief Justice to respond to your allegations that
I have been corrupt and unprofessional in my dealings with you. I feel it necessary
to clarify that I am an employee of the New South Wales Government not the Chief Justice. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) investigates allegations of corruption within the public sector. I suggest that you contact
ICAC regarding you to lodge a complaint with them. ICAC's contact details are attached. In relation to your concerns about
my professional conduct, you may wish to raise these with the Director General of the New South Wales'Attorney General's Department, whose contact details are also attached for your convenience. |
|
Yours faithfully Megan Greenwood |
|
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar (Of WHAT and WHERE?) |
|
|
| FEDERAL COURT SYDNEY - JUDGE MOORE |
|
|
FEDERAL
COURT HEARING F C HEARING 3.30 - 4.PM
all
about HON J MORE in WIKIPEDIA JUDGE MOORE WAS THE ONLY JUDGE WHO WASN'T CORRUPT
Defendant
/ DLA Phillips Fox
Solicitor
Jasmina Price, and Counsel for the Respondent Robert Glasson Plaintiff IN PERSON |
|
STATEMENT OF
CLAIM visit my case @ FC for 'full details (yep its not published) JUDGE I received response from the Plaintiff and the
University I read both responses. Is there anything else either party wish to add to what you submitted? |
|
DLA PHILLIPS
FOX 3.30pm – 3.45pm Your
Honor, I will relay on Mr. Crittenden affidavit and as he said everything is out of time even defamation matter that Plaintiff
had - she decided to withdraw from the S C. Now DEFAMATION is out of time Than Counsel
went to details about this issue for 15 min His closing argument was 'spiced up' with very clever statement "Finally the Plaintiff
made an accusation related to the Court proceedings She accused the Supreme Court and
the Phillips Fox for discrimination. If is that what she is saying she should take
us to Court, Uni is separate issue." |
|
JUDGE Is that all? All right I received response from the
Plaintiff and the University I read both responses. Is there anything else either party wish to add to what you submitted? |
|
PLAINTIFF Your Honor, may I respond to this please? |
|
JUDGE If you have something new to add to your response, than yes |
|
PLAINTIFF I need to make an introduction of what has happened to me that brought
me to the Supreme Court in '94. That’s important because it’s related to “Out of time matter” I will
be brief PLAINTIFF 3.45pm
– 4.00pm |
|
1.
NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY) As you know, your Honor, after the event with Ms Flynn I did not receive any help
from Uni, instead they did everything possible to make me leave DEFAMATION (email) VERBAL ABUSE in front of students, discrimination
just to name the few. Their “professional attempts” to harm me PSYCHOLOGICALLY I found most frightening. In the
same time my marriage and my family went to crisis, I was DETERIORATING everywhere. When abuse went to EXTREME (at the Gosford
Placement) I LOST BABY and after that I was bleeding for 3 months. When that stopped, at the age of just 39 I lost my period
completely and cannot have children any more |
|
2.
ANTIDISCRIMINATION BOARD CHRIS PUPLICK) I lodged my case with ADB & Mr. Chris Puplick, I will not
go in details, but the way he VICTIMIZE me I cannot put into WORDS Whoever I asked for advice I was told as long as my case
is in ADB – I cannot lodge the same issue somewhere else. In the end – after 3 years of delay – I went SO
LOW that I beg Mr. Puplick, to close this case, or to send somewhere. I BAG him. Only when his staff confronted him, my matter
went to ADT. Uni were aware of THIS ABUSE but they didn’t intervene |
|
3.
ADMIN DECISION TRIBUNAL - SIMON RICE) ADT and Mr. Rice? Again the
same, just this time it went even further. Mr. Rice behavior was extremely UNPROFESSIONAL He and Ms Beach had private email
correspondence discussing my case. Ms Beach AFFIDAVIT was defamatory statement and when I cross-questioned her, every response
was perjury. Your Honor Ms Beach is pathological liar. Mr. Rice accepted Ms Beach ‘criminal act’ as credible,
and delayed this case for 18 months. Only after complains to Ms HENNESSY Judge O’Connor and the Registry officer Mr.
Rice published his decision To make things even better for Uni His decision was DEFAMATORY statement. |
|
4.
SUPREME COURT JUDGE JAMES) Now Your Honor it’s clear why I lodged my statement at the Supreme Court
in Sep ‘04. The injury happened in ‘98 however when on my 2nd placement in ’99 I displayed all signs of
being TRAUMATIZED my behavior was alarming for Social Work Dep. and DVC ENGLISH had sent me to counseling service to confirm
what all of them already knew. Abuse was ‘professionally done’ and it was Trauma. I was left with PTSD. If I could
think clearly and could manage my affairs I would go to psychiatrist, ask for diagnosis and would take Ms Flynn to the Supreme
Court. But I was lost, I could not think clearly – everything was COLLAPSING around me and I was blamed for everything. |
|
5.
DLA PHILLIPS FOX At the Supreme Court) Fox acted for the Uni I
think that they SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED in my case at all due to CONFLICT OF INTEREST This firm and Att Gen Mr. BOB DEBUS are
the same Authority who changed all policies related to my legal matter. They knew my case; they knew what they have to do.
They changed the policies and delayed my case with the help of the S.C. In the same
time everyone in the NSW I complained about Uni and the legal process put me on the blocker list. All of that was ORGANIZED.
I came across the biggest legal corruption in the history of NSW. PhillipsFox, Att Gen, ICAC, NSW Ombudsman, all of them are
part of this. It goes right to the top of the Court. EVERYONE IS INVOLVED All of this was known to University - but they did
not wish to ended this matter. Who's responsible? University is responsible. |
|
And
this man here, the Counsel - he was part of corruption as well, part in DISAPPEARANCE of my family FOLDER that 'vanished'
from registry, He also lied under the Oath, in front of Judge. He is liar, the same like MS SUE BEACH She is pathological liar ... |
|
JUDGE Your accusations are very ‘personal’ and ‘personal attacks’ I don’t
allow here |
|
PLAINTIFF you mean about the words I'm using? Well- when someone lies, what can
I say? If I lie how would you tell me that? |
|
JUDGE I cannot say that, however I said ‘personal attacks’ I don’t allow here
. |
|
PLAINTIFF Liar is liar. However I do apologize if you think that it was inappropriate.
As I said the Counsel was incorrect many times and Ms Beach is pathologically incorrect. The Judges, Phillips-Fox and the
University assumed I would be an easy prey – because I was a migrant who cannot speak properly and have PTSD. I was
a perfect victim. My children were affected by all of this and my younger daughter, she almost had nervous BREAKDOWN All of
us are victims. And NOW after all of that - this person here, the Counsel has THE DIGNITY to come here to face me and say
to you that this Hearing is “abuse of process” after he abused all legal processes that
could be abused. I do not wish to even stand close to him, after the Hearing I do not wish to talk to him or sit next to him
I don’t wish that people think that we are friends. To lie to Judge, to steal, to be part of emotional torture of the
mentally ill women - he does not deserve to be in my company. I don’t socialize with people like him. |
|
In
regard to Counsel’s comment that I should withdraw my case against Uni and take S.C. and the PhillipsFox to court-battle
for another 8 years, that will not happen Your Honor, from the beginning, this case was about University. I took University
to Court, not Ms Lynch, PhillipsFox nor Judges from the S.C. How PhillipsFox behave
that’s Uni’s responsibility. How Judges BEHAVE that’s Uni’s responsibility too. They knew what I’m
going through and how NSW Government treated me. If they wished to stop abuse and take responsibility - they had 8 years to
do that. They did not. University is accountable - rest is different issue. |
|
PERSONAL INJURY
IS "OUT OF TIME"? All of this, event by event, from Court to Court
was a traumatic experience– with intention to harm. What about psychological
injury when I was faced with the Judge who looked in my eyes saying defamation after defamation? Is that out of time? Or the
shock when I attend the Hearing where Jury was removed, or stress when the half of the Hearing went to fixing my "folder that
was mess". My marriage breakdown, my inability to be proper mother and the wife for the last 8 years? Is that out of time Your Honor? Despite knowing all of this, University did not wish to stop this abuse and settle
the matter properly. I want University to be forced to take responsibility for the crimes they did. |
|
JUDGE It is clear that you were traumatized All right can you tell me what do you wish to happen?
It’s almost 4 pm and I have Hearing at 4pm |
|
PLAINTIFF I WANT JURY. THAT’S ALL I WANT. |
|
JUDGE Well I have to decide that |
|
PLAINTIFF I also wish to ask you why am I the only person in Australia who is
not allowed to have a Jury? |
|
JUDGE As I said I have to decide … |
|
PLAINTIFF You Honor I beg you, please just give me a Jury, please I beg you -
nothing else. PLEASE |
|
JUDGE There's no need to beg I have heard your allegation and defendant response I now need time
and I will advise both sides about my decision |
|
PLAINTIFF Your Honor if you decide against the Jury, I will go further. I will
go to every Court in Australia, until this abuse is addressed appropriately. NSW or somewhere else, I will not stop |
|
| WEBSITE ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT EVIDENCE | |
|
My web site was established firstly TO PROTECT MY
DOCUMENTS FROM BEING STOLEN.This Policy respected in every Court in the world- is something that
was violated many times in my case. It cause a great stress to me on top of my psychiatric injury– that University denies,
and secondly To help Judge to access the evidence in the time that suits his HONOUR To help Judge to determine the right decision
based on MY evidence NOT DLA Phillips-Fox folder that is nothing else than the ‘Trojan Horse’ To help Judge decide
who is responsible for this delay BASED on what I submitted that would automatically allow me to have a Jury To relief the
stress of constantly checking my folder in the Registry (Ms Greenwood works just few levels lower and DLA Phillips-Fox is
only a few hundred meters away from F.C. building) Finally to save money (traveling ‘to F.C. and from F.C.’ financially
exhausted me)
EVEN THIS DIDN’T WORK - IF UNI WANT BREACH THE LAW UNI WILL DO IT - NOBODY CAN STOP THEM - NOT EVEN THE
COURT |
|
After my case was finished
I personally inspected my file in S.C. Registry Ms Lynch and Ms Greenwood together with Ms Solicitor of the Supreme Court
of NSW Sue Beach did something brainless; the documents and the folder stolen were returned. I asked Judge Moore to order
that my file – now complete – be transferred to F.C. Registry as finally everything was there. I was told that
there should not be problem about this request |
|
On the 16 April 07 my Internet Provider had informed me that Ms Lynch (who was taken
from the case) and Ms Sue Beach made threats that if my website is not removed they will take legal action against Zoomshare
Internet Provider. The USA Internet provider (who gave me unlimited space for free due to impressive number of hits that ‘the
Truth’ attracted) and is very familiar with this case – did not wish to have any contact with NSW legal system
- so she removed ‘the Truth’ |
|
EVIDENCE
REMOVED AGAIN
FROM
ZOOMSHARE Thanks you for contacting zoomshare your site was removed pending an investigation regarding defamatory statements
on your web site regarding a Ms. Beach and a Ms. Lynch I have received a complaint threatening further action and must investigate
these claims. If your site is found to be in violation it will be removed.
2007
TUE 17 FROM ZOOMSHARE Dear Vesna, Unfortunately,
it appears that we will have to remove the web site by the end of business today. Please make arrangements regarding this
matter. I apologize for the inconvenience. Regards Director of Customer Care |
|
It was unclear to me why would evidence be removed
again – as I already made accusations about documents being stolen from the S.C. and on basis of that justified allegation
Ms Lynch was taken from my case and eventually in April boot-out from DLAPFox. I requested to see the folder in the F.C. Registry.
The folder transferred from S.C. to F.C. was not the folder that I have seen on neither visit nor it was mess-up bunch of
paper presented to the Judges in S.C. It was new bunch of documents, in better shape, but not MINE and NOT how I submitted.
The Folder given by S.C. to F.C. was interfered before it arrived |
|
Finally
everything made sense. I told Judge Moore and the Registry staff about this – and left the matter at that.
Why hassle?
AGAINST WHO? and TO WHOM? |
|
| DLA PHILLIPS FOX RESPONSE | |
|
UNIVERSITY RESPONSE Federal Court proceedings no NSD 2344 of 2006
RESPONDENT'S
OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS
These
proceedings should be dismissed for the following reasons:
(a) On the face of the Application, these proceedings are frivolous, vexatious and disclose
no arguable cause of action. They are also an abuse of process given the previous applications made by the applicant on the
same grounds to the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal (the "ADT") and the Supreme Court of New South Wales which were
both ultimately dismissed. |
|
(b) To the extent that a claim is made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), the
proceedings cannot be maintained by reason of section 13(4) of that Act as the applicant has previously taken proceedings
in the ADT claiming discrimination against the University including on the grounds of race, disability (both presumed ‑mental illness ‑ and actual ‑ stress disorder) and for victimization. After four days of hearing, those proceedings were dismissed: see Simundic v
University of Newcastle [2004] NSWADT 206. |
|
(c) To the extent that a claim is made under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Act 1986 (Cth), the Federal Court has no jurisdiction as the applicant has not previously made a complaint to the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission and no such complaint has been terminated by the President of the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission: see section 46PO of that Act. Indeed, because of her previous application to the ADT she would be
prevented from making any such complaint by reason of section 13(4) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. |
|
(d) To the extent that a claim is made for personal injury, negligence and breach of contract
the proceedings are statute barred: see Simundic v University of Newcastle [2006] NSWSC 563. It is also an abuse of process
to attempt to bring the same claims in the Federal Court which Court has no jurisdiction to hear such claims. |
|
(e) To the extent that a claim is made in defamation concerning an email sent in Ausgust 1999,
the proceedengs are statute barred. The Federal Court also has no juridistinction to hear any such claim. On 23 October 2006,
the applicant consented to the Supreme Court defamation proceedings being dismissed and Nicholas J so ordered. |
|
12
December 2006 Robert Glasson Counsel
for the Respondent |
|
there you go
... 8 YEARS FROM COURT TO COURT THIS WAS UNIVERSITY RESPONSE TO ALL THE ALLEGATION I HAVE MADE |
|
|
|
|
|
QC Catherine BRANSON |
|
|
Honorable Justices Branson
QC has been
President of the Australian Human Rights Commission since Oct '08
Former Federal Court Judge
All about J Branson IN WIKIPEDIA |
“The public must have confidence that the judiciary
are also following the rules" | |
| APPEAL - FEDERAL COURT - HONORABLE JUSTICE BRANSON QC |
| V
S -v- UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE Branson J |
| July 7, 07 Federal Court File No: NSD 982/2007 |
|
Attendance: Plaintiff in person |
| Defendant: DLA PhillipsFox Solicitor Jasmine Price / Counsel/Barrister Robert Glasson |
|
MARKED IN BLUE ARE HON BRANSON DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS |
|
The first thing that caught my eye was the Councilor who appeared very relaxed.
Not a single worry in his appearance. He was too relaxed for someone who by all means lost this case. I did not
understand what kind of further humiliation he was ready to go through? But I gave up long ago on this smart barrister,
I simply ceased to listen his arguments and that was what troubled me. I am good listener, patient, but this Councilor was
difficult to understand. On top of that he was untouchable - except Judge nobody could question him. And for some reason
none of the Judges ever challenged him |
|
Judge BRANSON Counsel what’s your response to Plaintiffs statement re; Appeal? |
|
Counsel
Your Honor, there is no problems about Appeal books, Plaintiff had agree with what we proposed. About
panel of 3 Judges, my client oppose to that. The only concern we have its her affidavit lodged for the Appeal Proceedings
because |
|
Judge BRANSON Well my decision is that the Plaintiff should have panel of 3 judges, |
|
Counsel All right. We did
not agree how long the Hearing should be, I propose 1 hour. |
|
Judge BRANSON What do you think how urgent the matter is? We are booked for the August... |
|
Counsel It’s
not urgent. |
|
Judge BRANSON All right Ms
Simundic how urgent this matter is for you? |
|
Plaintiff Very urgent. Your Honor the Councilor makes living on
delaying my case, that’s his job. However, this is my life, I want this to be dealt with and move on. But all of that
is explained in my affidavit. May I ask have you read my affidavit? |
| JUDGE
BRANSON PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE | |
|
Judge BRANSON
No |
|
Plaintiff You did not? |
|
Judge BRANSON Well I can do it
now if you wish. |
|
I did not see what her Honor was reading so I asked her |
|
Plaintiff Your Honor that is 10 pages affidavit is that what you
have in your hands? |
|
Judge BRANSON No. What I have is very short statement. |
|
I took copy of the affidavit and told Judge that this document is my affidavit for the Court of
Appeal |
|
Judge BRANSON Ok, if you wish I can read it. Judge took my affidavit, fliped few pages and returned to me. No, its not here I did not see it and I did not read it |
|
Plaintiff My experience with the Registry staff is that those people
would not tampered with documents. My affidavit was included in front of me by Registrar Farrell and I trust her. Staff in
this FC registry doesn’t steal the documents. |
|
I did not understand how her Honor could make orders and decisions if she did not read my Appeal
statement? The most concerning was the thought that she might not know what I am appealing against and on basis of what. But
how we proceeded further it was clear that this Judge did not need evidence |
|
Counsel Your Honor,
that affidavit should not be there on the basis that NOTHING NEW should be included, that affidavit is new, and as you know
only documents presented to judge Moore could 'proceed' |
|
Again this barrister had outsmart all of us. I knew he was too clever even for the Judge. I should
Appeal before Judge Moore made his decision. In that case my appeal would be presented to Judge Moore and it would not be
struck out, Yap, that’s it. That was my mistake and I was so embarrassed for being so stupid. I started to laugh at
myself. I was looking at Judge how she will handle this statement but she was impressed how smart Councilor was. I turn around
and looked at the response from everyone present. People were laughing. |
|
Plaintiff That’s my appeal your Honor, That’s the
only document I ask the Court to accept, everything else I am not allowed to submit. Everyone should have right to submit
an affidavit |
|
Judge BRANSON Well, nothing new should be submitted and affidavit
is not here |
|
It was clear that this was neither the court nor the judge I could raise my concerns. Ms Solicitor
had threatened this Judge, that was clear, the same like in case of Ass Justice Harrison at the SC. She was threaten as well |
|
Plaintiff I need to request 3 days Hearing I wish to cross-question
witnesses |
|
Counsel Your Honor again
that is new proposal, something we did not discuss with Judge Moore. My client objects to this ABUSE |
|
Judge BRANSON So the case is not urgent - than we can hear it in October, as August
is booked. It will be 1 day Hearing in front of the full Court (3 Judges). |
|
Plaintiff That’s strange |
|
Judge BRANSON What’s strange? |
|
Plaintiff I was told from the staff at the Registry that there
would be no problem for the August Hearing and that August is not booked. |
|
Judge BRANSON Well, you can always applied for the early Hearing and if we have any suitable days we might accept your case
earlier but I am sure that August is booked |
| ALLEGATION
AGAINST JUSTICE BRANSON | |
|
* JUSTICE BRANSON IS ACCUSED OF |
|
* REFUSAL TO PROTECT ME FROM EMOTIONAL ABUSE IN HER COURT |
|
* ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF DEFENDANT (UNI OF NEWCASTLE) |
|
* HER HONOR EXCLUDED ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT DAMAGE UNIVERSITY |
|
* HER HONOR GAVE HERSELF LIBERTY TO MAKE DEFAMATORY STATEMENT SAYING; I
DID NOT SEE YOUR AFFIDAVIT and in the same time looking strait into my affidavit |
|
* REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE CRIMINAL ACTION OF NEWCASTLE UNI, MR. PUPLICK
AND MR. SIMON RICE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE PRESENT |
|
* HER HONOR ACTED ON A VERY DISHONORABLE AND INAPPROPRIATE MANNER
ABUSING HER POWER OF FEDERAL COURT JUDGE |
|
* HER HONOR IS PART OF NSW JUDICIAL CORRUPTION | |
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT REGISTRAR 2007 JULY 3 TUESDAY 9.30
ATTENDANCE - F.C. REGISTRAR - PLAINTIFF - DLAPHILLIPS FOX - Ms Jasmina Price |
|
REGISTRAR Firstly, we have to settle the Appeal
Index. That’s important part of Appeal
PLAINTIFF I have sent by email documents I asked to be included, cc was sent to
dlaPhillips Fox and they received My understanding was that the defendant would come with clear view of where she stands and
this part will be finished today
REGISTRAR I did
not receive email, so lets go to settle the Appeal Index.
