Family Court Reacts to A Bloke's Guide to Family Law

Hi Droogs,

Just read an article at the [former] Howard Cash for Comment site about a new case where the court has dug up the body of the Stevenson and Hughes case, a case well and truly buried until the Divorce Doctor explained all in his book.

I will leak out the full details so stay posted

back agin, and here is quote from book
----------------------
5.12.8. If you get a lawyer everything seems quite different,
and Buttercup is actually there in court with her team, imitating a
Mexican Standoff with your team and even the beak is now looking
more "beakish". This time your affidavit is taken seriously and a
Prima Facie case is made out. Buttercup is required to do the good
old Catholic Confession type thing "bless me Yer Horror for I have
sinned, it will be 3 months before I sin again" and before she might
burst into tears her counsel intercedes on her behalf, suggesting to
the beak that a lot of the fault rests with the lawyers for making
boomerang orders and if you could just make a marking at say 3PM I
am sure we can work out a far better boomerang order for next time.

5.12.9. So the whole scrum heads for one of the Roll-Over
Rooms and in a now convivial atmosphere one camp scribbles out the
normal "dog's breakfast" short minutes for your "consent", and that
will probably cost less than $10,000 for the day and Buttercup was
spared being burnt at the stake. The whole thing will be repeated say
3 times that year so your lawyers will tell you that you got good value
with 4 sets of [boomerang] orders for less than $50,000, and that
although you got no visitation [which we now call spending time], we
think you will see that she is starting to learn her lesson. Yeah, right!!

5.12.10. So shaking your head and mumbling to yourself "so
how did that happen, and I'm still the bad guy", you decide to be a
smart SRL next time. Now I am not saying that it will be easy but to
give yourself a fighting chance you must prepare a proper written
submission as well as make it very clear in your application, affidavit
and submission that you are also complaining in respect of passive
contravention. The main reason is that with passive, the onus shift
happens at an earlier stage.

5.12.11. And for the case which fully explains the "folded arms
principle" read Stevenson & Hughes [as many times as you need to
understand it], and remember that it deals with s 112 AD etc
contempt whereas you will be arguing the amended [but identical]
provisions in Part VII. Here is the punch line:

[the book then quotes from Stevenson]
----------------------------------
The Cash for Comment [CfC] article was in fact along the lines of Ginger Snatch and her "relationship" with the Courier Mail in the famous RimmerGate affair [see
http://www.familyktab.com/divorce/rimmer1.html ], but this time it was a certain Geoffrey Greene of one of the "Popular Fronts" for Shared Parenting interfacing with The Australian's Ginger Snatch, Caroline Ovaltine.

And NO Caroline, the court did not say "Children must see dad, like it or not", you just made that up as would Ginger Snatch.

I started reading the CfC article and my eyes and ears pricked when I read:

----------------
"Geoffrey Greene, of the Shared Parenting Council said
We call it the closed-arm doctrine.

The parent stands there with their arms crossed, saying, 'Well, I can't make the children go, if they don't want to go'."
----------------

Gosh, I thought, sounds like this E Book Pirate has actually read my book re the FOLDED Arms Principle, but is all mixed up with "closed arms" and "crossed arms", but surely the case has not exhumed Stevenson and Hughes after Nicholson ordered it buried in 1994. So does that mean Geoffrey is a Plagiarist as well as a Pirate?

So yes Stevenson WAS there in the HeadLines and yes, a trip to AUSTLII revealed that once the case was buried in 1994 [because it is bad for business] there was a gap until just after my book release in 2007 of any mention in other cases. So there you go folks, not only did Kevin '07 read my book regarding Aged Pension and Shared Parenting matters, but I had shamed the FLIndustry into a token recognition, per:

Section 65DA(2) creates a duty for the Court to include in the orders that it makes, the obligations the order creates. Prior to 1 July 2006 with the operation of the amendments to the Act, this Court has traditionally said that there were implied provisions in orders. (See Stevenson and Hughes [1993] FamCA 14; (1993) FLC 92-363). Save for one situation, obligations imposed by courts must be set out in the order. That is particularly so where, as here, there is an ***allegation that the wife has been a passive bystander*** rather than making a positive attempt to make the orders work.

The upshot is Buttercup is found guilty on 2 of the 4 alligators [so there will be no costs order, clever huh?] and is sent to work in the Salt Mines - or rather:

"(4) That pursuant to s 70NEB(1), each of the husband and the wife forthwith enrol in an ***approved post-separation parenting program*** to be organised by the Independent Children’s Lawyer."

So folks, just as I said in the book, the Howard "Reforms" were purely to waste taxpayer money setting up more and more lawyers in Hairy Legged Quangos like this [and despite the fact the High Court ruled against "ordered counselling"].

In Stephenson the Salt Mines were:

14. Her Honour then considered the question of penalty and took the view that the appropriate penalty would be to order ***compensatory access*** for a weekend for the period similar to that referred to in order 3(i), that is to say from 4.00 p.m. Friday until 6.00 p.m. Sunday and after some discussion between counsel, she directed that this compensatory access take place from 4.00 p.m. Friday, 9 October, 1992 until 6.00 p.m. 11 October 1992. It would appear from a statement made by counsel for the wife today that that access did not take place. Her Honour also made an order for ***costs to be paid by the wife in the sum of $2800***.

and of course that Buttercup was about to pay costs of appeal as well, "but say to you" $20,000

But it gets even more interesting folks because in the CfC case we see that bloke is done over TWICE by the CfC "help". As set out in the book, the Ruddock deal was $75,000 pa to each of the "Shared Parenting Freaks" if they kidded their Visitors/Members that Shared Parenting Responsibility [which is God Given, see Vlug case in my book] is the same as Shared Time Spending. So we see for this Bloke

"the husband began parenting proceedings seeking a week-about arrangement concerning the children. The wife responded that the husband’s time should be limited to alternate weekends from Saturday morning to Sunday night."

but then we see

The Senior Registrar, in addition to making an order for the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer, made the following orders:

By ***consent***, that the husband and the wife have equal shared parental responsibility for the children of the marriage [M] born [...] November 1996 and [L] born [...] May 1998.

So this was a CONTESTED Interim Hearing but Bloke CONSENTS to this order, thinking he is getting equal time [see my book on Stockholm Syndrome]

But just why would these 2 boys NOT be wanting to be with their dad? Well that is the second Double Cross by CfC, per:

"The husband too might benefit from some reflection because of his need to understand how the stressors of litigation impact upon the children. In this case, ***he attended upon the wife’s house with witnesses*** and now rightly or wrongly, believes the wife is specifically influencing the children against him."

So maybe 50% of the articles at CfC are "Toxic Masculinity" suggestions of how to make family law into a CSI episode with secret microphones, notepads, witnesses - even bin Laden if he is free to "gather evidence", and yes it does NOT include any consideration of Rule #1 "DO NOT INVOLVE THE KIDS".

Finally it would be recalcitrant of me not to mention the "lack of computer parenting skills" by the court in the drafting and proof reading [if any] of this judgment. To use the Walters FM intellectually responsible words:

"The judgment was a 'florid, almost incomprehensible polemic' where Orders 5 and 6 flowed straight into Clause 7 of the Judgment", per:

5. That the husband have reasonable telephone communication with the children not less than twice per week.
6. That all extant applications be adjourned to 11 May 2009 at 9.45am.
7. I also do not have benefit of the Senior Registrar’s reasons for making those orders.

My polemics might well be intellectually difficult for Walters FM and His Brothers and Sisters to get their minds around but at least they are perfectly formatted such that the Indents keep DECREASING [or would they not be Exdents?]. Just think about it, IF your main style for the document is a one tab indent but the next style is a one tab exdent [to the outside of page] then where the Hell do you expect the third level style to go? Correct, it ends up with the main style, which is reason 5, 6 and 7 are all one one tab indent.

Surely we deserve better for our tax dollars.

Professor Parkinson, the Finger up Bum expert

I have a little ditty which it would be recalcitrant not to relate

About a year ago I got an email from a person purporting to be the estranged/estrangled/encapsulated wife of the very same Parky who was selected by Howard to enhance the "Finger up Bum" marketing of what is also called "false alligators" in family law.

If you read my book you will understand that maybe 50% of the $20 Billion per annum made/extorted by the FLIndustry is based on false assertions dad put finger up bum of kid.

Well now I have no reason to believe this person is NOT the "estranged/estrangled/encapsulated wife of the very same Parky", but of course for security, secrecy, s 121, privacy, patent, copyright, WMD reasons I can't divulge Mimi's name, but here is what she said:

"Let me explain the name. Buckwheat refers to Patrick-when I called him a F***wit in my lawyers office his side kick whispered "Buckwheat, Mimi-my grandmother says its a much nicer version of the same thing." It stuck. The bastard is not worth a screw-inept in THAT department, let me assure you. (If I sound nasty and vitriolic it is not without cause.) I had to actually laugh (nice change) someone on the site seemed to know a bit about the man.

Buckwheat has a bad habit of sticking his hand down the back of his pants and then sniffing his hand... on several occasions I asked why he did this and he replied that it helps him to check how sweaty things are down there..."

So Mimi [her true name?] was confirming my reference to the "My Poo Don't Smell" persona of Parky in my book, and was confirming that HE confirms regularly if it does or not.

What a Hoot!

Mini [her real name] went on to say:

"So yes, I have some insider information after 23 years with a Buckwheat. But Doc, It is TIME that some other things be known to the Australian public..."

Go ahead Mimi [her true name?] - tell us all Baby

But most of all Mimi [may be her true name but who cares under s 121 except Uncle Buck] is confirming why Howard selected Parky as a Finger Up The Bum Expert

My Ministerial on Piracy of my EBook

As promised in post below and at the end of this letter, here IS the Ministerial Letter to my Fed MP [Jim]


1 July 2008

Piracy of EBook Matter

Dear Jim,
Congratulations on your election as the Federal Member for Leichhardt [I still have the
Kevin/Jim T Shirt from the Mossman Polling Booth], and your current stance of "Equality in the Law",
apparently in the field of "same sex" financial rights.

My association with Warren Entsch over the last 10 years has been in the related fields of Family Law,
but mainly the branch of Child Support, and it is most unfortunate, in my view, that our association
might start on a sour note concerning the piracy of my book "A Bloke's Guide to Family Law".

The piracy was enacted by http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au which was [and still is] a Cash for
Comment site set up by the Howard Government during 2007 to enable him to pass the most draconian
amendments to Family Law and Child Support legislation ever seen in Australia, virtually eliminating
the Constitutional right of every citizen to "their day in court" [see the Brandy v Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 127 ALR 1; (1995) EOC 92-662 (extracts);
(1995) 69 ALJR 191; (1995) 37 ALD 340; (1995) 183 CLR 245 (23 February 1995) case in the High
Court].

So as Howard became more and more desperate and devious as the election loomed nearer it was no
surprise that 2 weeks before the election the Cash for Comment site not only pirated the book but set
about to "offend my moral rights" as slander is referred to in Part IX of the Copyright Act 1968 [Cth],
herein CAct [see my submissions].

Of course it is impossible to say how much the latter worked in reverse to cement the loss for Howard
[though I know of some], but I can confirm that the Internet is now awash with pirated copies so
nobody is willing to actually buy the book any more [nor would I blame then as they are free from
prosecution under the CAct].

This has left me with no option but to use my considerable legal skills to seek relief under the CAct,
and I have enclosed my provisional affidavit and 30 page submission [or Polemic as judges have come
to lovingly refer to my learned dissertations] as curtesy copies [for you and the Attorney General] so
there can be no confusion as to my pleadings.

As you will see we are talking here to "the sins of the father", whereby the Kevin '07 Government has
now taken over these portfolios/ministries/agencies, so the "buck now stops" with the Kevin '07
Government [or all Stairways lead to Kevin, if you will]. Of course that is not of my [or your] making,
as I am simply the victim seeking relief from the Crime.


page2
On the other hand I was listening to Question Time last week and, apart from hearing your own dulcet
tones, it would be Intellectually Dishonest not to remark on the total glee [which I applauded] with
which the new Kevin '07 Government [especially Kevin] had in rubbing big mobs of salt into every
inch of every rollback of former Howard legislation.

Of course, as I detail in the book, Blokes abused by Family Law/CSA have a unanimous desire to shoot
themselves in the foot and only "complain" at the pub, meaning very few [intelligent] Ministerials are
ever tendered to their MPs, meaning that any rollback of Howard abuses in the Family Law/CSA field
are very much on the very back burner [with the gas turned off].

But, in my submission, there is a great opportunity to rub salt, and be my guest to use my book to fast
track your understanding of these draconian measures of Howard/Parkinson/Ruddock. And to look at
it another way, it might seem Kafkaesque to allow same sex couples to "enjoy" legislation that has
itself been prostituted by Howard/Ruddock. And I would think that it goes without saying that the
funding of the Howard Cash for Comment web site must surely stop.

To return to the piracy issue, this Ministerial is tendered as the normal curtesy measure [termed warm
& cuddly arbitration/conciliation/rumination etc by the Pain Industry] before making an actual
application to court. I have similarly posted an "offer to settle" at the Cash for Comment Forum [at
which time the Forum was closed to guests]. As suggested above, the Kevin '07 Government might
well take great delight [please be my guest] in simply accepting the sins of the father, apologising [as
for the Stolen Generation] and providing relief, but with the "Holier than Thou" opportunity to grind
the Coalition further into the dirt.

As I indicate, the legislated measure [and bucket of funds] to solve the sins of the father is the
Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) [see Halge vs Carroll [1998] FamCA 110,
the famous and entertaining "Little Ozzie Battler" Classic from Kay J]. As I further indicate, the relief
I seek under the various Heads of Relief in the CAct total but one million dollars, whereas my
estimation of the Cash for Comment funding by Howard, if truncated, would easily cover my relief.

I do not wish to put unwieldily time constraints on your consideration of this matter, but in a way I am
a bit like Bernie Banton, where Tony Abbott was content to use "political procrastination" to simply
allow him to die before approving the drugs that might have kept him going, so I am most aware of the
need to keep the momentum going. My life has been one of gross discrimination where at 20 years old
[and without the right to vote] I was conscripted into the Army by the Menzies Regime, only to find
like 75% of all conscripts that conscription was purely political "suckholing" [as your Mark Latham
pointed out] and the Army had no need for us.

Hence we never got to Vietnam so are not officially "Veterans" meaning we do not get the Aged
Pension at 60 years as do those 25% who went to Vietnam [who of course also got a War Service Loan
to set themselves up for life]. Also at age 63.5, had I been born a woman [apart from being safe from
conscription, vote or no vote] I would already be on the Aged Pension.

Fortunately, while I too lost everything to the Family Law Industry/CSA [including my
superannuation], I was strong enough to fight the injustices both for myself and some 400 others,
which took my mind off suicide, so I did not become one of the three fathers per day who simply top
themselves from such pressure.

page 3
Like yourself I abhor discrimination in our society and I will do all I can to continue to right the wrongs
of Liberal Governments over the years. However I still need to eat and the book was to be my "buffer"
until I might make the age of 65 [or 67 had Costello got his way]. Now that buffer has been knocked
on the head by Howard's Goons, so I will need to litigate ASAP, save for any out of court relief by the
Attorney General/Finance Minister which might be afforded to me in a timely manner.

Can we agree on 28 days? - after which time might have elapsed, to keep the ball rolling and
everything above board I will publish this Ministerial and the submissions at my site, in preparation for
Filing & Serving.

Yours sincerely,

cc [enclosed, please forward] The Attorney General

Kevin '07 acts in '09

You heard it here first in The Blokes Guide to Family Law, ie Howard's Cash for Comment plan [failed] to use "Joint Parenting" as an election carrot is about to be axed by "the New Parky" RC of Butterworths fame [and retired FCA Judge Chisholm J].

Freudian Slip as Cash for Comment Freaks go for left over Howard Tin Badges

The latest blunder at familylawwebguide is that they have confused the word Platinum with "Platinium", which at best appears to be a pop group.

But I really think it is a Freudian Slip, and here's why:

As we all know that site was funded by Howard on a Cash for Comment basis, and the cash continued to flow after Howard until my letter to Kevin 07 re pirating of my ebook by Conan from the CFC site. Seems Kev has pulled the plug on the site.

anyhow, one of the many absurdities of the CFC deal was that "members" were given badges to match their financial contribution to the site [ie as well as the CFC], starting with a Bronze Medal for a few hundred dollars, and then what was meant to be a Platinum Medal for a "better contribution".

but somehow these drongos thought there was a "tin" in the word so they spelt it PlaTINium.

Now the Freudian Slip here is twofold

1/ they knew they were screwing these stupid blokes who paid to become members hence the medal was no better than a Tin Medal

2/ Howard was already handing out Tin Medals for Vietnam Conscripts as a smoke screen for the fact he screwed us on the Age Pension at 60 - see here for the explanation

First post

Hi Droogs, this is the divorce doctor to give you all the good oil on the lousy family law industry and CSA