Psycho-Babble Social Thread 1120658

Shown: posts 1 to 4 of 4. This is the beginning of the thread.


Queens Counsel

Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2022, at 2:22:09

Apparently the QC's (Queens Counsel Lawyers) of New Zealand and Australia...

Are busy changing their letter heads (at their own expense) to read KC (Kings Counsel) now.

But... Uh... Did they apply for that job? Will their Law Degrees even be acknowleged if they are more than 5 years old??

And so on??

Perhaps I should simply write myself a letterhead that I have been appointed KC Lawyer and wait for the King to proclaim otherwise?

How much to KC's get paid these days??



Mackenzie Friend

Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2022, at 19:02:36

In reply to Queens Counsel, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2022, at 2:22:09

So it's Miranda Rights -- right?

'You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say may be used as evidence against you, in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, then one will be appointed to you. Do you understand your rights, as they have been read to you?'

We don't Miranda warn people. I think that is true. The police tell people (including children) that they are required to do various things... Required to go with police. Required to stay put in cells at police stations or in prisons. Without the person being read their rights. They refuse to supply lawyers in a timely fashion or at all. They refuse to set court dates. Etc. And it isn't just police. They subcontract to 'security guards' who go about unlawfully detaining people refusing to read them rights or supply lawyers as well.

And the consequences for them kidnapping etc etc?


So there was a contrived case where this qualified lawyer from Queensland Australia was in England and was not a member of the bar association or whatever it is over there. He paid no membership fees or dues and he was not accountable to them for this conduct. He trained in Australia where the focus is on Australian precedent and Australian Law. I don't know what particular area or aspect of Australian Law he had studied. I don't know that he had studied or passed any competency test on filing within the British or UK system. I don't know whether he would have understood the various things that needed to have been done and the process for doing them, the time they needed to be filed by etc etc etc.

The Judge ruled (in the High Court? I don't remember the level of court) that since he was not a practicing barrister in England he was not allowed to do filings for a 'client' (who wasn't going to pay him) and he was not allowed to bill as a lawyer in England and he was not allowed to sit next to him (court room space reserved for clients and their lawyers only) and he was not allowed to address the court becuase that was reserved for clients and their lawyers only. And he was not allowed to disrupt proceedings by whispering in his client who did not pay him's ear during the proceedings.

Then the Court of Appeal overturned that. Because, of course, this issue of having a person who isn't qualified passing themselves off as a lawyer has interesting implications for the kind of 'legal representation' that governments have to provide to people who has been accused by the government of various crimes which is supposedly or allegedgly the lawful grounds or authority that they have for having locked them up and so on.

So the court of appeal says that you don't need to be qualified to sit next to someone in court if they want you to sit next to them. And you can whisper in their ear as much as you like (interrupting them from hearing or following along what the judge is saying when the judge is speaking and so on)... And the client is responsible for themselves and their filings and their speakings and the pretend lawyer person isn't accountable to the client or to the courts for any worse that they make things be for etheir client.

And in exchange for all the work he did being the original MacKenzie friend... Apparently this guy got made QC for Queensland Australia. Years later. By the Australian process for what it is or means to be a QC in Australia. His contribution to law (in part or large part) being setting precedent in the British Court about how Mackenzie friends and be used in lieu of legal representation.

Why do they pay him?

Do they pay him?

Why not just force everyone to have a Mackenzie friend? If they decline to bring a friend and call them lawyer then they have chosen to forsake legal representation.


I guess there probably are Mackenzie friend surgery days in the hospitals, too.

Where the surgeons can bring along the building apprenticses an see if they can hammer a nail in straight...

Or when the patients decide to let their very special particular friend have a go at things.

Just get in there... Have a go.


This is not how we do??



Dark Ages

Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2022, at 19:07:25

In reply to Mackenzie Friend, posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2022, at 19:02:36

I think that is right.

We are presently or currently living in a period that is rightly a kind or a sort of dark age.

Much of the progress that has been made previously is currently being ignored or bypassed or whatever. Books literally burned. Knowledge literally being ignored or blatantly denied.

The Governments are not allowing there to be universities etc. Are not employing staff.

The NZ Government goes on and on and on and on about the only money going into the public schools when it comes to teachers.. Is money that is going to MARKETERS and RECRUITMENT PEOPLE and MANAGERS and ADMINISTRATORS. And that's basically true of everything. There aren't any paid doctors or nurses or teachers or university academics etc etc etc. There are some people on payroll to ensure that the actual activity for which they are nominally paid is never performed... Not by them. Not by anyone.

THe research that is funded is a thin weak poor excuse for why they are getting people to participate in or engage in.. Torturing animals. Making people sick. Killing things. Etc. That is pretty much the only kind of research they will fund or allow to be done. THe arts and culture and academic stuff... Mostly it is about how there aren't any people... There aren't any people... We are all just monkeys or whatever. You get a million monkeys typing for a million years and they will come up with the works of shakespeare. Right? You get a class of 60 to write you essays and then you copy-paste it together for your own publication. Right? You get Google to compile you a summary? You take all the submissions to the journals and you ensure the people with capacity are failed out of their universities and then...

There's nothing there...

Nobody home...


Re: Mackenzie Friend

Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2022, at 19:34:05

In reply to Mackenzie Friend, posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2022, at 19:02:36

I say this because...

It is obviously and clearly a matter of public interest whether the Universities of New Zealand are functioning as Universities or whether they are functioning as Slave or Detention Camps or Endentured Servant Camps where people are getting into Unreasonable Levels of Debt when the Government has no intention of providing employment on the back of the qualifications such that the Level of Debt can be paid off reasonably.

I do understand that Slavery could mean a few different things.. The US focuses on Slavery with respect to buying and selling and trading people as property. So to document that one is descended from Slaves in the US the sort of evidence you supply is that your anscestors were listed as property or were brought and sold for sums of money.

But there is a different part to slavery in other places...

Where they don't pay people for the work they do.

I guess the endentured servants.. Came out from England with the promise that if they worked for x number of years they would be paid (their labor would be compensated or remunerated) with knowledge to look after the land and make it productive also with a chunk of land for them to work and make a living off or from.

HOwever many of them died of maleria when it was time to give them their land so they could make their own living. Before it was time to do that.

So apparently that is endentured servitude. That is also unlawful. Obviously morally problematic. When the intention is to blow up graduation. Or to simply refuse to graduate. Make some final 'capstone project' hoop and fail everyone for that.

Give someone 'A+ best in class' and then fail them out the qualification. Take someone 'best I've seen in 20+ years of teachign' and fail them out of the qualification.

And apparently there isn't enough to go around. That is the problem. There isn't enough land for all of the people to be given any. They offered work-internships to people expecting that... 10%? 20%? 90%? 100% would die when it was time to pay them.

They say 'for your qualification completion to take effect on your salary various things need to happen. You need to supply us with documentation of your graduation'.

And you supply the evidence.

And they say 'we did not get the evidnece. If you don't supply it by a date then you won't get paid'.

And they have system software payroll problems and they won't accept the evidence.

Not until they say your qualification as 'expired'.

So you work for a teacher as how many years? And by 'work' I mean you do the work without them paying you... Do the work first... And then we will pay you...

But the only people who seem to be on payroll are the ones who don't do the work.

Because the work must not be done. Not by anyone.

There aren't any doctors or teachers or lawyers etc.

Not so far as I can see...

Since when did QC's mean people who the Government chooses to get to appear in court to defend the government for actions where they refuse to do any of the thigns they are supposed to do.

QC's are lawyers the governmetn hires to deny that they absued people in state care (they are presently overturning past criminal convictions because a person being convicted of the crime of rape (for example) when they were in state care against a victim who is also in state care in the same institution constitutes evidence of abuse in state care. So they are overturning the convictions now.

What are they doing with the people whose convictions are overturned?

Why, they are rehabilitating them by putting them as 'teacher aides' and 'nurses aids' and so on amongst their preferred demographic for offending.

That seems to be the idea/l of it.

They will likely fast-track them for the qualifications, too.

I wonder how much they do actually pay various people...

For example, Chris Hipkins is the CE (Chief Executive) of the NZVCC (New Zealand Vice Chancellor's Committee). THe Education and Training Act (varoius versions with various amendments none of them relevantly different current version 2020 I think)... States very specifically what the role of the CE of the NZVCC is in handling complaints of wrongdoing against NZ Universities. THe NZVCC publishes policy documents on how to lodge a complaint and how the complaint will be handled. Chris Whelan is refusing to acknowledge receipt of complaints and refusing to do what the policy he wrote says he will do (refusing to collect evidence and have a meeting of the NZVCC and / or refusing to get the collected evidence and allegations to police to help them prosecute).

The Courts of NZ say that...

Chris Whelan would be breaking the law if he were to progress complaints in accordance with the policy he wrote. He would be over-stepping his statutory authority if he were to actually fulfil his statutory function.

Nonsense. Garbage output. Chris Whelan would be acting Ultra Vire (going above his statutory authority) if he did what the statute f*ck*ng well says. I put it to you that there is another name for htat; Doing your f*ck*ng job. You know. The job for which you are paid.

The Courts of NZ say that...

The Universities have unlimited discretion to process (or throw away) applications to enrol as they see fit. They have discretiont o process (or throw away) things like theses submitted for examination or things like sign off on internships. The Universities can simply refuse to acknowlede them. The Universities can give degrees to people who haven't met requirements (honorary degrees) and can withhold degrees from people who have met requirements. THey can do whatever they want in this respect.

The Courts of NZ say that how they treated me is no differnet from how they treat variious other studnets..

But they also say that it is personal. It is not a matter of public interest because it's all very personal and very specific against me.

Garbage garbage garbage garbage garbage output from the 'courts'.


So.... How much do they actually pay Chris Whelan, again?

Or does he pay them. I guess.

Maybe he pays them he pays them he pays them he pays he pays he pays... And, in exhange they say 'Chris Whelan is the CE of the NZVCC on a Salary of several hundred thousands of dollars per year with the very important statutory function of upholding the quality and integrity of NZ University qualifications and ensuring that we honor our duties to investigate complaints of wrongdoing (e.g., criminal activity within the University admnistration and management) in accordance with norms set by international community.

You know... Not to intentionally harbor pedophiles in the schools. Etc.

This is the end of the thread.

Show another thread

URL of post in thread:

Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ

[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,

Script revised: February 4, 2008
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.