"Crimes Act 1900 - Section 545B - Intimidation or Annoyance by Violence or Otherwise"

(1) Whosoever:

(a) with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, or

(b) in consequence of such other person having done any act which he had a legal right to do, or of his having abstained from doing any act which he had a legal right to abstain from doing,

wrongfully and without legal authority:

(i) uses violence or intimidation to or toward such other person or his wife, child, or dependant, or does any injury to him or to his wife, child, or dependant, or

(ii) follows such other person about from place to place, or

(iii) hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof, or

(v) follows such other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street, road, or public place,

is liable, on conviction before the Local Court, to imprisonment for 2 years, or to a fine of 50 penalty units, or both.

(2) In this section:
"Intimidation" means the causing of a reasonable apprehension of injury to a person or to any member of his family or to any of his dependants, or of violence or damage to any person or property, and "intimidate" has a corresponding meaning.
"Injury" includes any injury to a person in respect of his property, business, occupation, employment, or other source of income, and also includes any actionable wrong of any nature.

(Source : http://corrigan.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s545b.html)

"Crimes Act 1900 - Section 351B - Aiders and Abettors Punishable as Principals"

(1) Every person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of any offence punishable on summary conviction may be proceeded against and convicted together with or before or after the conviction of the principal offender.

(2) On conviction any such person is liable to the penalty and punishment to which the person would have been liable had the person been the principal offender.

(3) This section applies to offences committed before or after the commencement of this section.

(4) This section applies to an indictable offence that is being dealt with summarily.

"Coffs Harbour Family Courts, ICLs and Court Reporters - Coincidental Stuff Ups or Collusion on a Big Scale?"

If you are lucky enough, and female, to get Judge Jarret - don't bother going to court!  Just run.  Pack up the family at the first sign of issues or court paperwork, and get the hell out of there.

This magistrate a few years ago sent a beautiful young girl to live with her father - after she disclosed to her mother what her daddy had been doing --- dont think this is a case of mother punishing father by lying - the mother and father had already split and the mother already gave the father liberal contact.

After taking the matter to the police and reporting it, the young girl - was taken to Bravehearts for counselling - in which she did disclose and is now documented, her sexual abuse by her father.  The young girl was said to be doing well.  She had not seen her father in over twelve months, the nightmares were stopping, though the police still hadn't investigated the matter enough to file charges.

"Crown solicitor for DoCS, Michelle England caught breaking the law again!"

Congratulations Michelle England for being today's winner on Sydney Lawyers Asshole of the Day!  You have been nominated several times for the award, and after a fantastic performance in the Supreme Court last week, you have won this amazing opportunity!

First of all, we would like to tell you a little bit about our contestant Michelle.  She successfully argued her matter first in the Supreme Court in Sydney before Judge Balls as the Respondent.  A fantastic win, and she almost won another case also in the Supreme Court that wasn't even being argued that day!  Talk about saving the tax-payers money Michelle, what a fine legal example you are.

Then [she] successfully won a case against a grandmother fighting to have contact with her grandchild in the care of the "System", after being allowed to argue that the grandmother - who is also in a wheelchair - was not a suitable person to be having contact with her grandchild because she attended a protest.  Great going Michelle, you're certainly setting the style for ethical legal arguments in the NSW Courts.

"Cartel Provisions - Competition and Consumer Act 2010 - Section 44ZZRD "

cartel3 467b2COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 44ZZRD

Cartel provisions

             (1)  For the purposes of this Act, a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding is a cartel provision if:

                     (a)  either of the following conditions is satisfied in relation to the provision:

                              (i)  the purpose/effect condition set out in subsection (2);

                             (ii)  the purpose condition set out in subsection (3); and

                     (b)  the competition condition set out in subsection (4) is satisfied in relation to the provision.

Purpose/effect condition

             (2)  The purpose/effect condition is satisfied if the provision has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of directly or indirectly:

                     (a)  fixing, controlling or maintaining; or

                     (b)  providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of;

"Cartel Provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 - Section 44zrd"

cartel3 467b2COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 44ZZRD

Cartel provisions

             (1)  For the purposes of this Act, a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding is a cartel provision if:

                     (a)  either of the following conditions is satisfied in relation to the provision:

                              (i)  the purpose/effect condition set out in subsection (2);

                             (ii)  the purpose condition set out in subsection (3); and

                     (b)  the competition condition set out in subsection (4) is satisfied in relation to the provision.

