you're reading...

Political Pledge to Shut Down Australia’s Genocidal Family Law Courts

… ☞☞☞ … Australia’s Family Law Courts aboriginate (strip the homes, family and personal rights and dignities off) more than 100,000 ordinary working class and indigenous families every year, tapping more $4bn a year in taxpayer funds to draw and quarter, and pocket more than $40 bn a year in divorce estates via corrupt, unconstitutional, killer family court system and a Family Court / CSA Death Toll in excess of 12 deaths per day … ☞☞☞ …

After the 2013 Federal Election, with parliamentary salary, staffers and status as Federal MHR for #Lalor I will at last be able to fund / fundraise to end the Australian  Family Court / CSA genocide.  These are crimes against humanity committed on an industrial scale through shameful government agencies and sham government edicts.

Despite these human rights and dignity violating Family Law Court practices being roundly condemned as crimes against humanity by the then (independent) Deputy Speaker on the floor of the Australian House of Representatives as long ago as June 1997, just as with the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s infamous “Sorry” speech of 18 February 2008 to the “stolen generations”,  the “stolen lands” and broken families of Australia’s four hundred oppressed, indigenous nations, nothing has been done about these post 1975 (lawyer on working class) Family Law Act “stolen  generations” either.

I will have the whole abominable Family Law Act struck down by the UN International Court of Justice if, as, and when, the High Court of Australia fails again, in the self-welfaring interests of lawyer hegemony to do its duty by the Australian people). I will have hundreds of millions in “Rocher claims” compensation paid to 35 years of “stolen generations” of ordinary working class families, and a swag of genocidal family lawyers and judges serving time in forced retirement – if not behind prison bars. It won’t come easy. Anything to stop the suicide, the depression and despair, the genocide rates (more than 12 CSA / Family Court deaths alone in Australia every day).

Julian and Christine Assange started this battle two decades ago. Julian Assange has spent half of his 40 years on this earth being beaten up as a child and then as a dad in the unconstitutional, killer Australian Family Law Court system (see link to his wikipedia bio below – under heading “1.3 child custody issues”).

What greater tyranny can a government of force unleash on its subjects than the anhilation of the concept of family (and extended family) – the ‘basic building block’ of human society for millenia?  It is much deeper and much more insidious than the destruction of ‘coupling’, ‘romance’ or even ‘sex’ that George Orwell warned us about in 1984.

In the past 5 years I have spent thousands and thousands of unpaid hours counselling, supporting and raising the legal shackles for victims, mums, dads and kids, individually and collectively, who lack the organisation and funding to mount enough of a stand even to get inside the Federal Court system. These, my people, have literally been barred (literally on Judges orders) from even filing papers to mount the legal challenges (let alone getting media air necessary to raise funds to match the bottomless pockets and propaganda weapons of our corrupt, tyranny of a government.

Once I am elected as the MHR for Lalor, I will have the monetary and political power to organise the victims, and the (so far) undamaged sections of the public, to succeed where my people have been thrown out of Court (barred entry, in fact – as in both my two documented family law trials / ordeals – “The Crucible” (Brisbane, Jan 2010), and “Soylent Green and Gold (Hobart, Nov 2010 – see links below).”

James Johnson

Keep watching: 

And Further Reading:!/search/users/lawyerocracy

About JamesJohnsonCHR

Constitutional Human Rights Lawyer & Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor (Commonwealth of Australia). Advocating Smaller, Open Governments with Lower Taxes and Smaller, Faster, Better Bureaucracy. Also Advocating Justice & Politics Reforms. Defending Families & Civil Rights and Freedoms. I also blog at


19 thoughts on “Political Pledge to Shut Down Australia’s Genocidal Family Law Courts

  1. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST (not a legal practitioner) I pursue what is constitutionally appropriate and as a Consultant with FOLEYS LAWYERS I am working on a constitutional challenge in regard of the Family Court of Australia. Michael Alderton committed suicide in prison (1995), where all he wanted was to see his children! Let us never ignore the tragedy so many are facing in the future, if we fail to act while we can do so now. Check out my websitte and also the link to my blog about constitutional matters.

    Posted by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. | May 12, 2012, 3:34 pm
    • R.I.P dad, love you always-wish we had some answers😦

      Posted by kimberlee alderton | August 6, 2012, 12:03 pm
      • yes some answers would be good bo

        Posted by jamie fitzpatrick | August 17, 2012, 2:08 pm
      • Hello James you are spot on.
        Tasmania has the worst laws. The unjust Police Family Violence law in Tasmania unconstitutionally empowers police to make non evidence based Judicial Orders which force people (mostly males) from their homes and children for minimum of 12 months with the onus being on the Defendant having to bear the expense of dispossession including reestablishment and Child Support.then make Court application to establish their innocence.
        Any variation of the Police orders extends the original Orders for another 12 months from variation date.
        This Tasmanian Family Violence Act 2004 removes the presumption of innocence as their is no obligation by police to interview the Defendant in the Act.
        This is by any description a travesty of justice! Police officers do not have the constitutional power, experience or magisterial qualifications to act as the Judiciary to do this.
        In practice Police make Orders to shift the risk from potential litigation if things go wrong!
        Although the Alliance of Australian Lawyers and the Aust Law Reform Commission have recommended changes no action has been taken.
        Victorian counterpart has a compulsory return to Court within 72 hours.
        Your work is greatly appreciated.
        regards John Schramm

        Posted by John Schramm | August 21, 2012, 6:33 pm
      • RIP Bent Boy, I was in Loddon prison for armed robbery on a commonwealth bank, no one knew that he was my best mate, we didn’t write,call, nothing, I don’t know how the hell anyone knew we were best mates, but as soon as he so called ( killed himself ) I was called up to the prison superintendents office and informed that he had been found dead. I personally believe that the police had a hand in the demise of Mic, he was too crazy for them to deal with, and the police force was a law unto themselves back then, so tell me again please, how does someone hang themselves from a door knob while holding up their own legs. I knew Vicki and the kids so well, so well, I’ll say it again, something isn’t right about this so called suicide, and some people have gotten away with murder the way I see it. RIP my mate. Ian Brown.

        Posted by Ian Brown | July 29, 2015, 7:17 pm
      • R.I.P dad. Was never suicide – wasn’t even a fucking note

        Posted by josh alderton | August 4, 2015, 9:39 am
    • Family law courts need to be held accountable…and all mums and dads must unite together as citizens and join forces to fight together….what the greedy pigs do is turn dads against mums and keep their hands clean…when in fact several submissions and surveys done by NPBSPPC9posted on at the last enquiry provided more therapeutic counselling during separations, and that real crimes be investigated..but the corrupt bastards covertly kept these hidden in the court system, whilst the innocent kids suffered …contnue to suffer..and some of these kids and parents will be so damaged that only people like James and Assange will fight for these crimes….

      Posted by Alicia | September 3, 2012, 5:00 pm
  2. Well done James, I hope you succeed. The Family Courts need to be exposed everywhere. I’m trying to do the same in Ireland. My website is I hope you have realized that the agenda behind all this is the United Nations Convention on the Chilld. The UN seeks to destroy family, it is a very dangerous ideology.

    We need to also scrap the UN, they have become nothing more than a lazy policeman at this point who cant come to a resolution on anything until many are dead. The best they can do these days is utter a strong condemnation which of course can be vetoed by many countries. Since 1995, UNICEF no longer benefits children.

    Posted by irelandssecretcourts | May 16, 2012, 2:46 am
  3. Go for it James. I wish you all the best

    Posted by Aitken Partners | July 12, 2012, 4:30 pm
  4. PS. There is no need to strike down legislation that can safely be ignored.

    Posted by Peter Nolan | August 30, 2012, 9:47 am
  5. My following submission is as a Lawyer and a Mother. I am concerned James Johnson that you are setting before people a Guillotine ahead of informing the public of the reality of living with the consequences of deficiencies in Family Law legislation. I am grateful that someone such as yourself is concerned and aware Mr Johnson but I do not want to forfeit the result by appearing too heavy handed though in reality it needs a steady boot. Please review my paper below if you will. Kindest regards, Lleini Lloyd-Smith LLB

    A Look At Mandatory Reporting and Legal Professionals in the Family Court of Australia. by Lleini Lloyd-Smith LLB.

    by Lloyd-Smith Lleini on Thursday, 13 September 2012 at 23:41 ·


    Do Not Align Yourself With a Violent Man. If You Rescue Him, You Will Have To Do It Again – proverbs

    Legal Representatives are not required by law to report to authorities when a child is alleged to be at risk of interference either sexually or by means of violence within their domestic environment. In Family Court matters, a separate form in addition to an application for ‘Live-With orders’ is required to notify the court of suspected risk, the form is called “Notice of Risk of Harm to a Child”.

    ‘A Notice of Risk of Harm’ presents to a Judge the facts stating the nature of the concern or events relating to the child, it is then up to the discretion of the Judge to place the matter into what is called the Magellan List. A Magellan matter connects the Department of Human Services (VIC) or Child Protective Services (NSW) with the Family Court as they will investigate the concerns and present their findings to the Judge. A Magellan matter is also more expedient as a Final Hearing is usually held within six months while other matters can take up to three years for Final orders to be made. Individually making a report to Child Protective Services does not link to the Family Court unless a Notice of Risk Of Harm is submitted with an application for Interim and Final Orders and an accompanying affidavit.

    A recommendation might be to implement a duty of care clearly by way of mandatory reporting to the Judiciary in Family Court Proceedings. Mandatory reporting codified by means of Statute would insist Legal Practioners are required to notify the court in Family Child Custody proceedings of any alleged risk to the child, regardless of whether the Legal Practioner believes the allegations to be true.

    One cannot presume that a Layperson uninformed about the legal avenues open to them, need request that a Form 4 Notice of Risk be put forward. It is unacceptable to impose on a client an expectation that they are to ask for a specific service in order to protect their child – and if they do not ask – that the Solicitor cannot be held liable for not prescribing a better alternative particularly where child safety is concerned.

    As there is no longer a presumption in favour of the mother in contested Family Court child custody cases, Independent Children’s Lawyers were introduced in high conflict/risk matters to ‘level out the playing field’. The benefit of having a third Solicitor to represent the needs of the Child in the form of the Independent Children’s Lawyers (ICL’s) is only a positive one if it is truly possible for an ICL to be completely impartial. If the Family report or the ICL is not in favour of one parent, Legal Aid will not fund that parent to be represented in court even if the matter is in the Magellan List (matters where the Judge is persuaded that risk of harm to a child warrants investigation).

    When Legal Aid is declined based on the decision of the ICL – before the matter has been heard, the ICL is retained as a Lawyer in court for the child and the party on whom the ICL’s favour rests will also be represented based on merit if seeking Legal Aid, leaving the unfavoured party without a Solicitor at the Final hearing- and can lead to a ‘gang up’ situation against the vulnerable unrepresented party at trial.

    When Legal Aid funding is granted to a party in a matter it is not a lump sum given to the Solicitor and his/her client. Each stage of the matter requires a new application to Legal Aid and so a separate grant of Legal Aid is required to file a ‘Notice of Risk of Harm ‘ it is up to the goodwill of the Solicitor to seek a further extension of Legal Aid in this instance and to inform the client that this avenue is available at all.

    If a client is represented privately this extra form is approximately quoted at $8000 in order to notify the court of risk. Even where a relevant conviction is present there is nothing to compel the Solicitor to file A notice of Risk of Harm to a child, if the funds are not available.

    Initially a problem occurred with a cap on Legal Aid funding being at $15,000. A solicitor may run out of funding before the final hearing particularly if on the receiving end of a privately financed vexatious litigant. In an attempt to remedy the problem of funds being depleted, the Government made the decision that Magellan Matters would be uncapped – so that in Child protection family Court matters the Solicitors funds would not dissipate. Unfortunately Legal Aid is not compelled to grant Legal Aid funding at all even in Magellan Matters if the ICL does not agree that the child is at risk. The ICL’s are not required to prepare documents or speak to the child, even when there are concerns for the child’s safety.

    The ICL’s are paid by Legal Aid around $30,000 per case which are tax payer funded unless the parties themselves are able to afford the fees.

    A separate body to the Judiciary may determine the outcome of a trial before the matter has even been heard. Essentially the person in the Legal Aid grants department by denying Legal aid based on the conclusions of the Independent Childrens Lawyer’s recommendations ia acting as the Judge. An ICL usually chooses the Professional in charge of writing the Family Report and as the Reporter/Psychologist generates his or her income through the recruitment by the ICL on a case by case basis one cannot help but wonder if their is an inclination to follow the ICL’s opinion in the Report and so the case can be lost even before it has been heard. And so for lack of one form – the victim complies in obedience to innapropriate, unsafe contact orders for years waiting for a Final Hearing where lack of compliance to such orders can mean full custody to the perpetrator, so much for the Rule of Law.

    A troubling and relevant precedent is found in the following matter:

    W and W, Re; Abuse Allegations; Expert Evidence bias

    (2001) 164 FLR 18; (2001) 28 Fam LR 45; (2001) FLC 93-085; [2001] FamCA 216

    Posted by Lleini Lloyd-Smith LLB | September 16, 2012, 10:22 pm
  6. I was searching on line for some information since yesterday night and I ultimately found what i was looking for! This is a fantastic web site by the way.

    National Family Solutions

    Posted by Lex Ward | October 20, 2012, 1:24 pm
  7. Hmmm, How interesting. Maybe someone might have a chat with the Attorney-Generals Office as well since having my son removed under a fraud 25 years ago from Canada and being told by the A.G (1996)that “Mothers can’t kidnap but Fathers can” -well, I decided to leave Australia as blatent descimination really bothers me.

    That the Family court in Sydney gave custody to the kidnapper (my Ex wife, in the best interests of the child whom I’ve only seen twice in 17 years) was concerning to say the least and to hell with the Hague Convention…..
    Yep…a truly civilized country..!

    Posted by Jerry | January 10, 2014, 4:32 pm


  1. Pingback: Victoria’s Failed Legal Regulator Engaging in Criminal Reprisals against Whistleblower. If prosecuted, faces up to 2 years Imprisonment « James Johnson - May 16, 2012

  2. Pingback: News from Australia - May 16, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 50,438 other followers


Meet James Johnson, B.Ec (Hons) LL.B CLA MEAA. Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

Journalist + Law Reformer + Whistleblower


On The Path To Democracy


Lawyeorocracy On Trial


James Johnson on Twitter Counter




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50,438 other followers

%d bloggers like this: