Welcome

16 thoughts on “Welcome”

1. Who eaten a swordfish?
   I’m looking for manual how to cook it.

   Reply

   1. Read ‘Old Man and the Sea’ by Ernest Hemingway or watch Adam Liaw on SBS … he has cooked a swordfish.

      Reply

2. If anyone knows an Australian movie producer who can make a local version of this movie, please get in touch ASAP

   The owner of this site will direct you to the right place.

   Reply

   1. Try Matilda Films.

      Reply

3. Hi there, I’d really like to become a member, having supported the Bush Tele for years and the rights and struggle of Aborrginal people of Australia all my life.

   http://gravatar.com/jinjirrie

   Reply

   1. Hello Jin, we don’t really have members but you’re welcome to contribute by emailing the editor.
      in solidarity
      Ian

      Reply

4. The Queensland government, including the QCAT kangaroo tribunal, deceptively claims that the Office of the Public Trustee has expertise in financial matters’. This is a blatant lie as both the Costello Inquiry and the Cooper Review identified glaring issues with PTQ policies and procedures which render the PTQ incapable of providing prudent financial management. No official entity acknowledges malpractice on the part of the QCAT kangaroo tribunal and the PTQ. To add insult to injury, the long overdue review of QCAT required by the QCAT and several attempts by the Queensland government to cover-up the fact of the Maher/ / Endicott matter (despite this being in the public domain) demonstrate the official obsession with protecting the kangaroo tribunal. It is noteworthy that the comment by the three Court of Appeal judges ‘the quality of decision-making in QCAT is deplorable’ has apparently been excised from the current record although the comment is included in earlier copies retained by interested parties. These issues only reinforce our opinion that the government is pathologically obsessed with protecting the image of the kangaroo tribunal. Whether or not the cost-saving (for the government) represented by the kangaroo tribunal is the primary reason for protecting the kangaroo tribunal, the fact remains that the kangaroo tribunal cannot and will not provide any semblance of justice to victims of the guardianship racket. According to OPG reports to parliament, the kangaroo tribunal handles an average of 600 guardianship matters per annum, or around 11,000 since the beginning of the guardianship racket. On ly 5% of those matters are recorded on the Supreme Court caselaw website (situation last time we checked) and as far as can be ascertained, only three victims with appreciable un-exploited assets, Bucknall (QSC09-128), Maher (QCA11-225), and Marmin (QCAT-G29078) have ever escaped the lobster-pot and regained control of their lives. Actually it is only two as the guardianship racket was instrumental in the death of Rodney Maher. Overall, the guardianship racket has been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Australians. The PTQ obsession with institutionalizing its victims in cheap and nasty flea-pits reduces their life-expectancy considerably. According to a report by the prestigious and highly respected Grattan Institute, life-expectancy is at least halved as a consequence of institutionalization.

   A report prepared by a human rights lawyer with considerable experience in the guardianship racket details the litany of utter ineptitude and trenchant bastardry inflicted by the kangaroo tribunal, OPG and PTQ on its victim LRE. Whilst less financially abusive, the charge of $29,000 for the PTQ legal department to read an appeal document (less than two A4 pages of actual writing) and total costs in excess of $100,000 (effectively all the victim’s savings) for ‘protecting the interests) of ex-victim MLB over 27 months can only be described as fraud, extortion and embezzlement. It is particularly galling that the PTQ is able to plunder the assets of its victims to support PTQ attempts to keep its victims in the clutches of the guardianship racket and vigorously oppose any attempt by victims to regain control of their lives. The PTQ’s use of its victim’s funds to protect the interests of the PTQ can only be described as embezzlement. An all too common trick is to use a rigged ACAT or medical report stating that the victim suffers dementia as a ploy to separate owner and home. This solves the PTQ dilemma of how to impose fees in respect of owner occupied homes. Once institutionalized, it is easy for the OPG and PTQ to deny victims access to medical and legal assistance of their choice.

   Another current victim of the guardianship racket, TCR had a nett worth over $3,000,000 when he was tricked into leaving his home on the basis of a highly dubious medical report which stated he suffered from alzheimers dementia. Due to PTQ ineptitude, TCR’s nett worth is now understood to be in the order of minus $600,000. A highly experienced psychologist who has assessed TCR reports that there is no evidence of dementia, and this opinion is supported by the testimony of long term friends of TCR. Deliberately incarcerating an individual not demented in a dementia facility for many years constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, breach of both the Crimes Legislation (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Act 2010 and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment. Despite substantial evidence of financial malpractice by one time associates of TCR, the PTQ has refused to take any action to recover the hundreds of thousands of dollars owed to him. There is little doubt that if it were possible to arrange genuinely independent medical and legal assistance for TCR, the shonky / rigged official diagnosis of alzheimers dementia would be overthrown, leading to a successful claim for massive compensation.

   In the case of LRE, the PTQ has actually admitted that LRE is entitled to legal counsel, as is his right under Queensland, Commonwealth and International Law. That said, the PTQ is insisting that the kangaroo tribunal decision that LRE lacks capacity was a global ruling, which the PTQ interprets as if LRE is a completely ga-ga and non compos mentis. Absolutely no regard is being paid to the principle that loss of capacity is not global, but is merely a lack of capacity for a certain matter or matters. Needless to say, the systemic and extreme bias of the kangaroo tribunal toward the OPG and PTQ results in studied ignorance on the part of the kangaroo tribunal regarding the concept of ‘capacity for a matter’. Collusion between the PTQ and the kangaroo tribunal has led to illicit appointment of a ‘separate representative’ who has not, and will never meet with LRE. To add insult to injury, this separate representative is a part time adjudicator for the kangaroo tribunal. As with the Maher, matter in which the Court of Appeal acknowledged apprehended bias on the part of senior member Clare Endicott, we allege that exactly the same apprehended bias applies here. In our opinion, the deliberately deceptive, mendacious and hypocritical appointment of ANY separate representative, let alone one known to be intimately linked to the kangaroo tribunal constitutes conspiracy on the part of the kangaroo tribunal, the OPG and the PTQ to pervert the course of justice. In several cases where the kangaroo tribunal has acknowledged that an individual victim has the right to his or her own choice of legal counsel, the PTQ has invariably refused to allow the victim access to their own funds to retain legal counsel.

   A further example of shenanigans on the part of the kangaroo tribunal and a senior medical professional was demonstrated in a report on an intended victim, deceptively presenting it as a review. The medical professional openly admitted to the request by the kangaroo tribunal to prepare the report and to deny the intended victim access to it prior to the hearing which removed the person’t capacity. It is alleged that as is typical of the kangaroo tribunal, this decision had been made much earlier and that the hearing was merely window-dressing to provide an air of legitimacy. Furthermore, we allege that the aforementioned parties conspired to arrange provision of false and misleading evidence in that the medical practitioner conveniently neglected to mention critically important information.. Had the evidence not been intentionally incomplete, it is evident that the kangaroo tribunal would have found it extremely difficult to justify finding its victim incapable of managing their affairs.

   Yet another example of kangaroo tribunal shenanigans is seen in the insistence by the kangaroo tribunal that evidence provided by professors of psychology is unacceptable as they are not currently practicing. The fact that professors must have a substantially higher standard of knowledge than those they teach is clearly lost on the kangaroo tribunal despite members openly admitting on record that they don’t have a clue about medical and / or allied health matters. They summarily discard reports from medical and allied health professionals as ‘rubbish’, and welcome with open arms, as the oracle of wisdom, suggestions made by a non-practicing ex occupational therapist employed by the PTQ. In any case, occupational therapists are not considered capable of producing capacity reports, or indeed capable of declaring reports by medical and allied health professional invalid. The kangaroo tribunal as from time to time employed the occasional allied health practitioner, most if not all of whom are understood to be retired and non-practicing for up to thirty years !!!!! Whilst on the subject of the PTQ, what legitimate reason could there be why a financial services organization employs a non-practicing occupational therapist, and more to the point, a Director of Disability Services, let alone one who is not known to have ANY qualifications of any kind since leaving school at sub-senior ? it follows that a financial services organization is not qualified to make assertions regarding medical and allied health issues, although that has never prevented the kangaroo tribunal from accepting without question every word spoken by PTQ operatives.

   When even politicians admit candidly that ‘the Office of the Public Trustee charges like a wounded bull, it is blatantly obvious that the PTQ is badly in need of a genuinely independent investigation. Note that by ‘independent’ we mean the dictionary meaning and not a farcical internal review or a quasi-independent one conducted by some accounting organization which is in the government’s pocket.Furthermore, the review panel MUST include significant representation by individuals who have personal experience with the Office of the Public Trustee. Not only do the kangaroo tribunal and the OPG completely ignore their responsibility to monitor PTQ financial skullduggery, we can show on official record that the kangaroo tribunal not only ignored blatant PTQ gouging but also actively encouraged the PTQ to increase the already extortionate fees the PTQ intended levying on a victim’s account.

   https://www.stopgovtcorruption.org

   Reply

   1. ‘Geronomo’, Elizabeth,

      Since your comments are so long I have made you a conributor to WBT.

      From now on you can log in and write posts if you wish. You will need a wordpress account.

      The Editor

      Reply

5. Not just in Australia … https://www.facebook.com/notes/jackie-hu/a-reporter-at-large-the-takeover/875544965944243/

   Reply

6. Those active in various fields involving official corruption have noticed that all arms of government act in concert to protect each other. Furthermore, multiple layers of protection are deployed, including immunities, absence of recourse in legislation and bias on the part of police, CCC.

   Reply

   1. Note that in the article it was private lawyers, private accountants and private guardians backed up by USA’s guardianship laws that took advantage of the senior citizens. It is not just a matter of taking these affairs from the hands of public trustees and public guardians you have to change the character of the law and of the society. Our society is based on theft of land … until we recognise that, we will get nowhere. Our age care is privatised, our hospitals are being privatised. Aged care is a public health issue. You can’t put a price on health.

      Reply

7. The following includes a few thoughts generated after years of dealing with the kangaroo tribunal, OPG and PTQ, easily the most despicable scum on planet earth.

   Firstly, the legal / judicial / political / media racket has a LOT to
   answer for. These entities have since the dawn of time promoted the myth of equal access to justice. Blind Freddie has always been aware that justice is as much a commodity as cornflakes and electricity in that the amount of justice we get depends on how much we can afford to purchase.Quite obviously Gina Reinhart can afford to purchase considerably more justice than you or I, so does that fit with ‘equal access’ ?? Remember also that an entry level lawyer bills at least $250 per hour, and at the other end of the scale, a QC averages a thousand or more dollars per hour. Dunno about you, but I’ve never earned, or wanted to earn, a thousand bucks per hour. Before the peanut gallery gets on the soapbox, I seem to recall a saying that ‘the love of money is the root of all evil’. I don’t seem to recall any elected politician represent my interests in this area by agitating for true equal access to justice. Certainly I’ve heard the odd whisper about legal aid, but that doesn’t even begin to get to the bottom of the problem which is simply that the legal profession is overtly avaricious (I’ve always contended the very word ‘avarice’ was invented purely for the legal profession).

   How do we fix this ?? A good start would be legislation severely limiting the fees that can be charged to an absolute maximum (for a QC) to twice the median hourly wage and for a lawyer to one and a half times the median hourly wage. Clearly this would arouse more than a bit of consternation in parliament where most of the DIS-honorable members are
   failed lawyers who could well be forced to return to the profession after the next election.

   Secondly, the sheeple have long been deluded by the establishment (in which I include media interests) to accept male bovine dropping like separation of powers. This unmitigated twaddle suggests that each of the three arms of government (legislature, executive and judiciary) are
   independent. This is provably and demonstrably NOT the case and in all probability never was. One of the most elementary instances of deliberate deception concerns parliamentary ministers. These turkeys are politicians, ergo part of the legislature, however they are also heads of one or more departments which are part of the executive. Are weseriously expected to believe the deathadder takes no interest in the running of entities like the kangaroo tribunal (quasi-judiciary) and OPG / PTQ (executive), not to mention all the watchdogs which legislation provides that she administers ??

   Thirdly, the plot thickens considerably when we look at kangaroo tribunal, OPG and PTQ skullduggery. If indeed there was such a thing as genuine separation of powers, would the legislators have produced legislation like the GAA Act which joins the OPG and PTQ (executive) to every kangaroo tribunal guardianship racket matter ?? Or did the clowns at the bottom of George Street fail to recognize that doing so constituted a blatant breach of separation of powers doctrine ?? In any case, there is stuff-all evidence that the red, blue nor green teams have ever considered rectifying that situation. One only needs to attempt to bring one arm of government to account to discover concerted opposition from both other arms. I suggest that fair dinkum separation of powers would necessitate the two arms not being asked to account for its actions keeping strictly out of the fray, at least that is what the sheeple are told is the intent of separation of powers.

   Fourthly, legislation provides that kangaroo tribunal quasi-judges enjoy the same immunity from prosecution as supreme court judges. Given that ALL members of the judiciary (real and quasi variety) are reasonably expected to possess an in-depth knowledge of legislation, one wonders why they need any immunity. These clowns are wont to tell members of the public ad nauseum that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but then the clowns spend most of their life arguing over law that they expect the sheeple to know intimately. Seems a bit one-sided to me. A consequence commonly encountered in the kangaroo tribunal is that if a quasi-judge is questioned regarding his or her non-compliance with legislation, they typically burst into hysterical laughter exclaiming ‘it doesn’t matter what we do because we are immune’. Now isn’t it reasonable to expect the supposedly independent legislature to ensure this regular, deliberate and flagrant ignorance of legislation does not continue ??

   Fifthly, by default, the legal / judicial racket observes an unwritten convention that no legislation binds the crown unless it specifically states that it does. Not that it matters, because I have yet to see any legislation which states that it binds the crown, which provides that an official MUST do this or that, and which provides any remedy when said official fails to observe the requirement. The GAA Act is jam-packed to the rafters with relevant examples, likewise the Public Service Act provides that all departments, quangos and whatever have an internal complaints review facility. Interestingly there is no mention whatever of a recourse system or penalties for non-compliance. Again, true separation of powers would demand that the legislators cover all bases and not pander to the interests of an ostensibly ‘independent’ executive or judiciary. Neither the OPG, PTQ nor kangaroo tribunal have a workable complaint review system. In the case of the kangaroo tribunal, registrar Julie Hay advised that it is pointless sending complaints as ‘we don’t take any notice of them’. Furthermore, the job description for the kangaroo tribunal president states that he is responsible to monitor and police the actions of his minions, although there is no known instance where any kangaroo tribunal president actually did so.

   Sixthly, deeper into the mire of the guardianship racket, we had a couple of events occur in April and May this year which absolutely horrified the kangaroo tribunal and its incestuous cohort in crime the PTQ, both of which assumed they had seen the last victim escape their clutches in 2011 . Not one but two victims of the guardianship racket with hitherto not completely plundered assets managed (albeit after herculean effort) actually succeeded in wrenching open the exit door jammed shut after //Maher//, in witch Clare Endicott copped the bashing of her miserable life from the Court of Appeal. There is no doubt that all effort was expended to protect Endicott and the kangaroo tribunal from any further embarrassment and this involved quasi-judges creating evidence (ie evidence that didn’t exist prior to a hearing but did after) held to be a matter of fact (non-appealable), thereby blocking most avenues of appeal. The previously used appeal-blocker, scheduling appeals to be be heard by non-judicial members, continued as normal. A new one, vehemently attacking a victim until they crack, was devised so that the kangaroo tribunal could claim the victim is ‘irrational’. It didn’t take long for the skullduggery committee comprising high level representatives of the legislature, executive and judiciary to be convened to figure a way to permanently weld shut the exit door from the guardianship racket. More concerning for victims of the guardianship racket currently planning
   their exit strategy, the GAA Amendment Bill 2017 attempts to totally negate international law, attempts to distort and misconstrue precedents created in //Bucknall// and in //Bergmann// regarding assumption of capacity at each review, attempts to ensure that once a victim has been declared incompetent, there is no possibility of escape before death or
   PTQ -initiated insolvency, and legitimizes ‘manufacture’ (ie evidence that didn’t exist prior to a hearing but did after) of evidence by completely unqualified quasi-judges. Some may be aware that current legislation requires the kangaroo tribunal to retain ‘specialized’ expertise however the current crop includes only a very occasional appearance by a claimed speech pathologist of dubious ability, a long retired and non-practicing psychologist who has only ever been brought in when the International Criminal Court intervened, and one who the kangaroo tribunal deceptively ‘claims’ to be a doctor (she has a PhD in english literature). Legislation also provides that the kangaroo tribunal must be a supreme court judge and the deputy president a district court judge. For the majority of the kangaroo tribunals existence, these provisions have been breached. Does that mean we can prosecute the deathadder ?? In any case, it is highly likely that kangaroo tribunal decisions are directed by the PTQ which also pulls the deathadder’s strings. It should also be noted that there have been two abortive parliamentary reviews of the kangaroo tribunal, both of which have been put on hold indefinitely after robust (understatement of the century) submissions and the Court of Appeal Maher decision which found the quality of decision-making in the kangaroo tribunal deplorable. Much of the content can be assumed from submissions by interested parties, and it is fairly obvious why the government felt the need to hide the results. Further ‘interesting’ matters are the scathing report by Peter Costello regarding official accounting procedures and the comparable Cooper Review … something no government would dare admit.

   Reply

8. There is nothing lower than official organizations which deceptively purport to protect the interests of vulnerable Queenslanders but which in reality are pathologically obsessed with plundering their assets. This is beyond despicable and the fact that systemic and deliberate ineptitude, malpractice, brutality extortion, embezzlement and fraud on the part of the kangaroo tribunal and Office of the Public Trustee is supported by all politicians, all churches, all members of the judiciary, all watchdogs, and the media clearly demonstrates just how depraved is the Australian establishment. Both ALP and LNP refuse to change the status quo and the Greens won’t even communicate. I’m still waiting for comment by OneNation regarding the party’s position on this issue.

   Reply

9. Hello Edward

   I have sent you an invitation by email.

   In solidarity Jackie

   Reply

10. Invitation to join please

    Reply

11. I think it is important to go to union meetings, to challenge the power of the boss, to organise at the grassroots and to challenge affiliation with political parties. But where is the political organisation of the Left that can do that? We should not pretend that there are socialist or organisations on the Left that can do this. Especially when such parties and organisations lack the ability to draw working class people into their own organizations, let alone to organise inside unions.

    Reply