Lawyer Chris Hannay sues Campbell Newman and Jarrod Bleijie over bikie comments

If people suspect money to pay solicitors is coming from drug money then why dont Governments take the next step and carry out a financial audit to see where the money is coming from?

My next question is if some of the money is found to be drug money then what is to be done?

If Governments are cracking down on monies from proceeds of crime, like cars, yachts, homes, art, media payments etc then if suspected criminals are paying solicitors money from proceeds of crime, then if should be looked at, considered and dealt with.

I’d like to hear arguments for and against.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’d like to hear arguments for and against.

The article you linked to has nothing to do with drug money. This is to do with high level public servants making public remarks that could be taken as defamation. I believe the lawyer at the centre of it has a very strong case and I wish him all the best of luck.

From the report:

“Court documents obtained by the ABC reveal Gold Coast solicitor Chris Hannay is suing Campbell Newman and Jarrod Bleijie over claims that bikie lawyers were part of a “criminal gang machine” and would do anything to defend their clients.

In the remarks in February, Mr Newman told reporters that lawyers who defended bikies were hired guns who took money from people who sold drugs to teenagers.”

In Australia’s legal system everyone is entitled to defend themselves, with the aid of experts in the law. If the accused are found guilty, it is quite literally true that the lawyers who defended them “took money from people who sold drugs to teenagers”. So long as these lawyers acted within the law there is no legal or ethical problem with them charging for their services, no matter where the money came from.

Is Newman suggesting that the lawyers should be payed by the state, and the accused should keep their ill-gotten gains?

Or perhaps that the accused should not be entitled to a trial at all?

Carmen_Sandiego said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’d like to hear arguments for and against.

The article you linked to has nothing to do with drug money. This is to do with high level public servants making public remarks that could be taken as defamation. I believe the lawyer at the centre of it has a very strong case and I wish him all the best of luck.

+1 the Premier and the AG were well out of line and using this to get political mileage…

The tough stance on bikes is fine, but it’s the anti-association elements that I really don’t like… I’m also not a fan of the requirements for tattooers to have to register

Carmen_Sandiego said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’d like to hear arguments for and against.

The article you linked to has nothing to do with drug money. This is to do with high level public servants making public remarks that could be taken as defamation. I believe the lawyer at the centre of it has a very strong case and I wish him all the best of luck.

That is very dismissive of my argument

The Rev Dodgson said:

Or perhaps that the accused should not be entitled to a trial at all?

That is the way QLD is going.

A lawyer never represents a guilty person as the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

I am particularly interested in seeing the lawyer is approaching the individuals for the compensation rather than the state, so am surprised that the state is footing the bill for the defense.

diddly-squat said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’d like to hear arguments for and against.

The article you linked to has nothing to do with drug money. This is to do with high level public servants making public remarks that could be taken as defamation. I believe the lawyer at the centre of it has a very strong case and I wish him all the best of luck.

+1 the Premier and the AG were well out of line and using this to get political mileage…

The tough stance on bikes is fine, but it’s the anti-association elements that I really don’t like… I’m also not a fan of the requirements for tattooers to have to register

Yes, Premier and the AG were well out of line

yes, they were using this to get political mileage

>>>but it’s the anti-association elements that I really don’t like

agree

>>>>I’m also not a fan of the requirements for tattooers to have to register

agree

CrazyNeutrino said:

If people suspect money to pay solicitors is coming from drug money then why dont Governments take the next step and carry out a financial audit to see where the money is coming from?

Because often the money is laundered through legitimate businesses

CrazyNeutrino said:

My next question is if some of the money is found to be drug money then what is to be done?

This is often very hard to prove because of the above.

CrazyNeutrino said:

If Governments are cracking down on monies from proceeds of crime, like cars, yachts, homes, art, media payments etc then if suspected criminals are paying solicitors money from proceeds of crime, then if should be looked at, considered and dealt with.

there are a great many laws concerning seizure of the proceeds of crime that are regularly used in this exact context.

I am not aware of the actual requirements, being removed from the state, but what is the problem with tatooists registering?

