Been ploughing my way through the depressing Hempel case this AM: running a comparison matrix between James and a couple of 'Sydney based' others which we haven't brought to light, it makes for a grim start to the weekend. The Hempel v Quadrio matrix is truly distressing.
I'm no longer convinced that a narrow focus on the Pel Air case is sufficient; the absolutely incontrovertible shambles of farcical rulings and abuse of process from the Sydney office has become legend over the last few years and beggars the imagination. If it were not for the reams of solid, tested sworn testimony available I would dismiss the claims as fanciful. Regrettably, these issues can no longer safely be ignored in relation to the handling and management of the Pel Air matter. Sydney (Bankstown as was) is the office responsible for Pel Air, Airtex, Skymaster and several other instances which I believe must be investigated thoroughly if anything CASA present from that office is to be 'safely' relied on in any court or tribunal.
No doubt there are honest, hard working people toiling under the present system to do the 'right thing'. I wish them luck.
Pete rules - OK.
PS. Creamie – thank you for your post, erudite as ever. Cheered me up no end.
