Knee-jerk reaction?

Okay – so following the Sydney terrorist attack there are questions to be asked. Like why was he out on bail? But today Tony Abbott went further:

TONY Abbott says it “infuriates” him that legal aid resources are being used to challenge laws, amid concern over funding for Man Haron Monis’ High Court challenge over offensive letters he wrote to the families of Australian soldiers killed overseas.

The Prime Minister, when asked about the case, said it was “not right” that taxpayer funds be used to challenge laws in the High Court.

“We have any number of cases going through the courts which appear to be one way or another publicly funded cases and it’s almost like taxpayers are funding attacks on taxpayers and this is not right,” Mr Abbott told Sydney radio 2GB.

“Obviously people are entitled to go to the law but why they are entitled to go to the law with taxpayer-funding when they are essentially attacking public policy — when they are essentially attacking the policy of the elected government — I think is something which again exasperates and sometimes infuriates the public and frankly sometimes infuriates me.”

Abstracting from the actual individual – let’s consider what Abbott is really saying, that legal aid should be abolished. What else are people doing when they go to court? They are challenging a law of the land. Laws usually result from the policies of the elected government. So are we to believe that only rich people should challenge the law of the land? To be sure there is an argument to be made for that position, but I suspect most Australians would be somewhat uncomfortable with that position.

So let’s ask why Man Haron Monis was out on bail. Let’s ask why he wasn’t on a watch-list. Let’s ask how he managed to a get a sawn-off shotgun (how are those gun control laws going)? But let’s not get carried away. If we think legal aid should exist, then it is going to be used for purposes we don’t always agree with, by people we don’t always approve of.

This entry was posted in Libertarians don't live by argument alone, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

146 Responses to Knee-jerk reaction?

  1. Docket62 says:

    The only reason he was on bail was because the left leaning courts couldn’t make a decision that might inflame the Islamists, and so released him. Mind you the hateful bitch that assisted him set fire and kill his ex wife is on bail too, and that should be automatically revoked!

  2. one old bruce says:

    Could I get the same level of legal aid that Mohammed-Hussain got? (his real name, let’s use it: He was a fraud among many things).

    Really, if I was up on as many charges as MH was, could I get the same level of support? Me a 6th generation Australian with an Anzac grandfather and ancestors who paid the ultimate price for this nation?

  3. Nate says:

    Could there be an argument to be made that there’s a difference between public funding at trial and at appeal?

  4. HRT says:

    How about Legal Aid to the value of say, $1,000 per case?

    Lose the case, then appeals are at your expense.

  5. No. I think Abbott is saying that lefty activisist are abusing the Legal Aid system to bring cases (via dupe plaintiffs) for the purpose of challenging laws.
    By using legal aid these activists are deftly getting the taxpayer to fund activist cases, without any risk on the part of the activists.
    How else to change the law, if not bring a case of your choosing in front of a sympathetic judge of your choosing?

    Abbott is saying this must stop. Abbott is right.

  6. Rabz says:

    I’m not interested in the merits or otherwise of his high court case – scumbags like this (who shouldn’t have been in the country in the first place) have no right to be engaging in vexatious litigation at the taxpayers’ expense – and that’s all there is to it.

  7. karabar says:

    Tony is absolutely correct when he suggests that the public is exasperated and infuriated.
    But I don’t have a solution. Some are deserving of legal aid and some are not.

  8. Sinclair Davidson says:

    vexatious litigation

    Was it vexatious? His case was 3-3 High Court judges. Contentious yes, but vexatious?

  9. Rabz says:

    As far as I’m concerned, if it was at taxpayers’ expense then it does constitute vexatious litigation – and no, I am not remotely interested in the opinion of the lawyers here.

    The stupid evil bastard should have bloody well paid for it himself.

  10. notafan says:

    Same as activists using legal aid in Victoria to fund a case over a police horse dribbling on a protector.
    Legal aid doesn’t come from a bottomless bucket, I’d like to know if people are being denied aid in favour of activist cases.

  11. This is not about his case. Abbott is using it as a vehicle, but it is about activist lefty lawyers, in the legal aid system, using legal aid to change law.

    Abbott is wanting to stop it. Abbott is right.

  12. ar says:

    Looks like at least some of Monis’s court cases resulted in split decisions against him. Surely reason enough to get ongoing legal aid… even for a scumbag…

  13. eb says:

    My God. Sinc’s turning into a Socialist! Free legal aid for everyone.

    I think it’s about time he was banned from this site.

  14. vlad says:

    I’d love to bring a case before the High Court to challenge Commonwealth funding for the arts, including (and especially) the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards as being illegal. Administrative actions (according to the School Chaplains Case) have to be supportable by a legislative head of power, and I don’t see “the arts” in section 51 of the Constitution anywhere.

    (Have I missed something here by the way? Feel free to correct my reasoning if you know what you’re talking about and I have. I’ll admit right now I haven’t read the relevant case law.)

    But anyway, assuming my position is prima facie arguable, what chance does anyone think I’d have of getting Legal Aid to fund that?

    All well and good to say, oh, without Legal Aid only the rich can bring legal actions; with Legal Aid it looks as though bringing legal actions turns into a popularity contest.

  15. Beertruk says:

    I don’t have an answer but who or how would you determine what is vexatious or not?

  16. Rabz says:

    how would you determine what is vexatious or not?

    Here’s a hint – when the action is being brought by a shithead who shouldn’t be in the country in the first place.

    Or when someone else not eligible for legal aid was effectively unable to run a similar case due to the risk of losing and incurring the massive legal bills.

    The second reason is good enough for me.

  17. Andreas says:

    He got 300 hours community service, an absolutely piddling sentence. There is no way it was appropriate to spend scarce public resources appealing that sentence all the way to the High Court.

    If it was some bogan sending offensive letters to Muslims via the postal service their chances of getting legal aid for such an appeal would be zero.

  18. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Free legal aid for everyone.

    eb, you communist. That’s “zero price” not “free”. 🙂

  19. Rabz says:

    He got 300 hours community service, an absolutely piddling sentence. There is no way it was appropriate to spend scarce public resources appealing that sentence all the way to the High Court.

    If it was some bogan sending offensive letters to Muslims via the postal service their chances of getting legal aid for such an appeal would be zero.

    Touché.

  20. I don’t have an answer but who or how would you determine what is vexatious or not?

    I’ll let you know just as soon as legal aid funds my high court case where I make law by requesting a codified definition of “vexatious”.

  21. one old bruce says:

    Shall answer my own question then:

    http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/for-lawyers/policyonline/policies/8.-merit-test/8.2.-merit-test-a-state-matters

    “Merit Test A is the merit test applied in State matters and in Commonwealth civil and criminal matters. … In deciding whether it is reasonable Legal Aid NSW will take into account amongst other issues:
    *the nature and extent of any benefit that the applicant might expect to gain by receiving legal aid, *or any disadvantage or harm to the applicant that might result from being refused legal aid, and…”

    – the last consideration sounds stacked in favour of ‘poor refugees’, especially those with fraud and histrionic skills. Muhammed-Hussain would have put on a good show to get an advantage then – compared to where he came from we are all easy pickings.

  22. Delta A says:

    Nate at 8.30pm is correct.

    No legal aid for appeals.

  23. If it was some bogan sending offensive letters to Muslims via the postal service their chances of getting legal aid for such an appeal would be zero.

    Furthermore their chances would be zero of being let off with only 300 hours of community service (actually doing any hours is optional)

  24. one old bruce says:

    Isn’t that also a point here? Our system assumes anglo traditional honesty, which wasn’t great, but increasingly we are hosting the world’s greatest BS artists from the world’s most dishonest cultures. Immigration and the police have changed to face this, but the courts haven’t yet: they are being rorted.

  25. Beertruk says:

    Rabz
    #1544857, posted on December 18, 2014 at 9:00 pm
    how would you determine what is vexatious or not?

    Here’s a hint – when the action is being brought by a shithead who shouldn’t be in the country in the first place.

    Or when someone else not eligible for legal aid was effectively unable to run a similar case due to the risk of losing and incurring the massive legal bills.

    The second reason is good enough for me.

    Well Rabz, that works for me. I nominate you for the Quango post of deciding what is vexatious or not.

  26. jupes says:

    I have a theory: Lawyers exist to make work for themselves and other lawyers.

    Legal aid is a perfect example of this as it allows lawyers to help themselves to taxpayer funds. They decide (in this case) to take it to the high court and both sides get paid. If your a lefty lawyer (the majority) then there is a double bonus in taking a case such as this one to the High Court. It pisses off the people who pay for it.

    Everyone except three judges involved with this sordid affair is scum.

  27. Delta A says:

    Finally, a hint that Abott has a glimmer of understanding. Yes, people are infuriated and frustrated by the debacle which legal aid has become.

    With luck he might wake up to a few other rorts that exasperate hard-working taxpayers.

  28. Econocrat says:

    I really think the bigger issue is that this proves that extra powers for ASIO are totally unwarranted. If they could not prevent a known Islamic extremist who was facing murder related charges, and who was for some reason out on bail, killing a bunch of people then what on earth will metadata do to help them?

  29. Spider says:

    The problem is Legal Aid advocates are always telling how us they have so little money and they’re under-resourced but always seem to have money to fight pet Lefty cause célèbre or to have people wandering around G20 on the look out for infringements.

    This case hardly strikes me as the classic little man wronged. You’d be hard pressed to find a couple thousand people in the whole of Australia who would have supported him in this case. Mmmm. Maybe not.

  30. Baldrick says:

    No legal aid fullstop.

    I’m sure there would be plethora of leftard lawyers who would volunteer their time to save the poor and underprivileged, if they are so deserving.

  31. Gab says:

    He got 300 hours community service, an absolutely piddling sentence. There is no way it was appropriate to spend scarce public resources appealing that sentence all the way to the High Court.

    Amazing. Wonder how much that cost taxpayers? Talk about pissing other peoples’ money up against the wall. Mind you, his legal aid lawyer probably suggested the appeal. More “free” money for them.

  32. Spider says:

    Econocrat at 9:19 pm
    If they could not prevent a known Islamic extremist who was facing murder related charges, and who was for some reason out on bail, killing a bunch of people then what on earth will metadata do to help them?

    But if we all hold hands and sing kumbaya and create a cool hashtag we can defeat any foe.

  33. jupes says:

    Mmmm. Maybe not.

    True. He had 14,000 facebook ‘likes’.

  34. Fair enough, o’ Doomlord, but there is a world of difference between Getting a lawyer to defend you against a murder charge and having your third appeal funded by taxpayers to the tune of millions.

    A right to emergency surgery doesn’t necessarily extend to a third boob job because your boobs just aren’t sufficiently gravity-defying enough. And that’s from a connoisseur 🙂

  35. But if we all hold hands and sing kumbaya and create a cool hashtag we can defeat any foe.

    Well, when I sing it we do.

  36. jupes says:

    Amazing. Wonder how much that cost taxpayers?

    On the tele they reckoned $120,000. My guess is more.

  37. Baldrick says:

    The idea of free public health is as ludicrous as free legal aid.

  38. one old bruce says:

    Consider this: extreme dishonesty is characteristic of psychopaths. Increasingly we can diagnose psychopaths with cat scans (no pun!). The prisons are already full of psychopaths (I relay on Baron-Cohen’s work).

    We will eventually have no choice but to adopt brain-scan examination as court evidence.

    Muhammed-Husain was certainly psychopathic. Sorry guys, but liberalism is failing fast everywhere: embrace the Brave New World. Submit to technology and neuroscience. It’s our best hope. No more equality. Machines must rule. (yeah off topic but think about it)

  39. . says:

    As lawyers operate a monopoly franchise (licence), then it is not illiberal to force them to do pro bono work, is it?

  40. The idea of free public health is as ludicrous as free legal aid.

    You’re being a dick. Legal aid for high court challenges = emergency surgery on the taxpayer’s dime. Tack a pick.

  41. Baldrick says:

    Plenty of ambulance chasing lawyers are quite happy to work for no win, no fee.

  42. Take. Anyone buying a spellchecker fault?

  43. Joe says:

    So lets see,

    Lawyers write the law that parliament enacts.
    Lawyers litigate based on those laws.
    Judges are lawyers promoted to adjudicate the validity of the litigation.

    Ergo, lawyers are the law.

    To shortcut this process, we should only appoint judges from the non-lawyer citizens of the country.

  44. one old bruce says:

    Like a brain scan, cheap? Fix spelling problems.

  45. Aussiepundit says:

    TONY Abbott says it “infuriates” him that legal aid resources are being used to challenge laws, amid concern over funding for Man Haron Monis’ High Court challenge over offensive letters he wrote to the families of Australian soldiers killed overseas.

    I’m glad the Prime Minister is getting fired up, but that’s the wrong thing to be furious about.

    We just had a terrorist attack on Australian soil.

    The judiciary failed. The police failed. The politicians failed.
    Our tactical response team was revealed as joke.
    People were killed.

    Tony Abbott is all upset about….. legal aid in an old court case.

  46. jupes says:

    To shortcut this process, we should only appoint judges from the non-lawyer citizens of the country.

    That would certainly be step in right direction.

    Making them responsible for their decisions would be another one.

  47. tomix says:

    Very sinister thing for Abbott to say. Wednesday’s The Australian said that the Magistrate granted Monis bail on the accessory to murder charge because ” the case against him was weak”.
    Just a guess: The case against him was weak.

  48. Stephen of Glasshouse says:

    What the hell is a ” watch list ” ? No passports, no international flights ? 2 plods per suspect 24/7?

  49. oldsalt says:

    Legal Aid has in the past been denied to some groups of people. In the 90s Legal Aid in Broome refused to represent Indonesian fishermen, claiming their funds should be kept exclusively for indig. That led to arguably a breach of the ICCPR and individuals asscociated with the prosecution lecturing the accused prior to proceedings that in Aust culture it was an insult to the Judge to plead not guilty. Slippery slope stuff indeed.

  50. eb says:

    oldsalt… Why should Australian legal aid money be used to defend foreigners?

  51. AussiePundit says:

    Who the fuck cares?
    Why is this the first order of business on Tony Abbott’s mind in the wake of the Martin Place siege?
    Reform legal aid?

    That’s the most important thing to come out of this? Really?

  52. Mr T says:

    The abuse of legal aid by illegal entrants is on an industrial scale and at the expense of Australian citizens. The scripted, ridiculous claims repeated over and over by successive illegal immigrant to game the system must stop.

    It is simply ridiculous how offenders get bail for multiple serious indictable offences that are unrelated. Eg sexual assaults + accessory to murder.

    As Greg Glass, former Sydney magistrate sitting at Central bail court used to say, “I’ve been driving for 40 years without having been even pulled over by the police once and it’s not as if I have a ‘Magistrate on Board’ sign on my car. Bail refused.”

    “What legitimate activity was your client up to, wandering the streets at 3 am when he came to the attention of police?” No solicitor ever had an answer to that one.

  53. Why is this the first order of business on Tony Abbott’s mind in the wake of the Martin Place siege?
    Reform legal aid?

    +1

  54. I’ve had a pocket-knife mosta my life Mote. Lately, coz lotsa airline flying, I don’t always wear it.
    I’ve been told that I could be arrested for carrying it. I’m still struggling with this.

    A low IQ young buck, complete with leather jacket (if you’re a Qld’er this is a most offensive item of police dress), told me very late one night in King’s Cross that I’d better give him a “good reason” for having a “weapon” on me, or else he’d arrest me.

    Pointing to a fruit stall about 40-feet up the kerb I asked him how would he go about peeling an orange?

    He glared, continued chewing gum, glared at me some more, musta seen something in my eyes that said to him “I’m not a druggie, not a deadbeat, not here for street sex, this could end up somewhere you don’t want it to“, glared again, glanced at the fruit stall, glared at me, grunted & walked off, with some sort of threat that if he saw me again… blah blah blah….

  55. john of dandenong says:

    IMHO, the real question is – why was this piece of shit still in Oz after the first deceased digger letter?

  56. candy says:

    Aussiepundit, you may have missed it but the government is going to conduct an inquiry to be finished by end January I think and covers all aspects of how this dreadful case/situation developed. The legal aid situation is just part of the whole scenario.

    Perhaps the inquiry will lead to better processes. No-one is happy about a terrorist/psychopath accessing all government funding and the question is who navigated him through all this?

  57. Just a guess: The case against him was weak.

    Yes, because the chances of an ex-husband being involved in the gruesome murder of his ex-wife by his new girlfriend is practically zero.

    You know, Tomix, just because there’s a void left by Numbnuts, it doesn’t mean you have to fill it.

  58. IMHO, the real question is – why was this piece of shit still in Oz after the first deceased digger letter?

    +1

    Supplementary question: Don’t diggers get drunk & go looking for trouble any more?

  59. Pyrmonter says:

    A starting point is that much of legal aid relates not to disputes about settled law, but about disputed facts; on that issue, and the closely related one of the complexities of the law of evidence, some provision to protect the subject against the possibility of overzealousness on the part of the Crown seems perfectly sensible, and contingent funding of those who cannot possibly afford competent lawyers (the very very poor) about the only way to think of it working.

    Running constitutional arguments on the other hand seems a bit fraught, though note that the 3 most “conservative” High Court judges – including the former Chief, Gleeson, and Royal Commissioner Heydon, thought his appeal should be allowed; it was a rare instance of an equality of opinions (3 for, 3 against) that did for him on his first appeal.

  60. Jo Smyth says:

    Can someone explain what happens when someone is on a ‘watch list’. There must be hundreds of people eligible to be on these lists. How are they “watched” ? Who on earth has the time to continually ‘watch’ them 24/7? Near impossible task and I guess we are being conned.

  61. Nanuestalker says:

    Abbott can go fuck himself if that is true! I understand that politicians say shit they don’t believe to appeal to the masses but that is going to far.

    ELECTION NOW!

  62. Nanuestalker says:

    Can someone explain what happens when someone is on a ‘watch list’.

    Ask JC, he’s on one for his tweets to Julia Gillard

  63. Can someone explain what happens when someone is on a ‘watch list’.

    Er… what has a “watch list” got to do with anything?
    Sheikh Haron was not on a watch list. I repeat, Sheikh Haron was not on an Australian government watch list.

  64. Jo Smyth says:

    Well Steve, no need to get shirty, was just asking someone with a bit of knowledge about them, to explain how they worked. Sorry I bothered.

  65. Wah, was not being shirty. Blame internet aprosodia.

    It’ll be about 2 years before I get over the fact that this dildo wasn’t on a watch list.

  66. Jo Smyth says:

    Steve, believe me I agree with you absolutely. I would still like to know how these so called ‘watch lists’ work. Seems to me nobody knows.

  67. None says:

    The split ruling was because one of the judges didn’t rock up (there’s 7 on the bench)

    Was it vexatious? Yes. He was trying to avoid charges and the lawyers thought they’d use our money and use him as a dupe to prosecute one of their pet causes and/or just take the money even when they knew it would be a waste of court time. Monis wasn’t going to care either way. It wasn’t his money either.

    So he is a citizen. He qualified for legal aid. And he qualified for a hell of a lot of it by the looks of it – sums which an average working man or woman would never be able to afford. So if citizens are limited by their income he can be limited by his lack of income too as to how much he fleeces from tax payers.
    They are a law firm. Naturally they can’t lobby politicians or organise petitions like we get to do. That’s a little democratic. And messy. And slow. They can form their own lawyer association and prosecute what they like but that might mean their pocket. But when risk free money is on offer, well anything’s the go.

    Related: I very much despise activists and that side of the legal fraternity who pull all sorts of stunts to try change laws by judicial fiat. The refo industry has made it into an art form. The gaystapo tries it periodically. It’s particularly galling when our own money is used against us. Both judicial fiats and funding of such stunts need to be stomped out.

    It is for that reason I am also against the public sector being unionised. For as long as we have a political party tied to the unions (i.e. Labor) a unionised public sector is effectively organised against the people and and is inherently undemocratic. Kill the Labor-union affiliation and you can organise all you like. But for as long as that stands there should be no unionised public sector (and preferably very little public sector at all)

    Abbott is right. It’s abused and we all know it’s abused. I hope something comes of it.

  68. JC says:

    An appeal to the High Court is very expensive. Who gets to decide taxpayer money is spent to get a case to the court? It appears to me there is abuse of the system from the cases this prick took there.

    From time to time we hear Ref cases taken to the High Court. Who the hell is paying for this? If refs have 10K to give smugglers they ought to finance their own day in the High Court – not ripped out of my pocket with the help of some Alan Rintoul type legal schlep.

  69. Peter from SA says:

    This is about lawyers being attracted to big-noting themselves in an activist High Court case that probably has nothing relevant for the average citizen and, ultimately, 300 hours of community service relevance for this guy. $100,000+ well spent?

    Otherwise the legal aid laywers could have tackled 20-30 small-time cases that might actually have significant life effects on the people involved, nevermind the fact that more than a handful of them might be more worthy and deserving than the Iranian.

    Legal aid money needs cost-benefit analysis.

  70. Infidel Tiger says:

    Abbott messing in State Govt affairs. That fool really is out of his depth.

  71. C.L. says:

    Populist blarney.

    Abbott wanted to strike a chord with the peeps.

    The “pub test” thing, as communist Alan Jones calls it.

    (As if Jonesy would know what gets said in the public bar, away from the ladies’ lounge).

    Abbott doesn’t care – in fact he supports universal legal aid – and he won’t change a thing.

  72. None says:

    An appeal to the High Court is very expensive. Who gets to decide taxpayer money is spent to get a case to the court? It appears to me there is abuse of the system from the cases this prick took there.

    I don’ t know who decides – I’m sure its some publically funded independent (!) body which Gillard-Rudd ensured can never be held accountable by the public. But yes it’s gamed. When Gillard-Rudd were around the refo industry had clagged the appeal/court system. So if the Immigration perps didnt give a free card to an illegal, off they went onto a line of appeals from Ref Review Tribunal/AAT, yada yada federal magistrates all the way to the high court (the legal types can tell you the pathway). All of it publically funded. The idea was almost to wear people down into submission. Or buy time to have babies etc. The refo lawyers were raking it in – advising the illegals what to say, do etc. They have faked being Christians, faked being gay yada yada. AND WE WERE FUNDING NON-CITIZEN TO USE OUR COURTS AGAINST US. Remember the refo industry took on a high court case under Gillard which Gillard lost spectacularly to guarantee their gravy train.
    I think Abbott made some changes earlier this year to stop some of the publically funded appeals – but I’ve lost track. I don’t follow much about boat people these days as I knwo Morrison has it under control. Morrison bless him hasn’t given an inch to these f***ers. He’s been onto their scams like when he ousted those ‘charity workers’ who were in fact organising illegals for their ‘appeals’.

    I still live in hope that one day we will see the likes of Rintoul et al in jail.

  73. JC says:

    Peter

    People like Julian Burnside seem to be obsessed with the Refs. It may be because of his ideological views, but he seems to live reasonably high off the hog. Where’s the money coming from as i wouldn’t think privately funded “herman rights” lawyers would be earning the huge amount of dollars from private sources.

    If he indeed is being funded by the taxpayer it’s close to making me feel sick.

  74. JC says:

    Interesting, None. I always knew there was a trough but I didn’t realize just how big it was and how the money was siphoned from the taxpayer and into the pockets of the ref industry. So all these sham public bodies are the way the cash gets doled out. Interesting.

  75. People like Julian Burnside seem to be obsessed with the Refs. It may be because of his ideological views, but he seems to live reasonably high off the hog. Where’s the money coming from as i wouldn’t think privately funded “herman rights” lawyers would be earning the huge amount of dollars from private sources.
    If he indeed is being funded by the taxpayer it’s close to making me feel sick.

    JC, those “pro-bono” reffo lawyers make their money by winning an appeal.
    They organise their “clients” into a legal stoush with the commonwealth, tell everybody they are working pro-bono, but if they win, and the loser (the commonwealth) pays costs, then the “pro-bono” guys pop in a bill for legal costs that would choke a horse.
    The judge has to approve this costs order of course. You can guess how much obstacle that is.

  76. Peter from SA says:

    People like Julian Burnside seem to be obsessed with the Refs.

    I think that’s it JC. From memory the media featured his Toorak (?) mansion a few years ago when he and his wife offered a room for a refugee, or some other sanctimonious act. I reckon a ref or two might have spent a couple of nights on a couch until they were moved to more suitable quarters, when the cameras were gone.

    So no refs, no endless money conveyor belt. That’s why they don’t mind about the deaths at sea.

  77. Infidel Tiger says:

    First they take away your weapons. Now they want to remove the ability of anyone but the wealthy to challenge the legal and judicial web.

    This is evil in action.

  78. JC says:

    Wow, I see. Steve, I didn’t realize just organized and calculated it all is. If Abbott had a set of balls he would make these specific awarded costs un-reclaimable.

  79. Peter from SA says:

    JC, those “pro-bono” reffo lawyers make their money by winning an appeal.

    There’s a few related scams involved in migration law too, where by lodging a case or an appeal the legal party gets automatically paid costs. A guy here eventually got done for it after lodging literally hundreds of cases. He must have made heaps of money before he got really cocky and just went all-out.

  80. Well, at least force it so that if someone is working pro bono they cannot claim legal costs from anybody.

    That’d kill Burnside’s business model in two seconds flat.

  81. None says:

    Just a guess: The case against him was weak.

    Well maybe not. Depends on judges, lawyers and their particular pet legal projects. I am thinking of when Barry Spurr got an injunction against New Matilda. Legal types were salivating that it may be the landmark case to establish a tort of privacy or whatever quite a few (mostly lefty) legal types have been baying about. Spurr’s own job, reputation etc or even New Matilda’s behaviour is irrelevant. They just wanted to turn his case into their own pet cause. Like I said, it’s the legal system. Not the place for justice.

    Something else may be at play too: police, ASIO etc know most of the trouble makers; there are some they’d like to keep off the streets because they know they are time bombs. But of course you can’t just detain a person on even your most reasonable expectation or most averse risk assessment that they will go stupid at some stage. So there is a particular strategy where you hit them with any or every crime or misdimeanor and keep them off the streets that way. It serves a second purpose too. One way to deligitimise the domestic jihadi boys (and girls (so one camp says) is to treat them like common criminals. Mind you killing your ex wife and setting her alight is not quite in the realm of keeping them off the streets for so much as an unpaid parking ticket.

  82. Glenfilthie says:

    “If we think legal aid should exist, then it is going to be used for purposes we don’t always agree with, by people we don’t always approve of.”
    —————————————————————————————————————————
    Utter libertarian BULLSHIT.

    How about we ask ‘why do we not approve of these purposes and people’ while you’re doing your soul searching? Why is it too much to ask the f-nozzles in the judiciary for some common sense and discretion? How about some honesty for a change: what is a fuggin moslem LOON going to do to improve your society by tearing down established law?

    There is nothing noble or tolerant about tolerating abuse like this. Being nice to your enemies does not make them your friends. You would figure that 1400 years of moslem history would get that point across.

  83. Peter from SA says:

    Depends on judges, lawyers and their particular pet legal projects.

    It shouldn’t matter, should it? But Toyota employees have Judge Mordy to thank for losing their jobs.

  84. Abbott is likely acting on instructions. Focus groups will have revealed to the clueless hierarchy of the LNP that Joe Public is pretty sour-arsed at the perp being out on bail despite having a current rap sheet about a mile long, and that is just the sexual assault section of it.

    So Abbott trots out with a shot at Legal Aid, who have been stupid enough to make an easy target of themself.

  85. None says:

    Why I like Morrison. He just tells them.

    Mr Burnside, an outspoken critic of the Federal Government’s immigration detention policies, made the claim while accepting the Sydney Peace Prize last night.

    He said a confidential source told him witnesses to the death of Mr Barati were offered transfer to Australia if they took back their statements.

    “My understanding is that some people in the Manus Island detention are being offered the opportunity of being taken to mainland Australia on condition they withdraw any witness statements they’ve made,” he told the function at Sydney Town Hall.

    However, the Immigration Minister has strongly denied the allegations.

    “This is a false and offensive suggestion made without any basis or substantiation by advocates with proven form of political malice and opposition to the Government’s successful border protection policies. The government once again rejects these claims,” Mr Morrison said.

    Hell yeah. I’m trying to find some old articles where a QC (was it Paris?) pointed out how the refo industry game(d) the appeals process.

  86. Peter from SA says:

    So Abbott trots out with a shot at Legal Aid

    I can’t recall him ever saying anything else that might have resonated with the average person. Must have mis-read his lines …

  87. None says:

    But Toyota employees have Judge Mordy to thank for losing their jobs.

    Yes and Bolt got a TV program and nightly radio segment and annual overseas holidays.

    There is a god and he has a wicked sense of humour.

    I’m still furious LNP welched on 18C though.

  88. Habib says:

    So it takes two room temperature casualties before these cretins think there’s a problem? Let alone the migration issues, WTF is the protocol to hand a matter over to the ADF? Scipioni said such threshold wasn’t reached; I think the taxpayers who fund his existence are entitled to know when plod thinks they’re out of the game, and the pros should be unleashed.

  89. Did anybody else catch Scipione’s press conference yesterday in Marting Place where a couple of journos put unvetted questions to him about the matter of why the ADF wasn’t even put on stand-by?

    Scippers became quite dark of visage. He very carefully & clearly said that the ADF is near useless at “this sort of thing”, that they do a “few practices a year” while his boys do it for real all the time, that his boys are professionals, and calling in amateuers who barely know what they are doing would be a mistake, and again, the ADF know nothing about shooty stuff, etc etc etc.

    I-heard-every-word.

  90. None says:

    I-heard-every-word.

    I didn’t. But I just heard the dick swinging from here.

  91. Habib says:

    What a c*#t. TAG E/W train constantly, for nothing else. To not use that asset is culpable. Fuck him.

  92. JC says:

    So it takes two room temperature casualties before these cretins think there’s a problem? Let alone the migration issues, WTF is the protocol to hand a matter over to the ADF? Scipioni said such threshold wasn’t reached; I think the taxpayers who fund his existence are entitled to know when plod thinks they’re out of the game, and the pros should be unleashed.

    Habib, what do you think would have been done differently?

  93. Those were the words of Scipione Habib. He actually said words to the effect of “The ADF dont know jack shit about this stuff, they’d fuck it up, they’re cowboy amateurs, my boys are the baddest badasses around, and they proved it here yesterday morning”

    I don’t know who the two reporters were, but I’ll bet they get 400 traffic stops in the next 6 months.

  94. Jarrod says:

    If an employer takes a significant risk with workplace safety that gets someone killed, then the legislation suggests that he can be sent to jail.

    If a magistrate or parole committee member takes a significant risk with public safety that gets someone killed then legislation should provide for him to be punished with jail.

    It’s not a bad principle, extend it.

  95. 2dogs says:

    They are challenging a law of the land.

    No, in many cases the law is accepted, and the defendant is just disputing the prosecution’s view of the facts.

    Abbott is saying that legal aid should only be available to applicants where the dispute concerns a question of fact, and not where the dispute relates to a question of law.

  96. BorisG says:

    What else are people doing when they go to court? They are challenging a law of the land.

    No, usually not. They are often challenging claims about facts (questions of fact) or legal interpretation of the facts (questions of law). Quite seldom do they challenge the laws under which they have been convicted.

    For instance, a convicted murderer may challenge the assertion that he killed the person, or he may admit that he did but challenge the assertion that the way he killed them amounts to murder rather than, say, manslaughter. But it would be a bit unusual to challenge the law that says that murder constitutes a crime punishable by a custodial sentence.

    Did this fellow challenge the law under which his has been convicted?

  97. Blogstrop says:

    We shouldn’t be giving scum who write abusive letters to war widows a cent, nor should activist lawyers get activist on taxpayer dollars without some realistic overview and power of veto. This argument is really about vetting who gets the cash. The system is way too lax.

  98. Cold-Hands says:

    There is no doubt that the Legal Aid system is being gamed and that the Legal Aid lawyers prefer high profile and higher paying cases (ie High Court and Activist cases) than the bread and butter cases that Legal Aid was supposed to have been set up to support. I can’t think who would be best placed to adjudicate the cost/benefit on whether a case should be eligible for Legal Aid- hard to imagine a Lawyer/magistrate wanting to upset other members of the club. It’s obscene that lawyers can bill Legal Aid for silk’s fees when smaller cases are knocked back for lack of funds. Maybe a capped fee is called for, for Legal Aid lawyers regardless of the brief. For appeals, appellants should face some form of co-payment. As it stands, they’re prepared to tie up the courts forever squandering the taxpayers’ money because it is totally costless for them. Some form of contribution (be it only 20% of each welfare cheque) might make them think twice about going back to the courts.

  99. John Comnenus says:

    I don’t understand your complaint Sinc.

    Most people who use legal aid use it to establish their innocence. That is right and proper.

    Abbott seems to be complaining about legal aid being used by activists to get the courts to overturn the law through precedent by appealing up the chain in the hope of eventual success. I agree with Abbott on this. Legal aid is there to help the poor avoid being wrongly convicted, not a slush fund tor activist lawyers to pursue cases that might establish precedents more to their liking.

  100. Alfonso says:

    You must avoid tax. It’s the only way to sidestep paying for them.
    We ain’t seen nothing yet, wait until the High Court starts using the Aboriginal Preamble to provide “context” to the rest of the Constitution.

  101. Rabz says:

    Legal aid is there to help the poor avoid being wrongly convicted, not a slush fund for activist lawyers to pursue cases that might establish precedents more to their liking.

    In a nutshell.

  102. Bern1 says:

    Has anything more been heard about the witness who was supposed to have bumped into the terrorist and his two mates outside the coffee shop?That story seems to have died completely.
    From what I know a watch list is passports and secure buildings.Bit useless really,given that people on bail usually have their passports withheld and you need a pass into secure buildings anyway.

  103. Robbo says:

    “So let’s ask why Man Haron Monis was out on bail. Let’s ask why he wasn’t on a watch-list. Let’s ask how he managed to a get a sawn-off shotgun (how are those gun control laws going)? But let’s not get carried away. If we think legal aid should exist, then it is going to be used for purposes we don’t always agree with, by people we don’t always approve of.”

    Good questions Sinc and only a fully transparent enquiry will reveal the answers. While you are at it how about a comment from you about the call for everyone in Australia to have a gun if they so wish from your pet LDP Senator?

  104. Token says:

    Was it vexatious? His case was 3-3 High Court judges. Contentious yes, but vexatious?

    Yes, it was critical to 3 of the High Court judges that people like him and his wife can harass the families of people serving in the military. It was critical to the judges he did not serve 300 hours of community service and was enabled to waste hundreds of thousands of public aid dollars.

  105. Rabz says:

    Has anything more been heard about the witness who was supposed to have bumped into the terrorist and his two mates outside the coffee shop?

    No funnily enough, but presumably there would be plenty of CCTV footage that could demonstrate if there were indeed three similarly dressed men in Martin Place heading towards the Lindt cafe.

  106. Token says:

    Legal aid is there to help the poor avoid being wrongly convicted, not a slush fund for activist lawyers to pursue cases that might establish precedents more to their liking.

    In a nutshell.

    As was noted by Richard Fernandez, the odious twitter troll Murphy assisted the killer. Can anyone guess where the money came from?

  107. Token says:

    Bern1, that story as reported earlier in the week is looking very weak:

    The Australian can reveal that Monis spent at least an hour in the cafe before he pulled a sawn-off shotgun from a blue bag, long enough for a chance encounter with one of his lawyers.

    The lawyer, who The Australian has agreed not to name, said he walked into the Lindt Chocolate Cafe on Monday morning to find Monis sitting at one of the tables

    Note how the legal fraternity is working the same game Glowball Warmining scientists tried on?

    Junior vice-president of the NSW Bar Association, Arthur Moses SC, asked The Australian that the lawyer’s name not be published, saying another of Monis’s lawyers had received death threats. “As a result, there are concerns for the safety of other lawyers,’’ Mr Moses said.

    Monis’s lawyer described a ­peculiar client who was intelligent and understood instructions, but who ignored advice. “He never came across as violent or crazy,’’ he said. “He had some extreme views, but not violent.’’

  108. Token says:

    If we think legal aid should exist, then it is going to be used for purposes we don’t always agree with, by people we don’t always approve of.”

    So how can we find out the number of other people on seperate murder and sexual assault charges, with a history of harassing private citizens, are receiving legal aid?

  109. Fred Lenin. says:

    Ha ha ,serious meetings of the law trade re in order,damage limitation tactics abound,save us from loss of income and status. Put pressure on our political colleagues to keep up legal aid a huge source of income for us,we might lose the respect of our criminal clients. Get the high court to make cover up spin.
    The law trade ,sprung from defrocked crinminal priests in the middle ages,hasn’t changed much ,has it?

  110. Jessie says:

    The Australian today provides an account of Monday – one of Monis’ lawyers meeting accidentally with Monis in the Lindt café.

    Junior vice-president of the NSW Bar Association, Arthur Moses SC, asked The Australian that the lawyer’s name not be published, saying another of Monis’s lawyers had received death threats. “As a result, there are concerns for the safety of other lawyers,’’ Mr Moses said.

    Monis’s lawyer described a ­peculiar client who was intelligent and understood instructions, but who ignored advice. “He never came across as violent or crazy,’’ he said. “He had some extreme views, but not violent.’’

    Sydney siege: Killer Man Haron Monis ‘was cool as a cucumber’ before siege

  111. Jessie says:

    Apologies, Token reported the same above.

  112. ar says:

    Don’t diggers get drunk & go looking for trouble any more?

    Eeh… imagine the ADF enquiries that would follow this…

  113. Jessie says:

    Sinc,

    Those are all good questions. Perhaps while we wait for Abbott’s infuriation to settle down the economists can do a report on the cocao and cocoa trade and industries.

    I believe PNG women are now developing such a ‘organic’ trade, Indonesia being the main producer in Asia……….

    Gelatin is being looked at (report 25/11/2014 in Confectionary News), World Vision is on to the choccie companies and being ethical much like diamonds, and it is reported the chocolate and confectionary industry has remained ‘resilient’ in the current economic downturn (2012). What is the status currently?

    2014 Map on production here: http://www.confectionerynews.com/Trends/Emerging-Markets/United-Cacao-promises-chocolate-makers-control-on-cocoa-fermentation
    I guess most children in the world enjoy this product?

  114. Eeh… imagine the ADF enquiries that would follow this…

    It plays like this:
    Diggers lurching back to barracks; “We worked over that shithead who’s been handing out hate letters at KIA funerals”
    RSM: “Son, you’re drunk & rambling… go to bed”
    ………………
    Officer in charge of arrest party: “RSM where are the following troopers [list of names]”
    RSM: “They’re in bed, sah! I should add sah, that all those men have been here in bed all night sah!”
    Officer “Oh, I see, you’ll vouch for that? Hmmm…. well, they’re not wanted for anything serious, just kicking a mongrel dog. Arrest Party, abouuuuut face! Arrest Party, back to your own unit, quiiiiiiiick much!”

  115. ar says:

    RSM: “They’re in bed, sah! I should add sah, that all those men have been here in bed all night sah!”

    And their phones have been erased, sah! Nothing has been uploaded to social media, sah! The leftard media may have seen something but have decided not to pursue it, sah! Oh wait… the above statements are not operative, sah!

  116. John Dee says:

    I have no legal training nor bush lawyer experience but feel confident on relying on common sense in this matter.
    Legal Aid , surely , was intended for people who felt they were unjustly accused but had no ability to fund even the most basic legal action.
    Fine so far. I would like most taxpayers support that….but no further.
    In other words if you lose your taxpayer funded case in the lowest court…game over.
    If a person still feels aggrieved and wishes to pursue the matter legally than that person should be entirely responsible for the costs…and possible penalties… incurred as a result of losing the case.
    Having the ability to take a case directly to a higher court..e.g. the High Court…on even an absurdly minor matter such as a police horse dribbling on an activist quite obviously suggests there are at least two parties gaming the system.
    The litigant and the lawyer.
    Abbott is right….it should be stopped.
    HOWEVER , Abbott is also very wrong.
    As others have pointed out…is this a legitimate concern at this time ?
    Or a bloody politician so typically raising the distraction flag when serious questions are about to be raised on their performance…and that of the police and security forces?
    A scumbag killed two citizens and terrified many more.
    A victim grappled with the terrorist whilst nobody acted for several minutes.
    A huge timelapse between the gunshot that killed that victim and any action at all from heavily armed police doing sweet fuck-all outside.
    The excuse that they were constantly evaluating the situation to determine action falls apart immediately the first hostage escaped and informed the police that there was one terrorist with a shotgun.
    A head shot should have been delivered at the next sighting.
    Incompetence everywhere.
    Except one sole individual…Tori Johnson.
    Google the definition of a hero….Tori qualifies in every count.
    Serious questions need to be asked of Immigration, Security, Police , Media, before we tackle the stupidity of Legal Aid to a scumbag.

  117. Viva says:

    Monis appealed to the High Court against his conviction for sending poison pen letters to families of deceased soldiers on the basis of free speech. Comments?

  118. Barry says:

    Perhaps the problem is with the justice system and with public funding of NGOs rather than with legal aid:

    – is it right that we have a small number of political appointees, who are beyond censure, have unlimited tenure, and have almost unlimited powers, deciding these matters. An elected judiciary, with limited tenure, would create pressure for judges to serve the community’s interests in respect of both the way criminals are dealt with and the cost of the administration of justice. The logistics of this would be a nightmare, so I think the answer is to have a ‘judicial parliament’ – that is, an elected body whose members are responsible for judicial appointments and dismissals, would decide if a case had sufficient merit to be heard, would decide if a case had sufficient merit to receive legal aid, would have to power to extinguish any common law rights judges may have for criticisms of their decisions, and would decide if criticisms of a court that might otherwise be considered as contempt were legitimate and in the public interest;

    – is it right that the range of matters some judges are considering go well beyond establishing the facts and interpreting the law. For example, who said judges could ‘discover’ implied rights? Who said they should consider whether a law passed by parliament was compatible with the ‘rights’ they have discovered? Who said that they should ignore black-letter law, because they believe it would not have been parliament’s intention?

    – is it right that decisions to hear cases, or to hear appeals, can amount to little more than political statements;

    – is it right that the law can be arbitrarily applied and subjectively decided;

    – how many leftist lawyers are involved in the sausage factory of cases involving leftist causes – illegals etc – and in doing so are making a tidy living from taxpayer funds provided to NGOs.

    As others have said, in socialist Australia those who attract the sympathies of the Left seem to have unlimited access to free legals and, it seems, they often get a free pass from the justice system, no matter how serious their offence.

    Abbott’s comments once again show that the Liberals have neither the nous nor the courage to deal with leftist control of the institutions of this country. The only way to beat the Left is to change the institutions and the rules, both of which the Left are so adept at exploiting.

  119. jupes says:

    Very good post Barry.

  120. And their phones have been erased, sah! Nothing has been uploaded to social media, sah!

    Ah yes, times have changed. I’ll have to update my brain.
    I’ve actually seen the following excuse used:
    “The claim by you men that you were here all night, playing monopoly, [pause for ominous effect] is not supported by Trooper Jones’ black eye, nor by several of you having skinned knuckles, care to explain this anyone?”
    “Er… yessir…. Jonesey landed on Park Lane and refused to pay rent, enforcement of collection got a bit boisterious.”
    “Hmmmmmm…………. (disbelieving eye)….. Jones, let this be a lesson to you, always settle debts promptly”
    “Yessir, very good advice sir, I know that now sir”
    ………
    (after to coast is clear)
    “*pheeeeeew*, that was close, thank fuck he didn’t ask to see the monopoly set, coz we haven’t got one!”
    (sudden appearance of RSM from out of the floorboards or somewhere)
    “That is because he’s a Duntroon graduate! By the way, I’ve never seen that one used before, so you lot only get two days of kitchen parade!”

  121. Barry
    #1545393, posted on December 19, 2014 at 9:47 am

    +1

  122. . says:

    Baldrick noted no win no fee.

    Err, Bob Carr tried to stop this in NSW.

    The more politicians fuck about with out ancient legal rights, the more fucked everything gets.

    I want to go back to 1988.

  123. . says:

    Good questions Sinc and only a fully transparent enquiry will reveal the answers. While you are at it how about a comment from you about the call for everyone in Australia to have a gun if they so wish from your pet LDP Senator?

    Why are you lying? Fuck me people who don’t like gun ownership are lying turds.

  124. . says:

    Glenfilthie
    #1545104, posted on December 19, 2014 at 12:01 am
    “If we think legal aid should exist, then it is going to be used for purposes we don’t always agree with, by people we don’t always approve of.”
    —————————————————————————————————————————
    Utter libertarian BULLSHIT.

    Okay, so you don’t believe in the presumption of innocence. You’re just another unthinking “LauraNorder” suckhole ready to blow the NSW Governemnt and Ray Hadley.

  125. . says:

    The “pub test” thing, as communist Alan Jones calls it.

    (As if Jonesy would know what gets said in the public bar, away from the ladies’ lounge).

    LOL

    Put him in pub in Kalgoorlie. That would be good for a laugh.

  126. Eyrie says:

    Dot,
    I’ll take 1963.

  127. Cold-Hands says:

    A huge timelapse between the gunshot that killed that victim and any action at all from heavily armed police doing sweet fuck-all outside.

    The first shot heard was at 2.04AM, ~9 minutes before Tori was downed. The TRG readied themselves to go in but were stood down when the shot was observed to be directed into a door. Once Tori was shot, the TRG went in within ~90 seconds.

  128. A Lurker says:

    Monis appealed to the High Court against his conviction for sending poison pen letters to families of deceased soldiers on the basis of free speech. Comments?

    He exercised his freedom to speak by writing and sending those letters. The conviction was the consequence of his free speech. He should have then done his community service, been forced to apologise to the families involved, and then immediately kicked out of the country with no right of return – and that should have been the end of the matter.

  129. Put him in pub in Kalgoorlie. That would be good for a laugh.

    The man is many things, including a former football coach. He’d likely get on. He does have the ability to connect with people.

  130. . says:

    Do they play much rugger in rural WA?

  131. jupes says:

    The first shot heard was at 2.04AM, ~9 minutes before Tori was downed. The TRG readied themselves to go in but were stood down when the shot was observed to be directed into a door. Once Tori was shot, the TRG went in within ~90 seconds.

    I have some questions:

    How does this reconcile with a previous statement that Tori started wrestling for the gun once the fuckwit was falling asleep? It is unlikely that he was falling asleep minutes after he fired a shot.

    How long was Tori wrestling for the gun?

    What were the other males in the room doing while Tori was wrestling with the fuckwit?

  132. Do they play much rugger in rural WA?

    Strictly speaking, that ain’t “rural” that is “mining” Different demographic.
    Based on the scientific samply size of every mining town pub I’ve been into in WA, rugby league and rugby union are extremely popular sports. Probably something to do with the high number of NZ/NSW/Qld persons FIFOing etc.

  133. Jessie says:

    Viva asks,
    Monis appealed to the High Court against his conviction for sending poison pen letters to families of deceased soldiers on the basis of free speech. Comments?

    Transcripts and the chronology of Monis and/or ?use of legal aid monies and politicisation by law firms is here.

    This appeal lists Case Information catchwords see bold below:

    Constitutional law (Cth) – Operation and effect of Constitution – Interpretation – Implied freedom of political communication about government or political matters – System of representative and responsible government – Applicants charged under s 471.12 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (“the Code”) which creates an offence of using a postal or similar service in a way that reasonable persons would consider menacing, harassing or offensive – Whether s 471.12 of the Code invalid because it infringes the implied freedom of political communication about government or political matters.

  134. Fibro says:

    The first intelligent thing out of Abbotts mouth in about 6 months. Will he follow through and do something about it? Not a chance for One term Tony.

  135. Nanuestalker says:

    The first intelligent thing out of Abbotts mouth in about 6 months.
    – Fibro

    Alot of youhave made comments that echo Fibro’sThose of you whose sentiments echo that of Fibro’s comment need to take a good hard look at the company you’re in.
    Knee-jerk reaction indeed! I remind you of the legal maxim:

    Hard cases make for bad law

    But then again alot of you flip-flop on such issues with your bleeding hearts.

  136. 3d1k says:

    Well said SD.

  137. Natural Instinct says:

    You economists like to talk about “stocks” and “flows” and come down hard on people who confuse them.
    So why does having equity in a house (stock) prevent you from getting legal aid (flow) when you are suffering a reduce income (another flow) due to the influence of a court case.
    In other words – the law is for the rich paying themselves, and for the poor being paid by the taxpayer.
    But get involved in a court case when you are “middle class” and you will surely lose all your assets, or you just give up and settle.

  138. rickw says:

    No legal aid fullstop.

    Exactly, for any program proposed by Government, Conservative Politicians need to ask themselves what it will look like WHEN it gets captured by The Left.

    Legal Aid has been well and truly captured by The Left, the treatment is now far worse than symptom.

  139. Viva says:

    Thanks for that Jessie.

  140. stackja says:

    Jerk gets a knees up.

  141. Aussiepundit says:

    candy

    The legal aid situation is just part of the whole scenario.

    Yes, it’s a part, but a minor part.
    This strikes me as an application of the political rule to “never let a crisis go to waste.”

  142. . says:

    Fibro
    #1545474, posted on December 19, 2014 at 11:07 am
    The first intelligent thing out of Abbotts mouth in about 6 months. Will he follow through and do something about it? Not a chance for One term Tony.

    Err yes lets have the Federal PM force the states to abandon legal aid!?

    You’re out of your mind fibro, possibly on the wrong site and you’ve been drinking the Ray Hadley Kool Aid for too long.

  143. stackja says:

    Aussiepundit
    #1545868, posted on December 19, 2014 at 7:07 pm
    candy

    The legal aid situation is just part of the whole scenario.

    Yes, it’s a part, but a minor part.
    This strikes me as an application of the political rule to “never let a crisis go to waste.”

    Bill Shorten needs a crisis to take people’s mind off TURC and a certain lady he may have known.

  144. Aussiepundit says:

    Monis’ lawyer met him in the Lindt cafe and talked with him minutes before the siege.
    Let’s just agree that the odds of that chance encounter happening are astronomically small.

  145. Monis’ lawyer met him in the Lindt cafe and talked with him minutes before the siege.
    Let’s just agree that the odds of that chance encounter happening are astronomically small.

    On the surface of it AP, yes, however it seems the lawyer’s practice is just around the corner.

  146. AussiePundit says:

    On the surface of it AP, yes, however it seems the lawyer’s practice is just around the corner.

    Given the number of office towers and the number of workers and coffee shops in the city, it’s still pretty remote.

Comments are closed.