In January 2015, a Family Court Judge (Judge C) appeared in a Case that was managed from the beginning by another Judge (Judge R). Judge R was approached to change the date of the Hearing previously. Judge R had refused to vacate the Hearing. Judge R had said that she MUST attend the Hearing in January 2015. Judge C appeared on the first day of a 5 day Hearing. Judge C had come from a different city, not where the Case was to be Heard and where the Parties both lived. For Judge C to Hear this 5 day Case, tax payers had to pay for her hotel stay and other costs associated with her being in a different city other than where she usually lived and Judged. Judge C adjourned the Hearing within 20 minutes (waste of Tax payers money and the represented party who had already paid for 5 days of Hearing). When she adjourned the case to July of 2015 appointed herself (in Open Court) to a case that she was not the Primary Judge. Judge C even if she did not know that she was Hearing a Case where her very close friend (also from the City where she lived and Judged) was representing one of the parties upon setting foot in the Court, she would have noticed that there may be a conflict of interest as the Attorney and the Judge are very very very close! The attorney is married to a Judge. Where this attorney and Judge C live there is only one female judge, namely Judge C. The Attorney General or Chief Justice of Family Courts could have stopped such a sham ever happening but they did not. Apparently these two frequently appear before each other. One of the Parties was not legally represented. The other was represented by the very close relative of the Judge. When Judge C adjourned the Hearing, she smiled at the Parties and her attorney-close-"friend" stating in Open Court: "I want to Hear this Case, I already know so much about it ... I am going to take it out of Judge R's Docket and put it in mine". Between Judge C and her attorney-close-"friend" they came up with a date in July 2015, more than 6 months later. During this short Hearing, the attorney, acted dishonourably against an unrepresented Party and did not pass the documents in his possession to Judge C. The unrepresented Party noticed this the next day where the Attorney sends a typed up version of what was supposed to be given to Judge C in order for her to make specific Orders. It took the unrepresented Part 2 months (three Hearings on the phone because the Judge lived in a different city, purchase of the court's transcript, writing of Affidavits and Service of the Affidavits...) for the misconduct of the attorney-close-"friend" be proven beyond reasonable doubt and Orders be reinstated. Judge C did not discipline her attorney-close-"friend" nor referred to their professional Body to be investigated and disciplined and fined appropriately. A few weeks before July 2015, the unrepresented Party filed an Application for Perjury, Contempt of Court and Application to adjourn the Hearing. When the unrepresented party went to the Attorney's Office to Serve the documents, the Attorney did not accept the documents. The documents were left at the Reception none-the-less. Three days later, the attorney wrote to the unrepresented Party that the Attorney does not have Instruction from the client to accept Applications for Perjury and Contempt of Court and that the Client has to be served personally. The attorney also, against all legal protocols, forbade the unrepresented party to personally Serve any documents at the Attorney's Office. Judge C gave another Urgent Hearing (on the Phone) where her attorney-close-"friend" denied having had the Applications for perjury and contempt of Court ... in front of him. Based on this lie, Judge C did not adjourn the Hearing and went ahead with the Hearing in July. A few days before the Hearing the Party who had committed perjury filed a document, admitted to not writing the truth and apologised to the Court. Judge C, in contradiction to the law and judicial code of conduct accepted the document of apology for perjury!! Judge C dismissed the Application for perjury filed by unrepresented Party. Throughout the Hearing attorney-close-"friend" insisted that his client had not been served by the documents of perjury and contempt! Judge C never asked if he had not been served how is he admitting to it? Judge C and her attorney-close-"friend" ran the Hearing as they wished. Judge C gave three days to her attorney-close-"friend" to cross examine his own client and putting phoney documents in evidence to deny all sorts of illegal activities such as tax evasion, fraud, contempt, perjury... When finally Judge C gave time to the unrepresented Party to cross examine the other Party... she asked the Party to leave the Court. She then spoke with her attorney-close-"friend"about wanting to find out the true age of the other party who was not in the court at the time. Judge C then called the Party back in the Box! As the unrepresented party (UP) stood up to start the cross-examination, Judge C Ordered the UP to sit down. She then very kindly addressed the witness and said I want to work out how old you are. The attorney-close-"friend" asked for "Amnesty" which Judge C gave and explained to the witness that if the truth is said there will be no prosecution for illegal conduct. The UP had also filed an Application for multiple Identity Fraud committed by the other Party. Judge C found out that the age was not the same as the documents the represented party was relying on. Indeed she knew from the evidence filed before her that the represented party had committed multiple acts of Identity Fraud. Judge C did not refer the culprit to authorities and the allowed the cross examination to continue. The UP had found close to $1M in the Attorney's bank account under the name of the client. This amount was never declared anywhere. Judge C said that there is nothing wrong with that and clients often leave money in the bank accounts of their attorneys for their legal costs!! When the notion that her attorney-close-"friend" should not be answering questions about this money as there is a definite conflict of interest, Judge C dismissed the call. On the last hours of the Final Day, Judge C and her attorney-close-"friend" decided that there has to be another two days for wrapping up. Attorney-close-"friend" said to Judge C in a very loving manner that they (meaning the Judge and the attorney) could not do next week as that weekend they were both attending a Weekend conference and had a paper together. Judge C noticed the UP's face had gone white and UP had collapsed on the seat in horror and shock. Judge C then turned to UP and said that attorney-close-"friend" has very honourably announced that we (Judge C and attorney-close-"friend") will see each other this weekend but we will not talk about your case!! UP announced that "I trust that Her Honour will act honourably". They (Judge C and attorney-close-"friend") arranged for the final two days of the Hearing to be in November 2015. On November 2015 fresh evidence of fraud, theft, corrupt conduct, and forging of a 4th Fraudulent Identity (that culminated in perjury and contempt of court at the very least) was handed to Judge C, who asked attorney-close-"friend" to look at. He did and had no objection. At this stage, the attorney-close-"friend" should have just withdrawn from the case because attorney-close-"friend"had now seen documents and undeniable evidence that he could not lie about or make stories about. Instead he stood up and defended his client in the most ravishing way and condemned the UP. We will not go into details of other horrendous misconducts that occurred in those Hearings. Judge C made Orders in April of 2016. they were word for word what attorney-close-"friend" had asked for. even the structure of sentences had not changed. And they were wrong on every possible aspect. Appeal based on three acceptable Grounds (Criteria) was filed by UP and Ground of Appeal were accepted. UP filed to put a Stay on Judge C's Orders while waiting for the Appeal Day. This time Judge C was not before attorney-close-"friend". It seemed that attorney-close-"friend" had vanished. Another attorney who often swaps with attorney-close-"friend" when the trickery is about to be exposed and claims that he does not know anything about the Case. We call him Attorney-close-friend-of-attorney-close-"friend" (ACFoAC"F"). ACFoAC"F" and Judge C knew the Orders were wrong. In fact they were so wrong that even a primary student would be able to point out to how wrong they were. But instead of putting a Stay on these Orders while the Parties pending the Appeal outcome, Judge C in 10 minutes Ordered the UP to pay the other Party $10,000 per month while he waited for the Appeal Hearing. She was punishing UP for speaking up and mentioning all in her Appeal Application. But she also knew that the machinery of Family Court and all the other judges would protect her. Judge C knew UP could not pay that amount. Judge C told UP to borrow money and pay if you want a Stay on my Orders. UP said to Judge C that her Orders are prejudicial and are designed to derail the administration of justice and UP's right of Appeal. Judge C said to UP, if you do not like it you can appeal again... in Open Court. Which is what UP did. This was a 10 minute mockery of justice Hearing. A damning evidence of what Judges are capable of doing by abuse of the law in Family Courts to silence innocent victims. May 2016: Exit Judge C and attorney-close-"friend" Enter the rest of the Family Court judiciary! To be continued...