Is the Australian Judicial Structure founded upon a culture of exploitation or is it founded upon a culture of Creation?
A culture of exploitation rewards an environment where the pirate thrives, where the society is fixated upon speculation, gambling and the exploitation of its natural resources in order to maximise profit, without reference to sustainability or to the negative impacts upon the families and communities who live within its realm.
Creation (Social Development)
A culture of creation rewards a world where the artisan thrives, where the society directs its energies towards the activities of making and creating (Manufacturing). A creative culture ensures that its laws respect family and community as the essential ingredient required to grow and maintain a healthy society.
The Australian Judicial, a construct of Piracy:
A culture of Piracy has no respect for family or community, a culture of Piracy has no need for a treaty with the first peoples of the land as this would impede the process of exploitation.
“A pirate ship on land exploits the environment and the citizens that make a nation. It can be viewed as the Judicial structure where the pirates who run the ship are the lawyers; when the ship is run in the interest of plunder and piracy. As it is they who constructed the ship, without respect for family and community. With the intent to commit acts of piracy that necessitates genocide. So of course the captain of the pirate ship The High Court of Australia can never admit to the intent; as the devil is a liar!”
- The word trustworthy person is used by the pirates to replace the word pirate.
- The word development is used by the pirates to replace the word exploitation.
- The word savage, heathen, object, flora, fauna, is used by the pirates to replace the phrase “human being.”
It is interesting to observe how the culture of Piracy was utilised by the East India Company to exploit the wealth of the artisans of India throughout the 18th Century. Refer The Anarchy, (The relentless rise of the East India Company) by William Dalrymple.
“There was a time during the eighteenth century that the Indian cloth making industry became a threat to the up and coming industrial revolution driven by the mechanisation of the textiles industry in Great Britain, the British burned the weaving looms that made the cloth in India and to ensure they had accomplished their task, they cut the thumbs off the Indian weavers.”
Considering the proximity of Australia to India on a global scale in conjunction with the aligned moment in time, by joining the dots, it becomes clear that the judicial model of piracy which formed in India, slithered into Australia and found itself a comfortable home.
A Contemporary Examples of the Culture of Piracy in Australia.
One only has to read The Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 commenced on 29 October 2019 by Professor Graeme Samuel AC, to understand how the model of piracy is thriving in contemporary Australia. When this realization becomes transparent, it is obvious that the laws constructed by the legal fraternity to manage the Environment are designed to reward exploitation.
When reading the review all that is required, is to extend the scope of the word Environment to include of our socio-economic and legal framework, to include the human beings who live here. This unmasks the exploitative legal framework in which we live, a Judicial Structure built by pirates, run by pirates, which favours the exploitation of people and the natural environment by Pirates.
A similar review is urgently required by a person with Integrity such as Professor Graeme Samuel into the mechanisms of the Australian Judicial, Legal System; a betting person can predict that the review would come to the same conclusions.
The Legal Industry requires an Independent Watchdog with very large and sharp teeth to eliminate law-fare upon our families and communities. which will allow the Australian people to live in an environment where we can enjoy a life without the fear of extinction.
The legal industry needs Quality Standards, as does the system that oversees and protects our natural environment.
An open and transparent system will allow the community to see the truth and be able to regain trust in its fabric.
Current Acts of Piracy, orchestrated by the Australian Legal fraternity.
The response of the Minister for the Environment Sussan Ley to the review of the Environment Protection and Biodivesity Conservation Act.
The Federal Minister for the Environment Sussan Ley is about to rush through legislation with regards to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, prior to completion of the review and to the formulation of proper standards. Most likely caused by the lawyer dominated power base of the parliament of Australia. Avoidance of standards and independent accountability are systemic behaviour among pirates and members of the legal cabal. The cornerstone recommendation of the review by Professor Graeme Samuel AC to create a strong independent watchdog to monitor the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is not yet cemented into place and we will all need to keep a very close eye on the legislation, to ensure the watch dog recommendation is not regulated to paper tiger status by the lawyers.
“Anyone who is interested, knows in their heart that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, on behalf of the government, bugged the cabinet room and other offices of the Timor Leste government in 2004, to give Australia a major edge over our impoverished neighbour in negotiations for the ownership of massive underwater oil and helium reserves. The two countries had solemnly agreed to negotiate in good faith. Coyly, the federal government has neither confirmed nor denied the bugging. But if there was no bugging, it would not breach official secrets laws to say there was. The operation was conducted under cover of an aid project – a cruel, modern take on the Trojan horse. The bugging was almost certainly a crime in Timor Leste and, according to written advice of a former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nick Cowdery, it was likely also criminal under Australian law. Yet the government is prosecuting a former ASIS officer, Witness K, who was troubled by the operation, for disclosing secret information. It is also prosecuting his lawyer, the former ACT attorney-general Bernard Collaery, for using the information provided by K to help Timor Leste overturn the deal on the boundary line, on the basis that the negotiations with Australia were tainted by the bugging”.
An informative link to The Greater Sunrise oil and gas field in the Timor Sea
Failure of Twenty years of law reform to protect families from grave robbing lawyers.
The failure of the Judicial Structure after twenty years of Inheritance law reform, to allow family members of a deceased estate, the statutory right to gain access to the legal file of the estate from a lawyer who is an executor is a disgusting and disgraceful blight upon the morality of the Australian Legal Profession, an action that could only emanate from a culture of piracy.
The Royal Commission in the Banking Superannuation and Financial Services Industry
The horrible revelations of the Banking Royal Commission, having regards for the fact that the lawyers are the gate keepers and not one banker has been jailed despite the fact that they have been proven to have charged dead people for services not rendered and for millions of instances of money laundering.
The horrific revelations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.
Aged Care in Australia: A Shocking Tale of Neglect
“The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety’s Interim Report has found the aged care system fails to meet the needs of its older, vulnerable, citizens. It does not deliver uniformly safe and quality care, is unkind and uncaring towards older people and, in too many instances, it neglects them”.
Commissioners Richard Tracey AM, RFD, QC and Lynelle Briggs’s AO investigation into Australia’s aged care system led them to describe the aged care system as “a shocking tale of neglect”.
“The neglect that we have found in this Royal Commission, to date, is far from the best that can be done. Rather, it is a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia as a nation.”
When The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was first announced a lawyer Victor Harcourt of Russell Kennedy who are leading law firm within the Aged Care Industry was reported in Australian Ageing Agenda as saying.
Victor Harcourt, Principal at Russell Kennedy Lawyers, likened a royal commission to “a colonial inquest on steroids” and anticipated that, like its banking equivalent, it would be very much a political process which could have a “ripple effect” throughout the sector. Time to start preparing ‘war room’ “Internally, I suggest that you could start setting up your own version of the war room ,” he said. “That could look like setting up your own team in the organisation that is focused on the aged care royal commission’s terms of reference, but which starts that process now. You’ll need to make some decisions about who’ll lead the team, whether it’s purely internal, you’ll have decisions to make about engaging with lawyers and other consultants. You certainly need to make some early decisions about who’s going to be the leader of that team, and also the spokesperson and possibly the person giving evidence. You’ll also need to ensure you’ve got the processes in relation to the war room and the team set up including document management.”
From Russell Kennedy`s web site” Russell Kennedy is a leader in the provision of legal services to the aged care sector, this combined with our extensive experience representing clients in Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries places us in a unique position to provide expert advice and representation to aged care providers in relation to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.
This unique combination of expertise will enable us to advise you on the impact the Royal Commission may have on your organisation and what you should do next. We seek to assist you to protect your organisation, its reputation and to improve the quality of the outcomes from the Royal Commission. Download our summary capability statement here.
Below is the Check List provided by Russell Kennedy for the Providers of Aged Care.
The systemic failure by both State and the Federal Government`s to protect 50,000 year old sacred heritage belonging to the oldest living culture on this planet. The actions of Pirates protected by a legal culture of Piracy.
The systemic failure by both the Victorian Government and the Federal Government to protect 800 year old Sacred Birthing Trees and their surrounds on the Western Highway in Victoria.
Ombudsman Deborah Glass said “given the region’s history of ethnic murder and dispossession, it is hard not to sympathise” with traditional owners. But ultimately, the government agencies overseeing the project consulted in good faith, she found. “It is not for the Ombudsman to determine the best route for the highway … I cannot make an order to stop the road,” Ms Glass said in her report released on Thursday. But overall, the watchdog concluded the government “had made legally sound and good faith efforts to consult with traditional custodians and arrive at a compromise solution”.
A controversial $1 million taxpayer payment to the now-deregistered Aboriginal corporation Martang after the group approved the project in 2013 did not raise concerns for Ms Glass. It was typical of credit trading agreements struck with Indigenous groups and did not serve as an incentive, she found. The first installment of $620,000 was unusually sizeable though, the investigation noted. The issue of Aboriginal representation has dogged the project’s consultation process.
Rio Tinto received ministerial consent to destroy or damage the site in 2013 under Western Australia’s outdated Aboriginal heritage laws, which were drafted in 1972 to favour mining proponents.
