Evidence that the Supreme Court of Queensland [SCQ] is unable
or
unwilling to keep its house in order. Is the SCQ, and all
its judges, CORRUPT?
[the letters
below are from Hughie's solicitors - I have blanked out their
identity so as not to give them publicity as most people realise the
courts are corrupt so belive they are better off with corrupt
solicitors]
Here are some email address for Supreme Court of Queensland [SCQ]:
Associate to Justice
Douglas Associate.DouglasJ@courts.qld.gov.au
"Scott Hazell,Associate to The Hon Paul de Jersey AC,Chief
Justice
of Queensland,
Ph: +61 7 3247 3917,Fax: +61 7 3247 4206" associate.chiefjusticedejersey@courts.qld.gov.au
"Max Leskiewicz, Associate to White J." Associate.WhiteJ@courts.qld.gov.au
Hon Justice Philippides & Associate associate.philippidesj@courts.qld.gov.au
SC-SupCaseManager@justice.qld.gov.au
SC-ApnManager@justice.qld.gov.au/
ApnManager@justice.qld.gov.au
Courts have mammoth power. My experience suggests your best
chances at having this power exercised for your benefit in Queensland
is to have a crooked lawyer. What does that say for the Supreme
Court of Queensland [SCQ]?]
This could have major International
Ramifications for
Australia, as Australia is a signatory of the International
Covernant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR].
Article 14 of
ICCPR
1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the
determination of any criminal charge
against him, or of his rights and
obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and
public
hearing by
a competent, independent
and impartial tribunal established by law.
Under our Federal Constitution, it is the HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA [HCA] who
has responsibility
to hear matters with respect to Australia's International Treaty
obligations.
If SCQ will
not keep its house in order, AUSTRALIA is in breach of its
responsibilities under the ICCPR. See what the High Court of
Australia has to say. Lawyers, [solicitors and
barristers], are admitted to the Supreme Court
of Queensland [SCQ] enabling them to practice law and to appear before
that court. Courts have what is called inherent
jurisdiction [ij] to keep its own house in order; to ensure that
the admitted lawyers maintain minimum set professional standards.
Law schools and courts claim that these Professional Standards are
enforced by the court for the purpose of
maintaining the community's
confidence in the court, its
admitted officers and the legal
profession. This is called Professional Discipline.
The solicitors here who wrote the first two letters [below] are
solicitors
for
my sister Coral and brother in law Hugh McVean. [I have
concealed their identity,
solely to
avoid giving them publicity, as, since, the whole legal system in
Queensland, and so Australia may be
CORRUPT (I suspect that many reasonably informed bystanders would see
this firm as "corrupt" too), CORRUPT SOLICITORS
WOULD BE
FAVOURED BY THE COURTS AND HENCE CLIENTS WHO WANT TO WIN.
This would not be satisfactory for a supposedly civilized
country.]
VA & RGH Mathews are my parents and also the parents of Coral
McVean, my sister. Here these solicitors are also acting for my
parents who are the parents of
Coral McVean and in-laws of Hugh McVean. Although my parents
wanted certain things for me, Hugh McVean, also their client and my
parents son in law, did not, so the solicitors ensured that Hugh was
favoured over my parents. This is actual fraud and the firm of
solicitors have been a party to actual fraud. The
fraud appears on the face of these documents. Although my parents
wanted me appointed as an EPOA [Enduring Power of Attorney] ,
apparently, they reasoned, Hugh did
not, so they conned me into sending back the documents to ensure I
could not act, in effect not being an EPOA, contrary to my parents
wishes. Actual fraud, proven
or even merely suspected, by the solicitors is not necessary for
them to have breached professional standards.
The fraud just makes it so much worse that they should be
struck
off the role of lawyers, permanently. These solicitors
also
drafted the wills for both of my parents. My father was
dying at the time. The will they drafted, did not reflect what
they told him it
would do. With my being fully
trained as a lawyer, I can advise how it should have been
done. Shortly before my father died, he confided in me that my
mother favoured Coral. My mother, who is blind, now lives with
Coral and is subject to Undue Influence from Coral and
Hugh. Coral is also subject to undue influence from
Hugh as I shall explain later on this site.
Since the SCQ admitted
them and still admits lawyers to practice, it is for the SCQ to keep
its house in order. This has been traditionally, what has
been done, using as I said, their Inherent
jurisdiction.
I reported this evidence to the Supreme Court of Queensland, including
the name of the firm of solicitors..
These letters show a Conflict
of Duty and Duty [codad] by those
solicitors who were also Hugh's and Coral's solicitors.
The following is the response I received
from the Registrar of the SCQ
after I advised them of the details of this Unprofessional Conduct
and/or
Professional Misconduct. The Registrar's letter implicates
the Chief Justice.
What more is needed to show that the SCQ is either unable or unwilling
to
keep its house in order? I suggest this is the "tip of the
iceberg". Consider the way the that the SCQ's actions had the effect of
protecting the corrupt staff of the
Brisbane City Council [BCC] who
trespassed in my home, including the
building of my home and stole much property of mine, when in fact
the SCQ had that irrefutable evidence before them by way of affidavit
of the ACTUAL documents of the BCC itself.. The FORMER failure
on the part of the SCQ is sufficient
to show that the SCQ does not have its house in order. It is
figuratively a "house of cards". I ask you, can any Queenslander
[who may have no
other avenue than the SCQ to grant them justice], or any other person
who may choose to have the SCQ adjudicate on a claim, have any
faith in the SCQ? This would be a breach of Australia's
undertaking in
the ICCPR. THIS SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS. If this is a breach
of
ICCPR, and I believe it is, it makes a MOCKERY of the PUBLIC POSTERING
on the world stage by John Howard and Alexander
Downer, MP MINISTER for FOREIGN AFFAIRS and calls into
question all that Australia is doing internationally in East Timor,
IRAQ, Afghanistan and the Solomons.