Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Is there Judicial Immunity?

Are judges accountable at Law for any Judicial Corrupt Behaviour at the bench?

The contents of this post have been deleted by a Moderator

The poster made allegations about two judges without providing any copies of supporting material

Such allegations are little more than anecdotal unless support material is made available for a proper and informed discussion to take place

What material can I provide?
A High Court transcript title I refered to as being given on 1 August 2007?
That would identify everone would it not?

All I asked was are judges accountable for the crimes they commit at the bench and complicit after the fact where an obsruction to a Power of the Commonwealth is caused.
Kirby J used the word incomprehensible on the 1 August 2007 to dismiss the Special Leave application does this mean judges are above the Laws created by Parliment? (incomprehensible, 1 August 2007)

If judges are accountable how can that be caused to happen and since when has English Doctrine Law had a right to defeat a Law of the Commonwealth?

Last edit: by No-Justice

Judicial Immunity

Are judges accountable at Law for their wilful corrupt behaviour in Contempt of their Oath or Undertaking Parliament have created Laws for?

Is the granting of other than Commonwealth Judicial Immunity lawful or cause the granter to be complicit after the fact?

Why would a judge grant Judicial Immunity rather than "no just cause" to defeat a prosecution if no crimes had been committed by the judge?

No-Justice said
What material can I provide?
A High Court transcript title I refered to as being given on 1 August 2007?
That would identify everone would it not?

All I asked was are judges accountable for the crimes they commit at the bench and complicit after the fact where an obstruction to a Power of the Commonwealth is caused.
Kirby J used the word incomprehensible on the 1 August 2007 to dismiss the Special Leave application does this mean judges are above the Laws created by Parliment? (incomprehensible, 1 August 2007)

If judges are accountable how can that be caused to happen and since when has English Doctrine Law had a right to defeat a Law of the Commonwealth?
Firstly this site is primarily 'Family Law'. Kirby is 'High Court'

If the 'transcript' is a published document  (ie in the public domain) the identification of parties is NOT an issue

Section 121 is a provision of the Family Law Act

If you are confused about whether the material breaches any guidelines then send it to a site area where it can be properly checked before being made publicly available

When you use the word 'crimes' are you referring to 'moral' or those referenced to in specific 'Crime Acts'?

When Commonwealth legislation is 'confusing' or 'non existent' or a precedent does not exist then the 'High Court' will initially look toward English 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. 
Yes I am somewhat confused myself as to where these threads are heading.
No-Justice said
Commonwealth Judicial Immunity lawful or cause the granter to be complicit after the fact?
This assumes that a judge has something to answer for in relation to the breaking of a law. Is the post suggesting that you have discovered some illegal act on the part of a judicial officer? I assume you are talking only Commonwealth Courts and not those in other jurisdictions. If you have some real evidence you need to lodge with the various agencies that deal with these complaints. Certainly I would not expect any substance in an open forum and simply unsubstantiated rhetoric has no place here.

To date my experience has been the Federal Magistrates and the Family Court Judges and related Judicial officers all seem to attempt to interpret the law and administer same. The fact we do not always get the outcome we are seeking is another story and one that better drafting of the relevant Family Law sections and better communication to the Judiciary would resolve.


Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
To Agog,
Read this matter, it is a FamCA matter taken to the HC for Special Leave to Appeal.
I have given you the link, it should be ";Mackintosh, In the matter of [2007] HCATrans 340 (1 August 2007)";.

http://www.austlii.edu...er/HCATrans/2007/340.html

Maybe you can tell me why a Judge would grant another Judge Civil Law Immunity and rely on Qld Law to support it where a Power and Laws of the Commonwealth were being sought to be heard.

Yes I have the evidence or Immunity would not have been granted, the Australian Fed Police say take it back to the Judges, the AG's Office say take it back to the Judges the FamCA Judges say come to this Court again and we will make an Order you can not make another application other than S.118 Leave, which by the way is already in place. The CJ and the Appeals Judges and others know the only reason a s.118 Leave Order is in place was to prevent a mother and solicitor from being charged with multiple counts of Contempt. Again I have the transcript evidence of what I say or I could be charged with slander.


The prosecution of a Contempt of Court is a Judicial Power of the Commonwealth of the High Court granted or bestowed on the FamCA by s.35 of the Family Law Act (the Act). S.43 of the Crimes Act makes any obstruction, hindrance, or defeat of a Judicial Power of the Commonwealth a criminal offence. So before you go deleting open questions that were not allegations ";Such allegations are little more than anecdotal"; (sic) but simple questions on the Lawful Right of the CJ to grant a fellow judge immunity from prosecution for offences the CJ chose not to correct at her earliest opportunity.

As I said, I have the evidence, I have the Law but no Judge to administer justice, hence no justice.

This is the FamCA link for the FamCA Appeal of the hearing of the CJ. Note no judge has said Mushin J did not commit a crime only Immunity needs to be granted.

http://www.austlii.edu...h/family_ct/2006/503.html

Note the Doctrine of Judicial Immunity is a Law of an English Judge not their Parliament, never the less a Law/Rule of England that is caused to stand mute when put against a Power or Law of the Commonwealth. The FamCA judges refused to hear the words of Gleeson CJ at paragraph 40 in ";Fingleton v The Queen"; when His Honour said a judge is not immune from prosecution for crimes of corruption which abuse of power to prevent evidence that could cause the offender to be charged. In the transcript of the FamCA the financial doc's ordered to be produced were of a 3rd party without 3rd Party Notice which had been discussed the day before as a requirement for their production, the demand was followed with a menace of ";or I will deal with you"; from the judge. Read s.139.2 and s.142.2 of the Criminal Code then tell me why Parliament produced these laws if it was not to prosecute judge's for that behaviour.

What is the point of clause 5 of the Constitution if it is not to cause the enforcement of the Criminal Code and all other Acts of the Parliament?

Is Parliaments production of Law to protect the proper administration of justice a waist of Parliaments time, or as is so often said these days is s60B of the Act the word children should be replaced with the word mothers. Maybe that is a bit far and I apologise to the good judges who are trying their best but tarred by the brush of the judges who have forgotten ";the best interest of a child and justice"; can only be determined if all the evidence is allowed to be accepted by a judge, not concealed because it disadvantages a mother..; ; ;

Addition 15/11/07

Here it is the 15/11/07 and you have no more to say Agog or Secretary_SPCA. As you can see the CJ Bryant and Mushin J should be prosecuted for their crimes against a Judicial Power of the Commonwealth (s.43 of the Crimes Act 1903 and s35 of the Family Law Act). That is, to prevent the prosecution of a matter that is a Judicial Power of the Commonwealth and the CJ is Complicit in after the fact, of the Crimes of Mushin J by granting him Common Law Immunity. Yes, Kirby J was derelict in his duty to the law with the false claim of incomprehensible of the grounds for appeal, but you would have to know the grounds of appeal for such to happen. You would also have to know Kirby said it is more heinous for a Judge to shirk his/it's duty to the Law than a terrorist bombing to know Kirby? was acting in contempt of his/it's own philosophy when claiming incomprehensible to the GROUNDS for SPECIAL LEAVE to APPEAL. Kirby J has announced he/it is gay therefore ?able on gender. Not to hold that against him/her/it but why would Kirby J contradict a statement other than to protect a fellow Judge pursuant to Justice goes through 3 stages; disbelief, ridicule, then acceptance with reluctance.

So does s.130/2 and 142.2 of the Code, s.28 and s.35 of the Family Law  Act and Clause 5 of the Constitution mean the keys thrown away and the CJ and Mushin J should be locked in solitary confinement. Or the Laws of the Commonwealth thrown away?

Here it is the 15/11/07 and you have no more to say Agog or Secretary_SPCA. As you can see the CJ Bryant and Mushin J should be prosecuted for their crimes against a Judicial Power of the Commonwealth (s.43 of the Crimes Act 1903 and s35 of the Family Law Act). That is, to prevent the prosecution of a matter that is a Judicial Power of the Commonwealth and the CJ is Complicit in after the fact, of the Crimes of Mushin J by granting him Common Law Immunity. Yes, Kirby J was derelict in his duty to the law with the false claim of incomprehensible of the grounds for appeal, but you would have to know the grounds of appeal for such to happen. You would also have to know Kirby said it is more heinous for a Judge to shirk his/it's duty to the Law than a terrorist bombing to know Kirby? was acting in contempt of his/it's own philosophy when claiming incomprehensible to the GROUNDS for SPECIAL LEAVE to APPEAL. Kirby J has announced he/it is gay therefore ?able on gender. Not to hold that against him/her/it but why would Kirby J contradict a statement other than to protect a fellow Judge pursuant to Justice goes through 3 stages; disbelief, ridicule, then acceptance with reluctance.

So does s.130/2 and 142.2 of the Code, s.28 and s.35 of the Family Law  Act and Clause 5 of the Constitution mean the keys thrown away and the CJ and Mushin J should be locked in solitary confinement. Or the Laws of the Commonwealth thrown away?



Last edit: by No-Justice

Judicial Immunity

The Constitution at s.72 creates the Tenure of Judges of Federal Courts "The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament:"

At s.72. (ii)  shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;

At s.22 of the Family Law Act (the Act), this is reproduced. (1)  A Judge: (b)  shall not be removed except by the Governor-General, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session praying for the Judge's removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Is the reason Parliament has never created a Law of Judicial Immunity because to do so would be in direct conflict with the Constitution of grounds of proved misbehaviour ?

How can you have grounds of proved misbehaviour  if you can not put to a Court whose duty it is to decide such things, if there is an Immunity granted to prevent the proving of judicial misbehaviour. To the disgust of the High Court, Parliament created the Royal Commissions Act to enquire into the misbehaviour of Murphy J of the High Court. That Act was then revoked because of complaints the findings could not be relied as Judicial and prejudiced criminal proceedings if "just cause" was established which it was.

The question that needs to be asked of the Attorney General (AG) is; is the Judicial Immunity granted Mushin J by Bryant CJ in breach of the Constitutional Law governing the Tenure of Federal Judges and the Act governing the Tenure of FamCA judges by removing the ability to establish grounds of proved misbehaviour?

This would make the Judicial Immunity granted by Bryant CJ a Constitutional Issue thereby the FamCA and the High Court where in breach of Legislation that requires these Courts, not the parties, to inform the AG  of such a matter before it. The duty is with the Court not the party even if the Court seeks by Rule the party informs the AG legislation overrides Rules of Court.

What are your views on this line of thought?

Does the Secretary agree a Forum or Area for complaints about FamCA Judges Behaviour with evidence should be available on this site to enable grounds of proved misbehaviour ? This would be a starting point to bringing to Parliament, or the AG and/or the Senate to put to the Governor General.

I think this would be a good place to start to cause judges like Mushin J to comply with the duties and boundaries of the Law rather than their own Law and personal issues governing their behaviour. (Don't ask what I mean by that, I spent 5 days gaining insight into possible causes of Mushin J's behaviour that is consistent with upbringing)

Does anyone agree or; like most of us men say, "it is too hard"?

Your Agenda, Your Job

No-Justice said
Does the Secretary agree a Forum or Area for complaints about FamCA Judges Behaviour with evidence should be available on this site to enable grounds of proved misbehaviour ? This would be a starting point to bringing to Parliament, or the AG and/or the Senate to put to the Governor General.

I think this would be a good place to start to cause judges like Mushin J to comply with the duties and boundaries of the Law rather than their own Law and personal issues governing their behaviour. (Don't ask what I mean by that, I spent 5 days gaining insight into possible causes of Mushin J's behaviour that is consistent with upbringing)

Does anyone agree or; like most of us men say, "it is too hard"?
This is your agenda and your job.  And your assertions.  It is for you to prove.

On the basis of assertion only, with no presented evidence of judicial wrongdoing (yes I know they're mongrels too - I call them INjustices - but you need demonstrable proof of misbehaviour), you are seeking to bend others to your will and to use the resources and time of others to pursue your cause.

That is your right.  However, I've found that getting sidetracked, from your family issues, into legal and constitutional issues, is not a productive area for my attention (and that of most other people).

And you are seeking to 'challenge' men to do that by impugning their character with your "it is too hard" comment … which has the opposite effect on me that you want: I refuse your insult and don't take the bait.

Along with others you should ask yourself these questions:

"Do I want to be happy?  Or do I want to be right?"

It appears you are driven to wanting to be right, rather than happy.  If that is the case, which on the basis of your posts I believe it is, then you are most likely a prime cause of your own situation and problems as are the judges and others.  That maybe not what you want to hear, but your behaviour to date appears inappropriate and inconsiderate.  Step back a bit and work with, not against, others to achieve your goals.
I think there is merit in some sort of judicial monitor. Lawyers know (if they are any good) the quality of the magistrates and judges and their behaviors, mannerisms and recent judgments. Self represented litigants don't realise what they are in for - they assume they are getting a competent, unbiased judge.

There are some key measures of judges which , if we kept a database of their performances, could guide people on which court and judge to chose and also what approach to take with each judge.

Some measures are:

1) Time taken to make a judgment

2) Gender based outcomes analysis

3) Their approach to self represented litigants (their accommodation of)

4) Knowledge of any lobby groups or associations or background

5) their age, gender, religion and ethnic background

6) Number of cases overturned on appeal

7) Number of cases they overturn

These sorts of stats could be kept legally , with some thought, to help SRL determine whether they are in the right court with the right judge or magistrate.And also whether to gear up for an appeal - try and ensure the magistrate or judge is given ample opportunity to stuff up legally.

There seems to enough knowledge by people on this site to do something like this. Maybe a ' Vote for your Judge' type feedback device?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough

The Constitution and Judicial Immunity

The making of professionals more accountable for their actions is the purpose of Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code, Part III of the Crimes Act, but more so, section (s.) 72 of the Constitution states all Federal Judges Tenure is dependant on MISCONDUCT BEING PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

Parliament have made Laws to prevent what has occurred in numerous cases… Read about the Law of Certiorari which is designed to undo MISCONDUCT OF A JUDGE the Constitution bestows on the High Court by s75 (v) and the FamCA by s.34 of the Act. Only the illiterate of the past would find the reading of the Case Law that establishes the conditions that take the making of a Writ from discretionary to obligatory on a Judge.

The granting of Judicial Immunity not only the proper administration of a Judicial Commonwealth Power to determine if a crime has been committed and PROVE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (in breach of s.43 of the Crimes Act) in conflict, if not DEFINACE of the Constitution. Kirby J is well aware of this as a High Court Judge and the need to make a false claim of "incomprehensible" in the matter of the reported case this Link is to:

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

This to deny an ability to a SRL of "Special Leave to Appeal the Bryant CJ granting Mushin J Judicial Immunity for the PROVABLE MISCONDUCT by the commission of the crimes sited and within Her Honours KNOWLEDGE.

S.22 of the Family Court Act (the Act) is a repeat of the words of s.72 of the Constitution and therefore the Granting of Judicial Immunity is an obstruction of one of the fundamental requirements of the conditions of Judicial Tenure that enables JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT to be proved.

S.22 of the Act and s.72 of the Constitution states at (ii) shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;

The Judicial Commonwealth Power is invested in the Judiciary of both the High Court and the FamCA to determine if any person has acted in Contempt of an Oath sworn or given to that Court. Proof of Contempt of that Court by a Judicial Officer is proved misbehaviour when offences against the Laws of the Commonwealth, within the CJ's knowledge are sought to be determined as committed by that Judge or Judicial Officer.

The problem is Judges like most of us do not want to admit a colleague, partner or friend would commit an offence in Contempt of an Oath or Undertaking given to a Court. I have provided 1 or 2 lots of evidence what I am saying regarding Contempt of an Oath of Office by Mushin J is true and the CJ provides additional evidence by the granting of Immunity not required if no crimes (judicial misconduct) had been committed and to defeat the judges conditions of Tenure.

The fundamentals of the enforcement of JUSTICE is that it is in the BEST INTEREST AND GOOD OF THE PEOPLE. The number of complaints of other than a proper administration of justice in the FamCA is increasing and until the Law of the Constitution and Legislation is enforced on Judges, as it should be, the numbers will continue to increase.

Guest's unsubstantiated complaint against Mushin J, of Mushin J claiming to have insight is reliant to his character and personal issues, in my experience, not insight at all. An example of character is Mushin J claimed it is improbable I have a room in my home that measures about 14 feet by 16 feet, has a double and 2 single beds plus in it. In 2004, for the first time measured it, it measures about 16'6'' by 14',
Mushin J is aware of this and other things he claimed incorrect insight into. A sworn affidavit has been provided by a witness, filed with the Court and Mushin J has admitted to having it to claim he would not let my matters go to appeal. Raising questions of lacking Judicial Integrity, this is supported when staff of the FamCA say "when Mushin J say's jump, you say HOW HIGH or else", consistent with an arrogant bully not a Judge of integrity. Bullies often do false goods in public to hide the crimes committed in private or semi closed doors, my Ex is an example.

The site administrators of this site will probable remove or edit some what I have said here even though they know it is the True Truth with evidence. They claim years to make legislation that is IGNORED or OBSTRUCTED by Judges is the way to go even though Legislation is in place to cause the causes of this site to be achieved now by a proper application of the existing legislation.

If the true ultimate purpose of this site is not to cause justice and the Law of the Commonwealth to be upheld for the "Best Interest of Children" to be determined rather than a woman's wants, what is it?
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets