Celebration of arrogance and perfidy
It is the saga with the lawyer ( Peter Samuel Russo ) I engaged for the Supreme Court appeal and who , with the assistance of 2 barristers ( Tim Carmody and Douglas Wilson who had a job of presenting arguments in court ) , hijacked and sabotaged my appeal .
This was done in the very deceitful manner taking the advantage of the fact that by being in prison
I have limited means of contact with the outside world . None of the issues requested by me and listed here on the main page were presented .
( my Affidavit was vaguely mentioned ).
Some less important , ' safe ' issues were presented just to justify taking the money as
' professional ' fee . They knew that once I loose the appeal – I am technically finished , therefore it is fair to call such conduct ' sabotage ' .
lawyer Peter Samuel Russo
barrister Tim Carmody
Barristers job was to present the unfairness of the trial based on the issues they were aware of and to point out the particular elements of the conduct of the trial judge which were disadvantaging me.
Russo claims in his letter from 5th of May 2009 page 2 that - ' counsels was briefed with all material and had all the knowledge of your material ' .
Therefore , in the view of the above evidence , even if they themselves missed in the trial transcripts some legal issues, they were made aware of matters which were specifically requested by me to be raised in Court .
How to act to bring the issues effectively before the judges was left to them as supposed
' professionals ' .
The legally important issues were not presented for the Appeal by both barristers and the failure of not submitting them to the appeal judge`s consideration significantly effected the outcome of the Appeal depriving me the chance of retrial .
Looking at the nature of the legal system , the legal practice and the concept of the weight of an argument it is apparent that the issues which were ' omitted ' from my appeal had higher persuasive , argumental value than those which were actually presented .
Eg. How can you compare the issue of not explaining what the term ' grievous ' means with the omission of pointing out to the appeal judges that the trial judge prevented me from exposing the prosecution witness as committing perjury ?
The failure to act with diligence and using professional skills , as would be expected by me or any reasonable person , the avoidance of presenting matters of critical importance for the fairness of the trial and the administration of justice , brings the issue of lawyer actually participating in injustice by not raising such important matters before the court .
That is extremely disturbing , having in mind that one of the lawyers main claimed roles in the justice system is to point out all potential breaches of procedures and laws .
Concealing the abuse of the legal process and suppression of credible material also deprived the appeal judges the true knowledge how the legal system operates in practice .
I approached them with hope , respect and trust . I expected decency and honesty since they knew about the injustice I was subjected to .
I paid quite a lot of money in good faith and I did nothing to antagonise them .
So , why I was treated in such awful manner ?
Wilson made few lame attempts ( no serious arguing ) to point out to judges some problems
( 1b , 1c ) .
Carmody selected particularly idiotic issues and their presentation and arguments were on the amateurish level . He was just playing to lose .
1-7-40 - … ' my learned friend . Mr Copley ( prosecution barrister ),
doesn`t think there`s much in this .
He might be ultimately right , it`s not our strongest point ….. '
What is the point of bringing an argument for ' discussion ' and judgement by others ,
if from the onset the arguer admits that his opponent is right in rejecting it !
This is not happening in a kindergarten !
This was presented by Queensland ' legal professional ' in Supreme Court as the argument to quash the conviction !
Problems with the legal representation for the appeal
With the help of my friend I engaged lawyer Peter Russo for the Supreme Court appeal . He took advantage of me having limited means of communication and vulnerability of being thrown unexpectedly into prison and he choose to act treacherously against my written instructions .
In December 2008 , I provided Russo with comprehensive list of proposed issues with references and comments to be considered for the appeal . I discussed those issues with him and he promised that he will talk to barrister about best ways of presenting those issues .
Peter Russo came to visit me on 27.12.08 and he showed me a list of issues selected by barrister Wilson , as a kind of good will exercise to prove to me that he is actively involved . Those issues ,
I was told by Russo , are just preliminary findings of ' legal technicalities ' and when I mentioned again my proposed issues he repeated that they will be included in the Appeal .
Until I signed the form to release the money from the trust account he was promising
to do what I wanted to be done - raising issues indicated by me .
As I signed to Peter Russo the authority to release money from the trust account ( which he said he needs so he can pay the expenses of the case ) this was the last time I saw him .
In 3 months up to the appeal ( on 27.03.09 ) I had only one opportunity to speak to him on the phone for few minutes . He was continuously unavailable , his staff could not give me information what was happening .
He made few promises in letters to come and discuss my legal matters which never took place , he made important decisions without seeking my opinion and permission and without giving me time and opportunity to object ; he did not organize a consultation with a barrister before the Appeal as promised and I did not have a chance to discuss the logic of some weak arguments and the lack of some important points for the appeal which was in reality hijacked .
My appeal date was set on 27.03.09 .
On 17.03.09 , less than 2 weeks before the date of my appeal , I received the letter from him (dated 16.03.09) and the copy of arguments submitted to the Court.
I was surprised that the appeal against severity of sentence was abandoned without my permission and without my prior knowledge ; and the arguments selected were mostly flimsy and mine main points have been completely ignored .
In the letter Russo was saying that he is coming to see me and discuss the Appeal issues .
On Wednesday ( 18.03.09 ) I rung his office , I could not speak to Russo , one of lawyers in his office looked at my file and told me that she cannot help me apart from saying that Russo is coming to see me and I better talk to him .
With the repeated promise to come and see me I was waiting for the rest of the week for his visit and explanation .
Next week , I rung his office , nobody knew anything , I had to leave a message with an office girl to find out what is happening .
On 24.03.09 , I received a letter from Russo ( dated 23.03.09 ) saying that he is going overseas and he is not able to see me ( and discuss issues for the appeal ) !
I managed to speak to a lawyer in his office , Kris , who told me that he spoke with Peter Russo and he told him that the barrister is very optimistic and confident in success of my appeal for the retrial.
As to the question of not including my proposals he said words to the effect that there is enough ammunition to win the case , there are very good ' legal technical points ' , I have very good case , etc .
This information was provided by the people claiming to be professionals and who gave me advise in my legal matters that the prospects of my appeal are very good , therefore there appeared not to be a reason for me to act in an alarmed way .
I had also written advise from Russo ( letter from 24.12.08 copy… ) that grounds ' are arguably sufficient to have your conviction overturned ' - which now I read as a prime example of his perfidious deception .
It was just few days before the hearing, and I do have serious problems making phone calls and contacting people from high security prison. Not much I could do apart from trying to contact Court and tell them that I am withdrawing my appeal , and that could be only done by a letter from me which likely would not have been received on time by court .
The Appeal judges could not discuss issues which were not brought before them
and this is how I lost the appeal to the Supreme Court .
Particularly , barristers failed to bring to appeal judges attention the following matters :
1. The unlawfulness of selection as a trial judge a person who was
involved in producing the charge against me to the court .
2. Trial judge`s denial of my submission to have the accuser examined in court by a doctor to prove that he lied in court ;
3. The trial judge`s claiming during summing up that the accuser evidence was not contradicted , when in fact it was contradicted by the hospital records and the testimony of Gold Coast hospital doctor ;
4. Trial judge`s conduct during the trial to distress me and create confusion for jury as well , eg . the judge ordered jury out 5 times on the second day of trial
5. The lack of reaction by the trial judge to my allegations of police
' framing ' me into the accusation of assault and causing grievous bodily harm by conducting dishonest ' investigation ' .
6. My specific request of showing that the prosecution knowingly was presenting false evidence was not raised .
7. My specific request of appeal against the cruelty of the sentence was not raised in spite of my clear call for it as evidenced by my Notice of Appeal .
The following issues were presented by Douglas Wilson for Supreme Court Appeal
( 1a ) - prejudice - my alleged statement ' not involved in any incident'
( 1b ) - prejudice - interference with the witness by the judge , scripting an answer
( 1c ) - prejudice - preventing me from effective cross examining a witness
The following issues were presented by Tim Carmody for Supreme Court Appeal
(1d ) - procedural unfairness by not explaining the meaning of some issues
- strict proof of photographic evidence of injuries
- what the term ' grievous ' meant was not explained
- confusion about my Affidavit
- my ' special needs ' were not met , re : extra information