Current Royal Commission into Lawyer X gangland convictions on tainted evidence & police corruption

[petedavo]

Tony Mokbel, Rob Karam and Faruk Orman have already lodged appeals.

View attachment 593109

I think it reprehensible that the Herald should mention the kindergarten. There's a suppression order for a reason. In the scheme of things, that could hardly be to protect her professional reputation, and I'd assume it must be to protect her family from physical harm. Publishing that detail IMO might expose her family to physical risk from the reach of those types of people who would do such things IMO. It beggars belief just how salacious journalism can get when the editors see the potential of flogging more papers and thus selling more advertising space.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Kurve]

Timeline.

• January 1998 to June 2003
  Alphonse Gangitano, Mark Moran, Richard Mladenich, Victor Peirce and Shane Chartres-Abbott are among the growing body count of the gangland war.

• Mid-2003 to July 2004
  The lawyer meets six times with a detective from the Purana gangland taskforce.

• June 21, 2003
  Jason Moran and Pasquale Barbaro executed in front of five children at an Auskick game.

• March 2004 to May 2004
  Andrew Veniamin, Lewis Moran, Terrence Blewitt and Lewis Caine murdered.

• May 16 2004
  Terence and Christine Hodson murdered in their home in Kew.

• September 16, 2005
  The lawyer is registered as Informer 3838.

• April and March 2006
  3838 provides information to police about her client’s drug lab and then represents him. He was a cook for Tony Mokbel.

• March 2006
  Tony Mokbel flees just before sentencing after pleading guilty to drug trafficking. The lawyer acted for him at trial when she was informing on him. She cites him as a prime motivator for turning informer.

• April 2007
  Carl Williams makes first statement to police about officer Paul Dale.

• May 2007
  Petra Taskforce is established to investigate the Hodson murders and links to police corruption.

• August 2008
  Robert Karam, Pasquale Barbaro, Frank Madafferi, Pasquali Sergi and Saverio Zirilli arrested over what was lauded as world’s biggest single shipment of ecstasy hidden in tomato tins and shipped from Italy.

• December 7, 2008
  The lawyer covertly records Dale at a cafe before she makes a statement in early 2009.

• January 12, 2009
  The lawyer is deregistered as Informer 3838.

• February 13, 2009
  Dale is arrested.

• June 30, 2009
  Hand-up brief in the Dale case is found in prison.

• July 2, 2009
  The lawyer is relocated to Queensland.

• August 17, 2009
  Trial begins for Faruk Orman, gangland getaway driver in the murder of Victor Peirce. The lawyer acted for him in the trial; concerns she also turned the key witness against Orman into an informer.

• August 26, 2009
  Police are trying to get the lawyer into witness protection. She is warned by Deputy Commissioner Kieran Walshe that she was at “extreme risk of harm” after SMS death threats and the ad hoc security arrangements were an unacceptable risk.

• March 2010
  Dale’s committal hearing for Hodson murders begin. The lawyer, called to testify as “witness F”, doesn’t go to court.

• April 19, 2010
  Williams is killed in Barwon prison by fellow prisoner Matthew Johnson.

• April 20, 2010
  The lawyer rejects an offer of witness protection via her solicitors and sues the state.

• June 4, 2010
  Murder charge against Dale is dropped.

• September 25, 2010
  The lawyer settles lawsuit against Victoria Police for almost $3 million.

• November 9, 2011
  The lawyer refuses to testify against Dale in committal hearing for charges of lying to the ACC.

• July 30, 2012
  ‘Comrie review’ into handling of the lawyer as informant completed.

• April 2014
  Herald Sun publishes first “Lawyer X” story.

• July 14, 2014
  IBAC commences investigation.

• July 22, 2016
  Karam files appeal, saying he didn’t receive a fair trial, claiming the lawyer acted as “agent provocateur” when representing him.

• December 3, 2018
  Supreme Court lifts suppression orders, High Court hands down its judgment and royal commission is announced.

 

[BFew]

https://www.australasianlawyer.com....cement-oversight-law-council-says-258394.aspx

a lawyer acted as a police informer shows a clear breach of legal professional rules ..... “A lawyer purporting to act as counsel for the convicted person, while also covertly informing against them, is a fundamental breach of a lawyer's duties to the court....“Client legal privilege is a fundamental protection and pillar of the Australian legal system. It ensures full and frank discussions between legal advisers and their clients. This promotes the administration of justice and encourages compliance with the law. It must not be abrogated in any circumstance.”

What legal advice did the those in the Vic Police hierarchy, request, receive and act or not act on, when managing the issue of lawyers acting as counsel for the defendant, potential defendants, or convicted persons, while also covertly informing against them?

 

[Kurve]

This is well worth the listening for excellent insight. Andrew Rule and Anthony Dowsley journalist on LawyerX and rogue cops, imo this is honest and balanced.

https://player.whooshkaa.com/shows/life-and-crimes-with-andrew-rule

 

[Melsy]

Police were using LawyerX to rinse out the corrupt cops

 

[petedavo]

“There has never been a more significant revelation than what came out of the High Court judgement. It has the potential to uncover misconduct on an incredible scale, travelling from the informer herself all the way to the highest offices of law enforcement,”

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Melsy]

“There has never been a more significant revelation than what came out of the High Court judgement. It has the potential to uncover misconduct on an incredible scale, travelling from the informer herself all the way to the highest offices of law enforcement,”

If it is alleged no one can predict the outcome. If only a few were the Lawyers clients, how can anyone make a statement as fact as to misconduct?

What will be interesting, is the conduct of officers prying the 'registered' informant for information to rinse out the corrupt officers dealing with organised crime?

In the fray, what will be the items of misconduct?

What happens if there is none?

 

[petedavo]

If it is alleged no one can predict the outcome. If only a few were the Lawyers clients, how can anyone make a statement as fact as to misconduct?

What will be interesting, is the conduct of officers prying the 'registered' informant for information to rinse out the corrupt officers dealing with organised crime?

In the fray, what will be the items of misconduct?

You're looking in the entirety wrong direction Mels. Read the article and the High Court decision again.
The allegations are seemingly directed at Police hierarchy, not the crooks, nor corrupt police, but at Overland's & others actions in registering and using Lawyer X, and also Lawyer X's actions. It will make no difference if they were clients at the time or not. It's the fact that she was admitted to the Victorian bar. She was a Barrister and officer of the Court 24/7/365. The corruption is against her role, against the Court, against the office, against jurisprudence, and against the separation of powers.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[petedavo]

You're looking in the entirety wrong direction Mels. Read the article and the High Court decision again.
The allegations are seemingly directed at Police hierarchy, not the crooks, nor corrupt police, but at Overland's & others actions in registering and using Lawyer X, and also Lawyer X's actions. It will make no difference if they were clients at the time or not. It's the fact that she was admitted to the Victorian bar. She was a Barrister and officer of the Court 24/7/365. The corruption is against her role, against the Court, against the office, against jurisprudence, and against the separation of powers.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

It was done to influence outcomes by the judiciary. To get people charged and found guilty. If that is not a clear interference by the enforcers of the Law with the Judiciary, I don't know what is.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[BFew]

What will be interesting, is the conduct of officers prying the 'registered' informant for information to rinse out the corrupt officers dealing with organised crime?

Way way back many years ago under the Bracks State Government, in the year prior to Lawyer X's official 2005 duties.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/corruption-new-powers-on-way-20040603-gdxyvn.html
3 June 2004

The Bracks Government will today agree to provide extra powers for the Victorian Ombudsman's office to tap telephones and run undercover operations as part of fresh investigations into corrupt police.

The new powers will be delegated immediately to special commissioner Tony Fitzgerald, QC, who has been appointed to investigate the leaking of a confidential police report on a corruption informer.

Mr Fitzgerald yesterday received the blessing of Premier Steve Bracks to extend his investigations beyond the leaking of the report, raising the possibility of him running a broader inquiry into police corruption in Victoria.

Federal Treasurer Peter Costello called for an independent commission to attack the "cancer" of Victorian police corruption, gangland murders and the drug trade.

Did the Bracks State Government provide the ombudsman/special commissioner with powers in a way that legalised or legitimised or encouraged undercover operations using Defence Lawyer(s), or from not at the same time, having exclusions and safeguards in these powers that would have led to different actions and outcomes from the mess we are now in?

Did something go astray in the the Ombudsman delegating these powers to the special commissioner.
Or between the special commissioner, Vic Police and other parties to the decision making process that led to undercover operations using Defence Lawyer(s).

 

[petedavo]

It was done to influence outcomes by the judiciary. To get people charged and found guilty. If that is not a clear interference by the enforcers of the Law with the Judiciary, I don't know what is.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

http://www.walk.com.au/pedestriancouncil/Page.asp?PageID=339
Police Accountability and Oversight: An Overview
A.M. Gleeson AC
Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia (Article published when the Hon Murray Gleeson AC was Chief Justice of NSW

Extracts»

"The fact that the police force is part of the executive branch of government carries with it, as a corollary, certain consequences flowing from the principle of separation of powers."

"First, police do not exercise legislative power; that is to say, they do not make laws. This observation may seem trite, but its implications are sometimes overlooked. Less obvious, but equally important is the need to guard against vesting in the police discretionary powers which, for practical purposes, may amount to powers to make law, or to dispense with the compliance with the law."

"A second consequence of the separation of powers is that it is no part of the function of the police to exercise judicial power. It is for the judiciary, not the police, to determine whether people are guilty or innocent of crimes, and it is for the judiciary, not the police, to punish citizens who have broken the law. To take one simple but important example, the power of arrest is a power that is given for the purpose of taking into custody suspected wrongdoers in circumstances where such custody is necessary for the proper administration of justice. It is not a power that is to be exercised punitively. The police are not given a power to arrest suspected offenders for the purpose of enabling the police *to punish such people, and the exercise of a power of arrest for such a purpose would be a serious abuse of power."

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Slartibartfast]

https://www.australasianlawyer.com....cement-oversight-law-council-says-258394.aspx



What legal advice did the those in the Vic Police hierarchy, request, receive and act or not act on, when managing the issue of lawyers acting as counsel for the defendant, potential defendants, or convicted persons, while also covertly informing against them?

I am fascinated by this aspect.
They would have been told they were on solid ground but on what basis??
Just makes me think there is more to this than we know but I cannot fathom what that is.

 

[Chameleon75]

You're looking in the entirety wrong direction Mels. Read the article and the High Court decision again.
The allegations are seemingly directed at Police hierarchy, not the crooks, nor corrupt police, but at Overland's & others actions in registering and using Lawyer X, and also Lawyer X's actions. It will make no difference if they were clients at the time or not. It's the fact that she was admitted to the Victorian bar. She was a Barrister and officer of the Court 24/7/365. The corruption is against her role, against the Court, against the office, against jurisprudence, and against the separation of powers.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

It very much matters if they are clients or not, that’s the heart of the matter, you’re suggesting that a barrister cannot report a crime under any circumstance. What they cannot do is provide information to police on the very charges they’re engaged to advocate against without that privilege being first waived by the client. The issue with the police is they’re alleged to have conspired with a defense advocate to stitch up their client.

 

[Kurve]

Poor Paul Dale on a righteous rant wants senior police charged over LawyerX, maybe even the DPP.

The only reason drug charges against Dale were dropped was because the Hodsons were conveniently killed and his murder charges for the Hodsons went nowhere because Carl was conveniently killed and LawyerX refused to go witness against.

Poor Paul.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...g-barrister-as-informant-20181208-p50l0y.html

 

[Kurve]

Vic police spent $4.52 million trying to stop the LawyerX scandal becoming public.



Simon might lose his $400,000 p.a. job.

 

[petedavo]

It very much matters if they are clients or not, that’s the heart of the matter, you’re suggesting that a barrister cannot report a crime under any circumstance. What they cannot do is provide information to police on the very charges they’re engaged to advocate against without that privilege being first waived by the client. The issue with the police is they’re alleged to have conspired with a defense advocate to stitch up their client.

An aggravating circumstance, but many people seek legal advice without contracting the lawyer. One would expect advice to be a privileged if it's from a discussion with a lawyer, they swore an oath of office, and thus like judges, police, military officers they are what they are 24/7/365, they don't have the luxury of being private citizens ever whilst they hold their commissions, unlike Joe blow serving behind the counter at Bunnings on a wage. Being admitted to the bar does have onerous responsibilities, one of which is that you don't stop those responsibilities when you're not charging a small wage packet an hour, or more if you're a QC. They're not private individuals after dark, regardless of jokes about being blood sucking vampires and such like.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Chameleon75]

An aggravating circumstance, but many people seek legal advice without contracting the lawyer. One would expect advice to be a privileged if it's from a discussion with a lawyer, they swore an oath of office, and thus like judges, police, military officers they are what they are 24/7/365, they don't have the luxury of being private citizens ever whilst they hold their commissions, unlike Joe blow serving behind the counter at Bunnings on a wage. Being admitted to the bar does have onerous responsibilities, one of which is that you don't stop those responsibilities when you're not charging a small wage packet an hour, or more if you're a QC. They're not private individuals after dark, regardless of jokes about being blood sucking vampires and such like.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

If one has sort and received legal advice then they have engaged a lawyer it’s not dependent on an invoice being issued. Privilege applies.

But your talking about privilege being this blanket that prevents them from reporting any crime, irrespective of if it’s a client.

Even in respect to their clients it’s not a coverall, there are circumstances when their obliged to report or even appear as a witness against their client.

 

[petedavo]

If one has sort and received legal advice then they have engaged a lawyer it’s not dependent on an invoice being issued. Privilege applies.

But your talking about privilege being this blanket that prevents them from reporting any crime, irrespective of if it’s a client.

Even in respect to their clients it’s not a coverall, there are circumstances when their obliged to report or even appear as a witness against their client.

Reporting a crime to police is different to police engaging a human source to discover information IMO. Registered human sources are generally paid for their services and have a handler who checks that the human source has credible access to information on criminal activities, then asks the human source for information about such criminal activities, or asks the human source to gather information about certain suspected criminal enterprises and report it back usually.
They wouldn't register a human source who just voluntarily reports information about a crime as they would be more valuable as a witness in Court instead, I'd assume. Maybe someone who knows more about this sort of thing would be able to iron it out for us?

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Kurve]

Roberta wants the files on LawyerX.

The XFiles.

 

[sprockets]

Roberta wants the files on LawyerX.

What she's really after is a loophole, as are Dale and others.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Roberta wants the files on LawyerX.

The XFiles.

No crocodile tears for this crime whore.

 

[Chameleon75]

Roberta wants the files on LawyerX.

The XFiles.

She’s fishing for compo

 

[JackNah_8]

Roberta wants her house and money.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Roberta wants her house and money.

Proceeds of crime !

 

[Kurve]

The X rated XFILES