Organized crime syndicate !
On 20.04.2011 I received letter from Legal Services Commission .
To my surprise the decision was made ' to commence ' the disciplinary proceedings against
John Paul Mould. BUT only for unauthorised withdrawal of money from the trust account which is really only a minor , secondary concern and also that issue is being presented as a trivial infringement - the matter
of not following relevant procedures .
What about his deceitful conduct – not providing me with the legal advice he promised in writing and stealing my money by deception ?
In practical terms it means that The Commissioner considers that both John Paul Mould and Paul Smith
' deserve ' , that they are ' entitled ' to keeping my money !
( Time showed that ' to commence ' was just a ruse - 20 months later nothing happened !
When recently checked their site I did not find any record of even symbolic , disciplinary action !
That in itself is sufficient evidence that my accusations against Legal Services Commission , its boss
' lawyers poodle ' and lawyers MAFIA are valid )
Legal Services Commissioner
That is in full awareness that in spite of paying to them $5500 I did not receive anything tangible what I could show as evidence of professional outlook on the issues I am raising - apart from few pieces of paper having title ' ... advice ' and nothing in it , therefore that decision appears to be a reward for managing to deceive me ! The decision seemingly was made taking into consideration all the relevant procedures , rules and regulation with all the skills of experienced bureaucracy knowing how to hide major problem by accentuating a minor issue .
With hypocritical ' fairness ' pretending that he is punishing someone when in fact patting him on the back and saying - ' well done ' .
I look at this as ' whitewashing ' – JPM ( and Smith ) dishonesty goes a lot deeper than just
' incompetence ' or ' unauthorised withdrawal of money ', there is a clear element of deliberate wrongdoing and that token , symbolic action by Legal Services Commission
( with the support of paperwork from Queensland Solicitors Professional Standards ) is not serious enough to stamp out the cynical , treacherous , callous , rampant betrayal of trust which me and other people put (out of necessity) in ( Queensland ) lawyers and LSC is involved in the protection of treachery , dishonesty and deceitful conduct .
It shows the major problem with the supervision of the conduct of Queensland lawyers who in spite of doing
' tricks ' like in my case are still considered to be ' fit and proper' and of ' good repute' and will be able to continue deceiving other members of our society.
That also sends clear signal to lawyers that they will get away with anything and they have trusted friends and protectors within personnel of Queensland Legal Services Commission.
The evidence is there :
- JPM chose to work as an intermediary between the client and a barrister .
- He made the commitment in writing to provide / facilitate obtaining the legal advice
- Pretending that the vague naming of some issues (' advice ' no 2 and 3) constitutes the
' legal advice ' is delusion and the insult to human intelligence .
The Commissioner decision is regrettable and unacceptable particularly since he is citing
the public interest and the public deserve protection in such serious matter as betrayal of trust by a lawyer .
The Commissioner final report in relation to such serious matter says only this -
' I support the recommendation from the Society regarding the second allegation
( failure to provide the legal advice ) as set out in report of Mr Foote and Mr Smiley .'
In spite of supposed existence of ' checks and balances ' , legally the only option for me was
to ask for judicial review of administrative decision - NOBODY ( ? ) apparently , can question the merits of his decision -
DID YOU KNOW THAT !?
The responce from the Crown Law representing the Commissioner , with opposing arguments by the barrister Scott A. McLeod is included below .
So far I had 2 ' legal ' battles with Queensland Legal Services Commission regarding their role as protectors of crooked lawyers . Third one is looming depending on their ' investigation ' of my complaint against barristers - Tim Carmody , Douglas Wilson and Paul E. Smith .
They ' won ' both battles in Queensland Supreme Court ( it is good to have friends in high places )