So if governments pass laws requiring a financial audit of received money and a solicitor is found to have received proceeds of drug money, then what? suspend them? Ban them? Fine them? Jail Them?

Or perhaps regulations need to be drawn up for solicitors to follow so they dont receive any drug money.

CrazyNeutrino said:

So if governments pass laws requiring a financial audit of received money and a solicitor is found to have received proceeds of drug money, then what? suspend them? Ban them? Fine them? Jail Them?

Or perhaps regulations need to be drawn up for solicitors to follow so they dont receive any drug money.

Everyone has a right to a fair trial, with representation by lawyers, and lawyers representing people found to be guilty have a right to be payed.

What have the solicitors done that is deemed to be wrong?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Or perhaps regulations need to be drawn up for solicitors to follow so they dont receive any drug money.

And the ATO should also be similarly regulated.

The Rev Dodgson said:

What have the solicitors done that is deemed to be wrong?

Representing criminals.

What is so special about drug money anyway?

Any lawyer who represents people found to be guilty, who have made their income from their crimes, receives money gained from criminal activity.

Is there something wrong with that?

Should defence lawyers only be payed if their clients are found not guilty?

Carmen_Sandiego said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What have the solicitors done that is deemed to be wrong?

Representing criminals.

Yeah, just lock the bikies up and throw away the key.

Or crucify them; set an example for the others.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Or perhaps regulations need to be drawn up for solicitors to follow so they dont receive any drug money.

And the ATO should also be similarly regulated.

all all proceeds of crime come directly to me…

The Rev Dodgson said:

From the report:

“Court documents obtained by the ABC reveal Gold Coast solicitor Chris Hannay is suing Campbell Newman and Jarrod Bleijie over claims that bikie lawyers were part of a “criminal gang machine” and would do anything to defend their clients.

In the remarks in February, Mr Newman told reporters that lawyers who defended bikies were hired guns who took money from people who sold drugs to teenagers.”

In Australia’s legal system everyone is entitled to defend themselves, with the aid of experts in the law. If the accused are found guilty, it is quite literally true that the lawyers who defended them “took money from people who sold drugs to teenagers”. So long as these lawyers acted within the law there is no legal or ethical problem with them charging for their services, no matter where the money came from.

Is Newman suggesting that the lawyers should be payed by the state, and the accused should keep their ill-gotten gains?

Or perhaps that the accused should not be entitled to a trial at all?

So long as these lawyers acted within the law there is no legal or ethical problem with them charging for their services, no matter where the money came from.

No, there is an ethical problem if the solicitors are receiving proceeds from crime

Im suggesting that the law has not caught up with solicitors receiving money from proceeds of crime

>>>Is Newman suggesting that the lawyers should be payed by the state, and the accused should keep their ill-gotten gains?

Some one has to pay the solicitors

with the crackdown on proceeds from crime, the accused will have their drug money confiscated

>>>Or perhaps that the accused should not be entitled to a trial at all?

all accused should entitled to a fair trial

Governments should first do a financial audit before a trial to see if any money from proceeds of crime is being used to fund solicitors.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

So if governments pass laws requiring a financial audit of received money and a solicitor is found to have received proceeds of drug money, then what? suspend them? Ban them? Fine them? Jail Them?

Or perhaps regulations need to be drawn up for solicitors to follow so they dont receive any drug money.

Everyone has a right to a fair trial, with representation by lawyers, and lawyers representing people found to be guilty have a right to be payed.

What have the solicitors done that is deemed to be wrong?

Well if any solicitors are receiving money from proceeds from crime then it is unethical isn’t it

I think the matter is fairly simple

Carmen_Sandiego said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Or perhaps regulations need to be drawn up for solicitors to follow so they dont receive any drug money.

And the ATO should also be similarly regulated.

Yes I agree

Carmen_Sandiego said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What have the solicitors done that is deemed to be wrong?

Representing criminals.

Solicitors still need to represent criminals

the money used to pay the solicitors needs to be clean money

Carmen_Sandiego said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What have the solicitors done that is deemed to be wrong?

Representing criminals.

well the inference is the lawyer is actively engaged in “protecting” the “worst possible criminals” – which ironically (as Rev points out) is actually their job.

The thing is there are laws to against interfering with criminal investigations and aiding criminal activities, and in essence CN’s comments are making these accusations against the lawyer, so the deformation claim is justified IMO…

I hope he gets every cent of the $1.4M he is asking…

CrazyNeutrino said:

Well if any solicitors are receiving money from proceeds from crime then it is unethical isn’t it

I think the matter is fairly simple

Then you’re not thinking about it. Where are you going to draw the line? Should everyone who sells anything to anyone else first thoroughly investigate the customer to verify that they’re not involved in anything criminal, and then investigate the source of the money they’re paying with to verify that it’s not proceeds from criminal activity? Solicitors and barristers necessarily deal with people accused of crime; how are they to be paid?

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

So if governments pass laws requiring a financial audit of received money and a solicitor is found to have received proceeds of drug money, then what? suspend them? Ban them? Fine them? Jail Them?

Or perhaps regulations need to be drawn up for solicitors to follow so they dont receive any drug money.

Everyone has a right to a fair trial, with representation by lawyers, and lawyers representing people found to be guilty have a right to be payed.

What have the solicitors done that is deemed to be wrong?

Well if any solicitors are receiving money from proceeds from crime then it is unethical isn’t it

I think the matter is fairly simple

and how are they suppose to know that the money has come from crime… like i said it’s usually laundered…

The Rev Dodgson said:

What is so special about drug money anyway?

Any lawyer who represents people found to be guilty, who have made their income from their crimes, receives money gained from criminal activity.

Is there something wrong with that?

Should defence lawyers only be payed if their clients are found not guilty?

>>>What is so special about drug money anyway?

Well its proceeds from crime

If Corby cannot receive money for her story but solicitors can receive money from crime is that fair?

>>>>Any lawyer who represents people found to be guilty, who have made their income from their crimes, receives money gained from criminal activity.

Is there something wrong with that?

Yes, it is unethical

if criminals are proved guilty of a crime and their possessions are found to be from proceeds of crime

the possessions are confiscated

I fail to see how solicitors collecting monies from proceeds of crime can be seen to be ethical

Its dirty money

So its ok for solicitors to receive money from proceeds of crime

but its not ok for criminals to receive money from proceeds of crime

?

• I am not aware of the actual requirements, being removed from the state, but what is the problem with tatooists registering?

I see, it is the recipient that has to register, not the tattooist…

Tattoo registry rejected as infringement on rights

“The registry would force people wanting tattoos to register their intentions with the Government”

Well, that is just stupid…

CrazyNeutrino said:

If Corby cannot receive money for her story but solicitors can receive money from crime is that fair?

That is a very different thing… SC isn’t allowed to ‘profit’ from criminal activities – that is she can’t make money as a result of telling a personal story that was a result or her committing a crime.

CrazyNeutrino said:

>>>>Any lawyer who represents people found to be guilty, who have made their income from their crimes, receives money gained from criminal activity.

Is there something wrong with that?

Yes, it is unethical

if criminals are proved guilty of a crime and their possessions are found to be from proceeds of crime

the possessions are confiscated

I fail to see how solicitors collecting monies from proceeds of crime can be seen to be ethical

Its dirty money

Like I said, no it isn’t… the money often comes from legitimate bank accounts…

CrazyNeutrino said:

No, there is an ethical problem if the solicitors are receiving proceeds from crime

Why is that an ethical problem?

How are defendants in criminal proceedings to be represented if lawyers are not allowed to receive payment from money that may be the proceeds of crime?

diddly-squat said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What have the solicitors done that is deemed to be wrong?

Representing criminals.

well the inference is the lawyer is actively engaged in “protecting” the “worst possible criminals” – which ironically (as Rev points out) is actually their job.

The thing is there are laws to against interfering with criminal investigations and aiding criminal activities, and in essence CN’s comments are making these accusations against the lawyer, so the deformation claim is justified IMO…

I hope he gets every cent of the $1.4M he is asking…

No, if he is getting payments from proceeds of crime

then he needs a foot up his arse

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

So if governments pass laws requiring a financial audit of received money and a solicitor is found to have received proceeds of drug money, then what? suspend them? Ban them? Fine them? Jail Them?

Or perhaps regulations need to be drawn up for solicitors to follow so they dont receive any drug money.

Everyone has a right to a fair trial, with representation by lawyers, and lawyers representing people found to be guilty have a right to be payed.

What have the solicitors done that is deemed to be wrong?

Well if any solicitors are receiving money from proceeds from crime then it is unethical isn’t it

I think the matter is fairly simple

No, it isn’t unethical. It is an ethical requirement for lawyers to represent people who claim to be innocent to the best of their ability.

Then you’re not thinking about it. Where are you going to draw the line? Should everyone who sells anything to anyone else first thoroughly investigate the customer to verify that they’re not involved in anything criminal, and then investigate the source of the money they’re paying with to verify that it’s not proceeds from criminal activity? Solicitors and barristers necessarily deal with people accused of crime; how are they to be paid?

Oh I am thinking about it

and Im getting annoyed that proceeds of money can be confiscated from criminals

but its ok for solicitors to receive money from proceeds of crime

if your property is assumed to be proceeds from crime then it is frozen. you have no money to pay anyone. only after you have been convicted is it seized.

CrazyNeutrino said:

So its ok for solicitors to receive money from proceeds of crime

but its not ok for criminals to receive money from proceeds of crime

?

Well?

Im going to have coffee break

CrazyNeutrino said:

So its ok for solicitors to receive money from proceeds of crime

Yes, of course it is, so long as it is not their crime.

CrazyNeutrino said:

but its not ok for criminals to receive money from proceeds of crime

?

No, criminals should not receive benefit from the proceeds of their crime. What does this have to do with lawyers getting payed for their services?

CrazyNeutrino said:

diddly-squat said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Representing criminals.

well the inference is the lawyer is actively engaged in “protecting” the “worst possible criminals” – which ironically (as Rev points out) is actually their job.

The thing is there are laws to against interfering with criminal investigations and aiding criminal activities, and in essence CN’s comments are making these accusations against the lawyer, so the deformation claim is justified IMO…

I hope he gets every cent of the $1.4M he is asking…

No, if he is getting payments from proceeds of crime

then he needs a foot up his arse

ummm no… you do realise that criminal groups actually have many legitimate elements as well… this is why it’s so difficult to prove where certain funds came from…

The Finks don’t pay their electricity bills in cash, they, like everyone else have legitimate bank accounts that they use to buys things with and pay their bills.

CrazyNeutrino said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

So its ok for solicitors to receive money from proceeds of crime

but its not ok for criminals to receive money from proceeds of crime

?

Well?

well what?? how is the solicitor meant to prove he/she has been paid by the proceeds of crime, in many instances the police can’t even do this… FUrther, it’s actually likely the money isn’t the proceeds of crime but actually the profits from a legitimate business.

diddly-squat said:

ummm no… you do realise that criminal groups actually have many legitimate elements as well… this is why it’s so difficult to prove where certain funds came from…

The Finks don’t pay their electricity bills in cash, they, like everyone else have legitimate bank accounts that they use to buys things with and pay their bills.

But that’s really not the point. If lawyers represent a person whose only income is from activities that are claimed to be illegal, how are they to be payed for their services?

If you walk into a lawyers office and say “I have this problem and need your help” does that lawyer have to take the case?

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

ummm no… you do realise that criminal groups actually have many legitimate elements as well… this is why it’s so difficult to prove where certain funds came from…

The Finks don’t pay their electricity bills in cash, they, like everyone else have legitimate bank accounts that they use to buys things with and pay their bills.

But that’s really not the point. If lawyers represent a person whose only income is from activities that are claimed to be illegal, how are they to be payed for their services?

well presumably, if their only income is easily proven to be illegal it will have been frozen and they will receive public defense or another lawyer will do the work pro-bono.

But yes I agree… it’s isn’t a crime to be paid by a criminal

furious said:

If you walk into a lawyers office and say “I have this problem and need your help” does that lawyer have to take the case?

no, of course not…

but then you had better call Saul

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

ummm no… you do realise that criminal groups actually have many legitimate elements as well… this is why it’s so difficult to prove where certain funds came from…

The Finks don’t pay their electricity bills in cash, they, like everyone else have legitimate bank accounts that they use to buys things with and pay their bills.

But that’s really not the point. If lawyers represent a person whose only income is from activities that are claimed to be illegal, how are they to be payed for their services?

well presumably, if their only income is easily proven to be illegal it will have been frozen and they will receive public defense or another lawyer will do the work pro-bono.

But yes I agree… it’s isn’t a crime to be paid by a criminal

Up until they are found guilty, they are assumed to be not guilty, and the lawyer is legally and ethically required to work on that basis.

diddly-squat said:

furious said:

If you walk into a lawyers office and say “I have this problem and need your help” does that lawyer have to take the case?

no, of course not…

but then you had better call Saul

But if the lawyer does accept the case they are required to accept the statements of the client as being the truth, and to present the case to the best of their ability.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But that’s really not the point. If lawyers represent a person whose only income is from activities that are claimed to be illegal, how are they to be payed for their services?

well presumably, if their only income is easily proven to be illegal it will have been frozen and they will receive public defense or another lawyer will do the work pro-bono.

But yes I agree… it’s isn’t a crime to be paid by a criminal

Up until they are found guilty, they are assumed to be not guilty, and the lawyer is legally and ethically required to work on that basis.

But like I said earlier… the issue here is that the lawyer in question is being accused of actively and knowingly covering up or legitimising criminal actives… A criminal offense in it’s own right…

But if this is the case then it’s the job of the police to prove, not for the Premier and The AG to make public comment on.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

furious said:

If you walk into a lawyers office and say “I have this problem and need your help” does that lawyer have to take the case?

no, of course not…

but then you had better call Saul

But if the lawyer does accept the case they are required to accept the statements of the client as being the truth, and to present the case to the best of their ability.

agreed, and this the basis of the professional oath they take.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I fail to see how solicitors collecting monies from proceeds of crime can be seen to be ethical

Its dirty money

The thing is, the money is not a proceed of crime at the time of the transaction. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I fail to see how solicitors collecting monies from proceeds of crime can be seen to be ethical

Its dirty money

The thing is, the money is not a proceed of crime at the time of the transaction. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Shouldn’t be dirty if it was laundered.

poikilotherm said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I fail to see how solicitors collecting monies from proceeds of crime can be seen to be ethical

Its dirty money

The thing is, the money is not a proceed of crime at the time of the transaction. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Shouldn’t be dirty if it was laundered.

I just washed my money, and now i can’t do a thing with it.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I fail to see how solicitors collecting monies from proceeds of crime can be seen to be ethical

Its dirty money

The thing is, the money is not a proceed of crime at the time of the transaction. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

When they arrest people on drug related crimes, they often state they found drugs, guns and cash. I don’t think they give them a refund, more like they are confiscated as proceeds of crime.

All I can offer is: “Hannay” is the name of the hero in The 39 Steps.

Bubblecar said:

All I can offer is: “Hannay” is the name of the hero in The 39 Steps.

ok

Carmen_Sandiego said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’d like to hear arguments for and against.

The article you linked to has nothing to do with drug money. This is to do with high level public servants making public remarks that could be taken as defamation. I believe the lawyer at the centre of it has a very strong case and I wish him all the best of luck.

Ditto.

diddly-squat said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’d like to hear arguments for and against.

The article you linked to has nothing to do with drug money. This is to do with high level public servants making public remarks that could be taken as defamation. I believe the lawyer at the centre of it has a very strong case and I wish him all the best of luck.

+1 the Premier and the AG were well out of line and using this to get political mileage…

The tough stance on bikes is fine, but it’s the anti-association elements that I really don’t like… I’m also not a fan of the requirements for tattooers to have to register

I’m an old friend of The AG’s family. Can tell you it was the way he was raised.

Hope Hannay kicks some arse, as it appears something very worng is happening.

The wrong thing, specifically, is that a person is not guilty until proven guilty, and then they are only guilty of what they are guilty, but further the law must defend what is lawful of an individuals behaviour, so you can’t generalize wrongness . This means the law must protect you to the extent you are or were within it, even if an aspect of behaviour was outside the law.

For the most part the law protects rightness, even the rightness associated with a element of wrongness.

transition said:

Hope Hannay kicks some arse, as it appears something very worng is happening.

The wrong thing, specifically, is that a person is not guilty until proven guilty, and then they are only guilty of what they are guilty, but further the law must defend what is lawful of an individuals behaviour, so you can’t generalize wrongness . This means the law must protect you to the extent you are or were within it, even if an aspect of behaviour was outside the law.

For the most part the law protects rightness, even the rightness associated with a element of wrongness.

I’m not always rightness, but I’m never wrongness.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

Hope Hannay kicks some arse, as it appears something very worng is happening.

The wrong thing, specifically, is that a person is not guilty until proven guilty, and then they are only guilty of what they are guilty, but further the law must defend what is lawful of an individuals behaviour, so you can’t generalize wrongness . This means the law must protect you to the extent you are or were within it, even if an aspect of behaviour was outside the law.

For the most part the law protects rightness, even the rightness associated with a element of wrongness.

I’m not always rightness, but I’m never wrongness.

OK.

It appears that post counts actually matter.

As it also appears that content of post counts also actually matter.

The argument always appears..

You are no scientist, roughy..

as i have oft admitted, you all know I’m not.

However, I have often observed the nature of the content of the posts made. many of you, perhaps most have a higher level of education than myself, though perhaps have not necessarily done any of the things I have been involved in nor in the ways that these things have crossed my path.

You still post more shyte than I do.

Personally, the jibes about insanity and etc. have nil effect without proof.
You do realise that my argument from this end could be the same?

In reality, you all should be pleased that another like mind is amongst your numbers.

jeez RB, is that a reflective implosion?

transition said:

jeez RB, is that a reflective implosion?

Perhaps.. ;)

I’m always open to transitional analysis.

The bikie laws – VLAD laws actually, there is no such thing as ‘bikie laws’ and the VLAD laws apply to ‘any group of three or more people’ and do not mention bikies anywhere in the document – are fundamentally flawed and are shortly to be proven anti-constitutional in the High Court.
They are the product of a deeply inept and corrupt state government, and we have little way to fight them other than to raise quite a lot of money to challenge them in court. It will take a good year or so to do it, and that’s disappointing as they were able to be introduced with little more than the wave of a hand.
Nearly every legal expert strongly condemns them and with a little luck the general public will all start to realise how dangerous the laws are and vote out the LNP & ALP in the next election. Both parties are in favour of them and so turning innocent people into criminals with little good reason.

Spiny Norman said:

The bikie laws – VLAD laws actually, there is no such thing as ‘bikie laws’ and the VLAD laws apply to ‘any group of three or more people’ and do not mention bikies anywhere in the document – are fundamentally flawed and are shortly to be proven anti-constitutional in the High Court.
They are the product of a deeply inept and corrupt state government, and we have little way to fight them other than to raise quite a lot of money to challenge them in court. It will take a good year or so to do it, and that’s disappointing as they were able to be introduced with little more than the wave of a hand.
Nearly every legal expert strongly condemns them and with a little luck the general public will all start to realise how dangerous the laws are and vote out the LNP & ALP in the next election. Both parties are in favour of them and so turning innocent people into criminals with little good reason.

As I have previously said.. I do have an inside into the AG’s family.. It could possibly be me who tells you when he wants to quit these shennanigans.. __ stay tuned.

please darling wait, it’s not all over yet..

♫Christmas Eve | Nickel Creek | A Dotted Line♪♩

Spiny Norman said:

The bikie laws – VLAD laws actually, there is no such thing as ‘bikie laws’ and the VLAD laws apply to ‘any group of three or more people’ and do not mention bikies anywhere in the document – are fundamentally flawed and are shortly to be proven anti-constitutional in the High Court.
They are the product of a deeply inept and corrupt state government, and we have little way to fight them other than to raise quite a lot of money to challenge them in court. It will take a good year or so to do it, and that’s disappointing as they were able to be introduced with little more than the wave of a hand.
Nearly every legal expert strongly condemns them and with a little luck the general public will all start to realise how dangerous the laws are and vote out the LNP & ALP in the next election. Both parties are in favour of them and so turning innocent people into criminals with little good reason.

The simple fact is Queenslanders got the govt they deserve…

people were sooo mad keen for change that they voted in a govt that has been a power hungry disaster from day 1.

and there is no other alternative, so it’s either the LibNats or the ALP…

diddly-squat said:

Spiny Norman said:

The bikie laws – VLAD laws actually, there is no such thing as ‘bikie laws’ and the VLAD laws apply to ‘any group of three or more people’ and do not mention bikies anywhere in the document – are fundamentally flawed and are shortly to be proven anti-constitutional in the High Court.
They are the product of a deeply inept and corrupt state government, and we have little way to fight them other than to raise quite a lot of money to challenge them in court. It will take a good year or so to do it, and that’s disappointing as they were able to be introduced with little more than the wave of a hand.
Nearly every legal expert strongly condemns them and with a little luck the general public will all start to realise how dangerous the laws are and vote out the LNP & ALP in the next election. Both parties are in favour of them and so turning innocent people into criminals with little good reason.

The simple fact is Queenslanders got the govt they deserve…

people were sooo mad keen for change that they voted in a govt that has been a power hungry disaster from day 1.

and there is no other alternative, so it’s either the LibNats or the ALP…

Probably points out that without an effective opposition the shit hits the fan; whether that opposition be Labor or Liberal.

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

Spiny Norman said:

The bikie laws – VLAD laws actually, there is no such thing as ‘bikie laws’ and the VLAD laws apply to ‘any group of three or more people’ and do not mention bikies anywhere in the document – are fundamentally flawed and are shortly to be proven anti-constitutional in the High Court.
They are the product of a deeply inept and corrupt state government, and we have little way to fight them other than to raise quite a lot of money to challenge them in court. It will take a good year or so to do it, and that’s disappointing as they were able to be introduced with little more than the wave of a hand.
Nearly every legal expert strongly condemns them and with a little luck the general public will all start to realise how dangerous the laws are and vote out the LNP & ALP in the next election. Both parties are in favour of them and so turning innocent people into criminals with little good reason.

The simple fact is Queenslanders got the govt they deserve…

people were sooo mad keen for change that they voted in a govt that has been a power hungry disaster from day 1.

and there is no other alternative, so it’s either the LibNats or the ALP…

Probably points out that without an effective opposition the shit hits the fan; whether that opposition be Labor or Liberal.

\\Probably also points out that there is always another alternative that nobody is looking at.

diddly-squat said:

The simple fact is Queenslanders got the govt they deserve…

people were sooo mad keen for change that they voted in a govt that has been a power hungry disaster from day 1.

The L/NP knows that it can always count on the short memory of the Australian electorate to forget why they voted the L/NP out last time. They know they can also count on that same electorate’s sense of betrayal by the ALP (for which the ALP is entirely to blame), and the voters’ spiteful and petty urge for revenge on their betrayers.

diddly-squat said:

The simple fact is Queenslanders got the govt they deserve…

people were sooo mad keen for change that they voted in a govt that has been a power hungry disaster from day 1.

and there is no other alternative, so it’s either the LibNats or the ALP…

That’s the way of the world. Governments are never voted in, they just get o=voted out. When people are tired of one party in power, they vote for the other one regardless of the consequences, and that’s what happened.

Up until they are found guilty, they are assumed to be not guilty,
———————————————————

Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. —————————————————————————-

What country are you guys talking about?

I’m pretty sure it ain’t Australia…

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

Spiny Norman said:

The bikie laws – VLAD laws actually, there is no such thing as ‘bikie laws’ and the VLAD laws apply to ‘any group of three or more people’ and do not mention bikies anywhere in the document – are fundamentally flawed and are shortly to be proven anti-constitutional in the High Court.
They are the product of a deeply inept and corrupt state government, and we have little way to fight them other than to raise quite a lot of money to challenge them in court. It will take a good year or so to do it, and that’s disappointing as they were able to be introduced with little more than the wave of a hand.
Nearly every legal expert strongly condemns them and with a little luck the general public will all start to realise how dangerous the laws are and vote out the LNP & ALP in the next election. Both parties are in favour of them and so turning innocent people into criminals with little good reason.

The simple fact is Queenslanders got the govt they deserve…

people were sooo mad keen for change that they voted in a govt that has been a power hungry disaster from day 1.

and there is no other alternative, so it’s either the LibNats or the ALP…

Probably points out that without an effective opposition the shit hits the fan; whether that opposition be Labor or Liberal.

It doesn’t help that Qld has no upper senate…

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

The simple fact is Queenslanders got the govt they deserve…

people were sooo mad keen for change that they voted in a govt that has been a power hungry disaster from day 1.

and there is no other alternative, so it’s either the LibNats or the ALP…

Probably points out that without an effective opposition the shit hits the fan; whether that opposition be Labor or Liberal.

It doesn’t help that Qld has no upper senate…

My default condition: If there is any possible way to limit political power…do it!

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

Probably points out that without an effective opposition the shit hits the fan; whether that opposition be Labor or Liberal.

It doesn’t help that Qld has no upper senate…

My default condition: If there is any possible way to limit political power…do it!

That’s the problem here, there is no way to moderate government action. You really do get the govt you deserve.

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

Probably points out that without an effective opposition the shit hits the fan; whether that opposition be Labor or Liberal.

It doesn’t help that Qld has no upper senate…

My default condition: If there is any possible way to limit political power…do it!

Seems whenever you get a government with a large majority the more extreme elements of the party come out of the woodwork and see it as their big chance to implement some of their ideologically driven policies. The sort of things that would never get through if they had to negotiate with the opposition or minors.

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

It doesn’t help that Qld has no upper senate…

My default condition: If there is any possible way to limit political power…do it!

Seems whenever you get a government with a large majority the more extreme elements of the party come out of the woodwork and see it as their big chance to implement some of their ideologically driven policies. The sort of things that would never get through if they had to negotiate with the opposition or minors.

Without bothering ti scroll back and isolate the quotes I just thought I would just say that limiting political power does not work. Poland tried it with a governing system that meant a single veto could stop a majority consensus and meant that Poland was ungovernable.

Skunkworks said:

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

My default condition: If there is any possible way to limit political power…do it!

Seems whenever you get a government with a large majority the more extreme elements of the party come out of the woodwork and see it as their big chance to implement some of their ideologically driven policies. The sort of things that would never get through if they had to negotiate with the opposition or minors.

Without bothering ti scroll back and isolate the quotes I just thought I would just say that limiting political power does not work. Poland tried it with a governing system that meant a single veto could stop a majority consensus and meant that Poland was ungovernable.

A one-person veto is the other extreme. Somewhere in the middle where power is shared so controversial issues need a consensus to get passed.

Some times politics feels like this

CrazyNeutrino said:

Some times politics feels like this

You gotta know when to walk away…

captain_spalding said:

poikilotherm said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

The thing is, the money is not a proceed of crime at the time of the transaction. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Shouldn’t be dirty if it was laundered.

I just washed my money, and now i can’t do a thing with it.

.

Like the rabbit who washed his thing and couldn’t a hare with it?

So, if the gov end up with the money (I assume it isn’t destroyed) then it’s all a bit hypocritical?

drewser said:

So, if the gov end up with the money (I assume it isn’t destroyed) then it’s all a bit hypocritical?

It seems hypocritical to me

If the bikie crimos gave me the drug money, the police would chase me to get it

but if the bikies pay the solicitors with the drug money, then its ok

I should become a solicitor, and not worry about this visual art stuff

CrazyNeutrino said:

drewser said:

So, if the gov end up with the money (I assume it isn’t destroyed) then it’s all a bit hypocritical?

It seems hypocritical to me

If the bikie crimos gave me the drug money, the police would chase me to get it

but if the bikies pay the solicitors with the drug money, then its ok

I should become a solicitor, and not worry about this visual art stuff

That’s not how it works, otherwise every lamborghini dealership in Australia would have no money left.