In my search for a lawyer who would present my issues to the High Court I had reply from - John Paul Mould - who tricked me into paying him $ 5500 on the promise of providing the legal advise about
the merits of my proposed issues .
lawyer John Paul Mould
barrister Paul E. Smith
I thought that I was careful by requesting from him , before paying the money into his trust account , the confirmation in writing that he will provide ' the legal advice ' specifically in relation to the issues I wanted to be raised .
However a crook is always a crook , particularly thriving in such protective environment as offered by Queensland Legal System .
After receiving the money he send me a few letters with rubbish in them and nothing about the legal validity of the issues I am raising , in spite of promising in writing to do so .
In December 2009 I did receive the ' report ' ( written by the barrister Paul Smith engaged by JPM ) with rubbish in it ( ' Memorandum ' from 11.12.2009). Absolutely nothing about the issues I requested the legal opinion about .
Guilelessly I thought that ` learned ` men know all the answers but possibly my questions were too complex to answer even to a ` learned ` person . May be he could just simply say that he does not know the answer but simplicity is not a forte of ` learned ` men .
He showed not knowledge but arrogance in pretending that only he is learned enough to make statements in relation to law and he did it in a manner which would be described as shameful for every other person .
You would expect that for Paul Smith to become a barrister he would need to demonstrate reasonable knowledge of law and legal procedures and use such knowledge to earn the honest living by making statements ( opinions ) about the legal matters .
You would expect him to understand the concepts of JUSTICE , FAIRNESS , GOOD FAITH , HONESTY
I am hoping that , apart from his suddenly silent colleagues , there will be someone to ask him a question how come he is incapable of expressing the legal opinion about some basic legal matters :
- lawfulness of the selection as the trial judge the person involved in my persecution
- lawfulness of denial by the trial judge the submission which would show
in Court the prosecution witness as the liar
- other issues as indicated in my correspondence
You have to wonder about perversity , depravity and imbedded dishonesty of such people who consciously and deliberately deceive those who made the mistake of trusting them ( or who have to trust them because there is no other choice ) .
They do it because they can and because the Queensland Legal System allows them to .
I rung JPM to query the lack of answers to my questions and he pretended to be surprised by saying -
' the barrister was definitely briefed about this ' .
Then , I received ' Amended memorandum ' from 22.12.2009 again with Paul Smith rubbish in it .
I sent him the letter formally requesting the answers to my issues , and again he sent me rubbish called -
' Supplementary opinion ' from 14.02.2010 .
In February 2010 I send him another letter again requesting him to fulfil his obligation under the contract , to provide me with the legal advise about the issues I requested the answers to , and this time he responded by the letter saying that he already answered all my questions . JPM in the letter from 11.03.2010 says - ' we consider that we have given you appropriate advice in respect to your prospects on all points that you have raised ' .
Translated into English it means – ' you trusted me and I ripped you off , I am so smart ! '
I sent the complaint letter to Queensland Law Society , they in turn contacted Legal Services Commission .
LSC then asked Solicitors Professional Standards to investigate – they did and they informed me in August 2010 that the Report of their investigation was sent to LSC .( struggle with LSC )