10 February 2014

The Domestic Violence Method



As we have seen, the Family Court cartels (comprising the judges, solicitors, psychologists, interest groups and politicians) profit hugely from domestic violence and Parental Alienation, at the expense of children. These groups use children against their parents so as to extract every last cent from families. Like dangling a carrot in front of a donkey, the court will use children to threaten parents into agreeing to parenting orders and even take children away from parents for no reason, knowing that parents will spend every last cent they have to see their children again. This is known as the 'Cash for Kids' scheme and is used by Family Courts around the world. 

These judicial officers have allowed the Family Court to become a cesspool of lies and manipulation. Anyone can say anything without any evidence and get away with it. The liars and manipulators are seen as being rewarded by the legal community themselves, prompting solicitors to resort to the same tactics. The judges and magistrates involved within the Family Court system have very little respect for themselves or the court they represent. 


In order to understand why domestic violence statistics have exploded, it is important to look at recent changes to Family Court and domestic violence legislation.  

In 2006, the Howard government introduced Shared Care Amendments to the Family Law legislation in an attempt to reduce Parental Alienation. The legislation was a step forward in eliminating Parental Alienation and allowing for a smooth transition for families going through separation and divorce. The amendments ensured that children were cared for by both parents and that children would never again be alienated from one, or both parents or used as a weapon against each parent. The legislation had a small flaw in that the presumption of shared care was subject to domestic violence 'concerns', where a parent could withhold a child is they believed they were being subjected to abuse. This legal clause actually encouraged false domestic violence and child abuse allegations, although not to the extend we have seen since 2012. However, it was a step forward for children and families going through separation. Now families would be assured that no matter what happened, they would always have each other.

The recent issues with false accusations and the Family Court derive largely from a feminist group known as Emily's List Australia. Emily's List began in 1994, when the ALP National Conference passed an Affirmative Action Rule requiring women be preselected in 35 per cent of winnable seats at all elections by 2002. Among the progressive women who drove this change were Julia Gillard, and former Premiers Joan Kirner and Carmen Lawrence along with others. According to the Emily's List website:

"Despite this landmark achievement, in 1995 Federal Labor pre-selections saw the number of women pre-selected in safe and winnable seats decline. Furthermore, the 1996 election saw the election of 16 new Conservative women to Federal Parliament. It was obvious something more had to be done for and by Labor women."

EMILY stands for "Early Money Is Like Yeast - It Helps to Raise the Dough". The group was clearly about raising money to fund women in parliament. The Emily's List website states that "Labor women clearly needed a political and personal support network to assist their campaigns". No problems there, right? Women were oppressed for years. Why not form a group to assist women in politics? However, this group was run by Julia Gillard, an out-spoken radical feminist with an (alleged) history of fraudulent activities and a strong anti-male attitude. Other members of the group include Tanya Plibersek, Penny Wong and dozens of Labor MPs, not including indirect supporters in the judiciary. 

To change laws, Emily's List needed members in key areas:
* Prime Minister - to gain an ultimate grasp over parliament and push new laws;
* Members of Parliament - the more members in parliament, the easier laws could be approved;
* Attorney-General - to recommend new laws for Royal Assent (the Attorney-General also manages the HREOC - see earlier report);
* Chief Justice of the Family Court - someone to ensure that anti-male laws would be put into effect within the Family Court.

Almost as soon as Julia Gillard and her various Emily's List members came into power, they enacted new laws which threw families into turmoil. The new legislation included, among other amendments,:
1. widening the definition of "domestic violence" to include almost every possible negative occurrence between families. Everything from negative comments, to withholding money is now considered to be an act of domestic violence;

2. removing any penalties for perjury for parents who make false domestic violence and child abuse allegations to police and the courts. This has allowed parents to make allegations while the innocent parent is interrogated by police. Furthermore, making false domestic violence allegations was now a sure-fire way to obtain full custody in the Family Court;

3. removed the Howard's Shared-Care assurances for families. 

Suddenly, domestic violence allegations exploded.

Every vindictive, greedy parent wanted to make domestic violence and child abuse allegations. The benefits of making allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, and receiving full custody are extensive, including:
* priority placement for community housing;
* Legal Aid funding;
* support from interest groups in court;
* increase child support payments;
* increased benefit payments;
* priority placement in Family Court 'queues';
and most importantly, the 'doubt' about whether the accusations 'may' be true - allowing Judges to ban the other parent from their children, 'just in case'. 

Police and government services have been bombarded with false allegations to the point where it is almost impossible to determine the true complaints from the false complaints. Resources have been strained and the courts are blocks up for years. Despite having court orders in place, parents who have become victims of false allegations of abuse must wait years for their claims to be processed. Stories are now coming to light where the abusive parent has made false allegations to cover up their crime and point attention to the innocent parent. 

Each day, parents are denied contact with their children, or forced to have Supervised Contact with their children, despite having court orders in place. In order to see their children again, they must go through the Family Court system for years, at great expense - cash for kids! Family Court orders have become useless and unenforceable at the hands of vindictive parents making false domestic violence allegations.

Why would Julia Gillard do this? Why would any politician put children is a position where they would be abused and used in this way? Let's look at the main players in this deceitful game:

Prime Minister - Julia Gillard:
For years, Julia Gillard has been the subject of criminal activity inquiries. From her alleged part in the Australian Worker's Union (AWU) in which it is alleged she "unknowingly" spent tens of thousands of dollars of misappropriated funds on herself, including clothing and home renovations, to questions challenging the legality in her holding a position in office. Now we see an organisation that was set up by Julia Gillard in 1996 (while being investigated for her involvement with the AWU scandal), and her becoming Prime Minister in June 2010. How much money did Emily's List receive in government grants, only to fund Julia's campaign, both directly and indirectly? Whatever the case, Julia Gillard seems to place herself again and again in a conflict of interest position, and her new "anti-father" laws are no different.

It was reported that Tony Abbott was critical about Emily's List and there are reports about him commenting on the group. However, this provoked Julia Gillard to refer to him as a 'misogynist pig' in her (in)famous speech. From Julia Gillard's point of view, Tony would be seen as a sexist woman-hater if he 'exposed' the group. However, it was not just Tony Abbott who was/is victim to Emily's List. The group were, and still are, currently pushing a program called The Misogynist Factor. The group seems determined to label any male a 'misogynist', even a married father with three close daughters. 

However, Emily's List manipulation goes even further. There is evidence that Kevin Rudd was embarrassed by the group of Labor women and their sexist law-making creating a negative impact upon the Labor party. However, no-one in Labor can speak out against them, because the group would accuse them of 'misogyny'. An example: we all know most Australians wanted Julia Gillard out of politics ever since she organised a back-stabbing coup upon Kevin Rudd. In the end, she was the one who challenged Kevin Rudd for the 'winner-takes-all' show-down... and lost! And let's face it, the PM job is the toughest in the world where everyone attacks you for anything and everything. But that's not how one of Emily's List's members, Ann Summer's, put this spin on the events:
Julia's rise to the top, and her massive entitlements, were all thanks to Emily's List and the funding it provided. 

Attorney-General - Nicola Roxon:
Now, let's also look at Emily's List 'member', Nicola Roxon. When Julia Gillard was bringing pushing her laws allowing women to make false allegations against men without punishment, and laws widening the term of 'domestic violence' to encompass almost everything imaginable, she was also placing Nicola Roxon as Attorney-General. Once the laws were passed (of course, with a strong backing of almost every female Labor member in Emily's List), they were assured Royal Assent upon Nicola Roxon's recommendations. Obtaining assent for such laws was not difficult, when you have the backing off a Governor-General, who is also openly supportive of the 'Women's Movement'. Soon after, Nicola Roxon 'retired'. 

Although not an outspoken radical feminist to the degree that Julia Gillard was, Nicola Roxon's feminist ideals have come to light through various speeches and comments she has made.

Many of the initiatives supported by Nicola Roxon were focused on women, usually under the guise of 'domestic violence'.

Emily's List members were strategically placed in key positions in Parliament to ensure this new, highly-discriminatory and ridiculous legislation was passed quickly and effectively. 

As a result, domestic violence and child abuse complaints exploded, and so did the reports of fathers losing access to their own children.

Chief Justice of the Family Court - Diane Bryant
Diana Bryant was appointed to the Family Court of Australia in 2004. Her involvement in radical feminism is extensive, and in 2009 she was appointed Patron of Australian Women Lawyers. In her 2008 keynote address to the Australian Women Lawyers Second National Conference, Diana Bryant's radical feminist ideals are become very clear. She also makes reference to fellow Emily's List members throughout her speech, including Ann Summers. 

All this from a woman who is supposed to view everyone as 'equal' in the eyes of the law. 

Diana Bryant's radical feminist views stem from her mother, a lawyer and President of the Legal Women's Associated in the 1950s. This is a woman who had radical feminist ideals thrust upon her throughout her childhood - brought up viewing men as the 'enemy' and a 'barrier' to women's success. Since Julia Gillard's rise to power, we have seen a dramatic focus on 'domestic violence' within the Family Court system and ever increasing distrust of the Family Court system as stories of false accusations make headlines... all encouraged by Diana Bryant. 

Corruption and the Rule of Law?
Whether you are opposed to feminism or not, what has been exposed here is a definite link between Emily's List - a political group with the sole purpose of pouring money into the back pockets of its members - and its far-reaching hand into the pockets of the judiciary, legislative and executive spheres of politics. The result has been an onslaught of sexist laws, the bombardment of false allegations and a system where children are used for profit - the profit of the people who claim to be acting in the 'best interests of the child'.


Now we know about Julia Gillard's Emily's list - a group of radical feminists including our own Attorney-General, Governor-General, Prime Minister and even the Chief Justice of the Family Court, who embezzle and rort tax payers for their own personal career advancement. So what does Emily's List Australia have to do with the AWU scandal?

In 1992, the AWU (Australian Worker's Union) was established by state secretary Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt, without the knowledge of the national leaders of the AWU. In 1993, Wilson arranged the purchase of a house for Ralph Blewitt. It is alleged that the house was part paid for by funds "drawn from accounts directly related to the AWU Workplace Reform Association", with the balance lent by Slater & Gordon. Police fraud squad investigators suspected that the association was used by Wilson and Blewitt to allegedly fraudulently obtain over $400,000 from major construction companies. At the time, a police investigation did not lead to any charges being laid, and the police decided not to take any further action. However, after new evidence emerged during 2012, Victorian police reopened the investigation.

Julia Gillard worked in the industrial department of Slater & Gordon from 1988 through to 1995. In 1991, while she was a lawyer with the firm, she was also in a romantic relationship with Bruce Wilson. Gillard provided legal assistance to help establish the AWU Workplace Reform Association. She was also involved in providing legal services in relation to the purchase of property by Wilson and Blewitt. Slater & Gordon investigated Gillard's conduct. However, prior to the conclusion of the investigation, Gillard took leave from the firm and later resigned to pursue her political career.

Gillard has subsequently described the intent of the association as being to assist in the re-election of union officials and as a 'slush fund'. Gillard responded by stating that she only provided legal assistance, and that she neither drafted the passage in the legal documentation describing the association's purpose, nor signed the papers. However, she later admitted that she drafted the rules for the association, basing them on the "Socialist Forum" student organisation rules she had earlier established at Melbourne University (note this University, as it will be linked to Emily's List again). So now Julia Gillard is (allegedly) linked to evidence that slush funds were being used to further the re-election of "union" officials (ie. Labor sympathisers) and for her own personal financial gain. That is one stem of the Emily's List rort. 

Julia Gillard and the University of Melbourne/Adelaide

On a minor note, let's look at Julia Gillard's involvement with Universities and her own "retirement plan." What is Julia Gillard up to these days? She happily left politics without a huff to move on to "greener pastures", but where were those pastures. Well, those that can, do, and those that can't, teach. Julia Gillard was very involved in both the Melbourne and Adelaide universities And Julia kept her options open with both Melbourne and Adelaide Universities. She studied at both universities and graduated from Melbourne University, which has been heavily criticised for its "feminist rule" click here to view.

Gillard is now a "Professor" with the Adelaide University. It has been reported that Julia Gillard and alumni of Adelaide University will establish the taxpayer-funded executive office she is entitled to as a former leader within the university grounds:

And why wouldn't the University of Adelaide offer Julia Gillard her own tax-payer-funded office and executive position that she was entitled to, after she donated $100m in funding to the University during Australia's worst 'recession' in decades, and during a time when funding to other Universities was being cut, threatening Labor's chances of re-election - but who cares when you have a cushy executive position lined up. In fact, as soon as Julia Gillard left the ALP, Labor declared it was 'reconsidering' the cuts to Universities:

The ties between Julia Gillard and the University of Adelaide are pretty close. After all, Julia Gillard's father donated his body to the University's science department: click here to view

However, Adelaide university was not always on top of Julia's preference list. The University of Melbourne was where she graduated, and the university has been highly criticised for its feminist influences, leading back to Emily's List:

Whether Julia Gillard intended to secure a cushy job within Melbourne University, or whether it was because fellow feminists including CJ Family Court, Diane Bryant, Nicola Roxon and Governor General, Quentin Brycealso graduated from Melbourne University Law School, at the same time that Julia Gillard was cutting federal funding to Universities, she was not only pumping millions of dollars into Adelaide University, but also into Melbourne University, including a $300,000 grant for people who "needed Legal Aid, but did not qualify for Legal Aid" ie. domestic violence "victims" (now backtrack to Emily's List and Julia Gillard's 2012 domestic violence and Family Law amendments):

All the key Emily's List members have retained tight links to each other, and the Melbourne University:

What does the University of Melbourne have that attracts everyone? It is home to the Australian Labor Party Club. The ALPC has had its hand in the pockets of Family Court members since its beginnings, including publishing first CJ of the Familiy Court Elizabeth Evatt's book 'Family Law'. CJ Alastair Nicholson also graduated from Melbourne University. Of course, there is nothing wrong with associating with an interest group. But when that group is linked to secret deals, illegal slush funds and discriminate law-making, all mixed with large 'donations', then questions need to be raised.

Why Julia Gillard suddenly poured funds into Adelaide University and secured a position there is unknown. Being ousted from various unions and interest groups and bringing shame to the "fraternity" could be a major reason. In any event, although Julia Gillard has taken a turn away from Melbourne University, she has done very well from the countless slush funds, interest groups, feminist liaisons and secret hand-shake deals over the years.

Embezzlement, rorting, funds being syphoned between "social groups" for "career progression", secret societies and, discrimination against fathers in the Family Court... all surrounding Emily's List, namely Julia Gillard, Nicola Roxon, Diane Bryant and Quentin Bryce. The Australian Government needs to launch a Royal Inquiry into the affairs of Emily's List and the dealings between the group and the Family Court.

So now that we have examined the background of the Family Court and its history with radical feminism since the it began in the 1970s, lets look at how the Family Court has manipulated families and children for their own ideals. 


This is the catchphrase of the Family Court cartels. Whenever a child is taken away from a parent or both parents, we here the term loud and clear, spewing from the mouths of judges and lawyers. The interesting question is, what is "in the best interests of the child"? 

Family Law legislation clearly states that, when determining what is in the "best interests of the child", the court should take into account:
a) ensuring the children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and 
(b) protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d) ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.

The Family Law Act makes clear that:
1. both parents are responsible for the care and welfare of their children and;
2. arrangements which involve shared responsibilities and cooperation between the parents are in the best interests of the child.

According to the Family Law Act, the primary considerations that a Judge must apply when determining what is in the best interests of the child are:
1. The benefit of children having a meaningful relationship with both parents;
2. The need to protect children from physical and psychological harm. This includes children seeing family violence, being neglected, or being physically or psychologically hurt.

Other factors to be considered are:
3. the child's relationship with each parent and other people, including grandparents;
4. the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
5. the attitude of each parent to the child and the responsibilities of parenthood...

Is the Family Court protecting children from disputes and emotional abuse? Is the Family Court ensuring parents are acting in the best interests of their children? Or is the Family Court allowing, and even encouraging children to be used to create conflict. We are seen increasing cases of
children being taken away from one parent and given to the parent who uses the child to make false abuse claims, and how children are used to extort parents. And now the cartels are pushing for children to testify in Family Court proceedings, subjecting them to coercion, pressure and guilt. 

Is the Family Court ensuring that the separation process is quick, so as to avoid unnecessary turmoil on children and their families? We have seen how the courts drag cases out using the DV Method. 

If the Family Court ensuring that children have contact with both parents? We have seen that the courts are too willing to remove children from parents and even place them in environments where they continue to be subjected to emotional and psychological abuse. 

Then what is 'in the best interests of the child'? Each year, thousands of children are dragged to doctors, psychologists, child services and police, forced to make allegations against their own parents. Children quickly learn about molestation, rape and pornography as more and more pressure is placed upon them to make statements to officials (imagine what would happen if children were made to testify in court). Each year, thousands of parents hear their children making allegations against them. Each year, thousands of parents are detained by police, accused of molesting their own children, have their homes searched, their phones searched, their computers searched, their friends and work colleagues questioned... One simple allegation and a person's life is destroyed. There are no penalties for the accusers. Each year, thousands of children are taken from their parents and forced to have Supervised Contact, with someone standing no further than 3m from the parent and the child. And each year, the Family Court cartels take a share of the billions of dollars in profits. 

It is clear, that the intention of the government was to ensure that children have the input of both parents in their lives to ensure the child is protected from abuse and has the advantage of proper parenting (and to a greater extent than Judge Tom Altobelli's view that a Christmas card each year is sufficient). So what happened? How did the Family Court deteriorate into a cesspool of domestic violence allegations, child abuse allegations and psychologists? With Julia Gillard's Emily's List pulling the strings in the executive, judiciary and legislative branches, laws were amended and watered-down case by case and domestic violence loop holes became central to the underpinnings of the Family Court.

Although, again, the legislation states that children should have a meaningful relationship with both parents, there is also a requirement to protect children from abuse. Of course, this makes sense. However, the legislators did not expect to open the flood gates for domestic violence accusations as parents, lawyers, psychologists and doctors all scrambled for a share of the $13 billion-per-year booty that is on offer. Now, instead of protecting children from abusive relationships and conflict, the Family Court cartels are subjecting children to further abuse by rewarding parents who continuously make false accusations and drag their children to police and doctors claiming sexual abuse:

Why does the Family Court have to deal with abuse claims? Abuse is a crime. The police have enough resources to investigate abuse claims (and would have even more resources if some of the $13 billion went into prevention). The Department of Community Services investigates all allegations of abuse and has the power to remove children from parents. There is no need for the Family Courts to investigate complaints of domestic violence. When a parent makes an application to the court, the police or government departments can submit a report or "flag" cases of abuse. However, the new domestic violence laws have the exact opposite effect of protecting false allegations of abuse. As a result, Australia has become a country where children are taken away from their parents for no reason at all, except for pure greed and corruption. Now we have more and more legislation taking away children's rights to be cared for by both parents. And as the definition of "domestic violence" is widened, and more legislation uses domestic violence as an excuse to remove children from their home, the Family Court cartels get rich. The result:
* children being brought up without access to both parents;
* children being educated in molestation and abuse as they are used by parents and the Family      
Court cartels in a domestic violence manipulation battle;
* children coerced into making complaints against another parent of sexual abuse, sexual molestation and, one of the most common complaints, subjected to pornography;
* parents falsely detained, arrested and even imprisoned based on absolutely no evidence except the coerced statements of children;
* the Family Court cartels rewarding parents for making false domestic violence and child abuse allegations;
* children losing their parents forever;
* high rate of suicide and murder as parents are psychologically pushed to their limits;
* as public services are cut back (education, health etc) the government is still throwing billions of dollars away on domestic violence; 
and, most importantly...
* real victims of domestic violence and child abuse do not receive help as resources are drained by false accusations.


If you have ever been involved with Family Court proceedings, or know someone who has, you will have heard references to s 121 FCA. The section is the Family Court's 'Shroud of Secrecy'. The section states:

Restriction on publication of court proceedings
(1)  A person who publishes in a newspaper or periodical publication, by radio broadcast or television or by other electronic means, or otherwise disseminates to the public or to a section of the public by any means, any account of any proceedings, or of any part of any proceedings, under this Act that identifies:
   (a)  a party to the proceedings;
   (b)  a person who is related to, or associated with, a party to the proceedings or is, or is alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate; or
   (c)  a witness in the proceedings;

is guilty of an offence punishable, upon conviction by imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.

The section has been highly criticised as it means that anyone who discusses anything about a case going through the Family Court, can be imprisoned for up to one year. The Family Court claims that this section helps protect the children involved. What it actually has the effect of doing, is allowing corruption to run rampant away from the scrutiny of the public and the media. Those who have gone public with their stories, such as recordings on YouTube, have shown judges threatening parents. using children against parents to agree to court orders, and even telling solicitors to leave the room. One reporter who did speak out against the shroud of s121 and its implications, points out the injustice that occurs when judges are not held accountable.

However, it seems the Family Court are very choosy when charging people with breaching the section. As we saw in the Italian Girls case, the mother, grandmother and the media were able to publically declare the father a drunken child abuser without being charged. Yet, there are reports of fathers who have been charged, simply by posting evidence of judges threatening them. 

From my own experience, I sat in Family Courtrooms for years, listening to the lies being told to Judges. One women told a Judge she had served her husband with papers and he had chosen to abandon his children. One call from the judge (on loudspeaker) and the father stated he knew nothing of the proceedings. Yet, the mother was not fined, or even warned for her lies. I saw countless allegations of non-payment of child support which were proven false upon documentation. I heard a woman screaming at her friend because she had botched the "story" she had been told to say. I listened to stories so ridiculous that even judges stopped them half-way. And yet, no-one is punished for lying or deceiving. Judges allow this behaviour not only to continue, but escalate. And yet, if someone falsely accused speaks out in their own defence, s121 suddenly applies. The focus of the court is clearly on silencing victims and protecting accusers.

s121 also allows false allegations to remain undisclosed. There are also countless reports of parents being unjustifiably banned from seeing their children amidst false child abuse and domestic violence allegations. While the accusers tell everyone the court banned the 'pedophile' from having access to the children, the other party cannot publicaly tell their story once the court proceedings are over. 

In the US and UK, we have seen huge demonstrations against the Family Courts in response to such 'veils of secrecy' and increasing instances of corruption being exposed as a result. Parents setting themselves on fire on the Family Court stairs, climbing walls in super hero suits, and demonstrating in the streets finally made a change, with new laws targeting the corrupt 'Cash for Kids' scandal.

The Family Court system in Australia is no different to the UK. Corruption and politics take precedent over the so-called ''best interests of the child'. 


Domestic violence is reported to be a $13 billion, tax-payer funded industry in Australia [insert link]. Everyone involved in the industry profits:

* judges: as long as the courts are backed up, they can justify huge salaries. Many judges are also linked with to interest groups and receive the kick-backs. Some are obligated to the politician that swore them in to uphold the ideals of that politician (search who appointed the judges named in this website). Most judges also own family law firms and rake in huge amounts of money, taking families saving and assets. With the average family court cost ranging between $150,000 - $200,000 there is plenty of profits to be made;

* solicitors: by bringing domestic violence and DVOs into a family Court proceeding, solicitors can be guaranteed of adding an extra $50,000+ to their profits. Domestic violence issues will generally go directly to the Family Court (rather than the cheaper Magistrate's courts) and this is where the solicitors make the big bucks. If you sit outside the court rooms, you will hear solicitors convincing their clients into making an application for a DVO. A lot of DVOs are made while waiting for hearings and other applications. 

* psychologists: the Family Court is run by psychologists. Psychologists prepare Family Reports which are submitted to the courts. It is well accepted within the legal industry that the recommendations in the Family Report are what judges will make in the final orders. Psychologists meet with each parent and the children for only about one hour each. That means you have one hour to convince them that you and your children are being abused. For a few hours work, psychologists can make in excess of $4,000 per report and its a guaranteed stream of clientele. To stay in favour with the judges and continue to receive referrals, psychologists will do anything they can to make the decision process for the judge easy, and domestic violence is a key decider. Even where there is no evidence of domestic violence, or where domestic violence and child abuse allegations are false, psychologists will create terms (eg. separation-engendered violence) to ensure that some type of domestic violence is present [insert example]. 

* interest groups: as discussed, interest groups have a large interest, and investment, in domestic violence. By reinforcing domestic violence stereotypes, interest groups continue to receive millions and millions of dollars of tax-payer funded grants and donations. As the definition of "domestic violence" continues to widen, and more and more acts constitute domestic violence, interest groups produce more and more statistics that continue to show domestic violence as an epidemic. And how does government solve any large-scale problem? By throwing money at it. And this is what interest groups want.

* politicians: politicians and interest groups go hand-in-hand. The last thing a politician wants is interest groups on their back. What would happen if a politician came forward to the public, claiming that domestic violence was Australia's biggest rort and that they were taking domestic violence out of the Family Court equation? Interest groups would destroy their career instantly with media spin doctoring and political pressure. Imagine a judge not handing out a DVO and domestic violence did occur. The interest groups would rally outside the courthouse. We have already seen what happens when judges come forward with statements exposing the Domestic Violence Method: they are quickly ostracised by the legal community. And of course, we all know that politicians also receive campaign donations from interest groups... millions and millions of dollars in donatin. 

Domestic violence is a $13 billion dollar industry. Everyone within the family court system gets rich from pushing the same stereotype about domestic violence. No-one really cares what is really going on. Real victims of domestic violence are lost in a sea of false allegations. Police and social services are strained financially and unable to determine truth from fiction and many cases that do go before a judge are easily disputed by solicitors for the accused, ironically, stipulating the facts within the Domestic Violence Method. 

In fact, countries that have had inquiries into domestic violence have shown that around 70-80% of domestic violence claims are false! In Australia, some judges have broken the code of silence and have come forward, confirming the incredibly high rate of false accusations, only to be condemned by their colleagues. Overseas, in countries like the US and UK, judicial corruption surrounding the Family Court cartels and domestic violence:
article 1          article 2          article 3          article 4          article 5

A search of any court database will show almost endless cases of false domestic violence allegations, and innocent parents being imprisoned and banned from having contact with their children. The Domestic Violence Method is entrenched within the Family Court system and the public's perception of domestic violence. It does not matter that innocent parents are imprisoned each year on baseless and false allegations of abuse. It does not matter that children are being taken away from their parents by a corrupt legal system, producing a new, modern "Stolen Generation". All that matters is that the DV Method continue to generate wealth for all!

Magistrate Tom Altobelli

Judges seem to love alienating children from their parents. Tom Altobelli made a name for himself, and became the pin-up boy for Family Court corruption and Parental Alienation, after he banned a father from having any access to his children, simply because the mother had made false allegations of child abuse against him. 

Furthermore, Altobelli attempted to justify his actions in a paper titled "When A Child Rejects a Parent", claiming that children alienate themselves from their own parents. Sure, maybe when they are teenagers they want to see their parents less, but does a 4yo really alienate themselves? What Altobelli does not mention in his paper is external factors, like child coercion, emotional abuse and parental manipulation.


After spending anything from $50,000 - $300,000+ and losing everything from savings to the family home, parents are finally handed a piece of paper stating when each parent can see their children. That one piece of paper that parents can rely on to ensure that they will at least have contact with their children. However, up against the DV Method, that piece of paper is worthless. Allegations of domestic violence will easily override a Family Court order. Filing for a breach of orders only fuels more allegations. And because parents can lose their children if the other parent does not "enable communication between both parents", thousands of parents settle for supervised contact with their children while their breach application turns into a child abuse witch hunt. 

Furthermore, there are absolutely no penalties for making false allegations and no compensation for parents who have been accused of abusing their children. Why? police and DoCS will tell you (albiet informally and off-the-record) that it is general policy not to deter parents from making allegations of child abuse where they "suspect" abuse! You can say anything in a Family Court affidavit or a DVO, without any evidence, and never be charged with perjury or making a false complaint. Ironically, parents are charged every day for technical breaches of DVOs. The biggest breach is where one parents will ask the other to pick up the children from their home. The other parent will assume that consent has been given, and arrive just as the police arrive.

These facts can be confirmed by contacting 
the Australian Law Reform Commission 
Legal Aid.

No comments: