How process, not truth, is used in anti-discrimination and defamation matters to silence and bankrupt: NSW Parliament should take note of this example of idiotic but perfectly legal process provided by Chief Justice Tom Bathurst
by Ganesh Sahathevan
The Australian has reported that One Nation member of the NSW Upper House, Mark Latham, has moved a private members bill to amend the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act. The Act has clearly been abused, and the danger it poses to everyone, including ethnics, is in its process.
While lawyers and judges will tell any who cares to listen that complaints pursuant to the Act can be defended before the courts, what is not said is how the process in itself can harass, bankrupt and silence anyone against whom a complaint has been made.
This writer's favourite example of process in one provided by the Chairman of the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board, who is also the Chief Justice of NSW, Tom Bathurst.
This was not an anti-discrimination or defamation matter but an application for admission to practise law in NSW which failed. The Chief Justice had determined that this writer is among other things a liar, defamer and blackmailer involved in international conspiracies to overthrow governments, and this enquiry was part of his process of investigation. It is nevertheless an example of court process, provided by the Chief Justice and some of the most senior judicial officers in this state.
In a letter sent this writer in October 2019 The Board's then Executive Officer,Louise Pritchard acting under the authority of Chairman Bathurst actually said:
Now, this was a letter from the Chief Justice, so it demanded much careful consideration. After all due consideration and respect was accorded his request the following response was provided:
END
Search Results
Mark Latham takes aim at discrimination cases overkill
The Australian-14 hours ago
One Nation's NSW leader, Mark Latham, is moving to significantly raise the bar for complaints being made to the Anti-Discrimination Board, ...
The Australian has reported that One Nation member of the NSW Upper House, Mark Latham, has moved a private members bill to amend the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act. The Act has clearly been abused, and the danger it poses to everyone, including ethnics, is in its process.
While lawyers and judges will tell any who cares to listen that complaints pursuant to the Act can be defended before the courts, what is not said is how the process in itself can harass, bankrupt and silence anyone against whom a complaint has been made.
This writer's favourite example of process in one provided by the Chairman of the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board, who is also the Chief Justice of NSW, Tom Bathurst.
This was not an anti-discrimination or defamation matter but an application for admission to practise law in NSW which failed. The Chief Justice had determined that this writer is among other things a liar, defamer and blackmailer involved in international conspiracies to overthrow governments, and this enquiry was part of his process of investigation. It is nevertheless an example of court process, provided by the Chief Justice and some of the most senior judicial officers in this state.
In a letter sent this writer in October 2019 The Board's then Executive Officer,Louise Pritchard acting under the authority of Chairman Bathurst actually said:
Now, this was a letter from the Chief Justice, so it demanded much careful consideration. After all due consideration and respect was accorded his request the following response was provided:
The licence number on the character reference is that of the referee, sighted by the authorised witness,Mr (name deleted).
The certified copy of the driver's license (number deleted ) is indeed my own, and provided as I understand the rules of application require.
The Chairman and the Board remained silent for a very long time,and after a number of request for a response to determine if further clarification was needed, the Chairman , via his LPAB Secretariat said:
You have answered the question satisfactorily (paraphrase).
The above illustrates how even this state's highest judicial officer can make demands, no matter how absurd, that add to time and costs. Simply saying that a matter can be appealed before the courts gives the impression that the rule of law is being upheld, when it is not necessarily so.
Litigants in anti-discrimination matters have found themselves in debt simply jumping through the hoops (ask Bernard Gaynor)and it was a defamation judge, Judith Gibson, who warned warned:
Litigants in anti-discrimination matters have found themselves in debt simply jumping through the hoops (ask Bernard Gaynor)and it was a defamation judge, Judith Gibson, who warned warned:
"We can't have enormously expensive litigation driving people to have to sell their homes or go bankrupt.
"That's not a system of law that is going to attract admiration and respect from other countries or large companies wanting to do business in Australia."
"If we don't affect changes, we are going to have a significant loss of faith in the courts as the significant provider of justice, and that is a matter of great concern."
The NSW Parliament has now before it an opportunity to rid this state of a piece of legislation that does not necessarily have the support of ethnics.
The NSW Parliament has now before it an opportunity to rid this state of a piece of legislation that does not necessarily have the support of ethnics.
END
Comments
Post a Comment