|
Post by latindancer on Nov 30, 2011 21:14:33 GMT 7
Representing yourself can both good and bad. I did so a few years ago in a Civil matter. In the Magistrates Court I won against my opponent who had a barrister and solicitor present. He appealed and I lost in the District Court. I appealed that and lost again in the Supreme Court (they upheld the District Court ruling). I applied to be seen by the High Court but was rejected. There are free legal advisory services but the advice is piecemeal and it also depends on who is on duty. However I'd heartily recommend you do go there and run the whole thing past a solicitor or barrister, just to check for silly mistakes you may have made. I made one and regretted it later.
|
|
|
Post by gordonc on Dec 1, 2011 3:46:27 GMT 7
I have had some previous experience including a ratbag lawyer I once employed working for the other side. When I lost and realised what was going on I appealed (without a lawyer) to the Federal Court (full court) and the other side folded. I walked away with over $30,000.
I have a bit of a resume that includes being sued by the Tasmanian government (they lost). Being sued by Kodak Finance & counterclaiming Kodak Aus (settled to my advantage saving around $100,000). Suing the local Council and its real estate agent (they gave my daughter $40,000 for me to bugger off)
Lots of other smaller ones including successfully defending defamation against a law firm and others in the Qld Supreme Court plus loosing a couple of Administrative Law ones (which I found to be a minefield), but that was during my self imposed apprenticeship.
I did go through the SSAT once, mainly to get experience. I certainly got that, what a pack of dumbf#@*% ratbags, never again.... if there is a Kangaroo Court that is it!!!
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Dec 1, 2011 5:55:12 GMT 7
I have had some previous experience including a ratbag lawyer I once employed working for the other side. When I lost and realised what was going on I appealed (without a lawyer) to the Federal Court (full court) and the other side folded. I walked away with over $30,000. I have a bit of a resume that includes being sued by the Tasmanian government (they lost). Being sued by Kodak Finance & counterclaiming Kodak Aus (settled to my advantage saving around $100,000). Suing the local Council and its real estate agent (they gave my daughter $40,000 for me to bugger off) Lots of other smaller ones including successfully defending defamation against a law firm and others in the Qld Supreme Court plus loosing a couple of Administrative Law ones (which I found to be a minefield), but that was during my self imposed apprenticeship. I did go through the SSAT once, mainly to get experience. I certainly got that, what a pack of dumbf#@*% ratbags, never again.... if there is a Kangaroo Court that is it!!! Well done Gordon.
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Dec 1, 2011 10:40:41 GMT 7
Hey, alright ! Seems you know your way around. Go for it, man ! We'll be getting a lot of vicarious enjoyment out of seeing the results....if they go your way. I did go through the SSAT once, mainly to get experience. I certainly got that, what a pack of dumbf#@*% ratbags, never again.... if there is a Kangaroo Court that is it!!! Uh-oh I wonder if this could work FOR us just as much as against us, though ? If it's a kangaroo court and the people presiding over it are not actually the same "dumbf#@*% ratbags" you saw, they may not get too bogged down in rules and might see things in proportion. Though that didn't happen to me in 3 successive courts. The magistrate in the first case ruled in my favour. Thereafter, I got trounced on technicalities. They couldn't see the forest for the trees...it was quite absurd. I think my lack of legal representation went against me. It was almost as if I was being punished for being so audacious as to represent myself.
|
|
|
Post by gordonc on Dec 13, 2011 15:37:12 GMT 7
Tricky Centrelink, despite initially refusing to confirm that the video even existed and then giving notice of refusal to its access, successfully hi-jacked the proceedings, 53 days after FOI application and just 2 days before the hearing, by saying that the video can now be redacted. So, at the hearing on Friday 9 December 2011 Justice Logan was (perhaps understandably) unimpressed that the matter was before the court when the video was to be produced under FOI. One cannot get enough experience in court hearings and it was totally unexpected that the judge, even before he heard from Centrelink, appeared to have made his mind up. I needed to extract myself from what could have been an ugly & costly continuance of matters that were not the substantive matters being sued upon, considering that the video is now to be produced under FOI. SEE the Centrelink hi-jack tale at, centrelinkgetssued.comAs such, I discontinued that video matter with consent by Centrelink that each party bears their own costs. I shall relax now and file the substantive matter next year (some draft pleadings are available at centrelinkgetssued.com/draftforweb.pdf ) Centrelink employee "Craig" (the First Respondent) hiding behind his Centrelink desk, will not escape retribution. Best Xmas wishes to all!!
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Dec 13, 2011 16:13:19 GMT 7
Seems like you called their bluff Gordon, good for you. Im finding that C/L are using these bluff tactics a lot now in the hope the victim just goes away.
All the best for xmas to you also from the members here at dspoverseas.
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Dec 13, 2011 16:37:45 GMT 7
I like the draft pleading ! ;D You might like to slightly change the 3rd paragraph down (para 8), in which you say (or knew he was likely cause ).
to (or knew he was the likely cause of)
or perhaps
(or knew he would likely cause)
|
|
|
Post by gordonc on Dec 14, 2011 16:03:51 GMT 7
Thanks latindancer, I will attend to that.
I will put the full thing on the website once it's finalised and filed next year.
As Misfeasance in Public Office and Tort of Assault, legitimately attracts exemplary damages, I reckon a starting point is $750,000 ... to go to charity of course.
What do you reckon?
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 14, 2011 17:41:13 GMT 7
DSPoverseas and it's worthy administrators provide an excellent opportunity for the charitable to contribute.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Dec 14, 2011 17:48:09 GMT 7
Can I second that ;D
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Dec 14, 2011 18:20:14 GMT 7
I reckon you will be lucky to get a magistrate who won't be like the one you just had. I had the same experience in the District and Supreme Courts, after winning in the Magistrates Court. You need to front up with a barrister or you'll get trounced. The powers that be don't like unemployed people doing stuff like this. You have to claim credibility by having one of "them", ie. a barrister, representing you. Maybe you can find a Pro Bono one ?
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 14, 2011 20:44:53 GMT 7
Gordon's problem, and I can relate to this, is getting them to do what you want, not them telling you what to do. I honestly don't know of any lawyers... and you have to have a lawyer/solicitor before you can get a barrister AFAIK, with a fraction of the Centrelink experience that he would have himself.
|
|
|
Post by gordonc on Dec 15, 2011 3:49:04 GMT 7
Actually I did get a few things out of the bruising encounter of Judicial politeness of how things are in the world of a judge, rather than in the real world. 1. Its frowned upon if the matter is not resolved through the Centrelink peer review (bias process) instead of a Court. Well as far as I know the peer review (SSAT) only reviews decisions and has no power to address the "conduct" of Centrelink in purporting to make a decision. I did tell his honour about my receiving a previous disgraceful service from this outfit. 2. The Federal Magistrates Court may be a more appropriate venue. 3. Upstart litigants in person chasing a "pot of gold" as his honour described it, it seems are not welcome in the court. Well the pot of gold to charity should fix that. 4. His honour would be happier if the substantive matter was first run past Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Incorporated www.qpilch.org.au (Administrative Law Clinic www.qpilch.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=9). I was happy to find this out as I didn't know that it existed and I will certainly be taking the opportunity to sample their services. 5. I did also get informed of how delightful and interesting the train trip in from the Sunshine Coast to Brisbane is, I thought he was perhaps just joking and didn't tell him that my trip that particular day included sharing a carriage with a noisy drugged out bogan that thought he was the only one that mattered in the carriage.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Dec 21, 2011 8:19:44 GMT 7
Hi Gordon
You seem to have joined while I was busy packing to move house. I have been to your website, from the link here, but did not realise you had become one of our members.
Centrelink have done the same to me. Phoned me after hours offering to sort out the complaints I had made to head office, about the illegal cancellation of my claim for DSP, and requesting I come into the branch to talk about it.
When I arrived the next day, they played mind games with me, were rude and tried to stand over me, while at the same time denying any wrong doing on anyone's part, except for myself in lodging complaints.
When I stood up to leave in disgust, the officer started towards me in an attempt to man-handle me. I saw another officer rushing in to also tackle me from the side. I goose-stepped them all, and gave a speech out loud about corruption in that branch.
I later found that the 'manager' who handled the meeting, recorded in my file that I had come at them with all guns blazing abuse. I had lodged a complaint immediately after the event occured. No investigation at all occurred about what happened or the conflicting accounts of what happened.
I later requested a copy of their video records, for the time and date that their emotional and verbal assault upon me had occurred. DEEWR ignored it, as they did with some of my other valid FOI requests.
Good to have you onboard. Lets all bombard the new minister with our complaints, and demand that C/L staff are punished for doing this type of stuff.
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Dec 21, 2011 16:34:54 GMT 7
After hearing about Gordon and Spacey's experiences, I think I will bring along a voice recorder to any future Centrelink interviews I attend. As far as I know it is perfectly legal to record anything like this and not even tell them I am recording it. I might mention here just as a matter of interest, many people think it is illegal to record phone (or perhaps Centrelink) conversations. But I discovered it is not. Recorded phone conversations are simply not admissible in Court unless it's a Fraud case. I recorded 2 conversations between myself and another person (in person, not on phone) and the tapes and transcripts were allowed in court in 2005 ( the Civil case I mentioned previously).
|
|