Letter To Court 20100121

H J AMES J OHNSON
B A R R I S T E R A N D S O L I C I TO R
O F T H E F E D E R A L C O U RT S A N D T H E H I G H C O U RT O F A U S T R A L I A
w w w. j a m e s j o h n s o n 2 0 2 0 . c o m
Thursday 21 July 2010 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION
Federal Magistrate Macbeth

C/- Associate to Federal Magistrate Macbeth
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
Capital City GOTHAM 911
By Facsimile: #### #### (10 pages)
Dear Your Honour
FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS – THURSDAY ADAMS (AN INFANT), ADAM ADAMS AND HAI KON YU
Recent Communications from the parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer
1. I refer to Mr Adam's facsimile to the Court of Tuesday evening.
2. I also refer to the disruptive correspondences emanating from the Independent Children's Lawyer over the
past 6 or 7 days seeking to throw the Final Hearing scheduled for next week, and indeed the carefully made
plans of the Adams family, into total disarray.
3. I advise that I am in the process of accepting instructions from Mr Adams to represent him for the Final
Hearing on Wednesday 27 July 2010. I will make and file the relevant notices with the Court once my
engagement is formalised. Until then, I ask that the Court's formal communications should continue to be
with Mr Adams as has been done up until now. My involvement will ensure that Mr Adams's case is best
presented next week. My engagement should not be suggested as furnishing any reason for putting off the
Final Hearing scheduled 3 ½ months ago to commence on Wednesday next week (quite the contrary, as I
explain below).
Final Hearing should proceed on 27 July 2010

4. I humbly submit that these proceedings must in the best interests of the Adams family members proceed on
27 July 2009. It is apparent to me that all of the Adams family are suffering to various, disconcerting extents
what the mental health professionals refer to as “LADS”, or “Lawyer Abuse Distress Syndrome.”
5. By reference to the Adams family I mean not just (obviously) the dad in these proceedings. I include here
the child and her mother, and the child's paternal grandmother, grandfather, and other extended members of
her family. Family Court proceedings (both what goes on inside the Court room and especially the much
more that goes on outside the Court room) are especially traumatic for the children. Both mum and dad
have pre-legal parental responsibilities to put an end to the legal proceedings and the “passive” (sic, it is
rarely passive) LADS inhaled by the children. It is not in the best interests of any of the members of the
Page 1 of 3
Adams family for this Final Hearing to be put off from next week. The only way to bring an end to this “LAD”
behaviour (which has been demonstrated with gusto this week) is for the Final Hearing to proceed.
6. I am instructed that Her Honour recognised these disturbing aspects of the proceedings at the last hearing
in 2009 and this was Her Honour's reasons for setting the expedited 27 July 2010 trial date.
7. I am also instructed that all previous orders of the Court regarding pre-trial requirements have been
satisfied. Or, more precisely I am instructed that Mr Adams has complied with all orders relating to pre-trial
preparation of reports etc. And I am instructed that any suggestions to the contrary by the Independent
Children's Lawyer and/or the mum's lawyer are respectfully incorrect or irrelevant to the material issues for
the hearing.
8. Mr Adams's facsimile to the Court refers to the enormous effort for him, his parents and his brother, and his
witnesses (including substantial costs) and indeed his own arrangements for me to conduct his case next
week. These have taken many, many weeks and significant money to organise. The paternal grandfather
and paternal great-grandmother's special care needs are considerable and the trauma to the family
associated with any loss of the 27 July 2010 Final Hearing Date is enormous. The trauma to the family
associated with the mere (sic) suggestion of the loss of the 27 July 2010 hearing is enormous, and
wrongful.
Scope and Duration of Final Hearing on 27 July 2010

9. I note that Mr Adams has in the past expended considerable energies on criticism of the legal process and
the lawyers involved. In this regard I have counselled Mr Adams that Your Honour's Court is not the
appropriate forum for the airing of these concerns. And I will be doing all I can to focus Mr Adams's case on
the issues relevant to formulation of final parenting orders for the child, Fiona. Assuming that the
Independent Children's Lawyer and the mum's lawyer do likewise, I would be surprised if the hearing will
require the full 3 days the Court has allotted. I would expect that the hearing will take less than 2 full days.
10. I have also counselled Mr Adams that it is his constitutional birth right, guaranteed to him under the great
common laws of Australia (and also recognised in the federal Australian Constitution) to voice any criticisms
or opinions he wishes to vent as to the workings of any of the Parliamentary, Executive or Judicial Arms of
any level of Government in this land. This is one of Roosevelt's '4 Freedoms' . 'Freedom of speech' is
legallly recognised by Australian Governments municipally (State level), nationally and at international level
(under many binding International Covenants and Treaties).
11. For the Court's information, so that we will not have to spend time on these freedom of speech issues next
week when the Court's attention will I trust be focussed on Adams family parenting issues, I wish to make
three notes:
a. Firstly, Mr Adams's criticisms are far from unique – Members of Parliament, their constituents,
distressed dads (and mums), the Australian Attorney-General the Victorian Attorney-General and the
Page 2 of 3
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria (as obvious examples) have all voiced the same kinds
of concerns. I attach 6 one page attachments confirming this;
b. Secondly, much of the energies of the Independent Children's Lawyer, the court appointed
investigative children's reporter and the court appointed psychiatric investigator, and the much of th
eenergies of the mum's lawyer seem to have been devoted to what I would describe, with no
disrespect, as 'punishment' towards Mr Adams for exercising his constitutional birth right of freedom
of speech. This has served as 'aggravation' of the LADS consequences of those misspent energies
felt by the entire Adams family. A vicious spiral has been created. And this has detracted from the
energies that might have been more productively devoted to focusing on the Adams family parenting,
grand parenting and extended family issues and mitigating the LADS pressures.
c. I would humbly request that the counsellors next week, focus on the Adams family issues rather than
these highly political freedom of speech issues, focus on the things that matter in the best interests of
the child, Thursday and the members of the (extended) Adams family.
Mention Hearing tomorrow?

12. I have seen correspondence from the Independent Children's Lawyer yesterday suggesting that these
proceedings are to be mentioned tomorrow morning.
13. I am concerned as there seems no need for a mention. Mr Adams has not received any formal notice from
the Court. Of more concern, I am in the process of assuming carriage of this matter from Mr Adams for the
purposes of conducting his case in Court on Wednesday. My own commitments prevent me from attending
any hearing before Your Honour tomorrow – even by telephone or other conference link. Mr Adams has
arranged to absent himself from work for the duration of the trial next week. His work commitments and
these alternative arrangements preclude him from self-representing himself at any hearing tomorrow, even if
that were appropriate. Clearly, having regard to the, with respect, LADS behaviours of the past (including
the past 5 days) and having regard to my
14. I therefore humbly submit that this matter should not be mentioned tomorrow. Any mention hearing that
might have been scheduled should be vacated. The matter should next be before Your Honour for Final
Hearing on 27 July 2010 in accordance with all extant and satisfied orders for expedited hearing, with a
revised estimate of less than 3 days (probably less than 2 days) duration.
Conclusion
15. I ask that the Court please provide (to Mr Adams) confirmation that the Final Hearing remains set down for
hearing on 27 July 2010 and no mention hearing will be taking place tomorrow in Mr Adams's excusable
absence.
Page 3 of 3
16. I would be grateful if Your Honour could provide this confirmation, as appropriate today if possible to avoid
further inconvenience or distress caused to the members of the Adams family by the last minute throwing of
their careful and complicated planning into threatened disarray.
Best wishes
JAMES JOHNSON
Page 4 of 3

Letter To Court 20100121

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Letter To Court 20100121

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

H J AMES J OHNSON

Thursday 21 July 2010 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

Federal Magistrate Macbeth

Dear Your Honour

Final Hearing should proceed on 27 July 2010

Scope and Duration of Final Hearing on 27 July 2010

Mention Hearing tomorrow?

You might also like