14 February 2014

HCA - Wakim [1999]

Decision - Re Wakim [1999] 

HCA 27; 198 CLR 511; 163 ALR270; 73 ALJR 839 (17 June 1999)
Kirby JJ stated - 

A legislature cannot, by pre-ambular assertions, recite itself into constitutional power where none exists. [239]
In simple words:

Judge Kirby of the High Court of Australia is telling us that the Parliament of Australia is NOT working UNDER any Constitution. 

In other words the government has NO AUTHORITY - absolutely none.

Any Act that does NOT have proper lawful SEAL UNDER the “Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act” which was passed on 9th July 1900 and entered into the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette 1st January 1901 in any State, IS INVALID.

HCA (High Court Australia) Documents - Introduction

ONE of the most corrupt industries in Australia is that of the legal profession, an industry that is supported by a specialised team of QC’s, barristers, lawyers, solicitors and the judicature that all work together to conspire against the well being of the general populous.

Secrecy is the name of the game, where a deliberate silencing of anyone who asks questions pertaining to the alleged authority of a judicial clerk, judge, or magistrate has over the individual brought before the ‘courts’ of Australia.

The law courts of Australia may not be so powerful, once a certain level of understanding is achieved of fundamental documents, and the ability to put this knowledge into practice without a barrister/lawyer/solicitor, that have an oath to protect the system, contrary to the interest of their customer, the ‘accused’.

The ‘law’ courts (e.g. Magistrates', Perin, Infringements) are not factually courts of law but rather places of business/commerce/trade, unbeknown to the general populous, but a well known fact within the industry.

The police are part of the ‘conspiracy’ to incarcerate ANYONE who stands up to their corporate bullying.

The police in reality are corporate thugs, who work for corporations, and NOT the ‘Queen’ as per oath.

Corpau is introducing a new category / label called HCA (High Court Australia) dedicated to delivering documents and rulings from the High Court of Australia, that are of significance to EVERY single person that lives and breathes on the land of Australia.

Some documents are kept secret from the public, by judges in order to perpetuate the fraud, e.g. in particular with reference to the legitimacy of the ATO (Australian Tax Office).

Together under the category / label of TEA (True English Australia), corpau will be publishing documentation including what the complicated words of judges/magistrates really mean to the ‘lay person’, which may be relevant to those who are ‘criminals’ for not paying a ‘fine’ or ‘invoice’, where the threat of jail time is a reality.

Welcome to the new Australia, the fascist corporate dictatorship, where the word democracy is NOT REAL.

When is a child not a human?

An article from news.com.au appeared with the headline:

Is is ever ok to kill a child? 

Relating to a story of euthanasia in Belgium. See illustration below.

The rest of the headline article reads:

A CHILD is terminally ill, in unbearable pain and says it wants to die. What do you do? One country says it will grants the child's wish.

The author of the article, who has not been named, is referring to a child as an 'it', an inanimate object.

Is this really true?

In Australia, in the workforce, a person or human being is referred to as a resource, an inanimate object.

A very little known fact to the general populous is that when a child / person / human being is born in Australia, 'it' is the property of the 'Crown'.

You are given a label which is CAPITALISED, e.g JOHN MANFRED CITIZEN.

You are no longer a 'person' but a CORPORATE entity, and that's what you are sentenced for.

Definitions of words:

Corp/corpse/corpus = body of person/animal referred to when dead.

Oration = form of speech / public speaker.
Orate = to deliver an oration.

therefore CorpOration  = dead man speaking.

See article:

How the government owns your children at:


Schapelle Corby, Indonesia's attack on free speech?

From the news.com.au article:

Deal or no deal: Schapelle Corby under fire as Mercedes denies interview payment from Seven

Mercedes Corby says recent reports of her sister Schapelle being paid megabucks for an interview are false and slammed the Newman Govt for investing in the 'Schapelle' mini-series.
SCHAPELLE Corby has been warned by Indonesia’s Deputy Justice Minister not to conduct a tell-all interview or face having her parole revoked. 

Speaking in Bali late last night Denny Indrayana said any interview could cause unease in the community which could be a breach of her parole.

And he said he was echoing the thoughts of the Justice Minister Amir Syamsuddin, with whom he has discussed the matter, and the Minister agreed there should be no interview.

They are the strongest comments yet from the Indonesian Government about a growing domestic controversy over Corby’s parole and the fact that she could be ready to conduct a paid television interview while holed up in a luxury Seminyak villa.

Controversy ... Schapelle Corby has come under fire  for her decision to sell her story to Seven.
Controversy ... Schapelle Corby has come under fire for her decision to sell her story to Seven. 
And the head of Bali’s parole board, Ketut Artha, said his team will convey the Minister’s message to Corby and her family today and will suggest they move out of the villa and the spotlight.

Mr Indrayana, who visited Bali yesterday, said that while Corby was free to speak, if any interview caused unease that could be a breach of her parole.

Because the interview could cause a polemic, and it can cause unease in the community, as stipulate in the parole rule. If it happened, the parole possibly could be revoked,” Mr Indrayana said.

“So, rather than it cause a problem, we give advice to not do the interview. Because she is release with conditions … there are many rules have to be obeyed.”

Asked if he was banning her from doing any television interview, Mr Indrayana said Corby should remember the terms of her parole.

“I am sure there will be a debate. It is part of her freedom to convey her opinion. But, it should be remembered, that she is released with conditions. And one of the condition to revoke parole is if she causes unease in the community,”

“If she causes unease, the parole must be revoked.”

He said this was regardless of whether she was paid or not to tell her story.

“If she decided to conduct the interview, if it uneases people, there will be a consequence.”

“I have talked to the (Justice) Minister about the news that there will be an interview (by Corby), we already agreed, and it has been conveyed to the official of correctional board that it is suggested that the interview is not conducted,” Mr Indrayana said.

Bali’s parole board chief, Mr Artha, said her residence at a luxury villa did not violate her parole but advised her to keep a low profile.

“There is actually no rule that has been violated by living at the villa. But as Corby has been in the public spotlight we suggest she does not stay at the luxury villa,” Mr Artha said.

It came as TV crews arrived at Corby’s luxury villa for her lucrative tell-all interview yesterday, Indonesian law experts also warned any money she makes while on parole could be seized under local tax laws.

Corby has attracted a growing storm of criticism since Monday over her decision to sell an exclusive interview about her nine years in Kerobokan Jail for drug smuggling.

Officials from the Prosecutions authority met on Thursday to discuss the controversy, as a Seven camera crew started shooting inside the luxury villa at Sentosa Seminyak where Corby has been staying with a security detail and family members.

Meanwhile, another Australian woman fronted an Indonesian court on drugs charges. Perth woman Julie Ann Josephs, 31, faces between five and 20 years over possession of 0.9 grams of methamphetamine.

Josephs was arrested after a motorbike accident in October last year.

Perth woman Julie Ann Josephs has faced an Indonesian court on drugs charges.
Perth woman Julie Ann Josephs has faced an Indonesian court on drugs charges. Source: Supplied
Professor Hikmahanto Juwono from the University of Indonesia law faculty said any money Corby earned on parole should be classified as non-tax state income of inmate workers and taken from her.

“Corby has no immunity from law and should not be exempted from Indonesian law,” Professor Juwono said.

He said Indonesia had a commitment to strip ill-gotten gains from corruption criminals and the same should be the case for drug convicts.

“Don’t do the opposite and make drug smugglers become rich from a dramatisation of their life during their sentence,” Professor Juwono said.

“The amount of money that should be given to the government is all of Corby’s fee, based on the agreement with the Australian media.”

No deal ... in a pre-recorded statement, Mercedes Corby denied her sister was being paid $2  million for an interview with Se...
No deal ... in a prerecorded statement, Mercedes Corby denied her sister was being paid $2 million for an interview with Seven. Source: Supplied
Parole officials contacted Corby’s brother-in-law Wayan Widyartha to ask if there was any interview and to remind him that parole officers must be present during filming. Sources say he assured them there was no interview.

Corby’s sister Mercedes has denied the family is being paid $2 million for her interview with Seven’s Sunday Night program.

“Recent media reports about payments to Schapelle for an interview are completely wrong. The sums being reported are ridiculous. When Schapelle is ready to speak the parole officers will be informed,” she said in a prerecorded statement on Thursday, before taking aim at Campbell Newman for his threat on Wednesday to try to seize any money Corby made.

Villa ... Schapelle Corby has been living in the lap of luxury at the Sentosa Seminyak resort.
Villa ... Schapelle Corby has been living in the lap of luxury at the Sentosa Seminyak resort. Source: News Limited
“Despite his comments, Queensland Premier Newman was so interested in this story that his Government gave $567,000 for the production of a film that the Nine Network made called Schapelle. This film was biased and inaccurate. It was based on a book where the major source was a convicted criminal.”

It is indeed likely Corby has not yet received any money for the story, with most contracts for such exclusive deals stating that no payments are made until an interview has been aired or the magazines in which they are run are no longer on sale.

The head of Bali’s Justice Ministry, Gusti Kompiang Adnyana, reiterated again on Thursday that if Corby conducts any interview she must inform her parole team and they must be present.

Mr Adnyana said that he would investigate again today if an interview was planned.

And anger continues to mount, with commentators in the local press question why Corby is getting apparent special treatment, allowed to stay in a luxury and conduct a media interview for money.

news.com.au 14 Feb 2014

Corby apparently arrived at Brisbane airport with her bag stuffed with drugs, that was scanned and nothing  detected, with no airport video surveillance, to take a flight to Sydney airport which then she boarded a flight to Indonesia.

The fundamental facts are (deliberately?) being ignored, where there is corruption behind the scenes regarding drug trafficking involving customs agents together with the police and politicians.

One fact that cannot be wiped from history is that the New South Wales police force in the 1970's and 1980's was the country's largest drug courier network, where Griffith was a well know cultivation town.

The corrupt heads of police allowed the drug industry to flourish turning a 'blind eye' (for financial reward) for decades, as they do to this day.

In today's day and age, the police are also involved in more elaborate corporate crimes.

Mums and Dads should pay for government fraud

 The Treasurer Joe Hockey during a press conference in Parliament House in Canberra.
The Treasurer Joe Hockey during a press conference in Parliament House in Canberra. Source: News Limited
TREASURER Joe Hockey wants the savings of Australian mums and dads used to build the big projects governments can no longer finance because they are broke. 

He today outlined an economic plan based on government abandoning many investment areas and handing them over to private enterprise along with a guarantee of a return on investments.

Mr Hockey urged workers to get their wealthy superannuation funds to pour cash into areas which traditionally have been the monopoly of state and federal governments.

The Treasurer was responding to the six per cent unemployment figure for January — the highest level in a decade — which he said could not be lowered unless the economy was more productive.

“Australia needs to get back to (economic) growth rate of three per cent and beyond to address the rising unemployment rate,” said Mr Hockey. The current growth rate is about 2.8 per cent.

And he said the Government had a strategy to do this.

Last night Mr Hockey revealed he hoped to raise $130 billion from privatisation of state and federal assets. The Commonwealth will offer Medibank Private for sale but today Mr Hockey would not speculate on other sell-offs.

The Treasurer Joe Hockey.
The Treasurer Joe Hockey. Source: News Limited
“The Federal Government hasn’t got a lot of assets to sell. Apparently we’ve got a lot of golf courses,” he said, a reference to sport facilities on defence bases.

However, he outlined what he saw a significant shift in the funding of major infrastructure programs.
“Government’s around the world have run out of money. Governments around the world have assets,” the Treasurer told reporters.

“The private sector is loaded up with cash.

“In Australia, Australian superannuation funds, including the ones that the union representatives are trustees of, they are investing in infrastructure offshore because there’s not enough to invest in Australia.

“And one of the things that has prevented them from doing it — investing in new infrastructure in Australia ... is there’s no guaranteed return on investment.

“The state and federal governments — primarily the state governments — have assets that have a guaranteed return.

“So what governments have to do is recycle precious taxpayer capital from existing assets, that Australian mums and dads can buy either from their superannuation or on the stock exchange ... into new productive investments that at the end of the day are going to grow the economy.

“At the end of the day if we don’t recycle that money then we are simply limiting our own capacity to grow.”
Mr Hockey said the Labor Opposition and the Greens had to be part of the process to boost growth, by backing removal of carbon pricing: “They’ve got to be part of the partnership. Otherwise it will be more difficult.”

However, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten today said the Government did not appear to have a jobs strategy.

“Isn’t it time for the Government to do its day job?” he said.

Mr Shorten told reporters: “Unemployment in Australia is now at its highest level in a decade. The Abbott government has serious questions to answer.

“Over 60,000 full-time jobs have been lost since the Abbott government was elected ... In fact the last time unemployment was this high was when Tony Abbott was Employment Minister.”

news.com.au 13 Feb 2014

The government has defrauded the Australians to the tune of billions of dollars annually, where now apparently the government is broke.

Every time the words 'Mums and Dads' is used by government / investors, buyer beware.

This is another scam aimed at the uneducated masses.

13 February 2014

How to stop data being synchronised from your Windows Phone

One of the biggest assaults on user's privacy is done via the smart phone industry where operating system manufacturers, like Apple, Google and Mircosoft collect data openly and covertly for the governments.

In today's market, the Microsoft corporation has a relatively small portion of smart phone sales where the operating system Windows Phone 8 resides on hardware made by manufacturers like Nokia or HTC.

Below is listed a few ways of reducing information being sent to Microsoft.

When setting up a Windows Phone, an email account must be used where your contact data is to be stored.

An email (hotmail.com / live.com) account can be setup for first use of the phone, but does not need to contain your phone contacts details in order for your phone to function correctly.

In order to disable the information from being uploaded, the server setting in email+accounts has to be changed from the email server to

This can be found in :

Settings -> (under the system column) go to email+account, see illustration below:

Under the Microsoft Account section there is a server field at the bottom which denotes the server where data is to be synchronised to.

This field should be, which is the internal ip address of any computer. See illustration below.

Other places of interest where data exchange could be minimised for novice Windows Phone users:

GPS Location: 

Settings -> (system tab) location (off)

Programs that claim to need to know your location in order to function correctly, can also function without the need to know where the user is, e.g weather applications, speedtest.net and other applications, excluding GPS specific ones.

Connect with Xbox:

Settings -> (applications tab) games -> Connect with Xbox (off)


Settings -> (applications tab) people -> Use my location (off). See illustration below:


Settings -> (system tab) backup
- app list+settings (backup off)
- text messages (backup off)
- photos (auto upload off)

Find my phone:

Settings -> (system tab) find my phone
- Send apps to my phone using push notifications... (unchecked)
- Save my phone's location periodically and before the battery runs out to make it easier to find (unchecked)

Music and Videos:

Settings -> (applications tab) music+videos
- Connect with Xbox Music (off)
- Xbox Music cloud collection (off)

Photos and Camera:

Settings -> (applications tab) photos+camera, Auto upload SkyDrive (off)


Settings -> (applications tab) search, Use my location (off),
- Send location information for Microsoft Tags (unchecked),
- Allow Microsoft to store and use images from vision searches (unchecked).

Browsing History:

Settings -> (applications tab) Internet Explorer [advanced settings]
- Send browsing history to Microsoft to help improve Bing services (unchecked)
- Send a Do Not Track request to websites you visit (checked)
- Cookies from websites and apps (block all)
- Allow sites to store files on my phone (unchecked)

These are just some of the ways that can be used to minimise the amount of personal data being transferred should a user require the use of the smart phone for minimalist purposes.

Other Apps that may harvest information unnecessarily


Settings -> Options
- Use location services (off)
- Collect Data (off) 

12 February 2014

TEA - Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

One of the most important documents is being kept out of the reach of the general populous, that being the 'Constitution of Australia'.

This is THE document that the 'authorities' do not want the masses to know about nor its importance and significance in law, and therefore the law courts of Australia.

The police will mock you when you refer to you rights and the laws that they break, with reference to the 'Constitution'.

The 'Constitution' is a document that is referred to in law, by lawyers, and in cases, but is kept out of the reach of the masses.

In the current ruling with regards to the class action taken against the ANZ bank with regards to 'late fees', the corporate media mentioned that a 900 year old document was refered to with regards to the decision made, that being that the practice of charging late fees is unlawful.

This can be applied to all industries, including telecommunications companies, utility service providers etc.

Also there is no statute of limitation, meaning one can go back as far as one wants with the fee charged.

Facts about the modern relevance of the Constitution of Australia

The Australian Constitution is the single most important document in Australia’s history. It was designed to provide lasting foundational principles for creating Commonwealth laws and for ensuring the protection of the Australian people by setting the rules for responsible government, such as the separation of powers.

The Australia Act 1986 is unconstitutional by substance, even though it directly doesn’t amend the Consitution by form.

See also The Voice of the Australian Constitution.

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 – Section 15A – Construction of Acts to be subject to ConstitutionEvery Act shall be read and construed subject to the Constitution, and so as not to exceed the legislative power of the Commonwealth, to the intent that where any enactment thereof would, but for this section, have been construed as being in excess of that power, it shall nevertheless be a valid enactment to the extent to which it is not in excess of that power.

Constitution – Section 106 – The Constitution of each State shall operate subject to the Commonwealth Constitution. All State Constitutions are subject to the Constitution of Australia.
Constitution – Section 108 – Saving of State laws. The legislative powers of the state parliaments cannot be altered except by altering the Constitution, which can only be done by the Australian people voting in a referendum.

Constitution – Section 109 – Inconsistency of Laws – When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. This is in contradiction to the belief that modern laws override older laws. The Constitution is the foundation from which statutes are to be constructed. The construction of any building must conform to the limits imposed by it’s foundation, or else the building will collapse. Unabated statute laws would also lead to chaos and destruction if the Constitution didn’t lay the ground rules to govern their creation.

Constitution – Section 128 – Mode of altering the Constitution can only be by way of referendum. Since Federation, only 8 of the 44 proposals to amend the Constitution via a referendum have passed. Over 70% of the proposed changes were rejected by the Australian people.

Referendum 1984 – Interchange of Powers – Not Carried. The States were not given the authority to freely interchange Commonwealth powers at will.

Laws of England are still in force – The Imperial Laws of England were brought into Australian Law via the Australian Courts Act 1828 (9 Geo 4 c 83) section 24, Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 and Victorian Constitution Act 1975  – Section 3.

The Bill of Rights Act 1688 was declared via the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 – Section 8.

Government's $130 billion fire sale

Treasurer Joe Hockey.
Treasurer Joe Hockey. Source: Supplied
THE government is preparing for a $130 billion sell-off of assets ranging from Medibank Private to electricity poles in its quest for much-needed cash. 

Treasurer Joe Hockey today told the Wall Street Journal he would reach agreements with premiers on what to sell and how in a wideranging privatisation program.

“We are going to free up the capacity to get on with the job of building things,” Mr. Hockey told WSJ.

“We’re going to form a partnership with the states that is going to be rolled out over the next few months, which is hugely exciting, and involves potentially massive transactions that will get the place moving.”

Money from the sales would go to job-creating infrastructure, which could include a second airport for Sydney.

The revelation of the sell-off came as the Labor Opposition used Parliament to accuse the Government of killing off jobs.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said 54,000 full-time jobs had disappeared since Tony Abbott became Prime Minister. He calculated this last one job disappearing every three minutes.

Full details of the privatisation are expected to be revealed in the May Budget.

“There is potentially $130 billion in privatizable assets in Australia, maybe more,” Mr. Hockey told the WSJ.

He said likely candidates for sale would include utilities and transport networks as well as the health insurer Medibank Private, which analysts believe could be worth up to $4 billion.

“From my perspective, the sooner we get out of running businesses the better,” said Mr. Hockey.

 news.com.au 12 Feb 2014

Some of the general populous may believe that politicians are 'public servants', subservient to a government, therefore it's people.

The facts are VERY different, to what the masses would be led to believe.

Politicians are NOT public servants, but rather corporate entities, subservient to corporations, where their policies totally benefit the business community.

As a result their positions are a conflict of interest, but this is hardly mentioned, by the corporate media, and totally ignored in decision and policy making.

Killer drunk driver who snoozed behind the wheel will spend less than two years in prison

Killer driver to be free in two years
Professional DJ Anthony Wilson was killed when Sandi Humphrey crashed. Source: Supplied

A KILLER driver who crashed after falling asleep at the wheel drunk will spend less than two years in prison. 
Sandi Humphrey, 31, had been drinking at a band practice with mates before he made the fatal decision to drive home in December 2012.

He had thought he was fine to drive, the County Court heard today.

But with a blood alcohol reading of between .085 and .15 he fell asleep at the wheel and crashed head-on into oncoming traffic.

Innocent victim Anthony Wilson, a professional DJ, had been returning from a gig when Humphrey crashed into him.

The 33-year-old was killed instantly.

"Like so many other people in your position you foolishly chose to drink and drive and because of that Mr Wilson was killed," Judge Geoff Chettle told Humphrey.

"Yours was not a case of momentary inadvertence," he said.

Judge Chettle rejected submissions by Humphrey's legal team that the crash had been an accident.
He said he had been working all day, eaten little, and would have been aware that after drinking several beers he shouldn't have driven.

He also said by his plea of guilty, to a single charge of dangerous driving causing death, he had admitted the crash was more than a tragic accident.

Judge Chettle said Mr Wilson's death had had a ripple effect on all who knew him, and represented the nightmare of parents, siblings and friends touched by Victoria's road toll.

He said despite extensive road trauma campaigns the community did not truly appreciate the grave consequences of dangerous driving.

Judge Chettle said Humphrey, a father of one, was of good character and had never been in trouble with the law before.

But he refused a submission by his lawyers that his clean record should mean his sentence be wholly suspended, despite no concerns he would reoffend.

"People need to understand if they drive dangerously and kill other members of the community they will be punished," he said.

Humphrey was jailed for two years and six months with 14 months wholly suspended for two years.
It means he must serve an immediate term of 16 months' imprisonment.

news.com.au 5 Feb 2014

Australia's judicature together with the legal profession is corrupt to the core.

The policy of 'judges' is to let criminals loose, so that they can reoffend, (irrespective of 'official' remarks) and others can spend a small fortune to bring the perpetrators to 'justice'.

Another judge entering the Hall of Fame for the Corrupt Judges file.

  • Judges buy cases in the form of securitised bonds.

  • Judges also receive $30,000 per conviction, information that is kept away from the masses.

Still the best country to kill people, and literally get away with it.

10 February 2014

Civic Compliance Victoria Explained

This is a great breakdown what Civic Compliance Victoria actually is and who it’s shareholders are-FT

Civic Compliance Victoria is the “body” that processes infringement notices, infringement warrants and fines within the State of Victoria.

This article provides a description of exactly what Civic Compliance Victoria is (and is not), and the people behind CCV.

Civic Compliance Victoria

The State Government of Victoria website for fines states, “Civic Compliance Victoria (CCV) is an administrative body that is responsible for processing fines issued by various government agencies and authorities within Victoria“, and that, “all enforcement orders and infringement warrants issued by the Infringements Court are processed by Civic Compliance Victoria irrespective of the agency by which they were originally issued.” [1]

The fore mentioned website appears to be (grossly) misleading. In communications with the Department of Justice – State of Victoria it was communicated that:

Civic Compliance Victoria (CCV) is the name created by the State to provide one name for the integrated fines and enforcement system comprising the Traffic Camera Office of Victoria Police, the Infringements Court and the Sheriff’s Office. CCV has no ABN number and is not registered as a business as it is neither a business nor a company, nor a trading name. The name CCV is the intellectual property of the State of Victoria. [2]

This statement is confirmed by the IP Australia website [3]. The following trade marks are registered:
Registered Trade Marks for CCV
Number Trade Mark Name Registrant
933736 CCV The Crown in the Right of the State of Victoria
933737 CIVIC COMPLIANCE VICTORIA The Crown in the Right of the State of Victoria
1010971 CCV (logo) The Crown in the Right of the State of Victoria

Hence, Civic Compliance Victoria appears to be nothing more than a trade mark registered by The Crown in the Right of the State of Victoria.

The State of Victoria and Tenix

In communications with the Department of Justice – State of Victoria it was communicated that:
The State’s contractor, Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd, is licensed to use the names ‘CCV’ and ‘Civic Compliance Victoria’ in providing infringement management and enforcement services for the State.” [2]

In subsequent communications with the Department of Justice – State of Victoria it was communicated that:
… Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd is the only entity licensed to use the names ‘CCV’ and ‘Civic Compliance Victoria’“. [4]

Hence, the Department of Justice – State of Victoria has communicated that Tenix Solution IMES Pty Ltd has exclusive license to use the CCV trade marks.
Civic Compliance Victoria - Trade Mark Relationships
Further information about the relationship between the State of Victoria and Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd can be obtained from the following sources:
  • Infringement Management and Enforcement Services Project – Deed of Charge, signed 26 July 2007 (available via ASIC).
  • Infringement Management and Enforcement Services Agreement; start date 29 July 2007 to 30 October 2012 (Contract 015-07-08) [5].
The estimate value of the contract is listed as $332,100,000 ($332.1M). Please note that the contract available via the tenders.vic.gov.au website has sections redacted and is not the complete document.

The reference in the contract to license of the trade marks is located in section 51.18 of the agreement; part of that section is presented (bold font emphasis added by editor):

51.18 Licence to use the Trade Marks

(a) With effect from the Commencement Date, the State grants to the Contractor for the Term a non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to use the Trade Marks in Australia solely for the purposes of the Contractor fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement.

(b) The State may from time to time during the Term impose in writing, reasonable requirements regarding the use of the Trade Marks, and the Contractor must comply with those requirements.

(c) Where the Trade Marks appear in any written material (including any electronic material) published by or on behalf of the Contractor, unless otherwise authorised by the State:

(i) the Trade Marks must appear with the ® symbol (or, if the Trade Mark is not yet registered, the ™ symbol); and

(ii) the Trade Mark must be accompanied by the following footnote: The [insert trade mark] trade mark is used by [insert Contractor's details] under licence from the Crown in Right of the State of Victoria.

(d) The Contractor must comply with any standards, directions and specifications notified in writing by the State from time to time during the Term as to the appearance, colour, size and positioning of the Trade Marks and the footnote referred to in clause 51.18(c)(ii) and allow the State to inspect its premises and items using the Trade Marks at any time.

(e) The Contractor must not use the Trade Marks in a manner which is prejudicial to the State or likely to prejudice the distinctiveness of the Trade Marks or the validity of any registration for a Trade Mark. This provision will survive the expiry or termination of this Agreement.

(f) The Contractor must not at any time during the Term use the Trade Marks in juxtaposition to any other trade mark, embellishment or device without the prior written consent of the State.

Note 1: Section 51.18(a) may conflict with advice provided by the Department of Justice – State of Victoria.

Note 2: The author is unaware of any updates to this agreement, thus the contractual terms may be out of date.

Who is Tenix?

Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd is a registered company in the Commonwealth of Australia (ABN 47 126 390 378) [6]; the ultimate holding company is Olbia Pty Ltd (ABN 64 000 305 304) [7]. Further company information can be obtained via ASIC which will validate this fact; part of the company extract is provided as evidence [8]. The company structure/hierarchy is presented.

Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd Company Structure (to Olbia Pty Ltd)
Hence, Tenix Solution IMES Pty Ltd is owned by Olbia Pty Ltd.

Who is Olbia?

Olbia Pty Ltd comprises of eight shareholders, four individual people and four companies; the shareholder structure is presented (information obtained from ASIC Company Extract [9]).
Olbia Pty Ltd Shareholders
Without further investigation, it may be (wrongly) assumed that each of the four company shareholders are owned or controlled by the respective individual shareholders (Paul Salteri, Robert Salteri, Mary Victoria Shaw, Adriana Bianca Gardos); the website manta.com provides information that Paul Salteri is a director of Pasagean Pty Ltd and Adriana Bianca Gardos is a director of Clurname Pty Ltd [10] [11].

The four individuals who are shareholders of Olbia Pty Ltd are children of the late Carlo Salteri; Carlo Salteri died in 2010 [12].
Salteri Family

Hence, Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd, the company that issues infringement notices and infringement warrants is a family-owned company of the Salteri family. According to the BRW Rich 200 list, the Salteri family was ranked as the 7th wealthiest family in Australia ($1.18B). [13]


In summary, based on the evidence provided:
  • Civic Compliance Victoria and CCV are trade marks.
  • CCV is not a corporation, entity, government department or administrative body.
  • Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd has (exclusive) license to use the CCV trade marks.
  • Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd has a five year contract with the State of Victoria valued at approximately $332.1M.
  • The ultimate holding company of Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd is Olbia Pty Ltd.
  • Olbia Pty Ltd is owned by the billionaire Salteri family.
exfacie.com 24 Sep 2011

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.