How Many and Which Magistrates Ignored You're Affidavits ???
- Category: Corrupt Magistrates and Judges
- Created: Saturday, 19 February 2011 10:55
- Written by Alecomm
" The Children’s Court must admit in proceedings before it any evidence" : This is part of the Child and Young Persons (Care and Protection) act 1988, and some very well known magistrates find this part of the legislation irrelevant when hearing cases. To explain further ... We all know that DoCS don't believe that anybody except them should have a say in what happens to children they steal, but funny enough legislation says we should. I find it quite interesting though how many clients Alecomm has that are continually denied having their affidavits read into evidence because certain magistrates rule them out on technicalities.
A lot of these cases are now sitting in district and supreme court where it is more than obvious to the most stupid docs worker that the children should have been restored immediately to the parents / carers / grandparents from whom they were stolen some 1-2 years earlier, however the actions of the magistrates have prevented this and, of course, cost us tax payers millions upon millions of dollars.
Not only that, once the children's cases are finalised, as many of the children have been abused in care, of which docs have conveniently covered up and failed to notify any parties of, including children's clinicians, court clinicians, and the Ombudsman and Police, they are well and truly open from some massive forthcoming lawsuits - and rightfully so. Smart magistrates would prevent this type of abuse occurring so frequently as they are responsible for the ongoing matters - not the solicitors. After all they are supposed to know the law aren't they.
106A Admissibility of certain other evidence
(1) The Children’s Court must admit in proceedings before it any evidence adduced that a parent or primary care-giver of a child or young person the subject of a care application:(a) is a person:(i) from whose care and protection a child or young person was previously removed by a court under this Act or the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987, or by a court of another jurisdiction under an Act of that jurisdiction, and(ii) to whose care and protection the child or young person has not been restored, or(b) is a person who has been named or otherwise identified by the coroner or a police officer (whether by use of the term “person of interest” or otherwise) as a person who may have been involved in causing a reviewable death of a child or young person.(2) Evidence adduced under subsection (1) is prima facie evidence that the child or young person the subject of the care application is in need of care and protection.(3) A parent or primary care-giver in respect of whom evidence referred to in subsection (1) has been adduced may rebut the prima facie evidence referred to in subsection (2) by satisfying the Children’s Court that, on the balance of probabilities:(a) the circumstances that gave rise to the previous removal of the child or young person concerned no longer exist, or(b) the parent or primary care-giver concerned was not involved in causing the relevant reviewable death of the child or young person,as the case may require.(4) This section has effect despite section 93 and despite anything to the contrary in the Evidence Act 1995.(5) In this section, reviewable death of a child or young person means a death of a child or young person that is reviewable by the Ombudsman under Part 6 of the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993. Source : http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+157+1998+FIRST+0+N