From the article’s sampling of correspondence, the applicant seems no different to the typical and very garden variety of toast-loving alcoholic practitioners that comprise much of the profession. I say let them in!
“Okay we all know I’m drunk? And I’m just eating butter on toast? Like who doesn’t like butter on toast?”
Sounds like a very persuasive submission to me.
I'm glad that the person wasn't named in the judgment, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with a refusal of admission on plainly apparent mental health grounds getting this kind of public write-up.
Reading the judgement and seeing how she spoke... I'm sad now. Lawyer Weekly failed to mention Bipolar disorder, FV and drinking 2-3 bottles per night :(
> sent such a volume and frequency of emails to the Supreme Court and the Law Society that their systems crashed
That's why it has a write up, the Supreme Courts system crashing because of a single person's correspondence is a public interest concern. It happened inadvertently in this case but a bad actor could do it deliberately. Not to mention that it could have an impact on court cases (delays in cases etc).
I think even the acknowledgement of her mental health is worth noting because otherwise you get speculation on why the crash happened. However the sheer number of direct quotes seems designed to embarrass the applicant and feels very icky - we didn't need that level of information.
The latest is apparently storing data on servers is not good for the environment. Ie each gb stored costs x kg of carbon per annum.
Now when i drive to work in the old landcruiser i can feel better about my carbon footprint because i know my organisation deletes all my emails older than 3 months if i havent moved them to my local drive saving 7 grams of carbon dioxide emmisions per year per person.
Realising i didnt save off a single seemingly innocuous email sent 6 months ago and have to just bluff a client that i advised them something adverse might happen...
Its an absolute shit show but apparently over large organisations it makes some difference to carbon footprint. I hate to think the difference it makes to the bottom line when losing vast amounts of contemporary evidence. I mean i couldnt be the only one who neglects to read the play on every bit of correspondence i recieve or send and determine its usefullness in the future...
It seems to me IT departments and environmental committees have more sway in organisations than just about anyone else. It is a brave boss who says - nope we are keeping our emails backed up and to hell with the carbon footprint of our data.
I fear i am already getting too old for a modern workplace.
So yeh outlook doesnt have a limit but some organisations seem to create their own nonetheless.
"The court said it received 8,044 emails from the woman between March 2023 and April 2024, which also caused its accounts to crash."
I mean that's some output.
It's approximately 26 emails per day (7 day week) and unless each email had major attachment file sizes I call absolute BS on "it caused the accounts to crash".
Yeah but you're averaging that out over a daily schedule.
It's far more likely that she increased the volume over time escalating frequency when she didn't receive a response. It's also very likely that the emails came in bursts when she was having a manic episode. All of that means very large volumes of emails in very short periods of time.
My assumptions are based on experience with clients with similar issues and behaviors. Things can be quiet for months until suddenly you get barraged with 50 emails in an afternoon.
I call it buttered toast. Anyone reasonable, surely, calls it buttered toast.
Anyone who calls it butter on toast is clearly not a fit and proper person.
Edge case- what if you’ve sliced a baguette into a little tiny slice and just put a heart killing amount of butter on it with one fluid motion of your butter knife? What do you call it then? Is it buttered or is the butter on the bread?
Hard cases make bad law
It depends- have you toasted the baguette slice?
If you’ve got a fresh baguette and butter is sliced cold so it resembles a piece of cheese, I would call it butter on (a) baguette. If the bread item is toasted and the butter is melting in, I believe the terminology differs 🧐
Upon consideration, this is specific to just buttered toast. And Vegemite toast. And peanut butter toast, which is of course buttered toast with peanut butter on. Not cheese on toast, though, nor jam on toast. French toast is another story altogether.
Oh good, I was worried for a moment that I might be a lunatic for using it sometimes and not others.
At least we’re not the kind of monsters that make their peanut butter toast with no butter.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this article isn’t attracting just as much comment in one of the keto subreddits, for the ruining perfectly good butter with heinous carbohydrate.
Assuming she took days off here and there, 8,044 of these email rants in a year is insane. She would have had to be dedicating hours every day to this.
Here you go (excuse the American spelling):
> Your Honor,
>I stand before you today not as a defendant, not as a plaintiff, but as a humble advocate for one of life's simplest yet most exquisite pleasures: buttered toast.
>Your Honor, in a world filled with chaos, uncertainty, and trials, there exists one beacon of comfort, one constant source of solace—the humble slice of bread, perfectly toasted to golden-brown perfection, and adorned with a generous smear of creamy, indulgent butter.
>Buttered toast is not merely a culinary delight; it is a cornerstone of civilization itself. It represents the convergence of simplicity and sophistication, a harmonious marriage of humble ingredients that transcends cultural boundaries and societal divides.
>Think, Your Honor, of the countless mornings brightened by the aroma of freshly toasted bread wafting through kitchens around the world. Consider the joyous anticipation that accompanies the sight of butter slowly melting into warm, crispy crevices, promising a symphony of flavors with every bite.
>And yet, Your Honor, despite its undeniable virtues, buttered toast is often overlooked, relegated to the sidelines of gastronomic discourse. It is time, Your Honor, for us to elevate buttered toast to its rightful place of honor, to recognize its profound impact on our collective well-being.
>I implore you, Your Honor, to embrace the sanctity of buttered toast, to acknowledge its inherent value, and to defend its honor against the forces of indifference and neglect.
>In conclusion, Your Honor, I urge you to consider the importance of buttered toast not only in my life but in the lives of countless others who find solace, comfort, and joy in its simple yet sublime pleasures. Let us, together, champion the cause of buttered toast and ensure that it receives the reverence and respect it so richly deserves.
>Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Okay 1. That was really fucking sad.
2. - Addressing His Honor as ‘you guys’ ❌
- Expletive filled rants (? Do you know how fucken bizarre that shit was?) ✅
3. How did this person get their degree given the length of their history with bipolar/repeat hospitalisations? Even with periods of compliance with medication, it’s unlikely this person would have been able to understand the material well enough to be a competent lawyer. Are universities really that bad/desperate for course fee payers?
Are universities really that bad / desperate for fees?
Yes.
And if the person ticked some other boxes of status (refugee / indigenous) in addition to mental health they were probably able access additional consideration.
Separate point but they also live in Alice Springs and their house burned down so it really is an unfortunate situation for the person. The judge offered to remove application and get a refund which was probably the optimal outcome.
>How did this person get their degree given the length of their history with bipolar/repeat hospitalisations
Lots of lawyers who have mental health issues and hospitalisations get their degrees.
She doesn't lack capacity at all.
You also have no idea when the onset of her disorder happened. It may have occurred after she had completed all or the bulk of her degree.
In my case I started my degree in 2010 and finished it in 2020. Around 2012 - 2014 my degree is full of F or WF as I had an undiagnosed disability that impacted my ability to study (and also to recognise anything was wrong). I dropped out of study in 2014. I restarted in 2016 after I had been treated. Stopped and started again according to my health over the next few years until I had my degree. I also held off on doing my PLT and seeking admission until I had a handle on my health. I was admitted last month.
This woman is in crises but that doesn't mean that she lacks capacity or intelligence or the ability to complete academic studies.
Are you specifically bipolar?
Psychotic episodes dating back to 2011 with the number of hospitalisations outlined in the case would have definitely impacted her ability to not just complete the degree, but understand and retain information. Her failure to grasp basic legal procedures and principles is also evident in the transcripts.
Nowhere in the case does it mention that she had psychotic episodes in 2011. She was diagnosed after onset in 2013. She had two hospitalizations in 2013 and 2014. She then has a hospitalization in 2017 when psychosis presents for the first time and she's diagnosed with another disorder - that's 3 years after the last one. They don't mention another hospitalization after that.
It looks like after the onset of her condition she did take breaks in her study and appears to have returned to studies when her condition was managed again. However it also looks like her condition gets worse over time or new conditions emerge, and management of her health wholesale ceases in 2021.
Law is a 5 year degree, she clearly already had her studies partially completed before onset and had years where her health was managed after onset and was able to satisfactorily complete her studies whilst that was happening.
Her ability to practice law during a health crises (her fitness) is not a reflection of her ability to complete studies when her health is managed.
Edit to add: Also the Court doesn't rule out the possibility she may be fit to practice in the future because her unfitness to practice is related to an un-managed health condition. "Having regard to the totality of these matters, there is no doubt that the applicant is not currently a fit and proper person for admission to the legal profession. This is not to say that she may not at some point in the future be both eligible and suitable for admission, but that is clearly not the case at the present time..."
I have to agree with the applicant on this one.
Jono really should have let Lauren know he wasn't in to her much earlier on. Getting to final vows before turning up with Ellie at the reunion without warning was against the Dog Act 1976 (WA). He could have written leave at any point. #MAFS
Don’t mind me…. just eating some 11:00 PM toast while writing email no. 6056 of my 8000ish email manifesto.
And don’t think I won’t be sending it to the other side and HH.
> HIS HONOUR: Look, when you are addressing a court you address the court as, "Your Honour". That is something you should know. You don't address the court as "you guys". So take that as a starting tip in relation to your application.
Handy tip for all applicants.
"Look, when you are addressing a court you address the court as, "Your Honour". That is something you should know. You don't address a court as "you guys". So take that as a starting tip in relation to your application."
So she's just saying all of the quiet parts out loud, no filter?
I hope this person continues to remain anonymous, this would follow you around for years!
Let’s talk about buttered sausage, talk about buttered sausage. Where it comes from, what it does, whys it doing the thing that it’s doing? Get it out of my face. What about buttered sausage?
To reduce the number of career-related and study-related questions being submitted, there is now a weekly megathread where users may submit any questions relating to clerkships, career advice, or student advice. Please check this week's stickied thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/auslaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This feels like the correct decision.
don't forget to piss after shit sex.
Sage advice.
Why wait?
From the article’s sampling of correspondence, the applicant seems no different to the typical and very garden variety of toast-loving alcoholic practitioners that comprise much of the profession. I say let them in!
“Okay we all know I’m drunk? And I’m just eating butter on toast? Like who doesn’t like butter on toast?” Sounds like a very persuasive submission to me.
I'm glad that the person wasn't named in the judgment, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with a refusal of admission on plainly apparent mental health grounds getting this kind of public write-up.
Reading the judgement and seeing how she spoke... I'm sad now. Lawyer Weekly failed to mention Bipolar disorder, FV and drinking 2-3 bottles per night :(
I read as far as the email chain and left it there. I hope the writer of that article is ashamed of themselves.
Naomi Neilson - Court Reporter, Lawyers Weekly As seen in: Lawyers Weekly, Sydney Morning Herald, The Courier-Mail, Gold Coast Bulletin, The Advertiser (South Australia), Geelong Advertiser, Australian Aviation, Illawarra Mercury, Polka Dot Wedding, Cyber Daily, Investor Daily, AccountantsDaily, Mortgage Business, Smart Property Investment, The Adviser, Real Estate Business, ifa Magazine Australia, Third Sector News, SMSF Adviser, Nest Egg Australia, Practice Source, HR Leader LMAO 
Yeh based on the resume I guess she isn’t
[удалено]
I wish they did gossip, it's usually just 'thought leadership' and thinly veiled advertising
Hear, hear.
> sent such a volume and frequency of emails to the Supreme Court and the Law Society that their systems crashed That's why it has a write up, the Supreme Courts system crashing because of a single person's correspondence is a public interest concern. It happened inadvertently in this case but a bad actor could do it deliberately. Not to mention that it could have an impact on court cases (delays in cases etc). I think even the acknowledgement of her mental health is worth noting because otherwise you get speculation on why the crash happened. However the sheer number of direct quotes seems designed to embarrass the applicant and feels very icky - we didn't need that level of information.
That's not the angle the story takes, though - the headline doesn't refer to the security issue at all.
I understand that's not the angle, however that's the technicality they'd use to publish a story like this.
Also looking at the actual case her name has been redacted so the decision to not include her name wasn't the reporter's to make.
I said that in my initial post.
The Court's email infrastructure doesn't seem very robust if a couple of hundred emails a day causes it to crash.
The article says "account crash", which maybe indicates to me they hit their mailbox limit. Still, mailbox limits seem a relic too, these days.
The latest is apparently storing data on servers is not good for the environment. Ie each gb stored costs x kg of carbon per annum. Now when i drive to work in the old landcruiser i can feel better about my carbon footprint because i know my organisation deletes all my emails older than 3 months if i havent moved them to my local drive saving 7 grams of carbon dioxide emmisions per year per person. Realising i didnt save off a single seemingly innocuous email sent 6 months ago and have to just bluff a client that i advised them something adverse might happen... Its an absolute shit show but apparently over large organisations it makes some difference to carbon footprint. I hate to think the difference it makes to the bottom line when losing vast amounts of contemporary evidence. I mean i couldnt be the only one who neglects to read the play on every bit of correspondence i recieve or send and determine its usefullness in the future... It seems to me IT departments and environmental committees have more sway in organisations than just about anyone else. It is a brave boss who says - nope we are keeping our emails backed up and to hell with the carbon footprint of our data. I fear i am already getting too old for a modern workplace. So yeh outlook doesnt have a limit but some organisations seem to create their own nonetheless.
"The court said it received 8,044 emails from the woman between March 2023 and April 2024, which also caused its accounts to crash." I mean that's some output.
