About NSW Courts
I have received a letter from the Supreme Court Probate Principal Registrar and other than the list searches I have to do to prove that my partner of 30 years lived with me and we raised 2 children together (mine) and I was his fulltime carer for 16 years until his death (I was a registered Nurse with 40+ years experience in ICU) as he struggled with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis which is a debilitating Neurological disease which robbed him of all his bodily functions and he died of respiratory failure Jan 2024. This Registrar wants to know whether my Defacto relationship with my partner was exclusive after receiving 3 statutory declarations from 3 neighbours who have known our family for the past 25 years, our children went to the same school as theirs, we own our own home and a block of land only in our names and lived in the same house since February 17th 1998. We have never been apart in the whole 30 years we were together until his death. Would you ask this same question of a married couple? What is the reason to ask such a question in a probate application about my intimate relationship with my partner of 30 years. Why do I have to produce the names of all the siblings, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, grandparents and parents death certificate and have them all consent to me applying for this application when I don't know vertually any of them, never met them, dont know their names and dont know where they live. there is no wife, no children. his brother is a drug addict never worked in the 30 years that I have known and hasn't had any contact with Craig or me since his fathers death 11/10/2016 when he refused to see him before he died. He is of no fixed address and a vagrant. Craig's sister is an unmedicated Paranoid Schizophrenic diagnosed in her teens 45 years ago and lives in a housing commission flat at Waterloo and she only speaks to one friend living in the same block of flats. She hasn't seen Craig since 2000 when he was diagnosed with MS. No family have ever phoned Craig to offer their support or condolenses after his death even though they were notified by other family members, never seen Craig in over 40 > 50 years since he was a young man and never came to our home. I am the only person entilted to his share of our house as per the succession rule and this registrar has now caused me to forfeit $315,000 deposit on a house because probate did not come through. This was all my lifes savings and superannuation. I am now relying on emergency vouchers and food parcels from the Salvos and lifeline to get me through because my assets which were the same when Craig was alive, now are too much so I do not get any financial assistance from Centrelink. I have never had to worry about our finances as I have never lived above my means and been extremely good with managing our finances. Now my life is being determined by a total stranger who is hellbent on controlling everything in my life without any empathy or compassion or care about how he has affected my life. He is meant to be a public servant paid for by the people to serve and facilitate a process of fairness not manipulate a system of justice to his own end. This is bureaucracy gone mad and is discriminatory and will be escalated to the proper channels to be dealt with under the Antidiscrimination ACT basis marital status
One of authorized officer from council has individual power to make decision many dogs' life without second chance sounds sad story in dog's world.
I'm in that situation at the moment. I have my brothers criminal record on me.ive tried through police and solicitors to have it looked at.my last solicitor told police prosecution which they turned on me..I've seen commanders..mayors..every legal avenue...they used informers to attack me in the community...I thought we lived in a democratic country until you find out there no better than other countries. This is Australia
Parliamentary privilege, despite currently granted under the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, Prior to this Act (and still current) these privileges are granted to politicians under the Bill of Rights 1688. According to the Australian Government Attorney –General’s Department website:
The Declaration of Rights 13 February 1689 [Bill of Rights 1688]
...
9. That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.
It sets down one of the primary privileges of Parliament which is still relevant in the modern context for the following reason stated by Gibbs ACJ in Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 at 35:
§ ‘a Member of Parliament should be able to speak in Parliament with impunity and without any fear of the consequences.’
Further to this I would draw your attention to the following High Court of Australia case;
Port of Portland v State of Victoria [2010] HCA 44 ( 8 December 2010)
In this case all 7 Justices confirm the validity of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 and the Bill of Rights 1688, thus enshrining in law the validity of the Bill of Rights 1688 in Australia.
Even the Australian Government Australian Law Reform Commission website states:
“The rights, freedoms and privileges set out in the Terms of Reference have a long and distinguished heritage. Many have been recognised in Australia, England and other common law countries for centuries. They form part of the history of the common law, embodying key moments in constitutional history, such as the sealing of the Magna Carta in 1215,[1] the settlement of parliamentary supremacy following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the enactment of the Bill of Rights Act 1688.[2] They were recognised and developed by the courts and some were declared and affirmed by historic statutes and further developed by modern legislation.”
This is validated by The Hon Robert French AC, Chief Justice of the High Court when he stated in his speech ‘The Common Law and the Protection of Human Rights’ (Speech, Anglo Australasian Lawyers Society, Sydney, 4 September 2009);
“many of the things we think of as basic rights and freedoms come from the common law and how the common law is used to interpret Acts of Parliament and regulations made under them so as to minimise intrusion into those rights and freedoms.”
It should be noted that when the Bill of Rights 1688 was enacted, a clause was added such that this bill could never expire or be repealed “shall be declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present Parliament and shall stand remaine and be the Law of this Realme for ever”
I would say we already have a Billnof Rights set by legal precedent.