Bookmark and Share
Previous article

News Articles

  • Be Warned of The Guardianship Racket in Australia
  • By Doug Young
  • Immigration lawyer
  • 09/01/2019 Make a Comment
  • Contributed by: Pikey ( 5 articles in 2019 )
Be Grateful Today!
Click to receive your Free Guide
F4J: While there is little information available online on the unscrupulous activities of the CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS that practice around Australia, specifically in the jurisdiction of Guardianship & Administration, one lawyer by the name of Doug Young has expressed some very pertinent points about this forum and their ability to strip a person's assets down to the bone in a very short time.

The serious nature of this jurisdiction and how easy it may capture a person, like the effortless luring of a fly into a Venus Fly Trap, should make everyone sit up and take notice of what this man says. Otherwise, who knows — it may just be you or one of your family members who may fall prey to such a horrid system, as it currently stands, so be warned.

While the information has not been fully referenced or formatted/highlighted to provide emphasis, Doug's work is an extremely informative piece of work not to be missed.

Background material


Paragraph 1

My complaint involves the activities of the civil and administrative tribunals (quasi-courts) and closely associated entities the Public Guardians and Public Trustees (and equivalent entities in states using different terminology) in all Australian states and territories. These entities were ostensibly established to ensure the interests of vulnerable people were protected, however the entities have metamorphosed into arrogant, abusive and predatory organizations obsessed with plundering the estates of those who fall into their clutches.

The guardianship system is corrupt to the core. Its purpose is to gain control of elderly Australians and extort their assets for the benefit of state governments. The problems are three-fold, partly deliberately ill-conceived legislation, partly pure bastardry on the part of tribunal members, and partly intent to defraud victims of their estates. Whilst these issues are general in nature and applicable to all Australian states and territories, I will initially detail the specific cases of Lynette Marmin and Robert Lea, and will in the near future provide evidence pertaining to additional cases which clearly demonstrate the practice of deliberate and premeditated crimes against humanity. All cases are supported by transcripts of hearings, medical reports and other evidence. I’ll also supply affidavits and copies of all relevant Australian state and federal legislation as and when required. I am aware of several thousand comparable cases across Australia (barely the tip of the iceberg) although I am yet to collate case material into a usable form.

The real extent of the guardianship racket is difficult to to quantify due to imposition of privacy conditions. It is claimed these are to ‘protect’ the victim although this is farcical as the Office of the Public Trustee invariably seizes everything of value. The true reason for ‘protection’ can only be to restrict collaboration between victims / carers as the Office of the Public Trustee misappropriates all assets of the victim immediately it is appointed.

Wherever possible, the victim is institutionalized and their home liquidated to provide additional funds to the Office of the Public Trustee. I am aware of a number of cases where the life of the victim was shortened (we contend deliberately) by removal of life-sustaining measures. Queensland and NSW have been more successful than other states in hiding their issues but at least a few victims contact us in Queensland. Issues within the state of Queensland will be given priority due to the amount of in-depth case history and identification of perpetuators, however comparable material in respect of issues in other states and territories is being collated and will be provided to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in due course.

Paragraph 2

The issues mentioned herein form part of a very complex pattern of systemic abuse and exploitation that is endemic to all Australian states and territories, consequently I believe it is germane to include a general overview as well as information specific to individual cases. You will no doubt be aware from United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) reports that Australia has a shockingly poor human rights record in respect of offshore detention facilities, however it is not generally known that crimes against humanity are just as prevalent onshore as offshore. I understand that a submission by the Global Legal Action Network and Stanford University has recently been lodged with the ICC regarding Australia’s crimes against community. As a group of lay advocates, we certainly do not have anything like the resources or the expertise of Stanford University or the Global Legal Action Network, but what we lack in formal resources, we have in determination to expose the guardianship racket and especially the perpetuators. UNHRC special representative Michel Forst met with a delegation of human rights advocates in Brisbane Queensland during late 2016 and was horrified by what he learned about human rights abuse perpetuated by official entities within Australia. Submissions presented to Forst included details of concerted attempts (none of which proved effective) made to resolve issues within Australia. He commented that in his opinion, Australia is worse than North Korea in terms of human rights abuse. Forst agreed that the matters presented to him constituted crimes against humanity and as such he recommended approach to the ICC.


Paragraph 3

Official documents show that civil and administrative tribunals (QCAT, NCAT, ACAT, VCAT, SACAT etc) were seen by Australian governments as a cost-effective alternative to conventional courts. The Commonwealth Constitution limits the right of states and territories to create courts to Supreme Court (and by extension the Court of Appeal), District Court and Magistrates Court, hence the creation of tribunals. Since tribunals are not genuine courts (as per the Constitution), their powers are limited. For example, tribunals cannot make orders or enforce them, although they regularly imply powers they do not possess. This point is critical as will be shown later. Legislation creating civil and administrative tribunals is badly flawed; examples being the ability of tribunals to ignore rules of evidence, the ability to inform themselves any way they wish, and the ability to state with no fear of challenge (recorded in transcripts) that ‘it is not the job of the tribunal to determine the truth or otherwise’. One consequence is that tribunals can and do reject cogent and probative evidence whilst accepting lies and innuendo. Specific examples will be shown later but suffice to say at this point that comments by persons (including those who are totally unqualified) which satisfy the obsession of the tribunal with finding its victims incapable of managing their own affairs are invariably accepted with open arms, but substantial positive evidence from highly recognized professionals is rejected as ‘rubbish’. Once a victim is in the clutches of the tribunal and its associates, every possible obstacle is placed in the way of a victim who attempts to assert his or her capacity to manage their own affairs. The fact of ridiculously low standards of proof accepted to certify a victim incapable of managing their own affairs contrasts dramatically with the near impossibility faced by victims of demonstrating capacity sufficient to regain control of their lives. Mind you, these obstacles mysteriously disappear once the Office of the Public Trustee has managed to decimate the victim’s estate.

Paragraph 4

In creating civil and administrative tribunals, state governments endowed these entities with virtually unlimited immunity and protection, the ‘members’ (quasi-judges) being made effectively equal to Supreme Court judges despite not necessarily having even a law degree, let alone judicial experience. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2010 (and comparable legislation in other states and territories) confers immunity to prosecution for all civil offences and potentially all criminal offences committed in the course of their employment, requires the tribunal to be headed by a Supreme Court judge (currently David Thomas) and requires the tribunal to retain ‘specialized expertise’ presumably to deal with matters in which in-depth professional knowledge is essential (for example, questions of testamentary capacity). Currently there is only one (albeit part time) QCAT member (speech therapist Julia Casey) known hold a remotely relevant qualification. QCAT deceptively claims Bridget Cullen is a doctor, the implication being a medical practitioner (she has a completely irrelevant PhD in Arts). Appointment of members is supposed to be for a maximum period of five years (note Endicott has been in the same position for over twice the allotted period) although that is only one of countless legislative provisions habitually ignored. In Queensland, the tribunal has been effectively under the control of Clare Endicott since its inception in 2010, and this individual also had control of the predecessor entity (Guardianship Tribunal) since 2005. The president’s job description includes responsibility to investigate complaints against members however there is no indication that this is taken seriously as he has failed on several occasions to address complaints. For that matter, the ranscripts in a directions hearing chaired by Peta Stilgoe records her statement ‘the president does not respond to submissions’. All government departments and quangos are required by legislation to have an internal complaints review facility although QCAT senior registrar Julie Hay advised me verbally that there is no point submitting complaints to QCAT because ‘we don’t take any notice of them’.

Paragraph 5

Endicott has a somewhat chequered history, with a disproportionate number of allegations of bias and at least two matters in which the Court of Appeal reversed her decisions for bias. In the most notable instance (Maher QCA11-2011)1, the three Court of Appeal judges remarked that ‘the quality of decision-making in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal is deplorable’ and the earlier Bucknall QSC09-1282 landmark appeal against a Guardianship Tribunal (predecessor to QCAT) decision shows conclusively that the tribunals were conceived to be abusive, unaccountable, immune to any investigation, unresponsive to legislation and inherently predatory. I understand that Ray Bucknall has already filed a submission with the ICC and Patricia Maher has advised she will do likewise within a matter of days. Since Maher, there have been no known published case records where an appeal against a QCAT decision reached the Queensland Court of Appeal, although it is notable that official records including reports submitted to state parliament state that the tribunal handles approximately 600 guardianship matters per annum, but at last check there were only 562 cases published since the original guardianship tribunal was instigated in 1998 (should be well over 10,000). It is alleged that Endicott took steps to protect herself against further embarrassment consequent to another Queensland Court of Appeal decision slamming her for bias. Since Maher, published records show that tribunal members create ‘evidence’ of a persons incapacity by way of interrogation calculated to reduce them to rubble, after which the presiding member claims ‘we had the opportunity to interview X and ascertained he or she was completely non compos mentis’, thus over-ruling substantial medical and allied health professional reports. If or when the victim attempts to appeal the decision, they are told that it was based on a matter of fact rather than a matter of law and as such it is not appealable. Another favourite trick employed by QCAT is to arrange for appeals to be heard by a non-judicial member rather than the president or another judicial member. Appeals against decisions by a non-judicial member cannot be made to the Court of Appeal, which necessitates the party navigating the appeal process three times (non-judicial, judicial, Court of Appeal). Apart from the psychological consequences, the financial cost of mounting three appeals is likely to be well beyond the capacity of most individuals, even if they had control of their finances at that point which is rarely the case. The Office of the Public Trustee is quite happy to plunder its victim’s estate to pay its own costs whether real or imagined, but if the victim requests access to their own money to retain legal counsel, the request is typically denied.

Paragraph 6

A third issue of concern is the presence of privative clauses in legislation which severely restrict access to judicial review. Whilst common law, the Constitution and International Instruments all require availability of judicial review, Australian governments have gone to great lengths to restrict as far as is humanly possible, any recourse to judicial review. Legislation does provide for judicial review in matters of natural justice however in reality, anyone who attempts to resort to judicial review encounters massive resistance initiated by the government in the way of threats of costs sufficient to deter them from proceeding.

Paragraph 7

There are a number of official entities in place which purport to be ‘independent’ and which were ostensibly conceived to monitor and investigate official malpractice. On a state level these include the Ombudsman, the Crime and Corruption Commission, the Public Advocate and the Legal Services Commission. On a commonwealth level there are the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Commonwealth Human Rights Commission. Unfortunately all of these entities were conceived purely as rubber stamps for official policy and as such they lack the authority, interest and ability to regulate civil and administrative tribunals. State Attorneys General are responsible for the operation of the state justice departments, in fact legislation requires state attorneys general to intervene when necessary, however the moment their attention is drawn to the provision in question, their response is ‘I refuse to communicate with you regarding tissues with the civil and administrative tribunal’. Ample evidence is available to refute the claim of independence between civil and administrative tribunals, public guardians and public trustees. In Queensland at least, the Offfice of the Public Guardian is funded by the Office of the Public Trustee. The Office of the Public Trustee is afforded privileges such as advance notice of any hearing, authority to charge its own costs to the account of its victim, the ability to lodge late submissions that would be ruled inadmissable by any other party, and is regarded as ‘competent’ by tribunals despite damning evidence of conflict of interest and financial mismanagement. The Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 provides that the tribunal can only appoint the Office of the Public Trustee as financial administrator as a last resort, when there are no other options, however in every known guardianship matter since Maher QCA11-225, the Office of the Public Trustee has ALWAYS been appointed as financial administrator. Prior to Maher, it was common in both QCAT and the earlier Guardianship Tribunal to appoint either Trustee Company or Perpetual Trustees as financial administrator, but for some unknown reason that practice stopped around the time of Maher. The Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 also provides that the wishes and preferences of a victim must be respected and a victim must be given every assistance to manage their own affairs although this is routinely ignored by the tribunal, the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee. Whilst legislation requires the Office of the Public Trustee to observe prudent financial management of its victim’s financial affairs, the ‘Independent Costello Commission of Inquiry’ revealed major flaws and shortcomings in its accounting system which result in it being completely incapable of fulfilling its legislated responsibility. Rather than lifting its game, the state government went to great lengths to hide the problems from public view, including silencing dissent from the Auditor General and demanding that the two parliamentary inquiries into QCAT must never be released to the public. An example of ongoing financial malpractice and conflict of interest is seen in the commercial arrangement between the Office of the Public Trustee, Morgans Financial Services (Morgans was reprimanded and discredited by the Australian Securities and Investments Corporation in November 2015), Australian Superannuation, the Queensland Investment Corporation (effectively a Queensland government bank) and top tier accounting firm BDO. Morgans is retained by the Office of the Public Trustee to recommend the victim’s superannuation fund be moved to Australian Super, which in turn invests with the QIC. This arrangement is beneficial to the Office of the Public Trustee and the Queensland government, but seriously detrimental to the victim. Regardless of advice from the victim that no change to existing superannuation arrangements is authorized, the Office of the Public Trustee sees nothing wrong with using the funds of its victim to engage Morgans to provide a report it knows will recommend action disadvantageous to the victim. Another dirty trick practiced by the Office of the Public Trustee is to advise the victim’s bankers that they have a court order to seize all funds belonging to the victim. Funds supposedly held ‘in trust’ are regarded as the property of the Office of the Public Trustee and available for plundering. There is no effective monitoring or review of the Office of the Public Trustee ineptitude and mismanagement; anything that is available is totally farcical. An example is the attempt to impose legal costs of $29,000 for reading an eight page appeal application. As mentioned in paragraph 3, tribunal decisions are NOT equivalent to court orders in that they cannot be enforced. If perchance the tribunal respected legislation requiring it to only appoint the Office of the Public Trustee when there are no other options, it is likely that a spouse, significant other or family member of the victim would discover tribunal decisions and directions are unenforceable whereas the incestuously close relationship between the tribunal, the Office of the Public Trustee and the Office of the Public Guardian means that all tribunal decisions / directions are strictly observed. It is believed that the Office of the Public Trustee via its Director of Disability Services Clinton Miles is actually top dog which controls both the tribunal and the Attorney General as well as the Office of the Public Guardian which it funds. The consequences for the victim are disastrous with most if not all estates being completely wiped out within a few years. There is no recourse via the tribunal, any and all complaints regarding ineptitude and malpractice on the part of the Office of the Public Trustee are rejected with ‘the Public Trustee is competent’. Whilst a number of victims (verbal advice from QPS suggests several hundred) have convinced the Queensland Police Service to accept complaints of embezzlement and fraud against two senior staff of the Office of the Public Trustee, intervention by the state Attorney General invariably results in the actions being discontinued.

Paragraph 8

As well as appointing the Office of the Public Trustee as financial administrator, the majority of tribunal decisions appoint the Office of the Public Guardian to control a victim’s legal, health, accommodation and lifestyle affairs. This appointment potentially denies the victim any input into the aforementioned functions, for example they can no longer choose what medical practitioner they consult, they cannot instruct a lawyer or barrister to represent them, they cannot decide where they wish to live (even if this is in their own home) and they cannot even decide from whom they wish to accept contact and visits. An all too common scenario involves a report from a tame / compliant medical or allied health practitioner favourably disposed toward the Office of the Public Guardian finding that the victim suffers from an alzheimers style dementia and must be institutionalized for their own safety. It is understood that the percentage of victims assessed as suffering dementia is many times higher than in the general community. Even when the Office of the Public Guardian has not been appointed for these functions, its delegates nevertheless attempt to gain access to the home of the victim in order to conduct a rigged assessment. As will be detailed later, a particular victim who had multiple positive reports from her own medical and allied health professionals attesting to her lack of any symptoms of dementia, was targeted at least five times for a rigged ACAT assessment. In this case however, the victim had become aware of the trick and was able to successfully repel the attempts. The likely reason why the Office of the Public Guardian is obsessed with institutionalizing victims stems from the fact that its source of funding (the Office of the Public Trustee) cannot charge management costs in respect of owner-occupied homes. These homes then represent unprofitable business, hence the need to engage the Office of the Public Guardian to arrange a report stating that the victim suffers from dementia.

Paragraph 9 (Lynette Bette Marmin matter)

On 27th October 2014, Lynette suffered a brain bleed and was hospitalized at Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital. Within a few days, social worker Sophie Wiggans (later found to be one of a number of QCAT spotters) convinced Lynette’s older sister Carol Wilson to file a QCAT application for guardianship and administration. Wiggans talked newly admitted junior registrar Neil Raffelt to complete a medical report to support the QCAT application. Wiggans and Raffelt ignored RBWH policy that prohibited any medical reports in respect of brain injury patients for at least 30 days, after admission and the requirement for approval by the consultant neurologist (Andrew Wong in this case). A complaint to RBWH management resulted in a written apology and assurance that Wiggans had been disciplined and retrained. Unfortunately Raffelt was no longer employed by Queensland Health at the time the complaint was processed so it was impossible for RBWH to take any further action against him. No attempt was made to seek Lynette’s views, although Carol would have been fully aware that Lynette would have vehemently opposed any intervention. Carol and her husband Peter invaded Lynette’s home without her authority in an unsuccessful search for financial information to support the QCAT application. Lynette and Carol had not been close since Lynette places a very high value on her privacy, autonomy and self-determination whereas Carol can only be described as a control freak. Carol had never been privy to Lynette’s personal or financial affairs and this is reflected in her QCAT documentation where every question about personal and financial matters was marked ‘unknown’. Lynette was absolutely horrified with the violation of her privacy and determined to have no future contact with Carol. There were at this time no pressing financial or other matters and no suggestion was made that Lynette was at any risk whatever (other than the consequences of the brain bleed). The Guardianship amd Administration Act 2000 permits intervention only where the party is at risk (not the case here), consequently I filed an application for dismissal which was summarily rejected by Endicott. Subsequent applications for deferral to give Lynette some time to recover and to commence speech therapy were also summarily refused. In late November 2014, consequent to a complaint regarding sub-standard nursing care, Lynette was transferred to the Brighton Health Complex where she began intensive rehabilitation. She was discharged in mid-December 2014 and returned to her own home. Early in January 2015, director of medicine Catherine Yelland requested we attend her clinic on 15th January 2015 for a ‘review’. It was only after attending this ‘review’ that we found it was intentionally deceptive and the real purpose was to enable Yelland to complete a medical report requested by Endicott and catering to Endicott’s intent to find Lynette incapable of managing her financial affairs. Presumably Endicott was aware that the Raffelt report was illegitimate which was why she felt she needed to arrange more ‘evidence’ to justify the decision I allege she had made previously to find Lynette incapable of managing her financial affairs. A letter from Yelland to Lynette’s GP Penny McBride confirmed Yelland’s complicity with Endicott. We were denied access to the report prior to the scheduled QCAT hearing on 19th January 2015 which meant we were severely disadvantaged by being unable to seek independent medical and legal advice. Furthermore, Yelland neglected to mention that Lynette’s only residual disability was the communication disorder aphasia which is not considered by the medical profession to be associated with loss of intelligence. Had this critical information been included in the report, it would clearly have been very difficult for Endicott to justify her decision to declare Lynette incapable of managing her financial affairs. (Endicott makes all QCAT guardianship decisions herself prior to any hearing and the purpose of hearings is to display a pretence of legitimacy). It is alleged that Endicott and Yelland conspired to pervert the course of justice by deliberately arranging a report that could only be described as false and misleading. Complaints regarding the actions of Raffelt and Yelland were filed in early 2016 with the Australian Health Providers Regulatory Authority but repeated followup calls have failed to elicit any meaningful response as to the state of the investigation.

Paragraph 10 (QCAT hearing 19th January 2015)

The hearing was chaired by Julia Casey who claimed to be a qualified speech pathologist, although her style of interrogation showed that she was a dismal failure in her previous vocation. Casey left the room several times, probably to confer with her boss Endicott. Casey totally ignored Guardianship and Administrative Act 2000 provisions requiring her to consider the wishes of the victim, the requirement to consider existing informal arrangements (40 years in this case), the requirement to impose the minimum possible restriction, and the requirement to facilitate the maximum possible involvement of the victim in managing her own affairs. Interestingly there was no restriction imposed on Lynette’s ability to manage her own medical, legal, accommodation and lifestyle matters although given Lynette’s recent medical history, significant in-depth awareness of complex matters was clearly required. This raises the question of why Endicott / Casey decided Lynette was quite capable of comprehending one highly complex matter but not capable of comprehending her very basic financial matters. As subsequent events revealed, the Office of the Public Trustee demonstrated considerable ineptitude by managing to get five black marks on Lynette’s previously impeccable financial record. A complaint to the president about the actions of Endicott and Casey was not responded to although I was able to ascertain from the president’s staff that the complaint had been communicated to Endicott and Casey. Casey (as surrogate for Endicott) appointed the Public Guardian for visitation, and the Public Trustee for all financial matters, with a review set for January 2017 After the Public Guardian refused to respect Lynette’s wishes regarding no contact with Carol, Lynette successfully applied to the Magistrates Court for domestic violence orders against her sister and brother-in-law.

Paragraph 11 (appeal against January 2015 decision)

In March 2015, I filed an appeal against the Casey decision however no hearing date has been scheduled despite the passage of nearly two years, no doubt because the tribunal has no intention of dealing with the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and false and misleading evidence matters. That said, the Office of the Public Trustee attempted to impose legal expenses of $29,000 on Lynette’s account for reading the eight page appeal application. The first time this $29,000 was mentioned was in a directions hearing chaired by Peta Stilgoe, who failed to object to what was clearly malpractice on the part of the Office of the Public Trustee. During a later directions hearing, Stilgoe recommended Miles charge Lynette’s account for his time even though doing so is highly improper for a non-lawyer. We understand the Office of the Public Trustee intends charging unspecified costs for other unexplained legal costs but it has steadfastly refused to provide any details. This supports my assertion that the Public Trustee regards money ‘in trust’ as its own property available for plundering at will.

Paragraph 12 (Lynette’s application for a declaration of capacity)

In October 2015, Lynette filed an application for a declaration of capacity, tendering seven positive reports by medical and allied health professional. Note particularly that the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 provides for only a single report by either a general practitioner or a psychologist, however Lynette provided positive reports from two general practitioners, two psychologists, a neurologist, a psychiatrist and a speech pathologist, together with professional recommendations regarding appropriate communication measures for a person suffering a communication disorder. Note particularly that aphasia is aggravated by stress, and whilst Lynette appears perfectly normal in most environments, severe stress renders her effectively mute. The hearing was delayed by Endicott until 21st January 2016 and was chaired by Jim Allen. Allen discarded all Lynette’s evidence as ‘rubbish’ (recorded on transcript). He ignored recommendations by Lynette’s medical professionals regarding appropriate communication methods, ignored provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and refused to allow Lynette’s lawyer (automatic right for QCAT victims with communication issues) to speak on her behalf. Allens brutal interrogation left Lynette effectively catatonic and a psychologist later reported that she had been severely traumatized. Whilst Allen refused to accept Lynette’s evidence, he had no objections to accepting the comments made by non-practicing Public Trustee occupational therapist Karen Opitz that a neuropsychologist report was essential to assess ‘higher cognitive functioning’. Needless to say, there is no legislative requirement and no relevant precedent for insistence on a neuropsychologist report, but tribunals regularly invent new and previously unheard of requirements on the fly. Whilst Opitz and her boss Clinton Miles have no relevant qualifications, they were undoubtedly of the opinion that a neuropsychologist report would be severely detrimental to Lynette’s case since the traditional assessment is almost exclusively verbal. Where they came unstuck is the progressive change in neuropsychologist assessment methodology and we were fortunate enough to find one of the new style practitioners who reported that Lynette is perfectly capable of managing her own affairs. That report brings the total number of positive reports to eight, something unknown in any previous guardianship matter. Endicott / Allen / Opitz / Miles are obviously unhappy that we have circumnavigated their shenanigans but they are reluctant to give in gracefully. They know that Lynette now has a barrister (unheard of in QCAT) and massively overwhelming evidence of capacity, but returning Lynette’s control of her life before the Public Trustee has misappropriated her estate constitutes a loss of face on the part of Endicott / Allen / Opitz / Miles. On the other hand, the very last thing Endicott wants is another finding of bias by the Court of Appeal. The barrister assures us that Endicott’s hitherto successful ploys to prevent her victim from escaping the clutches of QCAT will not succeed in this case due to the number of obvious and blatant breaches of legislation, any of which allow appeal on a question of law. Given that Endicott and friends are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, the only possible response Endicott et al can dream up is to do nothing.

Paragraph 13 (resolution)

Present state of play is that Lynette has more positive evidence of capacity than has ever been submitted in any Australian guardianship matter. QCAT (Endicott / Allen) and the Office of the Public Trustee (Opitz / Miles) are obviously not prepared to let a victim escape their clutches while her estate still has some value that the Office of the Public Trustee has not to date been able to exploit. There can be no doubt that the motivation of QCAT et al is purely predatory as they are always quick to release a victim when their assets have been depleted to zero. At this point there are three unresolved matters involving Lynette, my March 2015 appeal against the Endicott / Casey decision which isn’t being scheduled because Endicott can’t afford to have her alleged conspiracy with Yelland discussed, the review of the Endicott / Casey decision which was due in January 2017, and Lynette’s application for a declaration of capacity. There is absolutely no legitimate justification for continued delay, whether in common law, Queensland law, Commonwealth law, or international law. Even the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 which is routinely ignored by QCAT recognizes that ‘the ability to make decisions, including decisions with which others may not agree, is fundamental to an adult’s inherent dignity’. Wanton destruction of a person’s life, demolition of three generations of their family relationships, unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion into their privacy, imposition of wholly unnecessary controls, deliberate infliction of severe psychological injury and plundering the victim’s estate can only be described as crimes against humanity. Australia’s dismal human rights record is a matter of fact and given the well-publicized offshore detention issues, it should be no surprise that the exact same theme is practiced onshore as well as offshore.

We have pursued all available political, executive, legal and judicial avenues available however the perpetuators enjoy such extreme protection and immunity that none of the suggested onshore remedies provide any certainty of resolution, let alone a timely one. No state or commonwealth politician is prepared to take an interest in guardianship matters, none of the watchdogs (Queensland Ombudsman, Crime and Corruption Commission, Anti-Discrimination Commission, Human Rights Commission, Commonwealth Ombudsman etc have the authority or the interest in dealing with guardianship matters, and neither state nor commonwealth police forces are immune to political and executive interference. (eg Queensland Police instructed to discontinue fraud actions against the Office of the Public Trustee). QCAT / Endicott has intentionally tampered with the appeal process and Queensland Attorney General Yvette D’Ath has intentionally blocked QPS fraud complaints and practiced economic intimidation in respect of several applications for judicial review. Neither the Ombudsman, the Crime and Corruption Commission nor the Commonwealth Human Rights Commission are prepared to act against the tribunal and neither state or federal politicians, Prime Minister Turnbull, Commonwealth Attorney General George Brandis nor Commonwealth Justice Minister Michael Keenan are prepared to respond to our approaches despite numerous follow-ups.

There are no available judicial solutions as the tribunals indefinitely defer decisions on matters unpalatable to them (eg two years have elapsed since my March 2015 appeal), the tribunals deliberately nobble the appeal process, and state governments actively block access to judicial review.


References:
1. Maher v Adult Guardian & Anor [2011] QCA 225 (11/3174) Chesterman and White JJA and Philippides J 9 September 2011
2. Bucknall v Guardianship and Administration Tribunal & Ors (No. 1) [2009] QSC 128 [2009] 2 Qd R 402 (08/12035) Byrne SJA 2 June 2009





Source: https://www.academia.edu/


     8+5= 
    (Note: If wrong - comments will not be posted)
    Footnotes:

    1Will not be visible to public.
    2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
    3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.

    To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here

    To contribute a news article Click Here

    To view or contribute a Quote Click Here

    Hosting & Support by WebPal© 2019 f4joz.com All rights reserved.