Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Assumptions in Court not Correct Legal Procedure by Judges

Should Judges be prosecuted or taken to task for wrong findings of fact?

Please write and have laws changed Justice Mushin does not read evidence and assumes people are dangerous.

When procecuted in a Criminal Court for unethical conduct to another person using this site He used Discrecessonary Judgement to escape conviction. If the laws were stricter for unethical conduct like those in Finnish Law.  Justice Mushin would find his unethical conduct in the Family Court in Australia could put him in jail for NEGLECT OF DUTY OF CARE which is part of unethical conduct.

The right for a person to presumed innocent before proven guilty is a basic human right and Justice Mushin could not ajourn his Court to listern to evidence from Childrens Services to say a parent was not dangerous to their child.  Justice Mushin made orders for that parent to never have any contact with their child for 8 years.

Discrecessonary Judgements in current law can be taken to mean ASSUMPTIONS.  Not what they are really supposed to mean.

Assumptions by a Judge and Legal Professionals in a Court of Law is another way of saying Unethical Conduct by members of the Legal Profession while practing Law in a Court of Law.

One example is not reading vital evidence stating a parent is not a danger to their child. The reason given for this by a Judge was that for over 30 years on the Bench made him a Medical Expert.  He believed He could look people in the eyes and judge if they were lying or not then base his Court Orders on his belief He was a Medical Expert.

Oh Please stop this dangerous practice.  How many other people in Australian society have been affected by this one man's immoral judgements.

Do we want to live in a society where Assumptions are what make Court Orders and not Facts.  This is not a laughing matter the victims of this practice face ongoing psychological mental issues this includes children.

We have strict laws in place for the MEDICAL PROFESSION and we don't allow them to get away with Neglect of Duty of Care like Judges and the Legal Professionals do.

Write to the GOVERNMENT TO HAVE LAWS MADE STICTER SO JUDGES AND LEGAL PROFESSIONALS CAN NOT ESCAPE PROSCUTION OF UNETHICAL CONDUCT.

FACTS HEARD IN A COURT OF LAW PLEASE NOT ASSUMPTIONS BY JUDGES.

Prosecute Judges like Mushin J

This will probably end up in the Hyde Park Forum so read the Hyde Park area to know what the admin of this site think of prosecuting judges for the behaviour you and I are talking about.

The Constitution makes it impossible to grant a judge immunity by a condition of Tenure is "PROVED MISCONDUCT". Immunity is unconstitutional but getting Kirby J and the CJ to admit that is incomprehensible.

The Law is there to deal with Mushin J?, the problem is their is no-one willing to prosecute a Judge for breaches of the Criminal Code Act Law of chapter 7.

This was proven when Murphy J was tried for perverting justice, when found guilty on 2 counts by a jury, was granted an appeal and evidence suppressed so he could not be re-tried on one of those guilty findings, the other dropped due to time and ill health. Why the appeal was granted on the second count we will never know but like in "Fingleton v's the Queen" Magistrates and Judges will be granted UNCONSTITUTIONAL immunity unless "We the People" stand up to the Attorney General and demand these ?able judges be prosecuted.

It sounds like the CJ's immunity granted Mushin ? when I sought he be tried for CONTEMPT of his OATH OF OFFICE, for PROVED MISCONDUCT has gone to his head. He only prevented me from making an application for 3 years but Young J threatened to remake that Order when I sought to re-establish my contact.

Young J's threat was because I have been trying to have the law enforced on the Judges of the FamCA and prove their abuse of power to give a benefit of protection by OBSTRUCTION of a Judicial Power of the Commonwealth (section (s.) 43 of the Crimes Act) to my Ex.

S.15B 1.(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;

A Contravention carries a max of 12 months, Contempt unlimited in its max period of imprisonment, therefore carries "a term of imprisonment of more than 6 months". The FamCA claim the Crimes Act is not applicable to their Court and yet the words "if the maximum penalty which may be imposed for the offence in respect of an individual is, …" and the words quasi-criminal for Contravention and criminal for Contempt. Each support that 15B of the Crimes Act is applicable to the FamCA this without going into argument of the Acts Interpretation Act of 15AA.

Like I have said elsewhere, the Law is there to deal with Mushin and the like but not those who are prepared to implement the Law. The Criminal Code includes Law of Duty and creates dereliction of duty as a physical element of a crime if the Law of the crime requires a physical element to be proven.

Criminal offences revolve around physical and Fault elements that constitute the crime committed. Yes it is a heedful to get your head around the two elements but they are there as is the inability to use ERROR as an excuse which is what Mushin J, I would think, is hoping to rely on IF called to answer the charges he should have been charged with years ago.

I have a matter in the High Court, which if ever aloud to be heard is heard will bring Mushin J up on a "Show Cause why he should not be PROSECUTED". Unfortunately the CJ granted he the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Immunity and thereby is complicit after the fact. She did not, undo the harm caused by Mushin J, even after admitting to having read the transcript, but compounded it by granting Immunity for the crimes Mushin J the CJ was aware of had been committed, so he continues with his criminal ways.

We need to start a Lobby against Mushin J were anybody offended by the obnoxious judge can put forward their case to the admin, agog or the like so a partition can go to Parliament or the AG for Mushins' prosecution for "PROVED MISCONDUCT".

The Law is there, the enforcement of the Law for judicial criminal behaviour IS NOT.

"let justice be done, though the heavens fall"

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2007/340.html

High Court of Australia Transcripts

Mackintosh, In the matter of [2007] HCATrans 340 (1 August 2007)


Last Updated: 20 August 2007

[2007] HCATrans 340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M92 of 2006

In the matter of IAN MACKINTOSH

Application for leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 1 AUGUST 2007 AT 8.39 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: The applicant here sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Family Court by handing up to a judge of it (Mushin J) in open court on 24 August 2005, an unsealed, unissued Form 2 application, signed by him.

The applicant sought a number of orders, including the joinder of the Attorney-General and the provision of legal aid to him, but principally, leave to file an application for contempt against Mushin J. Leave to file such an application was required because the applicant had been the subject of an order made pursuant to s 118(1)© of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") restraining him from issuing any application in the proceedings without the leave of the Court. The application was referred to Bryant CJ for hearing and determination.

The applicant and his supporting affidavit referred to a trial conducted by Mushin J with respect to the applicant's rights of contact with his two children.

In order to get leave, pursuant to rule 11.05 of the Family Law Rules 2004, the applicant was required to show that his application had a reasonable prospect of success.

In her rejection of the application, Bryant CJ observed that the actions of any judge of a superior court were immune from suit by reason of the doctrine of judicial immunity. The applicant had contended that such immunity should only be available during "the tenure of good behaviour". Her Honour took this as intending to mean that the Judge must be acting in good faith during the relevant proceedings. Her Honour noted that it is now settled that there are no relevant exceptions to the doctrine. Consequently, her Honour held the proposed application had no reasonable prospect of success. She accordingly refused leave. Her Honour also refused to grant any of the other orders sought by the applicant.

No constitutional issue arose which would warrant the joinder of the Attorney-General. In her Honour's opinion it was inappropriate to make an order as to the provision of legal assistance.

The applicant raised some 30 purported grounds of appeal in the Full Court of the Family Court (Faulks DCJ, Kay and Coleman JJ). The Court observed that many of them were not in fact grounds of appeal. The applicant's extensive references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth) and s 72(ii) of the Constitution were misconceived and added nothing to his case. The Full Court concluded that, in view of this Court's decision in Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1250 and other authorities referred to by Bryant CJ, her Honour was undoubtedly correct in dismissing the applicant's application.

In respect of the other orders sought by the applicant, the Full Court was also of the view that there were no errors in her Honour's refusal to make the orders sought.

The applicant's proposed notice of appeal to this Court is incomprehensible. He claims breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, alleges that the Full Court of the Family Court committed "an offence of corruption", that the Full Court breached the Constitution, the Family Law Act and the Crimes Act and that the interests of justice require the intervention of this Court.

The application to this Court is hopeless. The applicant has no basis for his claims. Any appeal would be bound to fail. The application must be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application.

I publish that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 8.42 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED.
Your posts are being moved because they are in the wrong topic area and because you are becoming pretty insulting to the site admins.

There are several moderators that can move you posts (including me) and the consensus is that you are going beyond reasonable comment

Now will you please wake up to yourself, you are demonstrating an obsession -this site is not about you - neither should you expect people to 'drop' whatever they are doing and waste time trying to fathom your interpretation of Australian Law

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
No-Justice said
Guest,

This will probably end up in the Hyde Park Forum so read the Hyde Park area to know what the admin of this site think of prosecuting judges for the behaviour you and I are talking about.

The Constitution makes it impossible to grant a judge immunity by a condition of Tenure is "PROVED MISCONDUCT". Immunity is unconstitutional but getting Kirby J and the CJ to admit that is incomprehensible.

The Law is there to deal with Mushin J?, the problem is their is no-one willing to prosecute a Judge for breaches of the Criminal Code Act Law of chapter 7. …
I do not have any issue with the topic prosecuting judges as the law is there for everyone not just the greater population who are not Judges and Judicial officers. We have been more than accomdating I had thought in allowing many of your posts in many forums that all replicate the same basic story. The idea of a Topic is you run that thread in one topic. We do not specifically have a complete forum for claims against judicial and other officers whoever do consider some of the things written in your posts could well be of a liabelous nature and as such we have made some minor edits.

Your posts are very welcome. This is a Portal not simply a web site with a few forums and many discussions being had behind closed doors. I have already made comment in some of your posts that should you wish to make unsupported statements without attached evidenciaries you need to get into a closed forum. I am sure the readers would also be interetsed to hear about what actions you took to right what appears to be quite some injustices.

I also say this and that is there is definitely a new breed of Judicial officer coming through the court system as the older judges retire. The Federal Magistrates are definitely an "agile" lot and are getting through some significant work in the LAC system. We have no issue in condemming bad judgements but also we MUST support those juges and officers making good judgements that are getting children focused outcomes for BOTH mums and Dads.
No-Justice said
I have a matter in the High Court, which if ever aloud to be heard is heard will bring Mushin J up on a "Show Cause why he should not be PROSECUTED". Unfortunately the CJ granted he the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Immunity and thereby is complicit after the fact. She did not, undo the harm caused by Mushin J, even after admitting to having read the transcript, but compounded it by granting Immunity for the crimes Mushin J the CJ was aware of had been committed, so he continues with his criminal ways.

We need to start a Lobby against Mushin J were anybody offended by the obnoxious judge can put forward their case to the admin, agog or the like so a partition can go to Parliament or the AG for Mushins' prosecution for "PROVED MISCONDUCT".

The Law is there, the enforcement of the Law for judicial criminal behaviour IS NOT.  Fiat justitia ruat caelum "let justice be done, though the heavens fall"
Fair enough and we are definitely interested in how things go in that new matter in the High Court. A personal campaign against a specific judge or any citizen must be tempered with the assumed age old adage "innocent until proven guilty"..



Site Director
Thankyou kindly Agog and OneRingRules.

I awaited your reply Agog due to seeing you read my posts shortly after I wrote them. Your directions of thought are noted and I will attempt to moderate my writing.

Please note, I have NO problem with Judges who make judgements in error. I have lived with 1 such judgement of Joske J since 3 March 2003 because a Counsel, John Williams, for the Child Rep supported the other than Lawful s.118 application of a mother were there was no lawful right or required evidence to support the making of that s.118 Order. The Child Rep has such Power and Obligation due to only making applications where there is proper evidence to support such applications. My matters can, at a later date, be pursued in those abuse of power and compensatory directions if desired. Is the statute of limitations 6 or 10 yrs in Victoria.

We are all human and make mistakes, I should know I've made my fair share.

My beef is Judicial Misconduct, that is where a Judge steps into the ring of the bar table to advance their own agenda which I was warned Mushin J has a habit of doing if the trial is not proceeding in the direction he thinks it should. Hence he has done that in my case to the extent of refusing to DECIDE whether to grant leave for me to make applications regarding his Orders. Then be protected by other judges who refused to undo the harm of Mushin thereby not making judgements in error but for criminal purpose of my being guilty before proven.

I understand your transfer of my topics as they are not the normal cup of tea and toast of your site. But the comments I have read regarding judicial ignoring of Legislation is to me equal to what I see as wilful judicial misconduct even if it is to protect one of their own.

My purpose is assist in enlightening and using the LAW to correct the wrongs done in the FamCA not bring it into disrepute. I admit those attempting to defend themselves from prosecution for the wrongs (judicial misconduct) they have committed may take that stance. They know I have the evidence to support what I say and any action against me would cause a proper general public hearing in the HC or SC of that evidence rather than on this site and in a Courtroom. Other than the Courtroom, I have only ever spoken in private never public my issues. I am saddened by the CJ will get embroiled in this Mushin affair but she brought it on herself, her duty was to the Court, the Commonwealth Law and Constitution and then the people of Australia who sought the FamCA demonstrate its expertise in settling domestic (family) disputes inexpensively and expeditiously.

Like all primary caretakers of any organisation whether it be a family or major corporation. Where a person under your supervision demonstrates a lack of due diligence or breach of duty whether of Office or care, breach of the Law or otherwise, as their superior, your first duty is to undo the harm then take steps to ensure that harm is not caused again.

You might like to read a paper by Nick Seddon called THE COMMONWEALTH V MEWETT (1997) 191 CLR 471: COMMON LAW ACTIONS, COMMONWEALTH IMMUNITY AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION. My URL no longer works but this raises questions of Judicial Immunity with "As Brennan J put it in Georgiadis, the liability is created by the common law.

In respect of that liability, the Constitution applies to deny any operation to what otherwise might be doctrines of Crown or executive immunity which might be pleaded in bar to any action to recover judgment for damages in respect of that common law cause of action.15, 15 is; (1997) 191 CLR 471 at 550-551 (footnote reference omitted).

Yes the question of judicial immunity once again, my point is if you can not enforce a boundary what is the point of claiming there is a boundary. NONE just let judges RULE as they would have us believe they do.
No-Justice said
Thankyou kindly Agog and OneRingRules.

I awaited your reply Agog due to seeing you read my posts shortly after I wrote them. Your directions of thought are noted and I will attempt to moderate my writing.
I think you are going to have to stop making assumptions, the fact that either myself or One Ring Rules are logged onto the site does not mean that we read the posts shortly after you post them. In fact there are many adminstrative tasks that may mean we are logged on visibly or privatley. In fact most of us read the posts from email notification sent to us that incorporate the post. The reason I am responding to this one so quickly is that I happen to be in front of my computer reading emails

Likewise when a Judge says "I will deal with you". I do not interpret that a threat, it is a statement that is made VERY frequently in Court

You can however make a deduction; one of the groups on this site has both a QC and a solicitor and another group, two solicitors, why do you think they have not responded to you? (Ignoring Judicial errors is not a reason).

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

Note on the bottom of your post it says _ guests and _ members are viewing this: at present my name is the only one showing, I was referring to when I posted that post it said _ members are viewing this: Agog No-Justice so I did not assume I spoke of what was written in my face.

Agog said "Likewise when a Judge says "I will deal with you". I do not interpret that a threat, it is a statement that is made VERY frequently in Court".

Mushin J had said repeatedly in 2 or more ways he was looking to send me to jail if I continued to present my case on each day of the 5 days. We had just spent a day on cross of me which gave me half a day of rebuttal.

My rebuttal included of evidence of the mothers claiming she had been assaulted in front of our son when her police report of claimed assault stated our son was at school. This is the false claim of assault she obtained a behaviour IO on because I did not object to the IO only the distance, I had no intention of spending time with her again.

Like Claims of a hospital report for an asthma attack, which was an attempt at suicide when I went to stay at a friends because I had had enough of her abuse.

No assault or signs of assault reported in that hospital report to answer the obvious question that Mushin J had sought evidence of. The Chid Rep objected to the Hearsay of that file. The only hearsay was professional of ambulance officers and doctors stating my Ex had attempted suicide, she had sworn in affidavits and from the box, she had not done.

Anyway defend him all you want, the more you defend Mushin J and the like the more Laws of Australia and the best interest of children get ignored for the protection or judge granted benefit and immunity of mothers.
No-Justice said
Agog said "Likewise when a Judge says "I will deal with you". I do not interpret that a threat, it is a statement that is made VERY frequently in Court… and Anyway defend him all you want, the more you defend Mushin J and the like the more Laws of Australia and the best interest of children get ignored for the protection or judge granted benefit and immunity of mothers."
I did not feel that Ago had defended Mushin J at all … isn't that interesting.

I felt that the comment was simply commenting about what he/she has seen in court.

As a note I find your posts complex because you use sections of the law (I assume) for example your post I have lived with 1 such judgement of Joske J since 3 March 2003 because a Counsel, John Williams, for the Child Rep supported the other than Lawful s.118 application of a mother were there was no lawful right or required evidence to support the making of that s.118 Order.

Is it possible for you to describe, just in brief say, a sentence or two about what that section pertains to and or a page reference in the Act. Otherwise your thread is interesting and I assume you have not had a good outcome.  :(
DrJohn said
No-Justice said
Agog said "Likewise when a Judge says "I will deal with you". I do not interpret that a threat, it is a statement that is made VERY frequently in Court… and Anyway defend him all you want, the more you defend Mushin J and the like the more Laws of Australia and the best interest of children get ignored for the protection or judge granted benefit and immunity of mothers."
I did not feel that Ago had defended Mushin J at all … isn't that interesting.

I felt that the comment was simply commenting about what he/she has seen in court.

As a note I find your posts complex because you use sections of the law (I assume) for example your post I have lived with 1 such judgement of Joske J since 3 March 2003 because a Counsel, John Williams, for the Child Rep supported the other than Lawful s.118 application of a mother were there was no lawful right or required evidence to support the making of that s.118 Order.

Is it possible for you to describe, just in brief say, a sentence or two about what that section pertains to and or a page reference in the Act. Otherwise your thread is interesting and I assume you have not had a good outcome.  :(

I did not feel I defended Mushin at all, I just quoted what he had said - and that it is not uncommon

However 'No Justice' seems to 'interpret' what he reads

I am glad you quoted the s118 order part, because 'No Justice' should read the Court Rules and Directions from that time. The Judge had every lawful right to make that order, because 'No Justice' did not like it, does not make it wrong

Despite the posters continuing claims his posts are positive for this site, the content is nothing more than a continuing diatribe

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Dr Jon said; "Is it possible for you to describe, just in brief say, a sentence or two about what that section pertains to and or a page reference in the Act. Otherwise your thread is interesting and I assume you have not had a good outcome."

Dr Jon it needs a paragraph or 2, a s.118 Order is a Family Law Order pertaining to section 118 of the Family Law Act, that is, s.118 of the Act. It is Law for the making of an Order to prevent a party from making further applications to the Court without "Ex-parte s.118 Leave of the Court". When making such an application it is important to make direct reference to the fact you are seeking s.118 Leave or your lost before you start by leave being denied on tech grounds.

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 118: Frivolous or vexatious proceedings; (1)  The court may, at any stage of proceedings under this Act, if it is satisfied that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious: (a)  dismiss the proceedings; (b) … ( c)  if the court considers appropriate, on the application of a party to the proceedings-order that the person who instituted the proceedings shall not, without leave of a court having jurisdiction under this Act, institute proceedings under this Act of the kind or kinds specified in the order;

Important notes supportable by case law I'm not going to cite here. The s.118 application must be against the proceeding that is before the Court at the time of the s.118 application and the Court "is satisfied on the evidence and determination of the proceedings, that the proceedings before it are frivolous or vexatious:"

In answer to Agog;

Applications withdrawn are no longer before the Court.Unless the s.118 application is made before, not 3 months after withdrawing applications, withdrawn before a first hearing by the Court. There is no lawful right to make an s.118 application and no possibility of the withdrawn applications being proceedings before the Court for even a first hearing required for there to be evidence and determination of the proceedings for a lawful right to make a s.118 application.

Case Law demands a determination of the proceedings so where in the Rules, of that time, does it say a s.118 Order made be made in the style of  "Judging a book by its cover". And/or, the seeking of the enforcement of Consent Orders Contravened and/or acted in Contempt of, causes the mother and Child Rep such costs, the seeking of enforcement Orders must be prevented.

That amounts to a breach of s.43 of the Crimes Act is it not?

That is, not the Consent Orders Enforced, but the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth enforcement of Orders prevented because of costs.

Diatribe is an interesting choice of word Agog.

If it was you who were labelled as child abusive when you had never done a wrong to a child, would you be bitter?

Would you seek to undo the false slanderous statements made by others?

Or would you accept you are abusive of children and although it is ok for you to interact (baby sit and the like sole care) with other parents children who know you, have no contact with your own children?

Moreover, would you accept you are the abusive party when the physical evidence and admissions of the mother prove beyond doubt it is her not you who has physically abused your children and her neighbours children?

Agog said; "Likewise when a Judge says "I will deal with you". I do not interpret that a threat, it is a statement that is made VERY frequently in Court"

"I will deal with you" is often said in Court by the judiciary to reinforce an instruction as a promise of reprisals for not doing the instruction. Your claim of "I do not interpret that a threat" is an example of legal eagles attempting to conceal the truth of the facts.

  The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "Threat" as 1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage. 2 : one that threatens. 3 : an indication of something impending <the sky held a threat of rain> and identifies it's origin as "Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrēat coercion; akin to Middle High German drōz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust Date: before 12th century.

As I said judiciary say/promise/threaten to do something if something is not done or is done they say not to do, there is nothing wrong with that, it is their job to inform the party of consequences of doing a wrong.

But when the promise, as you would like it called sorry an asumption, is made to enforce an UNWARANTED and UNLAWFUL instruction with menace/threat then you should rethink your   "I do not interpret that a threat".

For clarity the Merriam Webster dictionary defines "Menace" as 1: a show of intention to inflict harm : threat. 2 a: one that represents a threat : danger b: a person who causes annoyance.

Etymology: Middle English manace, from Anglo-French manace, menace, from Latin minacia, from minac-, minax threatening, from minari to threaten. Date: 14th century

My point was the breach of section 139.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 and its application to Mushin J's behaviour  where he gave an unwarranted instruction with menace if you want the proper terms of the offence committed.





Last edit: by No-Justice

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets