Hi,
Just a short comment. I am a lawyer but not a barrister. For a change, this time I don’t agree with your comments about the Cardinal George Pell’s trial at all. Your allegations that the jury was probably ‘rigged’ by the Crown sounds like a lot of errant bullshit to me. I’ve been practicing law as a solicitor for four years now, and have yet to hear about any such thing like your ridiculous claim that the Crown’s ‘intelligence agencies’ vet jurors before they are even selected. With respect, I think you’ve been listening to too many conspiracy theories and need to provide more facts to support your wild claims.
Cheers.
Hi,
Re: GEORGE PELL’S CASE – COURT VOTE RIGGING
Thanks for your valued comment and feedback Rod. Haven’t you heard from us, you know? – the ordinary uneducated members of the general public, who have not been contaminated by ignorance, arrogance and greed on the outside of the Bar Association, that at best we think most lawyers (accepting yourself of course) are nothing more than badly indoctrinated, highly paid professional liars.
That’s why, one can only presume, so many of your ilk often become politicians. Of course, obviously, you must be the rare exception I presume. However, in spite of that, it would seem you’re still relatively fresh out of law School and still know very little about what you are talking about, in common with most young lawyers in general I would humbly suggest..
The fact is, really the judiciary is much more corrupt than I previously alluded. If you look at this outstanding article about “JURY VETTING” in New Zealand and scroll down to sub-headings “JURY VETTING” “Counsel OBLIGATION and NZ RESEARCH – you will see in much greater detail how corrupt our system really is. Remarkably too, as this article shows, most judges are fully aware of it!
From the news reports, apparently Cardinal George Pell exercised no challenges to the jury selection process yet we are not told how many the Crown exercised. There were 250 candidates called in for jury selection. How many were challenged by the Crown?
Those 250 candidates would have been carefully vetted by Police Intelligence even before they were selected, which means the jury was stacked.
Commonly in Australia called a Kangaroo Court.
Plus, the trial hearing was held in a CLOSED COURT (Secret Court) where the public and journalists were not allowed.
Regards.
https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk/lawtalk-archives/issue-867/jury-vetting-in-the-digital-age
Hi,
Perhaps you have set the lawyer on a journey of discovery that hopefully brings him to a knowledge of the truth and abandonment of the sleazy, dishonest lawyer scumbaggary he is perpetrating.
Over here in the land of the really lunatic lawyers such as Michael Cohen, et al, we have a national constitution that was carefully designed to establish justice for all and prevent lawyers from their criminality.
Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office.
Our government is saturated with these British lawyer parasites that completely ignore our constitution and arrogantly carry their active B.A.R. cards with them into all three departments. This infestation has subverted and perverted almost everything that was good about America regarding division of powers.
Over there they are merely sleazy, dishonest, occultic thugs that advance the interests of the crown while pretending to provide justice for the People. Over here they are the most deadly enemy British fifth column inside our borders that also advance the interests of the crown while pretending to pursue justice for the People.
Sic Semper Tyrannus.