Preface

When it comes to writing stories about how the legal system works, or more particularly how the practitioners bend the system to tailor their case few can hold a candle to John Grisham. Grisham is an artisan at his craft and whilst I dare say that all of his stories have their origins in cases known to him, they come from the pen of a story-teller.

This is a narrative written by novice.

It concerns the relationship between two old men, one who cared for the other whilst he was alive and the other who cared for the other after he passed on. Into this mix came a lawyer who took depositions from the older man, who changed his will no fewer than ten times in 30 months. Why?

This is the story about a credible nursing organisation that employed a senior sister to 'oversee' the older gentleman; who wrote cheques paid out to herself and had him sign them. It uncovers the mysterious loss of $35,500, it shows conclusively the liaison between an organisations employee and the lawyer who worked in tandem to milk the old man's estate. It tells of the incompetence of lawyers, it exposes the devious nature of lawyers who are 'fighting for you', who stand to gain substantially and it erodes the very basis of justice that those at the highest shelf of the Supreme Court are supposed to project with out fear or favour.

These are the facts:

The nurse knew that an earlier Will left her $20,000

The lawyer won the case on the fabrication that the deceased had dementia. Had this been the case why did the Chief Justice fail to go down that path.

The nurse intercepted a letter directed to the ACAT administrator from the younger man, advising her that he held the EPOA, thus allowing the dismissed lawyer to act as the old man's attorney.

The legal Enduring Power of Attorney was in New Zealand. The lawyer claimed that he could not be contacted.

The general practitioner, received an identical letter from the EPOA holder, to that which was intended for the ACAT administrator. It was the revelation of this letter received 15 DAYS, after hospital admission, that prevented the lawyer and nurse from completing their mission. The hospital refused to support their claim.

The same letter that should have been handed to the ACAT, would have placed the hospital in no doubt as the the truth. This was maliciously withheld to subvert the path of truth.

The Chief Justice ruled that the deceased suffered dementia after the power of attorney and will had been actioned and legally done in a solicitor's office.

398 pages of hospital records shoe no mention of any neurological problems prior to December 8th 1999 . What it does throw up is the representation of the senior organisation nurse to influence the records to support the claim.

The old man's estate yielded over $600,000. The intention of the deceased was leave all of this to his friend.

The lawyers divvied the proceeds abundantly among themselves and the old man's friend was threatened with the possession of his home if he did not pay the deceased's dismissed lawyer $6626.00


The lawyer who represented the writer in this third person presentation, would not appeal on the grounds that the Chief Justice was not a man to meddle with. The truth was that his client (a misnomer ), just could not afford the cost.

Left to fight on alone he sought help from every judicial and political avenue. He found it to be a water-tight institution of self protection.



Return to Book Index