Affidavit

Family Law Rules ~ RULE 15.08

Filed in:
Family Court of Australia Client ID _____________________________
Family Court of Western Australia
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia File number __________________________
Other (specify)
Filed at CAPITAL CITY REGISTRY
Filed on behalf of:
Full name: ADAM ADAMS
Filed on 10 September 2010
MARK X IN THE BOX THAT APPLIES TO YOU
Husband/father Court location CAPITAL CITY____________
Wife/mother
Other Court date __________________________

Name of person swearing/affirming this affidavit (SEE PART C)

ADAM ADAMS
Date of swearing/affirming 10/09/2010

Part A About the parties

APPLICANT 1 RESPONDENT 1
Family name as used now Family name as used now
ADAMS YU
Given names Given names
Adam Hai Kon
APPLICANT 2
RESPONDENT 2
Family name as used now
Family name as used now

Given names Given names

What is the contact address (address for service) in Australia for the party filing this affidavit?
You do not have to give your residential address. You may give another address at which you are satisfied that you will receive
documents. If you give a lawyer’s address, include the name of the law firm.
His Lawyer
1 Capital Boulevard Capital City State Gotham Postcode 911
Phone Fax*
DX
Lawyer’s code
Email*
* Please do not include email or fax addresses unless you are willing to receive documents from the Court and other parties
in that way.

Part B About the independent children’s lawyer (if appointed)

Independent children’s lawyer family name

Given names
FAMILY LAWYER
Firm name
FAMILY LAW FIRM
1
Part C About you (the deponent)

What is your family name used now? Your given names?

ADAMS ADAM

Usual occupation
Male Female

What is your address?

You do not have to give your residential address. You may give another address at which you are satisfied that you will receive
documents.

C/- His Lawyer 1 Capital Boulevard Capital City

State Gotham Postcode 911

Part D Evidence

 Set out the facts divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph should be confined
to a distinct part of the subject matter.
 Attach extra page(s) if you need more space. Make sure that the page containing Part E is always the
last page of the form. You and the witness to your affidavit must sign the bottom of each additional
page.

1. I make this affidavit in support of my application in a case to have the childrens orders and other orders
made by Federal Magistrate Macbeth quashed and restored, in substance, to what they were prior to the
commencement of the aborted proceedings on 27, 28 and 29 July 2010 and for other purposes relating to
my appeals to the Family Court proper arising from those aborted proceedings.
2. There was no basis in evidence, in fact or in law, to justify Federal Magistrate Macbeth in making any
orders diminishing my daughters contact time with me.
3.I believe that the proceedings conducted by Federal Magistrate Macbeth were most abusive,
contemptuous and unlawful - being wholly vitiated by a multitude of errors including constitutional errors,
jurisdictional errors, procedural errors, denial of natural justice, errors of fact, errors of law, errors of
judgement and/or discretion, errors on the face of the record, frauds, misconducts by the Judge,
misconducts by the Independent Children's Lawyer, misconduct by the Counsel retained by the
Independent Childrens Lawyer and misconduct by the solicitors and Counsel for the first respondent.
4. These errors and illegalities are the subject of appeals to this Court (on issues of illegalities) and to the
High Court of Australia (on issues of constitutionalities) and it is not appropriate that I expand on them in
detail whilst relevant appeal documents are being drawn up by my legal representatives.
5. For present purposes I refer the the transcript of the proceedings, where I was asked whether if the same
set of circumstances that existed in July 2008, as a parent and in conjunction with my mother, the
paternall grandmother, and my brother, the paternal uncle, I would consider rescuing my daughter from
the contact centre for the purposes of spending 4 or 5 weeks with (the other) 4 generations of her family.
2. 6. Most of the Court, namely the Judge, counsel for the Independent Childrens Lawyer and counsel for
the first respondent purposively confused my words on purpose.
7. I responded (as my barrister sought to explain to the Court - and as is also recorded in the transcript) to
the effect that if the circumstances were identical (namely (1) there were no laws or orders making it
illegal for myself, the paternal grandmother and a paternal uncle to do this; AND (2) the first respondent
had inhumanely withheld all contact and communication between my daughter and I for 8 months) I
would indeed consider along with other members of my family doing the same (totally legal) rescue
operation in precisely those same circumstances.
2
8. My barrister explain to the Court in final submissions on 29 July 2010 (as is recorded in the transcript,

Signature of person making this affidavit (deponent) Signature of witness

and indeed as I was afforded no opportunity by the Judge to have my day in court - no opportunity to give
evidence in chief and no opportunity to be "re-examined" on this line of distortionate questioning) that I,
the paternal grandmother and the paternal uncle had gone to enormous lengths to ensure that no
illegalities were being committed by the three of us 'rescuing' my daughter from her mother's domination
and deprivation of contact with the 4 generations of the Australian side of my daughter's family. And
indeed I had explained this to the Court in my affidavit materials. This included obtaining legal advice
from solicitors (plural) notifying the Court, and attending on a Police Station for over an hour immediately
after the 'rescue'. It also included receiving 4 extensive visits from the Department of Child Safety during
the period that Thursday Friday Adams was with me and her extended Australian family on that occasion
- and quite clearly the Court, the police, the lawyers consulted by me and my extended family, and the
Department of Child Safety were all satisfied as to the legality (and the absence of any illegality) in our
taking of Thursday Friday Adams on that occasion.

9. I have never broken any laws or orders with respect to contact time with my daughter. I believe that
proper rules of evidence, proper rules of proof, and other proper judicial processes need to be observed
in a true court of law before orders can be made or varied -- certainly not on the basis that somebody
who has not broken a law or order might break a law or order in the future. I do not believe that such
thinking could be part of the laws of Australia or any right thinking legal system.

10. In contrast, as the transcript clearly shows the first respondent has liberally flouted the laws and
orders with regard to my daughter's entitlements to spend time with me. This includes the very morning
of the commencement of the aborted hearing before Federal Magistrate Macbeth, 27 July 2010, as the
transcript clearly records. And as the transcript clearly records, the Court had no interest whatsoever in
bothering to take any actions regarding that actual and it would seem blatant and indefensible breach of
applicable laws and orders by the first respondent. And as the transcript records the Court was more
interested in abusing me and punishing me though I have not broken any applicable orders, but have
expressed very firm political views about the impropriety of these legal proceedings and the abuse that
my daughter and I have suffered.

11. And I am well aware, given the abuse that I have suffered from the Court (abuse which is forcefully
demonstrated in these very orders I am seeking to have quashed) how severely that Judge and that
Court would like to abuse me if I were stupid enough to break any applicable laws or orders regarding
contact time between myself and my daughter - no matter how illegal, unconstitutional, vexatious and
abusive they may be.

12. It concerns me that section 61DA of the Family Law Act (assuming it is constitutonally valid, and this
provision might be) makes it clear that both parents are responsible for the care and welfare of their
children until the children reach 18 and that arrangements which involve shared responsiblities and
cooperation between the parents are in the best interests of the child.

13. It concerns me that the Family Law Act (assuming the relevant provisions are constitutional, and they
might be) requires a court to take into account 2 primary considerations in determining what is in the best
interests of the child, namely the benefit to the child of meaningful relationships with both parents and the
need to protect children from physical or psychological harm (from being subjected or exposed to abuse,
neglect or family violence).

14. It concerns me that the first respondent is indulging (and being indulged by the Independent
Childrens Lawyer and both sets of hers and his lawyers and counsel and indeed the Judge) in some
incredibly childish behaviours that are abusive (and psychologically damaging) of my daugher's
constitutional human right (under domestic laws and under international human rights and childrens
rights covenants, treaties and laws) to have equally meaningful relationships with both parents (the
mother's contrived circumstances leading to myself, the paternal grandmother and one of her paternal
uncles 'rescuing' my daughter from her mother's vindictive oppression and abuse in January 2008 from
the contact centre - all totally lawful on our parts) is illustrative of this. The subpoenaed documents
include police reports of the first respondent holding a knife against our daughter's throat (then barely 3
years old) in front of myself, a paternal uncle and as recorded in several police reports of the incident.

15. It concerns me that the first respondent (aided and abetted by misconduct of her Government
employed and funded lawyers (as she herself is employed by Goverment lawyers agency) and aided and
2
abetted by Government funded lawyers in the office of the Independent Childrens Lawyers are making all
sorts of unsubstantiated, false, and in any case irrelevant allegations against me - when it is manifest on

Signature of person making this affidavit (deponent) Signature of witness

the court record the magnitude of actual physical and psychological harm that my daughter is subjected
to (seemingly with Federal Magistrate Macbeth's blessing and facilitation) all contrary to the key
provisions of section 61DA and the 'best interests of the child'.

16. It concerns me as it is difficult for me to reach a proper agreement for equal shared responsiblity and
cooperation between the first respondent and myself for hte care and welfare of our daughter, whilst all of
these Government funded and Government employed lawyers (acting unlawfully and unconstitutionally)
are indulging the first respondent to act contrary to these basic principles of the Family Law Act (being
principles that are probably constitutional at least to the extent that they are in principal (if not in practice)
wholly consistent with my daughter's basic constitutional (and international law) human rights to equal
and meaningful relationships with both of her parents.

17. I have no doubt that if the lawyers would only behave themselves within proper professional and legal
(and constitutional) boundaries rather than facilitate the first respondent's childish and abusive
behaviours, then as the video evidence produced during cross examination of me at the aborted trial
demonstrated, the first respondent and I would quite quickly be able to manage our child's parenting from
our respective family rooms without the need to indulge hundreds of Government people and millions of
dollars of taxpayers monies wasted due to these lawyers indulging the first respondent's self-indulgent
abusive behaviours towards our child and her rightful relationship with me, her father, and the other 4
generations of her Australian family.

Signature of person making this affidavit (deponent) Signature of witness

Part E Signature

I swear* /affirm* the contents of this affidavit are true

Signature of Deponent

Place Capital City Date 10/09/2010

Before me (signature of witness)

His Lawyer
Full name of witness (please print)

Justice of the Peace

Notary public
✘ Lawyer

* delete whichever is inapplicable

This affidavit was prepared / settled by deponent/s

✘ lawyer His Lawyer

PRINT NAME AND LAWYER’S CODE

AFFIDAVIT 01/07/06 V1