CASA - Moral Exemplar Duty - The end of the Friday Afternoon Fax?
The second respondent is … an officer of the Commonwealth
… this "model litigant" responsibility …
… the second respondent has fallen considerably short of the standard properly to be expected of the Commonwealth. …
… The consequence was, in our opinion, a miscarriage of justice.
… In these circumstances the appeals must be allowed …
… this "model litigant" responsibility …
… the second respondent has fallen considerably short of the standard properly to be expected of the Commonwealth. …
… The consequence was, in our opinion, a miscarriage of justice.
… In these circumstances the appeals must be allowed …
Thread Starter
Creampuff: The legal case you refer to RELATES TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A JUDGE AT TRIAL, NOT A GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY BEFORE OR DURING A TRIAL.
And furthermore, you had to scratch around to find a Thirteen year old case as faulty evidence.
Lets face it, If I were in CASA legal services, I would calculate that there is little danger of anything to do with CASA's behaviour will ever make it to the High Court since the costs of getting that far are prohibitive, and, based on your own research, there is SFA chance that the Court would ever take the case let alone find against CASA.
Evidence in the form of multiple failed cases alleging CASA's failure to apply the model litigant rules is against you.
To put it another way, the only time appeals to "procedural fairness" and "natural justice" are invoked is when a member of CASA is in trouble, as in the case of the deliberately false statements by CASA officers regarding a certain pilot conducting unauthorised maintenance.
As I have said before, these games will continue until there are not One, but Three smoking holes in the ground with great loss of life, and in any case, the culprits will have long since retired with their full superannuation.
And furthermore, you had to scratch around to find a Thirteen year old case as faulty evidence.
Lets face it, If I were in CASA legal services, I would calculate that there is little danger of anything to do with CASA's behaviour will ever make it to the High Court since the costs of getting that far are prohibitive, and, based on your own research, there is SFA chance that the Court would ever take the case let alone find against CASA.
Evidence in the form of multiple failed cases alleging CASA's failure to apply the model litigant rules is against you.
To put it another way, the only time appeals to "procedural fairness" and "natural justice" are invoked is when a member of CASA is in trouble, as in the case of the deliberately false statements by CASA officers regarding a certain pilot conducting unauthorised maintenance.
As I have said before, these games will continue until there are not One, but Three smoking holes in the ground with great loss of life, and in any case, the culprits will have long since retired with their full superannuation.
Last edited by Sunfish; 11th Aug 2012 at 21:50.
The case relates to the behaviour of a government officer – the Secretary of the Department of Social Security. That’s the ‘second respondent’ referred to in the passages I extracted. The Secretary of the Department of Social Security failed to discharge his model litigant responsibility. As a consequence of that failure, a court decided that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, and allowed the appeal.
It’s a real court deciding that a real government officer failed to discharge the model litigant principle, resulting in a real legal consequence.
It’s the same model litigant responsibility whether it’s about criminal proceedings or administrative proceedings.
I chose an older case in an attempt to show – on the basis of irrefutable objective evidence – that the model litigant responsibility has been around for a long time, has been considered by courts and tribunals for a long time, and has potential legal consequences if not discharged. The suggestion by sarcs was that a knight in shining armour, in the guise the erstwhile Commonwealth Attorney General, “was the main driver of the principles of the Model Litigant Rules and in particular its application to the AAT”.
So your logic goes: because multiple allegations of breach of the model litigant rules by CASA have been rejected by the AAT and court, it proves the allegations to be true?
You’ve got some real issues there, Sunfish.
You should entertain the remote possibility that courts and tribunals know what they are doing, and government agencies and their legal representatives are aware of and take seriously their model litigant responsibilities.
It’s a real court deciding that a real government officer failed to discharge the model litigant principle, resulting in a real legal consequence.
It’s the same model litigant responsibility whether it’s about criminal proceedings or administrative proceedings.
I chose an older case in an attempt to show – on the basis of irrefutable objective evidence – that the model litigant responsibility has been around for a long time, has been considered by courts and tribunals for a long time, and has potential legal consequences if not discharged. The suggestion by sarcs was that a knight in shining armour, in the guise the erstwhile Commonwealth Attorney General, “was the main driver of the principles of the Model Litigant Rules and in particular its application to the AAT”.
Evidence in the form of multiple failed cases alleging CASA's failure to apply the model litigant rules is against you.
You’ve got some real issues there, Sunfish.
You should entertain the remote possibility that courts and tribunals know what they are doing, and government agencies and their legal representatives are aware of and take seriously their model litigant responsibilities.
Last edited by Creampuff; 11th Aug 2012 at 22:44.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should entertain the remote possibility that courts and tribunals know what they are doing, and government agencies and their legal representatives are aware of and take seriously their model litigant responsibilities.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thick plottens
GD -Oh my god, he's lost the plot!!!!
It makes sense; 'Court' or a Tribunal would, by default ensure 'their judgement' was sound, which means that it is safer to go with the official line "they are unsafe – the blood of the next accident is on your hands" argument, than risk an uninformed or marginal judgement which back fires at a later date. They should be able to support the 'authority' 99% of the time with full confidence and so should the industry – alas this is not been so, not for a long, long time.
It's convincing the 'establishment' that they have and are being led up the garden path by an incompetent, self serving, morally corrupt 'authority' where the problem lies. It's a big task for a half assed, fragmented industry which can't seem to decide what constitutes a proper radio call. But it must be sorted.
Tick tock - As I have said before, these games will continue until there are not One, but Three smoking holes in the ground with great loss of life, and in any case, the culprits will have long since retired with their full superannuation.
CP - So your logic goes: because multiple allegations of breach of the model litigant rules by CASA have been rejected by the AAT and court, it proves the allegations to be true?
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Mark Twain.
Last edited by Kharon; 12th Aug 2012 at 22:03. Reason: Tailwheel syndrome
So if multiple allegations are made that someone is a child molester, and the courts find the allegations not to be true, that proves the allegations to be true?
And we wonder why lynch mobs happen.
And we wonder why lynch mobs happen.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][Creampuff
*
So if multiple allegations are made that someone is a child molester, and the courts find the allegations not to be true, that proves the allegations to be true?
And we wonder why lynch mobs happen.
/QUOTE]
CP. almost correct. Under the common law system it is not a matter of truth but of who has the best representation. Refer $$$$$.
As to MLD correct they have been around since the beginning of the last century in the form of ethics and morals once upon a time associated with the profession of law. The reference to McClelland and his interest in MLD came about because the Rule of Law Institute objected to a published claim that there was only one reported case. In 2011 ROLIA were in possession of some 6 cases involving CA(s)A alone for that year. The one reported case didn't even involve CA-A !!
The most common tactic is forgetting to disclose information relevant to the making of a decision. Maybe a bit like flying into extreme weather without a forecast? This forgetting is however is a deliberate decision at the LSD level.
Hence your financially secure child molester has a relatively good chance of getting off, whether guilty or not. The financially compromised alleged molester on the other hand has no hope. Suggest you download a free copy of "serial liars" by Evan Whitton and find out how it's done "legally". Where do we sign up for the lynch mob?
*
So if multiple allegations are made that someone is a child molester, and the courts find the allegations not to be true, that proves the allegations to be true?
And we wonder why lynch mobs happen.
/QUOTE]
CP. almost correct. Under the common law system it is not a matter of truth but of who has the best representation. Refer $$$$$.
As to MLD correct they have been around since the beginning of the last century in the form of ethics and morals once upon a time associated with the profession of law. The reference to McClelland and his interest in MLD came about because the Rule of Law Institute objected to a published claim that there was only one reported case. In 2011 ROLIA were in possession of some 6 cases involving CA(s)A alone for that year. The one reported case didn't even involve CA-A !!
The most common tactic is forgetting to disclose information relevant to the making of a decision. Maybe a bit like flying into extreme weather without a forecast? This forgetting is however is a deliberate decision at the LSD level.
Hence your financially secure child molester has a relatively good chance of getting off, whether guilty or not. The financially compromised alleged molester on the other hand has no hope. Suggest you download a free copy of "serial liars" by Evan Whitton and find out how it's done "legally". Where do we sign up for the lynch mob?
A newspaper article dated 12 August 2011:
I wonder why those cases didn’t rate a mention in the article. Perhaps they were cases in which the allegation was made but rejected by the court or tribunal?
I’ve now posted references to numerous cases in which the AAT or courts have found a government agency to have failed to discharge the model litigant responsibility, despite the government having lots of money.
Please cite the decisions in which those findings have been made against CASA.
THE federal government has been accused of covering up breaches of its model litigant rules that have resulted in a series of government agencies being heavily criticised in court.
Judgments collated by the Rule of Law Institute show courts have strongly criticised federal agencies over a series of incidents revealing apparent breaches of the model litigant rules. [How did those naughty, rich agencies manage not to fool the courts?]
The institute said breaches of the model litigant rules would once have been disclosed by the government, but no longer appear in the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department. [Perhaps Bob McClelland wasn’t quite the knight in shining armour some thought he was?]
After being informed of apparent breaches, Attorney-General Robert McClelland said he took breaches of the government's legal services directions -- which contain the model litigant rules -- very seriously.
"I have requested urgent briefings from my department as to the cases raised by the Rule of Law Institute and to the reporting of these breaches," Mr McClelland said.
In one incident, a man was jailed after the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police failed to produce documents that later led to his exoneration.
In another case, the Workplace Ombudsman was accused in court of being a "partisan" litigant instead of a model litigant.
Other federal agencies that have been criticised over their conduct in court are:
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
The Commissioner of Taxation.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission. [CASA must be particularly clever in fooling the courts - it didn’t rate a mention. ]
The Rule of Law Institute chief executive, Richard Gilbert, said problems uncovered by the institute justified a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission or the Administrative Review Council.
The model litigant rules require all federal agencies to conduct their legal affairs with efficiency and fairness.
But, last year, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission was criticised by the NSW Court of Appeal for failing to call a witness who could have assisted the court arrive at the truth.
The judgment in Morley v ASIC says: "In partial answer to the first of the questions, whether its failure to call a witness can constitute a breach of the obligation of fairness, in our opinion it can." [Whoops: there’s another court saying a breach can have legal consequences.]
Figures compiled by the institute from early annual reports of the Attorney-General's Department show disclosure of breaches came to an end after a 289 per cent blowout in the number of confirmed breaches in 2008-09. [How did those naughty, rich agencies manage not to fool the courts?]
"The government should disclose the breaches of the rules because this was always intended," Mr Gilbert said.
In DCT v Denlay, the Queensland Court of Appeal said last year it was preposterous for the Commissioner of Taxation to contend that the loss of the respondent's entire estate could not be called an extreme hardship.
In the 2009 criminal case R v Martens, the Queensland Court of Appeal criticised the Commonwealth DPP and the AFP for failing to provide documents that could help the defence in a criminal case.
In ACCC v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group, the Federal Court ordered the ACCC to pay 80 per cent of the ANZ's costs after considering the failure of the ACCC to adhere to the model litigant obligations by not issuing a notice to answer interrogatories within the time ordered. [More legal consequences flowing from a failure to comply with the LSDs.]
In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Clear Blue Developments, the Federal Court declined to order costs to the Deputy Commissioner because this would "reward work which is not of a standard to be expected of a person to be solicitor on the record for a person to whom the model litigant obligations adhere". [Even more legal consequences flowing from a failure to comply with the LSDs.]
Judgments collated by the Rule of Law Institute show courts have strongly criticised federal agencies over a series of incidents revealing apparent breaches of the model litigant rules. [How did those naughty, rich agencies manage not to fool the courts?]
The institute said breaches of the model litigant rules would once have been disclosed by the government, but no longer appear in the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department. [Perhaps Bob McClelland wasn’t quite the knight in shining armour some thought he was?]
After being informed of apparent breaches, Attorney-General Robert McClelland said he took breaches of the government's legal services directions -- which contain the model litigant rules -- very seriously.
"I have requested urgent briefings from my department as to the cases raised by the Rule of Law Institute and to the reporting of these breaches," Mr McClelland said.
In one incident, a man was jailed after the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police failed to produce documents that later led to his exoneration.
In another case, the Workplace Ombudsman was accused in court of being a "partisan" litigant instead of a model litigant.
Other federal agencies that have been criticised over their conduct in court are:
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
The Commissioner of Taxation.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission. [CASA must be particularly clever in fooling the courts - it didn’t rate a mention. ]
The Rule of Law Institute chief executive, Richard Gilbert, said problems uncovered by the institute justified a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission or the Administrative Review Council.
The model litigant rules require all federal agencies to conduct their legal affairs with efficiency and fairness.
But, last year, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission was criticised by the NSW Court of Appeal for failing to call a witness who could have assisted the court arrive at the truth.
The judgment in Morley v ASIC says: "In partial answer to the first of the questions, whether its failure to call a witness can constitute a breach of the obligation of fairness, in our opinion it can." [Whoops: there’s another court saying a breach can have legal consequences.]
Figures compiled by the institute from early annual reports of the Attorney-General's Department show disclosure of breaches came to an end after a 289 per cent blowout in the number of confirmed breaches in 2008-09. [How did those naughty, rich agencies manage not to fool the courts?]
"The government should disclose the breaches of the rules because this was always intended," Mr Gilbert said.
In DCT v Denlay, the Queensland Court of Appeal said last year it was preposterous for the Commissioner of Taxation to contend that the loss of the respondent's entire estate could not be called an extreme hardship.
In the 2009 criminal case R v Martens, the Queensland Court of Appeal criticised the Commonwealth DPP and the AFP for failing to provide documents that could help the defence in a criminal case.
In ACCC v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group, the Federal Court ordered the ACCC to pay 80 per cent of the ANZ's costs after considering the failure of the ACCC to adhere to the model litigant obligations by not issuing a notice to answer interrogatories within the time ordered. [More legal consequences flowing from a failure to comply with the LSDs.]
In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Clear Blue Developments, the Federal Court declined to order costs to the Deputy Commissioner because this would "reward work which is not of a standard to be expected of a person to be solicitor on the record for a person to whom the model litigant obligations adhere". [Even more legal consequences flowing from a failure to comply with the LSDs.]
In 2011 ROLIA were in possession of some 6 cases involving CA(s)A alone for that year.
I’ve now posted references to numerous cases in which the AAT or courts have found a government agency to have failed to discharge the model litigant responsibility, despite the government having lots of money.
Please cite the decisions in which those findings have been made against CASA.
Oh yes the ROLIA, apparently a well respected institute in Legalweagleland! Not much help to Joe Citizen though, all they do is say .."yep your right that is a breach of the MLR"... and refer you to the OLSC...and so starts the merry go round!
...bout sums it up!
Don't know about the lynch mob but I'd definitely be in on a good old fashioned 'stoning!'
Ok Creamy I'll bite....so what is your point?
To start with it was my knuckledragging, legally illiterate understanding, faithfully referenced by ROLIA, that because of section 55ZG of the Judiciary Act 1903 paragraph (3)...
...a suspected (or confirmed by the ROLIA) breach of the MLR cannot be introduced as a defence or a point of law in a court etc.
So in the AAT unless the legal eagle for CASA wants to put his/her hand up and say...."ah Deputy President I believe we have used underhanded tactics that have contravened the MLR"...or the Deputy President smells a rat and castigates the legal team from CASA for being a bunch of bully boys, the MLR will not be reviewed or referred to in any way!
Why there are no documented cases of the CASA being told to drop their dacks and get six of the best from the MLR ruler who knows? Maybe it's because the contracted QC and his legal team are awake to the foibles of the AAT and they're bloody good at what they do!
The Bard: Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Where do we sign up for the lynch mob?
Ok Creamy I'll bite....so what is your point?
CP: Perhaps they were cases in which the allegation was made but rejected by the court or tribunal?
(3) The issue of non-compliance with a Legal Services Direction may not be raised in any proceeding (whether in a court, tribunal or other body) except by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth.
So in the AAT unless the legal eagle for CASA wants to put his/her hand up and say...."ah Deputy President I believe we have used underhanded tactics that have contravened the MLR"...or the Deputy President smells a rat and castigates the legal team from CASA for being a bunch of bully boys, the MLR will not be reviewed or referred to in any way!
Why there are no documented cases of the CASA being told to drop their dacks and get six of the best from the MLR ruler who knows? Maybe it's because the contracted QC and his legal team are awake to the foibles of the AAT and they're bloody good at what they do!
Last edited by Sarcs; 13th Aug 2012 at 11:18.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][I wonder why those cases didn’t rate a mention in the article. Perhaps they were cases in which the allegation was made but rejected by the court or tribunal? /QUOTE]
At the time of the news article ROLIA were not aware of them as they had not been reported by the AG. The court did not make any mention as is required but then again the withholding of relevant material cannot be identified until released under FOI. Especially when this material is not in the interest of CASA
In several of the cases the CDPP had recommended no action be taken as no case existed. A Model Litigant would think twice going against such advice, but then keeping that advice out of the action by claiming Privilege all is OK. What the victim doesn't know ......etc. what the AAT doesn't know won't go against CASA. All these cases have been reported to the AG with evidence but that is another story.
At the time of the news article ROLIA were not aware of them as they had not been reported by the AG. The court did not make any mention as is required but then again the withholding of relevant material cannot be identified until released under FOI. Especially when this material is not in the interest of CASA
In several of the cases the CDPP had recommended no action be taken as no case existed. A Model Litigant would think twice going against such advice, but then keeping that advice out of the action by claiming Privilege all is OK. What the victim doesn't know ......etc. what the AAT doesn't know won't go against CASA. All these cases have been reported to the AG with evidence but that is another story.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short lived happy event
In effect, CASA’s lawyer is claiming that its officers can do what they like to whomever they like, using the cloak of respectability of “safety” under s9A (1) of the Civil Aviation Act, with impunity and at the discretion and subjective opinions of the officials concerned, with a total disregard to any person’s personal or business rights, no matter how trivial (or negligently false) the alleged “safety” issue might be, and no matter how devastating the effect any such heavy handed action might have on an individual or business.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. Charles Dickens.
Last edited by Kharon; 13th Aug 2012 at 20:30.
Why there are no documented cases of the CASA being told to drop their dacks and get six of the best from the MLR ruler who knows? Maybe it's because the contracted QC and his legal team are awake to the foibles of the AAT and they're bloody good at what they do!
By the way, in which matter has CASA briefed a QC? Every AAT and Court decision states the name and honorifics of counsel for both parties. Please cite one matter – just one – in which CASA has briefed a QC.
… or the Deputy President smells a rat and castigates the legal team …
Are you saying that CASA only appears before Deputy Presidents (all of whom are Federal Court judges, by the way) who are too stupid to spot failures to comply with the model litigant obligation?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RIP
A truce Brother Cream Puff – 'tis a sad day. This ruling in WA proves that no matter what, this CASA outfit cannot and will not embarrass the Minister and can basically, without fear do what the hell they like, to anyone, anytime, any place without accountability. Bit like Hempel really, sod the rules, bugger the consequences to everyone else, "I am invincible and will do what I like".
I concede, that as a cats paw of government, they remain the last man standing. They stand, bereft of all courage, honour, integrity or the slightest credibility; but, they have won this battle. Today. .. So a day of mourning for things lost. Perhaps the industry will take a quiet moment to ponder the consequences of apathy; again, it's just like Hempel and the "Bud" everyone knew, yet for various reasons, did nothing.
Selah.
I concede, that as a cats paw of government, they remain the last man standing. They stand, bereft of all courage, honour, integrity or the slightest credibility; but, they have won this battle. Today. .. So a day of mourning for things lost. Perhaps the industry will take a quiet moment to ponder the consequences of apathy; again, it's just like Hempel and the "Bud" everyone knew, yet for various reasons, did nothing.
Before me there were no created things Only eterne, and I eternal last. All hope abandon, ye who enter in!"
Last edited by Kharon; 13th Aug 2012 at 22:56. Reason: Haste and speed ratio = edit. Cranky too!
Thread Starter
You keep dodging the issue Creampuff.
You say that the courts are well aware of the Model litigant rules - true.
You then make a number of unfounded leaps to conclusions, to whit:
1. Just because the courts are aware of the MLR, then by definition, CASA must be following them or the courts would have penalised them for it (untrue)
2. Just because CASA has not been found to have transgressed the MLR's despite multiple allegations from different parties that they have, then they couldn't have transgressed (untrue).
...And now CASA's own lawyers advance the proposition that CASA has no duty whatsoever to adhere to the MLRs anyway!
Creamy don't you understand that CASA is advancing rapidly towards the Alice in Wonderland verdict:
CASA can do anything whenever and wherever to whoever in the interests of SAFETY. However SAFETY IS WHAT CASA SAYS IT IS.
To put that another way, CASA is using a self referential loop to justify itsef. Furthermore, just like in Alice in Wonderland, the penalty often comes before the verdict, in the form of shutting down operations so that the subject bleeds to death financially before they can defend themselves.
Please note that, yes, of course there are miscreants, but it appears, at least from pprune, that CASA is none too selective in its choice of victims.
You say that the courts are well aware of the Model litigant rules - true.
You then make a number of unfounded leaps to conclusions, to whit:
1. Just because the courts are aware of the MLR, then by definition, CASA must be following them or the courts would have penalised them for it (untrue)
2. Just because CASA has not been found to have transgressed the MLR's despite multiple allegations from different parties that they have, then they couldn't have transgressed (untrue).
...And now CASA's own lawyers advance the proposition that CASA has no duty whatsoever to adhere to the MLRs anyway!
Creamy don't you understand that CASA is advancing rapidly towards the Alice in Wonderland verdict:
CASA can do anything whenever and wherever to whoever in the interests of SAFETY. However SAFETY IS WHAT CASA SAYS IT IS.
To put that another way, CASA is using a self referential loop to justify itsef. Furthermore, just like in Alice in Wonderland, the penalty often comes before the verdict, in the form of shutting down operations so that the subject bleeds to death financially before they can defend themselves.
Please note that, yes, of course there are miscreants, but it appears, at least from pprune, that CASA is none too selective in its choice of victims.
The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. 'Consider your verdict,' he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice.
'There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; 'this paper has just been picked up.'
'What's in it?' said the Queen.
'I haven't opened it yet, said the White Rabbit, 'but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to—to somebody.'
'It must have been that,' said the King, 'unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.'
'Who is it directed to?' said one of the jurymen.
'It isn't directed at all,' said the White Rabbit; 'in fact, there's nothing written on the outside.' He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added 'It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.'
'Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen.
'No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, 'and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)
'He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)
'Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, 'I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'
'If you didn't sign it,' said the King, 'that only makes the matter worse. You MUST have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'
There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.
'That PROVES his guilt,' said the Queen.
'There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; 'this paper has just been picked up.'
'What's in it?' said the Queen.
'I haven't opened it yet, said the White Rabbit, 'but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to—to somebody.'
'It must have been that,' said the King, 'unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.'
'Who is it directed to?' said one of the jurymen.
'It isn't directed at all,' said the White Rabbit; 'in fact, there's nothing written on the outside.' He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added 'It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.'
'Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen.
'No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, 'and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)
'He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)
'Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, 'I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'
'If you didn't sign it,' said the King, 'that only makes the matter worse. You MUST have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'
There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.
'That PROVES his guilt,' said the Queen.
Last edited by Sunfish; 13th Aug 2012 at 23:09.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MLD apply in all LITIGATION not just in a court room. Perhaps CP could tell us how the following fits in with the MLD? Or did he create it!
Wonder why the Model Litigant didn't provide this document before the AAT?
Why would it take 3 years to release same under FOI? Consider that this is one of the lesser transgressions, more to follow. Our Model of a Model Litigant (Anastasi) initially denied ALL documents, with some unusual assistance from the AAT he managed to provide 2200 out of a total of some 13000.
Sure look forward to Creampuff's clarification. Incidentally the CDPP strongly advised CASA against any action "there is no case"[sic]. Also obtained under assistance from the AAT.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - in Confidence
OLC believes that this is a borderline case and were it to appear before the AAT, that the results of a review could not be guaranteed. However, both OLC and the Area Office argue that it is important POLICY position to take action against Schutt, in order to DISUADE other companies from attempting to CIRCUMVENT. Legislation in this way.
Corporate Affairs 16 April 2002 [ sic ]
OLC believes that this is a borderline case and were it to appear before the AAT, that the results of a review could not be guaranteed. However, both OLC and the Area Office argue that it is important POLICY position to take action against Schutt, in order to DISUADE other companies from attempting to CIRCUMVENT. Legislation in this way.
Corporate Affairs 16 April 2002 [ sic ]
Why would it take 3 years to release same under FOI? Consider that this is one of the lesser transgressions, more to follow. Our Model of a Model Litigant (Anastasi) initially denied ALL documents, with some unusual assistance from the AAT he managed to provide 2200 out of a total of some 13000.
Sure look forward to Creampuff's clarification. Incidentally the CDPP strongly advised CASA against any action "there is no case"[sic]. Also obtained under assistance from the AAT.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shameless plagiarism.
I borrowed this gem from the Jetstar thread. It's a classic and with small modifications could very well be applicable. Anyway – it's worth a read if only for the smiles.
An excellent and most satisfactory follow on to Sunny's top quote.
Tony the Tiler - Elephant Hiding
I’m not sure what the science of Elephant hiding is called but it appears that there are a few good practitioners of said science in Australia. For the spectators out there a certain member of the JPC put the spotlight on the MOU elephant when he signalled MOU termination. Since that time it would appear that AIPA have been desperately trying to hide said elephant anywhere they can. Now, even for those in the cheap seats, it is plainly obvious that you cannot hide an elephant behind a lamppost, coffee table, coat hangar or light globe, but it is entertaining nonetheless, and it is not for lack of trying. The entertainment value has only increased with the desperation and now in a new turn the AFAP have been dragged into the circus act as an unwilling participant.
Smoke and mirrors is the new act, normally reserved for the corporate management thug types, but now adapted for the Elephant hiding act. Now, as everyone knows, elephants are very hard to hide. But, in a light bulb moment, the elephant hiding ringmasters have decided that the next best thing to hiding an elephant is making it disappear. Wow, the crowd is silent in anticipation, a disappearing elephant act, can it really get any better. Sadly, the act is only part way through and my source is unable to report on the outcome of this new and daring act. But so far there is a lot of smoke and distraction and something called unity. Unity is mentioned by the ringmasters at every opportunity, what can it mean and where will it end?
Oh the possibilities are endless, maybe the elephant dies of smoke inhalation, African ivory poachers swoop in and steal the elephant, or the elephant vanishes in a puff of smoke. The anticipation is building, will the MOU elephant disappear, or will it be standing front and centre when the smoke clears?
I’m not sure what the science of Elephant hiding is called but it appears that there are a few good practitioners of said science in Australia. For the spectators out there a certain member of the JPC put the spotlight on the MOU elephant when he signalled MOU termination. Since that time it would appear that AIPA have been desperately trying to hide said elephant anywhere they can. Now, even for those in the cheap seats, it is plainly obvious that you cannot hide an elephant behind a lamppost, coffee table, coat hangar or light globe, but it is entertaining nonetheless, and it is not for lack of trying. The entertainment value has only increased with the desperation and now in a new turn the AFAP have been dragged into the circus act as an unwilling participant.
Smoke and mirrors is the new act, normally reserved for the corporate management thug types, but now adapted for the Elephant hiding act. Now, as everyone knows, elephants are very hard to hide. But, in a light bulb moment, the elephant hiding ringmasters have decided that the next best thing to hiding an elephant is making it disappear. Wow, the crowd is silent in anticipation, a disappearing elephant act, can it really get any better. Sadly, the act is only part way through and my source is unable to report on the outcome of this new and daring act. But so far there is a lot of smoke and distraction and something called unity. Unity is mentioned by the ringmasters at every opportunity, what can it mean and where will it end?
Oh the possibilities are endless, maybe the elephant dies of smoke inhalation, African ivory poachers swoop in and steal the elephant, or the elephant vanishes in a puff of smoke. The anticipation is building, will the MOU elephant disappear, or will it be standing front and centre when the smoke clears?
An excellent and most satisfactory follow on to Sunny's top quote.
Just because CASA has not been found to have transgressed the MLR's despite multiple allegations from different parties that they have, then they couldn't have transgressed (untrue).
One wonders how the courts and tribunals managed to find other agencies and their advisers to have failed to discharge the model litigant policy, during the same period.
Those CASA lawyers must be extraordinarily clever!
And now CASA's own lawyers advance the proposition that CASA has no duty whatsoever to adhere to the MLRs anyway!
Stan: Are you suggesting that the quotation in your post is from a CASA document and wasn’t disclosed in proceedings in which it should have been disclosed? If it is from a CASA document and should have been but wasn’t disclosed in proceedings, I urge you to make a complaint to the Office of Legal Services Coordination.
Please let us know how that goes.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CP wasnt that policy by your alter ego?
CP.
If you are really that naive as an ex CASA employee, respected by some, it explains a lot about the remnants. Do you really think I'm submitting a false document and that under my own name. Actually this is the least offensive one of several. The Skull didn't feel this was sufficient NEW info to reopen my case.
Returning to your naivity, the OLSC have naturally been written to as have the AG (possibly intercepted by your inside ex colleague Illyk) as I haven't heard a peep. Then off course Albo who has referred it to his CASA. Makes one dizzy to contemplate this circular process (not progress) then there is the Ombo (too hard) and the poor ICC Mike Hart, indeed Bruce Byron was the only one who entertained looking into it but then look what happened to him. I almost feel responsible. Don't get me started on the Skull or his side kick ICC Elizabeth Hampton. Her threatening response was the super Model Litigant, probably also a lawyer straight out of ethics school. where do they find these "creatures", my apologies to the animal variety.
quote Those CASA lawyers must be extraordinarily clever quote.
Clever is not the word, it is "devious". How do you expect a judge or member to recognise missing detail or info. The victim of CASA can only guess at its existance or wait 3 to 4 years for its release after S.M. Forgie has educated CASA lawyer Anastasi how to retrieve information using the "search" function. It was quite enlighting for him a lesson in Word 101. When he couldn't retrieve a single item, surprisingly many related to his actions. Probably that's why he had the last call on their release.
You should read Geoff McClaw's report or give him a call, he no longer serves the cause. Oh yes it was missing as well, how extraordinary.
In 2007 Vaile ordered CASA to resolve the matters. They possibly mistook resolve for dissolve. But that was only 5 years ago!
Enough for now, let me know when you're ready for the next lesson in how CASA functions. SW. "empty skies are safe skies"
Stan: Are you suggesting that the quotation in your post is from a CASA document and wasn’t disclosed in proceedings in which it should have been disclosed?
Returning to your naivity, the OLSC have naturally been written to as have the AG (possibly intercepted by your inside ex colleague Illyk) as I haven't heard a peep. Then off course Albo who has referred it to his CASA. Makes one dizzy to contemplate this circular process (not progress) then there is the Ombo (too hard) and the poor ICC Mike Hart, indeed Bruce Byron was the only one who entertained looking into it but then look what happened to him. I almost feel responsible. Don't get me started on the Skull or his side kick ICC Elizabeth Hampton. Her threatening response was the super Model Litigant, probably also a lawyer straight out of ethics school. where do they find these "creatures", my apologies to the animal variety.
quote Those CASA lawyers must be extraordinarily clever quote.
Clever is not the word, it is "devious". How do you expect a judge or member to recognise missing detail or info. The victim of CASA can only guess at its existance or wait 3 to 4 years for its release after S.M. Forgie has educated CASA lawyer Anastasi how to retrieve information using the "search" function. It was quite enlighting for him a lesson in Word 101. When he couldn't retrieve a single item, surprisingly many related to his actions. Probably that's why he had the last call on their release.
You should read Geoff McClaw's report or give him a call, he no longer serves the cause. Oh yes it was missing as well, how extraordinary.
In 2007 Vaile ordered CASA to resolve the matters. They possibly mistook resolve for dissolve. But that was only 5 years ago!
Enough for now, let me know when you're ready for the next lesson in how CASA functions. SW. "empty skies are safe skies"
Last edited by Stan van de Wiel; 15th Aug 2012 at 11:38. Reason: Forgot to mention the previous Minister
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CP
Thats the ATTITUDE just what I would expect from an open minded team player!
Don't let facts or evidence influence your opinion will you. Did you give Geoff a call yet? But then as his opinion is not aligned with your preconceived one, it wouldn't be wrth the trouble.
Oh for what it's worth in 3 recent cases the CDPP advised CASA against action, this little detail was naturally not important enough for CASA as retreat would be embarrassing, reminiscent of your attitude toward the possibility of an alternative opinion! From some of your past articles I thought you more intelligent, but then am not a good judge of character!
When you get the opportunity, look up the AAT act and look for Obligation to assist the tribunal and also provide ALL information used by the CASA decision maker allowing a level playing field. But then again that wouldn't be "adversarial" would it, almost TRUTH seeking, heaven forbid!
If only we could say "the problem solved", because if you regard it solved then you accept that CASA has always lied, so how is this now resolved, will they continue with their old habits or do you feel that CASA like you have seen the light. It takes a weak intellect to be so easily indoctrinated! Or now cleansed?
SW. "empty skies are safe skies"
Don't let facts or evidence influence your opinion will you. Did you give Geoff a call yet? But then as his opinion is not aligned with your preconceived one, it wouldn't be wrth the trouble.
Oh for what it's worth in 3 recent cases the CDPP advised CASA against action, this little detail was naturally not important enough for CASA as retreat would be embarrassing, reminiscent of your attitude toward the possibility of an alternative opinion! From some of your past articles I thought you more intelligent, but then am not a good judge of character!
When you get the opportunity, look up the AAT act and look for Obligation to assist the tribunal and also provide ALL information used by the CASA decision maker allowing a level playing field. But then again that wouldn't be "adversarial" would it, almost TRUTH seeking, heaven forbid!
If only we could say "the problem solved", because if you regard it solved then you accept that CASA has always lied, so how is this now resolved, will they continue with their old habits or do you feel that CASA like you have seen the light. It takes a weak intellect to be so easily indoctrinated! Or now cleansed?
SW. "empty skies are safe skies"
Last edited by Stan van de Wiel; 15th Aug 2012 at 12:26. Reason: Problem not solved