Sydney judge Garry Neilson rebuked over 17-hour judgment

The state's highest court has rebuked a Sydney judge for reading aloud an epic 17-hour judgment over four days, costing taxpayers and the parties thousands of dollars in court and legal fees.

District Court Judge Garry Neilson – who courted controversy in 2015 after making comments about incest, paedophilia and homosexuality – raised the ire of two Court of Appeal judges for delivering a lengthy judgment on the bench rather than publishing written reasons.

The Director-General’s obligation to disclose corrupt conduct

Under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the Director-General has a responsibility to report certain forms of corrupt conduct to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

Corrupt conduct involves the misuse of public office, for example:

• dishonesty
• partiality (ie. bias)
• breach of trust (ie. misuse of one’s position), or
• misuse of government information where such conduct could amount to a criminal offence, a disciplinary offence or give reasonable grounds for dismissal of a staff member.

Federal judge declares constitution void, threatens civil defendant with death

Most Americans believe that we have a reasonably fair justice system with scholarly judges at the helm. Well, how about a federal judge who suspends the Constitution, confiscates all of a litigant’s assets, orders him not to hire defense counsel, and pronounces his orders enforceable by death? 

That’s exactly what federal Judge Royal Furgeson did to Internet pioneer Jeff Baron, in a case that, New York lawyer David Relkin says is “the most outrageous denial of a person’s basic constitutional and human rights in this Country since the abolition of slavery.”

In the Texas case, Judge Furgeson “sentenced” Baron to an unprecedented “human receivership” to enable the judge’s lawyers to loot Baron’s Juvenile Diabetes Research Trust.

US Supreme Court roundup: Ruling says Judges may be sued in civil rights cases.

“The Supreme Court ruled today that state judges may be sued for civil rights violations and may be ordered to pay the lawyers’ fees of those who sue them successfully.

While the 5-to-4 decision permitted only suits for injunctions, not damages, it marked a significant retreat from the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity to which the Court has long adhered.

The corrupt foreign Parliament of Australia and it's spin doctors

This Stylised "Armorial Bearings of the Commonwealth of Australia" above has absolutely NO authority. 

This is a FARCE to have this used of Acts as the proper " Armorial Bearings of the Commonwealth of Australia is used for PUBLIC FUNCTIONARIES Not Law People under this Seal are Personating something there NOT which is a Criminal offence PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIA GOVERNMENT ARE FOREIGN TO OUR CONSTITUTION BELOW. 

Justice for none. Whistleblocked! Australian whistleblowing lawyer faces lifetime ban for exposing legal, judicial and government corruption

At 10 am this Friday morning 5 October 2012, in Melbourne, a prominent Australian journalist, lawyer and political activist, Mr James Johnson will be sentenced on two charges of “professional misconduct” and faces being banned from practising law for at least 5 years (possibly for life) as payback for blowing the whistle on widespread corruption and misconduct in Australia’s legal system.

Earlier this month, the Victorian government (in its Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal) ruled that despite a distinguished two decade career amongst the elite of the legal profession, Mr Johnson’s crime? Making comprehensive whistleblower complaints about corruption and misconduct by a number of Australian barristers, solicitors and judges – complaints that, despite their seriousness and the weight of evidence behind them, the relevant government authorities have not and will not investigate to determine whether they are true or not.

LCJ concerned about McKenzie friends ‘preying’ on vulnerable clients

The lord chief justice has sounded an alarm at the presence of ‘far too many’ litigants in person across the justice system. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, speaking today at his annual press conference, said numbers of unrepresented litigants have continued to grow.

He cited the family courts as the area where the problem is greatest, although he stopped short of calling for the reintroduction of legal aid to support cases involving disputes over children.

Senator Culleton's submission to the High Court

Senator Culleton has been sent to the High Court regarding the eligibility of his election to the Senate.

He has decided to make the most out of this turn of events and has put forward some serious questions in his submission to the High Court.

"A correction to the system is coming and if the Senate want to question my eligibility, I will use the opportunity of appearing in the High Court to in turn put forward questions regarding the validity of the Parliament and High Court," he said.

"The judiciary expects everyday people to follow the laws but they must first set an example and do the right thing when they are in positions of leadership."

"People are committing suicide and losing their hard earned property due to our courts. Australians are hurting and it simply is not good enough."

Is your child in OOHC ten years old? They can legally apply to come home.

Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 No 157 - S51 Duty of Secretary to give information to certain persons

(1)  If a child or young person is in the care responsibility of the Secretary under this Part or a warrant issued under section 233, the Secretary:
(a)  must, as soon as practicable, cause notice of the fact that the child or young person is in the care responsibility of the Secretary, and the fact that an application may be made to the Secretary for the discharge of the child or young person from the care responsibility of the Secretary and the procedures for making such an application, to be given to:
(i)  in the case of a child who is of or above the age of 10 years or a young person—the child or young person, and

NSW Legal Aid - Care and protection matters

Chief Magistrate Carolyn Huntsman, do you know the laws of the NSW Children's Court?

Over a month ago now, three children were removed from their loving mummy and daddy's care because an unregistered docs worker signed a piece of paper say the children were at Risk of Serious Harm.  Removing children without prior court proceedings and not giving parents to defend the hearsay of caseworkers is one of the most traumatic experiences a child can have.  Children who have been removed from their mothers at birth, are still known to suffer major anxiety and fears well into the child's seventh year, and after the child was returned - meaning they should not have been removed at all.

Children are seen suffering injuries in care because supervision is less than adequate, and crying on phone calls to parents and begging to come home is something no child should suffer at all - unless there are extremely serious reasons to do so.  Unfortunately child protection rules the roost these days, and the words accountability and transparency have long been lost to a government who spends more money covering it's ass than actually doing the right thing by its people.

So what does happen when children have been removed on Emergency Care and Protection Orders?

Well, the legal requirements firstly are that the department (child protection) must bring the matter to the attention of the courts within three working days.  [i]  However if you’re a department lawyer or Rob Hosking from Hosking Lawyers in Goulburn[ii], those rules don’t apply to you.

Sydney's dirtiest lawyer John Meehan of Campbelltown continues blackmail with support of OLSC

John Paul Meehan, Campbelltown (solicitor currently representing the NSW Department of Community Services in Care Proceedings), is now threatening clients that he is "applying to the court to have costs awarded against" parents of children - whom he participated in the removal of.

So now, when parents ultimately fight to the end to have their children restored - imparticular in cases where the magistrates including former President of the Children's Court (Judge Mark Marien), has continually ordered the return of  the children - he (John Meehan) will threaten that "if you do not with draw your case of trying to have your stolen children returned", he will suck up to the magistrate and have them order court costs against you - even if you are in receipt of Legal Aid funding.  He also tells parents that the money they owe "will be deducted from their Centrelink payments".

Sydney Magistrate Terrence Murphy blames mother for child being sexually assaulted in care

Sydney Magistrate Terrence Murphy has recently handed down a decision in the Supreme Court of NSW, where he has dispicabbly blamed a mother for her daughter being sexually assaulted.  He has used this as an excuse to side with the Department of Community Services Campbelltown Office in stating that the newborn baby of this mother belongs in care - because the mother failed to protect her other child.

It is routinely common these days for DoCS caseworkers to blame mothers for being victims of domestic violence and use this as the reason for removing their children.  Little do they know that some of these children are turning suicidal because they have been taken away from the only family that they have ever known, and the mother who has loved and protected them their whole lives.

Magistrate Stella Struthridge violating Oath of Office

Former lawyer Stella Struthridge has been a magistrate in the Victorian Courts for some three years now.  Common sense tells us that no lawyer is trustworthy, hence they would make an even more dishonest judge, but common government continues to promote these people regardless.

Today in court, Struthridge reached an all new low, when for the second time, she dismissed an application for Personal Violence Intervention Order, after a DHS worker, Heather Podesta, of Albury / Wodonga DHS assaulted a client in front of multiple witnesses.

The second application by the victim has come with witnesses to the assault - yet Struthridge has refused to even hear the application before setting aside a verdict.

Magistrate refuses to use intellectual property to protect three year old boy from harm

Former Intellectual Property Lawyer, come Children's Court Lawyer, Darrin Craig Cain, has recently handed down a decision whereby he has sentenced a three year old boy to a further fifteen years confinement with his abusers.  The magistrate was presented with irrefutable evidence that he was and always had been safe in his mothers care, however turning a blind eye, even to photographic evidence and sided, yet again, with the Department of Human Services, whom he once represented in proceedings.

The magistrate could not substantiate any fact or allegation the department put forward, regarding concerns of the mothers ability to care for the child, but handed down an order giving the mother only quarterly access with her young son.

Magistrate Carney devastating Sydney families

Asshole Judge Carney --- Chewed too many pens - got ink poisoning maybe ?? Cant think straight??Six weeks after DoCS took baby "Doc" into "care", they're still breaking every law possible and getting away with it.  Isn't it wonderful to have a judge in your pocket.

Magistrate Carney seems only too happy to adjourn this newborns life another three months and into the new year to allow DoCS to entertain the court some more with their shenanigans.

Magistrate Carney may have transpired from the Roads and Traffic Committee, but one would think that before she be allowed to make decisions regarding the life of children, imparticular newborns, that she be knowledgeable on time limits imposed in matters relating to Children's Courts.

Whether she knows or just doesn't care is irrelevant, because the damage being done to newborn children, whom she happily boasts about "taking three babies per week", is not only unforgivable, it is unlawful.

Federal Magistrate Michael Jarret blocking victims right to appeal by refusing to produce original reasons for judgement

Magistrate Jarret from the Brisbane Federal Magistrate Courts, has hit our headlines again with yet another matter, where he is refusing to produce the Reasons for Judgement - in a case where he was severely biased toward a mother and young boy.  It appeared that the Magistrate worked with the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer to remove the child from his mother, after repeatedly refusing to hear the boys evidence on what his wishes were.  This is contrary to all legislation and the fundamental rights of the child.

