Home Australia No-ethics Case, Part 2: Public Expectations, A Trial and 33 Minutes

No-ethics Case, Part 2: Public Expectations, A Trial and 33 Minutes

41
Professor Freda Briggs, AO — she claimed this was one of the worst cases she had seen

by Dee McLachlan

(Apologising to readers in advance as this is but another of many articles in a series.)

This is a follow-up on Part 1 on my reporting of THE KING v PATRICK FINBAR MCGARRY O’DEA, WILLIAM RUSSELL MASSINGHAM PRIDGEON, ANN KATHLEEN GREER AND ORS. In that article, I wrote that the unquestioning evidence of what I see and have witnessed personally over the last five years concludes the government is “a regime that condones the sexual abuse of children.”

To recap on the PO’DG case (Pridgeon, O’Dea, and Greer): I attended the 15 March 2023 hearing and will now give further observations of that day.

To summarise the case again:

Two young girls and then separately a young boy disclosed abuse. In fact, according to the most-respected and highly skilled Child Psychologist Prof Freda Briggs, there were over 90 reports from 13 contact supervisors disclosing abuse in the case of the two girls. It appears that members of the Police and an ICL (Independent Children’s Lawyer) hid the reports and prevented them from being available to the Family Court and as a shocking consequence the mother was “gaslighted” by all involved, then accused her of coaching the children when it was impossible for her to have coached during supervised visitations. The girls were sent back to live with the very people they claimed abused them. The mum and girls then fled and disappeared for four years and the good doctor and many others later provided some support to the mother and children. interestingly this all actually occurred well after the mother had already taken back the children contrary to those family court orders. The second case is about grandmother Ann Greer, who never even met the other mother in this alleged conspiracy until after being charged. She had lawful custody of her grandson at the time (awarded by the Family Court) but withheld him from the father for some days after the disclosures. She was arrested and detained and prevented from appearing in family court — despite there never having being a recovery order.

The AFP had spent millions (possibly tens of millions) tracking these people (supposedly on behalf of the alleged offenders); then a number of people were arrested and charged with child stealing. The young girls and the young boy were sent back to the persons they said abused them, and the charges of stealing and harbouring were dropped. The charge of “conspiracy to defeat justice” was reinstated and the matter is heading toward a trial.

You can smell the stench in Queensland from Victoria.

This mirrors many — still unresolved — cases I am familiar with in South Australia — that is; wherein if just one cop did their friggin’ job and followed the law, the children would have been kept safe and no court case would EVER have unfolded.

Mounting a Defence v Limiting a Defence

It seems that the process of the court — before a trial — is to eliminate extraneous facts so that the matter can be expeditiously dealt with, and only the relevant facts be presented to the jury. That seems logical. In this instance, though, during a number of hearings, the defendants slowly saw their options of a defence being chipped away.

For example, the defendants attempted to use jurisdiction, s70NAE (4) of the Family Law Act and s286 of CRIMINAL CODE 1899 as a defence. They challenged jurisdiction — that a matter that occurred in NSW should not be tried in a QLD district court. s70NAE (4) which permits a breach of court orders to protect a child (as per Ann’s case); and s286 (1) states “It is the duty of every person who has care of a child under 16 years to—(b) take the precautions that are reasonable in all the circumstances to avoid danger to the child’s life, health or safety; and (c) take the action that is reasonable in all the circumstances to remove the child from any such danger…”

This case is about supporting children who had disclosed abuse.

s286 could almost be a complete defence — i.e., taking reasonable action to remove the child from danger, or supporting a child that had allegedly been removed from danger. But they cannot use this, as Judge Clare removed their ability to use this. So what did Judge Clare say in court on the 15th?

Belief and Reasonable Belief

However, Judge Clare appears to be doing all she can to exclude the facts regarding the sexual abuse of the children. She said (to this effect) “whether the children were abused or not is not relevant”.  She continued, to say that the “question of their belief is different from what is true” [or may be true; not sure]. She said it was a fine line, and that “It’s not relevant to prove the world is round if they believe that it is flat.”

What!!!! We are not talking about defendants that might hold bizarre or obtuse conspiracy theory beliefs. Prof Briggs and the mother informed them of the abuse. There seems to be abundant evidence of abuse that was passed on to the defendants. And please refer to Part 1 where a study confirmed Australia as being number one in child abuse for girls in the world.

In his rambling opening address on the 15th, Mr Bean (I have not used the real name of the prosecution barrister) said with words to this effect that the trial would test the “relationship between their conduct and what they believed.” It is all about reasonable belief.

There was an interesting exchange between Patrick and the Judge. Judge Clare said something like, “The issue will be is what you knew, what you believed and the basis of the belief. Those things come from you…”

Patrick: “There is no question we believed that the children had been abused.”

Judge Clare: “That may be… Ultimately that is what this trial is about…  The first issue for trial is whether you believe and if you have evidence to form that belief. … It may ultimately come down to admissible evidence put before the trial [and] …It is up to the jury to decide.”

Yes, it is up to the jury.

In the PO’DG case, these people supported children who had alleged abuse. They didn’t hurt anybody — ever. They never confronted the alleged abusers. They believed what they were told by people investigating the case, by the mother, by experts (and their reports), and by others close to the children. (Ann’s case is independent of this; more personal).

So let me draw a comparison.

The 33-Minute Murder Case

I was approached a few years ago by a producer friend who suggested we do a movie on Said Morgan. I had not known about the case, but this is what was told to me (and can be confirmed by searching mainstream media articles):

Said Morgan (sometimes referred to as Sid) was a detective in NSW, and in May 1995 had something to do with charging his brother-in-law, Mansour Suha, with sexually molesting three young girls, two being Said’s nieces. On being granted bail, Suha laughed and apparently approached Said stating that he would do something to his nieces and that the girls (who had disclosed abuse) would not live to testify against him.

Said, concerned Suha might carry out a threat against the children, went to Suha’s Oakhurst home. He flashed his detective’s badge at the woman who answered the door, walked down a hall, passed a teenage boy watching television, and found Suha in bed. In an action described in court as a “Clint Eastwood notion of justice”, Said emptied his service revolver, shooting the man six times. Dead.

After he shot Suha, Said called the Fairfield Police Station telling his colleague that he’s just shot Suha. The colleague offered to plant a pistol on Suhu so self-defence could be claimed, but Said declined. He went to trial and faced charges of murder.

Despite the judge’s instructions that they must bring in a guilty verdict, the jury took just 33 minutes to decide his actions were justified. Said moved to Melbourne and became a real estate agent. (Sydney Morning Herald 2005)

Why do I bring Said into this article?

Public debate erupted over the implications of vigilante-style justice — but also the public’s standards and expectations of protecting children. This is what some people said:

One eight-year-old boy wrote: “Dear policeman, I’m glad you shot a child molester. I hate them. I know how bad they are and what they do.”

Another read: “Dear Constable, I’m a grandmother of two abused children whose father was found guilty by a judge and jury, only to win his appeal and be let off. We are all angry that these men get off with their dreadful behaviour and manage to destroy innocent children. All of my family supports you and your actions.”

Another card, signed simply “Sarah”, declared: “You are the champion, the protector of all children everywhere so, on their behalf, I thank you.”

Is this why when Russell, Patrick et al, were arrested the mainstream media labeled them “child stealers”? They didn’t really want the public to switch on that these people were the child PROTECTORS.

Should There Even Be a Trial?

Judge Clare was clear, “Proof of the sexual abuse itself is outside the ambit of the trial”, and that within this trial (deciding on whether the defendants conspired to defeat justice), it is not permitted “to conduct a mini-trial about whether the children had been abused.”

I ask: why is there not a trial to determine whether the fathers perpetrated abuse? It appears that despite countless disclosures and reports that no investigation into abuse has occurred. The AFP has all that evidence; all the reports and disclosures. Why are they sitting on that, whilst going after those that tried to assist the children?

Assisting a child sex offender is a serious criminal offense.

I again refer to my hypothesis that Australia is a regime — a regime that condones the sexual abuse of children. It seems like there is a script; a program that is being followed. When Mr Bean and the Judge were exchanging comments on ‘reasonable belief’ I was imagining what could have been said. It seemed the court was theatre and that a simple discussion could resolve this case.

In my daydreaming I imagined Judge Clare asking Mr Bean some objective questions. (Don’t worry, this is pure fiction)

Hypothetical Questioning:

J: “Mr Bean, you have said that the defendants have the defence of “reasonable belief” … to act in support of the children and in Ms Greer’s case her grandson.

Mr B: “Yes… in relation to what they knew at the time.

J: “Presumably the AFP have much of that evidence… as it would have been on the confiscated computers. Have you reviewed the evidence of what they knew at the time?

Mr B: “No… not in full Your Honour

J: “Okay… do you think the defendants believed the children had been abused?

Mr B: “They’ve been here in court for four years adamantly claiming that… I’d say they would all be mentally deficient to have act as they did, if they did not believe that.

J: “Considering that they believed the children had been abused … that seems obvious enough … is it the prosecution’s intention to ask the jury to find them guilty even though they believed the children were abused?

Mr B: “Yes, Your Honour.

J: “On that basis, this case comes down to what they knew at the time… and whether a jury would convict people who supported keeping children safe from further possible sexual abuse… Do you think a jury would convict a person trying to protect a child from further abuse?

Mr B: (pause) “It is up to those jury members.

J: “Dr Pridgeon says those hard drives the AFP confiscated four years ago has evidence of child sexual abuse.

Mr B: (silence)

J: “Your obligation is to present to this court the truth… Do you have exculpatory evidence that the children may have been abused?

Mr B: (silence) “They can rely on reports…

J: “Considering the mother and experts like Professor Briggs allegedly told the defendants abuse occurred… that’s what they will put forward … so I am just trying to weigh up our purpose in this court… do you think a reasonable person would accept that breaking a court order is appropriate to protect a child from further abuse?

Mr B:  “It’s not for us to determine… But Your Honour has excluded 70NAE and s286.

J: “I understand that, but we are going into a 12-week, or as the defendants say 6-month, trial to find out that one question?  What I am asking is, why are we going into a very lengthy expensive trial when we all believe they believe that the children were abused? … What are we actually determining in this trial?

[End of hypothetical]

My Reflections

We are determining the moral compass of Australia.

We know that children are ripped from good parents — daily — based on lies and innuendo for the “removals business” and because of the culture of the family courts.

But God help us; help the nation and its people if and WHEN facts are concealed and the protectors of children are punished.

My thoughts always revert to wondering what happened to the lives of those three children in this case. They spoke out bravely; their disclosures were ignored, concealed and sidelined. They were sent back to live with the persons they claimed abused them. They are still living, I presume, as per the family court orders (i.e, the court that did not entertain their disclosures). What were the children’s lawyers doing, or paid to do?  Imagine if you accused your boss of serious sexual harassment — but the courts forced you back to work in his office for the next 10 years. That would be unimaginable. So, to me, this feels like these children must be existing in a ‘hostage-like’ situation. Is my thinking wrong? Can you understand why I believe this system is so beyond redemption?

All through this time — knowing of the countless abuse disclosures (that resulted in belief) — the courts seem blind to the destiny of the children in question. Could a judge ask, “How are the children?” … “Do we need to hear from them?”  Maybe a one-hour private session between Judge Clare and the children would resolve this matter and save millions of tax-payer dollars.

This not only proves how inept the system is; but it demonstrates the true malignant nature of the system, and proves that authority has no regard for the children. 

I feel ashamed of what we are part of — a so-called civilized society. We are not even close!

SHARE

41 COMMENTS

  1. Thank you, Dee. Stick with it. You are saving the world.

    On page 80 of my book, “Reunion: Judging the Family Court,” I quote Freda Briggs’ 2014 submission to the Royal Commission on … Child Sexual Abuse:

    “A report was sent to Attorneys General in 1995 recommending that there should be an inquisitorial court for child sexual abuse cases involving child witnesses. This would be staffed by a panel of rostered child abuse experts with authority and means to investigate all of the evidence. However, the SA Attorney General commented that the legal profession would resist change because the current system makes it easy for lawyers to “get their clients off” when children are the only witnesses.”

    Here is a pdf of my book which will help any parent in this situation:

    https://gumshoenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/REUNION_2019.pdf

  2. On page 39 of my pdf. you will see good Solicitor Geroge Potkonyak say:

    “The Act empowers the Family and Community Services to receive and record ‘risk of harm reports’ about any child from mandatory reporters or from any member of public. The reporter believes on reasonable grounds that a child is at risk of significant harm. The identity of the reporter is protected. Once the report is received, the FACS ‘is to’ carry out investigations and make an assessment – if the person responsible considers that the report provides sufficient reason to believe that the child is at risk of significant harm. If not, [he or she] does not need to carry out any investigations….

    Note that he is talking only about NSW. The great news is that Potkonyak is now a candidate in Sydney for an elected position — I think it is City Council. Will tell you later. He lost his law licence for protecting children in the way Dee is doing.

  3. Due process is the thing that you get in a court. It’s what courts do. If the court is not giving due process it is not a court.

    Furthermore, if a legislature is churning out laws with little tricks in them to defeat due process, then those legisators are committing the crime of perversion of the course of justice — bigtime. You may have heard that a lawmaker cannot be sued for bad law. True. But she can be charged with crime. There is only one person in Australia who is above the law and his name begins with “Ch”.

  4. “Can you understand why I believe this system is so beyond redemption?” – 21 years at the Bar drove me to the same conclusion. The ‘tipping point’ came after a trial where the judge disregarded the overwhelming evidence AND the law.

    As I was on my way home on the train I came to the conclusion that my continued participation in the legal system only gave the system some undue credibility – I withdrew my participation.

    There is no institution left in Australia that I have confidence in. I’ve dealt with politicians, the legal system, the education system, the medical system, the media – everything is corrupt.

    The only productive thing I can do at this late stage in my life is to develop the food producing capability on my little 1/4 acre plot.

    • “There is no institution left in Australia that I have confidence in. I’ve dealt with politicians, the legal system, the education system, the medical system, the media – everything is corrupt.”

      I HAVE TO AGREE

      And if you blow any whistles on government — expect a jail sentence>

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-27/richard-boyle-case-goes-to-trial-after-immunity-defence-fails/102148790

      EXAMPLE: Tax office whistleblower Richard Boyle….

      “Former public servant Richard Boyle has lost his legal bid to be declared immune from prosecution as a whistleblower, meaning he could face the prospect of life in prison.

      Mr Boyle, 46, is accused of 24 offences — including recording and disclosing protected information — stemming from his decision to collect information about unethical debt-recovery practices within the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).

      He had worked as a debt collection officer at the ATO’s Adelaide office and accused his former employer of covering up serious maladministration and lying to Senate Estimates about his accusations.

      Mr Boyle first made a public interest disclosure within the ATO, internally, and then made a complaint to the tax ombudsman before he made his revelations as a part of a joint Fairfax-Four Corners investigation.”

      • It’s so corrupt that it must eventually implode. I’ve made the analogy before that we are on a train heading for a burned out bridge. You can try to tell other passengers the danger ahead, but it falls on deft ears. The only thing you can reasonably do is GET OFF THE TRAIN!

  6. Here is a nation which does not let its executive or legislature wreck the role of the judiciary: Israel. People have been protesting outside Netanyahu’s home in Jerusalem for weeks. Now they have won. Probably not worth your 10 mins to watch this video, just take my word for it.

    • They will only have won if they peacefully chuck out the whole corrupt gang in some short-notice referendum, now what’s the chance of that ?
      What government has ever legislated an emergency exit ?

