Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Prosecution of a Judge...

How do you cause the Power and Law of the Commonwealth to cause a Judge of the FamCA to be accountable for any offences committed?

How do you cause the Power and Law of the Commonwealth to cause a Judge of the FamCA to be accountable for their offences committed?

Is, section 139.2 of the Criminal Code an offence created by the Parliament of the Commonwealth that a Judge can be prosecuted for if committed at the bench?

If so does demanding, without 3rd Party Notice, 3rd Party financial documents and a statement of "If you don't I will deal with you" satisfy the requirements of prosecution for this offence? The day before the Judge said 3rd Party Notice was required but not on this day.
Judges swear an oath or give an undertaking to do Right by Law pursuant to section 26 of the Family Law Act 1075 (the Act). To make rulings on the basis of the interests of the mother are required to be maintained with a disregard for the Law of Child must, unless there is "just Cause", have a meaningful relationship with all members of their family.

"The best interests of the Child" not the mother, is an  Power of the Commonwealth, Law and purpose of the Act. Any judgement that is in defiance of that principal, without "Just Cause", is a breach of section(s.) 142.2 of the Criminal Code of abuse of power to grant a benefit. This criminal behaviour is common practice of FamCA Judges as is complicity after the fact by concealment of crimes committed by other judges as is concealment of a mothers crimes including assault on fathers and children by obstructing the prosecution of the aforesaid.  

Chief Justice Bryant has granted a fellow judge immunity from prosecution for Commonwealth offences sought pursuant to a Power of the Commonwealth bestowed on the FamCA by s.35 of the Act. This immunity was granted by a judicial play on words of claiming immunity from suit includes criminal suit for Commonwealth Crimes. Hence Parliaments Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code (the Code) can be perverted or obstructed by a FamCA Judge.

How is this so? Clause 5 of the Constitution, "all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth", binds the Courts, Judges, and us to the Laws of the Parliament does it not?

How is this enforceable when in defiance of this Judges grant each other immunity?

Agog,
yes I have the evidence, have you read the Transcripts I gave you links to? Or are you out to protect these Judges from the prosecutions required to cause Judges, like Mushin J who claimed Commonwealth Immunity, for continuing with his behaviour of concealing and changing untruthful evidence of woman to protect these woman thereby provide them with a unlawful (corrupt) benefit of protection from prosecution. That is a breach of s.142.2 of the Code is it not?

What is the purpose of an Oath or Undertaking (s.26 of the Act) if the Judicial Commonwealth Power to prosecute a Contempt of the FamCA is obstructed by the granting of Immunity?
 
The PROSECUTION of a judge only exists in our dreams. They are immune to the heinous crimes against families, mostly against fathers.

If they were to be accountable for their actions, the country would surely be BROKE!

Its quite easy

The constitution allows for a judge to be impeached (tried and dismissed) by a joint sitting of both houses of parliament (at least in the federal level) casiting a majority vote to impeach the judge. I am uncertain whether it is a simple majority of 2/3s or some other figure.

Otherwise the are totaly immune under the constitution except to have their decision overturned upon appeal.

OH - one other thing - If you can cause them to be declared bankrupt, I think they are automaticaly removed.


For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
Justice lowrie, who decided my case back in 2002, though relatively young is no longer a part of the family courts.
Makes me wonder if she was impeached, is there any way of finding out?

No recent Judges impeached

No Judges have been impeached.

1 or 2 at the federal level have been encouraged to resign. For example, the sleeping judge.

Also a few have gone into limbo at state level, then resigned. None have been dismissed.

The system is fairly simple. If the powers that be don't want a judge or magistrate any longer, they simply give them no work. I have no doubt a chat is held, and a resignation is forthcoming.

Take for example, the former chief magistrate of NSW. Did something silly enough to warrent an AVO against her. She went into extended leave of absence and was quietly replaced. or the silly fool of a judge who said a dead someone else was driving his car while it was speeding. Or the other on who bent his car on the way home. There turned out to be some problem about the management of his blood sample taken after the accident. He resigned.




For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!

A fine epitath

Enough said.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
When I sought Mushin be dealt with for offences created by the criminal code thereby Contempt of His Honours Oath or Undertaking to Prove Misbehaviour, Bryant CJ claimed there is a doctrine of judicial immunity, Kirby J claimed he could not comprehend the matter or application.

The Constitution (s.72) makes Judicial Misbehaviour, which a criminal offence is, required to be able to be proved as a condition of their Tenure or employment.

Is preventing an ability to Prove Judicial Misbehaviour, a Judicial Misbehaviour also?
Like most senior public servants, unless there is gross public misconduct, judges would be asked to resign. The purpose of this is to keep the respect and mystique that people are meant to feel for high public office.

Justice Vasta was removed in Qld in the 80s and Dianne Fingelton was removed recently, but that was a saga and an interesting google.

It does happen, but it's unusual.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
What's the point of Parliament making chapter 7 of the Criminal Code Act crimes if Judges will not enforce them on themselves.

The harm done is greater by not admitting that a Judge has committed a crime and been held accountable.

The accountability of Judges has been stated clearly by the High Court Judges but the seeking to make a judge accountable is something else, a not allowed.

The greatest harm done is as in Mushin's case ,a continuation of the misbehaviour to pervert justice, knowing the CJ will protect him from prosecution.
No-Justice said
The Constitution (s.72) makes Judicial Misbehaviour, which a criminal offence is, required to be able to be proved as a condition of their Tenure or employment.

Is preventing an ability to Prove Judicial Misbehaviour, a Judicial Misbehaviour also?
At risk of being banned for a one liner, there is much to be considered here. The problem is to get the matter up in the first place. It seems that the circle of life does a better job what with sleeping, driving as a deceased person, speeding fines, bullying your employees and other humanly misdemeanours are surely enough. Why do you need a piece of law that doesn't easily operate as well?  O_o

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
 
Secretary_SPCA said
No-Justice said
The Constitution (s.72) makes Judicial Misbehaviour, which a criminal offence is, required to be able to be proved as a condition of their Tenure or employment.

Is preventing an ability to Prove Judicial Misbehaviour, a Judicial Misbehaviour also?
At risk of being banned for a one liner, there is much to be considered here. The problem is to get the matter up in the first place. It seems that the circle of life does a better job what with sleeping, driving as a deceased person, speeding fines, bullying your employees and other humanly misdemeanours are surely enough. Why do you need a piece of law that doesn't easily operate as well?  O_o
No Secretary SPCA you will not get banned for a one liner.

However 'No Justice' with his dog with a bone, back again and again on the Mushin soapbox is treading on thin ice.

 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator

I do recall a very recent Judgement ...

I do recall a very recent Judgement where a Judge of the FCoA, of extremely long service, actually criticised men's groups for messing with the law in his Judgement.

Probably a mate of Nicholsons.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
oneadadc said
Where a Judge of the FCoA of extremely long service actually criticised men's groups for messing with the law in his Judgement. Probably a mate of Nicholsons.
SECSPCA would like a copy or a pointer please.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
The attitude of the admin of this site is an example of why judges feel and advocate they are immune from s.72 of the Constitution  and Chapter 7 of the Code.

The attitude demonstrated by those out to protect the behaviour of judges objected to is consistent with a "True Believer" of an alienating parent.

A "True Believer" is a term used to describe a person who refuses to hear the complaint about the behaviour of the other person (alienating parent). Who refuses to hear the evidence or when the proper evidence is presented to them of the Misbehaviour. They make excuses for it like "It was done in Good Faith" of what they believe is best for the Child and or "Incomprehensible" that the other person would commit such misbehaviour.

When is an act of Criminal Misbehaviour done in "Good Faith", is a question put to me by someone who read the judgement of the CJ. I could only answer with; when a Good Samaritan assisted a criminal act mistakenly believing the other person had a lawful right to commit the criminal act.

An example would be helping a thief break into a car in belief the thief was the owner of the car.

Not a judge doing an act to cause a SRL to withdraw under threat of being dealt with if they did not (hiding under a log (sic)), or produce 3rd party docs without 3rd party notice, again with a threat of dealing with the SRL if they did not produce the 3rd party docs. (This evidence has been presented on this site as extracts of transcripts for site admin and Conan belittled it, and/or claimed it as false and or removed it under a right to hide offences committed by judges or s.121 of the Act requirements even thou the names were changed in the Transcripts, "True Believer Misbehaviour").

While people continue to belittle and or be derogatory of those of us who seek to "Prove Misbehaviour" committed by a judge, judges will continue those threats, make judgements that turn on the evidence and prevent proper evidence that does not favour the preferred party.

NSW have a Judicial Commission for complaints against the judiciary by disgruntled litigants. The last time I looked, I think it was only 5% or 10% of the complaints were proven unsubstantiated, how many Federal complaints would be unsubstantiated or is this why Federal Judges and others refuse to cause a Federal Judicial Commission for public complaints. This would take away from the assistants to the CJ's the right to not pass on to the CJ complaints not worded diplomatically or would Cause a "Proving of Judicial Misbehaviour".

The energies of the admin of this site would be better used if they started a petition for a Commonwealth Judicial Commission in the same lines as the NSW to deal with complaints about the judiciary rather than trying to hide the truth like the "True Believers" they appear to me to be, hence hiding judicial misbehaviour complaints in the Cuckoos Nest Area or delete it.

Don't get me wrong, the admin of this site have done some of the most impressive work in the improvement of the administration of Family Law, changes to the Family Law and helping those who can be helped, need help does not mean can be helped.

My point is as has been said on this site, what good are the changes to the Law if judges claim a right to ignore the Laws created by Parliament and the Constitution. It is this Misbehaviour of Dereliction for Duty and Contempt for their Oath or Undertaking of "doing right by law" that needs to be addressed so the Laws that exist are upheld and Justice is then Caused to occur (be done and seen to be done) rather than the making of new laws to be ignored.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets