After lurking this thread I thought I  might add my 2 cents worth. (After all, that's what I'm here for - to annoy you!)

Let me point something out so it is clear to all.

 

ANY communications, by any means that leaves the solicitors office is considered "public domain" information.  Legal priviledge is ONLY for the duration of your meeting with your solicitor.  (Legal priviledge is where your lawyer cannot be made to divulge the contents of the discussion, much like a priest at confession..)

Let me give you examples.

1. You meet with your lawyer in their office to discuss matters.  The lawyer takes notes during the meeting and then you finish up and leave the office. Legal priviledge has now ended.  2 days later your laywer sends you a letter in the mail outlining you legal options (or whatever) but THAT letter must pass through the public system (ie, the Post Office) it has now become available to scrutiny before it arrives at your letterbox.

2. Your same scenario and the lawyer calls you (or you call your lawyer, duzzen madder), again, it uses the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network). Legal priviledge is abandoned.

3. If you have a good lawyer, they will call you or send you a letter and ask you to come in to disuss matters. Then legal priviledge applies.

4. Most lawyers think their notes and electronic files are subject to legal priviledge - THEY ARE NOT once the client meeting has been concluded.  (They will argue this of course, but unfortunately WHO is it that is interpreting the law here?? So I just happen to be aware that this occurs..)

So, be paranoid.

Remember. ANYTHING you -say - write - transmit - note - file - email - SMS - or - post - IS PUBLIC!!!!!

As for monitoring forums like this (and the MRA one for example), make no mistake.  They have every "right" at law to do so.  The question should be more "Why do they monitor it?" not  "Can they?" 

The DoD in Can'tberra has an incredible capacity to monitor any communications by any means. (all of the above) and can be seconded to provide information to state government departments if deemed neccessary. Because it is Commonwealth, different laws and safeguards (pffft) apply.  State authorities -usually- but not always, are required to get court orders to do so, Commonwealth does not if it is "National Interest". Definition of National is that a perceived "threat" may occur in more than one state. Hello, that  sounds like MCC's to me...

We DO NOT have the right to privacy in Australia. It is an assumed right but unfortunately no-where is there protection of this in law.

I have said this time and time again and will continue to keep saying this::

Australia is the ONLY country in the world that DOES NOT HAVE a Bill of Rights.

China has a Bill of Rights, Bangladesh has a Bill of Rights (they just usually choose to ignore them.. but they have them)

We have NO RIGHTS enshrined in rhe Australian Constitution except the right to practice religion free of government interference (hence why Islam is doing what it pleases here.) There are NO OTHER RIGHTs constitutionally.  There are certain presumption of rights by inference - but that is not the same as clearly defined rights and each case must be argued.

Any "rights" we have are mostly those made by State legislation (under the laws of the various States), which is why RANN or any any other State gummint can simply dismiss them and write them out. The Parliament can make laws and it can change laws and it can repeal (delete) laws.  This Bike Bill is the prime example of just this.  (Which is one reason why I am making so much fuss about it.)

 

So any idea that you have a right to privacy, communication, free speech and so on - forget it.

SA is now leading the way, as our dear Attorney-General Michael Atkinson points out - we are ideal for a social experiment and are a great laboratory to test this out. If this goes ahead and is held-up (held by the judiciary to be valid law and then become "Common Law" then every other state will follow. The battleground is here, in SA, right now.

 

Let me finish off by saying I am not a civil libertarian, (I see them like greenies) but I do believe that laws and the enforcement of those laws MUST have safeguards and accountability - this Bikie Bill does not.

 

Paul Kuhn.

SA - the STASI State.

 

see Sunday on Channel 9 for my latest rantings:

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-au&brand=ninemsn&tab=m165&mediaid=193083&from=39&vid=D8EA7D19-4198-4F10-A93A-BF2D829A18C8&playlist=videoByTag:mk:en-AU:vs:0:tag:aunews_ausunday:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A

 

 

 

 

 

 

The way that Carpenter has been running things here it wouldn't surprise me to see a similar law here soon.

Sorry peeps. I didn't mean to put the sh!tz up yer there..

Here is something that says what I say about our "rights"..


---Lifted from: http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/bill_of_rights/australia.php ------


A Bill of Rights for Australia

Even though Australia has signed all five international treaties that make up the the International Bill of Human Rights, none of these treaties are legally binding in Australia. Nor is there is a Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution. This means that the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone living in Australia are not protected by the law.

---------------- End of lift---------

It was one of the first things we were told at law school! NO RIGHTS!! Hot damn.. did I get upset.
Sorry 'bout that if I upset anyone. (didn't mean to - just told it as it was..)

ADELAIDE TO MURRYBRIDGE , hit 200 on the stretch there 2 day ive got it sust 4 sunday for the adeladie bike hwy drags

well i hope i wasted some cops time today  be ok if i was still in sa

 

in vic i would not be game to go over 170 od , the rds are bad here

lol a piper not a lot of room in there ....