Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Deleting Posts - Evidence act - anything about documentary evidence over verbal (hearsay) evidence?

Secretary SPCA, you said you were open to discussion.  I rebutted your claims.  My post was relevant to the topic, the whole thread.  I provided the sources.  So what is wrong with you and your moderators.  If you and your moderators want to go on living in the fiction, then do so.  If you and your moderators want to post lies then there are consequences.   Many people on this site have contacted me privately.  And I have rescued quite a few people off this site now who are getting help elsewhere. How pathetic is that to ask me to provide you with answers and then delete my post.  What does that say about YOU and your MODERATORS!  Bussybee2009 has now contacted me, and now we need to rescue Melbourne Dad.

Secretary SPCA You have no idea of the fraud being committed by the Banks, NO IDEA ABOUT HOW MORTGAGES WORK!  How about you and your moderators learn the LAW and how banks function as well as the Family Court, then you might just be in a position to really assist people who come looking for help on this site.


Evidence act - anything about documentary evidence over verbal (hearsay) evidence?   in SRL

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  M K Gandhi
I havn't deleted any posts of yours Calista. If you email me separately the post you are talking about I will seek it out. As regards contract law, fraud being committed by Banks and the fact I have no idea of how Mortgages work. I respectfully suggest that you come back and discuss this subject when you have passed "Contracts" in the LLB program.

My view is clear and unequivocal. IF you want a mortgage AND you sign up with a bank, financier and or any organisation giving credit THEN you sign up and accept the terms and conditions on the contractual documents. IF You don't like the terms and conditions of the contractual documents or you don't like the mortgage arrangements or you have concerns that the bank is going to "Screw you" then DON'T TAKE OUT the loan. Do not borrow money if the loan documents are not going to be acceptable to you. You are asking for trouble long term and will have little legal recourse if you sign mortgage documents and either refuse to pay, or default because you can't pay. There is NO FREE LUNCH with Australian and New Zealand mortgages, bank loans and credit card obligations.

HOW SIMPLE IS THAT ?



Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 

YOU MUST KNOW WHICH POSTS HAVE BEEN DELETED

YOU MUST KNOW WHICH POSTS HAVE BEEN DELETED!
Because everyone in the thread gets a copy of any postings.  So you already have it! You know which thread the post was deleted from, I don't need to spell it out.
Also, why delete Peter Nolan's posts?  He is exceptional, so brave and deserves any support he can get.
We all listen to what you have to say, so isn't it fair you listen to others, or do you and your moderators think that you are correct about everything and everyone else is wrong?
We may not always agree with what is being said, and that is okay, but no need for moderators on this site who disagree with what they read to start abusing and fabricating lies about these people and deleting or moderating their posts.
We can all learn from each other.
You know I have reported the behaviour of some of your moderators to the Federal Police and they have that on record. I only need to ignite that they told me.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  M K Gandhi
Secretary SPCA said

My view is clear and unequivocal. IF you want a mortgage AND you sign up with a bank, financier and or any organisation giving credit THEN you sign up and accept the terms and conditions on the contractual documents.

HOW SIMPLE IS THAT ?

You have made your view clear and unequivocal. It just happens that the banks are committing fraud and by doing so there is NO LAWFUL OBLIGATION TO REPAY THE "LOAN".

The banks are WELL AWARE of this and so when they pretend to loan you what they call "money" but it is really LEGAL TENDER they are "loaning" you.

So if the banks are committing criminal acts there is NO LAWFUL OBLIGATION TO REPAY THE "LOAN".

How simple is THAT?

I have studied the monetary system and the entire thing is a lie. A hoax. And those of us who bothered to find this out by research and thinking know exactly how the control grid works because LEGAL TENDER is one of the most fundamental pieces of the control grid that they can not hide so they just LIE and call it MONEY when it is NOT MONEY. It is LEGAL TENDER. BIG DIFFERENCE.
PeterNolan said
… It just happens that the banks are committing fraud and by doing so there is NO LAWFUL OBLIGATION TO REPAY THE "LOAN".
Peter generally speaking fraud is defined as intentional deception made for personal gain.

If a person says to you.. "I will lend you some money if you pay me that money back over 50 years with 5% interest pa" and you say "Okay I like that where do I sign up"

How is that fraud?
PeterNolan said
The banks are WELL AWARE of this and so when they pretend to loan you what they call "money" but it is really LEGAL TENDER they are "loaning" you.
Okay so they pass their legal tender to say a vendor who next day goes to the bank and draws out all that legal tender as cash. The vendor has the cash and as the expression says "Is laughing all the way to the bank" and the purchaser has the property with a mortgage to the lender. What is the problem?
PeterNolan said
So if the banks are committing criminal acts there is NO LAWFUL OBLIGATION TO REPAY THE "LOAN".

How simple is THAT?
Sounds really simple, but I can say that pigs fly with tiny little wings, defy the laws of gravity and tip toe in the tulips. It doesn't make it true or real or even sound legal argument, it just makes it anecdotal clap trap. What is your sound legal argument here?
PeterNolan said
I have studied the monetary system and the entire thing is a lie. A hoax. And those of us who bothered to find this out by research and thinking know exactly how the control grid works because LEGAL TENDER is one of the most fundamental pieces of the control grid that they can not hide so they just LIE and call it MONEY when it is NOT MONEY. It is LEGAL TENDER. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Okay then even if it is illegal tender it is exchanged for some other tangible asset with two other parties doing the exchange and the bank keeping security over their legal tender. When they (the bank) want interest paid for their legal tender (From a contract the purchaser entered into) and you don't pay it they have recourse through a binding contract. It doesn't matter whether the tender is legal illegal or anything else as the interest and repayments are binding under the separate terms of the contractual obligation you entered into.

I do not profess to be a constitutional law expert. What I am focussed on is getting children back to one or other parent and the Child Support system much improved. That is what this web site is about so I am not sure how many contributors will be putting in effort to deal with this issues around the legality or otherwise of bank lending.


Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Calista said
YOU MUST KNOW WHICH POSTS HAVE BEEN DELETED!
Because everyone in the thread gets a copy of any postings.  So you already have it! You know which thread the post was deleted from, I don't need to spell it out.
Well not quite. You don't get an email of EVERY post unless your account is checked to do so. OR unless you are participating ina  thread. I happen to get every post in email but I get over 300 emails a day most days and much of it is filtered to folders. I don't just sit here every day and read every email. Sure I can trawl through a squillion emails (which day have no idea as you didn't say so)

If you made it easy it would be great but clearly you don't want to do that.
Calista said
Also, why delete Peter Nolan's posts?  He is exceptional, so brave and deserves any support he can get. We all listen to what you have to say, so isn't it fair you listen to others, or do you and your moderators think that you are correct about everything and everyone else is wrong?
I have no problem listening to you or Peter. Anyone that has the wherewithal to question the system and make a stand in the interests of improving things has to get our support. What is not getting support is the lack of particular detail provided to get to the bottom of what it is you ware suggesting. You are dancing around the totem pole making wide sweeping generalisations which give no credence to any legal argument you may wish to develop. So my advice is develop the argument with proper legal standing and definition so we can understand what it is you are suggesting and what you want members to do about it.

Feel free to report the site to the Federal Police. They are well aware of the site and I have communication with a number of them from time to time. Isn't it lucky we are all in Australia where there is a great deal of freedom of expression and speech even on this site. The Federal Police have no jurisdiction here, have no complaint in respect to the way it is run and some of their members have had good advice here. If you don't like the site and the content you don't have to post here Calista. It is a site for family separation issues and for Child support legislative reforms with a bit of leeway from moderators. If we had the money it would be a lot better with more permanent paid moderators; but we don't so we rely on the good will and support of a very dedicated bunch of people who can never win. If the moderators strictly followed the guidelines MANY posts would be restricted or moved but there has been much leniency afforded.

We just do the best we can….



Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Secretary SPCA, you were in the thread, as I was answering your questions put to me.
It wasn't me who deleted the post so I suggest you control your moderators, and I know that you only have a few, and they go under different names, some of them have 3 or more names like yourself.

Any emails I receive from the moderator known as Mike T who continues to put me on warning will not be read by me as they are nonsense, abusive and malicious.
Same goes for others on this site.

I'm here because I like helping people in anyway I can and I have rescued quite a few fathers off this site and others because your moderators wouldn't give them a chance, wouldn't listen to them. Some people have trouble expressing themselves.

You should be aware that moderators on this site are interfering with my posts and then send me abusive malicious fabrications which is referred to as cyber bulling.

I can develop the lawful argument if your moderators would back off and stop interfering with my postings and step out of their comfort zone and living in the fiction.

The Federal Police are a private corporation and work to enforce the policies of the private corporation, our government. They took an oath to uphold the common law.

I did not say I didn't like the site, but what I have said, like April did recently, is that this site lacks integrity because the Moderators interfere with postings which then changes the context.

Hang in there Secretary SPCA, it is a shock when you learn the world isn't operating like you think it is and it is normal to become angry at first which you learn of the deception.
I have directed you to quite a number of websites now which provide evidence of this.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  M K Gandhi

A reminder to some posters

A reminder to some posters


You post here under site rules not yours.



Rules are detailed at sign up and further determined and refined by the moderators.


If you dont like the site rules stay off the site and create your own site.


The site is for question and discussion around Family Law and Child Support


The forums are not for soap boxing or individuals that are self promoting, trying to create dissent, have personal agendas, or those that are deliberately misrepresenting their experiences or cases.


If you post inappropriate material it will be either be moved to another forum or deleted. (Overworked moderators find it quicker to delete)

This is a repeat of a warning made on 9th February 2008. We have again be made aware of several posters recently contacting other site members.
Several posters have started making suggestions for legal options via the telephone or directly emailing a site member without knowing or understanding the case in question or having any legal expertise. In several cases these suggestions have been incorrect to the point of causing extreme harm to the case.
 It is recommended that if you are asking for (or receive) legal options that you check the posters credentials very carefully



13th March 2008
If a post does not follow site rules or the governance of collective Group Execs and moderator policies or by its nature will harm the reputation of FLWG then it may be edited or deleted.


31st July 2009
Occasionally we are visited by dogmatic and highly opinionated types.
 
 They find the FLWG and immediately realise they have a very large audience to propagate their strange political views / conspiracy theories / incorrect legal information / religious views / sexist opinions and blast away without any consideration with ideas, statements and strategies that are at total variance with accepted norms in society.
 
 Additionally suggesting silly and ill-conceived strategies that would lead others into making fools of themselves in Court is not only discouraged but not tolerated on this forum.
 
 FLWG and the moderators respect the right of robust comment and discussion but will not allow fools, charlatans, snake oil salesmen and religious zealots to peddle their wares or warped ideology.

 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets