Is the Victorian Attorney General of Victoria, Mr. Hulls, a Thief? Conclusion.

Conclusion to: Is Rod Hulls a Thief

The Liberal Party is not unaware of what is going on.MLA, David Davis was briefed by X and Y on her case. He didn’t take notes, and he has been derelict in his duty as an MP in not pursuing it in Parliament. His defection is worse because of what the Govt. has done, and the principles involved. He has never responded, and has refused approaches made by others on their behalf.

It is interesting the Liberals have been mute on the activities of the Govt.- through its agent the Office of State Trustees, when accounting firms, financial firms, and lawyers around Melbourne know what is going on. Their complacency is all the more interesting, when it is also not only Davis who has been fully briefed on a case. It emerges the Liberal party has, in fact, had a very good clue as to what the Office is culpable for rather many years now.

During a second reading debate on a Bill in 1994, MP Mildenhall (Footscray) remarked on,

“In recent times State Trustees has had a dreadful record as trustees of last resort.

…State Trustees was failing in that responsibility and had been the subject of a number of serious complaints…

…complainants had nowhere to go. They had to rely on agencies such as the Villamanta legal service to take up the case. Two cases were referred to in the article of 2 August 1997.”

Mr. Dollis (Richmond) related:

“…an elderly woman who was being moved into a nursing home. Her daughter had been her full-time carer for many years. The mother had left the house to her daughter in her will.

Regardless… the State Trustees sold the house to increase the capital for investment. The daughter then had nowhere to live and the mother’s wishes were not taken into account…”

Mr. Dollis continued:

“In some cases institutions, carers and lawyers for the represented person are fighting the State Trustees, the Guardianship and Administration Board and the Office of the Public Advocate. The argument is about which side should have control of the client. Many people would, if given the choice, not have the State Trustees control every aspect of their lives because it can be difficult to break free from its control mechanisms.”

What the Office, with the aid of the other bodies, is doing on a large scale, it has been doing on a large scale for many years now. This squares with what I have been told: firms have had a very nasty time in trying to achieve the near impossible, protect their clients and their assets from the Govt and its Office. Now we know why: They are robbing ‘clients’ for all they can get hold of.

“Serious complaints, it is now clear, is an understatement of what the complaints are about. The favoured tactic is to put victims under ‘perpetual guardianship’. The other is, to repeat, is to siphon of funds and other assets placed with them, even as mere executors of wills. It involves the full gamut of the ‘business’ of the Office wills. The Office can even, if it believes it can succeed move against an executor to make itself the executor of an estate.

How can politicians defend all that? How can the Liberal refuse to do their duty and see justice done!

Why has the Liberal Party supinely accepted the criminal actions of the Office? Why have they not sought justice? Not called for police investigations into the Office and the Ministry, and a full parliamentary inquiry? Why was Davis so abysmally derelict in his duty to his constituent, X, another victim of such disgusting cruelty?

This is not the usual rotten bit of Govt. corruption. This is far worse, and too many Victorians are victims. What the Office is committing is on a large scale. Moreover, what they have done to some Victorians is truly disgusting, appalling, shocking, and cruel.

Just remember that poor lady, T1. And, readers, remember this:

They have shown they will do it to anyone whose affairs are placed with them, all of their interests or just some. It is quite clear; they are prepared to go to considerable lengths to take a victim’s property.

It is clear what the duty of the Liberals in fact is, even if Ted and the Kroger ‘Liberal Party’ don’t like facing up to their duty. It is clear what actions have to be taken against the Office.

In the meant-time, anyone who is contemplating placing any of their business with the Govt. through its Trustees Office, anyone contemplating making a will with the Office, contemplating anything that might be ordinarily put through the Office, the advice is, Don’t.

Be warned, you will be dealing with criminals who will, at best siphon off only 1/3 of your property. At worst, they will seize all of it and ruin you completely. Time for a police investigation, a full Parliamentary Inquiry, and the Federal Attorney General to act; they have no choice in this, because now it is their duty.

One Response to “Is the Victorian Attorney General of Victoria, Mr. Hulls, a Thief? Conclusion.”

  1. Police Inquiry into the Bracks Administration. Pt.II « mangledthoughts Says:

    […] Is the Victorian Attorney General of Victoria, Mr. Hulls, a Thief? Conclusion. […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: