Did you think Australian Judges were beyond reproach?

Well hello to the Dirty Dyson matter regarding the former High Court of Australia Judge Dyson Heydon (previously a judge in Supreme Court NSW), all while other judges knew about it, but
TURNED A BLIND EYE - PDF

Dirty Dyson

LAWYERS WEEKLY

The accusations against Dyson Heydon highlight a "deeper and more insidious" problem for courts globally, says a UNSW Law teaching fellow. “These issues run deep in the legal profession...."

Dirty Dyson

THE GUARDIAN

A senior lawyer at a top-tier firm has such a history of harassment that a supervisor must sit next to him at every social event... harassment rife in Australian legal profession. Link to PDF

Dirty Dyson

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The Baker McKenzie remedy :
Just Smile Ladies.... Can you imagine male lawyers being given similar advice?

DirtyDyson.com

FINANCIAL REVIEW

Across the legal industry, men and women who worked with Mr Heydon are debating a crucial question: was the brilliant High Court judge's attitude towards women an unfortunate relic of a more sexist age, or did it cross into behaviour that a jury might have deemed, to put it bluntly, crimes?

DirtyDyson.com

CANBERRA TIMES

The High Court has written to more than 100 former staff to uncover the extent of sexual harassment involving judges' associates. A group of female barristers have also lodged a complaint with the Legal Services Commissioner following allegations of sexual harassment and indecent assault against former High Court judge Dyson Heydon.

DirtyDyson.com

THE GUARDIAN

Heydon's lawyers complain that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the Victims. However the investigator invited Heydon to respond to the claims, but he declined to either be interviewed or provide a statement, effectively refusing to be involved in the inquiry. Link to PDF

DirtyDyson.com

ABC NEWS

For years, the stories of women who say they were sexually harassed by one of Australia's most powerful judicial figures were kept private, though allegations of his behaviour were apparently an "open secret" circulating among legal circles.
Link to PDF

DirtyDyson.com

LAWYERS WEEKLY

On the reports that Mr Heydon was not afforded “procedural fairness”, claimed by his lawyers and The Australian, the firm denied it as “ridiculous”. Principal Josh Bornstein said the High Court acted swiftly, that the investigation was led by a former inspector-general of intelligence-security and that a fair process was run at all times. Mr Heydon was also instructed at every point of the investigation by his lawyers.

Elizabeth Lee

ABC NEWS

Canberra Liberals politician Elizabeth Lee has claimed she was sexually harassed by former High Court Judge Dyson Heydon at the 2013 University of Canberra Law Ball. 
The former lawyer alleges Mr Heydon made unwanted sexual propositions towards her, repeatedly urging her to go to his hotel room. Link to PDF

Susan Kiefel Chief Justice High Court of Australia

BRISBANE TIMES

'We're ashamed': the Chief Justice and the High Court's #MeToo moment.
This week, the voices of long-silenced women in the legal profession became a roar – and were heard by the chief herself.
Link to PDF

Formal Statement.

Noor Blumer

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

'The judge’s hands became very busy under the table': lawyer says Heydon groped her.
Noor Blumer, a prominent Canberra lawyer who was then President of the ACT Law Society, was delighted to be seated next to the guest of honour, whose brilliant legal mind she But the evening ended with Ms Blumer leaving in distress, disgusted after Mr Heydon groped her under the table, she says, before trying to kiss her against her will. Link to PDF

DirtyDyson.com

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

Major legal publisher Thomson Reuters says it is reviewing its relationship with prolific author and former High Court justice Dyson Heydon, after an internal investigation by the court concluded he sexually harassed six former judge's associates. Link to PDF

DirtyDyson.com

WAS DYSON THROWN UNDER THE BUS?

Taken some time between 2007 and 2013, which is the period when Justice Kiefel and Justice Hayden served together at the High Court of Australia.

Pervert Australian Judge

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

I was a 23-year-old law graduate. I had worked hard to earn my degree and gain professional experience at the same time that would set me apart in an increasingly competitive industry....
The behaviour quickly escalated to the judge taking photographs of me without my permission, inviting me to his hotel room, instructing me to bring a bikini to his hotel and discussing travel plans in which we could save money by sleeping in the same bed....
I was told to complain....
I had one opportunity to speak to the chief justice over the phone about the judge’s conduct, in which I was advised to confront the judge about his behaviour myself. The chief justice did not approach me again to inquire about my welfare....
Dutifully, I confronted my judge. He denied that anything inappropriate had taken place....
The conduct complained of was replaced, however, by verbal putdowns directed towards me in open court. Link to PDF

Barrister Josie Dempster

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

"THERE ARE JUST SO MANY"
The reason I do not intend to call out my perpetrators is because I could not possibly recall all of the people who have ever wronged me, nor all of the occasions on which I have been harassed. Because there are just so many. That is the truth. Touching, staring, lewd remarks, invasive questions about my private life. Comments about my appearance, my body. Mostly in a professional context but occasionally in a personal one....
When it happens, I feel as if I shrink. I lose my voice. My strength. My capacity for rage. I feel like a little girl. I feel immense discomfort. I feel self-conscious. Exposed. As if my body is not mine. As if being a woman makes me less....
All of a sudden, I was blaming myself for something I had no hand in perpetrating....
Is this how men who perpetrate sexual harassment and assault are feeling? Or are they simply relieved that someone else has taken the fall for their bad behaviour?...
There is no point pinning all of the blame onto Dyson Heydon. On all accounts, his behaviour was morally, if not criminally, wrong and he should certainly be held accountable.... Link to PDF

High Court Report

THE AGE

"IT'S CAREER SUICIDE"
Ironically, in law – an industry where power and money are often regarded as more important than integrity – stories of unwanted sexual attention or the "innocent" hand on knee are all too common. Whether it be on the bench, at the bar, or in the solicitor’s office it is rife....

So what’s a young lawyer to do?

Confront the source? Chances are you’ll be managed out and gradually given less and less work until you are, quite literally, redundant. Dare approach HR? A file note may be made, a meeting scheduled. But it’s career suicide. Tell the managing partner? You’ll be told the firm takes these issues seriously. And then you’ll suddenly find yourself working for a new partner, in a different team. You’re an experienced litigator. Well, congratulations, now you’re a property lawyer! And trust me, this "strategy" is akin to Russian roulette – your new boss may be just as bad, perhaps worse. Link to PDF

HighCourt.Report

THE GUARDIAN

To all men who are in on the ‘open secret’: you have failed us....

To those men who are reading this and starting to stiffen their backs in self-defence, we accept that you may not be personally guilty of misconduct. But, if you thought that the “open secret” is par for the course, then you are part of the problem....

To all those men that are in on the “open secret”, you have failed us. You failed to speak out when you should have. You failed to help salvage the career of the women who left their workplace. You failed to advocate for your colleagues, for your friends, and for a future free from sex discrimination. Your silence was complicity. Link to PDF

PODCAST with BRI LEE
Dyson Heydon and the misogyny of the law

As allegations mount against former High Court justice Dyson Heydon, Bri Lee has written about the way misogyny and harassment are embedded in the legal profession. She says that may be changing.

HighCourt.Report

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

...a fresh allegation came to light he "used his public standing on the High Court" to lure a woman into a position where he could make advances on her....
In a separate development, police said they had begun investigations on other allegations of inappropriate conduct that may amount to indecent assault....
These developments came as an Australian-born international human rights lawyer made another allegation against Mr Heydon.
The judge's approach allegedly involved an invitation on High Court stationery and champagne in his chambers, continuing a pattern described by other women who have made allegations against Mr Heydon.
"This was not just opportunistic behaviour. It was calculated behaviour. He used not only his public standing on the court, he really abused his position of trust," said Dr Alice Edwards....
Mr Heydon stood with her as she waited for the taxi, Dr Edwards said, and "continued to insist he should come back with me in the taxi, because taxi drivers in Canberra were dangerous men".... Link to PDF

High Court Report

CRIKEY

Dyson Heydon shows us how judges aren’t just blind to the abuse of power, they’re complicit.
The institutions of society reckon that men like Dyson Heydon would never be so 'stupid' as to abuse their power. But they are....

Another High Court Groping Judge

THE GUARDIAN

ANOTHER GROPER AT THE HIGH COURT
Diana Bryant, former chief justice of the family court of Australia, said she was “shocked by these revelations, but not surprised”.
“This kind of behaviour isn’t new, it’s been rife within the legal profession and it goes back to times when I was a young lawyer, I had experiences myself,” Bryant told the ABC.
Bryant says she was groped by a high court judge at a legal dinner, in just the manner described in the allegations against Heydon, and as chief justice heard allegations of poor conduct by other judges.
“That happened to me in exactly the same way forty years ago at a dinner in which I was sitting next to a high court judge who I might say is no longer alive, who did exactly that to me, groped me under the table,” she says.
The allegations, which Heydon has denied, describe a type of sleazy conduct that is so prevalent as to be part of the culture of the legal profession.... Link to PDF

Dyson Heydon

NSW UNIVERSITY

Deep cultural shifts required:
OPEN LETTER from 500 legal women calls for reform of way judges are appointed and disciplined.

In an open letter to Attorney-General Christian Porter, about 500 women working in the law from across Australia have sought changes to the way judges are disciplined and appointed.

The letter comes after former High Court judge Dyson Heydon was found by an independent investigation to have sexually harassed young female associates of the court, as reported by The Sydney Morning Herald.

The letter was also sent to Susan Kiefel, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, along with another letter to thank her.

The full text of the two letters are published. Link to PDF

Dyson Heydon

FINANCIAL REVIEW

In a male-dominated profession where rigid hierarchies, power imbalances, and archaic traditions are entrenched, it is hardly surprising that parts of the legal profession are contending with misogyny and under-reported abuses of power....

Heydon, despite the allegations against him, remains eligible to receive a pension nearly seven times the median salary in Australia....

Heydon, who retired with more than 10 years’ judicial service, is eligible to receive a pension for the remainder of his life that is 60 per cent of the amount payable to a current High Court judge. This means that Heydon, despite the allegations against him, remains eligible to receive a pension estimated at $331,128 a year – nearly seven times the median salary in Australia.

This is despite allegedly ruining the careers of some of the brightest legal minds in the country, and bringing the judiciary into disrepute....
Link to PDF

Lawyers Weekly

LAWYERS WEEKLY

‘Tsunami of complaints’: What the Heydon allegations revealed about the law.

Ms Needham addressed the Heydon complaints, explaining that there has been a major response because it was not just that “somebody thought somebody was cute”, it was an “unacceptable exercise of power”. The issue comes back to power and attitudes of the judiciary to feel they have a right – or are beyond reproach – for their behaviour.

This was an issue Ms Needham herself had early in her career. She told the webcast that she had been “sexually approached” by a judge that she was due to appear before the following Tuesday and then had to recalibrate a “what do I do now” approach.

“It’s really, really hard because it is your job as an advocate to persuade the bench the case should win and your case is the best, but if you’re sitting there saying ‘judge, that is inappropriate, shut up’, it is really difficult to get them on side,” Ms Needham said.... Link to PDF

DirtyDyson.com

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

Lawyers threaten Heydon with Human Rights Commission.

Three alleged victims of former High Court judge Dyson Heydon will seek compensation from both the federal government and the former top judge.

Lawyers representing the alleged victims, whose allegations of harassment were uncovered by an independent investigation, have also threatened to take Mr Heydon to the Human Rights Commission if he did not agree to enter settlement talks.....

Mr Bornstein said his clients lived in "visceral fear of Dyson Heydon’s power".

"My clients, when they commenced work at the High Court, were the best and brightest graduates of law schools from around Australia. To their horror, they were sexually harassed by a judge of the High Court.".... Link to PDF

Alleged fraud by Solicitor and Client causes the District Court Queensland to wrongly insult and defame a litigant in person (Plaintiff), along with breaching his Human Rights and causing him the damages of costs orders, which are then used against him by the Court.
_________________
From the Court of Public Opinion:
Queensland Judges can be authoritarian with an air of superiority and they are subject to zero discipline. While being slow, inefficient and sometimes insulting, they demand respect but give little back while collecting huge remuneration well in excess of $400,000 per annum from taxpayers.
BELOW is a story currently evolving, regarding the personal account of a litigant in person (the Plaintiff) as to how some judges in Queensland are open to be misled by a lawyer and client, then close ranks and turn a blind eye when it is found out and a complaint is made about Fraud on the Court.


What this exposes is a culture of lawyers being able to LIE to a Court with impunity.

THE NUTSHELL
Queensland Judge bases his findings on the lies of a lawyer and fabricated evidence.
Is turning a brind eye a Judicial Culture?

UPDATED 11 August 2020
1.    Warren Nigel Russ Process Server (Licensed by the Queensland Government), unlawfully trespassed multiple times and unlawfully evicted and locked out the Plaintiff (a litigant in person) pensioner and his wife (without the required Warrant of Possession), from a property at Cooroy while the Plaintiff and his wife were performing repairs, maintanance, painting and property upgrade for a future real estate listing, and were temporally living at another address while the upgade was taking place.

2.    The Plaintiff's wife, happened to be the beneficial owner of the Cooroy property, and her company Penny's Flowers Pty Ltd had made all of the mortgage payments on the property over a 9 year period since its purchase.

3.    The pensioner Plaintiff, who subsequently found Russ to be a serial liar, sued the Defendants (Russ and his company Commercial & Process Services Australia Pty Ltd) who have a hopeless defence that idiot Russ drafted himself in 2017, which he filed in the District Court Maroochydore (Court Record).

4.    Scott Argles (a subsequent lawyer at Aejis Legal) and Russ declined the Plaintiff's invitation for them to amend the Defence Pleadings, in the face of the Plaintiff's notice that he would be applying for partial Summary Judgement (Declarations only with Damages to be assessed later).

5.    They were served with a Summary Judgement Application with Affidavits listed in that Application pursuant to rule 296(1) . On the evening before the hearing, they cobbled together Fabricated Evidence in an Affidavit by Russ, and Fake Submissions by Argles regarding issues that were not pleaded and unsupported by evidence other than the Fabricated Evidence, thus making them false and misleading; i.e. FAKE ISSUES or in other words a SHAM.

6.    The Fabricated Evidence consisted of Russ falsely swearing that there were no belongings on the property of any value (which included 2 x 6 metre Shipping Containers), while there being document evidence of Russ fitting high tensile locks costing $70-00 each to the containers. Russ further provided 50 photo exhibits to his Affidavit that DID NOT include the SHIPPING CONTAINERS or OTHER BELONGINGS ON THE PROPERTY, while the property was undergoing the upgrade. DESPITE CASH REFUSING TO ADDRESS THE MATTER OF FABRICATED EVIDENCE, the Plaintiff does not need a court to find the affidavit to be fabricated, as the Plaintiff KNOWS it to be fabricated.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
•>   "A judgment that is tainted and affected by fraudulent conduct is tainted throughout, and the whole must fail.”

SEE: AKS Investments Pty Ltd v Gazal [2015] QSC 247 @ [54] & [63]. PDF

•>   Dal Pont, Gino --- "Judgments Fraudulently Obtained"PDF
"It is a general rule, that whenever a party, by fraud, accident, or mistake, or otherwise, has obtained an advantage in proceeding in a Court of ordinary jurisdiction, which must necessarily make that Court an instrument of injustice, a Court of Equity will interfere to prevent a manifest wrong, by restraining the party whose conscience is thus bound, from using the advantage he has there gained."

•>   Jonesco v Beard HL 1930PDF
"Fraud is an insidious disease, and if clearly proved to have been used so that it might deceive the court, it spreads and infects the whole body of the judgment."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

7.    The transcript of the 29 March 2019 hearing, shows that Argles, when asked by his Honour "what do you say is your best point", Argles responded by stating "a large portion of this argument is about whether the lease was terminated or not. So that's the big issue. Okay?"

8.    However, termination of the lease had not been pleaded in the Defence Pleading, and thus was not an issue for the Court.

9.    The delinquent purpose of Russ & Argles, was to mislead the Court that the property had been abandoned (thus terminating the lease), when it had not been abandoned, and turn it into a FAKE ISSUE in order to defeat the Summary Judgement Application, by telling the Court that the (Fake) Issue and other fake issues dreamed up, needed to go to trial.



10.    While failing to provide a mandatory affidavit pursuant to the rules of Summary Judgement (rule 296(2)) (Cash also ignored the Plaintiff's complaint about that), which denied the Plaintiff's ability to respond pursuant to rule 296(3), they served the cobbled material on the Plaintiff just before the hearing, and then handed it up to Cash.
 The Plaintiff believes that these circumstances alone, should have sent a message to Cash, that the hearing should be aborted because this sort of blatant unfair conduct was capable of inflencing the outcome of the hearing, which in fact it did.

11.    Consequently, the Plaintiff was taken by surprise which Cash ignored, and chastised the Plaintiff for daring to complain about the non-truthfulness of the Russ Affidavit. In bringing his Application, the Plaintiff had expected his Honour to at least examine the pleadings, which illustrated the deficiencies of the Defence Pleadings by the Defendants.

12.    Unfortunately his Honour Judge Cash, (in the obvious hurry that he was in) apparently wasn't astute enought to know what was going on, and along with ignoring the Plaintiff's evidence (at 14 below), trusted the Fabrication and Argles Submissions of Fake Issues to be genuine, and took no notice of the multitude of deemed admissions in the Defence Pleading, created by the sub-rules (1), (4) & (5) in Rule 166 - Denials & Non-Admissions, as illustrated in the Table of Deemed Admissions, which had been adopted by the Plaintiff in his Reply pleading.

13.    The result, was that Cash formed an erroneous opinion that (as per the transcript) there was, "a serious question about whether the lease was terminated or not". BEING A FAKE ISSUE not pleaded in the Defence.

14.    In the circumstances of being misled, Cash must have considered the submissions and evidence of the Plaintiff (a litigant in person) to be a waste of time, to the extent of not even commenting on them in his judgements.

15.    The Plaintiff's Affidavit evidence (along with evidence of the then lawful tenancy of the property), included:
(a)    the proper procedures the Plaintiff had undertaken prior to making his Application, which included inviting the Defendants to further amend their hopeless defence, which they declined;
(b)    the Plaintiff's reliance on the then current Defence in making his Application;
(c)    the Defendants failure to provide any evidence of lawful authority for their actions;
(d)    the Defendants not having a Warrant of Possession for the property.
(e)    the multiple failures of the Defendants to adhere to Rules of the Court and an Order of the Court, prior to the Application (SEE 23 below);
(f)    the facts relating to the Defendants avoiding and omitting to defend (plead or properly plead), core issues within the Plaintiff's claim as set out in the Table;
(g)    and consequently, the Defendant's deemed admissions meant that they had zero prospects of defending the Plaintiff's claims at trial.

16.    Not only did Cash IGNORE this evidence, but went on to dismiss the Application based on the Argles lies and the Fabricated Evidence. He also awarded costs (to be paid immediately) against the Plaintiff, contrary to the similar circumstance in the Supreme Court authority, State of Qld v Nixon & Ors [2002] QSC 296, and told the Plaintiff  words to the effect, that his application was not a useful contribution to the proceedings, thereby ignoring the fact that a speedy resolution of legal disputes desirable.

17.    The matter then went to Appeal before Justice Philippides, who was provided with the same Fabricated Evidence together with the False and Misleading submissions of Fake Issues by Argles.

18.    AMAZINGLY, after FOUR MONTHS and TEN DAYS of deliberation, her Honour produced a two and a half page Judgement of just ten paragraphs, DISREGARDING the Fabricated Evidence and Fake Issues, and the Plaintiff's evidence, and repeated the findings of Cash, plus making a further costs order againt the Plaintiff. Turning a Blind Eye appears to be enshrined in the Judiciary.

19.    The Plaintiff became totally confused about this, no wonder because he and the District/Appeal Courts were victims of a Fraud.

20.    What was happening, was that the non pleaded Bullshit narrative of the Argles Submissions/Issues, was the version preferred by Cash and Philippides, who both apparently did not bother to compare the Argles Bullshit to the Defence Pleadings or the Plaintiff's Reply, and thereby totally disregarded the Plaintiff's evidence and submissions.

21.    Sub-rules 149(1)(b) & (c) dictate the requirements of pleadings, i.e:
(1) Each pleading must—
(b) contain a statement of all the material facts on which the party relies but not the evidence by which the facts are to be proved; and
(c) state specifically any matter that if not stated specifically may take another party by surprise;

22.    Or perhaps they just didn't like the Plaintiff and favoured bias against a litigant in person. All sorts of things come to mind such as CA$H for CA$H? were Cash and Philippides ........? or perhaps it's a way to get rid of litigants in person (which judges call LiPs) from the Court. The longer this saga remains unresolved, more things come to mind. Certain elements of the judiciary in Queensland may have adopted the belief of a psychiatrist, that a "LiP" can be pre-judged as being "querulous" or even having "schizophrenia". More about LiPs from Bernard Porter QC, who is now Judge Porter of Queensland's District Court. Link to the LiPs PDF

23.    The matter came on again before Cash who then ignored the Plaintiff's six Applications filed 11 November 2019 that could have arguably disposed of the proceeding for reasons of the Defendants: 
/ failing to comply with an order Rule 374;
/ failing to provide particulars Rule 163;
/ having a multitude of deemed admissions Rule 166 / Rule 190, first filed on 13 March 2019 listed to be heard on 29 March 2019, but not heard by Cash (it appeared he had no time to do so);
/ failing to comply with the rules
sub-Rule 296(2)Rule 371;
/ failing to comply with
 Rule 5;
/ disclosing no reasonable defence Rule 171.

24.    Instead of hearing those applications, Cash doubled down on his previous errors, decided to follow what Philippides had found (based on what Cash himself had found); 
JUDGE CASH & JUSTICE PHILIPPIDES 
THE CIRCULAR DECISION MAKING
(TURNING A BLIND EYE INTO AN ARTFORM)
and decided to hear an application for Security for Costs by Argles to protect a hopeless Defence, which included failing to defend or plead AT ALL, to core issues. When the Plaintiff complained to Cash about the Philippides judgement, Cash responded with words to the effect, "you are not permitted to make that critisism in this court".

25.    The Defendants now have little chance of amending their defence, which would first involve getting leave to withdraw the deemed addmissions that the Plaintiff has relied upon in bringing his Application for Summary Judgement. Of course refusing leave would only happen if a judge followed the law and some common sense together with fairness. Even if they did manage to amend their defence, they would be in no better position because in reality there is no defence to the Plaintiff's Claim.

26.    Incredibly, neither judge had the nous to realise that the original Summary Judgement Application was for declarations (as per the Plaintiff's Claim) and not damages, but their long awaited judgements (totalling over SIX MONTHS wait) went on to decide matters relating to damages that had not been applied for in the Plaintiff's Application, thus adding further unnecessary complexity.

27.    A comedy of errors one may say, and to make things worse, Cash decided to use the Plaintiff's unpaid costs orders (obtained by fraud) against him, in his decision to find that the Plaintiff should pay Security for Costs so as to give "PEACE of MIND" to a pair of DELINQUENT DEFENDANTS.

28.    The result was that in a reserved decision over two months later in February 2020, his Honour Judge Cash of the District Court Queensland, insulted & defamed the Plaintiff and thereby breaching his Human Rights namely; sub-section 25(b) Right to Reputation while denying him fair hearings as required by sub-section 31(1) Right to a Fair Hearing of the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD) and resulting judgement at:
https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QDC20-012.pdf

BEHAVIOUR OF JUDGES
29.    In describing the Plaintiff  as "obsessive" rather than having "rational deliberation" (despite the matters at 15 & 4 above) when deciding to apply for partial summary judgement, Judge Cash has re-written historical facts to suit his own agenda based on a Lying Lawyer, Fabricated Evidence and ignoring the Plaintiff's Evidence. He then published his insulting and derogatory results carte blanche under the privileges provided to Judges & Courts. A harsh thing to say about a judge perhaps, but it happens to be TRUE.

30.    While it is accepted that there were delinquent circumstances that caused Cash to be misled, at the hearing on 6 December 2019 he had ample opportunity to correct his errors, given he took over 2 months to provide his reserved judgement. As per 23 and 24 above he did not do that, and in February 2020 delivered a judgement that insulted and defamed the Plaintiff.

31.    The Plaintiff contends that, from the refusal of Cash to correct his obvious errors, it can be inferred that there was an intention to:
(a)   cover up or turn a blind eye to his own stuff-up; and/or
(b)   unfairly remove the Plaintiff from the proceedings; and/or
(c)   inflict harm or somehow punish the Plaintiff.


32.    Needless to say that this is an unacceptable exercise of power by a Judge who must believe that his behaviour is beyond reproach. As such his behaviour has entered into the realm of a Court of Public Opinion. That Court, has to wonder if Cash exercised the same behaviour when employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Queensland and a Crown Prosecutor, when prosecuting a series of murder, manslaughter, rape, drug trafficking, child sex offender cases and the Daniel Morcombe murder trial along with Brett Cowan’s subsequent appeals.

33.    Calls for an Australia wide regulatory body overseeing the judiciary, even at the State level in Australia, have met with considerable resistance. Also see Who is judging the judges (in UK)?PDF COPY

34.    Miscarriages of justice are accepted in the criminal justice system (taking the fall for a dingo)(PDF), likewise logically, why would they not be even more prevalent in the civil justice system, with a lower standard of proof.

35.    The Plaintiff believes, that similar to the Dirty Dyson saga (above), where judges think they can do what they like with impunity, the open letter from around 500 (FIVE HUNDRED) women working in the legal profession to the Attorney-General Christian Porter to curb this unreasonable authoritarian behaviour, provides a good example for the Queensland Judiciary to follow, so as to regulate and discipline any sort of bad behaviour.

36.    AGAIN the matter goes to Appeal, alleging Procedural Unfairness and Fraud on the Court (Notice of Appeal as Amended), and the President of the Appeal Court (Chief  Justice Walter Sofronoff * ABC Story * His Honour's Ferrari) has taken an interest.

37.    Aejis Legal & Argles have dumped Russ (or vice versa), who now has a new lawyer Chris Toogood Legal.

•    Judge Glen Cash QC has been employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Queensland since 1992, and has been a Crown Prosecutor since 2001, successfully prosecuting a series of murder, manslaughter, rape, drug trafficking and child sex offender cases. Glen Cash QC worked on the Daniel Morcombe murder trial and in Brett Cowan’s subsequent unsuccessful attempts to appeal that sentence LINK

•    Unsubstantiated allegations by a legal practitioner against a self represented opponent, fall short of the high standards required of the practitioner, according to Commisioner Mahon of the Queensland Legal Services Commission.

THE SICKENING TRUTH

Step in Justice Morrison JA

His Honour Justice Morrison is a graduate of The University of Queensland—Bachelor of Laws (1977). His Honour received the Family Law Prize in the same year.

In 1976 Justice Morrison was admitted as a barrister of the Supreme Court of Queensland before being appointed Queen's Counsel in 1989. Justice Morrison was previously a reporter for the Federal Law Reports (1980–84).

His Honour has extensive trial and appellate experience, appearing as lead counsel in various courts, including the High Court, Queensland Court of Appeal, Full Court of the Federal Court, Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission (New South Wales), Federal Court, and Supreme Courts of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.

NUTSHELL - part 2

Is Turning a Blind Eye to be Repeated? 

38. There is yet ANOTHER (the third) security for costs application by the Defendants, so as to protect a hopeless defence that has no chance of success.

39. At hearing on 17 June 2020 before Justice Morrison, Toogood for the Defendants UNBELIEVABLY yet again rely on the Fabricated Affidavit, and the fact that Cash, despite being misled, came up with a finding against the Plaintiff.

40. Morrison identified from the Defence and exclaimed words to the effect, THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. True, however since the date of the proceedings being initiated in November 2017, the Defendants have done nothing about it, such as filing Third Party Proceedings (a Third Party Notice must be filed within 28 days...). And Morrison appeared to not to consider the long held principle that agents are always responsible for theit own torts (wrongs), irrespective of having been instructed by others, to commit the torts.

41. As licenced Process Servers / Debt Collectors, the Defendants should have been well aware of the law regarding trespass and unlawful eviction, as well as Fabricating Evidence.

42. In fact, if the torts were not in fact authorised by the instructors, the Defendants could find themselves liable to one particular instructor (who the Plaintiff and his wife successfully sued), who has compensated the Plaintiff's wife for those same torts.

THE SICKENING TRUTH
43. Perhaps the most sickening thing about this whole saga is that both Argles and Toogood are supposed to be Officers of the Court they practise in, and as such, have an absolute ethical Duty to the Court to tell the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion, so as to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system.

A FURTHER DELINQUENT CULTURE WITHIN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
44. This exposes a vile culture within the legal profession, further to misogyny and harassment being embedded (as per the Dirty Dyson and others exposure), where so called Officers of the Court can outright LIE to a Court with impunity.

45. The Plaintiff has come across this behaviour previously in Queensland, however this Argles/Russ example is clearly the most outrageous, along with a substantial amount of evidence.

46. From the Plaintiff’s experience, a judge is far more likely to favour submissions from a so called Officer of the Court (lawyer) than a litigant in person, and when a judgement is made in that circumstance, it is clear that the Appeal Court favours confirming the original judgement by a kind of entrapment, that is, by going through the judgement under appeal and getting the Plaintiff to agree with certain selective sentences that the Appeal Judge reads out. Often these are matters that the Plaintiff can agree to, however the issue is NOT with what is included in the judgement, rather than what has NOT been included, together with the portions of the judgement that the Appeal Judge has selectively omitted, who then may seek to have the Plaintiff retract allegations made about the judge in the Court below (i.e. the District Court).

47. By reason of what could be inferred from the circumstances set out at 32 above, the Appeal Court will undoubtably intensely dislike having to overturn the findings of Cash, and somehow agree that the Plaintiff should pay security for costs (for peace of mind to the Defendants) (PDF), so as to stifle and put an end his Appeal.

48. Given the appalling conduct set by the District Court there is no trust in that court. The Plaintiff says that even if he could afford to pay security into court, why would he do that when the court is so incompetent, and cannot be trusted to do the right thing. It would be like giving money to a cowboy tradesperson who rips consumers off.

49. It is the Plaintiffs view, that the newly introduced Queensland Human Rights Act, will instil some discipline into the Queensland Judiciary, in particular by way of sub-section 31(1) Right to a Fair Hearing.

50. Russ was given notice to attend the hearing for cross-examination of his Affidavit.

51. He did attend, but Morrison did not seek any cross-examination, nor did he seek an explanation from Russ.

52. After being advised by the Plaintiff of many of the above matters, and how these matters were also of Public Interest, that included:
i.     False and Misleading submissions to a Queensland Court;
ii.    Fabricated Evidence to a Queensland Court;
iii.   A Queensland Court's duty to be guided by the pleadings, when hearing submissions;
iv.   The application of the recently enacted (01/01/2020) Human Rights Act (QLD) to Queensland Courts;
v.    The behaviour of the defendants and their lawyer, could arguably be Perverting the Course of Justice;
Justice Morrison reserved his decision. Hopefully he can do better than Justice Philippides, or is Turning a Blind Eye to be again repeated?

THE ROLE OF COURTS AND TRIBUNALS UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2019 QLD
53. The Human Rights Commission Factsheet provides:  (PDF)
"Although Queensland courts and tribunals are independent of government, they have important duties under the Human Rights Act 2019."
DIRECT APPLICATION
"The Act applies to courts and tribunals when they are performing functions that are relevant to the rights protected under the Act. This includes both the judicial and administrative functions of courts and tribunals.
Judicial functions include the work courts and tribunals do in hearing cases and handing down judgements. Examples of the human rights that will apply to judicial functions include:
• equality before the law;
• fair hearing; and
• rights in criminal proceedings."


54. This publication at Human Rights Report and District Court Report has been brought to the attention of Yvette D'Ath, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice in Queensland by THIS EMAIL.


For the coming follow up:
SupremeCourt.report • AppealCourt.report

Powers of the courts when parties have engaged in fraud or serious wrongdoing. PDF copy

What role can the court play when it is discovered in the course of the proceedings that a party has engaged in serious misconduct? Recent decisions have considered the role of the court in deterring wrongdoing, whether in the conduct of the litigation or in the facts forming the basis of the action. In Toksoz v Wetspac Banking Limited (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 288, the Court of Appeal confirmed that it was within the court’s power and in the PUBLIC INTEREST for the court to forward a copy of judgment onto relevant government agencies where issues raised in the case merited further investigation.
The original judgement.

ABOUT SCOTT DAVEY ARGLES

Scott Argles

Oh really?... the Public Trustee refuses to respond to inquiries about Scott Argles.

About the so called "Special Counsel".

Funny, Linkedin doesn't mention Argles being a "Senior Associate" and "Director of Legal Services".

Queensland Law Society has been requested for details of the Argles Practising Certificate, but the request has been ignored.

From AEJIS LEGAL: SPECIAL COUNSEL
Scott has been admitted as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland for over 20 years. Prior to joining the firm, Scott was a Senior Associate at a large national law firm and international law firm and, in more recent times, was the Director of Legal Services for the Public Trustee of Queensland, (which employs around 30 lawyers).

CONTACT FORM

Any info on Judge Cash or Scott Argles?
Need a website for Aus$199.00? 



The dog is looking for a bone...

The Plaintiff reserves the right to respond by way of this website & its domains to the false and derogatoty publication about him, by Judge Cash of the District Court of Queensland. For many years the Plaintiff has had the utmost trust in the integrity of the Justice Systems in Australia. That has now changed in regard to Queensland.

FabricatedEvidence.com.au  •  Bias.Report  •  HighCourt.Report  • DirtyDyson.com  •  Human-Rights.Report  •  District Court Report  •  Court of Public Opinion

The dog's looking for a bone

AVAILABLE $199.00 LAWYER/BUSINESS WEBSITES

Generic website for Solicitor / Lawyer / Barrister (or anyone) adapted to YOUR bespoke requirements.
Limited offer $199.00 includes 12 months hosting.

$199 (Aus) DOLLAR WEBSITE

CUSTOMISED TO BESPOKE REQUIREMENTS :
• All purpose Landing Page (extra pages can be quoted);
• Your photos;
• Any colours / backgrounds / embossed backgrounds / colour-tones unlimited;
• Responsive website (displays on any device desktop to mobile);
• Fonts / Text / Icons / Colours;
• Add or Delete to your requrements;
• Uploaded to your domain (.com.au $24.00 two years / .com $15.00 one year);
• Email setup;
• Logo incorporated;
• Option to manage your Control Panel (view)
+ 12 Months Australian hosting included (further yearly hosting $50.00 PA);
+ Shopping Cart with PayPay integration (if required);
+ Free site maintenance for first 3 months (longer if needed);
+ Listing on Google Search Console;
+ HTTPS security;
+ Cloudflare protection (increased security and faster loading);
+ Visitor statistics;
+ Paypal facility for accepting payments, can be added at EXTRA costs.

Limited time offer $199.00