Corruption in the High Court of Australia | Government and Political Conspiracies | Forum

Please consider registering
sp_LogInOut Log In
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Forum Options

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Corruption in the High Court of Australia
February 3, 2015
2:33 pm
Level 0
Forum Posts: 710
Member Since:
July 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Almost a year on and nothing has been done or indeed reported in any mainstream media in Australia ...

Not all Governments are corrupt but all Governments have been corrupt ...and surprise surprise it is no different in Australia ...

What disgusts me is that the Australian Government passes judgement on other governments of the world while claiming the high moral ground ... what a load of old bolloks!!

Corruption in the High Court of Australia revealed:
Friday, 07 February 2014 10:15
For the first time in Australian history, corruption has been revealed in the High Court.
Australians’ direct access to review by the High Court is guaranteed by our Constitution and it is being refused.
This week Australian Deputy Prime Minister Truss asked High Court Chief Justice French to file a case against corrupt judges, some of them in the High Court itself (letter attached).
Earlier, High Court judges Keifel, Bell and Crennan each defied the Australian Constitution to refuse three applicants their right to justice under section 75 (v). This is corruption at the highest level, according to legal definition of the term.
The case has implications for all Australians, many of whom are unaware that this section in the Constitution was deliberately placed there to provide protection against corrupt Federal government officers, such as Family Court judges.
For 15 years the legal and judicial fraternity has covered up injustices and corruption in the secretive Family Court. Only the High Court has power to review the Family Court. Judges can only be sacked by Parliament.
Legally trained whistleblower Bruce Bell is on the run because of his information about corrupt officials in the Family Court who benefit from drug dealing and paedophilia.
Mr Bell said thousands of families were being affected by corrupt decisions in the Family Court, which had resulted in children being knowingly placed in the ‘care’ of abusers.
“Filing against corrupt Federal public officials under s 75 (v) is a crucial Constitutional right of all Australians,” he said.
“The High Court is refusing to take action where the Constitution says it must.
“The unrelated co-applicants in this case have both had the problem of the other parent sexually abusing their sons.
“Yet three years ago when the High Court was first asked to protect these children, the case was refused filing.
“Many other parents have had the same kind of trouble in the Family Courts and been illegally denied the protection of the High Court.”
Mr Bell said suppression of vital evidence and acceptance by judges of biased material from the Bar table was commonplace and unforgivable.
Not only were children being illegally taken from the better parent, but properties also were being stolen through corrupt Court orders and sold to persons unknown.
“The worst aspect of needlessly secret courts like the Family and State Children’s Courts is that they breed corruption very fast,” he said.
For more information: contact Kevin 11111111111or Jenny 2222222222

Legal whistleblower Bruce Bell framed for assaulting corrupt federal magistrate
Thursday, 06 February 2014 18:24
This week Australian Deputy Prime Minister Truss asked High Court Chief Justice French to file a case against corrupt judges, some of them in the High Court.
Three High Court judges have denied the public access to justice at the highest level, defying a Constitutional right.
For 15 years the legal and judicial fraternity has covered up injustices and corruption in the secretive Family Court. Only the High Court has power to review the Family Court.
Legally trained whistleblower Bruce Bell is on the run because of his information about corrupt officials, who get extra money from drug dealing and paedophilia.
Mr Bell says filing against corrupt Federal public officials is a crucial Constitutional right of all Australians, yet it has never happened before against a High Court judge.
The High Court judges have previously refused legal action against corrupt Family Court judges.
Today Systemic Judicial corruption is International Organized Crime.
Wednesday, 02 October 2013 09:30
We have a judicial system that suppress and intimidates the public
(A).We have judicial members that are working to promote international treaties
(B) that attack the constitution (Clinton and Obama). We have lawyers and law firms promoting
(C) other lawyers into our legislation in violation of the seperation of power. We have lawyers making laws that violate the conflict of interest rules and laws
(D), they or family members have economic gain. We have systemic abuse of the public interest with lawyers and judges
(E) neglecting their responsibilty to enforce misconduct rules and prosecute lawyers and judges for crimes. How many Children, parents and grandparents will they continue to kill and abuse? Unite to hold them accountable! Systemic abuse is against the law!
Here is the goverments International Organized crime outline:
A. In at least part of their activities they commit violence or other acts which are likely to intimidate, or make actual or implicit threats to do so;
B. They exploit differences between countries to further their objectives, enriching their organization, expanding its power, and/or avoiding detection and apprehension;
C. They attempt to gain influence in government, politics and commerce through corrupt as well as legitimate means;
D. They have economic gain as their primary goal, not only from patently illegal activities but also from investment in legitimate business; and
E. They attempt to insulate both their leadership and membership from detection, sanction, and/or prosecution through their organizational structure. (Source : ... 0980822528)

Justice for None. Whistleblocked! Australian Whistleblowing Lawyer faces Lifetime Ban for Exposing Legal, Judicial and Government Corruption
Thursday, 04 October 2012 12:30
At 10 am this Friday morning 5 October 2012, in Melbourne, a prominent Australian journalist, lawyer and political activist, Mr James Johnson will be sentenced on two charges of “professional misconduct” and faces being banned from practising law for at least 5 years (possibly for life) as payback for blowing the whistle on widespread corruption and misconduct in Australia’s legal system.
Earlier this month, the Victorian government (in its Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal) ruled that despite a distinguished two decade career amongst the elite of the legal profession, Mr Johnson’s crime? Making comprehensive whistleblower complaints about corruption and misconduct by a number of Australian barristers, solicitors and judges – complaints that, despite their seriousness and the weight of evidence behind them, the relevant government authorities have not and will not investigate to determine whether they are true or not.
The Victorian Legal Services Commissioner, Mr Michael McGarvie, who is prosecuting Mr Johnson has asked Victoria’s VCAT Tribunal Senior Member Mr Jonathan Smithers impose a lifetime ban on Mr Johnson.
Mr Johnson has responded by filing a 500 page submission proving the truth of his allegations, including draft orders for the VCAT Member to sign, and by demanding the resignations the Legal Services Commissioner, along with Mr Jonathan Smithers of VCAT and Mr John Bowman of VCAT. In May of this year VCAT Deputy President Bowman ruled at a secret all-Government hearing “a day [and a half” before the “trial” against Mr Johnson began on 21 May, that Mr Johnson would not be allowed to produce any government evidence to defend himself to against the charges and to prove his status and rights to legal protections as a “whistleblower”. VCAT struck out 57 summonses calling for the production of substantial government records and testimony from 57 hostile witnesses, most of them prominent public servants. (Click here to view more information on James Johnson).
“Australia is the only country in the world where, and only since 2005, it is against the law to sue lawyers who are negligent in the court room.” Mr Johnson said, “On top of this, we have a lame legal regulator who refuses to investigate more than 90% of the 2,000 complaints about lawyers that the Legal Services Commissioner receives every year. The complaints he refuses to hear include complaints about family lawyers (over 40% of complaints), lawyers executing wills and estates (nearly 30% of complaints) and litigation lawyers generally (another 20% of complaints). The stories, and the statistics, are chilling.”
Mr Johnson has not said anything more about the state of corruption in the legal system than has been said by dozens of other prominent legal figures including parliamentarians, cabinet ministers and judges).
“The bureaucrats have a hard time ahead, explaining why they have repeatedly gone after me for whistleblowing, while not going after any of those dozens of high profile legal and political figures who have said the same things as me over the years, including recently.” Mr Johnson said.
Mr Johnson has campaigned for years to the Victorian Premier and Attorney-General on the need to heed the calls of a damning 2009 Annual Report to Parliament by Victorian State government on widespread corruption and failure in the office of the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner.
“The Baillieu Clark government needs to turn the clock back on the legal profession, only as far back as 2004, when lawyers were regulated by an independent non-lawyer regulator, Ms Kate Hamond the former Victorian Legal Ombudsman. The Baillieu Clark government needs to launch an in-depth investigation into widespread abuse of the courts system by the solicitors, barristers, judges and bureaucrats that run them. We can’t wait for an ‘Independent Broad Based Commission Against Corruption’ – especially one that looks like it will not be independent of the legal profession, and will not be broad based either. The government has to act now.”
Mr Johnson is philosophical and continues to work to change the system. “What the Victorian bureaucrats have done is to declare that notwithstanding glorious Acts of Parliament like Victoria’s Whistleblowers Protection Act of 2001 and Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2004, the day to day reality is that it is illegal to be a whistleblower and to speak out against government corruption in Australia.”
“As Christine Assange said, ‘we live in an age where whistleblowers are criminals, and journalists are enemy combatants. And I am a whistleblower and a journalist, as well as being a lawyer and a political activist,” he said.
“Our elected members of parliament, whom we elect to govern and protect us from excessive misuse of powers by bureaucrats and judges, should all hang their heads in shame. They are failing us too.”
This is not just James Johnson’s personal battle for justice, freedom of speech and the right to speak out against corruption in government – a “lawyerocracy” as Mr Johnson famously calls it, “This is a personal and political battle for the 99.99% of us Australians.”
The stage is set for an epic battle between the forces of good versus evil, on Friday morning in VCAT (“William Cooper Justice Centre”, 223 William Street at 10:00 am).

Highlights of the Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Bill 2012
Sunday, 22 July 2012 16:59
Just recently Australia has introduced a bill regarding Judicial Corruption designed to address corruption by judges and magistrates and other officers of the court. To quote "A Bill for an Act to provide for parliamentary commissions to investigate allegations of judicial misbehaviour or incapacity, and for related purposes". This is great, except for the fact that the bill in itself is corrupt in that it is so discriminatory toward any parent and family undergoing any investigation to which the judicial officer eventually hears about. What do we mean by this ?? Well, first of all ..
"The Commonwealth is liable for the reasonable costs of legal representation for a Commonwealth judicial officer in relation to whom an investigation is being conducted. Witnesses are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses." -- discriminatory, you bet. When are parents undergoing the scrutiny of child protection ever afforded legal aid straight up let alone without even having to apply. Why is this person automatically entitled to and afforded legal protection when the Australian public is not, and it is merely an investigation, not a court procedure.
Then, on page twelve, we have "Natural Justice" ... Yes, we all know it (apparently) exists but is there Natural Justice written into any of the Family Law acts or Children and Young Person Care and Protection Acts, let alone abided by? Nice to see the legislatures are happy to recognise these obligatory human rights requirements when it comes to their own, but it would be nice to see the amendment of acts just mentioned to include sections on Natural Justice alone for parents and children who are very often victims of human trafficking in these same courts.
In Part 3—Investigations of Commissions Division 1—General - 17 Guide to this Division, we have "rules relating to how a Commission is to conduct its investigations" ... this is discriminatory and favours Judicials Officers more than the public, because, in child protection investigations there are no rules which officers must abide by, there are no questions which they must agree upon asking or have formalised.
Generally, the parent is put into a little room, with cameras, and interrogated and lied to about the accusations, and harassed and threatened and intimidated like you would not believe.
Alecomm believes that all parents whom have had their children removed, or undergoing investigation, should LEGALLY be given a document stating exactly what the complaint is regarding thier capacity to parent, and exactly what it is that they are to do in order to have restoration of their family. This would prevent the officers continually changing the rules and reasons for removal in court procedures that is frustrating the system and causing many children unnecessarily to be away from their family, not to mention the burden on taxpayers.
The afforded Natural Justice that these Judicial Officers are given is stated : "20 Natural justice (1) A Commission must act in accordance with the rules of natural justice. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), if an allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity is being investigated by a Commission in relation to a Commonwealth judicial officer: (a) the Commission must: (i) give the Commonwealth judicial officer particulars of the allegation being investigated as soon as practicable; and (ii) offer the Commonwealth judicial officer a reasonable opportunity to make an oral or written statement to the Commission; etc.
Our statement here is if we are investigating a person, it does seem reasonable that we get given our complaints in writing - as the government requires us to do with ANY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT for which we have a grievance. This seems to be a normal and logical step. However, in Child Protection Investigations by DoCS and the like, parents are NEVER EVER afforded this basic decent opportunity , or right that this Judicial Officer is. Nor are they afforded the opportunity to put back in writing their rebuttals to these (alleged complaints / issues) regarding their parenting. DoCS simply remove the children, force the parents to litigate and fight their way, often blind, in a court room where only the government are afforded legal representation each and every time.
In order to be non-discriminatory towards persons other than Judicial Officers the government must introduce legislation or amend legislation to copy these exact guidelines for child protection investigations, or people WILL start jumping up and down, with us making public the amount of discrimination in this new Bill. Furthermore, Judicial Officers must not have automatic legal costs paid for by the government, they too must apply for legal aid like the rest of the public, or better still PAY FOR THEIR OWN legal expenses. After all, why would an innocent judicial officer need legal expenses in any case? Don't they know the law? And after, it is an investigation, not a court proceeding!

Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot...

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 376
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 53
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10396
bionic: 9870
Lashmar: 5289
tigger: 4577
rath: 4297
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3815
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2842
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 25783
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9873
Posts: 126486
Newest Members:
Black Cover, Deacon, Don Portnoy, John Greenewald, letty shawn, Jacob, Bridge City13, Finn Knetes, William C. Lane, Broghen Anders
Administrators: John Greenewald: 697, blackvault: 1777