THE FAMILY COURT
CARTELS
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.
THE RULE OF LAW
- THE INFAMOUS
2012 FAMILY LAW AMENDMENTS
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'.
CORRUPTION AND THE FAMILY COURT - THE BREAKDOWN OF THE AUSTRALIAN
CONSTITUTION
Julia Gillard and the University of Melbourne/Adelaide
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
Bryce, also 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.
THE FAMILY COURT
ACT - "IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD"
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...
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.
s121 THE FAMILY COURT ACT
1975
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'.
THE FAMILY COURT
CARTELS
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:
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!
DISGRACED!
Magistrate Tom
Altobelli
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.
FAMILY COURT
ORDERS ARE WORTHLESS AGAINST THE DV METHOD
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
or
Legal Aid.
No comments:
Post a Comment