NSW How Best to Find a Pro Bono Barrister?

[Tim W]

The solicitor for the other side is corrupt as hell though, and I have to watch that she does not get at any barrister I may find to represent me.

Notwithstanding that you have just defamed one individual solicitor,
in respect of which you no doubt consider yourself "judgement proof",
this remark suggests that you lack confidence in the bar's general integrity, and
that you also lack confidence in the capacity of individual barristers to resist improper approaches,
Hardly reasonable, when you want these same practitioners to help you
further flog a meritless and vexatious dead horse, for free.

Such remarks, made in public here, and taken together with your previous near-contemptuous remarks,
will no doubt be of great interest to the Registrar pursuant to Rule 7.36(2)(d).

 

[Sally-Anne Fagin]

You are all doom and gloom. That's not how the west was won.

The west was won by optimistic and brave individuals who headed off into the great unknown with dreams in their head and hope in their hearts.

And I doubt the Registrar is reading this, he is too busy perusing bondage and discipline sites on the web..

 

[Tim W]

<takes screen shot>

 

[Sally-Anne Fagin]

Filed a Notice of Motion in the Court of Appeal seeking an order that the Court refer me to the Registrar for referral to a barrister on the Pro Bono panel for legal assistance.

Was heard yesterday, and the Court made the order referring me to the Pro Bono Panel.

So going to have a barrister to do the hearing by the looks of it.

Hope I get someone who's prepared to put some time in doing a bit of research and who's prepared to fight hard.

And I hope they are prepared to consult with me and advise me of the arguments they will be putting.

 

[Sally-Anne Fagin]

Found a pro bono barrister; she does not have a planning law background, and at the moment does not understand the issues in the case, but she seems to be doing a lot of reading of all the documents.

I will give her a bit of time to familiarise herself with the case before I discuss legal arguments with her in depth.

 

[Tim W]

Directions tomorrow, I see.
Kindly try and resist the urge to defame her when you become unhappy.

 

[Sally-Anne Fagin]

Directions vacated. I'm not sure she's actually on my side though, there has been a lot of corruption in this case.

I thought early on it might be a set up, but I decided to give her more time and see what happened.

I did take the precaution this morning of emailing her and setting out she had no authority to come to any agreements with the Respondent, or to file any documents or to move the Court for any orders or directions in relation to this matter.

I also set out my requirements such as that my Written Submissions were not to be altered, and the grounds of appeal were not to be changed, and some other instructions.

She will need to come up with some concrete arguments though, the few she has put forward were so ridiculous I wondered if she was actually hired by the other side to sabotage my proceedings.

Time will tell, I will give her till next Wednesday and then decide if I should tell her I will not be requiring her services.

Bizarre case though; the 28 yo solicitor for the Respondent is in a relationship with a 60 yo unemployed "Ice" addict and convicted "Ice" dealer, who I got busted for selling the drug "Ice", and the "Ice" dealer was making her take corrupt actions in relation to the proceedings to make me lose the case, to get back at me for getting him busted for selling drugs. He also got the solicitor hooked on the drug "Ice" as a method of controlling her.
And now she is pregnant to him. So we have a 28 yo solicitor pregnant to a 60 yo unemployed "Ice" addict and convicted "Ice" dealer, who got her hooked on the drug "Ice".
I don't see this ending well for her. Such a bizarre case.

 

[Sally-Anne Fagin]

Things are looking up. Just got a call from the Pro Bono barrister, she sounded enthusiastic about the case.

She has even gone to the trouble of paying for a junior barrister out of her own pocket.

She must think she has a good chance of winning.

I hope we do win, as I want her to get paid for her work.

 

[Sally-Anne Fagin]

I bet the pro-bono barrister (her name is Sheila Kaur-Bains by the way) has never had a client like me before.

I email her with ideas on possible arguments to run, or send her arguments I want her to make to the Court.

She has had to take an extra day to finish her Submissions in Reply, because of my arguments I am asking her to include. She has come into this case just before the hearing, and is having to work hard to familiarise herself with the case in a short amount of time. She even went to work one day over the easter holiday.

I very much hope she is rewarded for her effort.

There is no precedent for this case, and this case will require the Court to make a number of precedent setting rulings, so will be interesting what they have to say.

Looking forward to Court.

 

[Sally-Anne Fagin]

Hearing was today.

If I win this case I think it will be because of the arguments I made in my Written Submissions, not the arguments the barrister put in Court.

I said to her a week ago that I didn't think the Development Consent was a Consent for the use of the land that came within the ambit of s.95(5) of the EPA Act, although my original position in my Written Submissions was that it was.

She disagreed.

Anyway I emailed her and said that since she was doing the case pro-bono, I couldn't tell her, morally if not legally, how to run the case, and she could put what arguments she wanted. I also told her that I would offer suggestions of arguments to put, but it was up to her is she relied upon them.
I mean if I was paying her, then it would be a different story, as then I would demand she put the arguments I wanted her to put.

Anyway it looks like the Court is not accepting her argument that the Development Consent was a Consent for use of the land that comes within the ambit of s.95(5) of the Act.

She flogged this argument for most of the hearing.

I tried to get her to put another argument that was not in my Written Submissions, that involves the construction of s.95(4), in particular that the ambit of it's operation is limited by the obvious purpose that parliament enacted it for, and that on it's proper construction it can not operate to lapse a Development Consent that imposes conditions on an already build building for the protection of the environment.

I tried several times to get her to put an argument based on this interpretation of s.95(4), but she would not do so.
I said, we have nothing to lose by putting this argument, but she took no notice of me.

What can you do? To be honest after the afternoon adjournment I was thinking of withdrawing my instructions and representing myself for the remainder of the hearing.
But then I thought, the barrister, and her junior, have done all this work preparing the case, so I didn't think it would be fair to sack them at the hearing.

Oh well, see what the Court decides in it's judgement. There's always an application for leave to appeal to the High Court I suppose.

The feeling I had when I first had dealings with her that she may be working for the other side is still with me.
If you knew what the other side had engaged in during the 1 year and 10 months this case has run for, you would think that's quite possible.