Submission on Relocation

return to menu

I became aware on 6 April 2006 of an Invitation for submissions to the Family Law Council on Relocation, the day before closing date. I sought an extension and was graciously granted [by email reply] an extension until 11 April 2006. However since that time, upon reflection, I remembered the abuses against myself, my clients and most of all my children resulting from my last submission to Pathways in 2000.

I have therefore decided to simply make a short submission based on Rumsfeld type "known knowns", going forward.

The FCA CEO [who was on Pathways] refused to consider my Reconciliation idea and returned my Pumpkins CD present for my son to me. I was left with one hope of getting the present to him past the clutches of the Greer-Centric Margaret Hole of Cock & Hole Lawyers [as she called it in her nasty feminist cackle], Buttercup's long term lawyers. As my daughter was turning 21 I bought her a gold necklace and did a deal [or thought I had] with Michael Hill Jewellers in Cairns to send the necklace and the CD returned by the CEO to their Darwin Branch, and for them to then call my daughter to pick it up, and under no circumstances to release it to "a woman of some 45 years resembling mutton but dressed as lamb".

Once again my gifts were somehow intercepted as there was no reply from the kids, and because of the "deep cover" nature of this operation I can only assume that BECAUSE of my reconciliation attempt the CEO was straight on the blower to Ms Hole [also President of NSW Law Soc 1998 in recognition of her Human Rights Abuses used against my kids and I, thus displacing John "ANZAC" Marsden for his services to pedophiles] to warn her of an impending plan. Another phone call from Hole to Dr Merideth would have been all that was needed to once again steal the presents.

Secondly, instead of the Pathways adopting my plan to save the whole $100 million of the 1999 EM, as detailed herein and therein, it actually USED the information I provided to try to STOP parents exercising their rights under the CSAAct [by consent order under Part 7 or even CSAgreement under Part 6] to totally "depart from" the abuse of the CSA. You will note I gave the game away [and this was before Federal Magistrates].

These notations never fail to get a wry smile from the magistrate as he makes the consent order

A Memo was sent from the FCA to all local magistrate courts around Australia, instructing them to NOT make orders by consent but refer the applicants back to the CSA for a CSAgreement. Hey, I thought Di Fingleton got sacked for far less "fettering the discretion of a magistrate"? Of course the CSA would simply show them the ILLEGAL and INCORRECT "instruction" in The Guide to say it HAD to be "at least as much as the assessment", but not saying WHICH assessment.

I know of the Memo because it got to Innisfail long before Cyclone Larry and the magistrate was foolish enough to give us a copy of it when I went in to bat for some local parents who had already been refused a consent order by the FCA [ie the Registrar "in Chambers" in Townsville]. So in order to save the $100 million for J Doe it became a cat & mouse game of "forum shopping" to find magistrates who did not take kindly to being fettered, and no I am NOT saying which ones! As seen I had said:

2.10.	Child support

2.10.1.	Where does one start in CSA matters?  What quotes does one make?  How many folios does 
one fill.  Perhaps the best is to say as little as possible and hope the CSA does "eat itself" (quote per 
Bell J).  The CSA is a hugely expensive blight on our society, paid for the taxpayer, and it enacts 
atrocities on that society which would have made Hitler blush, all this being done, supposedly, so the 
taxpayer does not have to support separated kids.  "That is a lie" (quote per Roger Price) as you know 
Jocelyn.  As you know the feminist power freaks who have fiddled with the SSAct have done it so 
cleverly that even the full court in Ganter and Grimshaw thought "the only party not affected is the 
taxpayer" (quote per full court).  The only mum who misses out on every pension, benefit or allowance 
(or payment) know to woman - regardless of whether dad pays $5 a week or $300 is the Howard model 
mum who doesn't desert the family for financial reward.  I have a full discussion about this based on 
the Vanstone Wright family (which I call the Wrong family) at  
Please note the study was done in 1998 so the actual names of the pensions, allowances, benefits, 
payments and other hands-out have changed several times to confuse everyone, including the court.

2.10.2.	So in the context of this Pathways gig it is not so much a matter of reform but of simply 
sharing the experience that as long as people like us can tell the parties the truth about paying a proper 
amount of child support (thus dispelling the job protecting lies of the CSA) there is no problem.  By 
this I am saying that by saving Tinman, Tinwomen and Tinkid and some 200 others from this 
oppression it might be said we have done a good job, but it only scratches the surface in a global view 
of the massacre of 3 fathers per day suiciding, as well as cases like Parsons.