    • Such appalling abuses are all about maximizing personal disempowerment
      Because the purveyor’s figure that’s the only way minimizing awareness of a complete societal collapse
      Glory be to God that such logic is having the reverse effect

      • Acknowledging who’s actually on the throne means acknowledging that:
        * The judicial system was never intended to be anything more than a stop-gap
        * Ditto the welfare system

        The law was never given as a means of establishing a nice, clean egalitarian society
        The whole intention was to cultivate an understanding that no mere mortal has the capacity to maintain any such thing
        Not that that excuses anyone from anything

  8. This is so horrible, and to have to keep witnessing, but I’m so proud(I know prides not a spiritual goal in itself-opposite). The way you guys just keep the line(yes as seemly pathetic as it seems), just rolling this over and over.

    Judge Clare did not surprise me, to ignore heinous crime and to not entertain mitigating defense witch she “knows” to contain mitigating evidence. A domiciled robocop.

    This is kinda weird, but for all us … never mind, thanks Dee and Tez(you know who you are)

  9. Brilliant article Dee – thank you for continuing to be a voice for these champions and the poor children they have been desperately trying to protect.

    May the angels look upon this insane situation and finally bring justice! xxx

  11. Item from CBC Canada, March 24, 2023:
    “A Supreme Court judge praised a young woman who testified against her abuser, while sentencing the man to four and a half years in federal prison for his sex crime. The victim was a teenager when the abuse took place.

    Justice Nancy Key handed down the sentence Friday in P.E.I. Supreme Court. ‘When you testified, I saw a poised and composed young woman steadfastly give her evidence,’ said Key. ‘You told me you have flashbacks and nightmares.… You will conquer all of this. I will never forget you and what you have gone through.’

    The offender changed his plea to guilty after victim’s testimony at trial.

  13. I first heard Nellie speak in June 2021. This is what she said.
    https://www.facebook.com/gabbi.choong/videos/332348028610804

    20 months later she has laid out her “story” over 3 amazing interviews with the amazing Gabbi Choong.

    https://youtu.be/IVOELuhBUWk
    “Nellie is a courageous survivor of ritual abuse and M K ultra in Australia, New Zealand and beyond. She speaks out today to show the structure and methods used by cult networks in programming children into mind control slaves and from here mass populations.
    Nellie shares her important truth to assist other survivors in healing and to raise awareness in our communities so we all may know the signs of cult abuse and watch over the children around us”

    https://youtu.be/ErWCKOjZi98
    Nellie continues in interview 2. Nellie is a courageous survivor of ritual abuse and M K ultra in Australia, New Zealand and beyond. She speaks out today to show the structure and methods used by cult networks in programming children into mind control slaves and from here mass populations.
    Nellie shares her important truth to assist other survivors in healing and to raise awareness in our communities so we all may know the signs of cult abuse and watch over the children around us
    Despite reporting serious crimes in thousands of pages to the police and various state authorities, nothing has been followed up or actioned and instead Nellie herself received targeting
    Together we must support our whistleblowers. It is these important truths that are exposing the evil that has remained hidden for lifetimes. Only then will our children be safe

  14. Whether it is ‘whistleblowers’, tuckers or simply ‘alternative news’ sites (like Maria Zee in Australia) the banks are in on restricting people’s freedom.

    Get your money out of the crooks hands and keep it under your mattress. Or, a better idea, go with precious metals. It would be quite a benefit if silver did go to $600 a troy oz as Clif High mentions.

    https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/leaked-texts-liberal-govt-plotted-to-de-bank-freedom-convoy-protestors-before-invoking-emergencies-act/

    • Hmm, lets see – if some years ago you could purchase silver at A$5.00 per oz and now it is A$35-36 per oz, that is a fair rate of ‘return’ on your money (actually it is retaining your purchasing power, plus some).

      Say you spent A$500 on the silver for 100 ozs – at $600 an oz that would be $60,000. If you had spent A$5,000 on the silver for 1,000 ozs, that would be $600,000. – So why would you risk putting your money in a bank??

    • No idea, perhaps he decided to change his shoes.
      Anyway, I am confident that the brains trust of our ABC will report the fact and seek a voice consensus.
      Walked through and noted on Nine, M and M wandering over our Harbour arch without safety restraints. Well someone lost a opportunity.😩🤡

    • “Mrs” Obama is proficient at photoshop and runs a unit which is constantly posting material on Alt-news sites such as RealRawNews to screw everyone up

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.