PLAINTIFF
I have read on the Federal Court website instructions regardless this part, I am
familiar with this part of the process however can you explain to me what will happen after we finished with this, when we
will have The Hearing?
REGISTRAR Well, we have to come back here again and defendant will have opportunity to object. If we cannot agree what
documents will be submitted than we have to do again than came back again. However lets concentrate of what we have to do
today,
PLAINTIFF I am familiar with that, as I
said, can you tell me what will happen after we once agree on what documents will be included
REGISTRAR Than both of parties
will go in front of Duty Registrar and
PLAINTIFF Why?
REGISTRAR That’s the process
PLAINTIFF Than
when we will have the hearing?
REGISTRAR
That all depends when we will finish this, I believe you will not have time for July Hearing
however we have October or early February 2008
PLAINTIFF How can we speed
up this process?
REGISTRAR That depends on defendant agreement related to this appeal index, you will put forward your documents than defendant
will respond, than
PLAINTIFF Than it can go forever…
DLA PHILLIPSFOX- Well, this is my proposal
We were given small paper with titles of the documents unrelated to any issue I raised: abuse / discrimination / victimization
/ Corruption / systematic abuse of students, stealing / lying under the oath
etc, etc
REGISTRAR Ok,
however nothing new has to be submitted ONLY what is in this folder.
PLAINTIFF That folder is not
mine … those documents is what is left after Ms Megan Greenwood visit to SC Registry I told Judge Moore about this
REGISTRAR Well that is something
you discuss with the Judge. So, you wish to include this and Defendant this, we have problem
DLA PHILLIPSFOX- She cannot include those documents, none of those documents
are in that folder.
PLAINTIFF I beg you pardon?
DLA PHILLIPSFOX- Those documents are not there,
so you cannot include it.
PLAINTIFF How do you know what is in this folder?
How do you know that NONE of those documents are in this folder?
DLA PHILLIPSFOX- Because I was there
PLAINTIFF You was there?
DLA PHILLIPSFOX- I was there
PLAINTIFF You was where?
DLA PHILLIPSFOX- At the Hearing in front of Judge Moore
PLAINTIFF Me to. But how do you know that
any of those documents I suggested aren’t here
Defendant legal Rep suddenly became white in the face. I thought she would collapse
from the chair. She needed time to come to terms with what she just said. I gave her time
DLA PHILLIPSFOX- Well nothing of this was discussed at the Hearing …So,
that’s how I know ..
She was not involved in stealing but was part of the Team, she probably was forced
to be there when Ms Lynch made decision what she will steal and what she will not.
PLAINTIFF Registrar, would be interesting
if you confirm in front of the Judge what Solicitor just said,
REGISTRAR No, I cannot. We have to work
here according to law.
PLAINTIFF If we obeyed the law, my case would be closed
and resolved the moment I raised accusation against dlaPhillips-Fox. What kind of legal process is this, I don’t know.
This is professional suicide for all legal parties involved.
REGISTRAR What do you think how long
its going to take Appeal process?
DLA PHILLIPSFOX- Two hours
PLAINTIFF Three days
REGISTRAR Well again we have to agree on this?
PLAINTIFF I believe that Judges will decide
after I presented the case and don’t worry about payments.
THE ISSUE OF LEGAL COSTS University
will pay everything. They paid in ADB, ADT and in the S.C. behind my back No need to stop now. The only thing is that
Judge had to make an order for me to pay. Ms Solicitor is attracted to crime. She
will pay the fees just to breach the law.
DLA PHILLIPSFOX- My client didn’t pay any bill
PLAINTIFF
They didn’t ?
DLA PHILLIPSFOX- No
PLAINTIFF For
the Federal Court proceedings, your Councilor stated in his affidavit - I will quote: Who pays
University bills that’s up to University. Plaintiff should be grateful that we paid the fees...” What’s your comment now?
DLA PHILLIPSFOX-
PLAINTIFF Registrar, as you see, this company
has ‘internal’ problems, there is simply too many of them involved and its hard to remember who said what. I have
to deal with that as well. All of this is too complicate for us. I would propose something if I may..
REGISTRAR Ok lets hear
PLAINTIFF
How about if I do the draft and send the copy to you and dlaPhillips-Fox. If dlaPhillips-Fox
made objection I will accept their proposal and we will come back with finished job next week, so my matter could proceed
in front of Registrar and ultimately head for the Hearing this month. We have to avoid problems. We will have panel Of three
Judges. I need to request this time proper courtroom, as Australians were waiting for the real Hearing for years. Some People
will come from the Northern Territory, Victoria – Melbourne City, some from Tasmania. All I need is the Hearing I am
entitled too. I am Australian citizen, that’s my right. The hearing will include cross-questioning regardless the documents
included
REGISTRAR Ok, so what if you submit – let say next
month or in two months?
PLAINTIFF
No, I will submit immediately, DLAPhillips-Fox have to respond immediately. There
will be no more discussion about this. When we come next week you will accept Appeal Index. As simple as that.
REGISTRAR Can defendant comment
on this?
DLA PHILLIPSFOX- I
agree |
|
GROUNDS
FOR APPEAL IN FEDERAL COURT |
|
TO HON JUDGE BLACK FEDERAL COURT MELBOURNE
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
JUDGE MOORE STATEMENT -
QUOTE "THIS APPLICANT
HAS BEEN ILL TREATED BY THE UNI
AND ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
IS CLEAR THAT YOU WERE TRAUMATIZED”
1 I SEEK COMPENSATION FOR
PERSONAL INJURY P.T.S.D.
2 I SEEK COMPENSATION FOR
DEFAMATION
3 I SEEK COMPENSATION FOR
BREACH OF CONTRACT
4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL / ISSUE
OF DISCRIMINATION DURING THE LEGAL PROCESS IN
ADB 1990 – 1993: / ADT
1993 – 1994: / 1994 - PRESENT 5 I SEEK COMPENSATION FOR MY YOUNGER DAUGHTER |
|
APPEAL
- HON JUDGE ALLSOP (former Supreme court judge) |
|
APPEAL HONORABLE JUSTICE ALLSOP |
21 August 07 FEDERAL COURT - PANEL OF 3 JUDGES |
Although
it was full court-Hearing none of the Judges had their names displayed in front of them so I did not knew who’s who
and how to ask particular Judge a question. Panel of 3 Judges |
Judge 'A' on my left was observer – nothing his eye had
fail to notice. He would ask question from time to time but mostly he looked – not absently – but actively. If
you breach the Law this Judge is the last thing you wish to see in the Court. No doubt why the Councel was quite. When I spoke
Judge A would gave me a full attention |
Judge 'B' in the middle did most of the speech. I assume he was JUDGE FROM THE SYDNEY Justice James ALLSOP (i was right) |
Judge 'C' on my right was mostly ‘into’ evidence that was in front of him, those
2 poorly presented Books of Appeal submitted by Fox. Solicitor However, whenever I spoke he would look directly at me leaving
an impression of a Judge who really was interested what I have to say. |
I
was tired, emotionally exhausted, under pressure ‘what will happen if those judges take Uni side to’. I put too
much on myself for too long and it finally came back to me. I understood what they meant saying: 'You will not last'. |
I
knew that any single document I put across Counsel would object. I thought I have to be original about what to present to
Judges, as I did not have any energy in me to argue my case or debate with Councilor It had to be document that Counsel would
not object. I came with the big bag and only few documents were in front of me. Big bag was under the table out of Judges
eyesight |
Counsel
made an entry point, however he was very brief and unusually quite. He firmly stood by his argument but he was different.
Than the Judge B gave me opportunity to respond |
As
I felt sick and was hardly standing on my legs, I told Judge that so far I was not allowed to present any evidence, argue
my evidence nor Uni legal Rep ever responded to any accusation I made. Even when evidence was hand in it was stolen and .. |
Judge B Is this the affidavit you wish
to relay on? |
In
his hands was MY affidavit that Justice Bronson 'did not read it and did not
see it' I asked if I could see and when given
my affidavit in the whole entity was there, every single page, nothing stolen, rewritten or added. |
Counsel I
object because it was written on |
Judge B You object? |
Counsel Yes |
Judge B Ms Simundic, are there any other documents
you wish to include |
Plaintiff Your HONOUR
If I’m allow, I wish to include this folder? |
I took from my bag 'the Trojan Horse' sent to me by Ms Lynch. The folder with 'PhillipsFox'
name on the cover and inside were documents, sign by Ms Lynch, Counsel and Mr. Hayden - ALMOST all the documents that were
hand in and later stolen. It is true that the naughty Bec enclosed copy of a few documents number of times and the most damaging
for University were nowhere to be seen, but...considering who PhillipsFox is it were presumed I’ll be ecstatic about
this noble act of kindness |
Judge's job would be to compare what he had in front of himself (documents that Registrar
Ms Greenwood sent to Federal Court) prior FC Hearing with the folder I just hand in and the proof of the crime I accused Councilor
and his gang was crystal clear. Our Counsel had signed his own destiny. Above all defendant could not object to something
that he personally hand in... or I thought so... |
Counsel
I object |
Judge B You
object? I assume that you wish to inspect the file that Plaintiff had just given to the Panel of Judges. You are not to leave
the Courtroom. Mr. X will stay and assist you with this. Court will return after 20 min brake.
|
I believe in evidence. No matter what I said, what Counsel said - evidence was there and it had only one motive -
the truth. Two people lost their jobs in an effort to prevent my documents being hand in to the Court. That was statement
itself. Our Counsel was pale, I bet this was not planned, and the Hearings of this sort he was not used to. Evidence was never
part of his winning strategy |
|
| DECISION OF HONORABLE J ALLSOP |
|
|
DECISION OF HONORABLE J ALLSOP DECISION HON JUSTICE ALLSOP - LANDER - SIOPIS 2007 AUGUST 31 THE COURT:
- 2 - I On 31 May 2007 the applicant in the proceeding before the primary judge filed a notice of appeal against orders
made by his Honour on II May 2007 dismissing her application and ordering her to pay the respondent's costs.
2 The notice of appeal does not particularise any grounds of appeal but merely recites the appellant's complaints about
the respondent's conduct and the conduct of other parties.
3 On 29 November 2006 the appellant commenced proceedings in this Court, purportedly under the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (HREOC Act), alleging unlawful Discrimination by the respondent.The relief sought on
the application is for:
2 I ask the Federal Court to accept my case: - to be transferred from S.C. Registry to Federal Court Registry. - my file
with all the documents to be moved to F.C. - any additional document to be lodge by email.
3 My matter with University is about:
(1) PERSONAL INJURY
(2) DEFAMATION
(3) BREACH OF CONTRACT+ during the supreme court proceedengs (4) CRIMINAL CONDUCT of DLAPhillipsFox that I take UNIVERSITY
responsible.
4 The relief seems to have little association with the cause of action under the HREOC Act.
5 The application was accompanied by a Form 167, required under Order 81 rule 5 of the Federal Court of Australia Rules
1979 (Cth), and an affidavit sworn by the appellant. In her affidavit, the appellant claimed that she withdrew her case from
the Supreme Court of New South Wales because of conduct on the part of the respondent's solicitors. She asks that this Court
accept her claim. A reading of the application, Form 167 and the affidavit reveals only one cause of action raised, namely,
a claim under the HREOC Act, notwithstanding a reference to defamation and breach of contract in the application. The application
also sought an order transferring proceedings in the Supreme Court to this Court.
6 The respondent, by notice of motion filed on 18 December 2006, sought orders that the application be dismissed and the
appellant pay the respondent's costs. Accompanying the notice of motion was an affidavit of a partner in the firm of solicitors
acting for the respondent, which exhibited a number of documents which established the history of the appellant's complaints
in relation to the respondent in the Anti Discrimination Board of New South Wales, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal,
and the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
7 That history was summarised by the primary judge in [2]-[8] of his reasons:
[2] It is convenient to outline briefly the history of the applicant's grievance with the University and its legal representatives.
In 1996, the applicant enrolled in a Bachelor of Social Work at the University of Newcastle. She ceased to be enrolled in
2000. She did not obtain the qualification.
[3] The applicant lodged a complaint against the University with the AntiDiscrimination Board of New South Wales ("ADB")
on 7 November 2000. The complaint concerned, inter alia, things allegedly said and done by certain University employees, in
particular, Lianne Flynn, who was a lecturer in the Department of Social Work,and Jo Gaha, the Head of the Department, between
August 1998 and August 2000. One particular incident concerned an email sent by Ms Gaha to the Vice
3 - Chancellor in August 1999, and seen by other staff, indicating that she thought the applicant was "clinically
disturbed" and posed a risk to staff and students.
[4] The complaint was referred to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales ("ADT") after unsuccessful
conciliation in the ADB On 21 September 2004, the ADT dismissed the complaint: see Simundic v University of Newcastle [2004]
NSWADT 206.
[5] On 18 October 2004, the applicant commenced proceedings against the University in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The amended statement of claim filed 7 April 2005 pleaded causes of action in negligence, contract and defamation, the last
of which concerned the email of August 1999.
[6] On 6 June 2006, Associate Justice Harlison dismissed a motion by the University to have the proceedings surninarily
dismissed or the statement of claim struck out: see Simundic v University of Newcastle[2005] NSWSC 586. The applicant was
directed to file an application for extension of time.
[7] On 22 June 2006, James J considered two applications made by the applicant by notice of motion: see Simundic 1, University
of Newcastle [2006] NSWSC 563. One was an application that the trial be with a jury, and the other an application for an extension
of time under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). The University conceded that the cause of action in defamation was not statute
barred. His Honour found that on any view the other causes of action had accrued by the time the applicant ceased to be a
student of the University in 2000 and hence that she was out of time. James J dismissed the application to extend time under
the Limitation Act. The application for a jury was dismissed on the basis that the causes of action in negligence and breach
of contract were statute barred, and in the case of the defamation action, the applicable statute, Defamation Act 1974 (NSW),
left no scope for her application.
[8] On 23 October 2006, the applicant's defamation claim was listed before Nicholas J. On the basis of the applicant's
statements and the documents produced by the University, including a facsimile received from the applicant, his Honour concluded
that the applicant no longer intended to proceed with the matter and that the appropriate order was to dismiss the proceedings.
8 The respondent sought dismissal of the application on alternative grounds. First, on the ground that the proceedings
were frivolous, vexatious and disclosed no arguable cause of action; secondly, that the proceedings were an abuse of process
given previous applications to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and the 'Supreme Court of New South Wales, both of
- 4 - which were previously dismissed; thirdly, that the proceedings were not maintainable under the Disability iscrimination
Act 1992 (Cth) (DD Act); fourthly, that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the negligence and breach of contract
were statute barred; and sixthly to the extent the proceedings were in defamation thev were statute barred and, in any event
the Court had no jurisdiction to hear such a claim.
9 The pnimar" judge found that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's proceeding. He said that
no proceeding could be brought under the HREOC Act because an application of that kind could only be made after a complaint
to the Human Right and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was terminated by the President, and the President had aiven notice
under s 46PH(2) of the HREOC Act. No such notice had been given in this case.
10 The appellant complained that she had been discriminated against in the Supreme Court by the solicitors for the University
and, perhaps, though it is not clear, by officers, judicial and non? judicial, of the Supreme Court. The primary judge found
that this was not a matter that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain because there had been no complaint to the HREOC
and, again, no notice had been given by the President. In any event, these proceedings were against the University and not
any other party in the Supreme Court.
11 Lastly, the primary judge found that the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the claims in negligence, contract
and defamation. For those reasons, he dismissed the appellant's proceeding.
12 The appellant's proceeding was dismissed because the primary judge found that the Court lacked jurisdiction, and therefore
it followed that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed. The order dismissing the proceedings, however, is not a final
order: Weatherall v Satellite Receiving Systems A ust Pty Ltd (1999) 92 FCR 10 1; Dai v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2000) 171
ALR 348. It is an interlocutory order: LashansAy v Bruvecchis Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 64. Section 24 of the Federal Court of
Australia Act 1976 (Cth) provides that an appeal cannot be brought from an interlocutory judgment of the Court constituted
by a single Judge unless the Court or a judge gives leave to appeal: s 24(1 A). On 25 July 2007, a Judge of this Court, with
the. respondent's consent, granted Ieave - 5 - 13 The appellant, who was unrepresented on this appeal, was invited by the
Court to direct her attention to the primary judge's reasons for the purpose of demonstrating to the Court error on his Honour's
part. Apart from stating that his decision was an abuse of process, the appellant was unable to articulate any error on his
Honour's part. During the hearing of the appeal, the appellant handed up to the Court a number of documents which she invited
the Court to receive as evidence. The documents were put before the Court to show that the appellant had been discriminated
against by the respondent whilst attending the respondent's institution and for the further purpose of demonstrating improper
conduct by the respondent's legal representatives in proceedings brought by the appellant in the Supreme Court of New South
Wales. The Court indicated that it would read the documents and rule on their admissibility. The documents are not relevant
to this appeal and were not relevant in the proceeding before the primary judge. They will not be admitted: s 56(2) of the
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). An affidavit of the appellant dated 10 July 2007 was read subject to objection. It was equally, and
for like reasons, irrelevant and should be rejected.
14 The question before the primary judge and on this appeal, was whether the appellant's proceeding should be dismissed
because the appellant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceedings: s 3 1 A of the Federal Court
ofAustralia Act.<BR>15 The appellant's cause of action in the application is identified as a claim under the HREOC Act
alleging unlawful discrimination. As already noticed, paragraph 2 of the appellant's application seeks the transfer of the
proceedings in the Supreme Court of NewSouth Wales (which have been dealt with by that Court) to the Federal Court. She alsoindicates
that her claim includes personal injury, defamation and breach of contract.
16 The primary judge construed the application as raising a cause of action under the HREOC Act and further causes of
action in negligence, contract and defamation. In our opinion, that was a generous construction of the proceeding. However,
the respondent did not argue that his Honour was wrong to conclude that the further common law causes of action were raised.
17 In respect of the cause of action under the HREOC Act, his Honour found that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain
the proceeding<BR>- 6 -
18 Section 46PO of the HREOC Act empowers a person who has made a complaint to the HREOC, or on whose ehalf a complaint
to the HREOC was made, to apply to the Court alleging unlawful discrimination by the respondent to the complaint. However,
there are three conditions precedent to the right to bring such a proceeding: a complaint must have been made; the complaint
must have been terminated by the President under s 46PE or s 46PH and the President must have given notice to the complainant;
and the President must have given notice under s 46PH(2) of the HREOC Act. The last condition has not been met.No notice has
been given.
19 Moreover, although the appellant claimed before the primary judge and the Full Court that she had made a complaint
to the HREOC, s 13(4) of the DD Act provides that a complaint cannot be made under the HREOC Act concerning any discrimination
dealt with under the DD Act where a person has made a complaint or initiated proceedings under a law of a State or Territory
relating to discrimination dealt with by the DD Act. As the appellant had already lodged a complaint with the Anti? Discrimination
Board of New South Wales (which conducted an unsuccessful conciliation) and the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South
Wales (which dismissed the complaint after a hearing) any purported complaint made to the HREOC was incompetent. Thus the
first condition precedent also cannot be made out.
20 For these reasons, the appellant cannot maintain any proceeding based on a cause of action under the HREOC Act alleging
unlawful discrimination. The proceeding is not maintainable under the HREOC Act because the conditions precedent to the institution
of the proceeding have not been made out and, indeed, cannot be made out.
21 The primary judge also dismissed the appellant's proceeding insofar as it raised causes of action in negligence, contract
and defamation on the basis that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain those causes of action. If those causes
of action were raised, as opposed to being the subject of a request for transfer to this Court, the primary judge was correct
if it can be concluded that there has been no proper invocation of federal jurisdiction here: Carlton & United Breweries
Ltd v Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 543 at 553. We need not decide the question (in particular in the absence of
argument) whether the absence of the satisfaction of the conditions precedent in s 46PO leads to the conclusion that
-7 - there has been no proper invocation of federal jurisdiction: see Zines L "Federal, Associated and Accrued Jurisdiction"
in Opeskin B and Wheeler F (eds) The Australian Federal Judicial System (Melbourne University Press, 2000) pp 294?95. This
is unnecessary for decision because the Supreme Court of New South Wales has already entertained these causes of action and
dismissed the actions in negligence and contract as statute? barred and the action in defamation on the appellant's own motion.
Even assuming these causes of action were raised and even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to hear them as part of
some federal matter, they would be dismissed as an abuse of process. The primary judge was right to dismiss the proceeding
summarily
22 The appeal should be dismissed. The appellant must pay the respondent's costs
I certify that the preceding twentytwo (22) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment therein of
the Hon Justices Allsop Lander and Siopis
--Dated: 31 August 2007 Judge Solicitor for the Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox
--Date of Hearing: 21 August 2007
--Date of Judgment: 31 August 2007
Honorable Justices Allsop was appointed the President of the NSW Court of Appeal on June 2, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Allsop"
all about J Allsop IN WIKIPEDIA
|
|
| BRANSON & ALLSOP resigned from F C and moved to S C |
|
|
Judge Allsop’s decision attracted a lot of negative attention, NSW citizens were in panic
as it look like that NSW judicial corruption had spread to Federal Court, to another state and got an approval of another
Judge; Victorian Chief Judge Black It was frightening to witness how powerful Judge Spigelman is and his corrupt-court- values that
were enforced to every court in NSW, even the courts from different state. This event had triggered the biggest NSW migration; ever seen in Australia; people were leaving everything behind, not just NSW but country. Nobody
had agree with Justice Allsop’s decision; not even his Judge Black, Victorian Chief Judge,
so Honorable Judge Allsop accepted the fact that he acted corruptly and for being Dishonorable together with
Justice Branson (also Dishonorable) resigned from federal court. |
|
What was seen as unprofessional judicial behavior around Australia was welcomed act of professionalism in NSW. Justice Allsop’s
and Justice
Branson’s approach towards the
law impressed Chief Judge Spigelman so much so that he employed Justice Branson to part-time Supreme Court Judge and the full-time NSW Human
Rights Commissioner. With Judge
Allsop, J Spigelman was even more generous; he had given him his own full-time pocsition and the title of the
President of the NSW Court of Appeal. Even this came with that little
extra; J Allsop is a member of Judicial Commision of NSW, which means if you have any concerns about judge being corrupt you just have to lodge
your complain to .... Judge Allsop and you dont need to worry about anything; he will fix all your concerns. So, why would anyone choose a respectable life over the misconduct? Crime pays of, is highly encouraged, opens
every door and is extremely rewarded amongst the very top of the NSW Government.
To all the migrants out there who ask about migration to NSW, if this
sounds like you, WELCOME, you will never look back back
 |
|
17 NOVEMBER 2013 ALLSOP (UPDATE) |
Justice Allsop
was appointed chief justice of the Federal Court on 1 March this year, having served as a judge of that court from May 2001
to June 2008, and then as president of the NSW Court of Appeal. He was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in the 2013
Honours List for distinguished service to the judiciary and the law through reforms to equity and access, and through contributions
to the administration of maritime law and legal education |
 |
CATHERINE
BRANSON QC after Federal Court she took over as a Human Rights Comm. 'Before my case she was QC (queen councellor) After
my case she was named as 'CC' (Corrupt Cath)
things didnt change 2011 |
|
|
|
In conversation with... Catherine Branson, President of the Australian Human Rights
Commission UPDATE After Judge Bathurts replaced Mr Spigelman Hon 'CC' was sacked again. This time
from the Supreme Court. :) Apparently Hon 'CC' has nowhere to go, she is stuck in Sydney. No other state wants this
judge. @:) |
|
|
--
|
|
|
www.lawyersweekly.com.au/.../17130-unmet-legal-need-a-business-opp... Sep 11, 2015 - The vast majority
of Australians with a legal problem do not contact a lawyer - while this represents an access to justice crisis, it's also a market ...
|
|
11 SEPTEMBER 2015 This is published on NSW Law Society Website; if I include link, usually is tampered with, or
removed. Search web under "UNMET LEGAL
NEEDS A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY" The majority of Australians with a legal problem
do not contact a lawyer – while this represents an access to justice crisis, it's also a market opportunity,
according to a legal consultant. Speaking at the Australasian Legal Practice Management
(ALPMA) Summit yesterday, Jordan Furlong (pictured) said law firms are only servicing
the tip of the legal market ‘iceberg’ . Mr
Furlong, who is a partner at Edge International and senior consultant at Stem Legal
Web Enterprises in Canada, said around 85 per cent of Australians fail to contact a lawyer when experiencing a legal issue.
According to an Australia-wide survey from the Law Foundation, Legal Need in Australia
2012, 30.6 per cent of people with a legal problem deal with the problem themselves;
18.3 per cent do nothing about it; and 36.6 per cent obtain non-legal help.
Only
14.5 per cent of people actually obtained legal help, indicating that lawyers are failing to tap into a potential
legal market. "More people with a legal problem did nothing than [compared with those who] contacted
a lawyer," said Mr Furlong.
"There is a real social need there and we must address
that. I also think this is a business opportunity." Drawing on the iceberg analogy,
Mr Furlong said that law firms are competing within the "visible market" but are not "looking below the water level"
to the unrecognised legal problems of individuals, families and small business.
At the
root of the access to justice issue is often a lack of financial resources, but sometimes
"it’s that it doesn't even occur to [people] that a lawyer could help", said Mr
Furlong. "We need to recognise when a particular problem has a legal remedy. Lawyers can help you with
more than you realise," he said.
Mr Furlong said new law firms that fully embrace technology will
be looking to target this market by offering affordable, easy-to-access services. However,
he added, traditional firms can also find new opportunities if they "change their course"
and start thinking about business from the perspective of the client.
Mr Furlong said he
regularly suggests that lawyers take a walk in their clients’ shoes and then asks them: "'How did it feel
to be a client?' Never forget that." Traditional law firms also need to think about
how they can use technology to work more effectively and productively, he added.
"My central message about technology is 'this isn't something to be feared’ –
it is a tool'." "Don’t fight against the machine, fight with it." INTERNATIONAL VISITORS ARE.... STUNNED BY THIS STATEMENT. However, we who live here
are not. This is simply outcome of ex Judge SPIGELMAN "hard work" and NSW Law Association attitude and professionalism. HOWEVER
what we found to be the most disturbing is following statement - response - left under this article. Every response that doesn't
suit NSW Law Society was removed from website jota6689 • a month ago The research might not be accurate,
The facts are that many people are better off being self litigants and get a better outcome because the 'bench' gives them
far more latitude and sympathy than etiquette hog tied lawyers. I often advise clients that they are likely to get a better
outcome if they go to court unrepresented. Research into the migration system (MRT now part of AAT) clearly evidences that
clients are more likely to get a favourable outcome if they are self represented than if they use a lawyer or a migration
agent to represent them.
|
|
5 November 2015
The NSW Attorney-General's office recently approved a pilot Online Court for civil cases in the Local Court General Division.
This service allows documents to be filed outside court hours and removes the need for parties to travel to the court
repeatedly.
Gabrielle Upton (pictured), who was appointed as NSW's first female attorney-general in April, told Lawyers Weekly that
online processes were appropriate in cases that do not involve "fundamental breach of a person's safety or liberty"
"When you are talking about civil justice"; where it's just people wanting to resolve things in the ordinary
course of their business, there is a role for technology"; she said.
But in criminal proceedings the demeanour of the defendant is taken into account by the jury and judge, she continued.
People alleged to have "impacted somebody sometimes in very serious ways" are "fronting justice in a very
personal way" Ms Upton said.
"There is also a role in the criminal justice system [for technology] but it doesn't replace the trial" she
said.
However, the use of audio-visual link can create efficiencies and improve the experience of people in custody, she added.
"We've also got to have a system that treats people who are accused of crime in the most serious of crimes with humanity"
she said.
Shuttling people in custody back and forth to court, sometimes for long periods, costs police and correctional services
time and is unnecessarily stressful for the defendant, she said.
In Lismore, for instance, people in custody have a six-hour return trip to court from Grafton Correctional Centre "In
that case I am talking about offenders" but the victims [also benefit] as well" said Ms Upton.
-- Dealing with delays
The NSW courts have been experiencing delays over the past year, with the NSW District Criminal Court being hardest hit,
according to Ms Upton.
According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, trial delay in the NSW District Criminal Court increased
34 per cent for defendants on bail between 2007 and 2014.
Ms Upton said this was a "function of lots of factors, including serious crime being targeted more by police and
the increasing complexity of evidence due, in part, to technology.
She endorsed the NSW Law Reform Commission's recommendation, made in December 2014, that appropriate early guilty pleas
be encouraged.
Guilty pleas made late in proceedings waste time and resources as the court prepares for a trial that will not take place.
Ms Upton said that settling on a guilty plea early is "better for justice" as it allows for a "meeting
of minds" between crown prosecutors and public defenders or the private bar around the case.
Other suggestions from stakeholders for reducing delays include having judges sit longer and creating broader jurisdiction
in the local court, she said.
"We appointed two new district judges to child sexual assault matters which are comprising more and more of the criminal
justice of district courts" she continued. "Even with those there are still going to be delays"
A key part of the solution to delays is to address the "low utilisation of court assets", according to Ms Upton.
"Where justice needs to be has changed over time" she said. "We've got a big hub of people and population
growth in the west and they now have a Parramatta justice precinct which is serving their needs"
She said that a "bricks and mortars approach to justice", where every community has its own courthouse, does
not fit with the changes in population trends and demands to the justice system over the last 150 years
Not just the location of courthouses but the internal layout and design has shifted, according to Ms Upton.
"In the old days we used to build large buildings that were imposing and filled us with awe and frightened us"
she said.
Now, courthouses are aligned more with education and health services, and designed to best serve the people, she explained.
Ms Upton said the new $90 million justice precinct in Newcastle, scheduled to open next year, is a "flagship project"
representing the progress made in creating state-of-the-art justice facilities.
"[Newcastle] will have district court hearings" she said. "There will be 10 courts. There will be high
levels of security. There will be witness facilities"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
