THE "ITALIAN GIRLS" CASE
There is a saying that goes "the killer is always the loudest person in the room". And this is true with domestic violence accusations. People who make false accusations of domestic violence and child abuse are allowed to voice their baseless accusations to the world, while their accusers cannot say anything, as advised by solicitors. What the public sees is one person speaking out, and the accuser "hiding" from the media. Anyone who has been falsely accused of domestic violence or child abuse knows that you cannot speak out in your defense until after your trial. Your solicitor will protect you as much as possible from anyone. All phone conversations are recorded and the accused will usually have supervised contact to protect themselves against allegations.
A very weel-known and very public example of the DV Method and how the Family Court cartels use children as a tool to extort money from parents was recently seen in the very public "Italian Girls" case.
Even after an order was made for the children to return to Italy for their case to be heard by the Italian Courts, the Family Court cartels intervened again. This time, ignoring the Hague Convention, the mother's illegal conduct, her manipulation over the girls and her false claims of domestic violence and child abuse, allowing the matter to be re-heard! Furthermore, the judge ordered the girls be re-examined by another child psychologist because they "may have changed their minds" about returning home. As usual, the Family Court set another hearing date months in time. The father then gave up and returned to Italy to pursue other avenues. There is no point fighting a corrupt legal system that wont even abide by the Treaties it is a signatory:
The media launched a full-scale attack against the father, stating that the father had "abandoned" the case and that the girls were "relieved" that the father had left. The claims were rediculous.
We didnt hear anything from the father. Why? Because the father was following the correct procedures in getting his girls back. He did not want to drag his children through the public and use the Domestic Violence Method. While the mother dragged her own children through one of the worst ordeals any child could ever experience, the father ignored all the media slander for the sake of his children. In the end, the truth was revealed and we found out is was all rubbish and the kids actually told psychologists they wanted to go "back home". While the mother dragged her children to doctors and psychiatrists coercing them to make false statements of abuse, the father was spending thousands going through the court system trying to see them again. Then, after Australian courts ordered the children be returned home, she kidnapped them and went on the run. She has cost Australian tax-payers tens of thousands of dollars. She has broken very serious laws, but because she used domestic violence and child abuse allegations, she will never be charged. And yet, the Family Court still dragged the case on, at the expense of the father and the children.
The most disturbing and shameful fact in this case was that the Australian and Italian governments actually organised the illegal kidnapping, based on the domestic violence lies and no evidence. To date, there have been no reports of compensation for the father or the children from the Australian government:
The Family Court and s 121 Family Court Act:
s121 Family Court Act 1975 states that a person who publishes in a newspaper or periodical publication, by radio broadcast or television or by other electronic means, or otherwise disseminates to the public or to a section of the public by any means, any account of any proceedings, or of any part of any proceedings, under this Act that identifies:
(a) a party to the proceedings;
(b) a person who is related to, or associated with, a party to the proceedings or is, or is alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate; or
(c) a witness in the proceedings;
is guilty of an offence punishable, upon conviction by imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.
In other words, like any criminal case, a person cannot discuss any proceedings going through the Family Court while the proceedings are continuing.
However, in this case, the judge:
* ignored International Treaties against child abduction and allowed this parent to get away with the kidnap of the children from Italy (until lawyers for the Australian government stepped in - at a cost of over $100,000 to the tax-payers);
* allowed the parents to get away with contempt by taking the children into hiding when a court order had been made;
* allowed the parent to coerce her children to make public claims of abuse and suicide to the public;
* allowed the parent to commit emotional abuse by telling the children they would be abused if they returned home, causing further public exposure and taint the father as "a child abuser";
and of course...
* allowed the parent to use the Domestic Violence Method by publically using false domestic violence and child abuse allegations.
Despite all this, the judge made no gag orders on the family. He made no recommendations to the Australian Federal Police. He has never recommended any charges toward the parent. Yet, when sending the children home to be with the father, it is reported that Judge Colin Forrest coerced the father into not pressing charges against the mother in Italy! Another case of judges using children to manipulate parents?
On the flip side, the same judge threatens the papers for reporting the mother's actions
* Mother kidnaps the children after lying to father that they were going on holiday in Australia;
* Mother breaches Italian court order;
* Mother slanders father by telling Australians he is abusive, and wanted nothing to do with them;
* Mother coerces children into making statements and writing letters claiming abuse;
* Mother reinforces a belief in the children that they will be abused if they return home;
* An order is made for children to return home. Mother and grandmother kidnap children again and go into hiding, in contempt of court;
* High Court refuses to hear the appeal, as mother in is contempt of court;
* Family Court cartels override all Australian orders and International treaties by extending the case and subjecting the children to further psychological abuse;
* Meanwhile, father follows the law, spends almost $150,000 to get his children back again, keeps quiet and loses his children!
* An order is made for the children to return home. The decision is not based on the mother's conduct, but on the fact that Australia must follow International Treaties in relation to child abduction;
* The children are dragged away by police. The father was not even brought to the airport to meet the children.
The only reason these children to allowed to be returned home is because of Australia's compliance with International Treaties. Domestic parents in the same situation would have no chance. The mother in this case will never be charged with contempt or kidnapping or even a breach of s121. Furthermore, like thousands of accusations made in the Family Court, her false accusations of domestic violence and child abuse worked for her.
This is the Domestic Violence Method in action!
Each week, dozens of parents are falsely accused of child abuse. Each year, dozens of parents are wrongly arrested and imprisoned. At the moment, thousands of innocent parents are in prison and thousands of children cannot have contact with both parents.
60 Minutes: The interview that exposed the truth behind the Italian Girls case, false allegations and the Family Court:
The Family Court may order gag orders and recommendation to Australian Federal Police against 60 Minutes for exposing false allegations. Why? The Family Court makes billions of dollars from false allegations and they do not want their 'Cash for Kids' scheme exposed.
The Convention provides that the removal or retention of a child is “wrongful” whenever:
"a. It is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
"b. at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention." These rights of custody may arise by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of the country of habitual residence.
From the Convention's standpoint, the removal of a child by one of the joint holders without the consent of the other, is . . . wrongful, and this wrongfulness derives in this particular case, not from some action in breach of a particular law, but from the fact that such action has disregarded the rights of the other parent which are also protected by law, and has interfered with their normal exercise.
The Convention limits the defenses against return of a wrongfully removed or retained child. Those defenses are:
(a) by preponderance of evidence, that Petitioner was not “actually exercising custody rights at the time of the removal or retention” under Article 13; or
(b) by preponderance of the evidence, that Petitioner “had consented to or acquiesced in the removal or retention” under Article 13; or
(c) by preponderance of the evidence, that more than one year has passed from the time of wrongful removal or retention until the date of the commencement of judicial or administrative proceedings, under Article 12; or
(d) by preponderance of the evidence, that the child is old enough and has a sufficient degree of maturity to knowingly object to being returned to the Petitioner and that it is appropriate to heed that objection, under Article 13; or
(e) by clear and convincing evidence, that “there is grave risk that the child’s return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation,” under Article 13(b); or
(f) by clear and convincing evidence, that return of the child would subject the child to violation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, under Article 20.