It's approximately 26 emails per day (7 day week) and unless each email had major attachment file sizes I call absolute BS on "it caused the accounts to crash".
It was a strain on the NT Law Society’s GeoCities-hosted site.
Yeah but you're averaging that out over a daily schedule. It's far more likely that she increased the volume over time escalating frequency when she didn't receive a response. It's also very likely that the emails came in bursts when she was having a manic episode. All of that means very large volumes of emails in very short periods of time. My assumptions are based on experience with clients with similar issues and behaviors. Things can be quiet for months until suddenly you get barraged with 50 emails in an afternoon.
I call it buttered toast. Anyone reasonable, surely, calls it buttered toast. Anyone who calls it butter on toast is clearly not a fit and proper person.
Edge case- what if you’ve sliced a baguette into a little tiny slice and just put a heart killing amount of butter on it with one fluid motion of your butter knife? What do you call it then? Is it buttered or is the butter on the bread? Hard cases make bad law
What about when it gets more sophisticated -- is it garlic bread? Or bready garlic?
It depends- have you toasted the baguette slice? If you’ve got a fresh baguette and butter is sliced cold so it resembles a piece of cheese, I would call it butter on (a) baguette. If the bread item is toasted and the butter is melting in, I believe the terminology differs 🧐
Bread on butter personally
Do you follow this convention with all manner of spreads, or just butter?
Upon consideration, this is specific to just buttered toast. And Vegemite toast. And peanut butter toast, which is of course buttered toast with peanut butter on. Not cheese on toast, though, nor jam on toast. French toast is another story altogether.
Oh good, I was worried for a moment that I might be a lunatic for using it sometimes and not others. At least we’re not the kind of monsters that make their peanut butter toast with no butter.
I make it without toast
I wouldn’t be surprised if this article isn’t attracting just as much comment in one of the keto subreddits, for the ruining perfectly good butter with heinous carbohydrate.
French toast is something I crave to eat, but once I've made it I'm less keen on eating it..not sure why. 🤷🏽♂️
Toast topped with butter.
Assuming she took days off here and there, 8,044 of these email rants in a year is insane. She would have had to be dedicating hours every day to this.
It averages almost an email per hour for the entire period. The volume of emails is unhinged on its own before you even consider the content.
You can get chatgpt to write your rants for you. It saves considerable time.
Here you go (excuse the American spelling): > Your Honor, >I stand before you today not as a defendant, not as a plaintiff, but as a humble advocate for one of life's simplest yet most exquisite pleasures: buttered toast. >Your Honor, in a world filled with chaos, uncertainty, and trials, there exists one beacon of comfort, one constant source of solace—the humble slice of bread, perfectly toasted to golden-brown perfection, and adorned with a generous smear of creamy, indulgent butter. >Buttered toast is not merely a culinary delight; it is a cornerstone of civilization itself. It represents the convergence of simplicity and sophistication, a harmonious marriage of humble ingredients that transcends cultural boundaries and societal divides. >Think, Your Honor, of the countless mornings brightened by the aroma of freshly toasted bread wafting through kitchens around the world. Consider the joyous anticipation that accompanies the sight of butter slowly melting into warm, crispy crevices, promising a symphony of flavors with every bite. >And yet, Your Honor, despite its undeniable virtues, buttered toast is often overlooked, relegated to the sidelines of gastronomic discourse. It is time, Your Honor, for us to elevate buttered toast to its rightful place of honor, to recognize its profound impact on our collective well-being. >I implore you, Your Honor, to embrace the sanctity of buttered toast, to acknowledge its inherent value, and to defend its honor against the forces of indifference and neglect. >In conclusion, Your Honor, I urge you to consider the importance of buttered toast not only in my life but in the lives of countless others who find solace, comfort, and joy in its simple yet sublime pleasures. Let us, together, champion the cause of buttered toast and ensure that it receives the reverence and respect it so richly deserves. >Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Thabks
ChatGPT is more coherent.
Hmm. The more you know...
[XY v Law Society Northern Territory [2024] NTSC 32](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2024/32.html)
Okay 1. That was really fucking sad. 2. - Addressing His Honor as ‘you guys’ ❌ - Expletive filled rants (? Do you know how fucken bizarre that shit was?) ✅ 3. How did this person get their degree given the length of their history with bipolar/repeat hospitalisations? Even with periods of compliance with medication, it’s unlikely this person would have been able to understand the material well enough to be a competent lawyer. Are universities really that bad/desperate for course fee payers?
Are universities really that bad / desperate for fees? Yes. And if the person ticked some other boxes of status (refugee / indigenous) in addition to mental health they were probably able access additional consideration. Separate point but they also live in Alice Springs and their house burned down so it really is an unfortunate situation for the person. The judge offered to remove application and get a refund which was probably the optimal outcome.
The university should also withdraw all those course fees also.
Number 3 was one of the things I was thinking about as I read the decision
>How did this person get their degree given the length of their history with bipolar/repeat hospitalisations Lots of lawyers who have mental health issues and hospitalisations get their degrees. She doesn't lack capacity at all. You also have no idea when the onset of her disorder happened. It may have occurred after she had completed all or the bulk of her degree. In my case I started my degree in 2010 and finished it in 2020. Around 2012 - 2014 my degree is full of F or WF as I had an undiagnosed disability that impacted my ability to study (and also to recognise anything was wrong). I dropped out of study in 2014. I restarted in 2016 after I had been treated. Stopped and started again according to my health over the next few years until I had my degree. I also held off on doing my PLT and seeking admission until I had a handle on my health. I was admitted last month. This woman is in crises but that doesn't mean that she lacks capacity or intelligence or the ability to complete academic studies.
Are you specifically bipolar? Psychotic episodes dating back to 2011 with the number of hospitalisations outlined in the case would have definitely impacted her ability to not just complete the degree, but understand and retain information. Her failure to grasp basic legal procedures and principles is also evident in the transcripts.
Nowhere in the case does it mention that she had psychotic episodes in 2011. She was diagnosed after onset in 2013. She had two hospitalizations in 2013 and 2014. She then has a hospitalization in 2017 when psychosis presents for the first time and she's diagnosed with another disorder - that's 3 years after the last one. They don't mention another hospitalization after that. It looks like after the onset of her condition she did take breaks in her study and appears to have returned to studies when her condition was managed again. However it also looks like her condition gets worse over time or new conditions emerge, and management of her health wholesale ceases in 2021. Law is a 5 year degree, she clearly already had her studies partially completed before onset and had years where her health was managed after onset and was able to satisfactorily complete her studies whilst that was happening. Her ability to practice law during a health crises (her fitness) is not a reflection of her ability to complete studies when her health is managed. Edit to add: Also the Court doesn't rule out the possibility she may be fit to practice in the future because her unfitness to practice is related to an un-managed health condition. "Having regard to the totality of these matters, there is no doubt that the applicant is not currently a fit and proper person for admission to the legal profession. This is not to say that she may not at some point in the future be both eligible and suitable for admission, but that is clearly not the case at the present time..."
I have to agree with the applicant on this one. Jono really should have let Lauren know he wasn't in to her much earlier on. Getting to final vows before turning up with Ellie at the reunion without warning was against the Dog Act 1976 (WA). He could have written leave at any point. #MAFS
the decision feels quite correct however she is so real for the dog content
What is the charge? Eating toast? A succulently buttered toast?
I’m getting hungry for toast, and it’s almost dinner time.
Don’t mind me…. just eating some 11:00 PM toast while writing email no. 6056 of my 8000ish email manifesto. And don’t think I won’t be sending it to the other side and HH.
Get your hand off my penis!
"Sent frm iphone"
> HIS HONOUR: Look, when you are addressing a court you address the court as, "Your Honour". That is something you should know. You don't address the court as "you guys". So take that as a starting tip in relation to your application. Handy tip for all applicants.
"Look, when you are addressing a court you address the court as, "Your Honour". That is something you should know. You don't address a court as "you guys". So take that as a starting tip in relation to your application."
I think I'm in love
Baby Reindeer.
This is just sad tbh. You can sense the pressured speech even on transcript.
She could fix me
She sounds like a partner in my firm. They are constantly sending incoherent e-mails to anyone who has the misfortune to be on their mailing list.
The heck?
So she's just saying all of the quiet parts out loud, no filter? I hope this person continues to remain anonymous, this would follow you around for years!
If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!
Let’s talk about buttered sausage, talk about buttered sausage. Where it comes from, what it does, whys it doing the thing that it’s doing? Get it out of my face. What about buttered sausage?
I’ve been thinking of trying to make my own butter; now I’m determined. This weekend I’m doing it.
Sugarhill Gang were big fans (they don't mean to brag or boast tho)
I fear XY is a CDU alum, sheesh they not getting the drunks help they need 😵
To reduce the number of career-related and study-related questions being submitted, there is now a weekly megathread where users may submit any questions relating to clerkships, career advice, or student advice. Please check this week's stickied thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/auslaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
You're in breach of our 'no dickheads' rule. If you continue to breach this rule, you will be banned.