Whilst the following isn't immediately connected with strokes, many stroke victims are at risk of falling into the clutches of the kangaroo court and consequently the Public Trustee / Adult Guardian. I figure that stroke victims and their carers need to be aware of the problems that could arise should the kangaroo court appoint the Public Trustee to MIS-manage the victim's financial affairs, hence the information provided hereunder. Its important to note that the following represent my personal opinions based on my own observations of interaction between the kangaroo court, the Adult Guardian and the Public Trustee, and a number of people unfortunate enough to fall into the clutches of one or more of these entities. I do not purport to offer legal advice. Anyone encountering issues comparable to the ones described is advised to obtain legal advice from a known competent lawyer who is fully conversant with the kangaroo court and more importantly, is prepared to act for you in that arena (many will run a mile at the mention of the kangaroo court)
First and foremost, my experience has been that the kangaroo court doesn't observe any rules or laws unless perchance such rules or laws can be used to bludgeon its victims into submission. Appeals are typically refused or stalled indefinitely and most decisions are made by non-judicial members, which means its extremely difficult to escalate matters to the Court of Appeal. Furthermore there are numerous 'interesting' relationships within the kangaroo court that wouldn't withstand a truly independent (ie dictionary rather than political meaning) investigation. Interestingly the kangaroo court doesn't appear to have the power to enforce its own decisions so one could quite easily ignore many decrees with little concern for the consequences. I suggest that is why the kangaroo court typically appoints its cohort the Public Trustee to MIS-manage a victim's finances and with authority to seize all assets before the victim has an opportunity to squirrel things away safely. The Public Trustee regards everything held 'in trust' as the property of the Public Trustee and thus available for plunder at will. Fees are extortionate and I'm not aware of any accounting or statements ever being forthcoming.
Queensland 'Sunday Mail' readers may have noticed the recent report regarding a Public Trustee whistleblower who tipped the bucket on the department that messes with wills. According to the media report there is an official directive from management to the effect that all possible effort must be taken to maximize fees charged to estates. Predictably nobody up the pecking order is prepared to admit the practice which is apparently common to the Public Trustee or equivalent in every state and territory. Another sneaky little trick that will never be admitted is that when a victim or carer files a complaint about Public Trustee mismanagement, its immediately routed to the legal department which uses the resources of the victim to fund the Public Trustee's own protection.
Another very interesting trick is the employment of at least two occupational therapists by the ostensibly 'financial services' organization. I suggest the reason for these is to do shonky ACAT tests with a view to kicking victims out of their home. According to present rules (farcical though they are), the Public Trustee can't charge administration fees in respect of a victim's place of residence but it can effectively charge whatever it likes in respect of 'investments'. It follows that victims living in their own home are unprofitable business, consequently every effort is made to change the status of said property so it becomes a profit centre. . In most cases, victims are perfectly able to live in their home and they would never pass a legitimate ACAT test, however as anyone would know who has dealt with the Public Trustee, legitimacy isn't considered relevant. Any private lawyer who allowed (let alone encouraged) deliberate malpractice or misappropriation of a client's funds would cop a criminal charge and would probably be disbarred from practice, however Public Trustee lawyers are effectively immune from prosecution, and even if they weren't, the incestuous relationship between the Public Trustee and the kangaroo court (which currently has jurisdiction in lawyer malpractice issues) would inevitably decide there was insufficient evidence to proceed.
Exactly who is pulling the strings at the Public Trustee is a good question, however the removal of the former director and lack of a formal replacement suggests there are bigger sharks than the ones at 444 Queen Street Brisbane. Add to that the commonality of comparable issues in every state and territory, and the refusal by everyone up to and including the Federal Attorney General to take action, and one is inclined to start wondering about illuminati or Bilderberg involvement.
Its blatantly obvious that there is a carefully woven web of intrigue lurking behind the kangaroo court, the Public Trustee and the Adult Guardian. Neither the Supreme Court judge in charge of the kangaroo court, the Legal Services Commission, the Ombudsman, the Crime and Corruption Commission or the State & Federal Attorneys General is prepared to take ownership of the issue.
As we've seen with the current Royal Commission into pedophelia, 'significant' folk like ex Prime Ministers and judges are protected because the judge responsible for the inquiry believes 'exposure would lead to lack of respect for the political and judicial institutions' . Personally I believe exposure would be a very good thing. A pedophile is a pedophile in my book, likewise official malpractice is official malpractice, and the higher up the pecking order, the more serious the event.
While I'm on the soapbox throwing rocks at the judiciary, I'll also mention the 'Not Now, Not Ever' report on domestic violence (supposedly) compiled by entitled drone of all entitled drones Quentin Bryce. Its my understanding that the actual research was done by a tribe of ex-politicians and to the best of my knowledge the only contribution made by Bryce was to have her name printed on the thing. Any university student who practiced what appears to be blatant plagiarism on the part of Bryce would almost certainly be expelled. For what its worth, the final report (which roundly criticizes the judiciary as a significant instigator or domestic violence issues) has been gathering dust on the Department of Communities website for the best part of a year.
Whilst Anna Alphabet crapped on for a while about getting fair dinkum regarding domestic violence, like everything else said by members of the current government and the several preceding ones, its evident that talk is cheap. Note also that the Department of Communities is responsible for the utterly moronic Department of Child Safety (a metaphor for ineptitude). Needless to say, nobody at the Department of Communities admits to knowing anything about the deceptively labelled 'Bryce' report. One can only conclude that nothing will be done to implement recommendations in the report and it will sit quietly gathering dust until the sheeple have forgotten about all the hullabaloo.