The Respondent seeks an order, pursuant to s 79 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (‘the VCAT Act’), that the Applicant give security for the Respondent’s costs in the amount $58,630 or such other amount as the Tribunal deems appropriate.

Subject: Client Privilege – whether chain of emails confidential communication – legal advice - whether waiver for failing to object to production under subpoena – whether the court ought to inspect documents in the absence of admissible evidence in support of claim of privilege.

February 10, 2018

AN Islamic cleric has told an unfair dismissal hearing he was warned he would be sack­ed as preacher at ­Preston’s mosque if he learnt English.

But the Islamic Society of Victoria said it dismissed Moh­amad Abou-Eid after he had made false claims in public and in front of TV cameras, alleging financial irregularities at the mosque.

“Legally you should be prosecuting on our behalf, instead you have made a clear decision to protect, the banking cartel, the Masonic Lodge and their illegal oaths, and the judiciary in clear breach of various law”. Private prosecutor, Brian Shaw.[1]

James has recently reviewed the Victorian Protected Disclosure Act(Vic) 2012 for the State Parliamentary IBAC Committee making comparisons of its operation with other states and the Commonwealth and the Employment Rights Act UK 1996 and some American equivalents.

James has been researching whistleblowing for 7 years commencing with assistance to Julian Assange in 2010, establishing with colleagues Blueprint for Free Speech, a NGO dedicated to the creation of best practice whistleblowing legislation, following on with interviews with 12 leading UK whistleblowers in 2013 as part of the Blueprint report on the state of the British legislative regime.

PROPERTY AND PROBATE · MAY 12, 2015 · BY JAMES D CATLIN

Important decision on the requirements of setting aside a will on the grounds that the testator did not know or approve of the contents. Useful study of “suspicious circumstances” necessary to displace the presumption of knowledge and approval created by due execution of a will.

Impact Funds Management Pty Ltd v Roy Morgan Research Ltd [2016] VSC 221 (10 May 2016) a proceeding commencing with a televised (it was silly season) relief against forfeiture application on 21 December, 2015 and following by the trial of $10 million claim against the defendant and counterclaim that was heard for 3 days before His Honour Justice Croft. Neither the claim nor counterclaim were made out. Television cameras were allowed to set up in the court room for the 7.30am hearing against the lock out. ABC footage.

BY JAMES D. CATLIN · MAY 3, 2015

Decision as to the presence of testamentary capacity overturned.

• The considered opinions of lawyers as to the existence of capacity can and will be discounted in certain circumstances including them not being appraised of medical evidence or evidence relevant to capacity generally.

“Legally you should be prosecuting on our behalf, instead you have made a clear decision to protect, the banking cartel, the Masonic Lodge and their illegal oaths, and the judiciary in clear breach of various law”. Private prosecutor, Brian Shaw.[1]