Crimes Act 1900 Sect 93Q - Conveying false information that a person or property is in danger

(1) A person who conveys information:

(a) that the person knows to be false or misleading, and

(b) that is likely to make the person to whom the information is conveyed fear for the safety of a person or of property, or both,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years. 

Wouldn't it be nice for the government to actually use the legislation that exists in order to enforce people to not make false risk of harm reports knowing the consequences that the child and family endure.

(2) This section extends to conveying information by any means including making a statement, sending a document, or transmitting an electronic or other message.

(3) In this section, a reference to the safety of a person includes the safety of the person who conveys the information and the person to whom it is conveyed.

The Practise of Removing Newborn Babies by Nurses when the Mother hasn't even passed the Placenta

We would like to analyse the hospitals involved, the nursing staff and their "what seems to be" blatant lying on risk of harm reports. Risk of Harms for lack of antenatal care when there have been no pregnancy complications.

* What reasons did they have for taking your baby?
* Did they remove your baby and cut the cord whilst the placenta was still intact (meaning interferring with the natural birth)?
* Did they leave you haemhorraing and take your baby?

* Were the hospital staff rude?
* Did they deny you medical attention ie curette to prevent the haemhorraging OR breastfeeding to help uterus contract back to normal?
* Did they leave you in pain?

* Did they put you back into the maternity ward after they removed your child?  Etc

All these things are common practise for these so-called nurses.

The other main reason for this topic is to also work out specific angles of attack for the forthcoming class action against docs and health services for these gross breaches of the babies basic human rights and the mothers also.

Crimes Act 1900 - Section 93Q : Conveying false information that a person or property is in danger

(1) A person who conveys information:
(a) that the person knows to be false or misleading, and
(b) that is likely to make the person to whom the information is conveyed fear for the safety of a person or of property, or both, is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
(2) This section extends to conveying information by any means including making a statement, sending a document, or transmitting an electronic or other message.
(3) In this section, a reference to the safety of a person includes the safety of the person who conveys the information and the person to whom it is conveyed.
(Source : http://portsea.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s93q.html)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986 - Section 50 : Form of court attendance notice

(1) A court attendance notice must be in writing and be in the form prescribed by the rules.
(2) The rules may prescribe one or more forms of court attendance notice.
(3) A court attendance notice must do the following:
(a) describe the offence,
(b) briefly state the particulars of the alleged offence,
(c) contain the name of the prosecutor,
(d) require the accused person to appear before the Magistrate at a specified date, time and place, unless a warrant is issued for the arrest of the person or the person is refused bail,
(e) state, unless a warrant is issued for the arrest of the person or the person is refused bail, that failure to appear may result in the arrest of the person or in the matter being dealt with in the absence of the person.
(4) The rules may prescribe additional matters to be included in court attendance notices.
(5) A court attendance notice may describe an offence, act or other thing in any way that is sufficient under this Act for the purposes of an indictment or an averment in an indictment.
(Source : http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cpa1986188/s50.html)

What Do Foster Kids Say - Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 No 157 - 9 Principles for administration of Act

(1)  This Act is to be administered under the principle that, in any action or decision concerning a particular child or young person, the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person are paramount.
(2)  Subject to subsection (1), the other principles to be applied in the administration of this Act are as follows:
(a)  Wherever a child or young person is able to form his or her own views on a matter concerning his or her safety, welfare and well-being, he or she must be given an opportunity to express those views freely and those views are to be given due weight in accordance with the developmental capacity of the child or young person and the circumstances.
(b)  In all actions and decisions made under this Act (whether by legal or administrative process) that significantly affect a child or young person, account must be taken of the culture, disability, language, religion and sexuality of the child or young person and, if relevant, those with parental responsibility for the child or young person.
(c)  In deciding what action it is necessary to take (whether by legal or administrative process) in order to protect a child or young person from harm, the course to be followed must be the least intrusive intervention in the life of the child or young person and his or her family that is consistent with the paramount concern to protect the child or young person from harm and promote the child’s or young person’s development.

Magistrate Cohen Proving White Australian Policy is alive and well in the Family Law Court of Australia today!!!!!!


Recentley a Final Judgement was handed down in the Family Law Court of Australia Magistrate Cohen to remove two children from their Aboriginal mother and placing with their non Aboriginal father. The following statements were made in his reasoning for the removal of the two children from the Aboriginal mother and placing with the non Aboriginal father:

It stated the following " As i have said, B.... is emotionally and intellectually immature for his age. H..... is probably unexceptional in these respects. The boy's are Aboriginal for the purposes of the Family Law Act because they come within the definition of that word in it.. They are decendents for the Aboriginal people of Australia.

But they are also decendants of the white settlers, and are to a great degree of that heritage. However, their identity has been developed by the maternal side of the family, where the mother, her father and J..... (their brother) are also decendents of Aboriginal People, Although the mothers mother is not.

The boy's regard themselves as being Black. To undermine their identity could well cause them emotional harm. Nevertheless, denial of the reality that they are also european or Anglo celtic background, especially since their apperance conforms to the steryotype for such a background,could also cause them emotional problems in the long term. They should in my opinion, be strongly encouraged to embrace both strands of their make up and be proud of them and who they are. To do that they must be exposed to both cultures and to people who share one or other with them.

Magistrates can be Mad but Mothers can’t be Mothers

mad judgeIf the Family Law system via the Federal Magistrates Court can apply extensive understanding, compassion and opportunities for natural justice and appeal to its employees (e.g. Magistrate Joe Harman) – why can’t its clients be given the same allowances?

Justice for Children is particularly concerned about the belittling, bullying and plain inhumane treatment parents (mothers, mainly) and children often experience in the Family Court system.

Mothers who try to protect their children are labelled ‘mad’, ‘delusional’, ‘too clever’, over-anxious, depressed too loud, too emotional, too calm and variations on all these - and worse - insults.

All of this opinion may be generated by a court-appointed ‘expert’ who has spent, perhaps, one hour with the mother in question.

Or it may be home-grown bias from the judge’s personal store.

There is absolutely no accountability in Family Law – judges who are suffering from dementia and other ailments continue to wreak havoc on children and even if there’s nothing clinically wrong with them, their inability to listen or understand and their ingrained prejudices make them a danger to justice.

Especially any kind of justice for children.

Dennis Chapman. Solicitor at Gosford on the Central Coast in NSW, you must be so proud of yourself

This legal flop came to the attention of Alecomm a month or two ago after he pulled the pin on the representation of his client --- the morning of that clients day in Supreme Court.  How totally dispicable.  He did this saying he was under orders by his barrister, but last time i checked, you, Dennis Chapman, take orders from your client.  So what happened?  Didn't you have the cohuna's to actually deal with the case once the poor victim mother finally got past the pathetic childrens courts and into the supreme?


Are you so used to sitting on your fat arse and getting paid your legal aid dosh for doing nothing that you can't actually remember how to defend an innocent woman and child anymore???  Shame on you.

Not only that, this Dennis Chapman is absolutely refusing to hand over all the paperwork relating to the matter to the mother, and her next Supreme Court case is next week.  He is sayng that he has every right to hold onto the information for seven years.  What the fuck do you want that information for Dennis, apart from to screw your ex-client just that little bit more by fucking her next court case???

Alecomm's recommendations about this solicitor is stay as far away from his as possible.  Even after he lets you down he will still try and interfere and ruin your life that little bit more.  And for those of you who aren't sure of the in's and outs of this case, its another Department of Child Trafficking Services, I mean Community Services, punishing a child who's mother was beaten by his father.  In lamens terms instead of DOCs and the police getting of their lazy arses and doing something about the perpetrator of the crimes, DOCs just re-victimise the woman and take her kids instead.

We do live in a charming world, don't we???

* Alecomm will take this notice down upon the mother receiving the documents this week.  Should the documents arrive thereafter, this article will be a permanent fixture on alecomms walls of shame.  Your choice Dennis and the solution is simple - hand over the file!

Who Says Man Can't Do TWO Things At Once! - Dennis Chapman Can!

Talk about Talented - this man successfully represented both the Department of Community Services and their Client Victim today in Woy Woy Children's Court.  Apparently both had rang to ask for his representation in court for the said case, and he accepted.

Not only that, the magistrate didn't seem to have any issues with this given that DOCs wanted an adjournment - as stated by Dennis Chapman, and the Victim Client Mother whom had just had her baby stolen by these government approved child traffickers, did not.

How is this possible with no questions by the magistrate about the behaviour of this solicitor.  Given he is going to be paid by the state twice, one for each representation, and that you cannot legally represent both parties, he even had the audacity to complain, yet again, about Alecomm.

Well good on you Dennis, and good on you for giving back those files you held after dropping your last victim client on the morning of her proceedings in supreme court and stuffing her up completely.


Dennis Chapman -The Dog that needs to learn to SIT

Dennis Chapman, solicitor at Gosford, is at it again, harassing his former clients.  This solicitor is well known for providing piss poor legal service and even stooping as low as leaving his clients without representation once they are finally able to get their matter heard in supreme court.  This time he has harassed clients whilst they were walking down their own street.  This man needs to be banned from an legal practise at all. 

Family Law Web Guide on the net, also has a few articles on corrupt solicitors such as Dennis Chapman, and alecomm is currently investigating to just what extent this solicitor stoops.

Mr Chapman, once again, shame on you.  It was only a few weeks ago that he represented both a mother and the department of community services at Woy Woy local court, obviously not acting in the best interest of the mother, and when we comlained about it, he walked into the Woy Woy Courts, yet again and the judge issued him a gag order to prevent the mother talking any further about the matter - to anybody including her own family.


  • Case Law
    Article Count:
  • Judicial Corruption
    Article Count:
  • Lawyers and Solicitors
    Article Count:
  • Law Reform
    Article Count:
  • Legal Aid
    Article Count:
  • 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:
  • SLAPP - Strategic lawsuit against public participation
    Article Count: