fbpx

Concealing a serious indictable offence is a crime - think Lawyers and Solicitors in Child Welfare Jurisdiction

(1) An adult--
(a) who knows or believes that a serious indictable offence has been committed by another person, and
(b) who knows or believes that he or she has information that might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for that offence, and
(c) who fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the NSW Police Force or other appropriate authority,
is guilty of an offence.
For example: Stealing, destroying etc records etc of any court or public office or Participation in Criminal Groups.

Participation in Criminal Groups

Participation in criminal groups

93T Participation in criminal groups

(1) A person who participates in a criminal group is guilty of an offence if the person--
(a) knows, or ought reasonably to know, that it is a criminal group, and
(b) knows, or ought reasonably to know, that his or her participation in that group contributes to the occurrence of any criminal activity.
: Maximum penalty--Imprisonment for 5 years.
(1A) A person who participates in a criminal group by directing any of the activities of the group is guilty of an offence if the person--
(a) knows that it is a criminal group, and
(b) knows, or is reckless as to whether, that participation contributes to the occurrence of any criminal activity.
: Maximum penalty--Imprisonment for 10 years.
(2) A person who assaults another person, intending by that action to participate in any criminal activity of a criminal group, is guilty of an offence.
: Maximum penalty--Imprisonment for 10 years.
(3) A person who destroys or damages property belonging to another person, or threatens to destroy or damage property belonging to another person, intending by that action to participate in any criminal activity of a criminal group, is guilty of an offence.
: Maximum penalty--Imprisonment for 10 years.
(4) A person who assaults a law enforcement officer while in the execution of the officer's duty, intending by that action to participate in any criminal activity of a criminal group, is guilty of an offence.
: Maximum penalty--Imprisonment for 14 years.
(4A) A person who participates in a criminal group whose activities are organised and on-going by directing any of the activities of the group is guilty of an offence if the person--
(a) knows that it is a criminal group, and
(b) knows, or is reckless as to whether, that participation contributes to the occurrence of any criminal activity.
: Maximum penalty--Imprisonment for 15 years.
(5) For the purposes of this section, an action is taken to be carried out in relation to a law enforcement officer while in the execution of the officer's duty, even though the law enforcement officer is not on duty at the time, if it is carried out--
(a) as a consequence of, or in retaliation for, actions undertaken by that law enforcement officer in the execution of the officer's duty, or
(b) because the officer is a law enforcement officer.
(6) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of this section a person may participate in a criminal group whether or not the person is a member of the criminal group.

 Source : http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s93t.html

Stealing, destroying etc records etc of any court or public office

138   Stealing, destroying etc records etc of any court or public office
Whosoever steals, or for any fraudulent purpose, takes from its place of deposit, for the time being, or from any person having the lawful custody thereof, or unlawfully and intentionally or recklessly cancels, obliterates, injures, or destroys, the whole or any part, of any record, document, or writing, of, or belonging to, any Court, or relating to any matter or cause, civil or criminal, pending, or terminated, in any Court, or relating to the business of any office or employment under Her Majesty, and being in any public office, shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years.
Source : http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s4.html

131 federal judges broke the law by hearing cases where they had a financial interest

Google running over free speech | Ben Garrison | Know Your MemeThe judges failed to recuse themselves from 685 lawsuits from 2010 to 2018 involving firms in which they or their family held shares, a Wall Street Journal investigation found.

More than 130 federal judges have violated U.S. law and judicial ethics by overseeing court cases involving companies in which they or their family owned stock.

A Wall Street Journal investigation found that judges have improperly failed to disqualify themselves from 685 court cases around the nation since 2010. The jurists were appointed by nearly every president from Lyndon Johnson to Donald Trump.

About two-thirds of federal district judges disclosed holdings of individual stocks, and nearly one of every five who did heard at least one case involving those stocks.

Alerted to the violations by the Journal, 56 of the judges have directed court clerks to notify parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves. That means new judges might be assigned, potentially upending rulings.

When judges participated in such cases, about two-thirds of their rulings on motions that were contested came down in favor of their or their family’s financial interests.

Mucky Judges

 

Mohammed, sex, video,
cocaine and Internet lover
Judge "J" in the
'Judge Khan Affair'
 
Shirt Lifting Roger
Dishonourable Charlie
  Judge J, who now lives in a £5,000,000 apartment in North London and drives a sports car, earned £117,680 per year, became a widow in 1995 at which point she moved in with Judge Khan. (Judge 'J' has taken early retirement on health grounds and is receiving a pension (now who would have guessed that)).  
Steve the Flasher
Magistrate Mick likes
his cleaners in the raw
Call-Girl Micky
Child Porno Dave
We don't only have 'Mucky Judges' and 'Corrupt Judges' we have 'DickHead Judges' as well.

Judge Julian Hall has blamed a 'ten year old' girl for being raped by a 'paedophile' and his friend because she "dressed provocatively" and when these paedophiles 'undressed her' Judge Hall said "the case was exceptional because she had been wearing a frilly bra and thong" and went on to call this 'child' a "young woman". Just how can this 'DickHead Judge' call a ten year old child a "young woman"?

The law is supposed to protect our children but we now have 'DickHead Judges' setting a standard and giving a green light to rape any victim on the chance they could be wearing "a frilly bra and thong".

DickHead JudgeJulian Hall

Dick Head here previously gave a nine month 'suspended' sentence to another paedophile for interfering with a 'six year old girl' and suggested "that he gives £250 ($500us) to buy his victim a new bicycle to cheer her up". Well I suppose that raised a child's status to that of a prostitute (payment for sexual favours rendered). You have to wonder what 'skeletons' are hidden in this 'Dickhead'scupboard! __ Click HERE to read the story.

DickHead JudgeJohn Walford

Dick head Judge John Walford described a paedophile as “vulnerable” after he carried out two separate sex attacks on a 7 year old girl and declared that his problems would increase if he was sent to prison. He then asked the parents of the seven year old victim to "understand" the attacker.Click HERE to read the story.

Judge Michael Stokes soft on'another' sex offender!

Following his outing in May 2006, it is perfectly clear that Judge Michael Stokes QC has learned nothing about the public contempt for his hairbrained lenient sentencing of sex attackers and child abusers. The arrogant old clown has been at it again, this time at Nottingham Crown Court.

Mucky Judges by the Barrow Load

An e-mail from 'Down Under' shows things are no better down there, see Ozz Judges

Corrupt Judges in the Republic of Ireland's Judiciary

 

.Know of any others? E-mail me the info

Source : https://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/muckyjudges.htm

Family Law Think Tank on Serene Teffaha from Advocate Me

May be an image of 2 people and textSerene Teffaha, principal solicitor at law firm, Advocate Me, allegedly in closed court submissions during a matter before the magistrates court in Brisbane, accused the Family Court and its judiciary and police of enabling abuse of a child.

Ms Teffaha has taken a few jabs at the Family Court at rallies in Melbourne. On at least one occasion she has labelled the court as "corrupt".

Now the Victorian Legal Services Board has cancelled her practising certificate and she is unable to practise law. The board has not said what led to the cancellation. Effectively, she cannot operate her business and has no way to support herself.

Brisbane magistrate, Anthony Gett referred Ms Teffaha to Victoria's Legal Services Commission over submissions in court that he said “may be prejudicial to or diminish the public confidence in the administration of justice”.

It's not the first time that someone has called the Family Court a bad name.

Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 - Section 63 - Evidence of Prior Alternative Action

claws(1) When making a care application, the Director-General must furnish details to the Children’s Court of:
(a) the support and assistance provided for the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person, and
(b) the alternatives to a care order that were considered before the application was made and the reasons why those alternatives were rejected.
(2) The Children’s Court must not:
(a) dismiss a care application in relation to a child or young person, or
(b) discharge a child or young person who is in the care responsibility of the Director-General from that care responsibility,
by reason only that the Children’s Court is of the opinion that an appropriate alternative action that could have been taken in relation to the child or young person was not considered or taken.
(3) Subsection (2) does not prevent the Children’s Court from adjourning proceedings. (Source : http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caypapa1998442/s63.html

Despite red flags about judges, a kickback scheme flourished

“The judge’s whim is all that mattered in that courtroom,” said Marsha Levick, the legal director of the Juvenile Law Center, a child advocacy organization in Philadelphia, which began raising concerns about the court to state authorities in 1999. “The law was basically irrelevant.”

Last month, the law caught up with Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., 58, who ran that juvenile court for 12 years, and Judge Michael T. Conahan, 56, a colleague on the county’s Court of Common Pleas.

In what authorities are calling the biggest legal scandal in state history, the two judges pleaded guilty to tax evasion and wire fraud in a scheme that involved sending thousands of juveniles to two private detention centers in exchange for $2.6 million in kickbacks.

Ciavarella Conviction Reversals Upheld

A federal appeals court panel on Friday agreed the most serious charges that disgraced former Luzerne County Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. was convicted of should be overturned.

Three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for The Third Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision from last year that granted Ciavarella a new trial on three of the 12 charges he was convicted of at trial — racketeering, racketeering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Emily Brown the Public Guardian Battery Hen

Image result for battery henThe below-article only mildly touches on the havoc this wretched woman, solicitor, Heidi Muggenthaler wreaks on the lives of those she infects.  She's based in Sydney and previously served on IDRS (Intellectual Disability Rights Service), a community legal centre advocating for rights for the disabled.  What better way to find more victims (clients), then purporting to help those who most need it pro-bono?  She's no unlike other solicitors who frequently sell their sole for a few more dollars, but this woman has absolutely obliterated the lives of two lovely people, my friend Emily Brown and her mother Julie Brown.

Emily Brown was falsely removed by NSW child protection in 1998 because the caseworkers at the time DID NOT like Julie.  Julie might not be everyones cup of tea, but she was a good mum and the perfect person to be raising her daughter who is extremely intelligent and has mild autism, Emily.  Throughout the first few years that Julie and Emily were involved with the state, caseworkers stole jewellery and money from Julie's home in Sydney, cancelled services for her involving housing and obtaining assistance in moving to another property.

Celebrated lawyer adds himself to client’s will

Image result for Dino De MarchiA renowned lawyer has been caught inserting himself into a client’s will, standing to get a fifth of her estate, but has not been suspended from practicing.

According to a Herald Sun report, Dino De Marchi, a Vietnam War veteran who was feted by former Governor-general Dame Quentin Bryce at Government House in 2010, has pleaded guilty of including his name as a “significant beneficiary” of the will of client Lidia Toffolon. The client is said to have visited De Marchi’s law office in 2013 to have a new will prepared, and later instructed the lawyer to include himself as beneficiary.

Even after a solicitor employed by De Marchi told him the act would be a breach of rules, the lawyer did not cease to act for the client. Instead, he ordered his law firm and its address to be deleted from the cover page of the will.

De Marchi is said to have then taken the client to another lawyer, Carl Soccio ...

Celebrated lawyer adds himself to client’s will

Image result for Dino De MarchiA renowned lawyer has been caught inserting himself into a client’s will, standing to get a fifth of her estate, but has not been suspended from practicing.

According to a Herald Sun report, Dino De Marchi, a Vietnam War veteran who was feted by former Governor-general Dame Quentin Bryce at Government House in 2010, has pleaded guilty of including his name as a “significant beneficiary” of the will of client Lidia Toffolon. The client is said to have visited De Marchi’s law office in 2013 to have a new will prepared, and later instructed the lawyer to include himself as beneficiary.

Even after a solicitor employed by De Marchi told him the act would be a breach of rules, the lawyer did not cease to act for the client. Instead, he ordered his law firm and its address to be deleted from the cover page of the will.

De Marchi is said to have then taken the client to another lawyer, Carl Soccio ...

Subcategories

  • Case Law
    Article Count:
    1
  • Judicial Corruption
    Article Count:
    43
  • Lawyers and Solicitors
    Article Count:
    21
  • Law Reform
    Article Count:
    2
  • Legal Aid
    Article Count:
    1
  • 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.

    Article Count:
    69
  • SLAPP - Strategic lawsuit against public participation
    Article Count:
    2