Home Australia The Crime of Judicial Kidnap – Can Accessories Be Punished?

The Crime of Judicial Kidnap – Can Accessories Be Punished?

18

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

There can be no doubt that judges in various countries are feeding children to the pedophiles.  In Australia they can do it by writing orders, under the Family Law Act, to place the child in the care of a bad person. We have now heard of many cases that fit a pattern. (Of course I don’t mean to include instance where the removal of the child from a parent is truly warranted.)

I call this the crime of “judicial kidnap,” but on the books it is just the crime of kidnap. I am very interested in seeing how the law can crack down on any judge who commits this crime. But a separate matter to consider is the punishment of various other persons that help the crime.

Clearly a judge could not carry off the whole deal without assistance. Below I will suggest that some of the occupational groups on which we find potential helpers are: police, lawyers, psychologists, and social workers.

Note: It does not matter that the judge wasn’t physically present at the crime scene. You can commit a crime by ordering it. This is well established in law.

Let’s begin by reading the “suggested instructions” that are provided by the New South Wales Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book (locally for NSW).   It contains phrases that a judge can use when instructing a jury as to what the law says.

I now quote the Bench Book — I have abridged it and added bolding:

Accessory before the Fact (from Judcom.nsw.gov.au, sec 2-710.

A person is guilty of being an accessory before the fact where at some time before the crime is actually carried out, he or she intentionally encourages or assists the principal offender to commit that crime.

Therefore, there must be some act committed by the accessory that was intended to bring about the crime later committed by the principal offender. The act of an accessory can consist of conduct of encouraging, including advising…, or it can be assisting in the preparations for the commission of the crime. …

In this case, the Crown alleges, and must prove beyond reasonable doubt, that [the accused] [specify the act or acts of encouraging and/or assisting in the preparations relied upon by the Crown] intending that [the principal offender] would commit the crime of [specified offence] later. The Crown must prove that by these acts [the accused] intentionally [encouraged and/or assisted] [the principal offender] to commit the crime of [specified offence].

The fact that a person knew that another person intended to commit a particular crime does not by itself mean that he or she is guilty of being an accessory before the fact. Nor is it enough that a person merely approves of the commission of the crime but did not make the approval known to the principal offender.

To make out the offence, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that [the accused]… assisted [the principal offender] in the preparations for the commission of the crime. There must be some conduct on [the accused’s] part carried out with the intention to […assist] [the principal offender] to commit the crime that was later committed. Here, the Crown relies on [specify the encouragement and/or assistance relied upon by the Crown].

Before a person can be convicted of being an accessory before the fact, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that, at the time of the … assistance, the accused knew all the essential facts or circumstances which would make what was later done a crime.

This includes the state of mind of the principal offender when those acts are carried out. The accused need not actually know that what he or she encourages and/or assists the principal offender to do is in law a crime.

The accused does not need to have the legal knowledge that the conduct to be committed by the principal offender actually amounts to a criminal offence. But he or she must believe that what he or she is encouraging and/or assisting the principal offender to do are acts that make up the crime committed.

In the above quote, the “principal offender” is the judge who does the kidnapping. He does it with a flick of the pen. The accessory could be, for example:

— police may go to the home of the parent and actually take the child by force

— lawyers may advise their clients not to mention “sexual abuse of the child” in court

— psychologists may write up a report of interview with the pedophile that makes him (or her) sound nice, and may, in reporting the mental problems of the Protective parent, tell lies or exaggerate the facts

— social workers may interfere in the procedure by which a Protective parent comes to the Department of Child Protection for a weekly “supervised visit” with the child, or may make a false report downplaying child abuse.

Note: Such persons may think the judge is doing good by, say, taking a child from a mum who alienates that child against the father.  Or they may think it is a good thing to save a child from living with mother who has psychiatric issues such as anxiety or delusion.

But, as stated above in the NSW Bench Book, an accessory is one who “intentionally encourages or assists the principal offender to commit that crime”

— and that “The accused does not need to have the legal knowledge that the conduct to be committed by the principal offender actually amounts to a criminal offence.”

By the way, once the judge is indicted, it may happen that she points the finger at someone higher up who gave her the orders. That could cause this judge to fall lower down — into the category of accomplice or possibly even accessory.

Never mind that, and I shan’t attempt to discuss the fine line between one who is an accomplice, an accessory, or and aider and abettor. In some states, the common law prevails, and in other states, legislators have modified common law by statute.

The foregoing quote from the Bench Book was about accessory BEFORE the fact. Now let’s see the AFTER.

Again I will take it from the Bench Book. I’ll abridge it and bold it, as is my wont.  But this time, I will also alter the wording:  I won’t use the generic terms “the accused” and “the principal offender.”

I will specify “the judge” instead of “the principal offender’ and I will specify “the journalist” instead of “the accused.” In place of the pronoun he/she I will say “he” for the journalist and “she” for the judge. I will dispense with the square brackets.

Why do I select the occupation of Journalist to charge as an accessory after the fact? Because it is of huge importance that journalists can cover up a crime. They can keep it hush-hush, or they can publish some nonsense about it that distracts people from seeing what really happened.

Police and politicians are also involved in cover-up, but I want to keep it simple. Walk with me now through the Bench Book’s suggested explanation to jurors, with my new insertions:

New South Wales Criminal Courts Trial Bench Book, section 2-730

Accessory after the Fact

The offence of being an accessory after the fact can be committed by rendering assistance either to the principal offender or to a person who aids and abets the principal. …[Jeepers!]

The Crown does not allege that the journalist was involved in the commission of the crime carried out by the judge.  The charge brought against the journalist is that he assisted the judge after she committed the crime of kidnap, and gave that assistance with knowledge that the judge had committed that crime.

… A charge that a person is an accessory after the fact to a crime committed by another is an allegation that the person giving that assistance has himself or herself committed a crime. It is a separate and distinct offence from that committed by the principal offender but it is dependent upon the fact that the principal offender committed a specific crime.

Here, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt both the commission of the crime of kidnap by the judge and that the journalist assisted the judge knowing that the crime had been committed. A person is an accessory after the fact …[by, for example] disposing of the proceeds of the crime, or by doing an act intending to hinder the arrest, trial or punishment of the principal offender.

… The Crown says this was done with the purpose of [specify the alleged reason for the assistance rendered by the accused (Mary inserts “cover-up”]. To be guilty of being an accessory after the fact, the Crown must also prove beyond reasonable doubt that the journalist knew that the judge  acted in a way and with a particular state of mind that gives rise to a criminal offence. The journalist does not need to have the legal knowledge that those facts amount to a crime….

… It will often be the case in a charge of accessory after the fact that the accused is said to have known of the commission of a crime simply on the basis of what he or she is told by the principal offender or some other person …. The accused [Mary says “the journalist”] may come to know that a crime has been committed by the principal offender from inferences that the accused has drawn from facts which he or she believes have occurred.

(Excuse me for going off topic for a minute. In the case of The Marathon bombing, in which I nominate the FBI as principal offender, that is, I say the FBI did the bombing,  journalists who are accessories after the fact, such the editors of the Boston Globe, would have been able to make inferences that they drew from facts. You can see this in the way they avoid asking questions of witnesses. Come to think of it, I believe the MSM was not simply an accessory but an accomplice.)

Back to the crime of state kidnap: might some individuals in the listed occupational roles (cops, lawyers, psychologists, social workers) be additionally indictable for crimes they personally committed, more than just as accessories? I think so. GumshoeNews will cover that in a later article, deus volens.

Stay tuned.

SHARE

18 COMMENTS

  1. “Of course I don’t mean to include instance where the removal of the child from a parent is truly warranted”
    So it’s O.K. for people to be treated like cattle so long as the cowboys don’t give the show away?
    You STILL haven’t woken up to the fact that the entire welfare system is based on blame-projection?

    • Berry, I know some humans who would have appreciated being removed from the home as children. In fact I know one who WAS removed and was glad of it.

      Anyway I am not an anarchist. We evolved to have social structure. I see people trying to demolish it, I can’t imagine how they will succeed.

      Berry, if welfare system is blame projection, what was Bismark thinking of when he started it?
      I presume it was to control the population.

      I am trying to get on a positive track. Would like to talk about the wonders of the world….

      • As I’ve said before, I’m on the old age pension and “glad of it”. That doesn’t change the fact it was introduced to the sole and express purpose of keeping the lid on generations of social engineering.

        I’m not, in any way, suggesting that demolishing any aspect of the current social structure would benefit anyone. What I’m saying is that, in order to help anyone with anything, you need to acknowledge that it’s 100% counterfeit

  2. If the truth was ever to come out regarding the non government owned or controlled FC’s and CPS’s of aust they will need to build more prisons aust wide as many thousands involved in pedophile supply and child porn making I know my daughter monique now 14 is one of their victims of 7yrs now ! 5yrs of FC at a cost of 140k I never had a chance of saving her FC lawyers only pretend to work for you while hiding their secret agenda and take everything

  5. Berry, I have got much education from you (and I thank you) but I can’t see all as counterfeit. I live in the biology realm. Many behaviors are wired in. I’d prefer to spread that message. The human being is in fact a magnificent creation.

    Wow it takes a lot of talk to counter the crap that’s out there, including the graphics. Oo-ee.
    Crikey, how did we ever come to this.

    Big thanks to y’all, too. You give me such good support.

  6. Feb 14,2019 Australian Associated Press, by Rebecca Gredley.

    Federal officers who fail to protect children from sexual abuse while under their care could face up to five years in jail under the proposed new laws.

    Following the RC into child sexual abuse, which also makes it a criminal offense if a commonwealth officer fails to report abuse. “The safety of our children should always be put first” he said

    “The Commonwealth has zero tolerance for child sexual abuse and expects all commonwealth officers who are charged with caring and supervising children to fulfil their obligations and protect these children”

    “Together as a civilised society, we’re committed to ensuring children can grow up free from the evil of sexual abuse and exploitation” Mr Dutton said.

    ???

  8. In the clearing stands a boxer
    And a fighter by his trade
    And he carries the reminders
    Of ev’ry glove that laid him down
    Or cut him till he cried out
    In his anger and his shame
    “I am leaving, I am leaving”
    But the fighter still remains.

  9. Do you want to meet a boring person? Meet me. Sometimes I come across things I said on the web years ago, and it’s identical to what I am saying now. Geez. There was a good Chief Justice in Georgia, Carol Hunstein, now retired. When Troy Davis, RIP, was to be executed she said “It would be immoral and unconscionable” not to listen to his new evidence (the recantation by 7 “eye witnesses”). Today I came across an old item about her, under which a Commenter named Charles had written: “We have no justice system to count on; it is every person for himself, and we need to prepare for such a time.”

    I guess I needn’t tell you what I said, as I never deviate from script. I wrote:
    “No way, Jose!! We can’t survive without a civilized setting. ‘Every man for himself’ is chaos, pure chaos. Where would you hope to get your food and running water? Please think about this: if Troy’s death be a wrongful one, as I surely think it was, the smart thing to do is punish the wrongdoers legally.
    Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB. (I graduated from Law School yesterday, as in literally yesterday, September 28, 2011.)”

    Boring, boring, boring. Oh and by the way, the low-level judge who signed the execution order is not out of the woods yet. She is on MY LIST. ’Nuf said.

    • I’ll read it forthwith, Diane. Now here is my off-topic:

      “The US Senate passed the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2019 on a voice vote Thursday, which would make lynching a federal hate crime. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) introduced the bill the same day it was passed.”

      I am only putting it here to show that a bill can pas in the twinkling of an eye. (Still has to go to the House tho.) ‘Mazing.

    • Quoting from Diane’s item on the NT intervention 10 yrs ago.
      The closest the report came to vindicating Brough’s claims of paedophile rings was this passage:

      “A number of reliable people in one community alleged that a rampant informal sex trade existed between Aboriginal girls aged between 12-15 years, and the non-Aboriginal workers of a mining company. It was alleged that the girls were provided with alcohol, cash and other goods in exchange for sex. It was further alleged that the girls would actively approach the workers and, at times, would climb over the fence into their residential compound.”

      However, the predators here were non-Aboriginal men, connected to powerful mining interests. This type of paedophile ring evidently didn’t interest the politicians and media, who had worked themselves into a frenzy at the thought of Aboriginal predators.”

      Diane, at the beginning of the article it said “no pedo rings were found.” but how would they know? Look at all the hoopla about Hillary on the Internet but no case has been found. So do we say “we found no pedo rings”?

  11. Given the “some interventions are warranted” intro to the article the reference to the ‘97 attack launched on aboriginal communities is not at all “off-topic”

    The bottom line is that there’s no such thing as preventative law; no wonder weapons and drug restrictions have never been known to do anything but increase criminal activity.

    Politicians like John Howard, Mal Brough and Peter Dutton exemplify just how pernicious the pseudo morality of the Age actually is.

    This doco certainly sums up what Dutton is all about:

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.