By Magistrate Jarret refusing to produce the Reasons for Judgement, he is covering his own butt from being dragged across the coals for such an atrocious decision and placement on the boy, but he is also preventing the mother and boy from appealing his decision in a higher court.  To appeal the decision the appellants need the Reasons for Removal.

This is not only biased but a clear denial of the mother and child's fundamental human rights and this is the perfect example why Judicial Immunity should never be allowed in our court system.

Newest lawyer discovered trafficking children for financial gain

Hume Legal - Joanna Jarasevic - picked up another easy score, that over a few months makes ten thousand dollars cash, and cashed right in.  Unfortunately this lawyer was not working for the department at the time, and had no right to deliberately tank her clients case which ultimately ended up with the kids sent to foster care till they're eighteen.  The case was simple, clear cut and the biggest point on her side, was the Emergency Order for removal of the kids was not only unlawful - it was maladministration at best and corruption at worst.

The cow  should have had this case dismissed. Instead she did nothing in almost a month. Not one affidavit.  All she did was collude with the department, and used her scare tactics saying "there's heaps of evidence".  Our auditors concluded the complete opposite, and to tell her clients to "consent to establishment", was giving up the battle before it started.  She had a fantastic opportunity to put some overreaching lazy caseworkers in place and on the spot, and to save other families the same fate she sentenced this family to.  But that would have meant doing more work, and getting paid less money in the long run.  As most legal aid lawyers state "they don't get paid enough money to do affidavits".  For christ sake, how can parents defend themselves when their own solicitors roll over because it's more financially viable.

Regarding the allegations - there wasn't a thing that couldn't be explained and most of their [FACS] dribble was lies. So much, it would make your toes curl, believe me.  Fucking dirty child trafficking mutts. NB: This mutt was given enough notice that her clients were now informed of what happens when u CONSENT TO ESTABLISHMENT. They told her No. And she lied in court and said they said yes, making docs not have to even prove one of their single reprehensible lies. They make me sick. The whole lot of them.

High Court rejects ICAC's bid to investigate Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen

The NSW ICAC has lost its bid to investigate Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen which may have implications for past corruption inquiries like those involving Eddie Obeid, reports Michaela Whitbourn.

A landmark High Court ruling on the powers of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption has "destroyed" a major part of the watchdog's jurisdiction and could lead to corruption findings against previous targets of inquiries being overturned, a former judge and ICAC commissioner has warned.

David Ipp, QC, who presided over historic corruption inquiries into Labor figures including Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald, said Parliament should intervene to give the commission back its powers "but whether it will is open to question".

The High Court ruled on Wednesday the ICAC had no power to investigate Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen, SC, over allegations she perverted the course of justice. The decision, which gave a narrow interpretation to one of the definitions of "corrupt conduct" in the ICAC Act, has far-reaching implications for past and future corruption inquiries.

Subcategories

  • Case Law
  • Constitutional Issues
  • Judicial Corruption
  • Lawyers and Solicitors
  • Law Reform
  • Legal Aid
  • Legislation and Acts

    We intend on using almost one dozen different legislation / acts. Below are a few that we feel would have the most impact for class action causes and or entry to Australian Crime Commission help.  What we need to be able to utilise the legislations is more than one person claiming the same type of offence, and by different departments and different areas.  This can show mass conspiracies so to speak which would then be covered by the National Crime Act.

    We also plan to use Crimes (Hostages) Act 1900 as this act allows for persons being held hostage (ie our children) until we agree to submit to persons to what they ask.  This is keeping a hostage, and by DOCs taking your children and not returning them until you have signed undertakings is not only hostage taking but blackmail. 

    There is no such thing as CONsent Orders.  You cannot possibly say anybody voluntarily signs these orders when the department has their children and will not return them until the orders are signed.  These are not Consent Orders.  This is Blackmail.

    When crimes total to over 3 years imprisonment which we can make an easy jump to, they are then also available to go to the National Crimes Act.

    We also plan on using the Director General as DOCs legislation and code of conduct and ethics documentation available also shows that any crime committed against these acts MUST be reported to the director general.  And as such the director general also has an obligation to report fraud and misconduct to the Attorney General and the Australian Crimes Commission.

    We will use the evidence we have to submit to lower level figures about their staff and they are then obligated to submit the complaint (by legislation) to the director general.  If they do not do this, they are then setting themselves up for charges also.  We will know if this is done because not only will we be submitting this information / complaints this way, but we will also be submitting directly to the director general also, who ALSO is under obligation to send to the Australian Crime Commsision and the Independant Commission Against Corruption.

    So, you say ... What do you need to do now ??

    You need to gather all your documents and evidence and start splitting hairs and complaints down to division / person and complaint type using the register we are currently creating.  You also need to contact me for other complaint types that we are not aware of so that we can include this also.

    This may take some time but time is all we have and the more the better.

  • SLAPP - Strategic lawsuit against public participation