Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Is the Family Court Unconstitutional?

Comments on SPCA media release.

Sutton Lawyers are taking on the Family Court. See SPCA media release below (which refers to a recent article in the Sunday Herald-Sun). According to the newspaper article, Sutton Lawyers want the Family Court to be declared unconstitutional.

While I strongly agree with the sentiments expressed in the media release by Sutton Lawyers, I think that the issue has already been resolved in a previous High Court decision.

It is R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong  [1976] HCA 39; (1976) 136 CLR 248 (3 August 1976). I believe that it is one of the best decisions to ever come out of the High Court.  If I was making up a list of the 10 Best Decisions form the High Court of Australia, the R v Watson decision would be in that list.

On the other hand, if I was making a list of the 10 Worst Decisions of the High Court, Lutonv Lessels [2002] HCA 13; 210 CLR 333; 187 ALR 529; 76 ALJR 635 (11 April 2002) would be in that 10 Worst Decisions list.

I note that a different High Court made each decision each probably with a different agenda.

I think that Sutton lawyers are "barking up the wrong tree".  

The High Court said in R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong that the Family Court has to deal with hearings in an adverserial manner. Otherwise it is not acting in accordance with the Constitution. I agree. This is how the Family Court presently works.

Because the Family Court has to work in an adversial manner, we need to get rid of the Family Court completely. This is by rolling part of it back into the Federal Court for property settlements. The custody and child support issues should then be handled by a Family Tribunal.

Regards

John Flanagan
_______________________________________

http://www.austlii.edu.au/

R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong  [1976] HCA 39; (1976) 136 CLR 248 (3 August 1976)

HIGH COURT OFAUSTRALIA

THE QUEEN v. WATSON; Ex parte ARMSTRONG  (1976) 136 CLR 248

Courts and Judges

High Court of Australia

Barwick C.J.(1), Gibbs(1), Stephen(1), Mason(1) and Jacobs(2) JJ.
__________________________


SPCA MEDIA RELEASE (copied from the media section of the FamilyLawWebGuide).

Added 21 October, 2009, 02:28 AM
Author: Secretary SPCA  

Victorias lawyers being sued in landmark test case
Thursday 15 October 2009
*** MEDIA RELEASE
*** NO EMBARGO

A senior human rights lawyer has joined the backlash of criticism of Victoria's lawyers and judges including recent damning criticisms by Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland and Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls.

Human rights lawyer and activist James Johnson from law firm Sutton Lawyers has launched a test case to confirm that, thanks to the new Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, Victorians can now for the first time sue Australian barristers and solicitors for negligence and other improper conduct in Court proceedings - even if other Australian's are not as lucky.

Mr Johnson alleges that he was disadvantaged by the negligent and unethical practices of lawyers during recent legal proceedings. Now, in a landmark test case Mr Johnson is testing the new human rights laws, suing the Minister for Human Services Usa Neville, 4 family law lawyers and a family law court judge. "Australia's barristers and litigation solicitors are the only professionals who are not legally liable for negligence in the work place," he said. "This situation no longer exists in other English speaking legal systems.

Laws inBritain, theUS,Canadaand a host of European countries have removed lawyers' immunities, and citizens in those countries are able to sue lawyers over their actions, words and conduct in court."

The announcement of Mr Johnson's test case comes not long after the publication of a damning report by Victorian State Ombudsman George Brouwer reporting on large scale misconduct and incompetence by Victoria's peak legal regulator, Victorian Legal Services Commissioner Ms Victoria Marles, who has subsequently tendered her resignation.

Mr Johnson says that basic human rights, including the right to a fair trial and the principle of equality under the law are key rights guaranteed by Mr Hull's Human Rights Charter. Mr Johnson claims that during the recent Court proceedings he suffered substantial injustice when he was denied these basic human rights. "Special laws made by judges protecting lawyers from negligence claims have always been incompatible with the basic human right of equality under the law. Basic rights to a fair hearing are also undermined when barristers are able to get away with negligent, unethical and even fraudulent misconduct."

"These special laws just for lawyers have bred arrogance among a small group of lawyers and it flies in the face of Victoria's Charter of Human Rights," he said. "Our Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls has publicly criticised judges for their aloofness has been demanding cultural change. But these same cultural attitudes of superiority are prevalent throughout the legal profession. Barristers and solicitors and not just judges need to undergo urgent cultural change. We have a situation where a small number of negligent and corrupt lawyers are causing irreparable damage to the professional images of a majority of hard-working, ethical and competent lawyers. And the legal professional bodies and regulators are slow to respond to the problem."

Other prominent lawyers have expressed the same kinds of concerns as Mr Johnson. Retired Victorian

Supreme Court Judge, Professor George Hampel has been a long time advocate of universal professional negligence laws, arguing that it is for the good of the profession as well as for the good of the public, that negligence laws should not discriminate in favour of lawyers.

Retired High Court Justice Michael Kirby also been vocal in criticisng this historical defect in Australian's professional negligence laws working in favour of lawyers. He served up a strong rebuke to his fellow judges and lawyers in 2005, the last time the High Court heard a case challenging for the right to sue a barrister for negligence.

"I question why an anomalous immunity is not only preserved inAustraliabut now actually enlarged by a binding legal rule that will include out-of-court advisings and extend to protect solicitors as well as barristers," he wrote. 'With all due respect to those of the contrary view, I regard such a decision as legally erroneous, unwarranted and unworthy.""Over the course of a century, (the High Court) has heard countless cases in which negligence has been alleged against professional and other skilled persons. Thus, it has held to legal account architects, civil engineers, dental surgeons, and specialist physicians and surgeons, anaesthetists, electrical contractors, persons providing financial advice, police officers, builders, pilots solicitors (in respect of out-of-court advice) and teachers," he said, saying it was impossible to see how lawyers could justify special treatment by the law.

But in 2005 the majority of other Judges sitting on the High Court disagreed. They noted that, unlike theUnited Kingdom,Australiadid not yet have a national Bill of Rights. Mr Johnson said that "Back in 2005 the absence of a national Bill of Rights allowed wriggle room for the majority of the High Court Judges to rule that Victoria's barristers and solicitors, including me, were somehow special compared to all other Australian professionals.

The High Court, by a majority went against the international trend to put lawyers on the same legal status as everyone else. Over Justice Kirby's critcisms they extended the law to protect Victoria's litigation solicitors, not just Victoria's barristers, from professional negligence law suits."

Australiatoday is one of only three countries (along withBurmaandChile) that still doesn't have a national Bill of Human Rights. But, as Mr Johnson points out, Victorianow has a Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

According to Mr Johnson "Justice Kirby delivered a strongly written rebuke to his fellow Judges, saying that these laws keeping special legal protection for lawyers was nothing more than what he called an 'inadmissible empathy' - a 'sympathetic understanding confined to lawyers', because Australian judges are themselves lawyers. The outrageousness of the special protection speaks for itself since these bad laws have been removed in all other English speaking countries.

Justice Kirby said that this excuse 'will not do'. And there are many honest, dedicated lawyers who agree with him."


"Equality under the law, the 'rule of law' is the single biggest contribution the English legal system has made to democracy, world peace and prosperity. It is something that English judges and courts have championed for hundreds of years - well before Attorney-General Hull's Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. And yet, somehow, English judges managed to create laws protecting English lawyers from being sued for negligence and a whole range of other kinds of misconduct during court proceedings.

Then, somehow, while ever other English speaking country realised during the 20th century that these special laws were wrong and removed them, in 2005Australia's judges actually went with new laws discriminating even more favourably in favour of Australian lawyers.

According to Mr Johnson "The challenge for human rights lawyers and advocates will be if this test case is not succesful. Special laws protecting negligent barristers and solicitors from being sued are a major, if not fatal, road block to the introduction of human rights laws. Whether we are talki.ng about the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities which is existing law, or we are talking about a future Bill of Rights forAustralia. If our lawyers wont accept something as basic as equal liability under professional negligence laws they can hardly be counted on to stand up and protect Australian's against other human rights violations either.

It is no coincidence thatAustraliahas the third worst human rights records amongst the 132 members of the United Nations."

Mr Johnson hopes that his test case will bringAustralia's laws, and Australian lawyers, into line with standards in other English speaking countries. "Australia's lawyers and professional bodies should be welcoming and encouraging this reform just as English lawyers did in 2000. New laws, demonstrated by a handful of cases requiring a few unethical lawyers to compensate people they have wronged will do wonders to improve public faith in the integrity of the legal profession."

MEDIA ENQUIRIES - BY TEXT MESSAGE TO: 0433255 177
___________________________________

Attached the article from Sunday's Herald Sun on one of several test cases that human rights law firm, Sutton Lawyers (of 1st Floor 141 Osborne Street South Yarra Vic 3141) is currently running in the Victorian Supreme Court.

As luck would have it, attached is a second article (on an unrelated case) where senior lawyers misbehaving in the Supreme Court have been strongly rebuked and face serious misconduct charges. This is a good sign (especially in the context of the criticisms of judges and other lawyers that have been aired by the Victorian and the Federal Attorney-Generals in recent weeks).

This sort of misconduct by lawyers is of course par for the course in the family law courts.  Sutton Lawyer's test case  in the Supreme Court involves misconduct by 4 family lawyers misbehaving in the Supreme Court and in the family court and 2 judges (supreme court and family court). It is only a matter of time until these family lawyers are ordered to pay substantial civil damages, and face serious professional disciplinary proceedings and probably criminal charges too.

Please FORWARD this email and attachments, please post them etc far and wide to all dads groups and journalists in your contact list, with a request that they also on-forward, post etc.

As one of several initiatives I am looking to establish a mens right group to be known as 'Women In Favour of Equality' (ie WIFE organisation) learning from how the female suffragettes achieved 'equal political rights' at the turn of the 1900s only because of the actions of men like HG Wells who were 'men in favour of equality.'  So I would be especially pleased to hear from women willing to take up positive roles in WIFE Organisation.

The best way for anyone to contact me is by ordinary snail mail at Sutton Lawyers (as per above postal address).

Now is the time for the truth to be put out to everyone who is willing to receive it.

I have reason to believe (inside information) that the national family court industry, worth $6bn per annum to these corrupt family lawyers, is in danger of very substantial collapse from within.  Stay tuned for more details.

Best wishes
James Johnson
Human Rights Lawyer

_______________________








I am on this site after googling DOCS injustice. The family court IS corrupt. I am a member of The New Stolen Generation By DOCS. We held a protest on November 13th at Parliament House Sydney. We also submitted a petition to parliament highlighting the corruption of the court and DOCS. It was authored by George Potyonak, a Sydney lawyer. We are holding another protest on the 24th of February. We are seeking 5000 signatures.
Please forward me your concerns and support.
The campaign email is newstolengen@optusnet.com.au
The website is www.nsgbd.webs.com
Although I agree with the concept you are trying to put forward I disagree with your statement "The family court IS corrupt."  The Court is not corrupt and is created by a right granted to the Parliament by the Constitution. The Court is The Queen's most Excellent Majesty who is being represented by people bestowed with The Queen's most Excellent Majesty power.

It is the abuse of that power by some of the judiciary that is corrupt and prosecutable, if only the AG (Cth) would stand up to the dishonourable judges.

I can say this because I have the evidence to support the office of the AG, therefore the AG has refused to cause a commission of enquiry into complaints of perversions of justice that have now been sought as petitions presented or waiting to be presented to Parliament.

 It is the accountability, or should I say lack of accountability, due to it is judges who sit in judgement of matters that cite judicial wrongs as the grounds of appeal.

If the matter claimed the judge was in error, (not in breach of a law) when a Law of the Parliament says' a judge cannot do what the judge has done, therefore is in breach of a law of the Commonwealth, then the deciding judges (High Court) might allow it to be heard and corrected.

To-date, I have seen High Court judges act in breach of laws of the Commonwealth, the Constitution, the proper administration of justice. Worst of all, was the offensive misbehaviour of determining a matter of appeal they had been cited for their error at law (criminal behaviour) to conceal their criminal behaviour of denial of justice that was committed to conceal a Family Court judges Contempt's for his oath of office by breaches of laws created by the Parliament.

Hard to believe, I know, but it is the truth and fact of what has occurred.

My main point is, I believe the Family Court and most of the judges do it as close to right as anyone can without a video of the past events of the family in question.

There is are a s72(ii) of the Constitution and a permanent Judicial Commission of Enquiries Petition before Parliament, presented on 23 November 2009 at the present time.

You want justice, fairness, and children to believe an "original/natural family unit is the best family unit for a child is the way to go, get a copy of that petition from housepetitions_23_11_09@hotmail.com  and make judges of the Commonwealth Courts (Family and High Courts) accountable for their wrongful behaviours in regards to the laws of the Commonwealth and the rights of children to have a meaningful relationship with ALL THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS, that includes grandparents, uncles, aunties, nieces, nephews and cousins. Sign it, get your freinds to sign it and post it to the Petitions Committee fgor the AG to urgently cause a permanent Judicial Commission of Enquiry.

The JP who witnesses my doc's, had a brother how a judge, because of a mothers lies, made Orders the father could not have contact with his children while they were children. He died, in the last 2 yrs those children have started to turn 18 and are now having contact with their fathers family for the first time. Those children are finding out how many lies their mother has told them NOW, after they can no longer know their father.

What do you think those children are now saying to their mother?

How do you think those children will have a long term natural family after growing up in a single deceptive parental home?

Does the son have a vengeful and violent personality, that so many sons denied a right to spend time with their father do, so they cannot make up their own mind about their father, therefore become vengeful when they can?  

In regard to being a victim, it has been my experience that a victim is more often than not, someone who tries to do the right thing, be nice (Nice Guys Can Win, book) do right by their partner but punished because their partner is guilty of doing a wrong (unfaithful for 1 eg) by them.

Maybe I am tainted because all bar 1 of the woman I have established a long term relationship with has admitted they had an affair that caused them to break up their marriage or partnership and a judge more interested in concealing the mothers wrongs at law and done to the children than what is in the best interests of the children. Concealment of a mother grabbing children around the throat and causing 1 to have a serious rope burn mark around the throat, admitted to by the mother, is the corruption I personally know of, committed by 2 Family Court judges.

Hence it is the some judges, not the Court that is corrupt.   

Last edit: by justin

I stand corrected. I am aware that some lawyers get paid 'under the table' to co-operate with DOCS proceedings. The author of the petition has been offered bribes and declined them.
I have experienced first hand the corruption of judges, hence why I have been inclined to believe that the court IS corrupt. My evidence has not been looked at. $20,000 later and I am still awaiting a fair trial. My only hope is in the protest and in a review by Pru Goward.
There is definately a lack of accountability for those that are corrupt in the system.
It is a sad story when a parent is denied the privelage of knowing their children. It is devastating when lies are told in the court and no evidence to prove otherwise is taken into account. I believe in equal rights for both parents unless one is guilty of heinous crimes.
I will pursue the Judicial Commision of Enquiries. This issue is also being presented by the Child Protection petition. DOCS believe in leaving a child in foster placement when the child has been in placement for a year. This also involves cutting or reducing contact with other family members as they claim that visitation disturbs the foster placement. In reality, they are weaning children off their biological families.
I understand that you are tainted. I would be too.
The sooner that corrupt judges are expelled from the courts, the better. Although the courts may not be corrupt, the AG must amend the system and stand down the judges that deny so many families their God given rights.
There is a petition before Parliament that was presented on the 23 Nov 2009 by the Petitions Committee for the creation of a permanent "Judicial Commission of Enquiries" and can be read at pages 12493-12494 of the Official Hansard No. 18, 2009, Monday, 23 November 2009, FORTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT. FIRST SESSIONSIXTH PERIOD.
 
The more people who seek a copy of the original petition, sign it and send it into the Petitions Committee the greater the probably it will occur sooner than later as Bryant CJ suggested to the Senate Committee for their inquiry into "the Role of Judges" which is overdue to be reported to the Parliament.

I've been told unofficially that this report could be very supportive of a permanent "Judicial Commission of Inquiries.

 DOCS believe in leaving a child in foster placement when the child has been in placement for a year.

As I understand it, there is about to be a matter that is going to raise some big questions regarding Family Court judges abilities in this area and or abuse of power to make an Order that has cause emotional and/or psychological abuse of 2 young girls.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989. It entered into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49.

From what I have heard a Family Court judge has made Orders for children to go to foster care because they are scared to go to their mother who has abused them. That care has not fore-filled the obligations of the Government.

Namely;
 Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,
And; Taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child,

As I understand it, the father is a good parent but due to the judges fears the father might have aligned the children with him (ignore the children's screams for protection from a physically abuse mother). These children have been place in an environment that is in conflict with their  
"rights and freedoms… without distinction of any kind, such as race,…  religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,

That is forced to endure and change their family rights and freedoms or have their father sent to jail.

I have been asked questions in regard to jurisprudence which will take some reading but believe there may be law enabling such an Order, whether or not the children were not on Federal Ground at the time the Order was made may bring the judge unstuck and enable a s142.2 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power to cause a detriment) Prosecution to occur, as if. In addition to a miscarriage of justice claim for a Writ to quash the Family Court Orders and a Writ that prohibits that judge sitting in judgement of any further SRL matter.

What I find equally offensive is; these children are being treated in a similar way to the LOST GENERATION the Government have just made apologises for, to the Aboriginal Peoples.

They have been forcibly removed into Children's Protective Custody from the care of a loving parent (father) so they can be brainwashed into a judges wants of the mother is not abusive (in contradiction to the children's evidence).

The norm in this type of case, where the (aligning) mother claims (therefore children live with the mother) the father is the abusive parent. The father is caused to have Supervised Spend Time with the Children until the mother deems it is safe for the children to have some unsupervised time with the father.

Maybe judges should be caused to undergo psychological testing every year or so because so many of their judgments are clearly, to us common people, not in the best interest of children or the longevity of the natural family unit therefore not in the best interest of the longevity of the human race.
justin said
I have been asked questions in regard to jurisprudence which will take some reading but believe there may be law enabling such an Order, whether or not the children were not on Federal Ground at the time the Order was made may bring the judge unstuck and enable a s142.2 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power to cause a detriment) Prosecution to occur, as if. In addition to a miscarriage of justice claim for a Writ to quash the Family Court Orders and a Writ that prohibits that judge sitting in judgement of any further SRL matter.

 
I am curious, which Criminal Code are you referring to when you mention s142.2. The relevant legislation for Commonwealth matters is the Crimes Act, which doesn't extend to s142.2. A similar argument was raised in a submission dated 28 April 2009 to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Unfortunately the person/group making the submission withheld their name which prevents much weight being given to the submission. In this submission the unknown person/group also raised the issue "abuse of power to cause a detriment".

I am also curious as to the actual writ you refer to?

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas
Is the Family Court Unconstitutional?

Hi Liberi,

The Courts we are dealing with (Family and High Courts) are federal courts as you know, if you know the law like you imply them you would know s7A of the Family Law Act as it is now listed.
That is I am referring to is;
 the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s5. "Schedule The Criminal Code"
http://www.austlii.edu…_act/cca1995115/sch1.html
Part 7.5 Division 142.2 "Abuse of public office."
More relevant to my issues in the Family Court is;
 Part 7.5 Division 139.2 "Unwarranted demands made by a Commonwealth public official,"  
(a)  the official makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person; and
(b)  the demand or the menaces are directly or indirectly related to:
       (i)  the official's capacity as a Commonwealth public official;
©  the official does so with the intention of:
                              (i)  obtaining a gain; or
                             (ii)  causing a loss;
Along with s142.2

This is law created by the Commonwealth(Cth) Parliament judges can be cited as acting in breach of which the AG and Federal Police refuse to uphold when a judge has clearly committed a wrong at the bench like send children to live in a strangers home where the stranger has conflicting views of religious and other beliefs.

Are you testing me or not as conversant in the law as you make out.
 The relevant legislation for Commonwealth matters is the Crimes Act,

Yes, the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) is relevant and binding on all Courts, judges and the people by clause 5 of the Cth Constitution but that does not make jurisdiction only that a crime created by that Act is prosecutable against all cited as having committed a crime created by that Act.

Carter J, Bryant CJ, 3 appeals judges and Kirby J  have claimed or said words to the effect to me personally from the bench or in their reasons given, clause 5 of the Cth Constitution does not support judges are prosecutable for offences created by a law of the Parliament (in short).

 Carter J, Bryant CJ, have claimed to me personally from the bench they do not believe the Crimes Act is not applicable in the Family Court despite s15B of that Act creating the time to start a prosecution of any offence  

 CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 15B "Time for commencement of prosecutions"
 (1)  Subject to subsection (1B), a prosecution of an individual for an offence against any law of the Commonwealth may be commenced as follows:
           (a)  if the maximum penalty which may be imposed for the offence in respect of an individual is, or includes, a term of imprisonment of more than 6 months in the case of a first conviction–at any time;

"Any Law", to me includes the law for Contravention and Contempt of the Family Court, each carry more than 6 moths maximum imprisonment, would you not agree?
 I am also curious as to the actual writ you refer to?
I don't know if I can type the word required on this site so refer you to;
 http://www.austlii.edu…th/consol_reg/hcr2004170/ the High Court Rules, Part 25.06 and 25.07.
You are asking the right person on the wrong site for your answers.
Sorry got to go, late for work now. BBL
That is the confusing part. Division 142 of the Criminal Code Act relates to 'OFFENCES RELATING TO BRIBERY', there is no mention in this thread of bribery. This thread relates to issues of the Family Law Act and the Constitution.  Sometimes it takes more than looking at a particular section in legislation before running an argument. The objection of the act, the definitions and the context of the act are all essential components of being able to apply the section aptly. You may also find it useful to have a read of the second reading speech for the Criminal Code Act if you are looking at pursuing any argument based on 139.2, as it may give you some context. 

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas
Liberi,

Are you saying s139.2 is about bribery?

The way I read it is, it is the fraudulent abuse of power by a judicial officer which bribery comes within?

No judicial officer is immune from prosecution for a fraudulent conduct like;

s139.2-Abuse of power to give a Wrongful Instruction/Demand with menace.

Although s142.2 Abuse of power to cause a detriment of denial of a fair hearing (prevent the presentation of their defence or oral argument) is an offence relating to bribery, it is also fraudulent conduct as you know, which is a short definition of the subject of this topic/thread, yes or no?

Abuse of power to cause a benefit to another party like; granting a party immunity to protect that party from prosecution. Or  obstructing by denial of a right to prosecute a law of the Parliament Cth in relation to a judicial power of the Commonwealth (yes, that is s43 of the Crimes Act). Is also an offence relating to bribery that is also fraudulent conduct, yes or no?

The Fraudulent act or conduct of receiving remuneration for performing a duty not performed in accordance to a law of the Commonwealth or in breach of a law of the Commonwealth is a fraudulent conduct, yes or no?

To do an other than "right by law", primarily of the Parliament, in breach of an undertaking given to a Court is also a prosecutable criminal act/conduct is it not?

Do you agree or should I go back to school for the fundamental principles of the intent the law is made to uphold?

On that basis am I in error when you also consider the obligation or direction created by;
ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AA Regard to be had to purpose or object of Act;
(1)   In the interpretation of a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or not) shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object.

And apply the obligation or direction of;
Chapter 1 – Codification … The only offences against laws of the Commonwealth are those offences created by, or under the authority of, this Code or any other Act.

Division2; 2.1   Purpose;
The purpose of this Chapter is to codify the general principles of criminal responsibility under laws of the Commonwealth.   
It contains all the general principles of criminal responsibility that apply to any offence, irrespective of how the offence is created.

So do we really need to read volumes of speeches or just read the law we are talking about which joscrivs says;
I have experienced first hand the corruption of judges, hence why I have been inclined to believe that the court IS corrupt. My evidence has not been looked at. $20,000 later and I am still awaiting a fair trial.

And John Flanagan supplied;
SPCA MEDIA RELEASE (copied from the media section of the FamilyLawWebGuide).
… Victorians can now for the first time sue Australian barristers and solicitors for negligence and other improper conduct in Court proceedings - even if other Australian's are not as lucky.
…suing the Minister for Human Services Usa Neville, 4 family law lawyers and a family law court judge.

And you Liberi say;
That is the confusing part. Division 142 of the Criminal Code Act relates to 'OFFENCES RELATING TO BRIBERY', there is no mention in this thread of bribery.

Although I have been selective in what I am presenting, I believe your question is how is bribery relevant to this topic?
Short answer is it is 1 of the intimate elements of this topic/thread along with abuse of power, fraudulent behaviour, and the wrongful conduct of "denial of justice".

Am I in error to think you are practiced in acting as a defence lawyer?

If not, could you look at what and why you are arguing the defence of such judicial misbehaviour that s72ii of the Constitution Cth requires Parliament to be informed of when proven.

It is the constant denial of an ability to prove the judicial misbehavior that is occurring that is encouraging BLACK LETTER judges to turn on their principals and the Laws of the Parliament.
Hence I believe a judge who should have been rewarded well for services rendered to the Court and proper administration of justice, surrendered shortly before receiving his long awaited reward.

I further put it to you; that this topic includes the unstated issue of making judicial officers more accountable for their questionable use of their power to cause "justice not to be done and seen not to be done".  

Yes, lawyers are also party to the judicial behaviours being questioned, especially when you watch them present fabricated photographic evidence with claims of damage by a party when that damaged item had been in their personal possession undamaged immediately prior to the time claimed the photos had been taken.

And solicitors refuse to comply with their mandated obligation of reporting a mother for child abuse after obtaining personally the childs' admission the mother had been grabbing the children around their throats and hitting them repeatedly with whatever was handy at the time of her anger.

But having said what I have above and am not meaning to offend you, I feel I must thank you for causing me to look again at the detriments caused us SRL's in the Court; being the denials of justice, the prosecutable offences often refused hearings, the AG's lack of intervention and lack of OK's for the Federal Police to investigate claimed judicial wrongs, and the harm caused to our children by judicial misbehaviours.
Justin, I read some of your posts as if are having a few little digs at LP and some of the SRL-R people as well as the group in general.

You are beginning to sound a lot like No Justice who was a really strange character and was banned from this site because of the awful damage he did to some peoples cases.
It is not really clear what you are doing! What has been hinted at in a previous post is the process called 'statutory Interpretation', this involves looking at the whole Act and the reason/intention behind it, not just a quick look at a favourable section. You cannot just jump to the Act Interpretation Act (1901) just because you do not like a section of law. I am not sure you have really understood s.15AA or looked at s.15AB.

You have to read & understand ALL the elements of a section of law. It is not clear what you are trying to do.


Confused

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
monteverdi said
It is not really clear what you are doing!
I dont think its clear to him either.
Let us be fair, in an earlier post he did say he had some mental health issues.
I think he is grandstanding and trying to be appear more knowledgeable than he really is. These people are dangerous because they lead the unwary into traps.

Posts from this topic have been moved by members. 1 posts have been transferred to topicview.

srldad101 I trashed your post.

Unfounded allegations about me and Neanderthal comments will not be tolerated by any of the moderators.

Last edit: by Agog


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
My sincere apology Chief I thought you enjoyed Neanderthal tongue in cheek comments. Why else would Conans remain
Hi all,

Sorry if my posts may have seemed abrasive or over inclusive. I hope you might accept that my lack of eloquence has been misconstrued. I certainly meant no offence to anyone.  

I appreciate there is a meaning created by the words and different interpretations of the Act with those interpretations dependent on the auxiliary material and the particular application.

Thank you for the insight and further reference.

LP my apologies, it seems I may have taken your words the wrong way. My experiences with the judiciary have made me defensive.  

Regarding
A similar argument was raised in a submission dated 28 April 2009 to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Unfortunately the person/group making the submission withheld their name which prevents much weight being given to the submission. In this submission the unknown person/group also raised the issue "abuse of power to cause a detriment".

As I understand it, the Senate, Parliament and most Committees of Inquiry can receive submissions "in camera" that is "in private" and release parts of those submissions while withholding the writers' name.

To answer your question not asked, yes I do know 2 or 3 of the unnamed writers of submissions to that inquiry and have read the "in private" submissions during the writing of those submissions to assist in the readability of those submissions. Hence my thinking is in line with those submissions due to I have intermit knowledge of the background for those submissions.

Furthermore, the publication of the writers of those submissions would identify Family Law Parties which would be a breach of s121 also the publication of some of the writing within the "in private" submissions would have come close to a breach, as I understand it.

Australia's Judicial System and the Role of Judges, 7 December 2009.  Commonwealth of Australia 2009. ISBN 978-1-74229-086-7
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
http://www.aph.gov.au/…l_system/report/index.htm

Recommendation 10
7.82    The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government establish a federal judicial commission modelled on the Judicial Commission of New South Wales.
Recommendation 16
7.96    The committee recommends that as soon as possible and no later than 30 June 2010, the government:
  implement a federal process enabling it to establish an ad hoc tribunal when one is needed to investigate complaints of judicial misconduct or incapacity;
  establish guidelines for the investigation of less serious misconduct or incapacity issues; and
  implement the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court proposal for an oversight committee.
Link;
http://www.aph.gov.au/…ial_system/report/b01.htm
They have recommended a "Federal Judicial Commission" be established but it will take about 2 plus yrs and an "Oversight Committee" for the Family and FM Courts.

I hope what I have said clears those minds that my writing had confused or offended.

My primary purpose is to seek judicial accountability is enabled quickly to redress repeated reports of judicial wrongful behaviour and wrongful use of power.

I think we might now move forward.


1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets