MILTON  ARNOLDO  CONDE  
& ASSOCIATES  ARE EXPOSING AND
DENOUNCING LEGAL AND  JUDICIAL
CORRUPTION IN AUSTRALIA.

WE    HAVE    DOCUMENTED,   IRREFUTABLE
PROOF  AND  EVIDENCE  TO  PROVE  IN THE
BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES  AND  BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT LEGAL  AND JUDICIAL
CORRUPTION  IN  THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE IN AUSTRALIA'S COURTS.









THE  MOST  CORRUPT  SOLICITORS  (LEGAL
OFFICERS) IN AUSTRALIA.

FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS.

EVIDENCE.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROCEEDINGS:

1. DVO  Application  MAG-00073414/08(3) - 15/04/2008.
Private Application made by Maria  Marisol Villanueva
advised  and  represented  by  Julie Gilfoyle,  Solicitor  
and  Former  Police  Officer - Prosecutor - Queensland
Police  Service.   (Legal  Representation  provided  by    
Legal Aid Queensland, against Milton Arnoldo Conde -  
[Self-represented]).

2. DVO Cross-Application MAG-00073414/08(3) -
06/05/2008.  Cross-Application made by Milton Arnoldo
Conde. (Self-Represented), Legal Aid Queensland paid a
private Legal Team against Milton Arnoldo Conde.

3. DVO Application Index Number 05/16096 - 10/08/2005.
Made by Constable Lisa Anne James - Reg No.: 16361,
Queensland Police Service on 10th August 2005.
(Legal Representation provided by Queensland Police
Service against Milton Arnoldo Conde) - [Self-
represented).


NOTE: Despite that on 9th August 2005,
Police FOUND NO EVIDENCE to support
any  charges  of  Domestic  and  Family
Violence,  Child  Abuse/Harm,  Offences
against  Children,  ILL Treatment  of
Children,  Offences  Against the Person
Life,  Life  Endangering  Acts,  or  any
Other Offences  AND NEVER CHARGED
Milton Arnoldo Conde  with  any of the
above, on 10th August 2005 (next day),
Constable Lisa Anne James - Reg. No.:
16361  applied  to  the  Richlands
Magistrates Court for a Domestic and
Family Violence Protection Order under
the Domestic and Family Violence
Protection Act 1989 (Qld), when Police
never charged Milton Arnoldo Conde
under the Domestic and Family Violence
Protection Act 1989 (Qld) or any other
Offences under the Criminal Code 1899
(Qld).

On  the  27th  September  2005,  Milton
Arnoldo Conde was  NOT present at the
"HEARING"  of the DVO Application and
Magistrate  P  J  Austin   automatically
made  the  DVO  O002587498  -  MAG -
00139021/05(3).

Both,  the  DVO  Application  made  by
Constable  Lisa  Anne  James  -  Reg.
16361 and the DVO made by Magistrate
P  J  Austin  were  made  "under"  the
Domestic  and  Family  Violence
Protection Act 1989 (Qld), when Police
NEVER CHARGED Milton Arnoldo Conde
with "Domestic and Family Violence"
under the Domestic and Family Violence
Protection Act 1989 (Qld) or any other
Offences to the Criminal Code 1899
(Qld).

Both, the DVO Application and the DVO
were made in contravention of the
Domestic   and   Family  Violence
Protection Act 1989 (Qld) and the
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).

Queensland  Police  Service, Constable
Lisa Anne James Reg. No.: 16361, Legal
Aid Queensland, Julie Gilfoyle (Solicitor
and Former Police Prosecutor), Maria
Marisol  Villanueva,  Magistrate  P J
Austin and Acting Magistrate PITT have
committed:
FRAUD UPON THE COURT,
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION, OFFENCES  
RELATING  TO  THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE.

On 24th February 2012, Queensland Police Service
provided  Milton Arnoldo Conde  with a copy of  his
Criminal  History,  stating  that:  
"A  search  of  the
Queensland Police Services Records indicates that
you DO NOT have a Queensland Criminal History".

4. Appeal  to  the  District  Court  of   Queensland  to  set
aside the  DVO  and  dismiss  the  DVO  Application  of
Maria   Marisol   Villanueva   against    Milton   Arnoldo
Conde.
Appeal made by Milton Arnoldo Conde  on 3rd October
2008. (Self-Represented). [Legal Aid Queensland paid a
Legal Team (Solicitors and Barrister/Counsel) against
Milton Arnoldo Conde].

5. Appeal  -  Milton Arnoldo Conde succeed and  the DVO
was set aside as  Apprehended  Bias  on  the  Part  of
Acting Magistrate PITT and  the DVO Application was
dismissed  as  Malicious,  Deliberate False,  Frivolous
and Vexatious by His Honour Irwin DCJ on 20/05/2009.

His Honour Irwin DCJ is the only Impartial  and  Honest
Judge in Queensland.

6. Reasons for Judgment  of His Honour Irwin DCJ  made
on  20  May  2009:    
MAC v MMV [2009] QDC 276;   and
ORDER BD 2744/08.

FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS:

7. BRC 7312/2007  -     MARIA  MARISOL  VILLANUEVA  v
MILTON ARNOLDO CONDE. (PENDING).
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA, BRISBANE.   (Legal Aid
Queensland paid two(2) Legal Teams (two (2) Solicitors
and two (2) Barristers/Counsels) against Milton Arnoldo
Conde [Self-represented]).

LIST  OF  THE  MOST  CORRUPT  LEGAL
OFFICERS IN FAMILY LAW.















1. JULIE GILFOYLE    -      "DOMESTIC  
VIOLENCE AND FAMILY LAWS LAWYER"

Solicitor -  Principal and Owner of Gilfoyle Solicitors
(Legal  Firm) and Former Police Officer - Prosecutor,
Queensland Police Service.
69  Brighton  Road,   Sandgate,  Queensland,  4017,
Australia.

Julie Gilfoyle  (nee Hermiston), mother  of  4 children, a  
former  corrupt  Police  Officer   and   now  a  "Domestic
Violence and Family  Law Corrupt  Lawyer"  guides  her  
staff    towards   the  Firm's   objective  being   
FRAUD,   
INCOMPETENCE,  CRIMINAL MIND,  ACTS,  BEHAVIOUR,
ACTIONS,    FRAUD   UPON   THE  COURTS,   ABUSE  OF
LEGAL    PROCESS,        MALICIOUS    PROSECUTIONS,   
OFFENCES RELATING TO  THE   ADMINISTRATION   OF   
JUSTICE  [Criminal Code 1899 (Qld),  Crimes  Act  1914   
(Cth)    and    Criminal   Code   Act   1995   (Cth)],  Legal  
Profession Act 2007 (Qld), Legal Profession (Solicitors)   
Rule 2007 (Qld), Legal Aid Queensland  Act 1997, Family
Law  Act  1975  (Cth),  Domestic   and  Family  Violence  
Protection Act 1989 (Qld)  and  all  Acts  or Legislations,
LEGAL    CORRUPTION,    INFLUENCING    JUDGES    TO
COMMIT  MISUSE  OF  LEGAL  POWERS   AND  JUDICIAL
CORRUPTION AND MORE POLICE CORRUPTION.

JULIE  GILFOYLE  INFLUENCE  MOTHERS  TO  DESTROY
THEIR  OWN  CHILDREN  BY  ADVISING THEM TO MAKE
FALSE  COMPLAINTS   TO   POLICE    AND   COURTS  OF
"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE"  AND   FALSE  COMPLAINTS  OF
'CHILD ABUSE' AGAINST THEIR PARTNERS.

FURTHERMORE,  TO  MAKE  WORSE  AND PAINFUL THE
TORTURE   FOR   CHILDREN,     JULIE   GILFOYLE  TELL
MOTHERS  TO  IMPLANT  PARENTAL   ALIENATION   ON
THEM TO  DESTROY  THE  CHILDREN'S  AND  FATHERS'
RELATIONSHIP FOREVER.

JULIE  GILFOYLE  AS   A   FORMER   CORRUPT   POLICE
OFFICER  AND  NOW AS A CORRUPT "FAMILY LAW  AND
DOMESTIC    AND    FAMILY    VIOLENCE    LAWYER"   IS
RESPONSIBLE   FOR   CHILDREN'S  DEATHS  IN  FAMILY
LAW  AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROCEEDINGS DUE TO
LEGAL   AND   JUDICIAL  CORRUPTION   AND  ALL  THE
ABOVE MENTIONED.


2. KATRINA GILLIES - SOLICITOR - COWGIRL
LAWYER, THE ASSASSIN, THE KILLER
MENTORED AND TRAINED BY JULIE
GILFOYLE TO SHOOT PEOPLE.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.







3. CATHERINE  BURCHILL   -   PRINCIPAL  OF
BURCHILL & HORSEY LAWYERS.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.







4.  RAELENE ELLIS
- SOLICITOR
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE








5.  JEFFREY EDWARD HORSEY
- SOLICITOR
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE








6.  JOSHUA  FENTON
- BARRISTER/COUNSEL
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE








7.
RHONDA BERYL SHEEHY - PRINCIPAL OF
RHONDA SHEEHY & ASSOCIATES -
SOLICITORS.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE







8.  ALICE KING
- SOLICITOR
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE






9.  LEANNE RYAN - SOLICITOR
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE









10.  SUSI O'REILLY
 -  INDEPENDENT
CHILDREN'S LAWYER - SOLICITOR   
AND FORMER REGISTRAR OF  THE
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA.
MTM LAWYERS.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE











11. SARAH CLEELAND -
PRINCIPAL - SARAH
CLEELAND FAMILY LAWYERS.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.






12. MARIE SAMBANIS -
SOLICITOR.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.







13. PAM RITT -
PRINCIPAL - RITT LAW -
FAMILY LAW.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.








14. RICHARD GRAY -
PRINCIPAL - RICHARD
GRAY & ASSOCIATES SOLICITORS.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.









15. ANNETTE GUNN
- SOLICITOR -
LEGAL AID QUEENSLAND.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.






OTHERS/ALLIED.

16. PETER DAVID JORDAN - PSYCHOLOGIST
FAMILY CONSULTANT.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.








17. DR. GARY PATRICK LARDER -
PSYCHIATRIST - EXPERT WITNESS.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.







18. LISA ANNE JAMES -
CONSTABLE REG.
No.: 16361 - QUEENSLAND POLICE
SERVICE.
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.







__________________________________________________

THE PSYCHOPATHIC LIAR, NARCISSISTIC
"MOTHER"  AND  WORSE  THAN  JULIE
GILFOYLE:
MARIA MARISOL VILLANUEVA.









19. MARIA MARISOL VILLANUEVA.
AS A MOTHER, SHE DOES NOT CARE
ABOUT HER OWN CHILDREN.

AS A WOMAN, SHE IS A DISGRACE AND A
SHAME TO WOMANHOOD, MOTHERHOOD,
PARENTHOOD AND ANY DECENT SOCIETY,
SORRY BUT THAT IS THE TRUTH, THAT IS
THE WAY SHE IS SEEN AND WILL REMAIN
SO UNTIL SHE DOES SOMETHING
CONSTRUCTIVE ABOUT IT.

THIS PSYCHOPATHIC LIAR AND  
NARCISSISTIC  "MOTHER"  HAS  
DESTROYED HER OWN CHILDREN'S  
LIVES  BY IMPLANTING  ON  THEM  
PARENTAL ALIENATION (PA), WHICH  
IS CHILD ABUSE/HARM  AND  FAMILY
VIOLENCE.   (PSYCHOLOGICAL  AND
EMOTIONAL TORTURE).
__________________________________________________

20.  JOHN (JOHNNY) SELFRIDGE -
BARRISTER - COUNSEL -
"CIVIL & HUMAN RIGHTS" -
"DISCRIMINATION"
SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.







21.  MALCOLM PIETERSE -
BARRISTER -
COUNSEL
- SAME AS JULIE GILFOYLE.







__________________________________________________

LEGAL   AND   JUDICIAL   OFFICERS   IN   FAMILY   LAW
PROCEEDINGS   
NEVER   HAVE ENFORCED THE
FAMILY  LAW  ACT  1975 -
FAMILY LAW RULES  2004 -  
CHAPTER  15  -  EVIDENCE - SUMMARY   OF   CHAPTER  
15    -    
A PERSON MAY BE PROSECUTED  FOR  
KNOWINGLY  MAKING  A FALSE STATEMENT IN
EVIDENCE  (SEE SECTION 35 OF THE CRIMES  ACT  
1914   -   GIVING  FALSE  TESTIMONY, AND SECTION
7A  - APPLICATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT
1995   -  CHAPTER 2  -  OF THE CRIMINAL CODE  
APPLIES  TO  ALL  OFFENCES  AGAINST THIS ACT.

IF ALL THE JUDGES  OF  THE FAMILY COURT, FEDERAL
MAGISTRATES  COURT,   FEDERAL COURT   AND   HIGH
COURT OF AUSTRALIA ENFORCE  SECTION  35  OF  THE
CRIMES ACT 1914 (Cth) AND  THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT
1995 (Cth)  PURSUANT  TO  CHAPTER  15  OF  THE   
FAMILY  LAW RULES 2004  AND  SECTION  7A  OF  THE  
FAMILY  LAW ACT 1975,  THE  'BEST INTEREST  OF THE
CHILD' WILL BE PROPERLY APPLIED AND  ENJOYED BY
ALL CHILDREN AND FATHERS AND  UNNECESSARY  OR
PREMATURE DEATHS  OF CHILDREN DUE TO STRESSED
FATHERS AND MOTHERS COULD BE AVOIDED.

DUE  TO  THE  RELUCTANCE  OF  LEGAL  AND JUDICIAL
OFFICERS TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE, ALL OF THEM
HAVE BLOOD IN THEIR HANDS.

IN THIS GROUP  ARE  INCLUDED  THE  "INDEPENDENT   
CHILDREN'S   LAWYERS",   CHILD   SAFETY   OFFICERS,
FAMILY   LAW   CONSULTANTS  (PSYCHIATRISTS    AND
PSYCHOLOGISTS),     COUNSELLORS,  LEGAL  AID   AND
POLICE.

JUDGES IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS
HAVE  BREACHED  SECTION 26 OF THE
FAMILY   LAW   ACT   1975    AND   THE
CONSTITUTION.

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 -
SECTION 26  -  OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF ALLEGIANCE
AND  OFFICE    -   A  Judge  shall,  before  proceeding  to
discharge the duties of the Office, take, before the Chief
Justice  or  a Justice of the High Court of Australia  or a
Judge of the Family Court  or  of  another  Court created
by Parliament,  an Oath  or  Affirmation  of  allegiance in
the form in the Schedule to  the  Constitution,  and  also
an Oath or Affirmation in the following form:

"I,                    , do swear that I will well and truly serve
in the office of
(Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge, Judge
Administrator, Senior Judge or Judge,
as the case may
be)  of  the Family Court of Australia  and  that I will do
right to all manner of people according to law,  without
fear or favour, affection or ill-will, So help me God"

Or

"I,                     , do solemnly and sincerely promise and
declare  that I will well  and  truly serve in the office of
(Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge, Judge Administrator,
Senior Judge  or  Judge,  
as  the  case  may  be)  of the
Family  Court  of  Australia  and  I  will  do  right  to  all
manner  of  people  according  to  law, without  fear  or
favour, affection or ill-will.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT
Schedule -

                 OATH

I,             , do swear that I will be faithful  and  bear  true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her Heirs and
Successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

            AFFIRMATION

I,            , do solemnly  and  sincerely affirm and declare
that I will be faithful  and  bear  true  allegiance  to  Her
Majesty  Queen  Victoria,   Her  heirs   and   successors
according to law.

(NOTE:      
The name of the King or Queen of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being
is to be substituted from time to time).


LEGAL OFFICERS (Solicitors  or  Lawyers, Barristers  or
Counsels)  have  betrayed   and   violated  the  Oath   or
Affirmation of Office.

Supreme Court (Admission) Rules 2004 (Qld) -
Section 18 - Oath of Office:

           OATH OF OFFICE

I,                  do sincerely promise and swear that I will
truly and honestly conduct myself, in the practice of a
lawyer of this Court, according to law to the best of my
knowledge and ability. So help me God.

Or

         AFFIRMATION OF OFFICE

I,                   do sincerely promise and affirm that I will
truly and honestly conduct myself, in the practice of a
lawyer of this Court, according to law to the best of my
knowledge and ability.
______________________________________________________________

Note:
Full details of Julie Gilfoyle's corruption,  criminal mind,
acts,  behaviour  and  actions,  incompetence,  Offences
Relating  to  the  Administration  of Justice, Fraud Upon
the  Courts,   Malicious Prosecutions,    Abuse  of  Legal
Process,  Inducing  Judges  to  commit  Misuse  of Legal
Powers,   Offences   to   the  Criminal  Code  1899  (Qld),
Criminal  Code  Act  1995  (Cth),  Crimes Act 1914 (Cth),
Legal   Profession   Act   2007   (Qld),   Legal  Profession
(Solicitors)  Rule  2007  (Qld),  Legal Aid Queensland Act
1997,  Family  Law  Act  1975  (Cth),  etc.,  will  be given
later.

(More  names of corrupt legal officers  and  Legal Firms to be
added soon or later).

TAMPERING  WITH  THE  PROPER  ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE INVOLVES FAR MORE THAT AN INJURY
AND  VIOLATION  OF  HUMAN  RIGHTS TO A SINGLE
LITIGANT.

IT IS A WRONG AGAINST THE INSTITUTIONS SET UP
TO PROTECT AND SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC.

CORRUPTION IN THESE INSTITUTIONS  CANNOT  BE
TOLERATED   CONSISTENTLY    WITH    THE    GOOD
ORDER OF SOCIETY.

THIS IS AN UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE RECOGNIZED BY
COMMON INTELLIGENCE  AND CONSCIENCE OF ALL
NATIONS.

CORRUPT LEGAL OFFICERS HAVE VIOLATED THE OATH
OF  OFFICE   AND   A  SACRED  PUBLIC  TRUST  WHICH  
BESTOWS THE POWER TO FILE AND PROSECUTE LEGAL
ACTIONS  AND   ARE  A  POTENTIAL  THREAT,  MENACE
AND DANGER TO THE JUSTICE  SYSTEM,  DEMOCRACY,
CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE  CITIZENS  OF  THIS
COUNTRY  AND DESERVING OF THE INDIGNATION  AND
CONTEMPT OF DECENT SOCIETY.

CORRUPT JUDICIAL OFFICERS  HAVE   VIOLATED   THE
JUDICIAL  OATH   AND  MISUSED  THE  LEGAL  POWERS
VESTED TO THEM AS  A  PERSON  ENJOYING  JUDICIAL
STATUS,   AND   ARE  A  POTENTIAL  THREAT, MENACE  
AND  DANGER  TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, DEMOCRACY,
CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS  OF  THE  CITIZENS OF THIS
COUNTRY AND DESERVING OF THE INDIGNATION AND
CONTEMPT OF DECENT SOCIETY.

MASSIVE LEGAL  AND  JUDICIAL CORRUPTION, FRAUD,
LAWLESSNESS, FRAUD  UPON  THE  COURT,  CRIMINAL
ACTS, OFFENCES RELATING TO THE   ADMINISTRATION
OF  JUSTICE, CRIMINAL  &  CIVIL DEFAMATION, ABUSE
OF   LEGAL   PROCESS,     MALICIOUS   PROSECUTIONS,
MISUSE OF LEGAL  POWERS  AND  GROSS  VIOLATIONS
AND    ABUSE  TO  CIVIL    AND    HUMAN  RIGHTS  ARE
POWERFUL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL CORRUPTION.

OFFENCES  COMMITTED  BY  CORRUPT   AND   INCOMPETENTS
JUDGES, SOLICITORS, LAWYERS,  BARRISTERS,  LEGAL FIRMS,
LEGAL  AID, AUSTRALIAN  GOVERNMENT  SOLICITORS, CROWN  
LAW/SOLICITORS,   ATTORNEY  -  GENERALS  (MINISTERS   FOR
JUSTICE),  CHILD  SAFETY  SERVICES,  FAMILY  COUNSELLORS,
FAMILY  CONSULTANTS,  POLICE    AND   OTHERS,  ARE  NEVER
INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED, SIMPLE BECAUSE:

"The Police  and  Courts  have   NO    jurisdiction  to  investigate  and
prosecute  
Offences Relating to the Administration of Justice   (States
Criminal  Codes,  Crimes  Act  1914  [Commonwealth]   and  Criminal
Code 1995 [Commonwealth])".

THE FOLLOWING  OFFENCES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED FOR ALL
THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROFESSIONS:

OFFENCES RELATING  TO  THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF JUSTICE
PURSUANT TO THE
CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1899  (Qld):

  • Judicial Corruption (s. 120);
  • Perjury (s. 123);
  • Fabricating evidence (s. 126);
  • Corruption of witnesses (s. 127);
  • Deceiving witnesses (s. 128);
  • Conspiracy to bring false accusations (s. 131);
  • Conspiracy to defeat justice (s. 132);
  • Attempting to pervert justice (s. 140);
  • False verified statements (s. 193);
  • False declarations (s. 194);

OTHER OFFENCES TO THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1899 (Qld):

  • Threats (s. 359);
  • Criminal Defamation (s. 365);
  • Fraud (s. 408C(1)(d)(e)(f)(g);
  • Conspiracy to commit crime (s. 541);
  • Conspiracy to commit other offences (s. 542);
  • Other conspiracies (s. 543(1)(a)(b)(f)(g).

OFFENCES RELATING TO THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE
PURSUANT TO THE
CRIMES ACT 1914 (Cth):

  • Giving false testimony (s. 35);
  • Fabricating evidence (s. 36);
  • Corruption of witnesses (s. 37);
  • Deceiving witnesses (s. 38);
  • Conspiracy to bring false accusations (s. 41);
  • Conspiracy to defeat justice (s. 42);
  • Attempting to pervert justice (s. 43).

OFFENCES RELATING TO THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE
PURSUANT TO THE
CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 (Cth):

  • Bribery of a Commonwealth public official (s. 141.1);
  • Offences relating to bribery (s. 142.1);
  • False or misleading statements in application (s. 136(1)(4);
  • False or misleading information (s. 137(1);
  • False or misleading documents (s. 137(2);

OFFENCES  COMMITTED BY THE  LEGAL PROFESSION TO THE:
LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 2007 (Qld):

  • Unsatisfactory professional conduct  (s. 418);
  • Professional Misconduct (s. 419;
  • Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct or Professional Misconduct
    (s. 420).

OFFENCES COMMITTED BY  THE LEGAL PROFESSION TO  THE
LEGAL PROFESSION (SOLICITORS) RULE 2007
(Qld):   

  • Duty to client (rr. 1, 12);
  • Agreeing to act for a client (r. 2);
  • Independence - avoidance of personal bias (r. 13);
  • Frankness in Court (r. 14);
  • Delinquent or guilty clients (r. 15);
  • Responsible use of privilege (r. 16);
  • Integrity of evidence (r. 17);
  • Communication with opponent (r. 18);
  • Integrity of hearings (r. 19);
  • Communications (r. 28);
  • Standard of conduct (r. 30);
  • Advertising (r. 36);

OFFENCES  COMMITTED  BY THE LEGAL PROFESSION TO THE
LEGAL PROFESSION (BARRISTERS) RULE 2007 (Qld):

  • Disinterestedness  (rr. 20, 21, 22);
  • Frankness in Court (rr. 23 to 33);
  • Delinquent or guilt clients (rr. 34 to 36);
  • Responsible use of Court process of privilege (rr. 37 to 44);
  • Integrity of evidence (rr. 45 to 51);
  • Duty to opponent (rr. 52 to 59);
  • Integrity of hearing (rr. 60 to 62);
  • Advertising (rr. 124, 125);
  • Specialisation (r. 126);
  • Harassment - Vilification (r. 129) - Anti Discrimination (r. 130);

OFFENCES TO THE LEGAL AID QUEENSLAND ACT 1997:

  • Offence of misrepresentation (s. 84).

FRAUD  UPON THE COURT BY  POLICE, LEGAL  AND  JUDICIAL
OFFICERS:

1. Who is an "Officer of the Court"?

A  Judge  is  an  Officer  of the Court,  as  well  as  are  all  Solicitors,
Lawyers and Barristers.

A State  Judge  is  a  State  Judicial  Officer, paid  by the State
to act
impartially and lawfully
.

A Federal  Judge  is  a  Federal  Judicial  Officer, paid by the Federal
Government
to act impartially and lawfully.

Solicitors, Lawyers  and  Barristers  fall  into  the  same  category and
must meet the same requirements.

A Judge is not the Court.   
(People v. Zajic, 88 III.App.3d 477,  410
N.E.2d 626 (1980). (U.S.A).

A Judge is not the Court, he is under law an Officer of the Court
and MUST NOT engage in any action to deceive the Court.
(Trans
Aereo Inc. v. La Fuerza Area Boliviana, 24 F. 3d 457 (2nd Cir.
1994);   Bullock v. United States 763 F.2 1115, 1121 (10th Cir.
1985).

2. What is "Fraud Upon the Court"?:

Whenever   any   Officer   of   the   Court   commits   fraud   during  a
proceeding in the  Court,  he/she  is  engaged  in  
"Fraud  Upon  the
Court".

United States of America (U.S.A) cases:

In Bullock v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115,1121 (10th Cir. 1985),  the
Court stated
"Fraud Upon the Court is  fraud  which is directed  to
the Judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties
or  fraudulent  documents,  false  statements  or  perjury....... It  is
where  the  Court  or  a  member  is  corrupted  or   influenced  or
influence is attempted or  where the Judge has not performed his
Judicial  function --- thus  where  the  impartial  functions  of  the
Court have been directly corrupted."

"Fraud Upon the Court"  
has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court
of  Appeals  to
"embrace  that  species  of  fraud  which  does,  or
attempt to,  defile the Court itself,  or  is  a  fraud  perpetrated  by
Officers  of  the  Court  so  that  the  Judicial  machinery  can  not
perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases
that are presented for adjudication.
 Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689
(1968); 7 Moore's  Federal  Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23.

The 7th Circuit further stated   
"a decision produced by fraud upon
the court is not  in essence a decision at all,  and  never becomes
final."

3. What effect does an act of  "Fraud Upon the Court" have  upon
the Court proceeding?

"Fraud Upon the Court" makes void the orders  and judgments of
that Court.

It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any  attempt to commit
"fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding.

The People  of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354;192
N.E. 229 (1934)   
("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction
into which it enters applies to judgments as well  as  to contracts
and other transactions.")

Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929)
(The  maxim  that  fraud  vitiates  every  transaction   into   which
enters...").

In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic
that fraud vitiates everything.")
;  Dunham v Dunham, 57 Ill.App 475
(1984),  affirmed  162  Ill.  589  (1986); Skelly Oil  Co. v. Universal Oil
Products Co., 338 Ill. App. 79, 86  N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas
Stasel v. The  American  Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199
N.E. 798 (1935).

Under  Illinois  and  Federal laws, when  any  Officer  of the Court
has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders  and judgments
of that court are void, of no legal force or effect
.

4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges"?

U.S.A.  Federal   law   requires   the   automatic  disqualification  of  a
Federal Judge under certain circumstances.

In  1994,  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  held  that
"Disqualification   is
required if an objective   observer   would   entertain   reasonable
questions about  the Judge's  impartiality. If a Judge's attitude  or
state of mind leads a detached observer  to  conclude  that  a fair
and    impartial    hearing    is    unlikely,  the    Judge    must    be
disqualified."  
(Emphasis added).       Liteky v. U.S, 114 S. Ct. 1147,
1162 (1994).

Courts  have  repeatedly  held  that positive proof of the partiality of a
Judge  is  not  a  requirement,  only   the   appearance   of   partiality.
Liljeberg v. Health  Services  Acquisition  Corp., 486  U.S. 847, 108 S.
Ct.  2194  (1988)       
(what  matters  is  not  the  reality  of  bias  or
prejudice but its appearance).

That Court also stated that a Judge must recuse himself/herself  in
any proceeding in which his/her impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.
(Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989))

In  Pfizer Inc. v. Lord,  456  F.2d 532  (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated
that:
"It  is  important  that  the  litigant  not  only  actually  receive
justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.

The   Supreme   Court  (U.S.A.)  has  ruled  and  has  reaffirmed  the
principle that   
"justice  must  satisfy  the  appearance  of  justice",
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S. Ct. 1038 (1960).

Courts  have  repeatedly ruled that Judges have no immunity for
their criminal acts,  no  Judge  has  immunity  to  engage in such
acts
.

IN  AUSTRALIA,  FRAUD  UPON  THE  COURT  IS PRACTICED ON
THE  COURTS  BY  POLICE,  PRIVATE  LAWYERS,  SOLICITORS,
BARRISTERS, LEGAL AID, JUDGES,  STATES   AND   FEDERAL   
MINISTERS  FOR JUSTICE  OR  ATTORNEY-GENERALS, CROWN
LAW    OR  CROWN  SOLICITORS,  AUSTRALIAN  GOVERNMENT
SOLICITOR.

THEY ACT TOGETHER IN DELIBERATELY  PLANNED  SCHEMES
TO COVER-UP CORRUPTION.

FRAUD  UPON  THE  COURT  IN FACT ACTUALLY SUBVERT THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS.

FRAUD   UPON   THE   COURT   IS   A   SOMEWHAT   NEBULOUS
CONCEPT  USUALLY  DISCUSSED  IN  CIVIL  CASES. NO COURT
SYSTEM  CAN  FUNCTION  WITHOUT   SAFEGUARDS   AGAINST
ACTIONS  THAT  INTERFERE  WITH   IT'S   ADMINISTRATION  OF
JUSTICE.  THIS  CONCERN  MUST  BE BALANCED AGAINST THE
NECESSITY   FOR   FINALITY   OF  COURT  JUDGMENTS;  THUS
ONLY  ACTIONS   THAT   ACTUALLY   SUBVERT  THE  JUDICIAL  
PROCESS CAN  BE THE  BASIS  FOR  UPSETTING  OTHERWISE  
SETTLED DECREES.

In  Demjanjule v. Petrovsky, 10 F. 3d  338  at  352 (6th Cir. 1993), the
Court  relying  upon  Professor  Moore's  frequently cited definition of
fraud  upon  the  court. Professor  Moore  explained  fraud  upon  the
court as follows:

"Fraud upon the Court should.....embrace only that species of
fraud which does  or  attempts to,  subvert the integrity of the
Court itself,
or   is a fraud perpetrated by Officers of the Court,
so  that  the  judicial  machinery  cannot  perform in the usual
manner   its   impartial   task   of   adjudging   cases   that  are
presented for adjudication, and relief should be denied in the
absence of such conduct."
(Emphasis added).

"While an Attorney (Solicitor, Lawyer, Barrister)  should present
his client with singular loyalty,
that loyalty obviously does  not
demand that he act dishonestly or fraudulently, on the contrary
his   loyalty   to   the   Court,  as  an  Officer  thereof,  demands
integrity   and   honest  dealing  with the  Court, and  when  he
departs from that standard in conduct of a case, he perpetrates
fraud upon the court."
(Emphasis added).

The Court cites  to  cases  which  leads  to distinguish  intrinsic  fraud
from  extrinsic  fraud. Compare  U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 25
L.Ed 93 (1878), with Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 64
S. Ct. 997 (1944).

In the latter case of Hazel-Atlas, like in Mr. Weekley's case, fraud was
of an "extrinsic nature",
tantamount to  fraud  upon the court which
corrupted   the  very  integrity  of  the  judicial  machinery, and as
such is actionable before the trial court.

A cause of action for fraud on the court  may  be  brought  at  any
time,  and  any  order,  judgment  or  decree,  obtained  by  fraud
upon  the  court  may  be  recalled   and   set  aside  at  any  time,
whether entered in a civil or criminal case.   See, State v. Booker,
314 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1975).

An order produced  by  fraud  upon  the court, including an order
denying a motion  for  post-conviction  relief, may be set aside at
any time. See Booker v. State, 503 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1987).

"No   fraud   is   more   odious   than  an  attempt  to  subvert  the
administration  of  justice".
   Mr. Justice  Roberts  in  Hazel-Atlas
Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. 322 U.S. 238 (1944).

"Fraud  Upon  the  Court"  occurs  whenever  any  officer  of  the
Court commits fraud before a Tribunal.
A Judge is not the Court;
he is under law an Officer of the Court, and  must  not  engage in
any  action  to  deceive  the  Court.  
 (Trans Aereo Inc. v. La Fuerza
Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457 (2nd Cir. 1994); Bullock v. United States,
763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985).
[Fraud Upon the Court exists
'where the Judge has not performed his judicial duties'].

Whenever   any   Officer   of   the   Court   commits   fraud   during  a
proceeding  in  the  Court,  he/she  is  engaged  in  "Fraud  Upon the
Court"
.  In  Bullock v United States,  763  F.2d  1115, 1121  (10th Cir.
1985),  the  Court  stated  "Fraud  Upon  the  Court  is  fraud which is
directed to the Judicial machinery itself  and  is  not  a fraud between
the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements  or  perjury....It
is  where  the  Court  or  a  Member  is  corrupted   or   influenced  or
influence is attemped  or  where  the  Judge  has  not  performed  his
Judicial function ---thus where  the  impartial  functions  of  the  Court
have been directly corrupted"
.

"Fraud Upon the Court"  makes
 void  the  Orders and Judgments of
that  Court.  The U.S.  Supreme  Court, has  consistently  held that a
void order is void at all times,  does  not  have  to  be reversed or
vacated  by  a  Judge,  cannot  be  made  valid  by any Judge, nor
does it gain validity by the passage of time.  The Order is void ab
initio.
    (Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41
S. Ct. 116 (1920).

"Fraud  destroys  the  validity  of everything into which it enters",
(Nudd v. Burrows (1875), 91 US 426, 23 Led 286, 290;    
 particularly
when  "a Judge  himself  is  a  party  to  the fraud"
, (Cone v. Harris
(Okl. 1924), 230 P. 721, 723; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876), 93 US 276,
23 Led 914, 918.

AUSTRALIA AND ENGLAND CASES:

A  Judgment  which  is  procured  by  fraud  is  tainted   and   vitiated
throughout.  If  the  fraud  is  clearly  proved  the  party  defrauded  is
entitled to have the judgment set aside in an action, (
Hip Foong Hong
v. Neotia & Co.
(1918) A.C. 888; Jonesco v. Beard (1930) A.C. 298.

In some of the older cases in the  House  of  Lords it has been stated
that where a judgment has been  so  obtained it  may be treated as a
nullity,  (
Shedden v. Patrick (1854) 1 Macq. H.L. 535;   R. v. Saddlers'
Co.
[1863] EngR 91; (1863) 10 H.L.C. 404 [11 E.R. 1083].

In
R. v. Saddlers' Co. EngR 91;  10 H.C.L. 404, at p. 431  [11 E.R., at
pp. 1093, 1094, Willes J. said:
"A judgment  or  decree obtained by
fraud upon a court binds not such court, nor  any  other;  and  its
nullity upon this  ground, though  it  has  not  been  set  aside  or
reversed, may  be  alleged  in a collateral proceeding"
,  (Phillipson
v. Lord Egremont
(1844) [1844] EngR 1045;  Bandon v. Becher [1835]
EngR 316;   
Shedden v. Patrick (1854)  1 Macq. H.L. 535;    see  also
Toomey v. White (1835) EngR 455).

In all these cases the judgment had been procured by collusion, and
in
Boswell v. Coaks [No. 2] [71]  the  Earl  of  Selborne  said  that  the
whole  proceeding in such a case  may  be described  a
 "fabula non
judicium"
.

In order to meet the necessarily demanding standard for proof of
fraud upon the court there must be:

(1) an intentional fraud;
(2) by an officer of the court;
(3) which is directed at the court itself; and
(4) in fact deceives the court.

The  United  States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has set
forth  five  (5)  elements of fraud upon the court which consist of
conduct:

(1) On the part of an Officer of the Court;
(2) That is directed to the 'Judicial machinery' itself;
(3) That is intentionally false, wilfully blind to the truth, or is in
reckless disregard of the truth;
(4) That is a positive averment or is concealment when  one  is
under a duty to disclose; and
(5) That deceives the Court.

See Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 348 (6th Cir. 1993).

Although  other  United States Courts of Appeals have not articulated
express  elements  of  fraud upon the courts as the  Sixth  Circuit did,
the doctrine has been characterized
 "as a scheme to interfere with
the    judicial    machinery    performing   the   task   of   impartial
adjudication, as  by  preventing  the  opposing  party  from fairly
presenting his case or defence".

In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust  Actions,
538 F.2d 180, 195 (8th Cir. 1976) (citations omitted);   see also Rozier
v.  Ford Motor Co.,  573  F2d  1332,  1338  (5th  Cir.  1978)  (holding:
"only the most egregious misconduct, such as bribery of a Judge
or members of a Jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party  in
which an Attorney  (Legal Officer: Lawyer  or  Solicitor;  Barrister
or Counsel)  is implicated, will constitute a fraud on the Court".
(Emphasis added).

Additionally, fraud  upon  the  court  differs  from fraud on an adverse
party in that it   
"is  limited  to  fraud  which  seriously  affects  the
integrity  of  the  normal  process  of  adjudication".
   (Gleason v.
Jandrucko, 860 F.2d 556, 559 (2d Cir. 1998).

Other United States Courts of Appeals expressly  require  that  fraud
upon the court must involve an Officer of the Court
.  See Geo. P.
Reintjes Co. v. Riley Stoker Corp.,
71 F.3d 44, 48.

Fraud  Upon  the  Court  is   "the   most   egregious   misconduct
directed to the Court itself"
.

(1st Cir. 1995);  
Demjanjuk,  10 F3d  at  348. The  Ninth  Circuit noted
that   
 "one  species  of  fraud  upon  the  court  occurs  when  an
'Officer of the Court'  perpetrates fraud affecting the ability of the
Court or Jury to impartially judge a case."
Pumphrey v. Thompson
Tool  Co.,  62  F.3d  1128,  1130  (9th Cir. 1995);  see  also  Weese v.
Schukman, 98 F.3d 542, 553 (10th Cir. 1996). (noting that  
"fraud on
the court should embrace only  that species of fraud which does
or  attempts to,  subvert  the  integrity  of the court itself,  or  is a
fraud  perpetrated  by  officers  of  the  court.")
  (citation omitted);
Kerwit Med. Prods., Inc.  v.  N. & H. Instruments, Inc., 616  F.2d  833,
837 (11th Cir. 1980) (same).

Fraud  encompasses a broad  range of  human  behaviour, including
anything  calculated  to  deceive.  Plainly,  honestly  and  intellectual
integrity  are  essential  components  of  Judicial  Character.
Judicial
Character is important in Australia.

Corrupt and unfit Judicial Officers of all Australia's Courts are:

  • Intentionally ignoring facts that lead to a different conclusion;
  • Intentionally misstating relevant facts;
  • Allowing Bias or Prejudice to dictate decision;
  • Dishonest in the formulation of the decision;
  • Unable to disregard partisan political interests and other forms of
    Bias and influence from the Attorney-General of the day;
  • Not acting fairly and independent;
  • Violating  the  Solemn  Oath  or  Affirmation  of  Office  and  the
    Constitution;
  • Committing Fraud Upon the Court;
  • Committing Offences Relating to the Administration of Justice;
  • Committing Judicial Corruption (Criminal Offence - States and
    Commonwealth Criminal Laws); and
  • Applying Misuse of Legal Powers.

Australia's Judicial Officers (Judges) knowingly  and  unlawfully are
acting with intentionally fraudulent conduct in the Administration  of
Justice.

Australia's Judges have knowingly, intentionally, boldly and blatantly
violated their Oath or Affirmation of Office and the Constitution. They
have engaged in false and fraudulent Jurisprudence, obstructed and
corrupted  the  operation  of  the  Courts  and  the  Administration  of
Justice. This is totally unacceptable to the public.

This knowing  and  intentional misconduct and Judicial Corruption is
clearly  prejudicial  to  the  effective,   meaningful   and   expeditious
Administration of Justice  and  the business of the Courts.   It clearly
violates  the  Public  Trust   and   erodes  Public  Confidence  in  the
integrity and legitimacy of the Judiciary and the Judicial Process.

Clearly, the scale  of  corruption  in  the Administration  of  Justice in
Australia is simple outrageous and cannot be tolerated.  Misconduct
by Corrupt Judicial Officers is a cancer that is destroying public faith
and trust in the integrity and legitimacy of the Judiciary and  Judicial
Processes.

The essential elements of Public Confidence are Transparency and
Accountability.

Public  Confidence  in  the  Judiciary  cannot  exist  without  the core
principle of
Judicial Accountability.

Judicial  Accountability  cannot  exist  without  the  core  principle  of
Judicial Transparency.

The  Principles  underlying  the requirements of  Transparency  and
Accountability
in Judicial acts, actions and activities are embodied in
these fundamental principles.

Transparency requires Judicial Decisions, Orders and Judgments to
be made public  and  supported  by  controlling facts  and  reasoned
with  rational analysis of the facts  and  controlling laws  or  a rational
reason for a change in the law.

Plainly, arbitrary  and  unsupported Judicial acts destroys the Public  
confidence in the Judiciary and Judicial Processes.    

Transparency  relating  to  the  Judiciary  serves  to  increase  public
knowledge   about   the   Judicial   System     and     
decreases   the
opportunities for corrupt practices.

Transparency    
also   bolsters   Judicial   Independence,   because,
Judges  can  demonstrates  to  the  public  that   they  are  acting  in
accordance with the facts of law. Judges must be required to support
their act, action, decisions  and  judgments with honest, rational  and
reasoned analysis of the supporting facts and controlling laws.

WE, THE  PUBLIC  HAVE   THE   FUNDAMENTAL   RIGHT  TO
DEMAND  INTEGRITY,  TRANSPARENCY,  ACCOUNTABILITY,
LEGITIMACY AND RELIABILITY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.

The  Judiciary  is  the  most  powerful  and  dangerous branch of
Government,  
our  Legal  System  is  based  on the Principle that an
Independent  and  Competent  Judiciary will interpret  and  apply the
laws that govern us.   The role of the Judiciary is central to Australian
Concepts of Justice and Rule of Law.

Judges individually  and  collective MUST respect  and  HONOUR
the Judicial Office, the Law and the Constitution.

Every Judge must be a person with  "Integrity", who is faithful  to  the
law, the Oath or Affirmation of Office  and  the Constitution, who puts
aside   self - aggrandizement,   prejudice    and    Bias,  who  ignores
personalities and  parties to the greatest degrees, and who bases the
decision  on  the  facts  and  the law applicable to the facts. A person
who rigidly adheres to the Solemn Oath  or  Affirmation of Office,  the
Constitution and the controlling laws.

Every Judge MUST  be a person who demonstrates legal knowledge,
legal ability, judicial temperament, diligence, professional experience
and judicial performance.

The Judicial function is essentially  one  facilitating  conflict resolution
among competing  interests, judicial  temperament  implies the ability
to  deal  with all parties,
especially  with self - represented  parties  
from Non-English  Speaking  Background
calmly and courteously  
and   
not   automatically   dismiss   their   proceedings,  ordering  
exorbitant  costs,    declaring  them  as a   "Vexatious  Litigants",
unlawfully  using  and  applying  the "Vexatious Proceedings Act
2005 (Qld)  or  States  and  in  Bankruptcy, unlawfully  using  and
applying  the  Bankruptcy  Act  1966  (Cth)  as repressive  tools to
protect and cover-up Legal and Judicial Corruption.

A Judge  MUST  demonstrate  the  willingness  to  hear and consider
what  is  said  on  all  sides  of a debatable  preposition.  It requires a
honest and honourable person with the ability to be even - tempered,
open minded, yet
willing  and  able to reach  decisions  based on the
evidence and controlling laws
, confident, yet not egocentric.

Australia's Judges intentionally ignores  facts  that  lead to a different
conclusion,   intentionally   misstates   relevant   facts,    intentionally
misapplies  or  misstates the laws, allows Bias or Prejudice to dictate  
decision,  dishonesty in the formulation of the decision, do  not  base
the decision on the evidence  and the laws without regard to who the
parties are,  especially self - represented  parties  from Non - English
Speaking Background, unable to disregard partisan political interests
and  other  forms  of  Bias   and   influence,   do  not  act  fairly   and
independently, violates the Solemn Oath  or Affirmation of Office, the
Constitution and the Laws.

Judicial  Corruption,  Fraud  Upon  the Court,  Criminal acts,  actions,
activities and  other Offences Relating to the Administration of Justice
in   Australia's   Courts   concerns   matters   of   
exceptional  public
importance.

False, fraudulent and just plain dishonest result driven
Jurisprudence  under  the  color  of Law  -  Means  and
methods of Fraud.

The  Records  overwhelmingly  establishes  that  Australia's  Corrupt
Judges  knowingly, wilfully  and  unlawfully conspired, confederated,
and  agreed  with  each  other  to  devise  a  scheme  and  artifice  to
obstruct  justice,   perpetrate   Fraud   Upon   the   Court,  aid,  abet,  
facilitate, conceal and  cover up  criminal acts, actions  and conduct.

In  furtherance  of  the conspiracy  and  scheme  to  obstruct, pervert
justice   and   perpetrate  Fraud   Upon  the  Court,  Corrupt  Judges
intentionally  cite  false,   fraudulent   and   fabricated  statements  of
Courts holdings as a basis for their result driven decisions.

The Judicial and Justice Systems of Australia are failing to deliver fair
and  impartial justice, corrupt  Judges  are  above  the laws, they  are
violating  their  Oath  or  Affirmation  of  Office  and  the  Constitution,
abusing  their  unfettered  power  and  obstructing justice throughout
the  Country,  with  impunity, while  hiding   behind   the    
MYTH   of
"Absolute  Judicial  Immunity".   
This  is  resulting  in thousands  of
citizens losing their democratic guaranteed and  protected rights  and
privileges.

Judicial  Officers  are  NOT  immune  to  the  Tort  of  Misuse of Legal
Powers  and  the States and Federal Criminal Laws.  WE the citizens
MUST  work together to abolish the self-created  MYTH  of  "Absolute
Judicial Immunity", enforce the Tort of  Misuse  of  Legal  Powers and
the  Criminal Laws to bring accountability, truth  and  justice  back  to
our  Court  Systems  so  every  judgment   MUST   be  based  on  the
pleadings, the  true  facts, evidence  and  the  relevant  laws  as  it  is
written and intended to be interpreted and applied.

Judicial   and   Legal  Professions  are  sick  professions  marked   by
incompetence, lack of training, misconduct, bad manners, ineptness,
bungling,   malpractice,  bad  ethics,  cover - ups,  corruption,  fraud,
criminal  offences  and  Offences  Relating  to  the  Administration  of
Justice, can be easily observed in Courts all over  the  Country  every
day, these  incompetents  and  Corrupts Judicial  and  Legal Officers
have  a  seeming   unawareness  of  the  fundamental   ethics  of  the
profession.

Decency, security and liberty like demand  that  government  officials
shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct  that  are commands
to the citizens. In a government of laws, existence of the  government
will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.

When Courts  are  corrupt, everyone  suffers, the Judiciary is the
most  dangerous  branch  of  Government.  It  comes home in its
effects  to  every  person's  life.  Judges  pass  on  your life, your
liberty,    your  marriage,    your  children,   your  property,   your
reputation, your all.
The greatest evil ever inflicted upon
a person is a corrupt or unfit judge.
(Guy Sparkman).

Judicial Corruption  has  powerful  and  damaging  repercussions  on
everyone, limiting the ability of individuals, business  and countries to
grow  and  threatening basic rights such as access to justice  and the
right fair trial.

Judicial Corruption is pervasive and rampant in Australia's Courts.
The  MYTH  of    "Absolute   Judicial   Immunity"   has  corrupted
Judges absolutely.

Corrupt  Judicial  Officers  are  serious  threat  to  the  Rule  of Law in
Australia, our  fundamental  rights  and   menace  to  society.  It  is  a
shame  and  a  disgrace,   the  Judicial  System   cannot  be  trusted.
Therefore, the Citizens are rapidly losing their trust in and respect for
our Judiciary. There must be accountability.

It is time to hold  Judges  accountable, it is guaranteed  that  nothing
will change when good people do nothing,  we the good  and  decent
citizens or society must be ever vigilant against Corrupt Judges.

Consequently,   we   are   pulling   the   curtains   back   on   Judicial
Corruption,  Misconduct,  Fraud  Upon  the  Court,   Misuse  of  Legal
Powers,  Criminal acts,  Offences  Relating  to  the  Administration  of
Justice, Lawlessness  and  shining the bright lights of public scrutiny
on Australia's Corrupt Judges.

We are working to empower  the people  to protect  themselves  from
Corrupt  Judges  who  boldly  violate  the Laws, their Solemn Oath or
Affirmation of Office, the Constitution and the Public Trust.

Judicial Profession is  NOT  a licence to violate the Laws, the Solemn
Oath  or  Affirmation of Office,  the Constitution, Public Trust, Human
Rights and Democracy with impunity.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful  and  committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that
ever has".
(Margaret Mead).

"It is amazing how much panic one honest person can spread
among a multitude of hypocrites."
(Thomas Sowell).

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter."      "To fight any injustice anywhere, is to fight all
injustices everywhere".            "All that is necessary for evil to
triumph, is for good people to do nothing".
(Edmon Burke, 1790).

The Myth of  "Absolute Judicial Immunity"  is fundamental  flawed
and  unlawful, all Judges  are  bound by  the Law  and  their Solemn
Oath or Affirmation of Office and the Constitution.  In our Democracy,
Judicial   Proceedings    and    Decisions   
MUST   be  based  on  the
established laws controlling the facts.

Indisputable, the Judge - self - made Doctrine of  "Absolute Judicial
Immunity"  
from   personal   responsibility, criminal   conduct  in  the
Administration of Justice is fundamentally flawed.  In no other area or
profession are Public  Officials  granted  such  licence  to  engage  in
criminal conduct  and  intentional  violation of the laws  they sworn to
protect, uphold and defend.

The  Doctrine  of   
"Absolute  Judicial  Immunity"   has  resulted  in
rampant  criminal  acts,  actions  and  conduct,  by  Corrupt  Judges,
under the colour of law in the Courts across Australia.

The Judge - made Doctrine of
"Absolute Judicial Immunity" suffers
from three (3) fundamental flaws that cannot be glossed over by  rote-
like reliance on the doctrine in case after case, year after year:

  • First, Judges  are absolutely  without  any  authority to exempt
          themselves  and  their Clan from the legal system,  they
          sworn to enforce, protect  and  defend. The Doctrine of  
         
 "Absolute  Judicial  Immunity"  has   NO  Constitutional,
          Legal  or  Statutory Basis.      As Hamilton wrote: "No laws
          have any validity  or  binding force without the consent  and
          approbation of the people".

  • Second, the Doctrine of  "Absolute Judicial Immunity" violates
              the    Australian      and      International    Democratic
              Principles of  accountability  and  equality  under  the
              law.

  • Finally,  but  not  last,  the  Judge  -  made  "Absolute  Judicial
             Immunity"  is  inextricable,   tainted  by  the  defect  of
             conflict of interest.  Conflict  of  Interest is at its worst
             when it involves Judicial Decision Making.    As James
             Madison stated:  "No  man  is  allowed to be a Judge in
             his own cause, because  his  interest  would  certainly
             bias his judgment,  and,  not  improbably,  corrupt his
             integrity".

Alexander Hamilton, sharpened  the  adage  further  in  the context of
Judicial Decision Making:
"No man ought certainly to be a Judge in
his own cause, or  any cause in respect to which he has the least
interest or bias".

Judicial Independence is not absolute, Judges  are  NOT  unbridled
Monarchs
,   Judges,   like   any   other  Public  Officers,   MUST   be
accountable for their conduct.  The concept of Judicial Independence
devised by the Parliament envisioned  only  freedom  from Legislative
and Executive encroachments. All Judges are bound by the Law, the
Solemn Oath or Affirmation of Office and the Constitution.

Nevertheless, during its long and impenetrable fortress of  
"Absolute
Judicial  Immunity"
,  that  protects  Corrupt  Judges  from  personal
liability   for   their  intentional   and   malicious   criminal  acts  in  the
Administration of Justice.    The Judicial Branch is allowing the bunch
of Corrupt Judges across the Country to operate outside the remedial
system of the Tort  of  Misuse of Legal Powers, Criminal Laws  and to
escape   the   consequences   of   their   intentional,   unlawful    and
outrageous acts, actions and conduct in the Administration of Justice.

Permitting Corrupt Judges to operate outside the laws imposed upon
the   public   makes  a  mockery   of  our  fundamental   principles  of
accountability and equality before the law.

What does this to say about the system  that  systematically  protects
criminal acts, actions, and conduct in the Administration of Justice?

It sends the message  that  Judges  are above the Law  and  Judicial
Crimes are exempted from the force of the law.    Plainly,
crime must
have consequences, especially,  Judicial Crimes under the colour
of law.

There  MUST  be action, a remedy, at law, for someone  damaged by
the tortuous acts or omissions of Judges and others.    If there are no
consequences, social order as we know it will dissolve.

When  Judges  abuse  their  authority  and  someone  is injured, they
unlawfully  are  protected   by   the   MYTH   of    
"Absolute  Judicial
Immunity"
.

The removal of the MYTH  of  
"Absolute  Judicial  Immunity"  would
over time,  deter Judicial  Abuse  and  Corruption,  Judges  would  be
more careful to safeguard the rights of all parties.

If a Judge  
intentionally violates the laws they were sworn to uphold,
they should be held accountable. As law breakers, Judges should be
treated like any other law breakers.

In  the  Australian  Judicial  System,   few   more   serious  threats  to
individual liberty can be imagined than a Corrupt Judge. Clothed with
the  power  of  the State  or  Commonwealth  and  authorized to pass
judgments  on  the  most  basic aspects of everyday life, a Judge can
deprive liberty and property in complete disregard of the laws.

The Courts lack accountability,  the Judicial Branch is accountable to
virtually  no  one  but  itself,  this is totally  unacceptable.  The Courts
should  NOT  have  free reign to operate  without  the  scrutiny of the
public  and  without  public  accountability. The public  MUST  have a
role  of  overseeing  how the  most  powerful  branch  of  Government
operates.

Toothless   Judicial   Ethics   Standards   and   the   lack   of   laws to
discipline, charge  and  prosecute  Judges  allows Corrupt Judges to
regularly  abuse  their  positions  of  power,  to  violate  their  Oath  or
Affirmation of Office, the Constitution and the Laws.

The  Courts  are  ruled  by  Judges  who  answer  to  no  one.     
It is
shameful, appalling  and  disgraceful  that the Judicial System is
designed to shut out the public  and  punish those Citizens who
dare  call  a  Judge's  conduct  into question.   
At a time when the
public has lost faith in the impartiality  and  fairness  of  the Country's
Judiciary, effective oversight of State and Federal Judges is crucial.

"The  germ  of  destruction  is  in  the  power  of  the
Judiciary,  an   irresponsible   body  -  working   like
gravity  by  night   and   day,  gaining  a  little  today
and a little tomorrow,  and  advancing  its noiseless
steps like a thief over the field  of  jurisdiction, until
all shall render powerless the checks of one branch
over    the    other    and    will   become   venal   and
oppressive  as  the   government   from   which   we
separated."
(Thomas Jefferson).


CORRUPT   JUDGES   OF   
THE FAMILY AND FEDERAL
MAGISTRATES COURTS OF
AUSTRALIA.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1.   JUSTICE COLIN JAMES FORREST -  (BRISBANE).
 [Appointed on 02/02/2011].






                    
                     FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

   BRC 7312/2007 - CONDE & VILLANUEVA  (25 July 2012)
   FamCA

FAMILY LAW    -    INJUNCTIONS    -     ORDERS MADE UNDER
SECTIONS 121, 68B and 114(3) OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
TO REMOVE MY WEBSITE:
www.exposinglegalandjudicialcorruptioninaustralia.org

Curiously, "Justice" Forrest  did  not  made  Orders for breaches to
section 121.

FURTHERMORE,  AUTOMATICALLY DISMISSED:

MY APPLICATION IN A CASE FOR ORDERS FOR DISCLOSURE
(Rule 13.22, Subrules 13.22(1)(a)(d)(i)  and   Rule 13.15, Subrule
13.15(1) of the Family Law Act 1975.

MY APPLICATION IN A CASE TO ENFORCE THE FAMILY LAW
RULES 2004   -   CHAPTER 15   -  EVIDENCE:  
A person may be
prosecuted for knowingly making a false statement in evidence
(see section 35 of the
Crimes Act 1914).

"JUSTICE" FORREST IS CORRUPT AND ALL
STATED IN MY WEBSITE APPLIES TO HIM.
EXPOSING LEGAL AND JUDICIAL
CORRUPTION IN AUSTRALIA.