Re: Bar Association Rejects Supreme Courtt Judge.

[george newnham]

What you are proposing is to have further legal action taken in this matter, thus enriching that group of people I have the utmost distrust of - the legal profession, who it would appear is the second oldest in the history of mankind. IN my opinion, they are but blotches on society in general, they are lower than leeches in their efforts to extract the lifeblood from their fellow mankind, and despite your protestations, judges are but lawyers who have gone onto a higher level. There are no good judges, only some who are not as bad or incompetent as others. As for decent ministers, surely you jest? For they must toe the party line and vote the party line. They are not there to serve their voters, but to protect the party and that party only - to the exclusion of their masters, they have gone mad with power and we all suffer, not just you and I. Your thoughts that the Australia Act will solve all is mere conjecture, for those in assumed power, with an assumed mandate, will never relinquish their power without a fight and we will. The laws are based in antiquity, the precedents have been set for a purpose, but these judges, these lawyers who mark their own exams, are flouting rights and privileges that are ours, not for their whims and fancies. The judiciary has lost touch with the will of the people, they have set themselves up as gods and they are craven, for they bow to the will of a few, to subdue the many. This I believe.   George Newnham Cairns, Queensland Van Rheeden wrote: Dear John, You know I think by now  we have personally undergone equal/worse problems to yours and so sympathise - however there are indeed others, unfortunately, who  have problems still far worse than either yours or ours (i.e. in our case a loan pursued solely by the bank in (unknown by us) a financially troubled project [them later discovered actual developer as to 87% etc  unknown to us - then through personal (ASC)searches further  discovering the judge on our matter having personal association with those same apartments........but, nuff said here]  - outcome, loss of everything at late stage in life: within a few months now (my husband being devestated by events, all subsequently left to me - husband in hugely bad shape since loosing millions [for him worse much being his wife's own personal funds and treasured waterfront home - anchor for lifelong expat from age of two - again, nuff said here] ) unable to even meet rent on modest property (don't know where we go from here - but still hanging on and fighting!) :  so with those unhappy qualifications  therefore feel properly able to reasonably say there are: (a) some decent (and dare I even say very fine)  judges (maybe not many, but they do exist - Marcus Einfield being one, and there are others),(b) some extraordinarly decent, honest, caring  and upstanding barristers,(c) here and there (less frequently) there are also a very few truly decent, helpful  ministers - providing approached properly.....they are not all insensitive, self-serving, or bad - Hope does exists: but ,you a Dentist, ourselves professional Engineers we can mutually appreciate taht  these people are busy professionals with countless matters coming to them  - their attention simply needs to be properly attracted and matters properly addressed.....we can do this, but need to get people together.  I truly do  know your problem with the term  "variable" - however at law "variable" can indeed mean "certainty" (provided, in my modest understanding,  means for calculating how this will be dealt with has been properly fixed/explained):  I agree it is wrong, misleading et al, however it is perhaps antiquity and current inappropriatness of  Law which must be addressed.....I think we should also look, in great depth, at passing of the Australia Act. How about we get a group together to discuss these issues, and then make submissions with supportive cases: possibly even inviting some of those realistic  members of the legal profession etc. Warm regards,Robyn  ----- Original Message ----- From: John Wilson To: george newnham Sent: Wednesday, 30 August 2000 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Bar Association Rejects Supreme Courtt Judge.  Dear George, I didn't expect the Bar Association to be on side because it is as the Bill of Rights says "..evil counsellors (barristers), judges and ministers...".  It's similar to the Liberal Party where the grass roots people may be genuine enought but the executive are, again, "evil".  I feel sorry for a judge (or anyone) who is under threat. John Wilson. -----Original Message----- From: george newnham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: John Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, 30 August 2000 13:37 Subject: Re: Bar Association Rejects Supreme Courtt Judge.  Oh John - how naive of you to expect them to work against their system! In the dog eat dog world of today, the lawyers, and in particular the bar association is the piranha of piranhas George Newnham Cairns, Australia John Wilson wrote:  Dear Fellow Australians, Perhaps you remember the transcript of proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court on 21 AUG 2000 when Justice David Kirby volunteered to approach the Bar Association on my behald for their pro bono assistance to draft a document? After not hearing anything for a week and having received a letter from the Court's Principal Registrar saying "You are advised to contact the Bar Association to obtain Pro Bono representation or alternatively apply to the Court for an order under Part 66A of the Supreme Court Rules.", I phoned the judge's associate.  She was quite shocked that I had not been contacted by the Bar Association because she said she had phoned them twice on that previous Monday and said she would get back on to them immediately. Later that day, a "Naomi" from the Supreme Court phoned me several times (as well as the Bar Association) to work out what was going on - with the final word being that the Bar Association had decided that "it was not appropriate" for a judge to do such a thing and, if I wanted to go to them, I had to file a Notice of Motion under Part 66A (cost $127). How embarrassing for the Honourable Judge!  The general consensus of those who commented on my earlier email was that I "had received a fair deal from the judge" - but it seems that our system of justice is not about fairness and even a judge must not step out of line. Yours sincerely, John Wilson.