The Australian Judiciary is born of Genocide. Heal this Nation with a Treaty. Show respect for Family and Community in our law.
Australia is facing a catastrophic crisis within the justice system which has been created over 230 years by the unfair Structure of the Australian Judiciary. The Judiciary was born of a genocide which perpetuates itself on the citizens to this very day created by the massive power imbalance between those with power and privileged and the rest of us. Every single day we are informed of another major failure by the institutions and industries that we all depend upon for long term stability. These failures have eroded our trust in governments and the unfair Structure of the Australian Judiciary. that is supposed to run this nation with integrity as they no longer are transparent and hide the truth using legal magic.
We all believe that our Judicial Structure is incorruptible and the regulatory bodies and the courts are working in the interests of the citizens of this country in the interests of justice. Unfortunately this is a myth, albeit a well marketed and a well protected myth.
Justice: Latin iustus – righteousness upright, jowos – sacred formula, Gaelic ceartas rightness correctness
All races and religions include a definition of justice in their codes of law and conduct. Justice is, in fact, the glue that holds societies together
These are some of the myths that have recently been exposed in the media which illustrate the failure of the unfair Structure of the Australian Judiciary.:
The government regulators (Lawyers) are looking after the interests of the community.
At the heart of these crimes sits the unfair Structure of the Australian Judiciary. and at its head sits the head lawyer, The Attorney General. You will find one in every state and territory and one in the Federal Parliament mirrored by its shadow, The Shadow Attorney General. Two Generals dancing their dance of deception under the light of the slivery moon while the people of the nation are seeing their lives destroyed. Ask why they are called Generals. A General is the highest rank a person in the Army holds. Why do we need a General to hold the most powerful position in the nation during peace time unless of course we are a banana republic or there is a a hidden privileged group who feel the need to make war on the citizens of the nation. Peel the onion and you will discover it has a rotten heart.
The unfair Structure of the Australian Judiciary is made up of 76,000 lawyers who”
- Manipulate the manufacture of our laws to favour the vested interest (including the revenue base of the legal profession) from various recommendations from long overdue and under resourced enquiries and commissions.
- Administer those laws through an inefficient, expensive and problematic court system.
- Interpret those laws based upon outdated precedent, legal argument and bias that if questioned becomes contemptable.
The unfair Structure of the Australian Judiciary is formed from a Med-evil Castle that invaded Australia 230 years ago as a penal colony. The original regime comprised people who were armed and brutal and those who were shackled and powerless. When they questioned the authority it bought about the specter of the cat o nine tails, the lash. It was based upon the lie of Terra Nullius that has never formed a treaty with the original inhabitants of the land. The 50,000 year old wisdom based upon the laws of respect for the environment, community and family have been ignored and are obliterated from its culture.
Over the years the unfair Structure of the Australian Judiciary developed into eight separate jurisdictions, the six states and two territories with the Federal Government at its head, the spider. Each jurisdiction has its own separate set of laws and a separate association that represents the lawyers who run the justice and regulatory system, a system that as the life blood in our bodies runs through every aspect of all of our lives.
As citizens in a democratic nation where all people are supposed to be be equal we would expect that we would all be governed by the same law.
How the unfair Structure of the Australian Judiciary works.
Lawyers are a self-regulating species, they are regulated separately in each state by the very entities that represent them and their own acts of each state and territory parliaments that allow them to avoid their responsibilities under Australian Consumer Law. “Thou shall not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct, Thou shall not engage in unconscionable conduct, Thou shall not unfairly empower oneself in a contract.”
Because these professionals emanate from a work environment that has not absorbed this culture and they provide advice, write the laws for industry and make the decisions with regards to the law our consumer rights have become all but non-existent. To see the depth of the crisis one only needs to see the disparity in the number of lawyers who hold seats in our parliaments and look at how many are members of our federal and shadow ministries.
Of the 45 joint segments of power within the Federal Parliament there are 38 lawyers from the population of 55 lawyers.
How the unfair Structure of the Australian Judiciary operates.
Of the 88 positions of power only 50 are held by the remaining 171 members of parliament. If the ratio were distributed equitably between the lawyers and the non-lawyers the figures should be 55/226×88= 21.5 for lawyers and 171/226×88=65.6 non lawyers. As you can see the lawyers have also leveraged themselves from their already inequitable position by a further 50%.
Parliament no seats no lawyers disproportionate
Federal 226 55 54 Times
Victoria 128 21 35 times
NSW 135 30 36 times
QSLND 93 13 42 times
West Aus 95 15 51 times
Sth Aus 69 10 48 times
Based upon Australia having a population of 17 million voters and a population of 76,000 lawyers that would mean lawyers should only hold (76000/17000000)x226=1.01 seats not the 55 seats they hold. In Canberra the lawyers hold disproportionate power of 54 times that of the general parliament when compared to the general population.
In Victoria there is a voting population of 4.33 million voters and a population of 19839 lawyers that would mean lawyers should only hold (19839/4330000)x128=0.6seats not the 21 they hold. In Victoria the lawyers hold disproportionate power of 35 times that of the general parliament when compared to the general population.
In New South Wales there is a voting population of 5.39 million voters and a population of 32810 lawyers that would mean lawyers should only hold (32810/5390000)x135=0.9seats not the 30 they hold. In New South Wales the lawyers hold disproportionate power of 33 times that of the general parliament when compared to the general population.
In Queensland there is a voting population of 3.42 million voters and a population of 11445 lawyers that would mean lawyers should only hold (11445/3420000)x93=0.31 seats not the 12 they hold. In Queensland the lawyers hold disproportionate power of 42 times that of the general parliament when compared to the general population.
In Western Australia there is a voting population of 1.714 million voters and a population of 5341 lawyers that would mean lawyers should only hold (5341/1714000)x95=0.29 seats not the 15 they hold. In Western Australia the lawyers hold disproportionate power of 52 times that of the general parliament when compared to the general population.
In South Australia there is a voting population of 1.25 million voters and a population of 3815 lawyers that would mean lawyers should only hold (3815/1250000)x69=0.21 seats not the 10 they hold. In South Australia the lawyers hold disproportionate power of 48 times that of the general parliament when compared to the general population.
Unfortunately statistics in the two territories and Tasmanian about the qualifications of members of parliament are not transparent.
When one ties that influence back to the affiliated institutions within each state and combine that with the power of the courts, the reality is revealed.
The power structure of the unfair Structure of the Australian Judiciary..
An attorney was sitting in his office late one night, when Satan appeared before him. The Devil told the lawyer, “I have a proposition for you. You can win every case you try, for the rest of your life. Your clients will adore you, your colleagues will stand in awe of you, and you will make embarrassing sums of money. All I want in exchange is your soul, your wife’s soul, your children’s souls, the souls of your parents, grandparents, and parents-in-law, and the souls of all your friends and law partners.” The lawyer thought about this for a moment then asked, “So, what’s the catch?”
The inner sanctum.
These are the associations that represent the Lawyers. The separate Lawyer Unions. Coupled with these associations are the self regulating complaint bodies, the first line of defense against the consumers of their product, the families and communities of Australia.
The Law Council of Australia 76,000 Lawyers
The Law Society of New South Wales. 32,800 Lawyers
The Law Society of South Australia. 3,800 Lawyers
Queensland Law society. 11,500 Lawyers
Law Society Australian Capital Territory. 1500 Lawyers
Law Society of the Northern Territory. 763 Lawyers
Law Society of Tasmania. 780 Lawyers
Law Society of Victoria. 19,800 Lawyers
Law Society Western Australia. 5,400 Lawyers
These are the bodies in each state who receive complaints from the public with regards to the services provided by lawyers. The number of lawyers for the purpose of the analysis only refer to the lawyers in private practice as people are not being provided with services from the lawyers not working in private practice and would have no cause to make a complaint about their services.
1. Office of the legal services commissioner New South Wales: 32,800 Lawyers 69.6% in private practice, 22,639. Written complaints received in 2017- 2018, 2601. Percentage to lawyers in private practice 11%.
6,431 calls were made to the OLSC Inquiry Line, an increase of 353 from the previous year.The OLSC registered the completion of 2,601 written complaints, an increase of 268 from the previous year. Of the total written complaints completed, 267 complaints were resolved following informal resolution, 103 complaints were determined by OLSC/ Council and 2,082 complaints were closed.
2. Victorian Legal Services Commissioner and Board. 19,839 Lawyers 64% in private practice, 12,697. Written complaints received in 2017- 2018, 1,675. Percentage to lawyers in private practice 13%.
In 2017-18 there were 1,675 complaints opened. Including Commissioner-initiated complaints, the number of complaints opened this year was 12.5% higher than the previous year. Of all complaints opened, 57% were consumer matters, 40% were disciplinary matters and 3% were a mixture of the two (Table 34).
The Commissioner received 6,188 enquiries from the public (both consumers and lawyers) in 2017-18 compared with 5,793 in the previous year. The Commissioner’s staff evaluate each enquiry, and where possible try to assist the person making the enquiry with their concerns.
In 2017-18 there were 1,675 complaints opened. Including Commissioner-initiated complaints, the number of complaints opened this year was 12.5% higher than the previous year. Of all complaints opened, 57% were consumer matters, 40% were disciplinary matters and 3% were a mixture of the two (Table 34).
3. Queensland Legal Services Commissioner. 11,445 Lawyers 75.2% in private practice, 8,584. Written complaints received in 2017- 2018, 1295. Percentage to lawyers in private practice 15%. Queensland Legal Services Commissioner
This year the key statistics for the Commission are generally on par with 2017 but show some trending variances. This year, there were 262 solicitors subject to investigation compared to 353 the year before. Most complaints did, as usual, centre around quality of service, costs and the general ethical conduct of practitioners. In the categories of complaints received, family law, conveyancing, deceased estates, litigation, personal injury, criminal and commercial law constituted the major areas of the law. In addition the Commission dealt with over 2840 general enquiries.
We had 359 complaints on hand as at 1 July 2017 and opened a further 1295 complaint and investigation matters compared to 1332 last year
Disappointingly, barrister Grant Ruben Forward misappropriated $89,300.00 of monies entrusted to him as the proceeds of a personal injury claim belonging to his client through a direct brief. As the practitioner was incarcerated and has no means, the client will be unable to recover any monies because unlike the QLS, the BAQ does not have a fidelity fund whereupon a claim could be made for misappropriated monies.
4.South Aus Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner. 3815 Lawyers 70.8% in private practice 2,701. Written complaints received in 2017- 2018, 600. Percentage to lawyers in private practice 22%.
The number of complaints made to my office has increased significantly over the four years since its establishment. In the Board’s last year (2013/14) it received 445 complaints. Since then, my office has received 505 complaints (2014/15), 616 complaints (2015/16) and 632 complaints (2016/17). On the face of it, there was a reduction in the reporting period compared to the last two years, with 551 complaints being received in the reporting period.
5. Legal Practices Board Of Western Australia 5,341 Lawyers 86.2% in private practice 4,305 Written complaints received in 2017- 2018, 99 and 1414 telephone inquiries. Percentage of complaints to lawyers in private practice 2%.
6. Legal Professional Board of Tasmania. 783 Lawyers 86.2% in private practice, 656. Written complaints received in 2017- 2018, 52. Percentage to lawyers in private practice 8%.
The table below shows that the Board has dealt with a total of 240 enquiries. The number of enquiries has remained, in the main, constant since the Board commenced operations.
The Board records the total time spent per enquiry throughout the period which includes not only the time taken with the initial enquiry, but also the administrative work that flowed from the enquiry. The time spent dealing with each enquiry for the reporting period was, on average, just over 32 minutes.
A total of 52 enquiries in the reporting period resulted in a written complaint. This represents a conversion rate of 22%, which is a significant increase from the last two reporting years.
Over 83% of enquiries were dealt with by telephone, with the remaining enquiries being by email or in person. Members of the public are invited to attend the Board’s offices to discuss their issues in person if they wish to.
Consistent with our complaints data, enquiries primarily concern:
• probate and estate work; • family law; • conveyancing; and • criminal law. Fees, costs, perceptions of overcharging or ‘bill shock’ continue to be the most common query to the Board, irrespective of the area of law. Queries about perceived delay by lawyers were a close second.
7. Law Society Northern Territory. 783 Lawyers 32.7% in private practice, 252. Written complaints received in 2017- 2018, 53. Percentage to lawyers in private practice 21%. http://www.lawsocietynt.asn.au/
Complaints This year saw a numerical spike in the number of complaints received compared to previous years—53 complaints were received.
Complaints This year saw a numerical spike in the number of complaints received compared to previous years—53 complaints were received. This represents a 40 % increase from 2016/17, with 37 complaints received in 2016/17 (compared with 40 in 2015/16). However the complaints received this year included complaints made by 2 related complainants against 9 practitioners— representing 18 of the complaints received overall.
8 Australian Capital Law Society. 1,526 Lawyers 46.8% in private practice, 717. Written complaints received in 2017- 2018, 92. Percentage to lawyers in private practice 13%.
The Culture formed by the Australian Legal Regulators.
The regulators who receive and investigate complaints against lawyers by consumers of their services are key to the culture of our justice system, “The Jurisprudence”. How these regulators operate dictates how our Justice system works. If a regulatory body is serious about improving the quality outcomes of the profession it is responsible for regulating it needs to investigate all complaints in a thorough and unbiased manner giving priority to the needs of the consumer. After investigating the problems it needs to analyse the underlining causes of the problems, define those problems and provide solutions to prevent the problems from reoccurring by developing systems and procedures which change the culture of the professionals who work in that particular industry. The developed systems and procedures make people accountable and responsible for their mistakes which inevitably change the culture. This change in culture leads to improved quality outcomes and provide a system that is more efficient IE cheaper, faster, and more accurate, with regards to a justice system, a system that is more affordable, more accurate and fairer to the people who are required to use it. By changing the culture within the legal practice area of law, inevitably the culture will spread to the courts as all members of the Judiciary are sourced from the legal profession. We will then see a Justice system that has its foundation built upon the principals of quality outcomes where all people involved within the process are responsible and accountable for their decisions, actions. The adversarial nature of the system contributes to the abuse of our families and our communities whilst at the same time benefiting the pockets of the legal profession, an inquisitorial collaborative approach would reduce the abuse and reduce the money stream to the profession.
By analysing the number of complains made against lawyers in every state in Australia we can see that on average 12% of the legal profession servicing consumers is complained about once a year, having in mind that the legal regulators operate under various separate legal professional acts that have been written, administered and interpreted by lawyers.
The following points require consideration:
- These legal professional acts obfuscate the legal profession from their responsibilities to customers under Australian Consumer Law, as their customers become clients?
- The people carrying out the investigations and making determinations as to whether or not to proceed with an investigation are members of the lawyers club.
- These people are influenced by the professional association that feeds them their daily bread and butter.
- The investigators because they have been educated as lawyers and trained as lawyers do not have a culture of the principals of quality outcomes ingrained into their working culture.
- The process of complaint handling could well be described as one where the emphasis is directed to finding loopholes in order not to investigate the complaint and deter the complainant.
- People are very reticent to make a complaint about their lawyer as they well may not even be aware that the lawyer has mistreated them and even if they do feel as if they have been mistreated still do not know how to raise a complaint of may be so intimidated by the power imbalance that they decide not to raise a complaint.
- People when sucked into the court system are powerless to make a complaint against the legal representation on the other side or against the person who is deciding the case whether that be a VCAT member, a magistrate, or a Judge.
- Approximately 80% of customers of the legal system are dissatisfied with the product.
- When a person engages the services of a lawyer it is normally for a serious reason and the outcomes are more often than not life changing.
The various legal regulators within Australia receive about 6800 complaints every year against the 52,500 lawyers in private practice about 13% of the profession. More often than not the people who complain have engaged a lawyer for life changing reasons. The majority of complaints concern overcharging, family law matters or are to do with wills and probate.
It could very easily be presumed that if all of the consumers of legal services during one year were surveyed about their legal experience the number of complaints against the profession could quite easily double.
It is important to note that the bulk of these complaints are dismissed by the various legal regulators as misconceived, lacking in substance or merely vexatious and are referred back to the customer advising them that they are civil matters and to go hire a lawyer!.
We need Quality Control for Lawyers
The complaints are never grouped and analysed so as to develop procedures that will reduce the errors and provide a better quality outcome for customers of the legal industry. I will lead you to the 2009 Ombudsman`s own motion report on the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner as mentioned in his 2009 Annual report which is Top Secret and well and truly hidden from the public. Not even the productivity commission are allowed to view it?
Of particular concern to me are instances of regulators failing to take action.
Legal Services Commissioner The Legal Profession Act 2004 established the office of the Legal Services Commissioner and lists its objectives, one of which is: to ensure that complaints against Australian legal practitioners and disputes between law practices or Australian legal practitioners and clients are dealt with in a timely and effective manner.
The role of the Legal Services Commissioner is to protect both consumers of legal services and the public interest in the proper administration of justice.
The Legal Services Commissioner has the power to address complaints made against Victorian legal practitioners to ensure that they acted within the confines of the law, with appropriate ethical standards and with deference to their professional position.
The legal system can be financially costly and the law can be complex, with intricacies which many members of the public find difficult to navigate and understand. This can leave the public vulnerable to unscrupulous, negligent or unprofessional practices of legal practitioners.
Over the past year I received 95 complaints about the Legal Services Commissioner, which replaced the former Legal Ombudsman in December 2005. There were recurring themes in the complaints which pointed to a systemic failure by the Legal Services Commissioner to adequately undertake its statutory role. For example, complainants alleged that: complaints were inadequately investigated or not investigated at all
• in finalising complaints documentation practices were poor and failed to provide complainants
• with information about the Legal Services Commissioner’s internal review process and external review mechanisms investigations lacked procedural fairness.
• The following case study highlights that the lack of appropriate review powers in place for the Legal Services Commissioner is still the case. It illustrates how this can result in injustice to complainants and allow practitioners to avoid detection and/or prosecution as a consequence of the current legislative
Complainants should be entitled to reviews of deficient investigations or erroneous decisions.
goes to the merits of the complaint (‘merits’ error). A merits error does not give the LSC the power to re-open a discipline complaint. This is unsatisfactory. Complainants should be entitled to reviews of deficient investigations or erroneous decisions. I
My investigation identified a lack of understanding by staff of the Legal Services Commissioner’s statutory powers and a restricted skills-set to conduct investigations. The Legal Services Commissioner’s investigators showed limited knowledge of the basic techniques of investigative processes.
Case files lacked: investigation plans
- thorough and professional approaches to gathering evidence
- follow-up on serious allegations
- substantiating documents such as practitioners’ files
- reasons for decisions.
I made 28 recommendations to the Legal Services Commissioner and am pleased to note that it has taken steps to address a number of problems identified in my own motion investigation. I intend to review the Legal Services Commissioner’s implementation of my recommendations over the next year. I also referred the report of my investigation to the Attorney General for his information, particularly in relation to the inability of the Legal Services Commissioner to re-open cases on the basis of merits.
Please also refer to:
The Supreme Court of Victoria funds in court Miranda Bain. Public Hearing Transcript Melbourne 11/06/2014
MS MacRAE: You also said in your opening statement that overcharging is common practice among some law firms. Are you in a position or would you be breaching your responsibilities to address that? I mean, I guess you’re in a unique position to have seen enough bills across a whole range of clients, that you would pick up on that when no individual consumer could possibly be in that position, so how would that overcharging – is there a way of dealing with that information that would be helpful? Obviously if it’s a systemic problem with particular practitioners, it would be great from a consumer point of view to have that somehow divulged and addressed. Is there any mechanism that that can be brought to anybody’s attention in the current system that would allow that to happen?
MS MacRAE: Just roughly, are you able to give me a feel for what sort of proportion it might be where you get a substantial adjustment, because I can appreciate at the margin you might be arguing “I want this or that,” but is there – – – MR WALTON (SCVFIC): Just going on the last two months, because I have those figures sort of off the top of my head, the reduction on the amount claimed was an average of about 22 to 25 per cent.
The 2013 Accesses to Justice Report by The Productivity Commission States: REF VOLUME 1 PG 226
In any services market, be it medicine, plumbing or legal services, there can be examples of ‘bad apples’ — instances where providers have exploited consumers. Additionally, in some markets, the very nature of the product or service puts consumers at a disadvantage relative to suppliers who are better informed or face perverse incentives. In such markets, government intervention is warranted to ‘level the playing field’ to ensure that services are not over or under provided, and that they are not charged at excessive rates — benefitting suppliers at the expense of consumers and society as a whole. Regulation needs to address poor behaviour, and be seen to be doing so, in order to alleviate such fears and promote better use of legal services.
A greater focus on the consumer is needed …
In the past, there has been some criticism of complaints processes. In several jurisdictions there were concerns prior to complaint bodies gaining independence. For example, the previous legislative arrangements in Queensland:
… had come under intense and very public and adverse scrutiny in 2002 and 2003 [when professional associations handled complaints] … the process was insufficiently independent of the profession to give the community confidence that complaints about members of the profession would be dealt with thoroughly and impartially – the media characterised the process as ‘Caesar judging Caesar’. The publicity gave the impression not only that the profession ‘looked after its own’ as it were but that malpractice was commonplace. (Qld LSC 2005, p. 7)
This criticism led to the establishment of the Queensland Legal Services Commission. However, independence is not a ‘silver bullet’, and poor practices can still prevail within independent bodies. In 2008, the Victorian Ombudsman criticised the Victorian Legal Services Commission in an investigation of its complaints processes (McGarvie 2012). The Ombudsman initiated the investigation on its own motion because it had received 95 complaints about the Commission in the previous year (Victorian Ombudsman 2009).
The Ombudsman found poor practices including delay, poor handling of minor matters, poor investigatory techniques, denial of procedural fairness, inadequate documentation explaining decisions and a low number of substantive prosecutions. The Ombudsman made 28 recommendations to improve processes and the Commissioner has reported that these have since been adopted. One example was the introduction of a Rapid Resolution Team in 2010 to expeditiously handle straightforward service matters (McGarvie 2012). While the Commission sought access to this confidential Ombudsman report from the Legal Services Commission, it was instead only provided with the Legal Services Commission’s response to the recommendations. As such the Commission has not been able to independently verify whether the improvements have adequately addressed the underlying concerns raised by the Ombudsman.
Proactive vs Reactive: Reactive, the current Judicial system or an up to date Proactive a modern scientific way of making a decision.
Currently our courts work as follows: Decisions, not scientific based on precedent, cases heard in another time and place, where we do not know the circumstances of the case as we were not there, what was the bias if any, the judge, the resources of both parties, the vested interest are not based on scientific analysis, but tend towards legal magic. Decisions made upon errors from a distant time, superimposed upon more errors in process and deception, making even more errors created in an environment without quality systems or procedures where nobody is accountable for their actions. The cases are held in front of people who have been anointed to their positions through their family connections and are frequently not based on merit in an adversarial system not a collaborative system that is biased towards hiding the facts, the truth rather than being transparent and evaluating the facts using quality standards to make informed decisions. The practitioners have come from an environment of privilege, divorced from the rules of accountability and bear no responsibility for their decisions even though those decisions can impact upon the whole of the rest of the lives of the people whose fates they decide. a truly evil system that requires a complete rebuild from the top to the bottom. It has no treaty with the original peoples of the land it does not respect the core elements of our society that is family and community is run off an antiquated and out of date business model, has absolutely zero scientific credibility and protects itself through its historical genetic links to a genocide. This system is the life blood of our nation and is strangling it with the a powerful web of self-interest that it has weaved a its invisible web of deceit, which is choking the nation and will inevitably bring about our downfall. So wake up throw off your wigs and gowns and allow the people with the scientific wisdom to bring in the respect for family and community through a treaty that this nation has cried out for, for the past 230 years and start healing this nation of ours.
A nation formed off genocide by people bound in chains has transformed into a country ruled by unaccountable lawyers who work as a spider to weave its web of exploitation upon the citizens of the nation. We are no longer peoples thrown from our land, or bound in iron chains, we have becom a nation entwined in a web of legislation woven by a spider of self-interest who has zero respect for our environment, our families and our communities who live in a land without a Treaty with the original peoples of this land.
Our buildings are falling down.
The legalised and institutionalized wholesale theft of children occurred in Australia along with the depth of pain and suffering which words cannot explain that has been inflicted upon millions of Australian families.
Our banks and our financial Institutions can fleece us without fear of retribution.
Our families are plundered by unconscionable overcharging lawyers during separation in the family law courts.
Our elderly are robbed and mistreated when they are at their most vulnerable.
Innocent hard working families who require sanctity are exported back to hell.
Were we are building roads through sacred lands and committing acts of heresy by destroying 800 year old birthing trees.
Allowing the theft and mismanagement of our water through out our most productive food bowl.
Building prisons instead of building up our local communities via a national land and revegetation programme.
Destroying our manufacturing and small business sector through poor taxation policy and over regulation.
And last but not least permitting Law Firms such as Russell Kennedy to hide the deceased file of my late mother from her children after plundering her grave.
Darren from the castle when doing his advert for Maurice Blackburn lawyers is a prophetic reminder of the state of the legal industry in Australia. The only thing missing in the add is that you may find a good lawyer but winning the case puts the odds into the realm of a Tatts lotto win not just the win of the local chook raffle.
Peel back the moldy carpet and begin to see how the cockroaches defend themselves. These are the separate lawyer regulators responsible for receiving complaints made by people who are not happy about the life changing services provided by the legal profession.
My only solution to this crisis is to create a film. Already written called “A Castle, The Medi evil Nightmare.” Through a film that uses tragic comedy to expose I believe the increased awareness amongst our community will bring us together and alter the political climate in our country which will bring about a treaty and therefore respect of family and community in our laws.
Thank you for spending the time to read and if you are interested in participating please make contact email firstname.lastname@example.org Tel 0401416305