I would expect that any lawyer would act within the law and comply with the ethics of their profession.
There are very good reasons for those ethics mostly connected with “right to a fair trial” specifically under the Victorian Charter of Rights and responsibilities.
The case of Lawyer X has massive repercussions.
Lawyer X may eventually get her clients off, the ultimate long con.
Boo for you all ignoring or not caring about my point.
Perhaps I should expand?
I’m stunned by the lack of ‘And then what happens?’
Lawyers, police, internal spies (if you like), criminals…work by a code.
I’ve had very little experience with criminal elements, but the little I’ve had has made a very deep impression on me that they take that ■■■■ seriously.
I’m not going to drop the buzzwords they drop, I’m sure you can guess.
My point is, the moment the police go, ‘Ha-ha, fooled you. There are no rules.’
That’s the moment that their opposition (in this so-called ‘war on crime’) go, ‘O, Rly?’
I don’t think anyone wants that.
And then she’ll disappear down an abandoned mine shaft one quiet Tuesday. I’m betting her clients won’t have forgotten.
She’s got no friends left, not among the crooks, not among the good cops, and not among the bad cops. She’s betrayed everyone. She’ll go into witness protection (for whatever that’s worth), have to abandon her entire life and all her friends, and she’ll be looking over her shoulder every day as long as she lives. Which may not be long.
That’s not even the worst bit. The worst bit is when we say ‘ok, there’s no rules for police when they’re chasing criminals’ then we cede to the police the courts’ role in deciding whether someone is a criminal or not. By definition, if the police choose to break the rules in pursuit off someone, that person is a criminal. And that means there’s no rules for the police at all. And what rules are the cops allowed to break, anyway? They’re already breaking attorney-client privilege and the right to a fair trial, what rules are they allowed to break next in the pursuit of the war on crime’? Rules against torture? Rules about arbitrary arrest and detention without trial? Rules about summary execution? How criminal is it justifiable to be, in order to fight crime?
Well, yes.
That’s a part of ‘what happens next.’
Presumably we trust individuals to know where to draw the line and never get it wrong.
The far greater part, in my opinion, is you bring a lot more people into play that weren’t there before.
If the police have no code, then you cannot possibly expect criminals to have one.
If police have no code, I’d be much more scared of the police than I would be of criminals. Police are hugely more organised and powerful than any criminal organisation, and can do an infinite amount more damage. Plus if police have no code, then any criminal with half a brain would simply join up and be a cop. All the lack of restraint, none of the downside.
It is, indeed, a slippery slope.
True, although if I was a criminal, and my lawyer didn’t contribute to my arrest/indictment (which is the big ‘if’), and I was then released due to them being tainted I’d be thanking said lawyer for a job well done.
That’s not true, I went full retard and mentioned the Stasi
It’s not Godwin’s Law when you’re talking about genuine fascism.
Looks like the Banking RC is about to claim it’s first victim with the NAB head about to get the bullet as expected.
CEO and chairman
And in other news …
A Lib MP (Scott Buchholz) has formally apologised for ‘inappropriate behaviour’ towards a female air force member during an official visit (!)
A ‘grassroots’ campaign against the ALPs franking credits taxation changes has been revealed to be run by a relative of the minister, in coordination with the minister (Tim Wilson), and to have paid for unauthorised (and therefore illegal) ads against the policy. And the minister has announced an official inquiry into the ALPs policy, and has been promoting the website of this group as the way people can have their say. Except the website will not accept your submission unless you add your name to a petition opposing the changes.
Robert Doyle is reportedly being investigated for multiple instances of harrassment etc going back basically his entire career.
And an ASIO report purportedly highlighting the security risks from the cross-bench Nauru bill was mysteriously leaked to News Corp. Dutton (who is the minister responsible for both Nauru and ASIO, conveniently) was immediately on TV claiming shorten had been briefed on the report and condemning him for supporting it regardless. Only to come out mere hours later and admit this was false and shorten (and the crossbenchers) hadn’t been shown the report.
Jeez, imagine if parliament was sitting this week. Hell, imagine what’d happen in a NORMAL govt. Any one of these would be a scandal that would be big news for weeks. ESPECIALLY the ASIO thing.
And, as Scott Morrison would say to Leigh Sales,
“…but, when Labor were in power…”
Wilson’s behaviour is execrable and completely dishonest, apart from claiming that these are parliamentary, and claimable, when they’re clearly partisan.
Mr Palmer, how about you stop spamming my phone with propaganda and instead put that money toward paying the entitlements of your former workers, you ****y slug.
This parliamentary inquiry into a policy that’s not even in place is a disgrace.
Tax payer funded, donation raising and apparently funnelling people through to his brothers investment firm (or he’s using his database to contact people).
All this in regards to a policy that aims to close a loophole so rich retirees can’t claim on tax they never paid.
Tuesday’s parliament should be interesting.
They keep saying there are hundreds of thousands who won’t vote Labor because of this.
Probably never have in the first place.
Just for the record, it is his second cousin, who part funded the website.
Questions are being raised about possible misuse of details of the electoral role, as well as using the coat of arms - giving rise to misrepresenting the site and the meetings as official Senate hearings.
And, by signing up to attend the meetings, the name automatically goes on a petition.
Disgusting behaviour
There are a number of actuaries who’ve written to the Age debunking actuary Tony Dillon’s recent article.
Dillon talked as if a company’s tax liability was the sum of its shareholders’ individual tax liabilities, rather than 30% of its own taxable gain. It’s not…and that’s where the myth of double taxation comes from.
Rossleigh
When Scott Morrison announced his intention to just ignore a “stupid vote” on medical evacuations, I sort of presumed that he was simpy saying that he wouldn’t rush off to an election just because he no longer controlled the House of Representatives. This would be the first time sitting government had lost a legislative bill since before you were born, unless you’re one of the ninety year old people who’s reading this. However, on closer reading, I’m not so sure. He seemed to be suggesting that Parliament was just there to make suggestions and it was up to him as PM to decide whether to implement them or not. And if that’s the case, then I could envisage the Liberals arguing that a successful motion of no confidence doesn’t mean they have to resign; it’s merely an example of how dangerous the Labor Party are’ what a risk to our economy they’re creating and why we need to start ignoring Parliament and to do “whatever it takes” to continue to govern. That’s only one step away from suggesting that if the election goes the wrong way, we can just ignore it and have Bill Shorten arrested for sedition. Or possibly even before an election is held.
No, we could never have a sitting government who simpy ignored an election result and used the AFP or ASIO to hold power. This is Australia, isn’t it? Even though we did have a sitting governmnet who got sacked by the Governor-General simply because they couldn’t get supply through the Senate, that was different, because… well, it was just different.
Yes, it’s far-fetched and I don’t believe it for a moment, but I am beginning to wonder if we all got it wrong when we thought, “At least, it’s not Peter Dutton.” I suspect that Scott Morrison has no more empathy than his leadership rival but, unlike Dutton, is emboldened by the idea that God has chosen him to lead Australia and this is part of some divine plan so whatever he does, God will protect him… I probably should add here that by “God” I am referring to “God” as Scott Morrison understands him and not Alan Jones. There is no need to explain to me either that “God” doesn’t exist; nor is there a need to complain about the ridiculous amount of power that he has… By that last “he”, I mean Alan and not God, because if you believe in God, it’s sort of a given that He has a ridiculous amount of power. However, even if you believe in Alan, you probably occasionally worry about the amount of power he seems to have.
Yes, it’s even more far-fetched than believing that Morrison ignored the security warnings on moving Australia’s embassy to Jerusalem was because he actually hoped it would prompt a terrorsist attack and that would be his “Tampa” moment.
But it’s not as far-fetched as Tim Wilson’s suggestion that he has no conflict of interest when he’s heading the committee on franking credits, as well as co-ordinating its sitting to coincide with the protests.
While there’s been a lot of misinformation about the franking credits and stories that have literrally told us that the Labor party plan to take money from Nana. Yes, Nana. Not your grandmother, not even someone else’s grandmother, but Nana. All I can say is, “Nana, thank God you died all those years ago so you won’t feel the pain when that grave-robber, Chris Bowen steals whatever you’ve got left in the cold, hard ground!”
Anyway, I thought it might be good instead of case studies with the poor people who’ve paid tax all their lives and managed to start a self-managed super fund in order to minimise tax and look at how the principle of government largesse is applied to others. IAs an aside, I read a story about someone who was going to lose about twenty thousand a year in franking credits under Labor’s proposal. He complained that he’d paid tax all his life, including over a million dollars in capital gains. Wow, that means that he has made in excess of three million dollars in capital gains alone. Poor chap, I’ll starrt a GoFundMe page to ensure that he doesn’t go without!
Let’s take some case studies:
Mythcial Case Study 1: Joanne has worked hard all her adult life and has forty thousand in the bank and an income of thirty thousand a year from share dividends. She loses her job. She applies for Newstart but is told that not only does she have too much money in the bank to qualify, but her income from shares means that she is above the cut off limit. Using the franking credits arguments, her assets shouldn’t matter.
Mythical case study 2: Andy is a student who works part-time earning $17,000 a year. He has work related expenses. However, he can’t take these off his tax because he doesn’t pay any income tax. Applying the franking credits argument, he should get a cash refund equivalent to what he’d get if he were paying thirty cents in the dollar or more in income tax.
Mythical case study 3: Rupert owns several Newspapers and TV companies, even though they pay no taxable income, this makes him ineligible for a pension. Of course, he wouldn’t be eligible anyway, because he renounced his Australian citizenship.
Now, as I’ve said, I’m sure that there will be a number of people who aren’t wealthy and who will be hit by this. However, when I say “hit”, I mean, they may have to adjust their arrangements to maintain their current lifestyle. And by “not wealthy”, I mean it in the sense that they don’t have a private jet rather than they may need to go to a food bank in the next ten years. As the guy from Wilson# Asset Management told us people won’t pay the franking credit, they’ll just move their money offshore. And when I say “a number”, I mean something above ten but less than a billion. In fact, “The Financial Review” had a headline story telling us that en ex-teacher would be now voting against Labor in the coming election. I’m not sure why this was worth a whole story unless it was because it was the only person they could find who changed his vote as a result of the proposal.
Whatever your point of view, the fact remains that the media are spinning it a totally dishonest way. This is not taking money away from people. If Medicare payments are a handout and unemployment benefits are handout, then franking credits are just as much a handout. Watch how we’ll hear stories of people with taxable incomes of less than ten thousand having their franking credits ripped from their hands.
Of couse, we won’t be told about their connection to the Liberal Party in some cases.
And we certainly won’t be told about their non-taxable income.
# No relation to Tim Wilson, who’s chairing the Parliamentary inquiry into this. And by no relation, I mean it’s only a distant one and they haven’t even met apart from when they did a number of years ago and the fact that Tim has investments in managed funds with the company is another one of those things that happen from time to time which Labor use to sling mud… You know, like the way they attacked the banks for populist reasons.