Federal Indigenous Australians Minister Ken Wyatt, also a Yamatji man and cousin to his West Australian counterpart, admitted lawyers from the PKKP contacted his office on 20 May, seeking an injunction under federal laws. Wyatt referred them to the environment minister, Sussan Ley, who has carriage of the federal Aboriginal heritage protection act. His office did not follow-up with Ley until after the sites were destroyed.
Former senior Commonwealth public servant Dr Bill Gray helped draw up and administer the act when it began in 1984. Gray said the act could have been used to stop the blast, and questions must be asked about why it failed. “It is legislation of last resort which enables the minister to exercise his or her discretion to intervene,” Gray said. “It can be used to override state legislation or other agreements, provide emergency declarations to protect significant Aboriginal sites that are in imminent danger of being destroyed.” “I am not suggesting that multinational corporations like Rio Tinto and BHP and others have operated outside the letter of the law,” Altman wrote. “What I am saying is that they have been far too influential in shaping the law to suit their instrumental extractive profit-seeking interests.”
Australian National University emeritus professor Jon Altman, who has researched land rights and native title matters for more than 40 years, said Indigenous people had a right to expect stronger protection of their cultural heritage.
“There is currently a culture of tokenism and symbolism” that marginalises Indigenous knowledge and views, while mining companies hold influence over legislation, he said.
Does The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) “Invisible Pirate Army.” have any influence on the current state of affairs?
The IPA’s executive director John Roskam (A Lawyer), who used to work for as Manager of Government and Corporate Affairs for Rio Tinto Group, has said that donors to the Institute want to remain anonymous because they “have been intimidated because of their supposed support for us”.
We don’t need another family law review — we need to act on what we already know! Question: How many inquiries and reports does it take to change Australia’s family law system? Answer: As many as possible, as long as you procrastinate and do not implement any recommendations. The announcement this week of yet another inquiry into our family law system is the third such report in the past three years.
Of Course we need another review. It keeps a lot of lawyers busy working out ways to protect The Abattoir so as more families can be ripped apart and asset stripped by a piratical legal process.
Some facts about the business of family law in Australia. About 43,000 marriages end up in divorce every year. The average cost of a divorce is about $20,000 x 2 = $40,000 per family. The prices range from as low as $2,000 to well above $200,000 depending upon the levels of animosity. The mother and father who are already vulnerable, are pitted against one another in an alien landscape, advised by professional lawyers, who are trained in an adversarial environment. Quality control, standards and the accountability of these professionals to their customers is non existent. The Judges who administer the battle ground are drawn from the same profession and do not monitor the costs.
A gentleman who was going through a divorce noticed a note on his lawyer`s desk from his wife`s lawyer, when his lawyer left the room, he read the note. It Said ”Two Fat Ducks, You pluck one and I will pluck the other”.
The Court sits quite, as the laws upon which Australia are founded, do not respect our family or our community structures, as there is no treaty with the original people of the land. It is the missing link!
The Joint select Committee on Australia`s Family Law System has received over 1,600 submissions. The majority of the submissions, at least 1,200 are marked confidential? Is this brought about by design or because the people who worked hard to write a submission, wanted their submission to remain hidden? It has been said that to get a submission published requires a lot of push and shove.
This means that even at this critical time, where transparency and collaboration are essential as part of building a legal framework that does respect our family structures, the process controlled by the legal industry is being manipulated. This manipulation by the legal fraternity is repugnant. The overly high number of submissions marked confidential prevents interested people from communicating with one another and could be seen as an effective way by those who control the process (The Lawyers) of cutting off the tentacles of communication between community members.
An example of a submission which was eventually published with one paragraph redacted, the redacted segment written in red.
Your Submission Please provide a brief summary of your experience and any relevant issues. Your submission should respond to one or more of the committee’s Terms of Reference
Note: This submission presents real examples in relation to vanilla-flavoured separating ordinary families with ordinary children i.e. without risk factors. It highlights uncertain outcomes and unnecessary wastage of resources during the legal separation process. This submission does not seek to deal with “Property” matters, rather the urgency of orders regarding children. Re (B) – the appropriateness of family court powers to ensure parties in family law proceedings provide truthful and complete evidence, and the ability of the court to make orders for non-compliance and the efficacy of the enforcement of such orders:
The Court has whatever powers it needs, either within the Court Rules, within the Family Law Rules, or within the Family Law Act. The true failing here is for the judges to apply those powers from the onset; to apply them consistently to a case; to apply them consistently between cases and between different judges; and to apply them in an unbiased manner. What the judicial system truly lacks is quality control framework.
The redacted bit:
Example – a judge’s nickname within the lawyer community is “Daffy Duck”, because “Donald never gets anything”. How is this attitude allowed to exist, and thrive? This illustrates a failure to maintain unbiased outcomes within a quality control framework.
“Surprise, surprise – it mentioned a quality control framework…clearly a dirty word within the court system!”
Example – It ought to be plainly obvious to a judge that orders made by them one month prior have efficacy, and that any deviation from those orders ought to be handled as a probable contravention and assessed for the reason of contravention, then consequences awarded for contravention without reasonable excuse. Not to do so is for the Court to invite frequent contraventions, encouraged by lawyers to gain tactical advantage, at the expense of children. Strange when the judge observes the frequent behaviour by lawyers, calls it out, but declines to use their judicial power to rebuke the lawyers who propagate such behaviours. Further, because the principle of “advocate’s immunity “allows a lawyer to misbehave during legal proceedings without the fear of being sued for the damages their negligence or inaction creates, those lawyers who desire to misbehave will, and do. The policeman, a.k.a. LSC is nowhere to be found on account of this principle of advocate’s immunity. Re (D) – the financial costs to families of family law proceedings, and options to reduce the financial impact, with particular focus on those instances where legal fees incurred by parties are disproportionate to the total property pool in dispute or are disproportionate to the objective level of complexity of parenting issues:
In the above example (yes it really happened recently!), two sets of solicitors and two barristers both got paid for attendance to the matter. The attendance lasted from 10am until 4pm one day, rather than be dismissed summarily as an abuse of process and a contravention. The separated mother and father paid directly for this inefficiency, say $10,000 plus their lost work time and energy. There was no quality control process in place, and for the lawyers it was just another day in the office. Bring on objective measures of lawyer performance, judicial performance, and transparent record-keeping on the process abuses. Example – In 2014, the Productivity Commission conducted an extensive inquiry into Access to Justice. It handed down a series of recommendations. Perhaps this inquiry should report on which of those recommendations have been implemented, and if not, why not.
Re (F) – the impacts of family law proceedings on the health, safety and wellbeing of children and families involved in those proceedings:
Family law ought to preserve families’ goodwill during the difficult time of separation. Instead it destroys goodwill and fosters ill will. An adversarial legal model does not assist families to move forward quickly in the interests of their future lives and their children’s lives. If you follow the money trail, it’s easy to see who profits from protracted disputes, and it’s not the families’ well being. In fact, this is one area where delays are NOT curable by the payment of interest, because children grow UP. The solution lies in a “tribunal”-type system which quickly assesses a family dynamic during the early stages of separation, and repeats the process at steps along the children’s pathway to adulthood. Clear pathways need to be documented and published online re how a separating family can transform into two families with shared responsibilities for children. Peculiar behaviours then become exceptions to be treated as exceptions, rather than running every family through the adversarial two-lawyer systems.
There are of course many other areas within our Judicial Structure where the Lawyers run free and remain unaccountable to their customers.
These include, Building Disputes, Insolvency and debt collection, Personal Injury claims whether on the road, at work, an accident, or medical negligence, Guardianship Financial Abuse and many others that I apologize for omitting.
The problem with this culture of exploitation by our legal system and its failure to hold itself to account combined with the failure of our political system to tame this beast, affects every single person who lives in Australia. Many of us and our families have been hurt because of the failure of the legal industry to face the needs of the 21st century and without community pressure, not much will change.
I have thought of one way to bring this much needed change into effect. I have written a film in the form of a tragic comedy that appeals to the common psyche through the use of humour.
Refer to the link A Castle The Medi-Evil Nightmare.
I am looking for people who do have concerns about our legal system and would like to be part of a collaborative approach to create change to become part of an investment body in order to get the film made.
Only through a collective push by our community can this piratical power structure be transformed.
One of the tools necessary to initiate such a transformation is to Increase a broad base of public awareness, which is the reason why I have written a film that now requires the resources to bring it into production.
The film exposes the reason for the disrespect for family and community within Australia`s Judicial Structure and the impact this has on the contemporary Australian family, it explores its roots within the reality of Terra Nullius and the desperate need to make a Treaty with the original peoples of the land.
“A Castle The Medi Evil Nightmare ” portrays the reality of the nation’s legal roots, brings them into the contemporary world and blends the modern with the spirituality of its soul, its original peoples, to bring about a solution through healing, via a “Tragic Comedy”.
The story is structured upon a trinity, The Everyday Australian Family, The Aboriginal People and The Lawyers, (the people who run the judicial structure, and those whom they protect). Australia’s relationship with sheep, thread throughout the film to bring together a story that exposes the clash of cultures that impacts upon our contemporary society.
Please feel free to contact me either by email firstname.lastname@example.org or by phone 0401416305 Look forward to hearing from you. Diarmuid Hannigan.