Doug Young joins us from Australia for a comparison between US and Australian guardian systems.
Australia’s political/bureaucratic/judicial system appears superficially comparable to the US equivalent, however there are a number of significant differences which result in the Australian version of the guardianship racket being considerably more damaging to victims than is the case in the US. Unlike the US where guardians or conservators are private individuals and the functions of financial administration and personal decision-making are combined, the Australian racket involves almost exclusively state government entities like the Office of the Adult Guardian and the Office of the Public Trustee which enjoy total protection and immunity to prosecution.
As a member nation of the UN, Australia is duty-bound to observe international law, however this has never been recognized. Bottom line is that human rights simply do not exist in Australia. The Australian Human Rights Commission has never once addressed an human rights abuse issue involving any state or commonwealth entity, and IMO its director has a substantial history of protecting officialdom.
Chapter three of the Australian constitution defines the structure and function of courts. Guardianship matters are not heard by legitimate courts but rather by non constitutionally legitimate tribunals which have been endowed with native jurisdiction over guardianship matters. Native jurisdiction renders it effectively impossible to have a guardianship matter heard in a ‘proper’ court.
Legislation is produced by the bureaucracy / executive rather than the legislature, consequently it does not include any provision to bring corrupt bureaucrats / civil servants to account. They are effectively laws unto themselves and the legislature and judiciary are impotent to bring corrupt bureaucrats / civil servants to account even if they wanted to.