H J AMES J OHNSON

S OL I C I TO R A N D B A R R I S T E R OF T HE F E DE R A L C O U RT S
A N D T HE H I G H C O U RT O F A U S T R A L I A
BRISBANE GOLD COAST SYDNEY MELBOURNE
w w w. j a m e s j o h n s o n 2 0 2 0 . c o m

Thursday 11 August 2010 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

Ms Mums Lawyer
Womens Legal Aid of Gotham City
Capital City GOTHAM 911
By Facsimile: #### #### (4 +2 = 6 pages)

Dear Ms Mums Lawyer

FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS – THURSDAY ADAMS (AN INFANT), ADAM ADAMS AND HAI KON YU

1. I refer to this matter which is part heard before Federal Magistrate Macbeth.
2. Please note that I have accepted larger instructions from Mr Adams. I now represent him as his solicitor as
well as his barrister “in necessity”. The latter was the extent of my role for Mr Adams up to and including the
two and a half days of proceedings (so far) on 27 to 29 July 2010 inclusive. I hope to be able to rest my
voice by briefing out the advocacy role for future Court proceedings.

Notice of Address for Service

3. I enclose Notice of Address for Service which is being filed this week. Please note my new Capital City
Office address for all future correspondences – not my S### office. Please further note that I would be
grateful to (continue to) receive documents and correspondences by email for faster exchange of
information.
4. Please also note that all communications from your office should be directed solely to me in accordance with
proper professional practice.

Restoration of Mr Adams's and Miss Thursday's contact time together

5. As you would appreciate it is greatly troubling that Mr Adams's contact time was parred back on the pretext
that Mr Adams 'might' break the law (whether Court orders or general laws) relating to 'time with' his
daughter in the future.
6. As all of the evidence has shown, Mr Adams has never broken any laws (including Court orders) relating to
time with his daughter. Indeed, please hark back to the evidentiary materials as far back as July 2008,

Page 1 of 4
 when no contact orders or laws were applicable and the only impediments to Mr Adams's and Miss
Thursday's enjoyment of normal father-daughter relations were maternalistic not legalistic impediments. As
the evidentiary materials show, Mr Adams went to enormous lengths to ensure that he was not breaking any
Court orders by obtaining a critical few weeks with his daughter, safely ensconced in the bosom of 4
generations of) the extended Adams family – only after enormous deliberations with lawyers, law
enforcement and governmental and legal agencies.
7. I am instructed to seek Ms Yu's agreement to returning Mr Adams's contact hours with his daughter restored
to what they were prior to the commencement of the (part) hearing. Please advise if Ms Yu is agreeable to
restoring those arrangements. Failing agreement I am instructed, as I will advise Ms Yu's legal
representatives, to make an urgent application to Court to restore those arrangements.

Breaches and Continuing Breaches of Court orders by Ms Yu

8. Diametrically opposed to Mr Adams's diligent and constant compliance with Court Orders and other
applicable laws are Ms Yu's constant litanies of failures to comply with said laws (including orders).
9. I have been instructed as to dozens of instances, details of which go beyond the scope of this letter because
they are voluminous. Their evidentiary basis is voluminous. So voluminous I am yet to investigate which of
these are the chief violations to be substantiated and raised and proven in the Courtroom of these
proceedings.
10. I am however instructed to draw to your attention to two of Ms Yu's breaches of Court Orders:
 Ms Yu's failure to comply with the contact orders that were extant and applicable as of 9 am on
Wednesday 27 July 2010.
 Ms Yu's failure to make the required arrangements for her daughter, Miss Thursday Adams, to spend
time with her father, Mr Adams, at either of the nominated contact centres on Saturday 6 August 2010 in
accordance with Her Honour Magistrate Macbeth's orders of 30 July 2010.

11. I am instructed that Mr Adams may be prepared not to make too much of an issue regarding these blatant
breaches of Court orders provided Ms Yu agrees to the restoration of father-daughter contact as prevailed
prior to 29 July 2010.
12. Should Ms Yu not be agreeable to immediate restoration of the previous father-daughter contact
arrangements, Mr Adams will have no choice to make Court applications to have their contact arrangements
re-established. I needn't remind you that the outcomes of any such applications are hardly going to put your
client in good light regarding any further court proceedings.
13. I am also instructed, separately from the above, to request that Ms Yu agree to handover of Miss Thursday
to Mr Adams for two hours (or as otherwise agreed between them) contact time with Mr Adams on Saturday
morning at the local MacDonald Restaurant as per their previous and successful practices ('successful'
other than on 27 July 2009 due to Ms Yu's contravention). Mr Adams is concerned that Ms Yu not put their

Page 2 of 4
 daughter through the unnecessary and unjustifiable turmoil of not just a series of long car drives, but the far
from ideal environment of the contact centre. Neither Mr Adams nor Miss Adams have done anything to
warrant their quality time together being debased by a quasi-correctional facility environment. And it
certainly does not put Ms Yu in a good light for upcoming continuations of proceedings to be forcing her
daughter and Mr Adams into that environment – at considerable expenditure of energy (a pair of 1 hour plus
car trips in the space of 4 hours) to force her iron will upon her daughter and Mr Adams.

Clarification of applicable family laws

14. Having regard to the contraventions of the court orders by Ms Yu on 27 July 2010 and 6 August 2010, I ask
that you please confirm that you have advised your client that the 'time with' orders made by the Court have
the force of law under the Australian Family Law Act and that she is breaking the law every time that she
breaks the orders?
15. I am trying to understand why your client seems to think that she is above the Australian laws in this regard.
Especially given that Mr Adams appears to have been punished at Ms Yu's instigation for his political views
on the quality of these Australian laws, and seems to have been punished by the orders made on 29 July
2010 despite never having broken any of these Australian laws. A rare case (one would hope) of 'sentence
first. verdict after.' as per Chapter 11 of a very popular children's book that perhaps you might be personally
recognisant (soon to be released as Johnny Depp's and Tim Burton's latest cinematic recreation).
16. In this regard, I note that Ms Yu is a South ASEAN national. Is the answer to her apparent contempt for
comply with Australian laws and court orders due to her holding some sort of diplomatic immunity?
17. Alternative, please advise if Ms Yu enjoys some statutory immunity from complying with these Federal
Magistrates Court orders? Or does she enjoy some special immunity under Australian common (judge
made) laws?
18. If you can inform me, succinctly, of the source or sources of Ms Yu's entitlement to not have to comply with
Australian Federal Magistrates Court orders then I will of course advise Mr Adams accordingly so that he
does not waste the Courts time trying to enforce Australian court orders that are clearly not enforceable
against Ms Yu because of whatever special statuses she holds that puts her above these (and, perhaps
other?) Australian laws and orders.

Conclusion
19. It is imperative that Ms Yu comply with the Federal Magistrates Court Orders, unless of course she has
genuine diplomatic or other Australian statutory or common law special statuses that mean that Court's
orders are not legally binding against her.
20. Please ensure that Ms Yu either:
 complies with the orders for Saturday's contact time between Miss Thursday Adams and Mr Adams (or
better still agrees to the more normal arrangements that pre-existed, successfully, prior to 27 July 2010);

Page 3 of 4
  or (via yourself and myself as the lawyer intermediaries of the parties) informs Mr Adams of the source of
any legitimate immunities that she holds putting her above the legal jurisdiction of the Federal
Magistrates Court and its orders.
21. Better still, in the best interests of the child Thursday, and the restoration of workable parenting
arrangements such as existed for the first two years of Thursday's life, I encourage you to recommend to Ms
Yu her agreement to immediate restoration of the daughter-father contact arrangements that were in place
prior to 27 July 2010 as a first step to descalating the excessive and abusive legal proceedings that Ms Yu
has embroiled the 4 generations of Miss Thursday's Australian extended Adams family in with her
recalcitrant failure to recognise the legitimacy of her daughter's constitutional human rights, her Australian
birth right, to enjoy and be part of her Australian Adams family.
22. Please advise your client's intentions regarding Miss Thursday's time with her father Mr Adams for this
coming Saturday. In the circumstances there can be no excuses for you not communicating your client's
position before lunchtime tomorrow. Mr Adams has the right to be warned and to reorganise his affairs
should Ms Yu be intending to breach the 29 July 2010 court orders again on this upcoming Saturday.

Best wishes

JAMES JOHNSON

Attachments:

(1) Notice of Address for Service

Page 4 of 4