I'v followed this debate with some interest, and in particular as is my bent how the media portray this story.
I'm made curious by this almost universal lack of a single perspective, there is almost zero commentary about "The Truth", an absence that to some degree exposes the hypocrisy of people.
Sure LawyerX is a snitch, but isn't that how the police get their information, and isn't that also how the media get their information as well?
To paraphrase, the outrage seems to be "Lawyers don't protect and project my lies!", and police have used nefarious means to expose the lie a lawyer used to protect a client.
Is a lie really privileged information when the lawyer knows it is a lie?
What of the lawyer's liability in this?
Even in the growing list of appeals, there seems to be little regard for the truth!
We live in interesting times, Spotted One.
I, also, find myself perplexed by how lowly 'honesty/truth' is regarded in so many hallways of industry, law and politics.
Holy cr@p, we need only look at so many leaders of nations to see how successful bullsh1t has become. If you're blindly loyal to a political ideology, as one example, you'll remain loyal to that ideology even if it's leader(s) is a blatant liar!
As for lawyer X... I remain astonished at why she is being demonized. Yes, she deceived her clients but it was to put her dishonest client behind bars... oh the moral dilemma. She lied, yet did so for a perceived greater good. What do we make of that? A simple yet powerful statement of the world we live in? The Mafia, in the main, was brought down by cops who'd infiltrated their ranks... snitches... they deceived for the greater good. Sneaky exposed the crooks... honest cops had no chance. Time to go live on a deserted island!
A lawyer's job is to act in the best interests of their client - which is why it takes a 'special' type of person to be a criminal lawyer/barrister. This brings up the age old question: How do you defend someone that you know is guilty? Often by plea bargaining, pointing the finger at someone else, looking at legal loopholes, often in the gathering and presentation of evidence (which there are a lot of rules around). This is to ensure that there is a 'fair' trial - remember innocent until proven guilty.
I think there are a couple of lawyers on here - they will know better than me.
Most people will agree that the Lawyer X situation put a few people in gaol where they should be. Unfortunately, the rules (that these people don't abide by) mean that there was too much evidence that shouldn't have been used and so they get off.
Is this right? Good moral and ethical questions for our times.
As for Politicians and what they are doing. May the one who looks over us be the judge! It is despicable the lack of truth and honesty.
@dodge
In this case we aren't talking about shoplifters, these are felons who have executed people and some even injured bystanders in the process!
The lawyers have an even bigger responsibility in my opinion, it's called humanity.
I realise I'm very cynical, but it seems to me the wallet overrules the conscience!
I cannot differentiate politicians and lawyers in this instance, the behaviour is/seems comparable.
As for lawyer X... I remain astonished at why she is being demonized. Yes, she deceived her clients but it was to put her dishonest client behind bars... oh the moral dilemma. She lied, yet did so for a perceived greater good. What do we make of that? A simple yet powerful statement of the world we live in? The Mafia, in the main, was brought down by cops who'd infiltrated their ranks... snitches... they deceived for the greater good. Sneaky exposed the crooks... honest cops had no chance. Time to go live on a deserted island!
@Baggers It seems to say something about the people making the laws, those implementing them and those defending them.
I've have two relatives who have worked at the Bar, both left for the corporate world and eventually one went NGO. They tell me you'll never meet a bigger collection of crooks and scoundrels than at a Bar association event! One describes the Bar as the same basic bunch of criminals observed from the other side of the fence. Almost a definition of disillusionment!
I don't disagree at all, LP.
What is 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.
Unfortunately there is a large group of people that look for loopholes - work legally, rather than morally/ethically/humanely. While intention of the law needs to be taken into account, it often doesn't appear to.
I often talk about the tax act (exciting, hey). When it was originally written in the 1920s, it wouldn't have been a very big document. Over time, where people have found ways and means to legally reduce their tax (against intention of the Act), the Act has been amended. It is now a massive document and there is a lot of work for tax lawyers and tax accountants. Legal? Yes. Moral/ethical? questionable. I stopped working in tax over 20 years ago. I paid more tax on $44k than a client who 'earned' $800k+.
I stopped working in tax over 20 years ago. I paid more tax on $44k than a client who 'earned' $800k+.
Yes, the problem is clearly the enablers, but I don't get why the media pile on the train, unless maybe it's a gravy train!
In that case, who does Joe Average trust, because it looks from the outside like the morality goes to the highest bidder!
@Baggers It seems to say something about the people making the laws, those implementing them and those defending them.
I've have two relatives who have worked at the Bar, both left for the corporate world and eventually one went NGO. They tell me you'll never meet a bigger collection of crooks and scoundrels than at a Bar association event! One describes the Bar as the same basic bunch of criminals observed from the other side of the fence. Almost a definition of disillusionment!
Have a look at the backgrounds of many politicians both here and overseas.
Have a look at the backgrounds of many politicians both here and overseas.
Is a Politician a failed Lawyer, or is a Lawyer a failed Politician?
Can someone please pose this question on Q&A?
(Like that'll get you an answer! :o )
Is a Politician a failed Lawyer, or is a Lawyer a failed Politician?
Can someone please pose this question on Q&A?
(Like that'll get you an answer! :o )
Failures in both instances.
Failures in both instances.
A dyad in The Force!
I think that we generalise too much with this stuff and overcomplicate.
Police need to gather the evidence cleanly and by the book.
Lawyers need to have confidentiality with their clients, and be for the most part, ambivalent to whether or not the person is guilty but ensure that the protocols followed are above board.
Thats the only way to ensure that innocent people are not put away to suit the legal system. Its also to ensure that guilty people are truly guilty and not just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
They also need to be sure that their defenders will not become the reason they get put away because they divulged information that incriminates them when seeking legal advice. That being said, if Lawyers know that their clients are guilty, they are supposed to drop those cases else they become accomplices.
Lawyers need to have confidentiality with their clients, and be for the most part, ambivalent to whether or not the person is guilty but ensure that the protocols followed are above board.
Thats the only way to ensure that innocent people are not put away to suit the legal system. Its also to ensure that guilty people are truly guilty and not just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Are these two points consistent?
There must be many scenarios where a lawyer knows an innocent person has been jailed wrongly because one of their clients is guilty of that very crime!
I see the Police and Lawyers as Yin and Yang, one cannot function without the other and therefore it is ridiculous to expect zero overlap.
Are these two points consistent?
There must be many scenarios where a lawyer knows an innocent person has been jailed wrongly because one of their clients is guilty of that very crime!
I see the Police and Lawyers as Yin and Yang, one cannot function without the other and therefore it is ridiculous to expect zero overlap. So there is irony when each portrays the other as a mortal enemy!
That being said, if Lawyers know that their clients are guilty, they are supposed to drop those cases else they become accomplices.
Does it function that way though?
Could you argue that a lawyer dropping a case is a tell, a defacto concession of client guilt!
@Thryleon What is "Good" as in "Good vs Bad" Is bad the police leveraging a greedy and narcissistic lawyer to put a career "child killing drug peddler" off the streets? Some will no doubt claim the high ground, and advise us to turn the other cheek. Tell that to the parents who have watched a child die from a drug overdose!
Lawyers and socialists will argue against those actions and infer an anarchy of no limits is the ultimate destination, but I seriously doubt our democracy crumbles when a bad lawyer goes bad and the police leverage that event!
Removing access to lawyers by instilling paranoia might be the best thing to happen to the crooks, from a public perspective!
Maybe the public anger needs to be directed at those who award the appeals? A mighty deep and dark pit!
The idea Lawyer X was horrified by the criminality of her clients and decided to put morality above legal rules might be a bit of a self-serving fantasy. It seems the genesis of all this was when she was arrested by police for drug offending when she was a law student. The police seem to have used this “kompromat” to turn her à la the KGB. I haven’t bothered to stay on top of her story but IIRC she was a CI before the Purana taskforce was a gleam in the Police Commissioner’s eye.
Looked at in this way, would it be okay for the police to send in a spy to manipulate legal proceedings and feed information to the police? It reminds me of accounts which suggest as much as 10% of some civil rights and other groups in the 60s were paid FBI informants (who may have influenced events) and illegal wiretaps were commonplace.
It reminds me of accounts which suggest as much as 10% of some civil rights and other groups in the 60s were paid FBI informants (who may have influenced events) and illegal wiretaps were commonplace.
10%!
We can't even keep 10% from escaping trivial quarantine, yet the FBI was able to keep 10% of civil rights and other groups quite possibly numbering in the many thousands on the QT! :o
We miss the good old days, phone book diplomacy and brown paper bags! ;D
The idea Lawyer X was horrified by the criminality of her clients and decided to put morality above legal rules might be a bit of a self-serving fantasy. It seems the genesis of all this was when she was arrested by police for drug offending when she was a law student. The police seem to have used this “kompromat” to turn her à la the KGB. I haven’t bothered to stay on top of her story but IIRC she was a CI before the Purana taskforce was a gleam in the Police Commissioner’s eye.
Looked at in this way, would it be okay for the police to send in a spy to manipulate legal proceedings and feed information to the police? It reminds me of accounts which suggest as much as 10% of some civil rights and other groups in the 60s were paid FBI informants (who may have influenced events) and illegal wiretaps were commonplace.
Not sure what you mean by 'manipulate legal proceedings'. A spy sent in to feed information to police seems sneaky, yet it may well be the difference between a crook continuing to harm people and sent to jail. Moral dilemma.
Illegal wiretaps may also deliver evidence of serious crime and hence bring the perpetrators to justice yet it, too, is sneaky and seemingly dishonest - as suggested by the name 'illegal wiretap.' Another moral dilemma.
An extreme example. I hear of a neighbour being a pedo... but he's a pillar of the community and is untouchable. All attempts to bring him to justice has resulted in the kid being shamed and accused of lying, so no more families come forward. So, I break the law by trespassing and put him under surveillance and see him violating a child so I film it.
How many moral dilemmas in that scenario? If I just film it and show the authorities, how many violations may occur in the interim - ruining a life or lives? Yet I obtained the evidence illegally. Would it be inadmissible? What if I smashed in the door and beat the crap out of him then reported it along with the film evidence? Illegally obtained film, breaking and entering, assault... I should end up in jail, but I stopped the crime, but it may well continue and I end up with a police record!!! Another moral dilemma.
Within the law we have dilemmas it would seem. Perhaps it's the letter-of-the-law, vs, the spirit of the law, vs equity? And when they clash? Holy mackerel! As Kermit said (as a metaphor), "It aint easy being green."
Not 10% of the total number. But some groups of greater interest were thoroughly infiltrated. Hoover had a massive hard on when it came to anti-war protestors and civil rights activists and together they may well have been half of the FBI’s work.
The program was known as COINTELPRO. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO)
Lets be clear, we are talking about drug dealers, murderers and violent offenders with total disregard for the law. I for one am comfortable that they have been locked away by any means the police had. Fargum.
We could perhaps have a system where the police commissioners can declare the guilt of guilty people and then refer them to a judge for sentencing. That would be a very efficient system and there could hardly be any complaints about it. After all, everyone wants to see the guilty punished. And the police commissioners wouldn’t have the power to declare innocent people to be guilty.
Shades of "Mississippi Burning" :)
Shades of "Mississippi Burning" :)
What a great movie. Dafoe and Hackman... classic.
Not sure what you mean by 'manipulate legal proceedings'. A spy sent in to feed information to police seems sneaky, yet it may well be the difference between a crook continuing to harm people and sent to jail. Moral dilemma.
Illegal wiretaps may also deliver evidence of serious crime and hence bring the perpetrators to justice yet it, too, is sneaky and seemingly dishonest - as suggested by the name 'illegal wiretap.' Another moral dilemma.
An extreme example. I hear of a neighbour being a pedo... but he's a pillar of the community and is untouchable. All attempts to bring him to justice has resulted in the kid being shamed and accused of lying, so no more families come forward. So, I break the law by trespassing and put him under surveillance and see him violating a child so I film it.
How many moral dilemmas in that scenario? If I just film it and show the authorities, how many violations may occur in the interim - ruining a life or lives? Yet I obtained the evidence illegally. Would it be inadmissible? What if I smashed in the door and beat the crap out of him then reported it along with the film evidence? Illegally obtained film, breaking and entering, assault... I should end up in jail, but I stopped the crime, but it may well continue and I end up with a police record!!! Another moral dilemma.
Within the law we have dilemmas it would seem. Perhaps it's the letter-of-the-law, vs, the spirit of the law, vs equity? And when they clash? Holy mackerel! As Kermit said (as a metaphor), "It aint easy being green."
Baggers I'd like to say you handled your "scenario" very poorly. If I caught my neighbour in the act of violating a child, I would have strung him up to to a tree and called it in as a suicide. I find it abhorrent.
I see the Police and Lawyers as Yin and Yang, one cannot function without the other and therefore it is ridiculous to expect zero overlap. So there is irony when each portrays the other as a mortal enemy!
Does it function that way though?
Could you argue that a lawyer dropping a case is a tell, a defacto concession of client guilt!
@Thryleon What is "Good" as in "Good vs Bad" Is bad the police leveraging a greedy and narcissistic lawyer to put a career "child killing drug peddler" off the streets? Some will no doubt claim the high ground, and advise us to turn the other cheek. Tell that to the parents who have watched a child die from a drug overdose!
Lawyers and socialists will argue against those actions and infer an anarchy of no limits is the ultimate destination, but I seriously doubt our democracy crumbles when a bad lawyer goes bad and the police leverage that event!
Removing access to lawyers by instilling paranoia might be the best thing to happen to the crooks, from a public perspective!
Maybe the public anger needs to be directed at those who award the appeals? A mighty deep and dark pit!
I dont worry about good vs bad when it comes to legality.
I trust the cops do everything within the law or the spirit of the law rather.
If not then we are screwed.
Likewise I expect legal counsel to act in my best interests.
If I can have faith in either then we have no legal system and we are left with a kangaroo court.
Let me put it to you differently. The law is there to protect society. Where people operate outside those laws they actually damage our society's frameworks, values, morals and ethics irrespective of the intention.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
They are asking questions they already know the answer to in order to prove someone is a thief, murderer and a criminal not the other way around. The polices job is to gather evidence and then convict not to pervert the course of that investigation and therefore justice in the process.
Reading up on gobbos case she was getting crims off for finding errors in their cases built against people and that is entirely the point. Who polices the policemen otherwise?
Note they are people and are fallible. In gobbos case she needed them and in the first conversation with them she was recorded illegally despite her telling them not to and asking if it were being recorded.
Unacceptable.
This article summarizes the issues well i think.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-nicola-gobbo-lawyer-x-scandal-explained-20201124-p56hh9.html
Note they are people and are fallible. In gobbos case she needed them and in the first conversation with them she was recorded illegally despite her telling them not to and asking if it were being recorded.
Unacceptable
Sort of like a lawyer who continues to defend a crook they know is guilty!
Personally, I've never understood the defence of trivial legal technicalities, and they are often quite trivial like the guy who use to get people off speeding offences by exposing police cars were using the wrong brand of tyre. It seems to start with this premise. "There is this dodgy lawyer". Then the client of the dodgy lawyer who discloses that technical loophole is sometimes rewarded with eternal immunity via double jeopardy!
Don’t confuse the US system for ours. We’ve all seen shows where whole prosecutions fail because 1 breach of the suspect’s rights leads to all other evidence being thrown out as fruit of the poisoned tree.
In Australia, very few types of evidence are excluded automatically. Some examples are illegal telephone intercepts and confessions that were given involuntarily. And their exclusion usually doesn’t flow down the line to other evidence.
Then you have cases where evidence needs to be gathered according to strict guidelines; for example, the prosecution needs to prove the chain of custody of drugs seized or a DNA lab needs to show they took appropriate steps to prevent cross-contamination. Do you really think these are just “technicalities”? Particularly in the latter case, innocent people have been jailed because of sloppy work.
Barticularly in the latter case, innocent people have been jailed because of sloppy work.
No doubt, but in those cases I wonder how many "good lawyers" knew about the real culprit and stayed mum while some innocent went to jail, if it happens just once it is once too many, and the penalty should be the heaviest available to the law. But would they prosecute their own?
In that case, if the police step over the line to find the dodgy lawyer, why penalise the police. It's the lawyer who has done the dodgy isn't it, how do police obtain justice for a victim in this instance?
The problem is the lawyer is too skilled at hiding the evidence in structures that can only be open illegally, something that in itself should be made illegal.
Should Gobbo be lauded for exposing the legal filth that protects hardened criminals?
I can't help but feel this is somewhat like the Trump prosecution debate, politicians in the US won't pursue Trump because they know in the future they could be exposed to the same prosecution risk, they want to reserve that escape route for their own future use!
No doubt, but in those cases I wonder how many "good lawyers" knew about the real culprit and stayed mum while some innocent went to jail, if it happens just once it is once too many, and the penalty should be the heaviest available to the law. But would they prosecute their own?
In that case, if the police step over the line to find the dodgy lawyer, why penalise the police. It's the lawyer who has done the dodgy isn't it, how do police obtain justice for a victim in this instance?
The problem is the lawyer is too skilled at hiding the evidence in structures that can only be open illegally, something that in itself should be made illegal.
Should Gobbo be lauded for exposing the legal filth that protects hardened criminals?
I can't help but feel this is somewhat like the Trump prosecution debate, politicians in the US won't pursue Trump because they know in the future they could be exposed to the same prosecution risk, they want to reserve that escape route for their own future use!
Whats really going to make your head spin is whether or not Gobbo acted knowing that she was perverting the course of justice.
Was her testimony that crucial to putting lots of these guys away?
They might have been able to lock them up anyway and all she has done is provide the key to get them out sooner. After all she did voluntarily pervert the course of justice sighting stress as the reason.
Whats really going to make your head spin is whether or not Gobbo acted knowing that she was perverting the course of justice.
Was her testimony that crucial to putting lots of these guys away?
They might have been able to lock them up anyway and all she has done is provide the key to get them out sooner. After all she did voluntarily pervert the course of justice sighting stress as the reason.
This is sort of the point I'm creeping around, it's partially why I don't get the angst directed towards the police.
The media paint it as a police bungle that Gobbo just by "luck" finds herself in a situation in which the crooks get out and she is exempt from prosecution. When in reality those lucky structures are most likely there by design, as such she and the crooks are rewarded despite guilt!
Interesting twist on the Lawyer X issue and my previous posts about the FBI infiltrating civil rights and left wing groups in the 60s & 70s:
British women thought they'd found boyfriends who shared their beliefs. They were actually undercover police (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-06/uk-women-discover-boyfriends-were-undercover-police-officers/12949940), ABC.
This is sort of the point I'm creeping around, it's partially why I don't get the angst directed towards the police.
The media paint it as a police bungle that Gobbo just by "luck" finds herself in a situation in which the crooks get out and she is exempt from prosecution. When in reality those lucky structures are most likely there by design, as such she and the crooks are rewarded despite guilt!
I find it ironic that one group can do whatever they want to avoid justice and the group charged with bringing them to justice are hamstrung.
Priests are supposed to dob in pedophiles who confess their evil acts (a good thing in my opinion) but lawyers can't dob in the clients? Double standards?
My late brother was a cop for 20 years before becoming a barrister. He told me that, if a client admitted guilt, he had to tell them to plead guilty. If they refused, he would have stop representing them. Of course, most crooks understood that and never told the truth.
Lets be clear, we are talking about drug dealers, murderers and violent offenders with total disregard for the law. I for one am comfortable that they have been locked away by any means the police had. Fargum.
Agree....one in a hundred major crimes get prosecuted because of a lack of resources, thats from a good friend of mine who is a federal officer so any means that makes it easier, saves money, gets the job done is fine in my book.
The money and resources are with the big crims, its a losing battle especially in the world of drugs, money laundering etc.....the Aus public appetite for drugs is huge and its just makes for more crime.
This case pertains to the relative small fry. The really big boys and girls are never in danger of being caught and so the situation never really changes - too much money involved.
This case pertains to the relative small fry. The really big boys and girls are never in danger of being caught and so the situation never really changes - too much money involved.
Not sure who you are referring to Cookie but Mokbel is as big as it gets in Australia. He needs to be locked away and the key thrown away. I find it disgusting that these criminals, scourge of society, are almost getting treated like heroes over this Lawyer X thing. The sooner other crims take them with bicycle seat posts in jail gymnasiums, the better. I get the whole integrity thing, I'm not an idiot, but I don't think its aimed at protecting low life scum who pedal drugs to our kids and murder people in the street. A friend of mines very young son witnessed one of the gangland murders, it's not something easily forgotten.
Not sure who you are referring to Cookie but Mokbel is as big as it gets in Australia. He needs to be locked away and the key thrown away. I find it disgusting that these criminals, scourge of society, are almost getting treated like heroes over this Lawyer X thing. The sooner other crims take them with bicycle seat posts in jail gymnasiums, the better. I get the whole integrity thing, I'm not an idiot, but I don't think its aimed at protecting low life scum who pedal drugs to our kids and murder people in the street. A friend of mines very young son witnessed one of the gangland murders, it's not something easily forgotten.
Agree with your sentiments GTC and these creeps should be in jail, but the likes of Mokbel and his ilk are the expendables who are nearer the bottom of the global distribution hierarchy, albeit making much money.
Agree with your sentiments GTC and these creeps should be in jail, but the likes of Mokbel and his ilk are the expendables who are nearer the bottom of the global distribution hierarchy, albeit making much money.
Agree on the global players thing, however without king pins like Mokbel et al, the internationals struggle to get in, they are the influencers in this country. We don't have cartels of the ilk and resources of South America, Italy etc. Mokbels empire is the closest thing to a cartel we will see. Cut them down, however way you can, and your start to impact supply. Now I am not naive enough to think that supply stops when they get locked up, but it does impact it and provides intel to the Feds and Narcos.
He needs a better wig