News & Updates

Pulvinar interdum ...
By Tony Brownlee
Etiam auctor nisl adipiscing sem. erat urna fringilla sit ametvestibulum.
Aulvinar gnterdum ...
By Tony Brownlee
Stiam auctor nisl adipiscing sem. erat urna fringilla sit ametvestibulum.
Qulvinar snterdum ...
By Tony Brownlee
Etiam auctor nisl adipiscing sem. erat urna fringilla sit ametvestibulum.


Tony Brownlee

Anthony John Brownlee asks  "WHY?"

Tony Brownlee asks "WHY?"

Why Die for your Debts?

Debts don’t deserve it, nor do their “carriers”.

Fear is a fabrication, it is generated by false surroundings not fact. A demand letter from a suburban lawyer has little impact, but a letter from one of the big four is shattering, yet the letter from one of the big four is probably written by a junior as against the suburban lawyer's letter likely to be written by a practice partner. 

To my knowledge not one banking officer has ever been charged with manslaughter following the suicide of a Farmer threatened by a bank with losing his property?

Intimidation is just not warranted, it is completely unnecessary.   I wonder if banking hoodlums gain some sort of morbid fun from the false power trip they believe their positions deliver up. I often wonder what would occur if they imposed their ridiculous thuggery on a few of the seriously hard characters I have met over the years and not just those hilarious clowns who think they are hard, but the quite natured seriously hard ones, the sort of characters you should never threaten?

Bankruptcy is and always has been a relief from debt, a chance to start clean - and give you a chance to be the person you were meant to be.   It should not be upheld by those on civil life support.  The “I know Lindy Chamberlain really did it” ignorant loud mouth normally at least a 140 kilo social monsters, as the end of the world, blistering someone who has at least tried with the social status of a failure. It is bad enough some of those who are empowered to judge us lack any worldly experience and depth without the wider over the back fence “experts” drowning someone who has tried to build, employ pay tax and failed.  
Fear not".   says Tony Brownlee

says Anthony John Brownlee

Tony Brownlee asks “Why?”

Tony Brownlee asks “Why?”

“Why does the Corporations Act 2001 appear to hold that crimes of assault, murder, drug dealing and the like are not crimes of “fraud or dishonesty”?

"When convicted or released from prison for crimes of these categories the convicted criminal and or former prisoner may take up a position of Director of a Corporation immediately. But should the conviction with or without imprisonment arise out of a crime involving “fraud or dishonesty” the convicted criminal is prohibited from participating in the management of a Corporation for 5 years from the date of conviction or release from prison! Why is this?!" questions Tony Brownlee

"Is there not an element of fraud and or dishonesty in crimes of assault, murder, drug dealing and the like?" asks Tony Brownlee

More on Tony Brownlee

Tony Brownlee asks “Why?”

"Why do so many people appear to dismiss the level of debt the Commonwealth Government carries in the belief that the debt level is either irrelevant and or simply does not matter?" asks Tony Brownlee.

"The Commonwealth Government, particular the current one, relies in part upon its ability to continually borrow in order to service its $230B debt. What if one of the Ratings Agencies decides the debt level is too high and downgrades the commonwealth’s rating to below investment grade by even just one level? What will happen to our economy then?" questions Tony Brownlee.

"The Commonwealth borrows by issuing Treasury Paper, affectively an IOU. If the investment Rating of the commonwealth is downgraded it is unlikely the Commonwealth will be in a position to borrow, at least at sustainable interest rates! What happens then?" asks Tony Brownlee

Tony Brownlee asks “Why?”

"Why can the average Australian NOT get Legal Aid?" asks Tony Brownlee

"Why do so many people appear to hold the firm belief that should they be confronted with a Police matter they will be granted Legal Aid, when funding to legal aid has not increased in line with population growth and or crime volumes?" questions Tony Brownlee.

"State governments and their statisitcs bureaus tells us crime is not growing and that some crimes are even falling in volume, and while that may be correct, it is obvious from the nightly news that some crimes are growing in volume, in concentrated form.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia sitting in all jurisdictions is crowded each day with matters where the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is the Respondent! The Plaintiffs are funded by our Legal Aid. We are effectively funding those not yet “Australian” while denying legal aid to Australians. Is this the meaning of government looking after its" questions Tony Brownlee

"A number of times a year those 'accused' are forced to go to trial in lower and or District Courts unrepresented by solicitors. These people are refused Legal Aid due to their employment, they own or are paying off a house, or have other assets that the State or Commonwealth tells them they should sell and liquidate to pay for their legal defence. These are people like you and I. Is this fair?" asks Tony Brownlee.

"In most instances, when/if you win your case, then costs are not recoverable. You are expected to be 'okay' with the loss of tens of thousands of dollars and forgive the stress and inconvenience bail imposes on a pending trial, that is if you win, which is difficult even for the innocent! An accused is up against a fully funded Crown legal team, usually Counsel instructed by a Solicitor.

When a verdict is delivered followed by conviction and sentence, provided the sentence is a custodial sentence Legal Aid is now usually granted for the Appeal should one be taken. So, one has to go to court, lose and then Appeal to be able to get Legal Aid.

I hear so many people say – 'how is forcing someone to go to trial unrepresented by a lawyer a fair trial? The answer is it probably is not, but there is NO Act or common law that states a fair trial cannot be had when unrepresented. Is this fair?" questions Tony Brownlee

"Take the case of "George" – he is charged with 18 'white collar crime 'offences. He does not qualify for legal aid as he and his wife own a house which the wife refuses to mortgage or sell to pay for his defence. George holds a job and has joint savings with his wife, plus superannuation. Therefore Legal Aid is denied to him. He is forced to go to trial not represented by a lawyer, he is found guilty, convicted and jailed. Now, he then qualifies for Legal Aid in his appeal. The appeal is held 14 months after imprisonment, the conviction is set aside, a verdict of acquittal is entered and he is released from jail with only a rail ticket to the nearest capital city to the jail – prohibited from seeking costs or damages, yet it is likely that if legal aid had been provided for trial there is the very real possibility George would have won! Is this fair? Did you know this is how Legal Works? Would you qualify for Legal Aid support if something happened to you?" questions Tony Brownlee

Veda Advantage...

"Ever wondered why a payment default remains on your Veda Advantage Information Services Ltd file for 5 years? So do I" asks Tony Brownlee.

"So I looked up the Privacy Act 1988 (Comm) Section 18F (2) which states the MAXIMUM permissible period a default may remain upon your file is as in Section 18F (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) is 5 years!"

"So if the MAXIMUM permissible period a default may remain upon a file is 5 years, who decides how long the default entry remains and why is it clearly the policy and practice of Veda Advantage Information Services to maintain a listing for the MAXIMUM permissible period of 5 years in all cases?" asks Tony Brownlee

" If there is no valid point in retaining an entry for the MAXIMUM permissible period of 5 years rather than sa,y 4 years, is the listing for an additional year put there impose a “penalty” upon the file holder?" asks Tony Brownlee. "So I ask, who is it deciding to penalise the file holder?"