Thursday, May 2, 2013

DO WE HAVE DEMOCRACY IN AUSTRALIA?

From: campaign@democracydefined.org
To: campaign@democracydefined.org
Subject: To Martin from Kenn d'Oudney, DEMOCRACY DEFINED. 
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 15:57:49 +0200

http://www.democracydefined.org/
The Home Page of The Democracy Defined Campaign
for RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY.
THE  DEMOCRACY DEFINED INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN.
VERITAS, COGNITIO, IUSTITIA, LIBERTAS. 
< SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Media and General Enquiries: campaign@democracydefined.org
 Kenn d’Oudney, Mrs. Joanna d’Oudney & Astra d’Oudney. CEO/Directors.
(Standard English Spelling)
 
ACTIVIST MEMBERS from all walks of life in
FIJI, NEPAL, SRI LANKA, SCOTLAND, AUSTRALIA,
CANADA, EIRE, INDIA, GERMANY, ULSTER, SOUTH AFRICA,
JORDAN, PAKISTAN, FRANCE, THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND.
THE CAMPAIGN PHILOSOPHY
is spread worldwide by its Members.
The Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics, attorneys,
doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, homeopathy, philosophy, etc.) and judges (U.S. & U.K.).
~
Dear Martin,
 
Greetings.
 
Here is some information regarding democracy for your interest, including (copyright) material from DEMOCRACY DEFINED ISBN 9781902848228.
“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist.”Sir Winston Churchill, Author, Chronicler, Historian, Philosopher, Nobel laureate for Literature;
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Excerpt of telegram from Cairo to the U.K. Home Secretary on November the 21st, 1943.
Emphases added.
Constitutional Trial by Jury (also known as "the judgement of peers," i.e., social equals) remains the only (peaceful) proven means known to humankind for responsibly holding government in perpetuity to the Will of the People. Ref. the mechanisms of the Trial by Jury in the Constitutional Common Law Articles; the private citizens' cost-free Trial by Juryprosecutions (single or multiple plaintiffs) of individual and departmental malefactors in government; and, Annulment-by-Jury (also somewhat ineptly known as 'Jury Nullification') in regard to the enforced Expunction of Legislation.
Trial by Jury Was Constitutionally Emplac ed for the Purposes of:
A.) not only ascertaining guilt or innocence of the accused and where necessary for apportioning retribution, but also
B.) of transcendent importance, as a barrier to protect the vast mass of innocent citizenry from the crimes of arbitrary government, i.e., unjust laws, tyranny; and from the corruption, prejudices and incompetence of fallible justices (judges). Trial by Jury enables the people to judge authoritatively for themselves what their liberties and laws are (as explained hereinafter), so that the people retain all the liberties which they wish to enjoy.
HOW EQUAL JUSTICE IS DONE:
THE JUROR’S DUTIES IN TRIAL BY JUR Y.
Wherever Trial by Jury takes place, be it in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and numerous other countries, it is DEFINITIVE of Trial by Jury that, after swearing to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, in finding their Verdict,
The Jurors Judge:
~on the justice of the law, and annul, by pronouncing the Not Guilty Verdict, any law or act of enforcement which is deemed unfair or unjust according to the juror’s conscience (i.e., sense of right and wrong);
~in addition to the facts, and
~on the admissibility of evidence (evidence not being pre-selected or screened-out by government or judge and/or prosecutor).
Jurors Must Judg e:
~that the accused acted with malice aforethought, i.e., mens rea, a premeditated malicious motive to find guilt (‘guilt’ is a characteristic inherent or absent in motives and actions: it cannot be ascribed by legislation*);
~on the nature and gravity of the alleged offence; and where guilt is unanimously found,
~on mitigating circumstances if any (provocation; temptation; incitation); and
~set the sentence (with regard to its being fit and just).
*There is neither moral justice for punishing nor political necessity (i.e., deterrent value) where there was no mens rea. (In the case of one person injuring another innocently or accidentally, the civil law suit and the Trial by Jury award appropriate compensation for damag es.)
For jurors not to do the above, or for someone other than the jurors to make any such decisions, is another process: call it "trial-by-someone-else" if you will, or "trial-by-the-judge with a false ‘jury’ watching"―but this travesty cannot be defined as a Trial BY JURY.
"There is only one Trial by Jury. It is mere falsehood to call a procedure "trial by jury" if the accused and any of the matters related to the case under judgement are tried by someone other than the Jury. There is no process and no meaning to the words Trial by Jury other than that which the words themselves prescribe."See DEMOCRACY DEFINED ISBN 9781902848228, by Kenn d’Oudney.
THE ILLEGALITY OF THE STATUS QUO.
Anyone acquainted with the process of law in the United States, Britain, Australia and elsewhere today, will see how far removed the practices of courts are from the ideals and legally binding stipulations of those nations’ Constitutions. Today, every single one of the above requirements definitive of Trial by Jury (including judging on the facts of the case) is illegally forbidden, interfered with and/or obstructed by the ‘judges’.
Labyrinthine deceits of modern usurpation inhabit the politicians’ statute book, which bears no resemblance and pays no respect to universal common laws of truth, justice, liberty, and equality before the law.
Common law is in serted into the Constitution to protect the people from government abuse of power. Common law legally binds the individual men and women in government thereby controlling the government’s modus operandi. No one is ‘above’ legem terræ, the Law of the Land. There is no judicial or political ‘immunity’ for criminal infractions of common law; and likewise never for denial of the cost-free Trial by Jury Justice System to the private plaintiff or defendant.
As distinct from despotism and barbarism, common law Trial by Jury is the definitive basis of civilisation, democracy and legitimate government, sine qua non. Reinstating full legality to the status quo by RESTORATION of the supremacy of universal secular Constitutional Common Law is the principal duty of all adults.
On the Meaning of the Word
DEMOCRACY:
IS YOUR COUNTRY A DEMOCRACY OR
IS YOUR GOVERNMENT A DESPOTISM ?
Genuine lexicography is dictated by the Sciences of Etymology, Semantics, Semasiology, and Philology. These determine whether a country is a definitive democracy or one’s government is a despotism.
It was in the modern historical era, since the development of these sciences and the spread of literacy, that the signification of words became generally set. Above all, we have the incomparable Eighteenth Century work of Dr. Samuel Johnson to thank fo r that. As a result, the great historical and philosophical opuses of the likes of Gibbon, Palgrave, Millar, Gilbert, Hallam, Spooner, Jefferson and Macaulay remain as immediately comprehensible as the writings of our contemporaries. That is to say, modern writers’ efforts are intelligible only if the contemporary scribe first learns and then respects the etymology of vocabulary.
For example, Suffrage does not define nor does it produce democracy, for electoral voting takes place in totalitarian, fascist, communist, and National Socialist (NAZI), i.e., anti-democratic, states. Having been elected, there is nothing to stop government from imposing control of an upper house, reneging on pledges, nor from adopting any tyrannical measures it chooses.
Viz. The word ‘democracy’ is widely abused and ‘defined’ incorrectly: Democracy is a state of society realised neither by referenda (mass voting for new laws), nor by suffrage (electoral voting for representatives), nor by the representatives’ majorities’ legislatorial voting. Electoral voting, majority rule and ‘consensus politics’ neither create nor define democracy.
THE WORD.
To preclude arbitrary (i.e., tyrannical; illegal) government and establish liberty and equal justice for all, the Hellenes created the society in which the common people have the power in Trial by Jury to judge the laws and overrule laws and measures enacted by the national assembly. The word the Hellenes gave to describe this state of society in which the citizens have control through the Trial by Jury to judge, make and enforce the laws and overrule the government, the wealthy and powerful, the aristocrats and all the people who sought to rule them, was demokratia, which translates into English as Democracy.
Democracy is founded on the Trial by Jury, derived from the Hellenic Athenian Constitution of government by Trial by Jury. Through its etymology, history and signification, the word democracy designates the constitutional justice system. Modern Constitutional Democracy is based on the sovereignty* of the individual citizen-juror as the final arbiter of law and protection of the people from tyranny.
*Definition. Sovereignty, pre-eminence; the supreme and inde pendent power expressed through the making and enforcing of the laws.
The Hellenic Athenian Constitution of government by Trial by Jury was a conspicuous achievement in human history for constitutionally establishing this unique mode of justice. The aristocrat Cleisthenes it is who must be credited with the creation of mankind’s first democracy in 508/7 B.C.E. (although ‘infant’ in form, as it did not yet give equality to women and permitted slavery). He brought acknowledgement to the need to spread empowerment throughout society to promote equal justice, liberty, peace and prosperity, and devolved power all the way down to the poorest (male) citizens, the thetes, by recognising rights, exousia.
Exousia rights included the right to attend, debate and vote in the national assembly on laws and measures (referenda); the right of the accused to a Trial by Jury; and, crucially, the empowerment of citizens by bestowing on them judicial authority as Jurors in Trial by Jury in which laws and measures passed by legislatorial majorities in the assembly could be judged, overruled and annulled* whenever this was deemed by the Jurors necessary to serve justice, liberty, and the interests of the people.*See Works, vol. 2; by co-author of the U.S. Constitution, Justice James Wilson.
Democracy created the illustrious Athens which successfully resisted the Persian invasions of 490 and 480/79 at the battles of Marathon and Salamis; that built the Parthenon; set enduring standards in art and architecture; developed sci ences including those of medicine, mathematics and astronomy; that proffered a stage to Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes; and laid the foundations of Western rational and critical thought.
Hellenic Greece of the Constitution of government by Trial by Jury received from the Athenians the defining epithet, Democracy.
The historical facts about Democracy in Hellenic Greece and everywhere else are that it was a virile system and devotedly supported by the mass of just, civilised, peace and freedom-loving people. Democratic free Athens eventually only succumbed because of the mighty invasion of the Macedonian, Alexander the Great (conqueror), who emplaced his generals as autocrats to rule by might over right, with force against democracy’s egalitarian system of equal justice and civic libe rty. Otherwise, the Hellenic Culture would almost certainly have evolved into the development of equal rights for women, emancipated the slaves and outlawed slavery 2,000 years ago. Alexander’s far-flung martial exploits set back the socio-political development of mankind.
Naturally, people have the moral responsibility, the right and the duty to resist and suppress injustice wherever it occurs, and by whomsoever it is perpetrated, governments notwithstanding. By definition and in practice, Democracy and Justice require that the People at all times retain the Supreme Power to annul injustices and the bad laws made by fallible politicians.
This Power backed by the full apparatus of police, prison service and Armed Services, is uniquely embodied in the Citize n-Juror’s Duty in Trial by Jury: to judge the justice of every act of law enforcement, and to render the Not Guilty Verdict whenever conviction or punishment of the accused would be unfair, according to the juror’s conscience.
Trial by Jury is the central tenet and sole justice system of the People’s legem terræ* common law. In legem terræ common law (constitutionally inscribed as the Common Law Articles of Magna Carta in 1215), it is the jurors’ duty in the Trial by Jury Justice System to judge the justice of the law and every act of enforcement and acquit any persons accused under an arbitrary, unjust or apocryphal statute, regulation or prosecution.
* terræ is pronounced terry, the ‘æ’ as in Cæsar, seize.
Common law governs government by the fact that all men and women are equally subject to the common law. No one is ‘above’ the Law of the Land. There is no immunity from the Jury’s Verdict, judges, legislators and head of state notwithstanding (ref. Articles 24, 39, 40, & 61). The decisions of Juries judge and rule over statutes and regulations made by national or local governments, and the decisions of judges.
Consider Harlan F. Stone, U.S. Chief Justice 1941-1946, on the Juror’s Duty in the authentic Trial by Jury, as follows:
"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law."
"That juror must vote Not Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience disagree. He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience a nd convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided."U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone; Harvard Law Review.
(Emphases added.)
ETYMOLOGY
(linguistic derivation)
Hellenic Greek, Demokratia, Democracy.
demos, the people; kratos, sovereignty*, power; kratein, to rule.
*Perseus Digital Library, Tufts University. See Democracy Defined Essay EIS#10, "We the People and the Matter of Words," downloadable for free from the Democracy Defined Campaign Material webpage.
Chambers Dictionary, etymology, demos, the people; kratein, to rule;
MSN Encarta. Democracy, demos, the people; kratein, to rule;
etc.
From the etymology comes the definition: Democracy, the form of government in which the Sovereign Supreme Power is vested in the Common People; the emancipation and ethos of society produced by the power of Juries of ordinary citizens in Trial by Jury, to vet, make, decide and enforce the law; the people rule.
In order to understand the meaning of the word, it is essential to know first that democracy embodies the people’s responsible control over government and law through the Trial by Jury. The people control the government, not the other way around. The people rule. This is democracy.
ENEMIES OF EQUAL JUSTICE AND LIBERTY.
Democracy, which establishes responsible freedom of the people, always has enemies amongst power-hungry oligarchs, would-be tyrants and their abject servitors (from Socrates and Plato to banker Hamilton, religious fundamentalist Ames, et al); and there are others whose misuse of the word demonstrates that they simply did not (and today do not) know its meaning. Generations have been confused and deluded by the premeditated or unwitting incorrectness of Madison, Fisher Ames, Webster, Franklin, Hamilton et al.
Despots and their paid servitors do not want people to learn the real meaning of democracy ― for fear they might reclaim it for the people of the world. To this day, plutocrats and those who sow disinformation for them remain the foes of democracy ― because democracy emasculates tyrants and emancipates the population.
Note that law ‘dictionaries’ express perverted meanings intentionally imposed by politically-motivated legislation. They can 'change' the 'meaning' overnight to promote the private self-interest and ambitions of our oligarchical rulers, and conceal the truths of history and the sciences of etymology, philology, and semantics. The disinformation which they and other modern ‘law’ books illegitimately and mendaciously impart exemplifies NWO political propaganda which c ontrols the mind of the credulous simpleton.See Essay EIS#21, "THE VALUE OR OTHERWISE OF LAW DICTIONARIES," freely downloadable from the Democracy Defined Campaign Material webpage.
The behind-the-scenes money masters, autocratic ‘rulers’ of the West, have now all but ‘ruled out’ Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury, Habeas Corpus, and freedom from arbitrary arrest (i.e., without probable cause), thereby precipitating nations into definition as tyrannies as opposed to democracies. The Founders of the U.S. and the authors and instigators of Magna Carta who risked all to gain freedom and installed Trial by Jury as a barrier to protect the people from common and government crimes, would have the greatest disdain for this generation for allowing these malignant events to com e to pass.
For pay, authors of the statist bias and unconscionable lexicographers and journalists collaborate to write lies and equivocation for their employers’ interests which are completely at odds with those of the people at large. They shred the truth, and with abuse of words attempt to appear cynical and clever. With deliberate distortions of our language, they mock ordinary people, and spread disunity and uncertainty at a time when we all require to be sure in our beliefs.
The ongoing demolition by enemies-within of the democracies of the West is hardly surprising though, for as long as Westerners allow themselves to be miseducated as to the meaning of such important words as democracy and republic; and they are so completely flummoxed by the disinforma tion promulgated by the servitors of the wealthy oligarchs that it leads them even to disparage democracy ! Yet, democracy with its definitive attribute of Trial by Jury, is the singular proven means of their secular salvation by which equal justice and the lives, rights, liberty, and property of ALL the people are peacefully secured.
As Founders of the Democratic-Republican Party, Madison or Jefferson would hardly be likely to call democracy ‘vile’ or ‘mob rule’, as claimed on websites ! Nowhere in Madison’s copious writings does the word ‘vile’ even appear.
Wake up, People! The obvious example of the dupe or a servitor of tyrants is the person who maligns democracy as "two wolves, and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." These are = facile fictions, libels and calumnies adopted or made up by the likes of Henry Louis Mencken, Rose Wilder Lane and Devvy Kidd to delude people and lead them astray...
It is not credible (unless they are being deliberately untruthful), that people who talk of the wolves and sheep could have researched the history, etymology and signification of the word        democracy: demos-kratein, demokratia: the people rule through Trial by Jury.
MAY EVERY CITIZEN OF THE WORLD BEWARE !
"If a juror or any citizen accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror or citizen has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that was once the citizen’s safeguard of liberty."Statement attributed by Bancroft in History of the U.S. Constitution, to Judge Theophilus Parsons at the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention.
"The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while there was time."Ibid.
Complacent, insouciant, ignorant, servile populations of Westerners, e.g. Americans, British, Germans, French, Italians, Spanish and other Europeans, New Zealanders, Canadians and Australians, have allowed antidemocratic politicians to strip them of the ir legal protections which are universal, inherent and inalienable: the Juror’s Rights and Duty and the Trial by Jury Justice System. People have permitted institutionalisation of despotic attitudes. Oppression has taken root and become widespread even in the former great bastions of democracy.
Trial-by-judge is the system which denies the common law Trial by Jury. Trial-by-judge or government employee is the National Socialist (NAZI), Stalinist, Soviet, fascist and communist system of judicial oppression, by which primitive tyranny thrives; massive injustices are routinely enforced on innocent people; and citizens are intentionally put into permanent fear and servitude.
Martin,
Apropos of the 'authorities' quoted on the Party System webpages (and encountered elsewhere), their familiar premeditated obscuration of the purpose and modern relevance of the authentic Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury is complete. In particular, the mendacity of Spengler and lawyer Quintin Hogg (Lord Hailsham) is breathtaking.
 
Yours sincerely,
Kenn.
 
P.S. So, you play the squeezebox? Sounds like fun!
 
"Better never to vote at all than vote for a person who does not make EQUAL JUSTICE the prime aim of government by RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of Constitutional Legem Terræ Common Law Trial by Jury."
 
Kenn d'Oudney is the author of books and essays including the following:
Kenn d'Oudney est auteur de livres et essais y compris les suivants:
Kenn d'Oudney ist Autor von Büchern und Essays einsch ließlich der folgenden:
 
MYTHS DISPELLED: AN OPEN LETTER TO JAMES MADISON (descendant).
Essay: read it and see for yourself how the Constitution's Justice System is supposed to work to protect rights, liberty, property ownership and use, and achieve equal justice for all and discover... THE ILLEGALITY OF THE STATUS QUO.
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm
 
"Hi Kenn:
What a magnificent article! I intend to incorporate parts of it into my speeches and writings.
Yours in freedom and justice"Professor Julian Heicklen, Jury Rights’ Activist;
Coordinator, Tyranny Fighters; U.S.
 
"Kenn d'Oudney is a brilliant writer and researcher when it comes to Democracy and Trial by Jury. The best source of common law is Kenn d'Oudney."
Dr. John Wilson,
Jury Rights’ Activist;
co-Founder & Chairman, Australian Com mon Law Party.
 
"Superb. Should be read in every law school."John Walsh, Barrister-at-Law, Author; Constitutional lawyer (U.S. & Australia).

 
freely downloadable information about pan-European legem terræ common la w, the Law of the Land, whose central tenet and sole justice system is the all-powerful People's Trial by Jury Courts, defining the true European and pan-Occidental Constitution.http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm
 
"Thank you for your excellent work on Magna Carta. What a masterly exposition."
JOHN GOURIET, Chairman, Defenders of the Realm; Battle for Britain Campaign supported by The Duke of Wellington; Edward Fox, OBE, and Frederick Forsyth, CBE.

"Kenn, Your rebuttal is masterly. Your essay is a very good read."ROBIN TILBROOK, Chairman & Party Leader; English De mocrat Party.
 
"Thank you so much for this contribution. It is very much appreciated."ASHLEY MOTE, MEP (Member of the European Parliament); Vice-President, Alliance of Independent Democrats in Europe.
 
"Thanks, Kenn. I've circulated this."
SIMON RICHARDS, Campaign Director; The Freedom Association; Founded by John Gouriet; the Viscount de L’Isle, VC, KG, PC; Ross McWhirter and Norris McWhirter, CBE.
 
 
SRC Publishing Ltd., London, available from w orld distribution by LULU of North Carolina.
 
THE REPORT, CANNABIS: THE FACTS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW ISBN 9781902848204, co-authored by Joanna d'Oudney; Foreword by a Nobel laureate former Official Adviser to the U.S. government; endorsed by a Professor of Physiology Fellow of the Royal Society, academics, doctors (of a variety of disciplines) and judges (U.S. & U.K.);
Softback, 260 large-size pages.http://www.democracydefined.org/1report.htm
 
“You have done a splendid job of producing a comprehensive summary of the evidence docu menting that the prohibition of the production, sale and use of cannabis is utterly unjustified and produces many harmful effects. Any impartial person reading your REPORT will almost certainly end up favouring the re-legalisation of cannabis.”NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR MILTON FRIEDMAN, former Economics’ Adviser to U.S. government; Author, video and TV series writer and presenter; Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago.
 
“You represent a worthy part of the fight i n many countries for the logical and beneficial use of cannabis. I thank you for that.”PROFESSOR PATRICK D. WALL, M.D., Author; Professor of Physiology, UMDS St. Thomas's (Teaching) Hospital, London; Fellow of the Royal Society; DM, FRCP.
 
“I did enjoy reading it. THE REPORT should contribute much.”THE HON. JONATHON PORRITT, Bt., former Adviser to U.K. government on Environment; Author; Founder, Friends of the Earth; TV series writer and presenter.
SRC Publishing Ltd., London, available here from worl d distribution by LULU of North Carolina.
Available as a textbook.
SO YOU THOUGHT CANNABIS PROHIBITION HAS NO EFFECT UPON YOU ?
 
THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848204: Part (chapter) Two  contains the unprecedented (new) Cannabis Biomass Energy Equation (CBEE; Modern Uses) which proves the clean-combustingproduction-cost-free, i.e., FREE, cannabis by-product pyrolytic CH3OH is the immediate non-polluting, renewable, total world replacement for fossils and uranium, whilst macro-cultivation simultaneously significantly increases world production of staple seed food (protein-rich; no relaxant in seed). The CBEE exposes the bankowner-corporate-government monumental ulterior motive behind fraudulent prohibition. 'Prohibition' is a venal, cartel-fabricated sub terfuge; a false fuel-energy MONOPOLY.
 
The CBEE Formulation proffers CH3OH oil-gasoline-type fuel combustion for all power-station, industrial, land, sea and air transportation and domestic energy supply, with ZERO net atmospheric increase of CO2< /FONT>. Viz. the CBEE thereby simultaneously demonstrates governments’ mendacity in their claims to wish to reduce carbon emissions, and proves the “eco” and “carbon taxes” to be fraudulent: a criminal government imposture completely without foundation. The misuse of exorbitant, world-economy-depressing fossils and uranium as ‘fuel’ is potentially catastrophic, legally and economically unjustifiable, and requires to be prohibited forthwith.
See pyrolysis diagrams, photo, equation, etc.
 
Part Six of THE REPORT, PROHIBITION: THE PROGENITOR OF CRIME. 
"To cause crime to occur is to be accountable for the crime, morally and legally. To consent to any measure is to share responsibility for its results." 
Legalised, cannabis grows anywhere: the benign herb's foliage and flowers come free or at an insignificant price, but yielding no revenues to government and no profits to corporations. However, prohibition creates the Black Market: the Economic Effects of Prohibition (scarcity + enforcement, etc.) augment "street" value by 3000% plus, making all Blac k Market associated crime inevitable. The political commodities' prohibition, the War on Drugs, rather that is to say, the politicians who pass and the judiciaries who maintain the legislation engender (cause) and are culpable for not less than 75 - 80 percent of all crimes (official statistics) throughout the West.
 
EXONERATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT; Official Empirical Research; THE REPORT collates the medico-scientific Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the government-funded clinical studies conducted by world-respected research and academic institutions into non-toxic, non-addictive natural herb cannabis (differentiated from pharmaceutical laboratory toxic product THC). The investigations' empirical evidence exonerates cannabis from all allegations of 'harm' and 'impairment' (including tests on simulated driving) exempting cannabis from all legislative criteria of control ('prohibition'). All citizens persecuted thereunder are due Amnesty and Restitution (as for other Wrongful Penalisation).
 
MEDICATION: Efficacious in over 100 adverse medical conditions (viz. Official Pharmacopoeias) including applications which are life-saving, preserve eyesight, Curative and/or Preventive, and with potential cheaply to replace numerous lines of lucrative but ineffective, debilitating, addictive, toxic pharmaceuticals, rendering massive financial government-corporate ulterior revenue and profitmotive (trillions) behind apocryphal proh ibition by perjurious derogation. + Medical Case Histories. 
 
Six Parts (chapters) include expert documentary, legal, academic, scientific, technical, medical, economic, social, criminological, philosophical evidence, and that which is based on grounds of equity, vindicating all private cultivation, trade, possession and use, and which further exposes perjury and venality behind prohibition 'legislation', all acts of enforcement constituting crime per se.
 
Part Seven, RESTORATION: JUSTICE AND THE CONSTITUTION, exposes corruption, ineptitude and injustice in the justice process; examines Law: natural law, supreme secular legem terræ Constitutional common law, treaties, statutes; quotes presidents, judges, lawyers and chief justices.
 
THE REPORT is regularly presented pre-trial by defendants to courts (judges) who routinely forbid all Findings of Fact, evidence and defences which "dispute the legality of the law" before the jury. The official and expert evidence in THE REPORT establishes the apocryphal, illegal nature of the legislation. THE REPORT quotes legal grounds (national and international) which demonstrate numerous infractions of laws by the prohibition legislation, and which show all acts of its enforcement to be crime per se. All citizens persecuted thereunder are due Amnesty and Restitution (as for other Wrongful Penalisation). This textbook demonstrates in the law: injustice, inequity, invalidity, adverse effects, venal ulterior motive, perjury, fallacious derogation, and the inherent illegality of law which creates the Black Market and engenders all associated crime.
The outcomes of this procedure of presenting THE REPORT as documentary evidence to the judge have proved beneficial in the extreme for defendants. *Courts require documentary evidence presented as the published textbook (not copies or e-book).
 
WE THE PEOPLE AND THE MATTER OF WORDS; freely downloadable, indispensable information for the creation and sustainment of legitimate government and society;http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm
 
 
 
 
THE CONSTITUTION TREATISE: Why the d'Estaing ('European') Constitution-T reaty Is the Antithesis of Democracy ISBN 9781902848747, see website for endorsements by U.S. & U.K. cognoscenti;
http://www.democracydefined.org/5constitution.htm
 
 "The d’Oudney analysis is as insightful as it is comprehensive. It will stand for years to come as the definitive critique of the European Constitution prepared by Giscard d’Estaing and others. I look forward to sharing the d’Oudney analysis with my colleagues."HOWARD PHILLIPS, Founder, U.S. Constitution Party; t hree-time presidential nominee; Chairman, Conservative Caucus.
SRC Publishing Ltd., London.
 
 
DEMOCRACY DEFINED: ON THE ETYMOLOGY, HISTORY AND SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORD DEMOCRACY; the Sciences of Etymology, Semantics, Semasiology, and Philology determine whether your country is a definitive democracy or your governmen t is a despotism. Viz. The word ‘democracy’ is widely abused and ‘defined’ incorrectly: Democracy is a state of society realised neither by referenda (mass voting for new laws), nor by suffrage (electoral voting for representatives), nor by representatives’ majorities’ legislatorial voting. Electoral voting, majority rule and ‘consensus politics’ neither create nor define democracy. This essay defines and summarises the unique signification and inestimable value to the human race of genuine Constitutional Democracy.
 
9-11 TRUTH LINKS COMPENDIUM; exposition with select video analysis & lectures; contributions by professors, architects, scientists, Federal Aviation Authority experts, former CIA, FBI, military and government officials, firemen, reporters and other eye-witnesses present; freely download this Compendium which serves as an introduction to the subject, and as a source of additional references f or those already familiar with the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Note: The addresses do change from time to time. If you find the link broken, then paste the TITLE of the video given in our text into your browser and find the documentary video that way.
 
IN PROTECTION OF AUSTRALIANS’ RIGHTS IN GENERAL AND THE RIGHTS OF HOME OWNERS AND FARMERS IN PARTICULAR.
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

THE VALUE OR OTHERWISE OF LAW DICTIONARIES; part of the contents of a forthcoming book to be published by SRC Publishing. It is nevertheless, for the time being anyway, downloadable for free;http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm
 
ON REFERENDA AND MAJORITY RULE; part of the contents of a forthcoming book downloadable for free;
 
CHIEF JUSTICE VAUGHAN'S RULING; on perhaps the most famous trial in history; Juror's Rights and Duty and photo of the Old Bailey Commemorative Plaque;http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedcampaign2.htm#intervention
 
WHY THE LEGAL PROFESSION CANNOT DEFEND YOU; consider some of the judicable breaches of common law and Constitution to which modern government resorts in order to enforce its inequitable, illegal, and money-motivated statutes;
Further reading on the website:
http://www.democracydefined.org/
The Home Page of The not-for-profit Educational Campaign for RESTORATION and
UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY.
The Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics, attorneys,
doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, homeopathy, philosophy, etc.) and judges ( U.S . & U.K.).
Join the Campaign ! Download and distribute free posters and educational pamphlets.
 
 
 
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, April 29, 2013

SUMMARY OF MY CASE TO DEMOCRACYDEFINED.ORG


  • Re: Nicholas N Chin has left a message for you‏

Nicholas N Chin (nnchin1@hotmail.com)
10:36 AM
Photos
To: Campaign@democracydefined.org, nnchin1@gmail.com, jim.macleod@nor.com.au
Hi Kenn:
The WA Discipline Board for Lawyers the LPCC conducted malafides proceedings against me in VR 87 OF 2007.   The Mala Fides of the the President of the State Administrative Tribunal is exempliefied;  his Honour Justice Chaney was asked to recuse himself when he did a bare-faced lying judgment against me.  He did recuse himself by activating his Deputy Judge SAT by altering the statute law to empower him to do so, to continue to do the insidious job for him which he did by removing me from the roll of barristers and solicitors.   I was asked to respond to his order confining myself to the penalty issue which the latter judge was proposing against me.  I put up my written submissions, which I considered to be part and parcel of the appeal process i.e. my submissions against Penalty is equated to my Submissions against being guilty of the claimed wrongdoings (My Submissions).
My Submissions is not being considered by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia which sat on 12.12.2012 to remove me from the roll of barristers and solicitors.  It contends that I have have NOT appealed the SAT decision to remove from the roll.
The mala fides of the LPCC are:
1) It disciplines me for contrived infractions whereas it does not discipline lawyers like Timothy Robin Thies, David Taylor and Pino Monaco for real infractions of the law.
2) It finds me guilty of sham dishonesty upon the non-complaining Mrs. Mathias who had withdrawn her complaint about a res judicata issue or non-issue that I had ALTERED a costs agreement when it did not happened. There is proof that the ink of the costs agreement’s impugned alteration was made subsequent after it had been drawn up. Indeed it is: the alteration was made after it was drawn up within a few minutes and with the presence of Mrs. Mathias. It contradicts the fundamental common law notion for a real finding of fraud i.e. there must be a pecuniary deprivation of funds of Mrs. Mathias and there was none.  In fact Mrs. Mathias obtained benefits from me for which I had condoned her non-payment for my legal services (the Sham Dishonesty).
3) The Sham Dishonesty is just a ruse of the LPCC to get me out of the legal profession just because I had made allegations of the real infractions of the law by the three lawyers:
3.1. David Taylor for misleading the court with a forged document that he filed the impugned Writ of Summons on time in compliance with Justice Jenkins Orders in CIV1142 of 2005 when he did not.  My client suffered a premature death as a result of the injustice she received from Mr. David Taylor. The various courts simply refused to make a decision on this barefaced facts that was properly brought before it.
3.2. Pino Monaco for misleading the court that he did not used duplicitous and duplicated bills of costs to effect the pillaging and plundering my client Dr. Kheng Su Chan.
3.3. Timothy Robin Thies pillaged and plundered my son Paul Chin contrary to the tenor of the costs agreement he entered into with my son Paul Chin.  The lawyer refused to quit when told to do so and keep escalating costs for my son Paul.  This case was finally won by me but the court refused to acknowledge that Mr. Thies has no caveatable interests to justify his strangle-hold over my son’s property and refused to order damages against him.
3.5. Both Timothy Thies and David Taylor misled the court when they unlawfully lodged unlawful caveats against the property of my son Paul Chin and my former client Ms Nancy Hall respectively, when both of these lawyers know or should know that caveatable interests can only be founded upon proprietary interests in the caveat property which both lawyers or their clients have none.  They have thus misled the courts on the fundamental principle of law and are getting away with it.  I have appealed this point but the Supreme Court is ignoring it.
Armed with a summary of my grievance, I hope your Campaign can solve this “democracy” problem for me, which is my fundamental human rights to be able to earn my living as a lawyer.
Cheers.
Nicholas N Chin
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Nicholas N Chin has left a message for you
Dear Nicholas,
Greetings.
It would be more convenient if, when contacting us with
matters concerning the Restoration Campaign, we receive
your messages, not by invitations to blogs and/or discussion
forums, but directly by e-mail.
We hope you are well.
Best wishes,
Kenn.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:49 AM
Subject: Nicholas N Chin has left a message for you
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels:

Saturday, April 13, 2013

LPCC'S VEXATIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF MY FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FELLOW PRACTITIONERS

1) THE LPCC MALICIOUSLY PERSECUTED ME BY ITS VEXATIOUS ALLEGATION THAT I WAS  MAKING FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FELLOW PRACTITIONERS: TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES, DAVID TAYLOR AND PINO MONACO (THE LPCC VEXATIOUS ALLEGATIONS) .
2) WHEN LPCC FAILED TO PROVE THE LPCC VEXATIOUS ALLEGATIONS,  THE VARIOUS HONOURABLE JUDGES SIMPLY REFUSED TO GIVE JUDICIAL RECOGNITION TO IT (THE LPCC VEXATIOUS ALLEGATIONS).
3) LPCC ESCALATED THE LPCC VEXATIOUS ALLEGATIONS BY CHANGING ITS GOAL POSTS CONTINUALLY AND THEREBY REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RULE OF LAW AS A RESULT.
4) LPCC WAS ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH ITS CRIME BY INTRODUCING A RES JUDICATA RED-HERRING - THE SHAM VICTIMLESS MATHIAS DISHONESTY SANS MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY OR MONIES, OR EVEN SIMPLE DISHONESTY WHEN THE COURT WAS NEVER MISLED BY ME AS TO THE TRUE FACTS OF THE MATTHIAS COST AGREEMENT (THE SHAM DISHONESTY).
5) THE COURT REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE JUDICIAL FACT THAT THE MATHIAS COST AGREEMENT WAS "ADDED TO" AFTER IT WAS WRITTEN AND A COPY WAS PROVIDED TO HER AT THE SAME TIME.

The Australian Professional Liability Blog


Posted: 13 Apr 2013 05:14 AM PDT
I have posted before about the Darwin solicitor whose disciplinary complaint against a fellow practitioner resulted in her being fined $19,500 for making that complaint without a proper factual foundation.  I have just come across another case in which a female solicitor was disciplined for her intemperate allegations against another lawyer, despite having had an honest belief that she had a reasonable basis for making them: Legal Profession Complaints Committee v in de Braekt[2011] WASAT 1.  She was recently struck off: [2013] WASC 124.
A panel provided over by a judge of Supreme Court of Western Australia and President of WASAT, Justice John Cheney, said in the earlier decision:
’107 Legal practitioners should be slow to make allegations of impropriety against other legal practitioners or their client. Such allegations should not be made unless there is a reasonable basis upon which to make them. The same can be said of allegations of abuse of process. It is apparent that the impropriety asserted by Ms in de Braekt was based upon her view that, having regard to the various matters upon which she relied, the winding up proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.’
I am looking at another matter at the moment in which a complaint has been made to a Legal Services Commissioner by one of the lawyers for one party to extant litigation against one of the other party’s lawyers, in relation to conduct which is itself the subject of the civil proceedings and which is in fact said to have generated the information on which those proceedings are founded.  Even if the disciplinary complaint is stayed pending the exhaustion of appeals from the civil proceedings, it seems to me that the propriety of making a complaint in such circumstances is doubtful.  Does anyone have any views, or — better — authority on the question?
Posted: 12 Apr 2013 05:18 PM PDT
In Forster v. Legal Services Board [2013] VSCA 73, Kyrou AJA, with whom Weinberg and Harper JJA agreed, restated briefly the law which requires lawyers to be absolutely honest in their dealings with Courts:
’161 In Meek v Fleming,[85] Holroyd Pearce LJ agreed with the proposition that while a lawyer must not knowingly mislead the Court as to the facts or the law, he or she may put such matters as he or she believes will best advance the client’s case.[86] A party need not reveal something to the discredit of that party. However, this does not mean that the party can by implication falsely pretend that a particular state of affairs exists, and knowing that the court has been misled with respect to a material matter, foster and confirm the misrepresentation through answers given by the party.[87] A lawyer who is a party to the presentation of evidence or the making of a statement to the court that is partly true, but which does not amount to the whole truth, can create a misleading impression to the Court and thereby breach his or her duty to the Court. Once a misleading impression has been created, even if innocently, the lawyer has an obligation to correct that impression as soon as he or she becomes aware of the true position.[88] That obligation continues until judgment is given.[89]
162 Misleading the Court by presenting a misleading or false document is contrary to the lawyer’s duty of honesty and candour, including in his or her capacity as a litigant.[90] In Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman,[91] the New South Wales Court of Appeal ordered that the respondent be removed from the Roll of practitioners, because she had knowingly presented a falsified document to the Court on the basis that it was genuine. Mahoney JA stated that:
A practitioner must not merely not deceive the court before which she practises; she must be fully frank in what she does before it. This obligation takes precedence over the practitioner’s duty to her client, to other practitioners and to herself: Meek v Fleming [1961] 2 QB 366 at 382, 383. The justice system will not work if a practitioner is, for her own purposes, free to put to the court that which she knows to be false.[92]
163 In Myers v Elman,[93] Viscount Maugham said that: ‘A solicitor who has innocently put on the file an affidavit by his client which he has subsequently discovered to be certainly false owes it to the Court to put the matter right at the earliest date if he continues to act as solicitor upon the record.’[94] Similarly, in Foreman, Giles AJA stated that the respondent’s failure to reveal and correct the conduct by which the Court had been misled, compounded the unacceptable conduct involved in preparing the falsified document.[95]
[86] Meek v Fleming [1961] 2 QB 366, 379.
[87] Meek v Fleming [1961] 2 QB 366, 380.
[88] Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282, 294.
[89] Vernon v Bosley [No 2] [1999] QB 18, 37, 56, 63.
[90] Coe v New South Wales Bar Assn [2000] NSWCA 13, [8], [10]; NSW Bar Assn v Cummins [2001] NSWCA 284;(2001) 52 NSWLR 279, 290 [59].
[91] (1994) 34 NSWLR 408 (‘Foreman’).
[92] Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408, 447.
[94] Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282, 294.
[95] Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408, 466.’
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels:

Thursday, April 4, 2013

HOW CAN A LAWYER BE GUILTY OF DISHONESTY WHEN THERE IS NO MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY OR MONIES FROM HIS CLIENT?


Posted: 02 Apr 2013 04:46 PM PDT
Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v JAX [2012] NSWADT 283 is a case in which the solicitor was disciplined for paying himself out of fees provided to him by his client for payment of counsel’s fees.  Ultimately he went bankrupt and did not pay the fees. See also this earlier post on this subject.  The decision also represents yet another admonition to pleaders of disciplinary charges to plead dishonesty expressly if they intend to allege it.
There were the following agreed facts:
’20. The Solicitor acted for [a client] in a Family Law matter and Mr A Todd of Counsel was briefed.
 26. On 27 June 2007 the Solicitor issued a further Bill in the sum of $25,267.00 which included $6,765.00 due to Mr Todd.
27. On 27 June 2007 the sum of $8,800.00 was transferred from the Solicitor’s trust account for costs but the amount due to Mr Todd was not paid.
28. On 9 July 2007 Mr Todd issued a further Bill in the sum of $990.00 so that the amount then due to him was $7,755.00.
29. On 11 July 2007 the sum of $9,702.00 was transferred from the Solicitor’s trust account for costs. The amount then due to Mr Todd [$6,765.00 plus $990, $7,755.00 in total] was not paid.
30. As at 11 July 2007 the Solicitor had issued Bills for costs & disbursements totalling $40,667.00. On the dates shown the Solicitor withdrew from his trust account and paid to his office account the following amounts:-
22/06/07 $23,294.50
27/06/07 $8,800.00
11/07/07 $9,702.00
$41,796.50
31. The Solicitor was reckless as to the amount of the withdrawals made from the trust account ledger (total of $41,796.50) exceeding the total of bills issued for costs & disbursements ($40,667.00).
32. The Solicitor thereby breached section 260 of the Act by mixing trust money with his own funds.
33. The Solicitor misappropriated to his own use the sum of $1,129.50 being the difference between the figures of $41,796.50 (total of withdrawals from the trust account ledger) and $40,667.00 (total of bills issued for costs & disbursements).
34. Further, the Solicitor breached section 261(1)(b) of the Act and clause 88 of the Regulation as he had no authority to withdraw the additional sum of $1,129.50.
35. On 18 August 2007 the sum of $7,500.00 was paid to Mr Todd by way of a trust account cheque leaving a balance in the trust account of $703.50.
36. Between 27 June 2007 (the date of payment into the office account, as in paragraph 27 above) and 18 August 2007 the Solicitor deliberately, alternatively recklessly, preferred his own interests as to the payment of costs, by transfer into the office account, in preference to the payment of counsel’s fees.
37. The Solicitor misappropriated to his own use the sum of $7,500.00 due to Mr Todd between 27 June 2007 and 18 August 2007.
The Tribunal discussed the agreed facts as follows:
  1. Having regard to common usage, to the considerations spelt out in the passage in Council of the Law Society of NSW v Nicholls[2012] NSWADT 22 mentioned above and to the authorities cited in that passage, we agree with Ms Webster that an allegation of misappropriation against a legal practitioner does not necessarily connote dishonesty on the part of the practitioner. We would observe, however, that this term may often be interpreted by a respondent practitioner, by the Tribunal or by a third party as involving dishonesty. For this reason, an applicant in disciplinary proceedings such as these should bear in mind the danger of alleging misappropriation without also indicating what form of culpability is alleged against the respondent – i.e., whether it be outright dishonesty, mere inadvertence or some intermediate degree of fault. If no such indication is given, the respondent may well be entitled to maintain that the case being brought against him or her has not been defined with sufficient precision.
  1. In the present proceedings, we are satisfied that the two acts of the Solicitor claimed to amount to misappropriation – i.e. those described in paragraphs 33 and 37 of the Agreed Statement – did merit this label. As Ms Webster made clear, neither of them was alleged to involve dishonesty on the Solicitor’s part.
  1. At first sight, the conduct described in paragraph 37 – i.e., the Solicitor’s transfer into his office account of an amount of $7,500 held in trust for [the client], at a time when this amount was due to be paid by him to Mr Todd of counsel – might seem to involve no more than deferral by him of the discharge of his obligation to pay a debt. But a passage in the Tribunal’s decision in Law Society of New South Wales v Davidson [2007] NSWADT 264 is useful in demonstrating that unjustified delay by a solicitor in paying counsel’s fees from funds received for that purpose constitutes a breach of a fiduciary duty to the client. In consequence, the transfer of such funds into the solicitor’s office account, for the benefit of the solicitor, can properly be characterised as misappropriation of them.
  1. The relevant passage in Davidson (paragraphs [123] to [130]) is as follows:-
123 The second complaint against the solicitor is one of unethical conduct relating to the failure to pay third parties within a reasonable time. The solicitor is charged with unethical conduct in relation to late payment of disbursements in the nature of fees due to third parties…
124 At all relevant times the solicitor was a sole practitioner with employed staff. He operated a Trust Account in respect of which he was the sole signatory…
125 In Re Robb & Anor (1996) 134 FLR 294, the Supreme Court of the ACT, noting that wilful or persistent failure to pay counsel’s fees could amount to professional misconduct, said:
The point is that the delay in paying counsel to be attributed to the solicitors in the present case stems from their assumption that moneys in their office account, received on trust for the client and transferred to the office account for the very purpose of paying counsel, were not affected by their fiduciary duties to the client and were their moneys to pay counsel fees when they chose and that any delay was simply a matter between counsel and themselves.
That assumption was totally unjustified. On the contrary, every day of delay in paying counsel from the time of transferring the moneys from the trust account to the office account, was a day in which the solicitors were in breach of their fiduciary duty to the client.
126 The solicitor’s evidence on this issue was that it was his “policy” not to pay disbursements until the client had paid the whole amount due on a tax invoice.
127 The solicitor’s view of the matter was that:
“If an invoice has been rendered to the client, the client pays your invoice,…I’ve always believed you can pay that money to your office account and then you have the obligation to pay the disbursements that are included in that invoice.”
“The disbursements are incurred by me solely. I have the liability to pay them whether the client pays me or not… the money can be banked to the office account and then the disbursements are paid within a reasonable time…”
128 The Tribunal does not agree that the solicitor’s “policy” accords with his obligations as a solicitor to deal with moneys received from a client in accordance with the relevant legislation.
129 The Tribunal does not accept that the solicitor was entitled to act upon his “policy” of withholding payment of outstanding disbursements until such time as his client had paid the whole amount of a Tax Invoice. The obligation to pay such sums arose upon the solicitor being put in funds by the client for that purpose.
130 As was held in Re Robb, where a solicitor holds clients funds for the purpose of paying counsel and other persons, and transfers those funds to an office account, any delay in so paying the moneys amounts to professionalmisconduct, for during the period of delay the solicitor is treating clients’ funds as the solicitor’s own money.
…
  1. The conduct amounting to misappropriation described in paragraph 33 of the Agreed Statement – i.e., withdrawing funds from a trust account in order to pay costs – has been held more than once to amount to professional misconduct. The decision in Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Clapin [2011] NSWADT 83 (see at [206 - 208]) provides an example.
  1. The conduct amounting to misappropriation described in paragraph 35 of the Agreed Statement – i.e., payment of a solicitor’s own costs in lieu of counsel’s fees, using funds furnished for the latter purpose – has also been held to amount to professional misconduct. As the extract quoted above demonstrates, this was the case in Law Society of New South Wales v Davidson [2007] NSWADT 264. A further example is provided by Law Society of New South Wales v McCarthy [2003] NSWADT 198. Here the facts on which the Tribunal based its finding of professional misconduct were summarised as follows at [2 - 3]:-
2 The conduct in question involves one transaction. The following facts are not disputed. In 1999 the practitioner was practising as a solicitor, but (as is permitted) did not operate a trust account. He received a payment in settlement of a client’s case which related to costs and disbursements incurred by him on the client’s behalf. The amount of the payment was $4200, of which it was said by the practitioner and not disputed, that $3000 was in respect of counsel’s fees and $1200 was in respect of his costs. A cheque for $4200 was drawn in favour of the practitioner. It was deposited into the practitioner’s personal account on 24 June 1999.
3 The matter of non-payment of counsel’s fees was drawn to the attention of the Law Society by the client on 8 March 2000. Counsel’s fees were paid on 28 June 2000.’
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)