An Open Letter to Susan and Bill

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Dear Susan and Bill,

Believe me I know better than to address a judge in a casual manner.  The Court is sacred (well, it’s sacred to me anyway), and a show of respect is always needed. I am keen to uphold the Court.

However, at this moment I need to talk to you in your personal capacity. Besides being judges, Susan and Bill, you are also citizens of Australia. In that area we are equals.

Maybe if you would put on your “personal glasses” to read this letter it will all go smoothly. Just leave to one side the thoughts that you’d normally come to in your job as high-level judges. Just be your selves, please.

The Reality Today

The reality today is that both Australia, and my other country the United States, are essentially run by forces that are not mentioned in any Constitution. They are free-wheeling power holders and are usually secretive.

In some cases these entities are recognized in law.  Some of the biggest power holders are corporations; a corporation is an entity whose existence is based in law.  There are also some foundations; the privileged behavior of every foundation is a result of law.

Thus a court can to some extent control the Boeing Corporation or Telstra or the Rockefeller Foundation.

But what we need to talk about are forces, sometimes called The Deep State, that are hidden and typically are illegal. In effect they are mafia’s. The members feel good about breaking the law or contravening it. They don’t worry about getting caught; they don’t even expect that their enterprise will get reined in.

My first inclination is to say that they are “beyond” the law. But really they are easy prey for the law if only the courts or Parliament wanted to go after them.

Getting Them

Various ways to control them come to mind.  The first way is to capture them – just by ordinary arrest – and treat them individually as criminals.  (I favor this myself.  Law is the great equalizer.)

Another way would be to track down what they do and block their enterprise. President Trump reportedly ordered the arrest of thousands of viewers of child porn on the Internet.  This would block the porn film industry by depriving them of customers.

Still another way to deal with the powerful forces is to bump them off outside the law.  There is a rumor that Trump has authorized this lately. I don’t know if he has. I don’t approve of doing it secretly.  There is the public law of outlawry and the unquestionable law of plain old self-defense.

Our ancestors recognized that necessity – life threatenng emergency — has no law. Necessitas non habet legem.

The Pattern

The problem that has caused me to write to you today is a powerful force in South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and probably the other states and territories, having to do with child-stealing. The online magazine that I write articles for, GumshoeNews.com, has spent the last 6 months trying to find out what is going on.

Allow me to tell you a pattern we uncovered. We did not go looking for it; it was thrown at us. I will simplify it:

1. A couple produces a baby. The Dad may do a runner, but when the child is around 2 to 4 years, he comes back asking for custody. There is no reason for the mother to lose custody as the child is doing fine.
2. Then it becomes apparent that the child is being sexually abused, and the dud parent is letting others use the child for this. (Both genders can become abusers.) This is certainly doing damage to the child’s natural development.
3. The protective Mum realises what is happening and does not want to hand the kid over. Oh yes she will! The government of Oz will force her to do it. Practically guaranteed! And no effort, no amount of having the law on her side will give her a way out of the nightmare.
4. How so? First, the mother’s right to the child will be called into question “medically.” She will be labeled a danger to the child, as she is mentally unwell. (That is soo CIA.)
5. Furthermore, her efforts to get her child back will be used against her. Officials will note her reluctance to send the child to the Dad (never mind if the kid is screaming “Mummy, please don’t make me go!”). The reluctance will then be called emotional abuse on the part of the mother.
6. She may also be “diagnosed” with Parental Alienation Syndrome (or the modern equivalent) – she is trying to turn the child against its father. They will claim, and write it in the case notes, that she “coaches” the child.
7. Because of the coaching problem, the child may be sent to live with a “neutral” guardian. This could be a group home, a relative’s home, or may be a non-kin foster parent. If more than one child is involved, the siblings may be sent to separate foster homes.
8. Legislation provides that it’s bad for a child to linger in guardianship more than six months, so The Law will speed up the disposition of the case. The guardian may become a permanent guardian and will then have authority to adopt the child out.
9. The adopting parent may legally have the child’s name changed and the Mum will thus lose hope of even being able to locate her beloved child.

We have heard from many mothers that the following parts of government each do their part in carrying out the pattern: police, child protection workers, child’s independent lawyers (so-called), the guardianship board, the staff of Family Court and – wait for it – the judges.

Also, in regard to getting the mother “certified,” a psychology assessment organization called ACES steps in to help.

Ignorance and Secrecy about This

Allow me tell you how ignorant I was of the whole thing. I never knew the Pattern till I got to 2018.  And yet I was well-up on related things: I am a virtual expert on the CIA’s Mk-Ultra program in the US; I was a member of a Truth and Reconciliation Coalition n 2010, and I studied the recent Royal Commission on pedophiles, writing a book about it called Deliverance!

Surely it must be down to the secretiveness of the criminals that I never had a glimmer of what the mothers go through. (Note: it is not always a Mum, it can be a Protective parent of either gender.) So whence cometh the secretiveness? I suggest:

1. The Protective parent is dazed and glazed (so said Senator Nancy Schaefer in Georgia, USA before she was bumped off). The parent, focused on the child’s needs, is worn out by the whole thing and, for extra effect, is financially smitten by the cost of lawyers, psychologist assessments, etc.
2. The media – who must surely be in on the deal – will not only not inform the public of this baby-snatching, but will publish stories about cases where coaching is actually done, or where a child truly does need to be grabbed from a drug-addicted mother. This keeps the public off the scent.
3. Perhaps the biggest block to publicity is the “gag order” written into Section 121 of the Family Law Act. It tells the suffering Protective parent not to have loose lips. He or she is thus scared of mentioning the problem, and frustrated beyond belief.

The Presence of a Racket

Dear Susan and Bill, did you know of all this? Would you agree, as ordinary observers, that there must be someone running this racket (statewide at least, maybe nationally) as how else could such a standard pattern emerge?

Fiona Barnett was the first to come forward – in a loud way – and tell the public about torture of children by a pedophile group in Australia.  She later determined that there is a worldwide child-harming industry run from Langley.

A person at Gumshoe has revealed that in the 1940s her grandmother was part of the Tavistock group, along with Dr Eric Dax, that was seeded into Australia.

I do not say that a racket is involved in the handling of every child that is the object of a custody battle, certainly not. But a certain percent of cases fits the Pattern. This system feeds kids to cruel pedophiles.

Law Enforcement

I think the reaction of officials is a good indication that there is a racket. Members of government, when approached by, or about, the Protective parents, appear to be scared to even acknowledge what is going on.  Parents have shown us letters they wrote to Parliamentarians years ago, which got no reply.

As the Pattern contains crime, one would expect police to be helpful in combatting it. No. There isn’t even a hint of any police commissioner seeing the problem for what it is.

And at the lower level, cops have been told to give no quarter to any Protective parent whose case is “before the Family Court.” There’s no black-letter law to support the practice of turning away a citizen who wishes to report crime (quite the opposite!), but police are taught that such a law does exist.

The “child protection services” are on-the-ground implementers of the crime I have mentioned. All one needs to do is type “CPS” into Youtube and out come the horrible and heartbreaking stories.  How many thousands of people have been put through this mill? Why are we allowing it?

Seeking the Citizen Opinion of Susan and Bill

As citizens, dear Susan and Bill, you can hardly be other than alarmed by my story. I wish every Aussie were alarmed by it, but as I mentioned they have not even been told it exists.

I almost wish I hadn’t been told, as it burdens me with a new responsibility that is getting in the way of important things I was working on!

At present, even on the outside chance that you, too, had been in the dark, you can be in the dark no more.

I ask what can be done, in your opinion as citizens.  Just possibly you will say that you would like my help in sorting it out. I will of course jump at the chance to help you.  I have already drafted some legislation that would turn the problem around, starting with repeal of Section 121 – the “offending section” of the Family Law Act.

Calls for Help?

Picturing myself in your shoes now – but as justices not citizens, I think the thing you would most want from me is help.

If it be true that there’s a huge bunch of racketeers out there, so unscrupulous (so inhuman, really) as to harm children, you’d naturally have to be scared. They could strike at you.

Indeed you may think that the problem is so intractable that you should just remain cool, calm, and collected.

Heck, Your Honors, don’t do that.  It only gives them leeway.

All your weapons are needed on deck. And who has more weapons than you? Nobody. You could start some prosecutions this afternoon that would send the rats scurrying. I realize you are not prosecutors but you could prosecute with your larynx. Or your pen if a case comes bfore you.

And GumshoeNews would provide a pulpit any time. Our specialty is reacting intelligently to society’s problems, whatever it takes.  If it takes a pulpit, fine.  If it takes a gun, well, we all know what the High Court held in 1987 in Zecevic v DPP:

“The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal. Stated in this form, the question is one of general application and is not limited to cases of homicide.”  [So sensible, so simple!]

And the law of self-defense is not limited to the person who is being attacked.  One can practice “self” defense when it is a loved one or even a stranger who is about to be killed or grievously harmed.

Many of the children I described are about to be grievously harmed and, if you will watch the video below, you will see that thousands per year are actually killed.

So I take back my licentious use of first names and appeal to you now in your official capacity, Chief Justice of Australia and Chief Justice of the Family Court.

Do the right thing and go to glory!