2.10.3.	Perhaps the only problem has been establishing that proper amount (and I have never met a 
parent who was not happy to support their children with the proper amount).  But since April 1998 we 
have had the BSU figures available and in June 2000 even the "boffinary buffoons who I pay" (quote 
per John Fahey) at AIFS have adopted the BSU and ditched Lovering and Lee.

2.10.4.	The Explanatory Memorandum with the 1999 amendment act extrapolates a 100 million 
saving to the taxpayer if ALL people were sufficiently informed of these option to simply depart from 
the CSA oppression.  To sum all this up I will include the NOTATIONS we added to the orders for the 
Tin family, which most people do elect to include.  These notations never fail to get a wry smile from 
the magistrate as he makes the consent order (but a scowl from the CSA as they lose another victim).


A	These orders are sought by Mr Tinman (applicant) and Ms Tinwoman (respondent) to be 
made in compliance with s 4, the Objects of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 which 
state, inter alia :
S4  3 It is the intention of the Parliament that this Act should be construed, to the greatest extent 
consistent with the attainment of its objects:
(a)	to permit parents to make private arrangements for the financial support of their 
children; and
(b)	to limit interferences with the privacy of persons.

B	The parties specifically request that the Child Support Agency refrains from any further 
interference with their privacy.

C	The parties recognise that by consenting to depart from any necessity to use the Child 
Support Agency they are fulfilling their own moral obligation (to the extent of $1,800 per annum) 
within the overall intention of the Parliament in the 1999 amendments to save 100 million 
dollars per annum in public funds by allowing parties to exercise their own responsibilities to 
child support.

2.10.5.	Child support/maintenance, stage 1, stage 2 or stage 100 is as simple as that.  First know 
your rights and obligations and second consent to same (and Ms Argyll, it matters not a fig if the 
mum is on a sole parent pension, a DV rehabilitation allowance, a supporting dog payment or on 
the moon, it is a court order).  End of story - survive.  No person is obliged to use the CSA at all.  
The simple result is that if everyone did that the CSA would eat itself and 1,000 more fathers pa would 
have a fighting chance to see their kids at Christmas (provided they can evade the next hurdle of 
Taussig Inc).

The LEGAL pathway [no pun intended] through this maze was established via my learned submission in the case of M & M before the full court of the FCA in 2000 CSAgreements

In short, Mr M was in the full court appealing mainly property orders, but also "a certain CSA matter". Mr M was the standard path COAT deem & destroy victim after CSA refused to accept his CSAgreement because [you guessed it] "it wasn't as much as 'some' assessment". Because CSA do not want their dirty linen sitting there as a precedent case they did their normal "mates deal on the steps of the court" and suddenly Mr M was granted his CSAgreement, his phantom debt was dissolved and CSA even consented to pay his court costs.

But Kay J as Judge 1, who just loves reading my learned polemics except the first one, was so peeved at losing the chance for another Halge & Carrol that he asked Mr M if he could have a peek at the submission anyway, and Mr M was pleased to do so. Therefore the submission, especially the UNIQUE flowchart to explain this complex pathway [and WITHOUT any mention of being same as an assessment] has undoubtedly become a portal of reference and I note that the CSA has now dropped their false information from The Guide.

So to fast-forward to plagiarism, the new boss of the FMS has leaked a story to a Brisbane rag and "a prominent Sydney so called Men's Group" about RimmerGate by Rimmer FM but it is a complete fabrication and beat up - see RimmerGate, similar to George Bush's current leaks from the Whitehouse.

If we were however to go back almost a year ["is a long time in politics"] to the Professor Parkinson Report - no not Towards Healing but the one about a sparkling new Child Support Scheme, I have to say that as I read it I uttered 62 times "I said that", right down to quoting the position with CSAgreements as if reading from my FlowChart.

But hey, I don't have a Pascoe agenda so call it plagiarism if you like or maybe simply "great minds think alike" as Ginger Snatch postulated in RimmerGate. The whole reason I have spent so much time explaining the law IS to promote access to justice, by whatever path[way] that might take. There is no doubt the Rodent plan for the rollout is brilliant, blaming the Y2K freaks [I.T. "Professionals"] for the change of formula to be last cab off the rank and AFTER the elections, meaning in Never Never Land, but the JackBoots at Dawn "Recovery Operation" [codename Crystal Year] is due to start January 2007.

That means that I will have the only service in captivity to compare new and old formula and Gyselman court method for some years to come at - Your FREE Report

So to conclude with some reference to the relocation issue, the clue to the issue is my appeal NA/10 2000 at the Brisbane Appeals Registry. I think we can say that the High Court has decided you can't stop mum relocating, especially if like Mrs Bottoms she would have been crying into her Pino Coladas at the Cairns Sailing Club. For mine, the thought of being married to a lawyer is just too horrific to contemplate and an escape of only 3,000 kms to Bendigo would seem quite inadequate.

What really matters is the thuggery of the Court Counselling Service [to PROVIDE conflict] and the subsequent pathways available to dad [or the kids] to reverse that, albeit "after the damage is done". My appeal was strategically based on the Stevenson & Hughes case [the so called "folded arms" principle] of what did Buttercup do to PROMOTE contact, ie put the onus back in the other court. I asked the Full Court surely the 1996 "reforms" can not write DOWN previous case law? Well with a bit of an inside job by Ms Hole regarding her forged letters and emails purported to be from my son it seems that Stevenson & Hughes HAS been "reformed", but NOBODY could or would say "how did that happen". The summary of this "contrary attitude" BY the courts was expressed by Fogarty J in Stevenson [1993] as:

8. It is important that in cases of this sort custodians appreciate that they are not entitled to treat the other party as an enemy who are to be thwarted wherever possible either by active steps or by passive resistance. That matter was emphasised as early as 1984 in Stavros (1984) FLC 91-562, but I am afraid that the contrary attitude still appears to permeate the jurisdiction and the sooner that that misunderstanding is removed the better for everybody.

As it turned out, firstly it was NOT a misunderstanding but "the way it is" and the so called reforms of 1996 [and the fabricated case of B&B] were said to be the excuse, and secondly this passage caused such a furore IN the court that eventually what WAS removed was Fogarty J.

But as you all know [but the blokes are eternally stupid] the OUTPUT from the new Family Relationship Centres is, at best, a Parenting Plan. But since the "reforms" of 2004 while nobody was looking the AG repealed the ability to REGISTER a PP in a court, meaning that the PP is simply a wet tram ticket as Buttercup can tear it up as soon as she departs the Relationships Australia FRC with her sparkling new PP.

As we [but not the stupid blokes] know, THIS is how all of you make a living, this is your day job, this is the Holy Grail. A bloke may feel a bit nervous about his wet tram ticket from the RA Blue Heelers at his friendly FRC, so he might seek to file & serve in a court exercising jurisdiction that a Sir Gerald Brennan, Harris and Caladine type Judge type person [preferably not Walters FM] might sort of make the whole thing official so that even though the "reforms" of 2000 watered down contempt to the pussy term of contravention, he may have SOME form of comeback if Buttercup does the dirty [as she will, because her lawyers need to make a buck].

Bloke will be told by the Blue Heeler at the filing desk that there is absolutely no need to file because he has a warm and cuddly PP [but we can't REGISTER it anymore] which says Buttercup will, as "agreed" on the wet tram ticket, fly the kiddies from Perth to Canberra at HER expense 3 times a year [but no dates, the Hole/SO'R trick], so why would he be worried?

And how does this trick work? Simple - because the lawyers draft the orders/PP to say 3 trips but no dates, even if no contact for 50 weeks and bloke files for contempt/contravention the beak [as did SO'R in my case] can say well it is still possible for mum to fly the kids down and back 3 times in one week so you could surely not say she is contempt of the orders Mr Bloke. And this was in 1996 when SO'R had only just traded silk and had hardly warmed the seat on the Bench. God help people 10 years later!

As you all know, Xmas comes and goes and no contact so bloke gets serious and files for orders seeking contact but, "we are so sorry", Court Counselling has decided it would be "psychologically damaging" for kids to see dad after "such a long time". But as I say I am just a babe in the woods compared to you people who are experts at milking the family law cow. To even suggest you people would WANT to change one bit of your money making system is nothing but a sick joke. In short, you people are a bloody disgrace to humanity, a bloody disgrace. And the really sick part is that you take that as a compliment.

So to conclude with my advice to blokes from my upcoming book "A Bloke's Guide to Family Law", never, ever, ever say "they orta change the law", because once they do then you lose access to all those bloke friendly cases on AustLII from the good old days when there was proper justice in FCA and a proper High Court [ie not JUST Kirby J] to keep an eye on things.

return to menu