Odtojan Bryl Lawyers

01/06/2026

Odtojan's Mirror Test - Rule of Law: The Most Honest Test Anyone Can Apply.
"Take the process applied to two lawyers. Turn it around. Apply it to the people who applied it. Ask: would that be acceptable? This is the mirror test, and the reflection is revealing."

When livelihoods are stripped with:
❌ No court or tribunal findings
❌ No hearing
❌ No tested evidence
❌ No statutory basis
Just: "we formed views."

That is not the Rule of Law. That is not Democracy.

The law must apply fairly to all, or it does not apply at all.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- George Orwell, Animal Farm

Because what happened to two NSW lawyers was not just unjust, it was Kafkaesque.

A wrecking ball of lawlessness descended on their lives and their firm. And while their professional existence was being dismantled, without notice, without process, without a single proven finding, they were still expected to honour their duties as solicitors, protect their clients, run their practice, and comply with every legal obligation placed upon them.

Victims navigating the chaos of destruction. Treated as the problem.

That is the human cost.

Turn the Tables, What Happens When Power Faces the Mirror?
To the Director who signed the decision.
To the Council who adopted it.
To the Attorney General whose office invented phrases that do not exist in the law.

Would they accept it?
Would they be screaming injustice?
Would they accept their family being stripped of their primary source of income, with no proven case, no court process, no tribunal findings?
You already know the answer.

"A process that is only acceptable when applied to others, but never to oneself, is not a lawful process. It is an abuse of power by those entrusted with authority under the law to act impartially and with integrity. They have all taken oaths."

This is not just the story of Odtojan and Bryl.
This is an Australian story. A societal one.

What is the true state of the rule of law, of democracy, in Australia, if livelihoods can be taken without a proven case and without any court or tribunal process?

A society cannot function if people lose their livelihoods on mere allegation.
That is not justice.
That is not democracy.
That is not a safe society.

🔗 Read Odtojan's Mirror Test here: https://wix.to/MxJ8jnh

The Most Honest Test Anyone can Apply "Take the process applied to two lawyers. Turn it around. Apply it to the people who applied it. Ask: would that be acceptable? This is the mirror test, and the reflection is revealing. There is a test that can cut through every legal argument, every procedural....

01/06/2026

Odtojan's Mirror Test - Rule of Law: The Most Honest Test Anyone Can Apply
"Take the process applied to two lawyers. Turn it around. Apply it to the people who applied it. Ask: would that be acceptable? This is the mirror test, and the reflection is revealing."
When livelihoods are stripped with:
❌ No court or tribunal findings
❌ No hearing
❌ No tested evidence
❌ No statutory basis
Just: "we formed views."

That is not the Rule of Law. That is not Democracy.

The law must apply fairly to all, or it does not apply at all.

As George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Turn the Tables - What Happens When Power Faces the Mirror?
Imagine if everything that was done to two lawyers and their firm was done instead to those who did it.
To the Director who signed the decision.
To the Council who adopted it.
To the Attorney General whose office invented phrases that do not exist in the law.
To the judge who said everything done to them was proper.
Would they accept it?
Would they be screaming injustice?
Would they accept their family being stripped of their primary source of income, with no proven case, no court process, no tribunal findings, just to cause damage to everything they had built?
You already know the answer.

"A process that is only acceptable when applied to others, but never to oneself, is not a lawful process. It is an abuse of power by those entrusted with authority under the law to act impartially and with integrity. They have all taken oaths."

This is not just the story of Odtojan and Bryl.
This is an Australian story. A societal one.
Because we need to ask the hard question:
What is the true state of the rule of law, of democracy, in Australia, if livelihoods can be taken without a proven case and without any court or tribunal process?
A society cannot function if people lose their livelihoods on mere allegation.
That is not justice.
That is not democracy.
That is not a safe society.

🔗 Read Odtojan's Mirror Test here: https://wix.to/YEzajt2

31/05/2026

"The selective application of the law is not justice. It is the weaponisation of justice against the very people it was built to protect." - Marie Odtojan.

One year ago, Marie Odtojan and Artem Bryl lost their livelihoods and legal practice following decisions by the Law Society of NSW, which they allege were unlawful.

No proven case. No findings. No adjudication. No proven breaches.

This is not just our story. This is about the rule of law and democracy in Australia. If a regulator can strip two lawyers of their livelihoods on mere allegations, bypassing every protection Parliament built into the law, then those protections exist for no one.

"The king wanted a judge who knew the law well enough to defeat it." - Thomas More, Utopia.

A judgment that reproduced those alleged unlawful decisions without scrutiny is now precedent for every Australian lawyer.

"An injustice to one is an injustice to all."

"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept." - Lieutenant General David Morrison AO, 2013.

Every citizen carries a responsibility not to remain silent and allow injustice to perpetuate. A safe, just and prosperous society requires collective action and a call for integrity, transparency and accountability.

We reported. We documented. We warned. The public record stands. We are still here.

Read the full article: https://wix.to/iH19TSt
Share it. Ask the unanswered questions. Sign the petition.

One Year On. No Findings. No Adjudication. Just Allegations, and a Judgment That Made It Precedent for Every Australian Lawyer. Marie Odtojan and Artem Bryl - Odtojan Bryl Lawyers. Two lawyers. A Law Firm. No findings. No proven case of any breaches under the law. No adjudication. Still speaking. St...

20/05/2026

"Punished for acknowledging biological s*x" - Sall Grover, founder of Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd.

Have women been erased under Australian law?
The legal definition of what it means to be “female” or a “woman” in Australia became significantly broader following the 2013 amendments to the S*x Discrimination Act introduced under former Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd became one of the first major Federal Court cases to test how those expanded gender identity definitions operate in practice.

The amendments were introduced with the intention of creating greater inclusiveness and extending protections to transgender individuals and others under anti-discrimination law.

However, cases like Tickle v Giggle are now revealing the practical consequences that can arise when legal definitions become increasingly broad without clear statutory limits, safeguards, or boundaries.

This raises difficult but important questions many women are now asking:
At what point does inclusiveness begin conflicting with s*x-based protections? Where are the legal limits? How are women’s spaces, privacy, dignity, and safety balanced within the law?

These are not merely theoretical questions debated in universities or courtrooms. They affect real life, real spaces, and real experiences for women across Australia.

Some women have lived experience, encountering situations where a man casually walked into a women’s bathroom without explanation. No words were spoken. No one knew the intent. And it raises a difficult practical question: how are women realistically expected to distinguish between someone identifying as a woman and someone with harmful intent?

That is where many women feel increasingly conflicted.

This discussion is not necessarily about exclusion, or denying dignity to transgender individuals. It is about whether the law has properly considered:
boundaries,
safeguards,
competing rights,
and the realities women navigate in everyday life.
Because once legal definitions change, society changes with them.
And cases like Tickle v Giggle demonstrate why statutory wording, legislative foresight, and democratic scrutiny matter so profoundly.

There is a growing public call for Parliament to review the current legal definitions of s*x and gender identity and place clearer safeguards and statutory limits under Australian law.

Cases such as Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd show the real-world consequences of broad legislative definitions, including women being sued or dragged through courts for referring to a biological male as male where that person identifies as a woman.

These are difficult but important societal and legal questions that affect all Australians.

18/05/2026

A landmark Federal Court ruling in the case of Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd, a major decision concerning language, statutory definitions, gender identity, and women’s spaces under Australian law.
The proceedings became one of the first significant cases to test the 2013 amendments to the S*x Discrimination Act introduced under former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, which added protections relating to gender identity.
Roxanne Tickle, a biological male who identifies as a woman, alleged unlawful discrimination after being excluded from giggle.com, a women-only social networking app.
The case has sparked widespread legal and public debate about statutory interpretation, legislative definitions, women’s spaces, and the long-term consequences of legislative wording once tested through litigation.
Read more: https://wix.to/yrDauDd

When Language, Law, and Identity Collide: The Federal Court decision in Tickle v Giggle Case, Statutory Definitions, Government Intervention, and the Debate Over Women’s Spaces. On 15 May 2026, the Federal Court made its landmark decision in the case of Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [20...

08/05/2026

A NSW Supreme Court judge being sued reinforces a core legal principle: no one is above the law. This articles explores what that means for judicial accountability and public trust, and the integrity of the justice system, and why those issues matter to society as a whole.
Read more: https://wix.to/1dzCMw0

08/05/2026

Allegations Weaponised to Strip Livelihoods - An Erosion of the Rule of Law

A public disclosure concerning what we allege was the use of unresolved allegations by the Law Society of NSW and the NSW Legal Services Commissioner to strip two lawyers of practising rights, livelihood, and professional standing despite:

1. no findings of misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct;
2. no suspension;
3. no NCAT proceedings;
4. no tribunal determination; and • no adjudicated findings of wrongdoing by any court or tribunal.

It is alleged that NSW regulators:

1. materially relied upon allegations during the practising certificate renewal process under Chapter 3 “fitness” assessments to avoid the Chapter 5 process established by Parliament to investigate and determine conduct allegations concerning legal practitioners. Chapter 5 exists for a reason. It requires assessment, investigation, procedural fairness, and independent adjudication before NCAT before life-altering professional consequences can occur. This did not occur in our case.

2. listed, repeated, and concluded upon allegations raised by the same regulatory bodies making those allegations.

3. interfered with our solicitor records, practising rights, and memberships before any formal decision was issued. Evidence before the judicial review proceedings showed conclusions had already been made in a memo by Ms Valerie Griswold before any purported Council determination.

These matters, including critical evidence raised by the applicants, were materially omitted or not properly engaged with in the judicial review judgment of Justice Griffiths, which instead repeatedly recited allegations and commentary while failing to properly address the legality of the process, the bypassing of Chapter 5, and the lawful exercise of statutory power raised before the Supreme Court.

The consequence of this judicial review is profound.

It is asserted that the judgment effectively transforms Chapter 5, the disciplinary framework established by Parliament, into what now appears to operate as a discretionary process capable of being bypassed through Chapter 3 “fitness” assessments.

This discretionary theory, together with reliance upon the Legal Services Commissioner’s letter handed up on the day of hearing and s 97 of the Uniform Law, only crystallised within the judgments and were not ventilated during the hearing itself.

What also emerged in the judgments was a reformulation of the issues before the Court into whether the Law Society was entitled to make misconduct findings under Chapter 3 rather than proceeding under Chapter 5.

But there were no misconduct findings at all.

This issue extends far beyond us.

Because if two lawyers can be stripped of livelihood, practising rights, and professional standing based upon unresolved allegations without adjudication, then every legal practitioner in NSW is affected.

Everything that occurred to us may now be capable of occurring to another solicitor or barrister.

A livelihood built through years of study, admissions, legal practice, and professional obligations can now potentially be removed through unresolved allegations materially relied upon under a Chapter 3 fitness process without completed disciplinary hearings or adjudicated findings.

Further, allegations contained within pleadings can effectively be taken outside the court process before final determination and used against litigants who are legal practitioners, which we allege is precisely what occurred to us. Accessing the Court of Appeal to challenge interlocutory orders ultimately became the basis upon which our livelihood was stripped.

That should concern the entire legal profession and every member of the public who depends upon the rule of law and proper administration of justice.

An appeal is currently being pursued. However, we are also now facing what we believe are serious barriers to accessing appellate review itself. Further information concerning those matters and concerns regarding access to justice will be provided shortly.

Read Article: https://wix.to/nWkndBp

What This Public Disclosure is About This article concerns what we allege is the weaponisation of unresolved allegations to strip two lawyers of their livelihood, practising rights, and professional standing despite there being: * no findings of misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct; * n...

20/02/2026

🙏👏 Great work. A true example of resilience in uncovering the truth.

Justice doesn’t just happen on its own, it takes courage, persistence, and people willing to stand up and demand transparency.

The injustice inflicted by others can only be brought to light and addressed when individuals refuse to stay silent and take action.

Truth may be delayed, but it cannot be buried forever.

A man has been convicted in the 1982 r**e and murder of a 13-year-old girl in Cloverdale, California, after investigators were able to use a cigarette to link him to the crime. https://abcnews.visitlink.me/ba_X2q

19/02/2026

Title and authority do not exempt anyone from accountability, not even a royal. History shows that, in time, facts surface. The same standard must apply in New South Wales. Titles must never sit above the law.
Keep speaking up. Keep making records. Facts and evidence can be buried for a moment, but never forever.

: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

It’s the first time the former prince, who is accused of a number of allegations over his links to convicted s*x offender Jeffrey Epstein, has been arrested.

More details to come.

09/02/2026

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
- George Orwell, Animal Farm

Justice delayed, obscured, or applied selectively is justice denied.

Odtojan Bryl Justice Project