The 'immunity' is immunity from prosecution. Anyone who works as
an advocate, meaning barristers usually, but even solicitors, who
advocates for clients, is immune from prosecution for anything they do
that is relatted to their action or role as an advocate. This is
widely and expansively interpreted. This can include anything
even slightly related to the appearance in court. Some
barristers may think it is being smart to hide behind this
immunity to cheat his own clients, say to support his political
ideology, or to act to initiate a proceeding which has no remote
possibility of success but only to delay and cost the
defendant. This is even so when a court holds that such was
the case and orders that the "wasted costs" be paid by the
instructing solicitors, who would have no doubt been advised by
the barrister/advocate of the remore chance of successful litigation,
apart form the "success of delay". [go
to HAIG REPORT home]
Judge's immunity [ji]
The 'immunity' is immunity from prosecution. Judges cannot be
prosecuted for anything they do related to their being a
judge. All that can occur is that they can be removed from
office, but only on address by both houses of parliament, or so the
story goes, what ever that means in practice. In practice, judges
are appointed by the executive of government, usually because they have
shown as barristers, that they are prepared to support that party's
ideology, even if that means being crooked, as long as the strong and
powerful do not suffer. With a duality of polarised political
parties, there is a mutual standoff. I will leave yours alone if
you leave mine alone.
A
Victorian [in Australia] Goverment site lists Judicial Immunity
[related to magistrates] as: "Judicial immunity is a protection
given to members of the judiciary whereby they cannot be sued for
actions that are performed in their judicial capacity. Magistrates can
therefore make the best decisions on the cases before them, without
interference or fear of adverse consequences to themselves.
When judicial decisions do result in negative or unfair consequences,
there are appeal and review rights to deal with the matter." [Oh yeah:
and the appeal judges have JI too, apart from putting the "victim of the
judiciary" to the effort and expense and risk, of appeal.]
That Victorian Government site states in the prior paragraph: "There
are a number of mechanisms in place that help to protect Magistrates’ independence,
such as permanent tenure, salary protection and judicial
immunity." {More likely to protect judges when they make
decisions based on their prejudices. It is best for them if their
prejudice is based on a popular
political ideology; increases likelihood of promotion to a
higher court. [go
to HAIG REPORT home ]
When one person, for example a solicitor or trustee, called the
fiduciary, has a fiduciary duty to another, say the client or
beneficiary respectively, the fiduciary is to work actively for the
benefit and betterment of the latter. This Fiduciary Duty is far
more onerous for the Fiduciary than is the
Duty of Care when imposed upon a person. The Duty of Care is just
to exercise reasonable care when in a
position to cause harm to another; that is not to be negligent.
It is even more onerous than is the duty to extend Natural Justice aka
Due
Process aka Procedural Fairness. The benefit and
betterment of the client or beneficiary may be at the cost to or
expense of another party.
Black's Law Dictionary describes a fiduciary relationship as "one
founded on trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity
and fidelity of another." A fiduciary has a duty to act primarily for
the client's benefit in matters connected with the undertaking and not
for the fiduciary's own personal interest. Scrupulous good faith and
candor are always required. Fiduciaries must always act in complete
fairness and may not ever exert any influence or pressure, take selfish
advantage, or deal with the client in such a way that it benefits
themselves or prejudices the client. Business shrewdness, hard
bargaining, and taking advantage of the forgetfulness or negligence of
the client are totally prohibited by a fiduciary.
A fiduciary Duty is far more onerous for the Fiduciary [the one having
the Fiduciary Duty], than is the Duty of Care, which can itself be
quite onerous.
Wikipedia, the FREE encyclopedia defines [and we approve of this
definition] fiduciary thus:
'A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care imposed at either
equity or law. A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the
person to whom they owe the duty (the "principal"): they must not put
their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from
their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents. The
fiduciary relationship is highlighted by good faith, loyalty and trust,
and the word itself originally comes from the Latin fides, meaning
faith, and fiducia.
When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a stricter standard
of behaviour than the comparable tortuous duty of care at common law.
It is said the fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where
personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be
in a situation where their fiduciary duty conflicts with another
fiduciary duty, and a duty not to profit from their fiduciary position
without express knowledge and consent. A fiduciary cannot have a
conflict of interest. It has been said that fiduciaries must conduct
themselves "at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd."
Inherent derives from the verb 'inhere' meaning to stick, or
remain firm in something. It means existing in or inseparable
from something else. Courts have ij to control their internal
functions. Most relevantly this relates to disciplining lawyers
who are admitted to that court. [go
to HAIG REPORT home]
Conflict of Duty and Duty
[codad]
The duties referred to here are fiduciary
duties to clients. A solicitor/lawyer would expect to have
numerous clients. The solicitor cannot agree to represent
another new client when that new client has interests which, if
satisfied, would result in loss to one of the existing clients of the
solicitor, or vice versa, a gain by one of his existing clients would
mean a loss to that potentially new client. Were he to accept
that new client then he would have a conflict of the fiduciary duty he
owed to the new client and the fiduciary duty he owed to his existing
client. The classic case of codad occurs when a client
brings along his parents or his parents in law to have their will
prepared by the existing client's solicitor. No loss by
either client or parents/parents-in-law need be proved nor even
occur. Codad is a serious breach of Professional
Standards. It is either Professional Misconduct or more
seriously, Unprofessional Conduct. In either case the
solicitor/lawyer should be struck off the roll of practicising lawyers
and should no longer be a member of that Supreme Court. In the
case of the latter, that would be permanently. [go
to HAIG REPORT home]
Legal professional privilege [lpp] aka client
privilege
Legal professional privilege [lpp] protects confidential communications
between a lawyer and his or her client made for the dominant purpose of
- * seeking
or giving legal advice or professional legal assistance; or * use, or
obtaining material for use, in legal proceedings that had commenced, or
were reasonably anticipated, at the time of the relevant communication.
Lpp is the right of the client and it can be waived only by the
client, intentionally or unintentionally.
Legal professional privilege also protects confidential communications
between the client or the client’s lawyers (including communications
through employees or agents) and third parties, made for the dominant
purpose of use, or obtaining material for use, in legal proceedings
that had commenced, or were reasonably anticipated, at the time of the
relevant communication.
Statute
v Regulation.
The Regulation to a Statute is for the
purpose of assisting in the implementation of THAT STATUTE. MOST
IMPORTANTLY, IT IS SUBISDIARY TO THAT STATUTE. Public servants
cannot compose and gazette a section of a regulation, to
OVER-RIDE A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE or a COMMON LAW
RIGHT, eg THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD: ie Due Process by a City
Council. If they could, the Parliament would be IRRELEVANT
PHPincludes/Onus of Proof
includeddefinitionsregardingthelegalprocessOnusOfProof.php
Onus of Proof; aka Burden of Proof
related topics: Quantum
of Proof; Standard of Proof
We could write a thesis on this topic
and leave most relevant comment unsaid. However, we will attempt
to distill the essence of this aspect of evidence and persuasion of the
existence of a certain fact or facts to satisfy an interested layperson.
Although 'Burden' and 'Standard' are
different aspects of the same general topic, these are often referenced
simply as the 'Onus of Proof'.
These topics are related to which
party, in a legal dispute, both criminal and civil, and the extent of
'persuasion' that must be established in relation to a factual
situation of evidence.
The 'Onus' or 'Burden' is directed at
determining which party to a legal dispute, is required to 'prove' a
certain fact. In criminal prosecutions, it is universally
mandated that the prosecution must prove the fact. In a minority
of cases, the defendant may be required to prove a particular fact, in
which case he bears the burden or Onus of proof f the fact.
The 'Quantum' or 'Standard' of Proof,
is a more interesting aspect. This relates to the degree of
persuasiveness of particular evidence as related to proving a
particular fact.
The 'criminal Quantum of proof', is
'beyond reasonable
doubt'. This is much stricter than the 'civil Quantum of Proof' of 'on the 'balance of
probabilities' or 50% ie 'more likely than not'.
Clearly, when considering evidence, readers may conceive of other
degrees of persuasiveness of evidence. For instance, how
persuasive does evidence have to be to merely raise a 'reasonable
doubt'.
It is submitted that because of
the
protective nature of the Fiduciary
Duty, a Fiduciary must not accept
the risk if it is even just merely 'raised on the evidence'.
The judicial explanation of what constitutes the 'criminal Quantum of proof' of 'beyond
reasonable
doubt', is typical of lawyer double talk.
It is a nebulous concept. In fact, it has been held by appeal
courts, that the lower criminal court is in error to fully explain the
concept of 'beyond reasonable
doubt', because no one would ever be convicted. Instead,'beyond
reasonable
doubt' is 'explained' to jurors, by not explaining it but leaving it
to, in effect, "what you 'feel' it to be".
This is a major imperfection to our judicial process, and, importantly,
leaves an opening for the development of corruption.
Consideration of an alternative is another huge debate. There are
alternatives, which relate to better transparency, easier publication,
and less legal obfuscation. includedSpecia NeedsCertificates.php Special
Needs Certificates:
Disabled people often have
disabilities which are not obvious. Disabled people often have
Special Needs in order to alleviate the effects of their
disability. When a disabled person having particular special
needs, is not readily perceived as disabled, then they can have very
substantial problems with other people discriminating against them by
not permitting them their Special Needs.
This causes problems for both the
disabled person discriminated against, obviously, but also for the
discriminator as it is illegal in all of Australia, to discriminate
against disabled persons. Because disabled person are entitled to
this but invariably suffer repeated episodes of this type of
discrimination, they become litigious. Litigation causes both
parties distress.
I am disabled with multiple
disabilities. Through no fault of my own I have brain
damage. Because of this, I have had to make adjustments and
adaptations to alleviate the effects of my
disabilities. Although I am entitled to welfare, I do not
receive any. I do not need any gifts to survive and
prosper. All I do need is to be not denied my special
needs. I have one special need and that is to be accompanied by
my assistance dogs. Bureaucrats deny me my right on public
transport. This means I cannot travel where I cannot walk.
Another special need I have, is to present argument or comment in
writing, rather than verbally in person or by phone, as due to the
brain damage I have suffered, my concentration ability varies. In
the Internet age, that 'presentation in writing' means EMAIL.
Although I have had specific medical evidence fully justifying these,
they have been denied to me by public sector parasites and government
tribunals, to my great detriment. I am sure I am not alone, and
that what I have had to face is what other disabled people face on a
daily basis, and that the bureaucrats have been encouraged to continue
by success in the past. This needs to be addressed from the
Australian Parliament. I have all the evidence.
I have announced my intention to run
at the next Australian Federal Election for election as an Independent
Senator for Queensland in the Australian Senate. One central plank in my platform is
to issue Special Needs Certificates to all disabled persons in
AUSTRALIA, who have special needs, if I am elected as a Senator for
Queensland in the Senate of national Australian Federal
Parliament. In fact,
regardless of whether a person is admitted to be disabled by any
government bureaucrat, if that person does have Special Needs, and can
supply me, when elected, with the requisite evidence as I detail in http://AustLawPublish.com/20070716AustralianDisabilityLawJournalissue200701.pdf
, I will still provide that Special Needs Certificate. The full appropriate procedure is
detailed at http://AustLawPublish.com/20070716AustralianDisabilityLawJournalissue200701.pdf
/. These will be issued largely using our computer systems.
We will have procedure in place to guard against fraud by non-deserving
individuals. However, because I am disabled with Special Needs
myself, I guarantee that I will be most understanding. While I do
not pretend that my Special
Needs Certificates
will have mandatory legal effect, they will be nationally recognized
for being strong evidence that the bearer has those specific Special
Needs mentioned on the Certificate. Any potential discriminator
would be extremely foolish to ignore it.
Many texts and research thesis have
been written on this topic.
Internet readers want a quick thumbnail explanation rather than a mere
definition. 'Beneficial Ownership' or 'Equitable Interest' is a
central topic in the branch of 'English' Common Law known as Equity Law
or Trusts. It is to be compared with 'Legal title' or 'Legal
Ownership'. 'Beneficial Ownership' and 'Legal Ownership' are
usually combined, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, can
be assumed to be combined..
In 'English' Common Law, one legal
person, called the Trustee can 'own'
property for the benefit of another called the beneficiary. This
arrangement is termed a TRUST, and the trustee owes the beneficiary a FIDUCIARY DUTY.
Beneficial Ownership is one form of
'Equitable Interest'. It is
not legally necessary generally, for the existence of the beneficial
ownership to be published.
The identity of the trustee can change
such that a new trustee accepts
the responsibility of having the fiduciary duty owed to the beneficial
owner. The beneficiary or beneficial owner may be infirm,
suffering dementia, or for some other reason may not have 'legal
capacity'. If the beneficial owner is of sound mind and
does have legal capacity, then that beneficial owner can require the
legal title to be transferred to the beneficiary at any time. It
is a beach of his fiduciary duty for the trustee to refuse.
Beneficial ownership can be extinguished If the trustee sells it
and a purchaser buys it for full value without notice of the equitable
interest, the beneficial interest is extinguished, and the purchaser
has good title to the legal and beneficial ownership of the
property. The beneficiary would have a claim against the trustee
for the loss of the property, as that sale was a breach of the
trustee's fiduciary duty.
PHPincludes/caucusing
caucusing
'caucusing'
in a legal sense in reference to an adversorial 'judicial hearing',
refers to the practice of the decision maker discussing the matter
about which s/he is to make a decision with one party to the exclusion
of the other adversorial party. It matters not whether the
private discussion is secret or disclosed.
This is within a branch of Administrative Law called Natural Justice
aka Due Process aka Procedural Fairness.
'caucusing' is a Denial of Natural Justice.
If the caucusing involves the viewing of documents by the decision
maker, then the 'decision' is a Nullity aka void ab initio. That means
that the decision cannot under any circumstance be upheld, and has
always been a Nullity.
If the caucusing involves only verbal discussion, then the
decision is voidable on
appeal, but until such time as it is voided, it is a valid decision.
In Australia, caucusing is regularly employed, as circa 1990, in
Brisbane, by corrupt political public servants, such as John Joseph
Armstrong 'employed' in the then named Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission [hreoc], now renamed the Australian Human Rights
Commission [ahrc], and corrupt Administrative decision maker
named Kevin Patrick O'Connor, then a decision maker in the then named Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission [hreoc], now renamed the Australian Human Rights
Commission [ahrc], nominally, he was called the 'Privacy
Commissioner' but was really just a dumb criminal. This corrupt parasite has been named by New
South Wales corrupt labor government as President, of the New South
Wales Administrative
Decisions Tribunal and
given the 'accolade' by a corrupt Australian Federal government
of AM.
Others corrupt individuals scurrilously were involved in this episode
of corruption by many public sector parasites, labor lawyers and judges
appointed by labor including Federal Court judge Jeffrey
Ernest John
Spender.
PHPincludes/Wasted Costs Order
Wasted Costs Order [WCO]:
is an order of a court that the plaintiff should pay the
defendant's legal
costs that were wasted by the legal proceeding initiated for an
ulterior purpose other than the
purpose of winning the legal point.
The best way to express the nature of
a WCO is to quote the findings
of the case where one was found. The court costs in a
proceeding usually follow the case: the loser pays the costs of the
winner. A WCO can be ordered by that court, where one party has
caused another party
to expend resources needlessly, to defend an action initiated without
any, or much, prospect of success, but merely, for instance, to defame
the
defending party so that they are forced to fight to clear their
name. The improper purpose of the plaintiff can be to merely buy
time and to put the other party on the defensive and so at a
disadvantage when suing the plaintiff.
Corrupt Cops [talk
about being the BUTT of humour]
'Does Swine flu [flew] have anything to do with the POLICE AIR WING?
' and who said, 'PIGS WILL FLY'.
includedMorePROOFofSeniorLevelPoliceCorruptionQueensland.php../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.
Corrupt Small Claims' Tribunal referee [a magistrate] William J [Bill] Randall implements the Anglican corruption of corrupt Chief Justice Paul de Jersey,...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
The Kramer Group of Frank Kramer of the Pacific Islands and Australia has unwittingly jumped on a sinking ship caused by the criminal history of Wayne Goss and his criminal destruction of evidence required for a court trial...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
MENU: Wayne Goss' Free TV Australia. He Destroyed the Heiner Evidence; a Crime & Breach of 'Directors' Fiduciary Duty...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
CMC's Dangerous Liaisons Report is a FRAUD & a CON on our Community, to HIDE, STEEL & HARDEN CORRUPTION in POLICE, COURTS & GOVERNMENT...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
"The offensive
material
has been subsequently been maintained on the internet since that time
until the present day. I have been contacted by Superintendent
Pointon, Officers from Ethical Standards Command, Security Intelligence
Branch, State Crime Operations Command, relatives all asking questions
about the material from 2006 until the present day."
../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.
Corrupt Small Claims' Tribunal referee [a magistrate] William J [Bill] Randall implements the Anglican corruption of corrupt Chief Justice Paul de Jersey,...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
The Kramer Group of Frank Kramer of the Pacific Islands and Australia has unwittingly jumped on a sinking ship caused by the criminal history of Wayne Goss and his criminal destruction of evidence required for a court trial...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
MENU: Wayne Goss' Free TV Australia. He Destroyed the Heiner Evidence; a Crime & Breach of 'Directors' Fiduciary Duty...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
CMC's Dangerous Liaisons Report is a FRAUD & a CON on our Community, to HIDE, STEEL & HARDEN CORRUPTION in POLICE, COURTS & GOVERNMENT...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
On 15th September, 2005,the ARMED police and sparmy callous hypocritical Brisbane based paid staff of St Vincent dePaul Society, arrived unannounced to steal Jim Tierney's one million dollars plus worth of gym equipment, by ostensibly 'closing' the gym. When one of the instructors asked what they should tell the group of very disabled people who were due in that afternoon, the answer from the sparmy hypocritical CEO of the thieving St Vincent dePaul Society was 'life is tough'. In an effort to calm the situation, "Enough," said Judith Tierney.
Corrupt Small Claims' Tribunal referee [a magistrate] William J [Bill] Randall implements the Anglican corruption of corrupt Chief Justice Paul de Jersey,...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
The Kramer Group of Frank Kramer of the Pacific Islands and Australia has unwittingly jumped on a sinking ship caused by the criminal history of Wayne Goss and his criminal destruction of evidence required for a court trial...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
MENU: Wayne Goss' Free TV Australia. He Destroyed the Heiner Evidence; a Crime & Breach of 'Directors' Fiduciary Duty...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
CMC's Dangerous Liaisons Report is a FRAUD & a CON on our Community, to HIDE, STEEL & HARDEN CORRUPTION in POLICE, COURTS & GOVERNMENT...
CDDM_IntroSubMenuSubSubMenu150.php
The
HAIG REPORT: the EVIDENCE 
using
PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) and WHITE INDUSTRIES (QLD) PTY LTD v. FLOWER
AND HART (A FIRM) Nos. QG198 of 1986 and QG174 of 1992 FED No. 667
Courts - Practice and Procedure (1993) 117 ALR 253
Australian Public Sector 
Anti-Corruption Conference 2009 
![Bachelor of Science [BSc] [The University of Queensland]](http://haigreport.com/BSc.certificate.jpg){kind=link}
![Bachelor of Arts [BA]](http://haigreport.com/20030212.OfferBA.jpg){kind=link}