2024: WE WILL NOT STAY SILENT. This year is a new year, and the victim-survivors of the Family Court of Australia are not going to stay silent any longer. When I say Family Court of Australia, I mean the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, (Family Law) Divisions 1 and 2.

The changes made to the Courts in 2021 were just a smokescreen for Chief Justice Alstergren to hide the fact that his "Court" is not operating as a legal entity in Australia.  It is, in fact, operating as a Star Chamber which has been outlawed since 1863. Many judgments, if not all judgments, are being made prejudicially and are influenced by favour, deceit, money and/or ill-will.

The Chief Justice's "merger" made no difference at all to Victims of the Family Courts as they were in 2020 and prior. In the FCFCOA: Division 1 is the old Family Court, and Division 2 is the old Federal Circuit Court.

There is ZERO change and they still, despite the Lighthouse Project and all the public uproar, with women dying at the hands of abusive men every week; make judgments favouring violent and sexually abusive men.

This is because the Chief Justice aligns with those men; and has invited their political lobby groups to private meetings, publicly praising and endorsing them in writing. These groups provide fake statistics about Male Suicide (which do not stack up when looking at actual suicide numbers) to seek "empathy" for Fathers who had their children removed.

The Children are removed from certain Men because they were abusive to women and children behind closed doors - not because they were subjected to "false allegations by vexatious women". Why don't people know this man was abusive? Because women are silenced by Courts in speaking about the violence inflicted upon them by their ex-partners. By being silenced, and not naming these men, the next partner (and their children / family) is at extreme risk of harm.

‍OUR INVESTIGATION

The Family Law Action Group have been collecting evidence for the past 6 years in order to prove these facts, and will show this evidence to you piece by piece in articles and podcasts during 2024.

We have been secretly recording judges, witnessing secret meetings, collecting actual evidence presented to Courts and in Court files, and collecting conversations on social media by some of the key perpetrators, including Men's Rights Activists that have infiltrated the Chief Justice of the Family Court, and who have led Politicians to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money on Parliamentary Inquiries.

When those inquiries didn't turn out with the results the Patriarchy and Boys Club paedophile-loving legal fraternity (also known as the Swinging Dicks Club) wanted, they quashed it and decided to do nothing.

The Legal Profession as Paedophile Protectors

If you don't understand the "paedophile-protection function" of the Legal Profession and the Courts, question why the NSW Wood Royal Commission papers are suppressed by Court Order. Allegedly, there are barristers, judges and an ex-prime minister named in those files who continued to receive taxpayer salaries after regularly attending a boy-brothel in Kings Cross. Senator Heffernan was a huge advocate in having those names exposed, as we, the Australian public are entitled to know if we are paying criminals to sit in the most trusted, influential and respected positions in Australia's Government.

You may also question why Judges give paedophiles such light sentences and paedophiles are rarely ever investigated or prosecuted by Police. Paedophiles often serve little to no time in jail for serious crimes against Children which affects a child's entire life. Police are protecting judges who in turn protect paedophiles, hence Police protect paedophiles.

Then, we should all question why Youth Crime is a problem; and link that back to Family Courts giving children to paedophiles and family violence perpetrators. Youth Victims of violent parents and paedophiles, who are acting out in Crime as a result of their abusive upbringing, are being prosecuted, but the Adult Paedophiles and Perpetrators causing the problem are not.

We can show you ways in which the Queensland Police ignore Child Sexual Abuse and protect Paedophiles; like in Newett v Newett there are phone recordings of police refusing to interview child victims, and in other cases Police coerce child victims to state certain things on recording that deliberately ruins the chance of an effective prosecution so they can drop the case.

Inquiries recommended Shutting the Family Court Down

The ALRC headed up by Justice Sarah Derrington recommended shutting the Court down entirely because it does not have the power to investigate Children's Safety matters. They were 100% correct.

The Court is NOT safe for women and children and MUST be shut down immediately.

The Government has no choice but to find an alternative method of ending marriages and determining the safety of children (which is constitutionally a State function).

Ironically, in Newett v Newett, the Full Court did exactly that. THEY SHUT THE FAMILY COURT DOWN!

Newett & Newett (No 9) [2023] FedCFamC1A 23 (13 March 2023)

At [43] in their judgment of the Parenting Matter brought down on 13 March 2023, they said words to the effect: Judges "do not have Authority over Children".

That means they cannot make Orders in relation to Children.

And that means you can all go and pick up your kids and sue the crap out of the Government for allowing the Family Court to interfere in your children's lives.

Taxpayers may have a problem in funding a Court that has no authority, and Lawyers are about to have to dish out refunds to every person they ever serviced. Expert witnesses will also have to refund everyone they ever saw in relation to a case. There is no end in sight to the financial ramifications in the Government of this one-liner in a judgment made on 13 March 2023 by three apparently capable judges.

Of course, we believe that judgment to be entirely WRONG. Fundamentally and laughably plainly wrong in the strictest sense.

In our opinion, these incompetent Judges who have been fleecing the public purse for wrongful purpose should be removed under s72 of our Constitution and forced to give all of their assets back to the Commonwealth on account of their malfeasance; to pay their victims back for what they have deliberately done.

They had an Ulterior Motive for saying this - it was to keep Justice Michael Baumann out of jail for his obvious and deliberate breach of s273B.4 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) in Newett.

They were protecting their mate. They were also trying not to self-incriminate because most judges have made these same or similar judgments and placed Children with perpetrators and likely-paedophiles, sometimes on a very regular basis - almost as a matter of Policy.

Up to 35 Division 1 Judges and even more Division 2 Judges all going to Jail for breaching the Criminal Code would be an Australian first. But it has to happen, because Judges are NOT above the law. And if we as Citizens ever did this, we would be charged with Child Sex Trafficking and given a life sentence in a Maximum-Security prison. Therefore, so should they.

They were also trying to keep Judicial Discretion over making decisions to hand children to likely sex abusers in the presence of evidence of risk of sexual harm.

THE REALITY IS: THEY HAVE NO DISCRETION, BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL CODE PROHIBITS THEM FROM MAKING ANY JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF A PERPETRATOR IN THE PRESENCE OF RISK OF SEXUAL HARM EVIDENCE.

Now, because of the Newett Case, judgment has been made that guarantee Men can take children from women in every situation no matter what abuse has occurred against them, and Paedophiles can ALWAYS be handed the Children with 100% custody until the children are the age of 18, with little or no contact to the protective Mother; despite volumes of sexual risk of harm evidence provided to the Court, even evidence handed in to the Judge on the his own instruction.

IF YOU MENTION SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST YOUR CHILDREN BY THE FATHER OR HIS FAMILY, YOU WILL HAVE YOUR CHILD REMOVED.

TO APPEASE THE FAMILY COURT, YOU HAVE TO STAY SILENT AND LET YOUR CHILD BE SEXUALLY ABUSED BY THEIR FATHER IF YOU WANT TO SEE YOUR CHILDREN AGAIN.

‍Judges are breaking the Law, knowingly and willingly

We can and will prove Judges are breaking the Federal Criminal Code and are aiding and abetting Paedophiles and Family Violence perpetrator Fathers in taking vulnerable abused children completely away from very abused Mothers.

We have a genuine belief that Criminals are paying Judges to do this, to keep control of their Child Victims and keep the Children silent for as long as possible.

We can also prove the AFP are refusing to investigate or arrest the paedophiles, and/or the offending judges for their corruption and criminal offending pursuant to s11.5 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

‍NEWETT WAS RECENTLY APPLIED IN BRUCE V BRUCE - it has already taken effect, with Justices Baumann, Austin and Aldridge being the Chief Paedophile-Protectors - in making that law in Newett, and then swiftly applying it in Bruce.

We, the Public, rightfully agree: one who protects paedophiles is likely to be a paedophile themselves. Are these Judges paedophiles? Are their families at risk?

Most recently from October to December 2023, in Bruce v Bruce, we saw Justice Austin give a child to a likely-Paedophile where the Father had already been deemed a sexual and violent risk of harm by practically every NSW State authority. NSW Victims of Crime Authority had already reviewed all the evidence, including medical evidence, and made the positive findings of sexual abuse against the child by the Father some years prior.

On 20 October 2023 at 11.30am, the day after Trial, the author of this article saw the Father and his solicitor who was carrying a black briefcase, go into the Newcastle Courthouse, and the ICL (who was supposed to be on leave) and the second ICL left the Courthouse together about an hour later. All four were at the court at the same time without alternate reason to be there, and most likely they were there to meet with the Trial Judge. How do we know? (1) the briefcase, and (2) the judge then delivered judgment in favour of the sexually-abusive rapist and likely-paedophile Father only four business days later.

A Stay of Orders was requested by the Mother and denied; despite fresh evidence of the child explicitly stating her Father had sexually abused her to her friends in private message the night before judgment was delivered, written by the Child without the Mother even being in the house or in communication with her for 2 weeks at that point. The Maternal Grandparents kidnapped the Child from the Mother after Trial and then did a deal with the Father that if they sided with him, they could see their Grandchildren. The Father provided an Affidavit to the Appeal Court from the Grandmother (favouring himself and perjuring the Grandmother) which was a likely-forgery as it was digitally signed, and witnessed by the Father's Lawyer at the suburb in which the Grandmother resides (hence no need for a digital signature). The Father's lawyer made false witness of the document, as he cannot personally witness a digital signature. The Appeal Court ignored the illegal acts of the Father and his lawyer.

The Appeal Court saw the evidence of the child herself telling her friends she had been sexually abused, and instead of protecting the Child and Staying the Orders to return the Children to the Mother; they spent hours cross examining and interrogating the Victim Mother, essentially, using covert methods, accusing her of setting the child up to say those things about the Father, despite ZERO evidence of such, and it being unlikely... because she was not present when the child disclosed to the psychologist years ago. In addition, the Mother had been raped by the Father after leaving the relationship; and the Grandmother witnessed the aftermath, bruising and trauma. The Rape matter was being investigated by NSW Police until the Father's Family Court Lawyer rang and threatened the Police.

The Full Court had the evidence of Child Sexual Risk of Harm and directly broke the Criminal Code.

This was a big "F*** YOU" to the Australian Public, Legislature and to Democracy.

The Full Court (Aldridge J.) then stated because the High Court refused the Newett Case Special Leave to Appeal, the High Court had decided the Criminal Code Act DOES NOT APPLY TO FAMILY COURT JUDGES, and they therefore have the right to make those judgments and leave children with suspected paedophiles.

So they did. Those Children are now likely being raped and abused. And there is nothing that protective Mother can do about it. She has been made to suffer torture because she cannot save her Children.

See: Bruce & Bruce [2023] FedCFamC1A 225 (8 December 2023)

‍FAMILY COURT ACTING ILLEGALLY TO PROTECT CRIMINALS FROM PROSECUTION

We now know the Family Court is most likely being paid by criminals to cover up their crimes (paedophilia and family violence), and they are making favourable judgments about the perpetrators on the balance of probability, so these criminals can avoid prosecution and jail for their crimes.

No police officer will prosecute a case if a federal judge has determined the person is likely to be innocent of the crime they are investigating.

All a man now has to do is commit violence against his Wife or sexually abuse his Child and have the Mother report it to Police in order to start the sequence required for the Family Court Cartel to jump on board, take thousands of dollars from the marital pool in fees, and have their personally-aligned expert witnesses or employees write fake reports without any clinical evidence, to ensure reasonable evidence exists such that the child is given to the Paedophile or Family Violence Perpetrator.

This is called "fabricating evidence" and is highly illegal. The way to find the fake judgments is to look for the words "mothers' mental illness" or "mother is emotionally abusive because she has a negative view of the father (or the court) which MIGHT pass onto the children".

There is NOTHING a Mother can do for her Children once the Family Court Cartel take hold of them. Absolutely NOTHING.

If a Father pays for a result, or has personal contacts within the Court System, he gets his own way no matter what.

Financial Abuse by the Courts against Women

The Family Court is also handing the majority of Assets in the marital pool to the perpetrators, leaving Women and Children in impecunious positions, allowing Lawyers to rape most of the assets from the marital pool first.

In three of the cases mentioned in this article, the Women brought the majority of assets into the Marriage and the Men walked away with large sums of cash far exceeding the woman, keeping most if not all of their superannuation, and in one case, the Man got the whole house by threatening the woman during mediation and forced her into Consent Orders.

An abused Woman cannot start over again in her 40's or 50's, after having taken time from work to have and raise children; and is left unable to buy a stable home for herself and the Children. The Court is often providing abusive men the ability to get away with fraud (like in Stradford v Judge Vasta) and hide assets they can later use to purchase property and personally enrich themselves.

‍EXAMPLE CASES, OUT OF THOUSANDS OF SIMILAR CASES

We will focus on five cases, showing a history of Judges handing children to likely-Paedophiles (or paedophile enablers) despite serious evidence of sexual harm to children in the presence of the Fathers:

1. The Twins and the Good Doctors Case

2. Melton v Hurley

3. Newett v Newett

4. Darley v Darley

5. Bruce v Bruce

In four of these cases, we can show pre-Trial evidence of private meetings held between Parties intentionally excluding the Mother.

We will show how Judges go even further and criminally prosecute anyone who dares to challenge and expose their Cartel.

If a Mother takes the children away to protect them from abuse and rape by the Father, as in the case of Newett and also the Twins Case, the judges invoke AFP Orders to hunt them down.

However, if a Man takes the children from the Mother, as in the case of Newett and also Darley, the court assists him in keeping the children and uses "strategic timing" to extend the children's time with the abuser. This allows a man to brainwash the children that the mother is evil or mentally ill and allows the Court to make judgment the Children are "now settled". They invoke their own Family Report Writers to write unregulated false reports to state the Mother is not fit to parent her Children, and despite the evidence of abuse by the Father, no matter what type of abuse, they give the Father a glowing testimony.

Father's Rights and the Patriarchy upheld by the Family Court

Their Fathers' Rights System is so tight, anyone who tries to break one cog in their machinery is tortured, threatened and prosecuted.

The Family Court (based on the evidence you will see) is without a doubt, the biggest Paedophile Network in Australia, with Untouchable Judges, Barristers, Solicitors and specific Psychiatrists, Psychologists and Social Workers at the helm, usually members or trainees of the AFCC.

Nothing that is stated here can be claimed to be defamatory.

We have all the evidence required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the Family Court (and all of its Accomplices) are a Corrupt Criminal Organisation supported and funded by the Attorney-General to continue doing KNOWN HARM to Children, including SEXUAL HARM on a daily basis. It is outlined clearly in the Government's own inquiries.

‍COMPENSATION FOR VICTIM MOTHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN

The government is negligent and expends money on other issues quickly and without any haste where it is deemed urgent and necessary. For example, Judicial Immunity laws were created and deployed inside of two weeks with no public consultation or scrutiny. The same occurred with Illegal Detention of Asylum Seekers. The failed Referendum for the Voice was given priority as well.

Stradford v Vasta was the case that determined judges are civilly liable for acting in excess of jurisdiction. Judge Vasta was personally sued and ordered to pay Stradford after jailing him for 6 days. Stradford received $359,000; or nearly $60,000 per day for his "traumatic experience". 6 days of jail is NOTHING compared to what Mothers go through when they lose their Children for no legal reason.

The women and children in many of these cases we will be covering have endured 6-10 years of traumatic loss and pain, loss of financial resources, loss of identity, deprivation of liberty, defamation, and often a loss of their career, mental and physical health.

That equates to $131,400,000 for 6 years of Court-facilitated abuse, per woman and per child, doubling this amount to around $260 million; for the extreme trauma in comparison to Stradford, who received payments despite committing serious financial deceit in sworn documents to the Family Court negatively affecting his ex-wife financially. He is one of the abusers we refer to, and he was paid out by the Court. He has a penis, so this is of course acceptable.

When the Woman in Newett filed in Federal Court for the same compensation, the Court refused to file it and pretended it did "not have jurisdiction"; and despite the evidence and admission by the Trial Judge that the Court had caused direct lifelong harm to that Mother, the Federal Court Registrar claimed her filing the matter was "an abuse of process" but would not explain why.

The Federal Court MUST hear any case regarding disputes arising under Federal Legislation. So the Federal Court continues to inflict legal abuse on the Mother, and the Mother cannot have her case heard in any Court. She has a Right to Access the Courts, and a Right to be Heard, and a Right to rely upon the Law to determine her Case.

‍WOMEN MUST STAY IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS OR FACE CHILD REMOVAL

Both Labor and Liberal Governments believe women and children's lives are worthless. The Greens have equally ignored it. All have refused to raise the matter in Parliament for debate.

They all, including the Minister for Women Ms. Gallagher; by their refusal to act to protect the children in Newett and in Darley and in many other cases, believe Women and Children should not be allowed to leave abusive relationships. They believe, as evident by their actions, Men should be allowed to rape their own Children; and they have no role in stopping it. It is as simple as any of those with authority, going and picking up the Children, taking them to Child Safety and justifying it with the evidence. e.g. the Politician invokes the AFP to pick up the Children and their belongings from the Perpetrator and invoke an emergency Childrens Court Order via State Police.

The Government continues to allow Family Courts to drag women and children right back to their abusers, then allow Courts to remove the children with the Courts falsely alleging these "incapable, delusional, histrionic Mothers" are a risk; even if domestic violence orders exist in their favour after serious abuse by the Father of the Children.

The Policy should be simple: YOU ABUSE, YOU LOSE.

You lose your Children, your Assets, your Residence, your Clean Police Record, and your Reputation. YOU ABUSE HER, YOU LOSE EVERYTHING.

Men are never considered by these Courts or Medical Professionals to have Mental Illness, Personality Disorders and "Testrionic" Disorders (a word the author has coined meaning "mental diseases caused by the presence of testicles") when they abuse the crap out of women and children, then deny it and try to cover it all up; lying to Police and Courts even in the presence of evidence.

It is clear Cluster B Disorders are behind the Abusers need for Power and Control and are also responsible for the covert abusive behaviours, pathological lying and need to maintain a positive public image. That is obvious to all, but never found in judgments as a finding of fact against abusive men.

ANOTHER STOLEN GENERATION

The Government is taking Children from Good Safe Mothers for no reason.

This is a Stolen Generation...

Similar to that which occurs with Aboriginal Mothers, Single Mothers, and now Abused Mothers.

In this case: Women and Children are the Property of Men, and Men can do no wrong.

THE DANGER OF THE NEWETT PRECEDENT IF HIGH COURT DOES NOT DETERMINE THE MATTER

We can also prove the High Court of Australia is avoiding hearing the matter to set the precedent to overturn the Newett Full Court precedents (of which there are many faulty precedents because the case was wrongly bifurcated and heard in the wrong sequence).

Ms. Newett v Mr. Newett & Ors [2023] HCASL 186 (7 December 2023)

This leaves very DANGEROUS precedent in place. As we saw, Justice Aldridge is already using it to commit prima facie Crimes against Children.

All the judgments in Newett, on their face are erroneous, nonsensical and VERY harmful to victims of family violence and child sexual abuse.

‍Newett & Newett (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 439 (8 July 2022)

The Newett case demonstrates Children can be placed by the Court with seriously brain-injured psychopaths who have strangled and assaulted their wives, stolen all the woman's assets and funds, stalked her, tracked her, monitored her, recorded her constantly, coercively-controlled her for over a decade, and where the Father is also a likely-Paedophile, easily identifiable on the children's evidence... which includes documented photographic and video evidence of the children's genital injuries - ALL IGNORED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE AND FULL COURT.

According to the true evidence, Mr Newett belongs in a mental institution for lifelong admission, or a high security prison with no release.

The judgment also shows NO ACTUAL RISK OF ANY HARM by the Mother or Maternal Family. Yet they cannot see the Children without jail-like supervision.

The Father has manipulated the Contact Centres to prevent the Mother interacting in any normal way with the Children: eg. giving gifts to the Children where the Orders allow for it. He has engineered it so the Mother can no longer ever see the Children because no Contact Centre will take the family on board.

The judgment admits the choice for the Judge was to leave the children with a Dictatorial and Disempowering Male, or transfer them back to a Disparaging Mother (who was telling her friends about the abuse publicly, as was the extent of the "disparaging" remarks which was to prevent them or their Children being abused by him in any way).

They found that because the mother talked to the children about her puppy, and about having a house for them to move into - this was "emotional abuse", but the Father hitting the children "everywhere but the head" and locking them on a fifth floor balcony for not eating their dinner at ages 4, 5 and 7 was perfectly fine. Denigrating the mother calling her "mad" in front of the children was also perfectly fine. Stalking the mother and grandmother and recording their phone calls illegally was also perfectly fine.

This is despite the psychiatrist saying if the Father did any of these things the Father would be deemed to be Cluster B personality disordered, and would be dangerous for the Children, either supervised or unsupervised.

The judgment made discriminatory judgments against the maternal Grandfather with late stage Motor Neurone Disease, calling him "dribbling and incoherent" so was "unsafe for the Children".

The judgment made discriminatory judgments against the Mother where (written in judgment) her Anxiety and PTSD was caused by the Court taking her children away (and giving them to a person she genuinely believed to be a likely- paedophile) and failing to prevent her and the children from experiencing actual Harm, Violence and Coercive Control of the Father. As her trauma was caused by the Court failing to protect her and further abusing her by ordering her to abide by the Fathers Orders; the "Mother's behaviour" was justified and cannot be used to keep the Children away from her for any further length of time. To do so would be to deliberately create more harm to her and the Children.

‍JUDGES AND POLITICIANS ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW, AND SHOULD BE JAILED FOR FACILITATING PROBABLE CHILD SEX CRIMES

On account of these five cases: Justices Baumann, Hogan, Smith, Campton, Aldridge, Austin, Jarrett, Kali, Rees, and Brasch (and most likely many others) all belong in jail for 5 years per count of their crime pursuant to s273B.4 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)**, along with Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, ex- Attorney-General Michaelia Cash, and AFP Commissioner Reece Kershaw (already identified as potentially corrupt in a PWC deal).

‍HIGH COURT COMPLICIT IN CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN, FAVOURING AND PROTECTING JUDGES RATHER THAN REVIEWING EVIDENCE TO PROTECT AUSTRALIA'S CHILDREN

At least Four High Court Justices have already committed the same Crime: with Justices Keane (retired), Beech-Jones, Gordon and Steward all ignoring prima facie evidence of risk of sexual harm against the three vulnerable children, where the evidence was right before them.

Ms. Newett v Mr. Newett & Ors [2023] HCASL 186 (7 December 2023)

‍Judges are not above the law according to our Constitution (s5 Preamble or Covering Clause)*; and Family Court Judges have failed to follow the law pursuant to their obligations and have failed to apply the law pursuant to their Public Duty. Every other judge has simply tried to cover up for the judges who have committed those crimes.

In the five cases we will explore; the evidence has been attempted to be quashed and covered up, EVEN BY THE HIGH COURT, with the victims criminally tortured and defamed, now all impecunious, and with their lives and (in our opinion) that of their children completely and utterly destroyed.

Our articles and podcasts will reveal all.

‍

* COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 5. Operation of the Constitution and laws. (austlii.edu.au)

**S273B.4 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) states:

Subdivision B--Offences relating to the protection of children

273B.4 Failing to protect child at risk of child sexual abuse offence

Failing to protect child at risk of child sexual abuse offence

(1) A person (the defendant ) commits an offence if:

(a) the defendant is a Commonwealth officer; and

(b) there is another person aged under 18 (the child ) under the defendant's care, supervision or authority, in the defendant's capacity as a Commonwealth officer; and

(c) the defendant knows there is a substantial risk that a person (the potential offender ) will engage in conduct in relation to the child; and

(d) such conduct, if engaged in, would constitute a child sexual abuse offence; and

(e) the defendant, because of the defendant's position as a Commonwealth officer, has the actual or effective responsibility to reduce or remove the risk mentioned in paragraph (c); and

(f) the defendant negligently fails to reduce or remove that risk.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

Absolute liability

(2) Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(d).

Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.

Certain matters not required to be proved

(3) Subsection (1) applies:

(a) whether or not the child can be identified as a specific person; and

(b) whether or not the potential offender can be identified as a specific person; and

(c) whether or not a child sexual abuse offence is or was actually committed in relation to the child.