Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.
27 March
Last night I saw a segment on the news about paramedics and ambulance personnel having to take measures to protect themselves because they are so frequently verbally and physically attacked without cause – it is horrible for them that such action is necessary because the legal system has repeatedly failed to protect them. It is, of course, not just the medical side that is attacked, with police and other emergency personnel being run over, driven into and/or otherwise assaulted.
How damning of the “injustice system” for it to be necessary for an emergency worker to have to take his or her own action when the government specifically put legislation in place to provide those protections. For example, there is mandatory sentencing set out in the law for those who attack emergency workers, but lawyers do their best to get their clients off, and the judiciary seem to agree that, for instance, the “poor” perpetrator had a hard life, or was on drugs, or was otherwise impaired – where or when is responsibility taken or given for the actions of the perpetrator? If you do the crime, you should do the time.
My personal opinion of it all is that what those legal practitioners and decision-makers are really saying that the best interests of the perpetrator is paramount and that it is just too bad for those who are attacked for no reason other then they are trying to do their job and who often are too traumatised to go back to work after the attacks.
The legal system needs to be radically repaired so that crimes are dealt with properly.
26 March
Barrister ABC (a short-term pseudonym required by court action), through his solicitor, Mark Schofield of Nicholas O’Donohue & Co, advised me in early February this year that he was going to take me on for defamation – and made it clear that he would do so without actually running a defamation case (just seeking an injunction and costs of the case for an injunction).
Barrister ABC made a clear threat that if the webpage about him was not pulled down, an injunction would be sought the following week. Presumably this was just an attempt to threaten and bully me as I chose not to pull down the webpage but no injunction was sought at that time. His affidavit as provided to me was worthless – firstly, it had no signature and hence was little more than a piece of paper and, secondly, it was dated 2013 – presumably sloppiness on the part of the person who prepared it.
Barrister ABC has claimed that what I wrote was fraudulent, was written maliciously, and with the intent of damaging his reputation. All I did was reveal the true facts – there were no fraudulent remarks, there was no malice (I was just showing that his actions were part of the injustice system), and no intention of doing damage (and I dispute that any damage was done given that he admits that he had known for 3 years what I had written and had not taken any action).
The cause of action implied throughout the papers related to defamation but no explicit cause of action was formally communicated.
The communications came across to me as both threatening and bullying.
It is my honest opinion that: (1) the papers as delivered appeared to be ill-prepared and not even up to a standard I would have expected from a junior legal practitioner let alone a barrister; (2) the communication and my material being challenged by Barrister ABC is all based solidly on documented evidence and I believe he knows he would have no chance of running a successful defamation case against me for what I wrote (an the is out of time); (3) if he took the action he threatened, he would be running what would be a de facto defamation case, would be robbing me of the opportunity to show the truth of my claims – which are claims that have, to an extent, been proved true by Barrister ABC himself. Needless to say, almost 2 months later there has been no action presumably because he knows I wrote the facts (e.g. that he wrote a letter containing fraudulent claims – a letter that he admits writing, and has in fact proved he wrote). Ah, the “injustice system” at work, yet again.
Why is it that someone acts in a way that damages their own reputation then blames others for revealing what that person did? Take whistle-blowers for instance – it is usually them who are hounded and made to look like the guilty ones for revealing the truth.
I will not be bullied or threatened and am still determined to highlight actions I see as reflective of the “injustice system”.