Australian Justice System

In this brief report, let us tear away at the root of what could well be the main problem of creating a new nation - the Australian Justice System. If you are a Roman Catholic then perhaps you can appreciate the `holiness` placed on the Pope, but alas, the British Queen is head of the Anglican Church and as you read this, consider the awesome problem of altering Anglo-Saxon law, I don`t call it Australian Law, it is Anglo-Saxon - what Australian would wear a wig to sit as a judge on the Superior Courts? It is medieval type legal structure, totally alien to most Australians, that we have in place in our country and it is semi-enshrined with the office of a head of a church.

Of course, to eradicate racism takes a long time. Look carefully into any of the major public service departments and you can find strange things that might well be racism, consider - the NSW Education department allows schools to only give out a certain number of "A" grades per school regardless of how many students are eligible. Puzzling? Appears that way but think carefully now, which sub-cultural group has proven to be the most successful academically? Australians of Asian origin have and the obvious question has to be asked - when two students score equal top marks and one is an Australian of Asian background and the other of an Anglo-Saxon background, who makes the decision who gets the A and who gets the B, given a particular school is only allocated one single A grade that it can give out?

While common sense and sound policies can eradicate matters such as the above there are other areas and policies and way of doing things that can not be changed readily. Understanding the Anglo-Saxon legal system may hold the golden key to grasping the problems of a new multi-cultural Australia. If you are of non Anglo-Saxon origin chances are you will never get jury duty; if you suffer injury at work the odds are that the Anglo-Saxon juries will award you less in damages if you are not from Anglo-Saxon stock - this is the naked TRUTH about the Australian legal system and any good barrister knows this. The Anglo-Saxon judges - (note that the Supreme and High Courts were not the subject of research) - appear to seldom use common sense in matters of justice - they don`t know `justice`, they just know `law` and usually only their own esoteric `interpretation of law` and this in some `holy way` mysterious to anyone who is not Anglican. At University they are not taught to "think" per se - but to use a style of reasoning which is unique to the Anglo-Saxons.

Whether you are an Australian of Anglo-Saxon ancestry or of Italian ancestry or of Russian ancestry, or Asian, or whatever (or British - a person who may have immigrated as a child to Australia is unlikely in adult life to view themselves as Australian, they will see themselves as British, and this too is important to appreciate in perspective), it is essential to correctly understand those aspects of present day Australia which no longer fit into our society. No punches can be held back, when addressing aspects of the system which are not proper, because the human instinct will know when you are trying to `pretend` that something is not really a problem. In other words, truth alone and correct interpretation of aspects of Australian law is the only proper way to begin forging a new nation. Let us begin.

Let us examine what might well be a typical situation in an Australian court of law. I once came upon a senior member of the Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT), a Dr Grimes, who in 1993 was at the Parramatta Chambers of the AAT. Now, I am a neuroscientist (from a computing background but this matters little, my personal research into neuroscience appears to be attaining recognition from diverse world-wide sectors) and the fact that I know the human brain backwards means that sometimes I can study a person`s facial expression and know some aspects of their thoughts. When I saw Dr Grimes for the first time one thing struck me immediately, "a natural racist". While I am a neuroscientist and pick such things up using qualified knowledge - the reality is that non-neuroscientists can pick such things up using their instinct. For this reason it should be a part of a new Australian constitution that no one gets to be on any tribunal or be a judge of any kind if they can not pass a basic psychological `racist level` test (on which most of us would scrore positive - to some degree we are all racists but not `blind racists` - but clearly there is a human positive level which is tolerable and there is a very vicious level.)

(A neuroscientific report can be put together. Cost would be negotiated.)

Our Artificial Intelligence (5GL-LISA), after studying about one hundred legal judgements and using input from special research, has found that 50% of Australian legal occupational group showed symptoms of a severe mental dysfunction. A mental dysfunction is an inability of the brain to work together as a unity. The reason is not just the tactic of `ridicule` which an unscrupulous barrister may use to win a case, its not their desire to twist reality to conform to their view - all these things can add up and cause the brain to become dysfunctional - but what was observed was an actual neurosis (the brain incapable of operating in the mode it is operating and as a consequence parts enter a shock state and functional structures break down and twist and `weld together`) .

A brief summary of this report was placed by the Australian Medical Association on their files in 1994. Australia has a problem on its hands - an enormous problem - a problem those not qualified in medicine or neuroscience may not grasp and that makes this a tragedy. Medically (meaning science of the brain) the problem appears as an imbalance between the left and right cerebral hemisphere, an imbalance to the point at which a solicitor may sound like a University professor but has no comprehension what they are conveying. The energy resulting from the mode in which the brain thus operates causes the frontal brain`s "amusement, entertainment, and ridicule" areas to create pathetic thought patterns during serious hearings. (Something along the same line can happen to the very old who for example may burst out laughing at a funeral, and later very distressed and upset they go to their doctor asking why they laughed. The reason is a dysfunctional brain response - when the brain can no longer correctly route certain energy flowing across it, grief can become laughter - and similarly in the mentally dysfunctional barrister and judge common sense and logic and reason and the natural feeling for truth and intelligence may become ridicule and twisting of facts to fit into a dysfunctional frame-of-mind.)

Interest point: Out of curiousity, I once contacted a number of legal bodies asking about the procedure to remove from the bench a mentally ill judge. Apparently there is no way. Mental illness is like any other disorder and can happen to anyone - but alas those who wrote the Australian-Anglo-Saxon constitution never understood such things, to the men of old the Anglo-Saxon judges were servants of the Queen and infallible, and to make certain this was always so they defined their own medical definition of `insanity` - fascinating!!!!!! That`s like asking Jack the Ripper what proper surgical procedures are!

Interest point: SOLICITORS speak the language of "law" - the Anglo-Saxon legal system in our country has no ability to understand "English" per se, it understands almost every English word as defined by legal precedents. You look up in the dictionary to see what a word means, the legal culture looks up what a word means in "legal precedents". I once spoke to a solicitor about a person who was accused of a particular offence and I replied, "he can`t be guilty, what he said in this sentence says to me that he experienced paranoia and as a neuroscientist I know that a guilty person can not experience this type of paranoia." The solicitor was not interested - he was acting against the person in question - and was happy to admit that truth and facts are not really what Anglo-Saxon courts are very much about and the opposition did not have the funds to employ neuroscientists as expert witnesses to give evidence. (Advice to you: if you are ever accused of anything you did not do, always but always ask for a lawyer because you being innocent is not a serious issue - no one wants to know truth per se - in an adversary legal system what matters is whether the opposition can persuade a judge that you could be guilty.)

Any man or woman who spends ten years of their life trying to be `objective` and `impartial` as the legal profession tries, may damage the brain in some way (some damage being less serious than other damage). The human brain is not a machine and can not think in a way which does not use subjective reasoning because if it does over a long period the brain will damage itself and parts of the brain will begin to form tight magnetic fields which if not broken will turn parts of the brain into liquid and other parts into robot-like perceptions of life.

Ask any University graduate over 30 years old what they think of lawyers and chances are they come back with, "stupid bloody things, its like talking to brick walls! Mental regression is what happens to them at University". Perhaps that`s not far from truth - to learn law, you have to think how men a long time back thought (because you have to interpret law within the constitution and precedents) and that can be a silly thing to do, (on a continual basis), because it regresses.

The British colonial legal system which is what Australia is for now stuck with is an "adversary" system - it is not about justice per se, it is not about truth or facts per se, it is about winning. The intention is `winning` and only `wininng` (sure, there are Law Reform Commissions about but they don`t listen to you, they have no authority to listen to the people, they only listen to the Attorney Generals.)

Interest point: Officers in the Attorney General`s Department have been found mentally dysfunctional to the point of asking the Australian Federal Police to investigate a letter that explained it was medical research and explained what can happen to a person under pressure - the lawyer in question took it as a personal threat and insisted the AFP arrest the person who wrote the letter!

AMP is one of Australia`s largest insurers. Does it take advantage of what appears as a largely dysfunctional (non thinking) legal system? Or is there something more sinister involved - does AMP have judges on its payroll? After a careful examination of one case in particular our Artificial Intelligence(5GL-Lisa) has left a question mark about this - you be the jury.

A Mr Alan Thomas (not real name) owned a factory which caught fire. Mr Thomas was insured with AMP. AMP refused to pay, claiming Mr Thomas deliberately lit the fire. They persuaded a judge of this - but AMP failed to score a point with the police because had this been true, Mr Thomas would have to be charged with the criminal offense of arson.

It could well be that in deciding whether to honour a contract, AMP takes into account if you can afford the costs of the High Court (and 99% of Australians are not in a position to do so) and if not they may reject your claim using their own techniques, such as accusing you of starting the fire. In the existing Anglo-Saxon legal system "truth" and "facts" are simply not that important - if you can persuade a judge about something valid or invalid that is perfectly tolerable. (Sure, it may depend on which manager in AMP refuses such claims, some might have a deeper motive.)

Unless you are charged by police with arson, you are not guilty in law which is the only thing any barrister and judge can take legally into account - this judge in question either knows not law, which is unlikely, or else about the only plausible explanation assuming the man is not a complete idiot who believes anything, he is in fact on the payroll of AMP. Can you find a more intelligent explanation for this than what our Artificial Intelligence has?

How has AMP changed since some years back when it was known as the best? Giant industries are about money and more money and if there is no more cows to be milked then one way to improve profits is to not to give the milk to those who have a natural right to it - it is possible that AMP`s profits can no longer increase because the market is saturated and perhaps they have a new policy in place, a policy to avoid at all costs paying out large claims?

AMP was asked about this. Their response was not reassuring. According to their head office they settle claims `in a fair way` and have their own independent arbitrators. Now, this is the point at which our Artificial Intelligence `halted` - why would you need to settle a claim in `a fair way` when it is a question of a YES or NO? Why would you need your own arbitrators in a YES or NO situation?

Banks can be dangerous in a democracy because of their wide "spheres of influence". Consider this case from our files. Mr J. Lee (not real name) resigned from WESTPAC and was conveyed the message that he will never find a job in his usual occupation.

Let`s study the case of Mr Lee. Mr Lee was in his early thirties when he resigned from WESTPAC and was a specialist in an area of, say, accounting. There are 200 companies in Australia who have the resources to need a specialist of this calibre and 80% of these use one particular accounting system which Mr Lee in fact helped to develop while working for the vendor of that accounting system.

Mr Lee has excellent references (in writing) and his speciality is one for which the 200 large companies who use that particular accounting system are continually in need of top experts.

But, 5 years down the track, and Mr Lee can`t not find a position.

Coincidence, unlucky, or was the conveyed threat of a senior WESTPAC manager serious. The conveyed threat was reported to a NSW Law Officer soon after it was made - just in case WESTPAC did have the muscle and arrogance to make a "boycott" come to pass.

Now, most of you will think "Mr Lee should take this up with a solicitor". A sensible adult position. So we did, on Mr Lees` behalf, and in 1992 have written to perhaps every minister and legal body in the country (both labor and liberal MP`s). Only one response from a politician who was not in a position to do anything about it - that`s fair enough. Some members of the superior courts after being supplied with essential information came back with, "case exists, do consult a lawyer". So the NSW Law Society was asked to provide a list of specialist solicitors who could manage a case of this enormous scope. Two firms were suggested. Both contacted. Both had WESTPAC as client and would not act against WESTPAC. So - in theory the system is there, but in practice it appears not there.

How can it be possible for the CES not find a person with some of the most impressive references and experience in the country any work in the space of over 4 years? This should go into the guiness books of records - incompetency, or is it that the person in question has a foreign sounding name? According to our Artificial Intelligence the reason is "racism is the way of the Anglo-Saxon Public Service sub-culture."

Just before a hearing against a departmental decision, the DSS lawyers falsify and invent a claim that a person who is appealing owes the department over $20,000.

How much prejudice and bias against the appealant can a stunt like this introduce into a hearing? Clearly more than the average judge can bear because in one such instance the judge spent five minutes deliberating on a matter of such complexity it would take a qualified person months.

We asked a solicitor what is the proper thing for a judge to do in this case. The solicitor replied that any claim of a debt has no relevance to the matter in question and should have been ignored - fair comment and oh how proper but what about human nature, human nature is not "that objective" and can not ignore an allegation of such scope. Further, to a mentally dyfunctional mind any decision in respect of "relationships" can throw such a state of mind into such an inner tumoil and anxiety - at a subconscious level - that they will completely ignore anything presented.

YOU and I are persuaded to believe that there is such a thing as "legal aid" for people who have no money for justice. Is there? It appears that a woman whose spouse works, even when no economic relationship exists in the marriage (that just means she has her money and her husband his and the twain do not mix much if at all) has no access to legal aid because her husband works. In a no economic relationship marriage even if her husband was a billionaire she would have no access to justice and law because she could not afford it but there are no real provisions in law to appreciate these situations which are not that unsual among certain cultural groups (Islam for example) and among people who have been brought up in a no economic relationship marriages.

Cases presented herein are either carefully researched or accepted on the basis of credibility and become input to our Artificial Intelligence which then presents a finding of either `accept` or `reject`. Our Artificial Intelligence is capable of 10-1000 times human mental capacity. If you have a case that has never met JUSTICE from "an intelligent society`s" point of view, why not drop us a line?