LEGAL MINEFIELD
this picture is of a Canadian protestor - David THOMSON
. bad judges .
"At law school I was lucky. Ten of the men under whom I took courses were sufficiently skeptical and common-sensible about the branches of law they were teaching so that, unwittingly of course, they served together to fortify my hunch about the phoniness of the whole legal process."
FRED RODELL
Professor of Law
Yale University
"equal under the law"?From now I will be doing all my own legal work as this will be much cheaper for me, less likely to involve errors and less hassle (I found my workload actually increased when I employed a solicitor)! I believe that the best legal move to date in this sorry saga was when I lodged the summonses - 3295 & 3298 of 2000 in the Supreme Court of NSW. Although these summonses were flawed and were eventually ruled so by Master McLAUCHLIN the fact that I lodged them made one of my two opponents; BARB* (of Bolwarra near Maitland, NSW) and BUFFY* (Likely living in Kotara South with two of his boyfriends) - lodge an affidavit swearing that he did not know anything about what happened to an invention (worth between $2 and $3 billion profit per year - before tax)! Now do you believe him? (after all he is an accountant!)
* my ex-in-laws are hereinafter referred to as "the ex-rellos from hell"
. crooked lawyers .
Now you'd think that the solicitor I used to have the summons served would have checked these summons for conformance to a legal standard wouldn't you? Also a summons can be amended! The only things that this solicitor accomplished was;
| 1\ | have one of
these summons served (and this one was served outside the specified hours) |
|
| * | * | * |
| 2\ | combined two separate actions to
be on the same day (rather than the separate days I had established) |
|
| * | * | * |
| 3\ | brief a barrister for an hour (who later withdrew** when I announced that I'd sacked the solicitor) |
** this is a stunt the "legal eagles" often pull!
Other things that this particular solicitor omitted to undertake was apply for Discovery where the Plaintiff and/or his or her legal representative inspects documents and records pertaining to the action. This is a very elementary process where an application is lodged with the Registrar of the Supreme Court and this is duly served on the Defendant(s). Even without doing this all my solicitor needed to do was lodge and serve Subpoenas of Production and to Give Evidence on the two ex-in-laws. The accounts for my late wife's estate would then have been required to be present at the Supreme Court two days before the hearing so that I, or my legal representative, can inspect these records.
In spite of all these stuff-ups this particular solicitor charged about $2,400 for his "services"! What do you think - was I stitched up or not?
.
www.court.to
.
Now if BUFFY has lodged an affidavit swearing that he knows nothing about an invention and I could find this invention at one of the many Patent Offices I was applying for patent(s) his goose would be cooked. When I went to America to check the behaviour of the US Patent & Trademark Office employees (and others) was that peculiar all I say is that it matched the performance of the Australian counterparts. I didn't find the patent or record of it being current. 170,000 assignments for the rights to letters patent take place every year in the US so I really didn't have much of a chance!
I think that the expiry period for and transaction concerning a partnership is three years because of the Statute of Limitations. Therefore legal disputation must commence within this stated period or rights are forfeited. [A case of note is that property with no access and also no legal right to redress when the mistake was entirely the solicitor's fault (Scarcella v Lettice 1/11/00).*] The rights to this FACE EMPLACED Services Support invention were owned by the partnership PINK ENTERPRISES - the partnership between myself and my late wife's estate. My understanding is that the ex-in-laws could not transfer the rights to the invention to themselves whilst I was a nominated executor (de son tort) to my wife's estate but could do so once they were granted probate. The date these ex-in-laws were granted probate was the 22nd of July, 1997, and so this "window", for the commencement of legal disputation, extended to the 22nd of July , 2000. On Friday the 21st of July, 2000, the solicitor I was using to uphold my rights was 'in conference' the entire day and so was unavailable to myself. Also I was required to visit the offices of my ex-in-laws solicitor's to inspect the "accounts" to my wife's estate on this day.
* this case has been resolved satisfactorily but there will be other solicitor fuck
-ups appearing on this web-site - take careful note NSW (un)Law Society
I think that the last day I could commence any legal disputation, with any prospect of success was Friday the 21st of July, 2000, concerning the suspected assignment of the rights to the invention to my ex-in-laws in settlement of debts accumulated by myself to my wife's estate. One further reason I say this is because another solicitor told me, much earlier than the 21st of July in 2000 date, that the Statute of Limitations for partnerships was three years.
I now concede that I was never going to be able to solve this legal problem by conventional legal means. Once BHP admitted that they possessed the exclusive rights to this invention or I had this proof BUFFY's goose would be cooked because of the affidavit. Anyway I suspected he was in conspiracy with BHP (he said he knew a George PAGACS - Market Development Manager of BHP Lifting & Industrial Products) and so BHP dobbing him in just would not occur!
Strangely I believe that I've passed all the legal tests now and I refused taking this matter to court again because I was suspicious about this matter being thrown out of court because of the expiry period of the Statute of Limitations possibly being exceeded. My plan for solving this legal problem is to make no legal moves myself but distribute information about this affair. Luckily I am aided by BHP's ineptitude or sheer greed with this share-price manipulation and "insider trading".
When you think of BHP don't see the giant Goliath - instead see a bumbling idiot! BECAUSE BHP HAVE PROVIDED THE MEANS OF THEIR DEFEAT. All that needs to happen is many people to become aware of what BHP Inc. really stands for - a series of frauds amounting to a level of corruption never seen before in Australia!
Where BHP Inc. will come undone will be on the same type of problem Al CAPONE had
- the accounts won't add up!
| PSST |
Did you know that BHP employed ANDERSEN |
|
- the same auditor that ENRON had! |
"In tribal times, there were the MEDICINE MEN. In the Middle Ages, there were PRIESTS. Today there are the LAWYERS. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its day."
- Fred Rodell in WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS, at ix [Reynal & Hitchcock, New York (1939)]
HAVE YOU BEEN A VICTIM OF OUR COURTS?
Has a judge ruled illegally in your case?
Have you lost your parental rights because the court erred?
Has your case ignored the Constitution?
If so, and you want YOUR government to do something with run-a-away judges, wayward lawyers, faulty DA's then now is the time to join together and be heard!STOP THE INJUSTICE OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM! JOIN US ON JUNE 10 in ALBANY on
the STEPS of the CAPITOL BLD. @ NOON!
www.northcounrtygazette.org.RALLY.htm
Join the Mailing List for the electronic NEWSLETTER - 'post' to: newsletter@BHPstinks.com
 |
John Pink
|
 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
- |
Donations can be transferred to the following bank
account
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||
