Earlier today, we received the sad news that Michael Tellinger was not successful in his leave to appeal, and has not been granted a trial. We as the NPO looked forward to hearing the reasoning behind the judge’s decision. However, some alarmed NewERA Members, who were present at the hearing, have brought some serious concerns to our attention. We attach an example of such concern below.
Mr Tellinger’s argument seems to be thorough and comprehensive. If it was ignored so recklessly, do we have a duty to ask why?
We encourage you to send the attached documents to your lawyer, your accountant, your banker, and anyone you may know who has a sound logical mind. We hereby open a debate to anyone who wishes to solicit an opinion regarding these documents.
In light of this, the NPO is seriously considering to intervene more formally in the Tellinger case, as he considers alternative options available to him.
THE NEW ECONOMIC RIGHTS ALLIANCE
“To the team at The New Economic Rights Alliance
I have been following Michael Tellinger in his case and have attended all his hearings thus far and was utterly shocked today by what I witnessed.
Firstly, I found it strange that the same judge to whom the appeal was directed, was the self same judge adjudicating the hearing today. Another lawyer attending the hearing, whom I will not name, attested that it is common practice in law. I find this scary, because how is it possible that a fair decision be made by a judge to whom the appeal is directed? And where does that leave the rest of us in similar situations if this sets a precedent?
The travesty of justice doesn’t end there. What was more shocking, was the actual judgement and how it was delivered.
After (in my opinion) half listening to Michaels leave to appeal which was extremely comprehensive in raising serious constitutional infringements against lay persons by banks, the judge in question totally dismissed Michael in a rude way without qualifying his judgement and not taking into consideration Tellingers argument presented today at all. In fact, judgement was passed within moments at the end of the hearing, after Michael dispensed with a heavily detailed document which he read out earlier warranting proper dissection, with what seemed to be a wave of the hand.
My question is, where does this seemingly abhorrent treatment of Michaels rights to be heard accordingly and fairly leave the rest of us pursuing fair and lawful consideration?
He was mocked by both the opposing council and the judge, for doing what is in my opinion an extremely brave act of trying to open the door to real transparency in how our rights are disregarded by these profiteering corporations
And to top it off, as opposing council left the court entering the lift down to the lobby, I heard one of the party say in a patronising tone, loud enough for a couple of us to hear, “One down…”