In January 2011 I received copies of the letter from Queensland Solicitors Professional Standards to Legal Services Commission ( 16August 2010 ) and SPS Memorandum from 27July 2010 .
Lets look at them .
The first obvious issue I raised was of John Paul Mould taking money from the trust account without proper authorisation .
-I submitted that JPM in his arrogance did not even bother to sign the contract , therefore it was invalid
- I submitted that I informed JPM that I am withholding the ' authority ' to withdraw the money until I am satisfied with the legal advice
- I submitted that I did not authorise JPM to withdraw the money and since the contract was invalid he did not have lawful permission to take the money
Craig Smiley seems to agree with that saying :
' Mr Mould can`t have it both way'
' both of those withdrawals were illegal '
'it is submitted that this is the conduct capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct'
But then oooops , he realises that he is talking about his colleague and a lawyer and he retracts
' thus there is no reasonable prospect of successful prosecution '
So , JPM can have it both ways because he is a lawyer !!!!
Ian Foote from SPS , in his memorandum , goes further in promoting the view that the clauses of the contract can be treated separately, selectively if that suits the lawyer :
' the fact that Mr Mould did not sign the client agreement does not invalidate
Mr Markan authorisation contained in that document … the authorisation can be viewed separately from the rest of the document '
What about my condition inserted in the contract and accepted irrevocably by JPM – why shouldn`t it be viewed separately ! ?
In less developed countries there is an old fashioned belief that the contract is a document which sets the obligation and rights of all parties involved , who all acknowledge them by signing the document .
However ' modern ' approach is pioneered by Queensland Solicitors Professional Standards with Ian Foote behind it . They got away with this misconception and according to that ' progressive ' man –
the contract is just a
' lawful ' way of enabling creatures like JPM or Smith to deceive and
to rob unsuspecting people .
Interesting addition to the whole issue of the legality of the withdrawing the money from the trust account by JPM can be seen from the letter of Legal Services Commission from
7 January 2011 to JPM informing him , that in his paper work and the legal contracts
( including the contract with me) he was using references to 'Queensland Law Society Act 1952' , which was repealed in 2004 , instead of ' Legal Profession Act 2007 ' .
Firstly , it indicates the appalling ' professionalism ' of JPM as the ' legal practitioner ' , secondly it shows that the contract between him and me did not have any legal basis whatsoever even if he signed it and even if I did not put an additional clause in it or signed the authorisation form !
Second issue I raised was of the lack of the proper legal advice about the matters I brought to JPM and Paul Smith attention ( and I paid for ) .
Craig Smiley says :
' all his points were satisfied by the final advise of Counsel on 14 .02 . 2010 '
Ian Foote says :
' his ( Paul Smith ) supplementary advices dated 22 December 2009 and 14 February 2010 addressed all of the issues , although not to Mr Markan satisfaction'
( They acknowledge that there was nothing in the ' legal advice ' no 1 about ' my ' issues )
' Amended memorandum ' from 22.12.2009 says that there are only 2 points for the special leave to appeal .
The ' legal opinion ' about the requested issues quoted :
- failing to be offered procedural fairness
- interference in the presentation of the case
Please do not laugh – in spite of my clear and specific request to provide the legal advice –
all Paul Smith could utter was to vaguely name an issue .
There is no legal opinion , no professional advice , no logical comments , no reasoning , no rational look at pros and cons , no legal arguments , no references to law , no recommendation what to do , no choices of possible actions , nothing about the legal validity or legal implications of those matters .
Mr. Smith , if you consider those 2 issues so important why you did not say anything about it in your ' legal advice ' no 1 ?!
Smith is a bit shy to elaborate any further in spite of the fact that in the ' Memorandum ' from 11.12.2009 , on 12 pages , he produces verbal vomit about immaterial issues nobody asked him to comment on .
And I did not pay him to demonstrate the abilities of his intellect by drooling about unimportant or irrelevant matters !
So , I find ' Supplementary opinion ' from 14.02.2010 a bit confusing because Smith now says that in his professional opinion there are again only 2 issues for the appeal but different from those mentioned in previous ' opinions '
The ' legal opinion ' about the requested issues quoted :
- the first issue concerns the trial judge – did Mr Markan raise objection to Her Honour hearing the case ? If he did not what were his reasons for failing to do so .
- the second issue concerns his affidavit . I think this issue is interwoven with the special leave
question referred to above
Please do not laugh – this is again considered to be 'appropriate' 'legal advice' according to queensland barrister , JPM and Craig Smiley and Ian Foote from SPS .
This is sufficient to ' justify ' robbing me of A$ 5500 !!!!!!!
So in the conclusion of un-righteous brothers , Craig Smiley and Ian Foote from Solicitors Professional Standards - NONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED
lawyer Craig Smiley
lawyer Ian Foote
Those people are responsible for defining , maintaining and monitoring the professional standards among Queensland lawyers !
They attempt to distract attention by dwelling on the matter of withdrawing the money from the trust account while dismissing any discussion about the ' legal opinion ' . They do not want to accept and admit that Smith was caught ' red handed ' as a dishonest person and a primitive crook.
Seemingly so concerned about the precision of language and the strict adherence to obeying rules in one matter – they accept without a blink a generalized phrase which could mean a thousand things in another matter .
( failing to be offered procedural fairness !??? – what is it !??? ) .
Am I too demanding in wanting to know what this means ?
Is it too much to expect ' professional ' service in exchange for the ' professional ' fee ?
Is it too much to have expectations that on the basis of the ' legal advice '
from a ' professional '
I can make an informed decision ?
The main issue here is clearly the lack of the proper legal advise about the legal aspect of particularly 2 issues relating to the fair trial principle
- dual role of the trial judge and
- the denial of my submission by the trial judge to examine the accuser in court
I pointed out the issues and the obvious problems as seen by me , all I needed was the confirmation or negation from the ' legal professional ' about the legal validity and intelligent arguments for or against , so I can make an informed decision whether to proceed or not in voicing publicly those issues .
I paid money( professional fee ) in good faith . In return I received several pages of paper which cannot be used for making the informed decision , neither they can be used to show that the issues indicated by me are legitimate legal points ( or not ) and are determined as such by a legal professional
Reality is that , if I decided to pay JPM extra money demanded from him for the High Court appeal, after receiving the first ' legal advice ' he ( and Smith ) would feel authorised to proceed with raising different issues in Court than after those indicated in the second or the third 'advice' .
Even after receiving 3 different ' legal advices ' ( about the same matter and from the same person ) I still do not know what issues would be brought up in Court .
Smith is not un-knowledgeable , blind or retarded .
He cowardly avoided expressing professional views which could be seen as inconvenient for the Qld legal system . Since he took money for providing ' professional ' legal opinion , about the matters he was informed beforehand , he is clearly dishonest to the core .
He is no different than a seller of the snake oil .
Am I overreacting ? – please just compare his 12 pages of rubbish with the way he mentioned ' my ' issues in the very reluctantly provided ' advice ' no 2 and no 3 .
Looking at his conduct and his hesitance to even mention the issues indicated by me
( nothing in the ' advice' no 1 ) I am absolutely convinced that if I authorised him to represent me before the High Court he would do
' a la Russo ' trick – hijack and sabotage – by avoiding presenting those issues , or presenting them in purposefully ineffective manner or raising in the Court only some irrelevant matters .
There is also important question of morality , human honesty and fairness in the sense as understood by most people . Organisations like Solicitors Professional Standards and similar lawyers groupings promote propagandist view of lawyers as someone who has got not only
' professional ' knowledge of law and its applications but also the attributes of justice , fairness and honesty
( ' INTEGRITY ' ) .
Smith could see from the documents that I was subjected to injustice in the legal and the moral sense and I was seeking ways to remedy it , however he chose to take advantage of my misfortune and intentionally and knowingly mislead and collaborate in my persecution
.( the proof – ' legal advice ' no 1 ) . In spite of Smith
( and also JPM , Russo and some other people ) clear , premeditated and voluntary intention to deceive and to participate in injustice his performance is judged as ' satisfactory professional conduct ' as of standard preferred by Queensland legal system .
My experience with legal organisations is that they avoid talking about the moral aspects of the conduct of lawyers in question ( see SPS about JPM and Smith ) . So often , if they cannot ' convince ' you about the absurdity or a lie they claim that this is because you are not a lawyer therefore obviously ' you do not understand ' . They do not dare to say that lawyer was acting in good faith , honestly , ethically , conscionably , fairly - preferring to argue about ' technicalities ' and thus hoping to distract attention from deceitfulness and treachery .