On 19 April 1996, Mark Ireland was admitted to practice as a solicitor in New South Wales.
Seventeen years into his career, the lawyer engaged in professional misconduct and was struck off the roll of legal practitioners on 26 May this year.
Under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the Director-General has a responsibility to report certain forms of corrupt conduct to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
Corrupt conduct involves the misuse of public office, for example:
• dishonesty
• partiality (ie. bias)
• breach of trust (ie. misuse of one’s position), or
• misuse of government information where such conduct could amount to a criminal offence, a disciplinary offence or give reasonable grounds for dismissal of a staff member.
Most Americans believe that we have a reasonably fair justice system with scholarly judges at the helm. Well, how about a federal judge who suspends the Constitution, confiscates all of a litigant’s assets, orders him not to hire defense counsel, and pronounces his orders enforceable by death?
That’s exactly what federal Judge Royal Furgeson did to Internet pioneer Jeff Baron, in a case that, New York lawyer David Relkin says is “the most outrageous denial of a person’s basic constitutional and human rights in this Country since the abolition of slavery.”
In the Texas case, Judge Furgeson “sentenced” Baron to an unprecedented “human receivership” to enable the judge’s lawyers to loot Baron’s Juvenile Diabetes Research Trust.
“The Supreme Court ruled today that state judges may be sued for civil rights violations and may be ordered to pay the lawyers’ fees of those who sue them successfully.
While the 5-to-4 decision permitted only suits for injunctions, not damages, it marked a significant retreat from the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity to which the Court has long adhered.
At 10 am this Friday morning 5 October 2012, in Melbourne, a prominent Australian journalist, lawyer and political activist, Mr James Johnson will be sentenced on two charges of “professional misconduct” and faces being banned from practising law for at least 5 years (possibly for life) as payback for blowing the whistle on widespread corruption and misconduct in Australia’s legal system.
Earlier this month, the Victorian government (in its Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal) ruled that despite a distinguished two decade career amongst the elite of the legal profession, Mr Johnson’s crime? Making comprehensive whistleblower complaints about corruption and misconduct by a number of Australian barristers, solicitors and judges – complaints that, despite their seriousness and the weight of evidence behind them, the relevant government authorities have not and will not investigate to determine whether they are true or not.
The lord chief justice has sounded an alarm at the presence of ‘far too many’ litigants in person across the justice system. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, speaking today at his annual press conference, said numbers of unrepresented litigants have continued to grow.
He cited the family courts as the area where the problem is greatest, although he stopped short of calling for the reintroduction of legal aid to support cases involving disputes over children.
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 No 157 - S51 Duty of Secretary to give information to certain persons
(1) If a child or young person is in the care responsibility of the Secretary under this Part or a warrant issued under section 233, the Secretary:(a) must, as soon as practicable, cause notice of the fact that the child or young person is in the care responsibility of the Secretary, and the fact that an application may be made to the Secretary for the discharge of the child or young person from the care responsibility of the Secretary and the procedures for making such an application, to be given to:(i) in the case of a child who is of or above the age of 10 years or a young person—the child or young person, andNSW Legal Aid - Care and protection matters
- Details
- Category: Legal Aid
- Created: Monday, 05 September 2016 22:21
- Written by NSW Legal Aid
5.16.1 Care and protection matters - alternative dispute resolution
5.16.2 Care and protection matters - alternate dispute resolution - for children
5.16.3 Contact Dispute Mediation - for children and young people
5.16.4 Contact Dispute Mediation - for adults
5.16.5 External Care and Protection Mediation
5.16.6 External Care and Protection Mediation- for children
5.16.7 Care Circle Conferences for partiesChief Magistrate Carolyn Huntsman, do you know the laws of the NSW Children's Court?
- Details
- Category: Corrupt Magistrates and Judges
- Created: Tuesday, 30 August 2016 20:00
- Written by Administrator
Over a month ago now, three children were removed from their loving mummy and daddy's care because an unregistered docs worker signed a piece of paper say the children were at Risk of Serious Harm. Removing children without prior court proceedings and not giving parents to defend the hearsay of caseworkers is one of the most traumatic experiences a child can have. Children who have been removed from their mothers at birth, are still known to suffer major anxiety and fears well into the child's seventh year, and after the child was returned - meaning they should not have been removed at all.
Children are seen suffering injuries in care because supervision is less than adequate, and crying on phone calls to parents and begging to come home is something no child should suffer at all - unless there are extremely serious reasons to do so. Unfortunately child protection rules the roost these days, and the words accountability and transparency have long been lost to a government who spends more money covering it's ass than actually doing the right thing by its people.
So what does happen when children have been removed on Emergency Care and Protection Orders?
Well, the legal requirements firstly are that the department (child protection) must bring the matter to the attention of the courts within three working days. [i] However if you’re a department lawyer or Rob Hosking from Hosking Lawyers in Goulburn[ii], those rules don’t apply to you.
Sydney's dirtiest lawyer John Meehan of Campbelltown continues blackmail with support of OLSC
- Details
- Category: Lawyers and Solicitors
- Created: Thursday, 15 August 2013 18:42
- Written by Alecomm2
John Paul Meehan, Campbelltown (solicitor currently representing the NSW Department of Community Services in Care Proceedings), is now threatening clients that he is "applying to the court to have costs awarded against" parents of children - whom he participated in the removal of.
So now, when parents ultimately fight to the end to have their children restored - imparticular in cases where the magistrates including former President of the Children's Court (Judge Mark Marien), has continually ordered the return of the children - he (John Meehan) will threaten that "if you do not with draw your case of trying to have your stolen children returned", he will suck up to the magistrate and have them order court costs against you - even if you are in receipt of Legal Aid funding. He also tells parents that the money they owe "will be deducted from their Centrelink payments".
Sydney Magistrate Terrence Murphy blames mother for child being sexually assaulted in care
- Details
- Category: Corrupt Magistrates and Judges
- Created: Thursday, 06 September 2012 11:17
- Written by Alecomm2
Sydney Magistrate Terrence Murphy has recently handed down a decision in the Supreme Court of NSW, where he has dispicabbly blamed a mother for her daughter being sexually assaulted. He has used this as an excuse to side with the Department of Community Services Campbelltown Office in stating that the newborn baby of this mother belongs in care - because the mother failed to protect her other child.
It is routinely common these days for DoCS caseworkers to blame mothers for being victims of domestic violence and use this as the reason for removing their children. Little do they know that some of these children are turning suicidal because they have been taken away from the only family that they have ever known, and the mother who has loved and protected them their whole lives.
Magistrate Stella Struthridge violating Oath of Office
- Details
- Category: Corrupt Magistrates and Judges
- Created: Monday, 14 January 2013 12:44
- Written by Alecomm2
Former lawyer Stella Struthridge has been a magistrate in the Victorian Courts for some three years now. Common sense tells us that no lawyer is trustworthy, hence they would make an even more dishonest judge, but common government continues to promote these people regardless.
Today in court, Struthridge reached an all new low, when for the second time, she dismissed an application for Personal Violence Intervention Order, after a DHS worker, Heather Podesta, of Albury / Wodonga DHS assaulted a client in front of multiple witnesses.
The second application by the victim has come with witnesses to the assault - yet Struthridge has refused to even hear the application before setting aside a verdict.
More Articles ...
- Magistrate refuses to use intellectual property to protect three year old boy from harm
- Magistrate Carney devastating Sydney families
- Federal Magistrate Michael Jarret blocking victims right to appeal by refusing to produce original reasons for judgement
- High Court rejects ICAC's bid to investigate Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen
- Australian Senate Reform Act of 2016
- Judge Stephen McEwen terms child service officials "control freaks"
- "When Judges Award Custody to Abusive Parents"
- "Judges critical of mum jailing (by corrupt Judge Michael Jarrett)"
- "Appeal Court Judgement - Kafkaesque Trial - Help Beth and Her Boys"
Subcategories
- Case Law
- Article Count:
- 1
- Significant court case judgements
- Article Count:
- 1
- Judicial Corruption
- Article Count:
- 43
- Corrupt Magistrates and Judges
- Article Count:
- 19
- Chief Justice Robert French
- Article Count:
- 1
- Lawyers and Solicitors
- Article Count:
- 21
- Lawyers Named and Shamed
- Article Count:
- 4
- Heidi Muggenthaler
- Article Count:
- 1
- Dennis Chapman - Gosford Lawyer
- Article Count:
- 7
- Michelle England - Crown Solicitor
- Article Count:
- 1
- Hero Lawyers and Attorneys
- Article Count:
- 1
- Law Reform
- Article Count:
- 2
- Legal Aid
- Article Count:
- 1
- Legislation and Acts
We intend on using almost one dozen different legislation / acts. Below are a few that we feel would have the most impact for class action causes and or entry to Australian Crime Commission help. What we need to be able to utilise the legislations is more than one person claiming the same type of offence, and by different departments and different areas. This can show mass conspiracies so to speak which would then be covered by the National Crime Act.
We also plan to use Crimes (Hostages) Act 1900 as this act allows for persons being held hostage (ie our children) until we agree to submit to persons to what they ask. This is keeping a hostage, and by DOCs taking your children and not returning them until you have signed undertakings is not only hostage taking but blackmail.
There is no such thing as CONsent Orders. You cannot possibly say anybody voluntarily signs these orders when the department has their children and will not return them until the orders are signed. These are not Consent Orders. This is Blackmail.
When crimes total to over 3 years imprisonment which we can make an easy jump to, they are then also available to go to the National Crimes Act.
We also plan on using the Director General as DOCs legislation and code of conduct and ethics documentation available also shows that any crime committed against these acts MUST be reported to the director general. And as such the director general also has an obligation to report fraud and misconduct to the Attorney General and the Australian Crimes Commission.
We will use the evidence we have to submit to lower level figures about their staff and they are then obligated to submit the complaint (by legislation) to the director general. If they do not do this, they are then setting themselves up for charges also. We will know if this is done because not only will we be submitting this information / complaints this way, but we will also be submitting directly to the director general also, who ALSO is under obligation to send to the Australian Crime Commsision and the Independant Commission Against Corruption.
So, you say ... What do you need to do now ??
You need to gather all your documents and evidence and start splitting hairs and complaints down to division / person and complaint type using the register we are currently creating. You also need to contact me for other complaint types that we are not aware of so that we can include this also.
This may take some time but time is all we have and the more the better.
- Article Count:
- 69
- SLAPP - Strategic lawsuit against public participation
- Article Count:
- 2
