|Opinion Online Forum
|Yvette D'Ath Attornery General hold two standards?
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||Administration [ December 14th, 2017, 6:23 am ]|
|Post subject:||Yvette D'Ath Attornery General hold two standards?|
Speaking of Justice - the Attorney General office excuse for appointing so called referee's at QCATT cases many with NO legal qualification with NO VIDEO or even AUDIO recording is due according to their spokes person because they cant afford to put a tape recorder in the rooms used for these sittings/ meetings.
YET THE AG was SO interested in writing to the relevant authority asking them- ( and in many peoples view ORDERING
they punish Legal Rep Sam DI -CARLO .
Many thought that was outside the AG port folio but then i suppose that would depend if there were some other agenda political or personal.
We do wish shed / theyd pay the same attention to their forced"" so called referee meetings whereby a citizen no longer has the right to file a small claim when they feel they have been wronged and have it heard before a magistrate.
Here is just one example - A lady purchased a RV Motor home and was given a bogey RWC- The van itself in fact was dangerous. So she contacted the motor transport department and requested they inspect it - and most likely put a rejection slip on it.
At first the Motor transport office refused to inspect it-- the sellers stated youll get nowhere - we are all mates ah these car yards..
So the lady contacted the Ministers office and after much insisting finally they instructed the motor transport to inspect the motor home.
The result was they issued a rejection slip and declared the RV dangerous. Finally. Armed with that she attended a qcatt forced resolution with the so called referee- producers the rejection slip issued by the MT department .
THAT'S NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT YELLS THE CLOWN QCATT Referee.
Well if thats not a legal document on government letter head you dock head i dont know what is?
She was refused her day in court - lost well over 12k because this idiot then stood up and started talking about himself in front of the defendant. Ah the boys club.
It would appear the AG may be selective imop as to what or whom interest is shown in.
CCC also appear to be mighty confused at times imop of just what powers they do have and dont.
CCC according to them have no powers over police matters- that includes police misconduct or any other part of a police officers duty.
Sheesh they all seem confused after CCC charged a lawyer for possession of drug - probably some pot and some amo-- the bloke was a x cop.
A letter written to the AG last year requesting the AG have records expunged after a set up to gag a witness took place received a response- sorry i have no powers. This involved police corruption.
CCC said they had no powers either but i guess given that the evidence the WB blower had at the time was against them- they wouldnt would they ..
However they sure can find the time money - waste of money and energy to pick on somebody for a bit of amo in their own home -- really?
|Author:||Administration [ December 14th, 2017, 6:56 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Yvette D'Ath Attornery General hold two standards?|
Now we can understand that good old Sam Di Carlo may have got up a few noses, hes good at that , but we ask the Attorney General and CCC is it really fair to waste all this funding over something that lets face it started by two legals - one a Judge, the other a barrister having a beef up with words over a bail application.
As it reads Di- Carlo was passionate about not letting his client sit in prison over a extended long weekend until his bail application was heard. They had words and while we understand respect IS important THAT must work both ways too.
Which brings us to THIS question. Why cant we- why SHOULDN'T we sue a judge for defamation if warranted?
Oh no they are protected. ! Why the double standards again...
We have it on tape a Judge defaming and frankly imop influencing an appeal case But WERE TOLD YOU CANT SUE HIM
We demand to know why not and this must be changed.
If its good enough for a judge to get all head up and precious over something a lawyer or barristers says to him - why is it not good enough for the public to have the same RIGHTS when a Judge has defamed us?
This judge had not even met the plaintiff.
There are far more questions than answers and now the public will demand full answers.
Lets face it this CCC or as it was called at first CJC was set up as a result of the Fitzgerald Inquiry.
Poor old Tony he must be confused as to which time he got it right . After ALL he cant be right BOTH TIMES
HE sent for Noel Newman to come to QLD from Vic to head the QLD police force.
Then we have Terry M standing up in parliament accusing Noel of misusing petty cash funding-- oh dear.
Id say Tony picked the RIGHT bloke for the job but underestimated the joke - not that hes admitting it.
. Save face at ALL costs
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC + 10 hours|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group