The Family Court & The WhistleBlower Act Protest
In most circumstances, courts and their decisions are accessible to members of the public. This policy of 'open justice' is reflected in section 97 of the Family Law Act 1975, which provides that all proceedings should be heard in open unless a court decides otherwise. The principle of open justice is fundamental to ensuring that courts remain transparent and accountable for their decisions.
However, the special nature of family law proceedings, which often involve children, requires that a balance be struck between the need for open justice and a family’s right to privacy. Accordingly, section 121 of the Family Law Act makes it an offence to publish proceedings that identify persons or witnesses involved in family law proceedings. This prohibition also extends to the publication of any picture that may identify the parties to the proceedings.
Due to the nature of the proceedings involving John Aster and his ex-wife and child, we are unable to publish any details whatsoever of the case, regardless of the baiting of Aster's trolls to divulge those details.
When Aster lost his child to her mother after the marriage led to separation, his world began to crumble. She had been his life, and he needed to be able to be part of hers. From 2009-2011 John diarised the matters arising from his separation and Family Court battle online, in a Facebook page called the Whistleblower Act.
Australia’s Family Court is rampant with anti-father sentiment. It is a haven for women who, assisted by the system, choose to simply ‘leave’ their old lives and begin anew without their previous husband or partner. Men lose their children, their friends, their money, their homes, and quite often they lose their lives. Such is the harsh nature of the Family Court that many men have taken their own lives to end the chaotic devastation that the Family Court wreaks upon their lives.
Such is the discrimination against fathers in the Family Court of Australia that fathers are treated as pedophiles and deadbeat dads on the flimsiest information - often there is no 'evidence', merely hearsay. Judges will accept hearsay in Family Court. In Aster's case, he had #TeamTroll calling him a pedophile at the same time as his Family Court matter was playing out - and of course, the allegations of his trolls became inextricably entwined with his case in Court. #TeamTroll directly interfered with Aster's case, even to the extent that Jody Ashton contacted the Court-appointed psychologist. Having received this letter, Dr Chalk would have been aware and could not have denied the existence of a malicious group of people deliberately attempting to sabotage John's case. He had a duty to inform the Court, but obviously did not do so. His complicity with the evils of #TeamTroll is unacceptable in such a forum as the Family Court.
Greatly heartened by the support of thousands of others going through the same system and finding it equally painful, John began to keep video and audio records of all of the matters surrounding his Court hearings. He was astonished to discover how deceptive the Family Court was, and how the personal feelings of Judges play a significant role in these proceedings.
What we can divulge is that John Aster became something of a hero among his 5000+ followers and both Australian and international Father's Rights groups as a result of his efforts to hold the Family Court to account - including his 2012 citizens arrest and private prosecution of the presiding Judge! Unfortunately, those efforts brought him directly into the line of fire of Mother's Rights and Feminist groups internationally. Understanding the makeup of Team Troll will give readers a better understanding of the superstorm that would eventually batter John Aster from every direction - almost destroying him completely.
"It broke my heart every time we had to be apart." ~ John Aster
"#TeamTroll owes their target an apology. So do a lot of other people. This investigation has uncovered irrefutable proof that the 10-year-long criminal harassment and cyberstalking spree targeting an innocent Brisbane, Australia man was based on a lie. A fabrication. A 'made-up' accusation."