Purpose/effect condition

             (2)  The purpose/effect condition is satisfied if the provision has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of directly or indirectly:

                     (a)  fixing, controlling or maintaining; or

                     (b)  providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of;

"Surveillance Devices Act 2007 - Section 11 Prohibition on Communication or Publication of Private Conversations or Recordings of Activities"

Just a thoughtThere has been much discussion over whether or not persons can record their conversations wiith the Child Protection workers.  It would seem that the clear answer is yes.  

The law states that it is okay to record a conversation " if the communication or publication is no more than is reasonably necessary in connection with an imminent threat of serious violence to persons or of substantial damage to property".

Given that it is a criminal offence, and a very serious one, to remove a child without lawful excuse, i would classify this as a definite emminent threat of serious violence.  Aggravated kidnap, is whereby two or more persons are involved in the kidnap - and there are generally more than one caseworker involved in the kidnap of our children using false and misleading information. 

" Crimes Act 1900 No 40 - Section 545B- Intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise"

intimidation3 06a90(1)  Whosoever:

(a)  with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, or

(b)  in consequence of such other person having done any act which he had a legal right to do, or of his having abstained from doing any act which he had a legal right to abstain from doing,

      wrongfully and without legal authority:

(i)  uses violence or intimidation to or toward such other person or his wife, child, or dependant, or does any injury to him or to his wife, child, or dependant, or

(ii)  follows such other person about from place to place, or

(iii)  hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof, or

(iv)  (Repealed)

(v)  follows such other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street, road, or public place,

      is liable, on conviction before the Local Court, to imprisonment for 2 years, or to a fine of 50 penalty units, or both.

(2)  In this section:

Intimidation means the causing of a reasonable apprehension of injury to a person or to any member of his family or to any of his dependants, or of violence or damage to any person or property, and intimidate has a corresponding meaning.

Injury includes any injury to a person in respect of his property, business, occupation, employment, or other source of income, and also includes any actionable wrong of any nature.  (Source : http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+40+1900+cd+0+N)

"Crimes Act 1900 No 40 - Section 249M - Menaces"

threat e7b2b249M   Menaces—meaning

(1)  For the purposes of this Part, menaces includes:
(a)  an express or implied threat of any action detrimental or unpleasant to another person, and
(b)  a general threat of detrimental or unpleasant action that is implied because the person making the unwarranted demand holds a public office.
(2)  A threat against an individual does not constitute a menace unless:
(a)  the threat would cause an individual of normal stability and courage to act unwillingly in response to the threat, or
(b)  the threat would cause the particular individual to act unwillingly in response to the threat and the person who makes the threat is aware of the vulnerability of the particular individual to the threat.  (Source : http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+40+1900+cd+0+N)

"DoCS solicitor John Meehan blames mother over sexual assault of daughter, instead of predator-father"

john meehanpig3 dbdb3A nine-year old girl, who was sexually assaulted multiple times by her father, has been given a longer jail sentence than the perpetrator himself. 

Thanks to John Meehan, low-life client-menacing solicitor from Campbelltown, who does the dirty work for child protection in the area, the girl has been taken from her mother and placed into the overflowing foster-care system.  John Meehan has continually blamed the mother for having her children taken by child protection, because as he states "she failed to protect the child".

Truth be known, the mother had multiple AVOs out against the father (her ex-husband), and wanted no contact between him and his daughter unless it was supervised.  DoCS refused the mothers plea for help, instead forcing her to ensure that the girl had regular contact with her father - without supervision.  Failure to abide by this order from child protection would result in the department removing the children.   The mother was left no choice.

When the girl approached her step-father, and informed him of what events had taken place, they rang the police.  Shortly thereafter, the police arrived, as did the Department of Human Services (if that's what you can really call them) to remove the children.  Their reasons ... "the mother did not protect her children".

How these animals get away with such attrocious actions on a regular basis is beneath me.  Does John Meehan have children himself?  Does he have grandchildren?  Would he blame his own daughter, if she was forced to send her child to a suspected paedophile, and his granddaughter was repeatedly sexually assaulted?

"Is John Meehan accusing Alecomm of being a terrorist organisation ?"

Seriously!  This old tyrant looks like he belongs in a bike club not on representing innocent children.  John's latest stunt is to accuse mothers in children's court of writing articles for Alecomm, or at minimum, being associated with us.

john meehan3 8b507

 Last time we checked, Alecomm is not listed on the Terrorist register, or the Criminal Gangs.  Maybe this guys is getting a little feeble in his old age and mistaking his own actions for others.

After all, the definition of domestic trafficking by the Australian Federal Police fits well into this mans job description.  He receives payment for removing children, or at least conspiring to remove them.  (aka accomplice).  He moves children to other parties who are not the lawful carer of those children and works to have them placed with other people who financially profit from having these children.

"Calls for resignation of DHS legal representative, as debate fires up over Meehans' multiple conflicts of intererest"

scum-newspaper 40162The public is now calling for the immediate resignation of John Paul Meehan, whom has continued to threaten and harass a mother, and accuse her of being associated with Alecomm (an organisation well-known for it's long-term charitable and benevolent assistance in helping parents and children who are being separated by spurious child protection workers and their "accomplices").  Many parents and parents turn to Alecomm for assistance after they are repeatedly screwed by the system in every sense, from the child protection workers who are allowed to repeatedly create a multitude of fictitious reasons for the removal of a child, to the down-right-cruel legal persons who purport to assist the innocent children and parents in a system so stacked against them, that its virtually impossible to believe until you have experienced it first-hand.

"Dennis Chapman attacks CAP members supporting parents in Children's Court"

Tas Ombudsman Report Excerpts a1de6Whatever you do when entering the Children's Courts - if you are applying for Legal Aid - make sure you specify that under no circumstances will you accept this poor excuse for a solicitor to represent you.  You might as well go into court yourself. 

CAP Support Group (Children and Parents) turned up as support for a mother who had her baby removed.

CAP has never been affiliated with ALECOMM, and to be honest, the groups work entirely different arena's - the only commonality between the organisations', is the fact that they both deal with the corruption instilled deep within Child Protection.

Officers at the Australian Legislative Ethics Commission generally deal with the administrative side of the operations of child protection (amongst other departments), and CAP is a support group that provides personal and group support for parents dealing with child protection.  Whilst ALECOMM does provide a great deal of support to our clients, this is not our only activity.

"Corruption in the High court of Australia revealed"

For the first time in Australian history, corruption has been revealed in the High Court.  Australians’ direct access to review by the High Court is guaranteed by our Constitution and it is being refused.

This week Australian Deputy Prime Minister Truss asked High Court Chief Justice French to file a case against corrupt judges, some of them in the High Court itself (letter attached).

Earlier, High Court judges Keifel, Bell and Crennan each defied the Australian Constitution to refuse three applicants their right to justice under section 75 (v). This is corruption at the highest level, according to legal definition of the term.  The case has implications for all Australians, many of whom are unaware that this section in the Constitution was deliberately placed there to provide protection against corrupt Federal government officers, such as Family Court judges.

"Lawyers of the Week"

Name Of Lawyer : David Menser
Law Firm Your Lawyer Works For : FACS
Suburb Of Lawyer : Wyong
State of Lawyer : NSW
Rating Of Lawyer : not one low enough
Reason For Rating Of Lawyer : He accepted false reports from FAC case workers and did not investigate these, threatened mother and sent this threat via email to mothers solicitor.  He called the grandmother a laughing joke to solicitor, which was then told to grandmother.  He called grandmother a whistle blower, threatened jail if the family attended rallies or was on facebook support group for victims of FACS,  he lied to support the fabricated affidavits of FACS workers, and smirked at parents and external family members when walking past.

Name Of Lawyer : Paul Grant
Law Firm Your Lawyer Works For : ICL / Legal Aid
Suburb Of Lawyer : Wyong
State of Lawyer : NSW
Rating Of Lawyer : 0
Reason For Rating Of Lawyer : made no attempt to speak in court , did not read replies to affidavits, received an extra $12,000 in grants off legal and still did nothing.  Lied to grandmother and said in court that he would be satisfied that the child be returned to grandmothers care if she got mental health clearance and character refs.  When she got this clearance and fifteen character refs, he then lied and said no sorry and agreed with FACS.  He did not take into consideration that the child had aboriginal heritage and child was placed with non-indigenous family.  He did not question why kinship care was not investigated or assessed, and did not question why there were no investigations into false malicious reports that had been made.

"Magistrate Daynor Trigg tells open court that the laws of parliament do not apply to him."

Alice Springs Magistrate (Daynor) Trigg recently told applicants to an appeal in civil court that the laws handed down by parliament do not apply to him.  The legislation pertaining to the matter was brought to his attention during the proceedings by the applicant.

Then he gave an Order which did not contain any reasons for judgement or decision - not surprising though given his lack of purporting to enforce the laws which he took oath to uphold.  How could he anyway, given his blatant disregard for them ... Replies to requests for Reasons for Order were "There are no written reasons provided which is not unusual in the Magistrates Jurisdiction.  Reasons were stated by the Magistrate orally (this is standard practice)."  However a search on judgements by Trigg showed every case had Reasons for Judgement provided. View

"Have you been SLAPPED?"

SLAPP SMLLR 7b164A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.*

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.*

A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims. *

Australian needs an anti-SLAPP statute.

"Australia needs an anti- SLAPP Statute"

slapp suits 2 5b111SLAPP suits are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.  It is a run-around of the ICCPR, by abusing the procedures of the court system to silence critics.  By entangling your opponent in expensive litigation you can effectively silence your opponent even if you know you don't have any shot at winning the lawsuit.  The point of a SLAPP suit is not to win, it's to silence and intimidate.* 

The conceptual thread that binds [SLAPPs] is that they are suits without substantial merit that are brought by private interests to "stop citizens from exercising their political rights or to punish them for having done so"...The longer the litigation can be stretched out, the more litigation that can be churned, the greater the expense that is inflicted and the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. The purpose of such gamesmanship ranges from simple retribution for past activism to discouraging future activism.* 

Here are some quick highlights about a federal (and state) Anti-SLAPP statute which could be codified:

  • The statue allows a judge to dismiss frivolous lawsuits filed against one who speaks out about a “matter of public concern” within the first 60 days.  “Matter of public concern” is defined expansively in the statute.
  • The Anti-SLAPP motion is supported by affidavits explaining to the court that the lawsuit is based on, relates to, or is in response to one’s exercise of his right to free speech, right to petition or right of association.

"Judge: Foster care system violates children's rights"

Texas has violated the constitutional rights of foster children by exposing them to an unreasonable risk of harm in a system where children "often age out of care more damaged than when they entered," a federal judge ruled Thursday.

"Years of abuse, neglect and shuttling between inappropriate placements across the state has created a population that cannot contribute to society, and proves a continued strain on the government through welfare, incarceration or otherwise," U.S. District Judge Janis Jack of Corpus Christi wrote in a decision as strongly worded as it was hotly anticipatedPDF (1.7 MB) download

How Many and Which Magistrates Ignored You're Affidavits ???

" The Children’s Court must admit in proceedings before it any evidence"  : This is part of the Child and Young Persons (Care and Protection) act 1988, and some very well known magistrates find this part of the legislation irrelevant when hearing cases.  To explain further ... We all know that DoCS don't believe that anybody except them should have a say in what happens to children they steal, but funny enough legislation says we should. I find it quite interesting though how many clients Alecomm has that are continually denied having their affidavits read into evidence because certain magistrates rule them out on technicalities.

A lot of these cases are now sitting in district and supreme court where it is more than obvious to the most stupid docs worker that the children should have been restored immediately to the parents / carers / grandparents from whom they were stolen some 1-2 years earlier, however the actions of the magistrates have prevented this and, of course, cost us tax payers millions upon millions of dollars.

Not only that, once the children's cases are finalised, as many of the children have been abused in care, of which docs have conveniently covered up and failed to notify any parties of, including children's clinicians, court clinicians, and the Ombudsman and Police, they are well and truly open from some massive forthcoming lawsuits - and rightfully so.  Smart magistrates would prevent this type of abuse occurring so frequently as they are responsible for the ongoing matters - not the solicitors.  After all they are supposed to know the law aren't they.

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