Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

The Criminal Code. Parliament have made Laws to prevent what has occurred in numerous cases... Read about the Law of Certiorari

Is No Justice going too far with his accusations against the Judiciary?

Guests cannot vote in polls

You must select 2 options

Section 34 of the Family Law Act creates the judicial power for FamCA Judges to create Writs of mandamus, prohibition/certiorari and injunctions. That power is relied on at 39B(1EA) of the Judiciary Act 1903 to prevent the application of those Writs from

Site Admin OneRingRules said
This topic is quite complex and legally challenging with references to significantly old law that may or may not have merit in a challenge or appeal case. This topic is not easy for novice site users and should be left to the more technical of posters who wish to debate the nuances around judges exemption from criminal proceedings… and the application of law that allows cases to be heard in the FMC and FCoA. There are many laws referred to which are not explained in full and definitions and old "namage" which is not elucidated. These terms should be further expanded in this topic
Have a look at section 142.2 of the Criminal Code. Parliament have made Laws to prevent what has occurred in this case, an abuse of power to give a party a benefit and cause a party a detriment with a total disregard and dereliction of Duty to the Family Law primary requirement of "Best Interests of the Child".

I have only a general understanding on the matters you are discussing from what is written on this site.

Section 34 of the Family Law Act creates the judicial power for FamCA Judges to create Writs of mandamus, prohibition/certiorari and injunctions. That power is relied on at 39B(1EA) of the Judiciary Act 1903 to prevent the application of those Writs from being transferred to the Federal Court when sought in the FMCoA or FamCA and involves an issue of National Security Information.

The Law of Certiorari is Certiorari is discretionary unless there is an unlawful application of a judicial power, unfairness or such like breach of a Law of the Commonwealth.

The detriment caused by the magistrate is the destruction of an existing intimate family relationship of a mother, father and child/ren. I would therefore put to the father his most expedient recourse would be to seek, on abridgement, an injection stopping the existing Order and a Certiorari to quash the Order in either the FMCoA or the FamCA as the Superior Court.

The High Court Rules limit the time for such applications to 6 months after the Orders but as the power to make Writs is a Judicial Commonwealth Power created by s.71 of the Constitution the Rule must stand mute or be considered to be an obstruction or perversion of justice. No judge has the authority to obstruct or pervert a Judicial Commonwealth Power or Law otherwise Parliament would not make Laws, chapter 7 of the Code, to prosecute judges for that behaviour.

Good luck, the FamCA judges don't like the Writs or is it the power to deal with 1 of there own for other than lawful behaviour at the bench.

I have a matter similar to what I have just outline, not the relocation, in the High the High Court which the HC appear to be deferring so they don't encourage in Australian Courts the International use of the Writs instead of Appeals, for expedient results in the Courts.

The only way to get the Judges and Magistrates to comply with the Laws they swore an Oath or gave an Undertaking to do Right by is to enforce the Laws on the Judges who like Mushin J claim to be a brick wall in regard to the Law.

On that note, is there a Lawyer or Counsel who can help me cross the T's and dot the I's on a "Show Cause" citing Mushin J and the CJ regarding a Writ of Certiorari.

Last edit: by OneRingRules

No-Justice said
I have only a general understanding on the matters you are discussing from what is written on this site.

On that note, is there a Lawyer or Counsel who can help me cross the T's and dot the I's on a "Show Cause" citing Mushin J and the CJ regarding a Writ of Certiorari.
I am certain that no one would provide any time for someone that provided only half the information (vexatious litigant prior to the Mushin hearing?).

Has little understanding of Australian law.

Who Kirby effectively declared a fool.

I am certain these people have far better use to be made of their time.
Thank you Conan for voicing the general opinion of Judges who have SRL's to deal with.

SRL's do have trouble putting their issues forward because of their intimate knowledge of the issues and the background to the issues. SRL's do not voice the information in such a way the evidence to be relied on for a proper understanding of the issues is formed in a fluid line of thought. Most of use present the serious facts first, this causes Judges to close their minds, if the facts are detrimental to a womans case, and then the background facts that lead to the closed mind so the background facts are not heard by the judge. I must say and apologise to those judges this does not apply to but they are tarred by association with the other than lawful behaviour of the others.

Conan said (vexatious litigant prior to the Mushin hearing)

Vexatious litigant s.118 of the Act requires there to be a determination of an application before the Court that the application is vexations or frivolous, how can applications withdrawn and never heard be relied on for s,118 Orders to be made and apply for other than in Contempt of the Law of s.118. The no evidence before the Court is of unheard applications, for any lawful determination to be made the applications require to be determined, therefore the s.118 Order was other than pursuant to the Law of s.118.

The applications were for Contempt by contravention of Consent Child Contact (interaction) Orders. The Contempt was the seeking of police to assist the contravention by making false claim a second agreement was required for the consented contact to occur. I erred by leaving my copy of the Orders at home on that occasion, so the solicitor for the mother was called. The solicitor claimed to the police a second agreement was required for the contact ordered to occur. Line 1 of the Order says "That the father have contact with the children…" since when does the words HAVE CONTACT mean MAY HAVE CONTACT. The word MAY would mean a second agreement can be required and defeat the purpose of the Orders and the first consent being given.

The contempts citied the solicitor for "aiding and abetting" the contravention and by the false claim to police of a second agreement required and arguing with another police officer the second agreement was required when the officer had my copy of the Orders in his hand.

The Contravention Applications were withdrawn after Counsel (CfCR) for the Child Rep demanded their withdrawal or all contact would be prevented, the words of the CfCR to the Court on page 2 of the transcript with s.121 of the Act in mind;

CfCR: …but unfortunately it seems that THE FATHER view is that he wishes to prosecute the 49, which would then prevent those orders by agreement coming into operation.";
Section(s.) 43 of the Crimes Act comes to my mind on reading these words again.

As soon as the Contraventions were agreed to be withdrawn, the words of the CfCR to the Court on page 3 of the transcript with s.121 of the Act in mind;
CfCR: It seems to be the wish of THE FATHER. He wishes to proceed with the 49.

THE FATHER: No, I had indicated just here in this room that I will concede the two 49s.";


A new demand for the Contempts on the same basis of; contact will be prevented if not withdrawn. The words of the CfCR to the Court on page 4 of the transcript _December 2002;

CfCR: The position, your Honour, as I indicated to you earlier, where there were 49 and 47 applications by [THE FATHER] in relation to the proceedings.

HIS HONOUR: A 47?

CfCR: The contempt.

HIS HONOUR: The AP contempt - the ultimate.

CfCR: Yes, that's so.

THE FATHER: Against both the mother and the solicitor for the mother.

CfCR: Your Honour, these orders deal with that by disposing of those proceedings.";


Was I a fool? YES the 49's and 47's  ;should have been prosecuted to prove the mother and her solicitors CONTEMPT for the Law and Court Orders. My children and I have paid for that ever since.

The s.118 Order was made on _ March 2003. (s.121 ) the CJ and the Appeals Judges claim the Order was made _ February 2003 the date of the verbal application to a Registrar and JR for the Order to make false claim the transcript of _ March 2003 is irrelevant in any application to quash or revoke the Order.

The transcripts of _December 2002 and _ March 2003 were prevented (claimed unavailable until it was put the appearance is a Judge had put an unofficial injunction on the release of those transcripts) until January 2007.

_ December 2005 the CJ identified there had been no judicial determination of any applications in our matters and could not answer why or how the s.118 Order had lawfully been made. The CJ also refused to for fill her duty to her Oath/Undertaking and undo the s.118 Order made but used the Order to quash s.118 applications sought that would cause the Court to have proper knowledge of the Contempts by perjury and fabrication of evidence that is provable if a Judge has not destroyed the pics fabricated. Yes a Judge was the last person who had the pics and they appear to be no longer available.

What can we do about ";s.69ZX  ;(b)  ;adopt any recommendation, finding, decision or judgment of any court, person or body of a kind mentioned in any of subparagraph's (a)(i) to (iii)"; of the Act?

This is what Judges rely on to make their argument with a total disregard for the fact the judgement was made uncontested or reliant on accusation not evidence like a lot of Vic IO's. PART 3.5-EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENTS AND CONVICTIONS of the Evidence Act prevents this type of abuse, of the appearance of a judgement, on the face of the judgement but makes the evidence only, for the judgement, usable with limited exception.

s.69ZX  ;(b) is in conflict with Part 3.5 of the Evidence Act for good reason, it allows FamCA Judges to continue the abuse of the Law by woman. ;It is ;recommended to most men; ;let a woman have her way, allow her her want of control, allow her to settle down and she will come around.

This can happen but in most cases I know of; the Court, the mother and solicitor for the mother takes this as an ability to deny the father a right to interact or be a part of their children's life, like in my case. On my last attempt to seek to interact with our children the Judge claimed an ability to remake the uncontested Orders that had prevent our interaction for 3+ yrs. He said he relied on the Orders made for reasons not produced by the other Judge, due to the matter becoming uncontested although claimed by the Judge ";something akin to reasons would be produced";.

So many SRL's are claimed to be sexually and violently abusive because they did not defend the IO application due to they were never going back to that woman's home to endue her abuse any more.

Enough is enough, but then the Court continues that abuse by claiming without evidence that abuse must have occurred. If it had, there would be evidence pursuant to the days not identified by the mother, but claimed as an often occurrence. Funny how I have the scares of the mothers assaults on me (Mushin J in contempt of the Vic Law of Assault instructed me to turn the other check when he was informed of the attempts of the mother to ripe out my eyes and throat) ;but the mother has no scares (gunshot claimed), doctor told her she had a black eye but no doctors reports (Conan the Transcript is available), no witnesses, only photos of love bites evidenced by the negatives as taken 6 months prior to the day claimed as evidence of assault for the IO. ;The photos of 2 eyes blackened with makeup in ;the court for the IO (2002) where it was claimed as 1 black eye. The ;FamCA (2004) it is claimed these photos are evidence of ;2 black eyes. The makeup had been computer removed for the FamCA and Counsel admitted the photos did not show the black eyes claimed. The mother and solicitor refused to produce the negatives I saw in the solicitors possession, and the Judge refused to enforce the ";Notice to Produce"; but required the photos to be produced, the mother was never to be cross examined on the pics or the negatives.(Mushin J)

To cause the matter to become uncontested that Judge admitted at page 399 of the transcript _ January 2004

HIS HONOUR: I mean, I've called you a liar and a cheat and arrogant and pompous and aggressive and violent, all those sorts of things, I've called you all that?–Yes.
And you've taken it and you just keep on coming back for more. I mean, I think if I had have been sitting where you have been and been spoken to like I've been speaking to you, I would have been crawling under a log? Is that an instruction to withdraw or what.
–Your Honour, when a person is continually in - if I can say for various reasons people become numb - - -
That's you, is it?–That is the way I've been feeling over the last few days, yes, your Honour.


This is while I was under cross examination and to me amounts to attempting to prevent a witness from presenting evidence the Judge knows from affidavits is going to be present in a way the Court is informed of the evidence but not obliged to prosecute the mother because it is not first hand evidence but professional hearsay.

So yes, I was a fool to attempt to NOT CAUSE the mother to be prosecuted. The Judge just questionably breached s.36A of the Crimes Act 1914, s142.2 of the Criminal Code 1995 (the Code) (cause a detriment of causing a witness to go hide (withdraw) under a log and causing a matter to become uncontested for the benefit of the mother)not to forget s.35 of s.26 of the Act (Family Law Act).

But because that did not work due to I was about to have my witnesses produce their evidence that the Judge had admitted earlier was to my advantage, a breach of s.139.2 of the Code was about to occur that the CfCR had started the day before and told was a conflict of the CR's interest therefore not available.

The demand for 3rd party documents of a Family Trust with 5 Trustees and the clients of the CR as the sole beneficiaries.

Page 404 of the Transcript January 2004:

HIS HONOUR: Back in the witness box, thank you.

NEW CfCR: Just prior to this cross-examination resuming, sir.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, have a seat, THE FATHER. Yes?

NEW CfCR: Yesterday I asked for certain business documents. They've not been made available and I would ask for them to be produced. (refer to page 275 to 277 of the Transcript produced later here in relevant part)

HIS HONOUR: Did you produce those documents?

THE FATHER: No, your Honour. I sought instruction from the trustees in COUNTRY. Their instructions were that it is a private family trust and they believe that those documents should not be made available to THE MOTHER.

HIS HONOUR: Do you have any of those documents in your personal possession?

THE FATHER: I have the documents relating to Australian enterprise, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well, I could require him to give you those, can't I?

NEW CfCR: Yes.
(Evidence required for a breach of s.42 of the Crimes Act of an agreement is it not?)

HIS HONOUR: All of the documents - what are they that you have?

… not relevant here.

The AG says go to the Legal Practices Board with it and that of the prior CfCR but what's the point, the HC just granted Counsel immunity from prosecution of Commonwealth Law did they not in about 2004 or 5.

Relevant Parts of pages 275 to 277 of the Transcript January 2004;

Relevant Parts Page 275

NEW CfCR: The NAME OF Trust - and it has to do, sir, with the child representative's position that at the completion of this matter, the child rep will be seeking an order for costs - that up till this stage, as I understand, a previous order for costs has been made. An order was made on interim proceedings for the payment of $__ costs and, at this stage, a part-payment has been made and I'm must endeavouring to locate the details of that part-payment. A part-payment was made on 22 December of this year of $1/3rd - two payments of that amount.

In this matter, sir, given that the child rep is a taxpayer-funded body - that in the circumstances, sir, given that it has been disclosed - a fund - that what's sought is - the effective order is for that fund to be frozen - that would mean that THE FATHER would need to be ordered to provide details of all bank accounts operating.

HIS HONOUR: How can I do that? He's neither a controlling or a majority shareholder in that. He's only one of five.

NEW CfCR: But he says in his evidence that he's got the power to make the payments and he has been making payments clearly by and with the authority of the trust.

Relevant Parts Page 276 from line 1 to 39 inclusive;

HIS HONOUR: Wouldn't I have to give notice to all trustees before I made this order?

NEW CfCR: To freeze the funds?

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

NEW CfCR: Perhaps so, sir. So in the alternative, the order would be for THE FATHER to provide all details of bank accounts operated by the NAME OF Trust.

HIS HONOUR: Provide the?

NEW CfCR: Business activity statement - all receipts and accounts and tax assessments over the last three years.

HIS HONOUR: Isn't that the same? Don't you need third-party discovery from them and don't you need to make an application under what is presently order 20 rule 8, served on the trust? You see he's only one of five.

NEW CfCR: That's only for him to produce the documents at this point. I hear what your Honour says and I understand that that's the state of the law.
(acknowledgement of attempting an unlawful act in Contempt of an Oath or Undertaking to the Bar)

HIS HONOUR: The other thing is that you've got a potentially difficult situation, in that that can adversely affect the beneficiaries who are your clients.

NEW CfCR: Well, it may adversely affect them, sir, but in the circumstances, given that, as I understand it, sir, they've received nothing by way of a distribution from the trust and THE FATHER is not able to foresee any further distribution, then in real terms, sir, any benefit may be seen as illusory, in my submission.
(NEW CfCR has not yet cross examined the witness so no evidence given or sought or relevant, there was no Assessment Application before the Court only the NEW CfCR jumping the gun for cost orders to cause duress to a witness in the middle of giving evidence)

HIS HONOUR: Well, that might be so. I'm always concerned with a child representative makes an order for costs or something akin to that, that there can be conflict of interest involved.

NEW CfCR: Yes, sir. I understand that to.
(admission of other an lawful (do right by) behaviour of NEW CfCR)

Relevant Parts Page 277 from line 35 to 43;

HIS HONOUR: Well, I would like you to attempt to persuade your fellow trustees forthwith.

THE FATHER: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I'm not going to make an order at this stage, because I'm not at all convinced about the jurisdiction to do so in the circumstances. But you can tell me first thing in the morning what the attitude of the trustees is. All right?
-(does this support 3rd Party Notice required? and as His Honour said he had no jurisdiction no immunity ;if you turn to the Doctrine of Judicial Immunity no jurisdiction makes the Judge Exempt of the Immunity from both criminal and civil suit, c/- Sir Edward Coke' in the matter of the Marshalsea 1612.) You wanted evidence Conan is this what you asked for or tooooooo much and that Judge should have been prosecuted when the issue went to the AG, AFP and/or the HC for Special Leave.

Page 405 of the Transcript January 2004;

THE FATHER: Your Honour, my TRUSTEE instructed me, on behalf of the trustees in COUNTRY - - -(does this support 3rd Party Notice required?)

HIS HONOUR: THE FATHER, if you have those pieces of paper in your possession you will provide them to NEW CfCR by 9.30 on Tuesday morning - full stop. (is this an unwarranted and unlawful instruction due to no 3rd Party Notice given?)

THE FATHER: Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR: You understand?

THE FATHER: Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR: If you don't I will deal with you.
(is this a menace or is this a menace?)

This is a clear breach of 139.2 of the Code, a Law of the Commonwealth created to prosecute Judges for this very behaviour while at the bench is it not?

So was Justice Kirby calling me a fool or calling me stupid to think a Judge can be prosecuted for crimes committed against a Law of the Commonwealth that a Judicial Power of the Commonwealth exists to prosecute? (That sounds like a breach of s.43 of the Crimes Act and Contempt of s.11 of the High Court Act or is that the schedule of that Act, does it not?)

Was it Justice Kirby who said words akin to, it is more heinous for a Judge to shirk the duties of the Judge to the Law and Oath of Office than a terrorist bombing due to the Judge undermines the very fabric of the foundations of our society? and the claim incomprehensible when face with that very thing.

In addition, it has taken the HC more than 5 months to grant me leave to file Special Leave to Appeal doc's on the respondent, yet other matters for Special Leave to Appeal filed after my matter have been determined.

Last time almost 12 months to the day and a complaint to the AG, the claim of incomprehensible was use to protect a Judge from prosecution of a Judicial Power of the Commonwealth bestow on Judges via the Act of that Court where the Judge's abuse of power was to given an unwarranted/unlawful instruction with menace out of jurisdiction thereby exempt of immunity.

What's the point of Parliament making Laws the Judges claim unlawfully a right to grant immunity from prosecution for?

Why would immunity be granted if no crime had been committed?

Why else would FamCA Judges claim a right to put the interest of mothers before children in contempt of the Act?

Hence NO-Justice when the Laws of the Commonwealth are refused to be upheld or enforced by the AG and Judges of the HC.

PS. What's the point of changing Family Law when the existing Law of both Family and Criminal can not be enforced or allowed a hearing?

Addition 16/11/07

Conan, you asked for the evidence and like most defenders of unlawful and unruly judicial behaviour, when the evidence is provided you run and like judges say it is incomprehensible. You were quick to condemn on the false claim of a lack of evidence due to this site is an open forum. What I have put in is true extracts from Transcripts I have had to paid for and only changed names for the purpose of s.121 of the Act. The FamCA is world renowned for jumping on people who speck out against the Commonwealth unlawful behaviour of some of the judges like those I have encountered.

So tell me or can anyone tell me how we can get the judges of the FamCA who have committed crimes against a judicial power and law of the Commonwealth brought to justice. Maybe Kirby J might like to answer that question as he is so willing to contradict what Gleason CJ says at paragraph 40 in Fingleton V's the Queen.
Agog,

please post your rebuttal to the primary attatchment theory,

also my ex has now declared herself pregnant, and i suspect will soon announce she will be setting up house with 2nd baby's father, so now i find myslef behind that 8-ball too, advice on that issue would appreciated.

A Doctrine of Judicial Immunity is not a Commonwealth Law and therefore has no effect on a Law of the Commonwealth

The truth is often hard to accept when it challenges your preconceived misconceptions of Judicial integrity. A Doctrine of Judicial Immunity is not a Commonwealth Law and therefore has no effect on a Law of the Commonwealth. Yes, as Kirby J says, I am a fool to think a Judge of the High Court can be expected to comply with section 11 of the HC Act. Or his own words akin to "it is more heinous for a Judge to shirk the duties of the Judge to the Law and Oath of Office than a terrorist bombing due to the Judge undermines the very fabric of the foundations of our society".

Are you or Kirby J going answer why Parliament think Judges should and could be prosecuted rather than falsely claim it is incomprehensible a Judge should not be granted Immunity even if if is an Immunity created by Judges to protect themselves?

Parliament would not produce Law for the "The proper administration of Government" like sections 136 to 145.4 if they could not be prosecuted for an offence against those Laws of the Commonwealth. Admittedly s.145.4 is applicable to Judges like the CJ who have falsely claimed the s.118 other than lawful Order against me was made in _ February 2003 to falsely make the transcript of _ March 2003 irrelevant to the Leave applications sought to dismiss the s.118 other than lawful Order.

Now the election is over we will get an Attorney General who will cause Judges like Mushin J and the CJ to be accountable for their other than lawful behaviour in contempt of s.72.Ii of the Constitution ACT.

Justice is for all the peoples of Australia not only those that can afford it a suck the *? of Judges the Oath or Undertaking Judges given to the Court is as enforceable as an Oath or Undertaking we common people give or the justice system is as big a joke as Kirby J presented to the Chinese in I think about 2002. He said there that the Laws of Australia where susceptible to a Judges mood on the day or words to that effect.

Kirby J was deciding a Family Court Leave to File matter of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth to Prosecute a Power of the Commonwealth of Contempt of the Family Court created by s.35 of the Family Court Act. To think a Contempt of the Family Court committed by woman or Judges may be prosecutable does make me a fool and stupid to boot. But what's new, Does anyone have an answer to how to cause JUSTICE to be caused to be upheld in the Family Court of Australia where I believe there is criminal behaviour
minor text edits to remove comment that does not comply with site rules. The sentence still reads correctly  - Admin
Or am I in error in thinking this is the purpose of the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth.
NO ANSWER CONAN?

The truth is often hard to accept when it challenges your preconceived misconceptions of Judicial integrity. A Doctrine of Judicial Immunity is not a Commonwealth Law and therefore has no effect on a Law of the Commonwealth. Yes, as Kirby J says, I am a fool to think a Judge of the High Court can be expected to comply with section 11 of the HC Act. Or his own words akin to ";it is more heinous for a Judge to shirk the duties of the Judge to the Law and Oath of Office than a terrorist bombing due to the Judge undermines the very fabric of the foundations of our society";.
Are you or Kirby J going answer why Parliament think Judges should and could be prosecuted rather than falsely claim it is incomprehensible a Judge should not be granted Immunity even if it is an Immunity created by Judges to protect themselves?

Parliament would not produce Law for the ";The proper administration of Government(Justice)"; like sections 136 to 145.4 if ;Judges could not be prosecuted for an offence against those Laws of the Commonwealth.

Admittedly s.145.4 is applicable to Judges like the CJ who have falsely claimed the s.118 other than lawful Order against me was made in _ February 2003 to falsely make the transcript of _ March 2003 pertaining to the making of the Order irrelevant. This for the Leave applications sought to dismiss the s.118 other than lawful Order to be dismissed.

Now the election is over we will may get an Attorney General who will cause Judges like Mushin J and the CJ to be accountable for their other than lawful behaviour in compliance with S.72.ii OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT.

Justice is for all the peoples of Australia pursuant to clause 5 of the Constitution is it not? Not only those that can afford it like a suck of the *? of Judges the Oath or Undertaking Judges given to the Court. And is as enforceable as an Oath or Undertaking we common people give otherwise the justice system is as big a joke as Kirby J presented to the Chinese in, I think about 2002. He said there that the Laws of Australia where susceptible to a Judges mood on the day or words to that effect.

Kirby J was deciding a Family Court Leave to File matter of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth to Prosecute a Judicial Power of the Commonwealth of Contempts of the Family Court created by s.35 of the Family Court Act. To think a Contempt of the Family Court committed by woman or Judges may be prosecutable does make me a fool and stupid to boot. But what's new, just like a suck like you may have an answer to how to cause JUSTICE to be caused to be upheld in the Family Court of Australia where the CJ is as criminal as a percentage of the woman in that Court or am I in error thinking you may be a suck like K J.

Yes I do understand Justice is dependent on how well you suck up to a Judges wants of a womans wants not the Law or directions of the Parliament of Australia. If justice was the purpose of the Courts a SRL matter of Special Leave I know of, being M7_ of 2007 would have been granted Leave to file on the other party by now (5+months after filing), other matters filed by solicitors have been determined where Leave to start a SLR case has been obstructed by a failure to grant LEAVE TO PROCEED.
No Justice

Yes an answer, but I refuse to get involved in a drawn out battle of wits with an opponent who is only half armed

You came on this site to use it as nothing more than soapbox about how you were wronged etc and to try to illustrate what a smart person you are and how much you thought you understood Australian Law

As I understand it your first site user name was so antagonistic you were asked to change it

I think your posts illustrate that you have personal issues and are obsessed with trying to justify yourself rather than admit you were the one that screwed up.

Dragging out old Commonwealth and Dominion Laws is really scraping the barrel and shows you are not focusing on the issue

Because I do not agree with some of what you say; for some obscure reason you interpret this as meaning I support Kirby and his ilk - what sick logic is that? Is this the sort of perverted strategy/logic you used in Court for Bryant and Kirby

Stop obsessing about the Judges and get your eye back on the ball, this site is about children and families and not about someone that has ample time on their hands to research obscure legislation in an attempt to convince people how clever they are

Now, are you on this site to engage in serious debate or endlessly use it as a soapbox about an issue that has not affected anyone else?



Conan said ";You came on this site to use it as nothing more than soapbox about how you were wronged etc and to try to illustrate what a smart person you are and how much you thought you understood Australian Law";

This site was recommended to me at a DIDS group I went to as a site where I could get help with understanding why Judges are making Orders that caused a detriment to children and fathers. Instead I found rather than help you jumping into the judges corner to defend them.

Your 2nd statement the answer is no I forgot I had created a login, due to my work hours range from 10pm to 6am, 7am to 3:30pm, 7:30am to whatever can be anywhere from Stoney Point to Sale to Bendigo. Sat I started at 2pm and finished at 11pm, Today I started at 9am and finished at 6pm tonight I am starting again at 10pm and will finish by 6am. This week I worked Mon to Thurs nights and 2 day shifts so time is a premium to me. No I don't have much to waist on unproductive abusers who claim they can give you guidance but are only good with the put downs.  ;

Conan said ";I think your posts illustrate that you have personal issues and are obsessed with trying to justify yourself rather than admit you were the one that screwed up.";

Yes, I screwed up I like so may of us starting out in the FamCA, I ;believed a Judge and Child Rep were honest brokers of the Law. I found out like so many other men a number of Judges and Child Rep's are not. Both swear Oaths or give Undertakings. Both, like us are bound to the Law by the OLD LAW of clause 5 of the Constitution, the Crimes Act 1903 and the Criminal Code plus all other laws created by Acts of the Parliament of the Commonwealth and us common persons are also bound to the State Laws.

I, like so many others have had to contend with Judges and Child Reps who totally disregard the evidence or more to the point lack of proper evidence to support the mothers false claims. Disregard the laws of; a Child's Best Interest as Paramount, a Child's Right to know and spend time with ALL members of their family, and their Oath or Undertaking given to the Court.

The requirement for proper evidence and more offensive is the Judge who claims a right at Law when the Law makes the Judges false claims to a right, a crime. Then the harm caused by the crime is not undone at it's earliest by the CJ but compounded with a false claim to Immunity not created by the Commonwealth but Judges to protect themselves from prosecution of the crimes they wilfully commit. Like the benefit given to a mother of preference for her happiness over the happiness of the child knowing all the family members of that child's family. My children have missed out on trips to NZ, continuing to know their cousins in NZ they met and spent time with. My parents owned a small farm these children have spent time on that farm in 2000, they were to go there in 2003 and 2006 for Christmas paid for by my parents, but the mother and the Child Rep joined forces to claim it was unsafe to take children from Australia to NZ. Anyway that's not what I was going to say but yes like so many others my children's best interest are claimed by Judges to be solely reliant on the wishes of the mother and to hell with the rest of the family.  ;


Conan said ";Dragging out old Commonwealth and Dominion Laws is really scraping the barrel and shows you are not focusing on the issue";

All I said was the Law is there to deal with judges who make Orders like letting a mother go to Qld ;/or USA with a total falsehood of unless the mother is happy the child cannot be happy and only the interests of the mother can be considered for the best interests of the child to be fore filled, or the like.

To me that is in total breach of s.142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995, how do you call 1995 old law. It was only 22 years ago, are you only 18 to think 22 years is old?

Yes the Constitution is Old, it is the founding Law of our Law and the 3 branches of government. As I earlier said, it is what binds us to the Laws of the Commonwealth and sets aside all law of England. Yes a Doctrine is an OLD LAW/RULE of England, not the Commonwealth and it is created by Judges not Parliament as a rule. It is the Judges who are relying on the old Commonwealth and Dominion Laws not I, for without that OLD DOCTRINE there is no Commonwealth Judicial Immunity. In fact as I have said the Laws of Australia make the Judges basis for a number of the Orders made by those Judges of the FamCA criminal offences committed to make those Orders like granting a mother a benefit of happiness by letting a woman go to Qld or USA with a total disregard for detriment to the enduring relationship between the father, the rest of the family members and those children. Ha? The detriments number many people the benefit of happiness is mainly 1 as the child comes in on both counts.

Conan said ";Because I do not agree with some of what you say; for some obscure reason you interpret this as meaning I support Kirby and his ilk - what sick logic is that? Is this the sort of perverted strategy/logic you used in Court for Bryant and Kirby"; What you did say in rely to my providing the Transcript evidence of what I was asking for help to deal with on the 5/11 to 7/11 was  ;";I am certain that no one would provide any time for someone that provided only half the information (vexatious litigant prior to the Mushin hearing?)
Has little understanding of Australian law
Who Kirby effectively declared a fool
I am certain these people have far better use to be made of their time";

The ISSUES HERE ARE;
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW OF AUSTRALIA over the FamCA Judges personal preference for giving the mother a benefit with disregard for the total of the welfare and development of the child and detriment caused to the child, father and other family members that child can no longer have a continuing constant enduring relationship with that already exists.

WHAT PART OF ENFORCING THE LAW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND AS AN ENDURING ISSUE WITH THE JUDGES OF THE FAMCA.

Sorry to yell guys but this Conan has got the branch by the wrong end. Yes I was dumb like a lot of us men to entrust the Judge with so much faith of ";they would do right by law by our children and us parents"; alike. Justice is required to be done in a fair and even handed manor not squashed with a brick wall like Mushin J did in my case. Not perverted by granting Immunity to a Judge where the evidence proves that Judge has committed crimes to cause a perversion of justice or no Immunity would ;need to ;be given.

Anyway, I need an hour or so's sleep so this will do for now. Conan if you truly want to help or be helpful to those on this site check out s.34 of the Act and s39B (1EA) of the Judiciary Act. The Law of Constitutional Writs s.75 (v) of the Constitution. A far more efficient way of Appeal than the Appeals system. S.39B (1EA) could not exist if s.34 of the Act did not create the Judicial Commonwealth Power for the Judges of the FamCA to make such Writs. I think it was Kirby J who said the rest of the world namely England and US are using those Writs more and more for that purpose.

Why else would Parliament create such a power if it was not Parliaments intention to cause matters in the FamCA to be economical and expedient.

Didn't I read that some where in the Act as the purpose of the Family Law Act if you don't know which Act I am talking about.

Night All


 Just a quick comment from my perspective.

The law is complex and a good "earner" for lawyers.

Its my experience that judges, family court reps, Child support officers, SSAT people can do, say and write pretty much anything they like - there is no consequence for them. - Nor will there ever be. They can generally be as incompetent or biased as they like. No-one will ever hear you - they will think that you are the one who is at fault and must have done something wrong or been a bad person who deserved to be treated they way you were. Its only when people go through the same thing themselves that they have any idea.

Its to do with expectations and trust that the system could not be that incompetent.
Historically men have known this for years - many men will run off or commit suicide rather than face the process.
Now that you know how bad it is and have survived so far - a new focus is required - for your own health.

Trying to show how wrong and stupid they are - costs more time & money & stress. Trying to fix the system - thats another matter and requires a new focus.  So the debate is not "who was right or wrong" its "How can this be fixed" - and thats where a collective effort can work

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
No Justice

I am glad that you attend DIDS meetings. You will also know a fundamental is that Tony Miller says that there are three sides to every story 'His', 'Hers' and the 'Truth'.

In your case it was 'Your Side' and the 'Courts', however you were less than honest by presenting a 'selective' version of events. As I understand it there are less than 4 people a year declared as 'vexatious'

Did you come on this board as another soapbox in a mistaken belief that people were just going to agree with you and not openly discuss your issues?

DIDS have a forum - what is wrong with using theirs if you just want to vent?

We all have had issues with Courts, be it in the Family Courts, Magistrates Courts or other Civil Courts, if a Court makes a decision we disagree with, then we should look analytically at whether it was wrong, or we just thought it was wrong

Throwing up non sensical legal arguments will only dig you a deeper hole. Why are children moving interstate being tied to the Criminal code? You also miss or do not understand why some of the legislation was brought in and has been subsequently ignored.

As regards your user name, instead of making excuses why don't you just admit you initially registered with an antagonistic user name. Or are you saying to registered twice? And used the same email address, which the site will not allow

The rest of your arguments just go round in circles

Jon Pearson said in part of his post

"Trying to show how wrong and stupid they are - costs more time & money & stress. Trying to fix the system - thats another matter and requires a new focus.  So the debate is not "who was right or wrong" its "How can this be fixed" - and thats where a collective effort can work".

I think its time for you to move on and accept you have made some very fundamental errors and that blaming someone else for these will not fix them

Now are you here to vent or be constructive

Is putting forward the use of s.34 of the Act as an alternative to appeal, constructive?


Is seeking like Jon Pearson said on the 18/10/07; "Allegations made at family breakdown are given far more weight than they deserve. If there really are criminal matters then they should be dealt with under criminal law - not "Domestic"." and "There ARE such things as fundamentally flawed systems - how could any reasonable person reading case outcomes over the last 30 years could reach a conclusion they were GOOD, INSPIRATIONAL, ASPIRATIONAL, LINKED WITH CURRENT THINKING, ACCEPTABLE etc. Many of them were also ILLEGAL (and found to be so being overturned on appeal)."

"Many of them were also ILLEGAL" Only the cases that were allowed to go to appeal and did not raise criminal behaviour of the judge as an appeal ground where overturned.

Mine has never been allowed to go to appeal, Mushin J took charge of an application seeking to appeal Mushin J's Orders and refused to determine the s118 issues for Leave to Appeal to be granted. In June or July 2005 stated from the bench he would never let me go near the Court of Appeal.

I sought the Writs in the FamCA to deal with the Orders where Judicial Illegal behaviour was committed for the Court to ignore s.39B(1EA) of the Judiciary Act by claiming or implying the Power to make the Writs was only when there was a National Security Information issue (NSI issue). The problem is s.39B(1EA) only prevents the application for those Writs sought from being transferred to the Federal Court when a NSI issue is attached to the application for the Writ. This Rule s.39B(1EA) thereby proves the Power of the Court to make the Writs is existing and answers the Full Court question; "in the request in "Bizannes (1977)FLC 7 90-3 13" the husband appealed (inter alia) of a more clear expression of the FamCA Power to make or grant the Writs would be required.

To defeat the granting of s.118 Leave to file an application for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the offending Orders of Mushin J and the CJ. The Court claimed, in defiance of  s.39B(1EA) of the Judiciary Act demonstrating clearly the Power to seek and make or grant those Writs exists, a more clear answer is required. What does Parliament have to do? Hit them over the head with it?

The Special Leave to Appeal the FamCA claim to a lack of power to make the Writs has been waiting in the High Court for more than 5 months for leave to serve on the other party. The other party has filed no "Notice of Defence" and the time for filing has long past. Set aside additional material that a solicitor can file with the original documents but as a SRL the Court causes a prejudice of denial of a right to file that additional material to prove your matter beyond doubt. No, Leave does not require poof of beyond doubt but without it Judges can make false claim to the material and matter are incomprehensible because the proper evidence is not there to disperse any doubt or arguable what did Mushin J say "not probable" to defeat in his mind the truth and evidence sworn, was to be presented.

Your claim to only being presented with half the truth is both true and untrue. Yes, you hear my side of the facts which I try and keep to facts but a statement of fact is reliant on the truth of the fact of what did occur and the evidence in support of what did occur rather than an interpretation of the truth. It's a bit like Judges claiming in defence of what is said about their judgements "He is just a disgruntled litigant". The fact obstructed by that statement is whether or not there is "Just Cause" for the litigant to be disgruntled.

Yes as has been said to me, I could walk way from the seeking of the enforcement of the Laws of Australia. What happens when a Spoilt Brat is given into because of the tantrum they throw. They become more spoilt and their behaviour gets worst until finally the police are called to deal with want is now unlawful behaviour. WHY, because the boundaries imposable were not imposed at an early enough time for the child to understand they can not always have what they want.

Judges of the FamCA are no different in my view to children, some conform to the boundaries and others are no more than power abusive Spoilt Brats. They make threats, they refuse to accept evidence of a fact because it defeats their want of making an Order in their line of thought rather than the "Best Interest of the Child and parties combined.

They make Orders to prevent a party's fairness and justice.

Conan said "Tony Miller says that there are three sides to every story 'His', 'Hers' and the 'Truth'. Does that mean the truth can not be presented by his or her but is an obscurity and a oath sworn to tell the truth is not worth the words spoken?


No offence meant Tony, but that statement does mean the truth is an obscurity not obtainable. The reality in my thought is the facts and evidence is the truth whether it be a blending of the his and hers unless like in 1 of my issues, her truth was our children told her I was taking them to Tasmania for the school holidays. The first I knew about it was when the children asked me if what their mother said was true. So did the children tell the mother or the mother tell the children, did the mother tell the Court the truth with claiming the children told her.

Conan said; In your case it was 'Your Side' and the 'Courts', however you were less than honest by presenting a 'selective' version of events. As I understand it there are less than 4 people a year declared as 'vexatious'


Are you saying in contradiction to the evidence of the face of the Record of our file there have be matters determined in our matter before the s.118 Order was made?


If so look again, there were 2 Consent Orders made and at the second of those where I was the applicant the Full Court claimed a s.118 Order could be made solely because I was the applicant. For Consent Orders to be made the application could not be determined as vexatious or frivolous, if you read the transcript which the Full Court refused to accept because it proved beyond doubt there was no lawful right for the application or the making of a s.118 Order. As I said, the applications had been withdrawn under duress cause by a Child Rep to protect and conceal the contemptuous behaviour of a mother and her solicitor. Yes, the solicitor aided and abetted the contravention and that is CONTEMPT.


A s.118 Order requires a determination of an application and where there has been no judicial determinations of any kin only the granting of Consent Orders sought there can be no such Order lawfully made.
Conan said; Did you come on this board as another soapbox in a mistaken belief that people were just going to agree with you and not openly discuss your issues?


No I am not here to event all the mothers lies, deception, abuse etc I am here to cause the boundaries imposable on Judges of the FamCA need to be imposed/enforced. That is, the Judicial Power and Law of the Commonwealth needs to be brought to bear on the unlawful. Those who step over the judicial boundaries created by a Law of the Commonwealth the Law NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO BEAR ON those judges like Mushin J and the CJ for the new and old laws of the Family Law Act and justice to be upheld.


Conan said;Throwing up non sensical legal arguments will only dig you a deeper hole.

You got me there, are you trying to say to attempt to seek justice and the law of Australia be upheld is a joke, I'm not laughing and nor are a lot of children and fathers. Are you trying to say justice and the law of Australia can not be caused to be upheld in the FamCA because to seek the boundaries imposable, that is the Law judges of the FamCA are to do right by and the criminal law to prevent them from doing wrong are a joke. This due to the Laws made by Parliament are a joke to some judges?

What non legal arguments have I been throwing up? I have been relying on the Family Law Act, Criminal Code and Crimes Act all legal argument or are you trying to say the only legal argument that can be given any weight to is the words of a judges thinking on a issue.


JUDGES ARE EMPLOYED AS INSTRUMENTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH TO UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH FIRST AND FOREMOST. THEY ARE NOT EMPOWERED TO MAKE THE LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND ANY LAW THEY CLAIM A RIGHT TO MAKE AS COMMON LAW IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

It is this abuse by some judges of the power bestowed on of these judges I am crusading; is long overdue needing enforcement. Like;

Conan said; Why are children moving interstate being tied to the Criminal code?

Did you read s.142.2 of the Code or like judges are you attempting to claim error or ignorance in defiance of s.9.2 to s9.4 of the Code. My point was to basis an Order on a benefit over the best interest and continuing all family member  relationship of the child is a breach of the Code and thereby unlawful. This gives grounds for a Writ of Certiorari for an expedient quashing of the Order. The second ground would be the making of an Order to cause a detriment to the child and all the other family members by granting a mother a want over the needs of the child to interact at an existing established leave for the best interests of the child to be maintained.

Conan said; You also miss or do not understand why some of the legislation was brought in and has been subsequently ignored.

No you miss my point, legislation can not be ignored, although that is the way of some FamCA judges. We are not in a Judicial Dictatorship, that is why we have 3 independent branches of Government. Judges ignoring legislation that is relevant to the matter at hand is criminal and this criminal behaviour is what I seek should be dealt with. That is were the Criminal Code and the Crimes Act come in.

Legislation is created to deal with the unacceptable behaviour and thinking of judges without prosecution. For a judge to ignore without lawful right legislation that has been brought in to correct judges lose of direction of society, means the Criminal Code and Crimes Act are required to correct those judges misdirections society are objecting to.

 I have not been trying to show who is right or wrong I AM SAYING LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH HAVE BEEN BREACHED AND TO FIX THE CONTINUING BREACHES OF THOSE LAWS BY JUDGES WE NEED TO BIND TOGETHER AND FORCE THE LAW BREAKERS TO BE DEALT WITH by the Law they have breached.

If there had been "No Just Cause" for my applications there would have been no need for an Immunity to be given to Mushin J. The granting of the Immunity was the only way to defeat the "JUST CAUSES SOUGHT" because the evidence before the CJ proved beyond doubt crimes had been committed by Mushin J, to pervert justice.

Hopefully the new AG will be more willing to pursue FamCA judges who act in breach of the Law. Cause Judges of judgements that are not in the overall best interest of the child, but rely of that want of a mother, to rethink their direction of thought from mothers are the b all and end all of a child's best interest.

When do the supporters of bullies/spoilt brats stop supporting the spoilt brat behaviour of the bully, only when the bully is dealt with for spoilt brat behaviour. Judges like Young, Coleman, Carter JJ only continue the behaviour of Mushin J and the CJ because the CJ and Mr Ruddock refused to deal with Mushin J and then the CJ for their criminal behaviour. While Judges wish to think they can pervert the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth, legislation will be continued to be ignored. The Judicial Dictatorship imposed on our children will continue and our children will become more and more confused, angury and lost as to what the purpose and meaning of FAMILY is.


No Justice

You do not like responding to inconvenient truths but instead try to steer the matter to another subject

If you cannot be honest about your registration on this site, how do you expect readers to believe that anything else you write has not been edited to make you appear to the 'wronged' person

All you appear to be doing in dragging up rafts of differing legislation and attempting to find a piece that fits your case and then shouting 'criminal' when the Courts think you are being stupid

To date I think the most constructive thing you have done is to create a series of postings for people to point to and say "Do not be like him, bitter and obsessed and going round in circles"

Now are you on this site to vent or be constructive, or to continue to dig yourself a deeper hole. Using a half hearted claim about improving Family Law is nonsense, these postings are about YOU

Contravention of an Order

To Conan and anyone that may know that Law

Could, and I say again could, a contravention of an AVO, IO or FamCA Injunction be defended on the, provable by transcript evidence, basis of the Order contravened had been made due to offences committed against the proper administration of Government. Was not defended and the evidence given touched by false representation of evidence protected by s.128 certificate of evidence that, can not be stated here.

I have the transcript of the evidence relied on was a false claim I had admitted in the FamCA to having pointed a gun at her head. In that the FamCA hearing my ex claimed she had never made those statements to Anglicare had could not answer why it was stated in the Anglicare file she had made that statement and that police had taken a gun from me.

The statement made in the Anglicare file, not protected by the s.128 Cert, was I had "loaded a gun pointed it to one side of her and squeezed the trigger (BANG not stated) then pointed it at her and squeezed the trigger again" (BANG not stated).

What would happen if there was any fact to these falsehoods? BANG the gun would discharge and on the second occurrence BANG, she at minimum would have physical evidence of a bullet wound or dead.

To stop Anglicare perusing their lawful requirements of Notification, my Ex than claimed the police have now taken a gun I never had and when I sought to subpoena the Firearms division for any record they may have on me they stated there is nothing to subpoena because they have no records on me. A fact Mushin J did not like.


Like malmsteen, in "Over a year of lost time with my child" I have to contend with Judges acting in Contempt of the proper Law of evidence being the Evidence Act and placing undue weight on existing Orders or Judgements that are reliant on perjury and false allegations. The Evidence Act (E Act) makes such a reliance at Part 3.5 inadmissible. Fabrication of evidence (namely false claims of what a child says) being undefended-able for a lack of evidence to defend. How can you defend something that never occurred. In a criminal hearing the evidence is required but not in Family Civil or quasi criminal hearing. And Yes, s.69ZT of the Act removes Parts 3.2 to 3.8 of the E Act so the ability to disprove the unjust Orders or Judgement are unjust and lacking evidence to support them is removed.

That does not mean I think the Court should not be made aware of AVO's and Intervention Order (IO's). only that there should be no weight given to such, and pursuant to Part 3.5 of the E Act, weight is only given to the evidence of that AVO or IO or the AVO or IO is rejected altogether as unprovable by proper evidence.

Would the removal of s.69ZT (1) ( c) of the Act and an inclusion in the E Act at s.93 (d) of; child‑related proceedings in a Family Law matter.

Remove the over weight given by the judiciary in "child‑related proceedings in a Family Law matter" to existing Orders and Judgement Uncontested or criminally obtained?

This would dispense with the FamCA making judgements on unfounded and/or undefended Interim AVO's and IO's or Judgements and/or as in my case a behaviour IO not objected to, how do you object to behaviour you adhere to. My only objection was the distance so I could continue a friendship with a person who was a neighbour of my Ex. That person has now moved due to the death threats of my Ex on her and fear for the safety of her daughter after Anglicare told her to move. This while they, in full knowledge of my Ex's criminal behaviour, supported my Ex. My Ex almost strangled another neighbours daughter until the girls father intervened but did not press charges for fear of reprisals by my Ex. His statement to me was he was scared my Ex would burn his house down or the like. His evidence was to be presented but on Mushin J finding out that was the evidence of that witness he proceeded to commit the criminal offences he did to cause me to do as he said he would be doing "CRAWLING UNDER A LOG".

If my identification of the 2 constructive principal issues I have sought here are incomprehensible to Conan, they are;

1.   Is a contravention of an Order made by the commission of Offences against the Laws of a State and the Commonwealth enforceable?


2.   What can be done to reduce or eliminate the abuse the circumstantial appearance and power given to the "Face of the Record" of existing Orders and Judgements without the requirement of the evidence of those Orders or Judgements that is causing such prejudice to men in the Courts hearing Family Issues?

Conan can you be constructive rather than the derogatory person you appear to me to be?

Yes Conan as I have said in the past, I have the evidence, I have the will and conviction to cause Judges to comply with the Law they have sworn Oath of Office to do right not wrong by.

I am resided to the fact due to Young J March 2007, I will probably never see my children again because of the criminal unaccountability of Judges causing other Judges to be granted protection in Contempt of the Constitution of proven MISCONDUCT.

How can you prove MISCONDUCT  when other than a Commonwealth Judicial Immunity, Contempt of accountability for crimes against a Judicial Power of the Commonwealth, Oath of Office and Law of the Commonwealth is obstructed by fellow Judges. This is a major contributor to male suicides, which I believed in error?, was one of the majors of DIDS and this site.

How many Judges should be dealt with for manslaughter due to the detriment and questionable lawful destruction of fathers and children's rights to interact on a regular basis. Due to, the eyes of some Judges are that their duty is to assists in enforcing the WANTS of woman over the LAW, and the rights of CHILDREN AND MEN alike.

How many malmsteen's, "Over a year of lost time with my child", does it take for the Laws of the Commonwealth (legislation) to cause judges that ignore legislation be made accountable for those Commonwealth Criminal Offences that will only be stopped by a proper administration of Government/Justice not Legislation that ignorred and not enforced by any Court or Judge?

If the Secretary_SPCA had not intervened (not in the Court) and assisted malmsteen would he be 1 of the 5 a day stat's. If you truly want to reduce those figures assist in making Judges accountable for the crimes they commit against the Laws of the Commonwealth. That behaviour does not just effect me but it is the bulk of the cause of male suicide, so is a subject of PUBLIC INTEREST, does that not mean the AG is obliged by duty to intervene where such is brought to his attention?

Is JUSTICE NOT THE BALL, IS THE RIGHTS OF A FAIR HEARING AND PROPER DETERMINATION OF ANY ACUSATION NOT AN EYE on THE BALL. IS THE REQUIREMENT OF PROPER EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY ACUSATION NOT AN EYE on THE BALL, IS THE PUTTING OF UNFAIR WEIGHT on UNCONTESTED ORDERS NOT AN EYE on THE BALL.

Or are you meaning the WANTS of woman to appease their dysfunctional family behaviour due to they have tooooooo much time on their hands and their girlfriends claim they would be better off without the father in their lives YOUR EYE on THE BALL.

Yes, I did file 2 site user names with the same e-mail but never used the other 1 because I forgot I had it. It was this username that was blocked because I said the truth about Judges of the FamCA. I have the evidence to support what I say otherwise because I am not in a Courtroom I would be open to the Law of slander and not be protected by s.24F of the Crimes Act Hopefully a Judge like Mushin J might try me for Contempt of Court by speaking out against the judges behaviour and bringing the Court into disrepute. Then I can cause proper knowledge of the criminal behaviour of some of the Judges of the FamCA. Now that would be something.

No I am not smart, I am solely seeking my rights to justice, a fair hearing and the requirement of proper evidence to prove I am a criminal the Judges of the FamCA make false claim to without a proper hearing and determination of all the facts and proper evidence. AS ARE SO MANY OTHERS on THIS SITE.

I don't need to justify myself I only need justice, a fair hearing and the requirement of proper evidence not false unsubstantiated accusation.

Time wise I live on about 3 hrs sleep a day because of the instance Judges are unaccountable for their crimes against the Laws of the Commonwealth. 4 to 6 if I take 10mgs of Mogadon©. As I do a lot of work of the Train Rail system I have to be very careful with what and when I take it, we have a .00 drug and alcohol policy of DCBM (DONOT COME BACK MONDAY) if found in breach of that. As I mainly play with big boys toys like backhoes, excavators, Loaders, Hi Rails (trucks that ride the rail) and the like where the guys on the ground are reliant on me to BE AWARE. Stress, lack of sleep and drugs are not the best combinations, the beauty is sitting on your backside is less tiring to me than the management and physical work I did before my issues with the Court Judges.

Conan are you a member of the BAR, or clerk of the Court?

That would explain your play on words of "old Commonwealth and Dominion Laws", your defence of the unlawful behaviour (MISCONDUCT) of Judges with splashes of the insight and sort of constructive comments to some of the others on this site sugests the like to me.

I did not think this site would be much help in causing FamCA Judges to be caused to desist in their insistence of being the enforcers of woman's wants. Cause them to fore fill their duties to their Oath of Office, to justice and the Judicial Power and Laws of the Commonwealth. But 1 can live or exist in hope.






Last edit: by No-Justice

Why don't you help others?

No-Justice, why do you not put all your knowledge and energies in to helping people. You seemed fixed on past battles; forget lost battles - concentrate on winning the war!
Ever thought of applying for the leadership of the Liberal Party?
 

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. 
The war is not lost till we all give up, bullies like some of the justices due their claim OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY, like most bullies, they think they are invincible.

While that is allowed to continue judges will continue to ignore legislation and the Laws of the Commonwealth. Do we need another Guy Fawkes or something akin to the French Revolution before the MISCONDUCT OF JUDGES is dealt with by those charged with the duty of enforcing the Laws of the Commonwealth.

The number of disgruntled litigants with "Just Cause" is increasing not decreasing. NSW have an appropriate independent complaints tribunal in place that deals with the Judges and complaints that are proven. Why has this not been taken to the next leave because Judges refuse to be accountable for their wilful acts in breach of the Commonwealth Law.

Last edit: by No-Justice

Orion said
Agog,

please post your rebuttal to the primary attatchment theory,

also my ex has now declared herself pregnant, and i suspect will soon announce she will be setting up house with 2nd baby's father, so now i find myslef behind that 8-ball too, advice on that issue would appreciated.



Not my rebuttal - just a series of papers and judgments on the issue - when time permits

Regarding your second point I believe your partner has been discussing previous issues with Monteverdi. As much as I don't enjoy dropping extra work on his lap you might be better to stay on that proven horse.

He 'might' have a little more time later in the week (watch for any postings he makes from tomorrow)

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Posts from this topic have been moved by members. 4 posts have been transferred to topicview.

Site Director

Make professionals more accountable for their actions

Artemis said
The family report writer explained to me that the report was "a snapshot" sometimes confronting and sometimes not a true reflection of the reality. They (the report writer) can only go on what they are presented with at the time of writing.

How can this become primary evidence in a case. Especially when you have an existing routine for the child where they are perfectly happy spending time with their father. Why should this be disrupted by a willful desire to move interstate?

The next step for the parent with majority residency is to throw up hands and cry poor. Then it's either fork out for all travel, or don't see your child. The court mentality of the 50's doesn't get that women can earn and have a responsibility to provide for their own once they separate from their partner.

Of course it can all be contravened and appealed, but meanwhile that intimacy is lost forever. And who has the emotional staying power, let alone finances for all this?
Was your Family Reporters name Joy Slattery.  Ms Slattery it seems has said to quite a few people both male and female that she feels by just simply observing them and asking them a few questions that she believes they could be dangerous to their children and should not be allowed to see their children.  Ms Slattery in her Family Report does not base these ASSUMPTIONS on any Medical Evidence or any other documention that would suggest a person was dangerous.  Ms Slattery simply consults with Legal Proffessionals who also alarmingly ASSUME a person is dangerous with no evidence to prove it.

Can who ever is reading this imagine the horror when I was faced with the same frighting ASSUMPTIONS by a Judical Officer of the Family Court Justice Mushin.  Justice Mushin did not believe it was necessary to not read or listern to any medical evidence that was vital to the case stating the parent of the child in question was not dangerous to the child but a loving caring parent.  The Medical Professional denyed his Freedom of Speech as a witness on behalf of his patient to state that the child in question was recommended by him to seek Professional Medical help from a Child Psychologist.  The child was ordered to never be taken to a Child Psychologist by Justice Mushin.

Justice Mxxxxx stated in his court of law he was conducting that he was a MEDICAL EXPERT and due to his many years on the bench had the insite to determine when a person was lying and when someone was not.  This is what Justice Mxxxxx told the court he based his orders on.

Justice Mxxxxxn and other legal Professionals and those employed by the Courts in Australia should be held accountable for their ethical conduct.  Laws in Australia regarding the ethical conduct of these professionals need to be made stricter.

Please write in if simular unethical conduct has made you a victim and you can not see your child for many years.

Its time to put a stop to the above and have human rights violations stopped in Australian Courts.  Children and Families have rights.

We need to live in a more moral society.  Lets be united together against this injustice.
Site admin notes: I have some concerns about this post naming parties without supporting evidentiary components. Edits made to Justice concerned. Site Moderators please review and move to private forum if required. Guest posts of this type may not be posted without edits. Topic is incorrect and post may move.
No-Justice said
While that is allowed to continue judges will continue to ignore legislation and the Laws of the Commonwealth. Do we need another Guy Fawkes or something akin to the French Revolution before the MISCONDUCT OF JUDGES is dealt with by those charged with the duty of enforcing the Laws of the Commonwealth.
What on Earth has Guy Fawkes and the French Revolution got to do with this, talk about going off in strange directions

The Guy Fawkes thing was a political issue between the different supporters of James and the power of the Crown

The French Revolution was a middle class power struggle aided by the downtrodden against the French Monarchists.

I think the site moderators should move some of your posts to the Humour section.
In response to what would it take.

I believe that the assumptions, views, values, reasons and logic are so deep and buried that it will take years to revisit the world to an enlightened state. This must be akin to the dark ages and the 'fiddling while rome burns' scenario. There is no interest in an ideal based society - only the pragmatic with a daily focus - moderated by the political correct.

So yes - is it an martyred,idealistic statement or a influential enlightened change we want?

Its making it seem so sensible, obvious and non threatening that even the most insecure person can appreciate the glory of it.

Gosh - a bit of pulpit there!

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets