Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Some Philopsophical Thoughts and Questions

Re: Some Philopsophical Thoughts and Questions

ection1;}–>Re: Some Philopsophical Thoughts and Questions

 Hypothesis 2: Is it just me or is the Family Law system just another Big money making business/industry for lawyers and their "friends"? eg. A recent case where a Father lost custody of the Children from a well known cult because the real reason is that "The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne's top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor." Is this just a Justice system only for the Rich??? Not saying that the Judge was female but it does "infer" something. Who knows, maybe a coin flip would have been a more authoritative judgement.
 
 Hypothesis  3: Since most of the Judges are men, Does anyone else have the feeling that these male judges are being "p_$$y" whipped? Either Psychologically or via evolution? Hence other men will not get a "fair" and equitable judgement?
 
 Hypothesis  4: Has anyone ever had experiences where the other parties "lawyers" get away with alot of BS, because they are just "representatives" and hence are not liable for whatever harm they do.? eg Purposely misrepresenting in court (very hard to prove) and the lawyers know how to get away with it. Misleading statements in Submissions to confuse the Judge. And the Judge will get so confused because he handles so many cases but the "A-holes" can do whatever they want and get away with it.
 
  Hypothesis  5: Are anyone interested in posting to a Darren Hinch style website (anynomously)?? Where one can name and "Shame" unethical, unprofessional lawyers and also Praise Fair dikum lawyers that really cares for people and love the law not just the $$$.? This will be a benefit since not all lawyers are from one good ethical tree.   
 
 Hypothesis 6: Is this a civilised society or should we go back to "martial" law. Because the system "breeds" corruption, why do i say this because the system is purposely "broken" so people can be taken for a ride eg. Emotional people, Greedy people, uneducated people are continuosly tricked and "raped" for all their hard earn money by some unethical Lawyers and the Family Dispute industry?
 
 My opinion is that the system still favours one sex than the other and society still believes that one sex is better at caring for children than the other. Are we living in an educated, 21st Century or some backward society that masked itself in cordiality, superficiality and the red tape??
 
 Any opinions appreciated.  
I receive email notifications and I notice you removed

Question 1
When I file for an appeal (which looks like the case), the case must be "re-opened", hence I can file for a subpoenae and court order to the Family Court Nazi's for the other parties to perform a full and frank disclocure of relevevant documents, that the other party refused to hand over even after a notice to produce etc was requested of them.


Did you lose your case? which in my OPINION would not be surprising if you were going on with your other tripe in Court.

And no the case is not 'reopened' an appeal is on various errors of law/evidence at the hearing and not for re introducing new evidence.
Dads_R_Tops said
Hypothesis  4: Has anyone ever had experiences where the other parties "lawyers" get away with alot of BS, because they are just "representatives" and hence are not liable for whatever harm they do.? eg Purposely misrepresenting in court (very hard to prove) and the lawyers know how to get away with it. Misleading statements in Submissions to confuse the Judge. And the Judge will get so confused because he handles so many cases but the "A-holes" can do whatever they want and get away with it.

In my only court experience, at a local court with a Federal Magistrate, the other parties lawyer most certainly did not get away with the BS he was trying to peddle. He very quickly got reminded, by the FM, that he narrowly missed having an AVO put on him by the FM. Needless to say I was flabbergasted and also needless to say the BS stopped instantly. We were told to leave the court and come back when contact that weekend was arranged. We were also advised that it would be best to not return to the court, although a hearing was set just in case. We didn't return and things improved by them being sorted out between ourselves.

What was very interesting, was that another lawyer who had heard some of the BS, rushed over to me and kindly explained what the FM had meant. Later I approached her outside of the courtroom to thank her for her completely free advice, where she made it quite clear at her disbelief at what the other parties lawyer was putting forward, loud enough for all to hear.

A year or so ago, I attended the SPCA conference where the Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks gave a speech and answered questions, it was a very enlightening speech which in my opinion showed a very astute and considerate person who has a very difficult job to do, especially in the department of decision making.

I must admit that I am very surprised that the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Diana Bryant supports the re-introduction of accepting false allegations of domestic violence by advocating removing the potential for anything to be done against those who make such false allegations. I wholeheartedly disagree with what would then be a shift that would without doubt seriously and adversely affect the lives of many children.
The art of persuasion is often best conducted when one is not emotive.

D_R_T said
 Is it just me or is the Family Law system
Might it be that your understanding of the Family Law system and how to advocate within it needs deve;opement.

Be assured, as experienced by a supported SRL yesterday who obtained orders better than he had believed possible the court is unbiased. On a number of occasions I have observed mothers lose custody of childen. It is the interests of the children, not the parents, around which the conversation with the court pivots.

Alike Conan, I would be assisted in knowing how your case was run, where you failed to convince the court and why it was that the arguments of the other side carried the day.

The judgements of all Magistrates and Judges, regardless of their sex are reviewable in an appeal process. The grounds of an appeal are to be well considered after determining where the principles and errors have arisen. Read Full Court judgements for possible grounds of appeal.

Berating the court will only bring distress to your self. Be kind to your self.

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha

eclusive bretheren latest 10 july

I think it is a simple formula of whoever has the money loses because money has to exchange hands in order for the middle man to take his cut, Previously, men had the money. Today, people are encouraged to leave out the middleman, and make a parenting agreement.
Guest also said
The Justice Sally Brown of the Family Court who made the current decision in the exclusive bretheren casedoes not have a clean reputation, however, in that case, a person turned away from the marriage contract they had made. The person had entered into a form of prenuptial agreement wherein they knew that if they departed from the marriage contract they could not take their children with them.

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA

Guest said
 I think it is a simple formula of whoever has the money loses
Money is generally assiciated with power and priviledge. The 'guest' appears to be arguing the contrary proposition.
All parties to disputes are wise to discuss the issues and arrive at a position wherein they can live with a compromise.
Too often the lives of children are affected by the unwarranted 'pay backs' sought by parents.
There is no longer fault in our Family Law. Therefore it is appropriate to respond to the Act rather than what might be hoped for.
All judges judgements are subject to review/appeal so the assertion that a certain judge is 'unclean' is an inadequate mode of discourse, 'playing the person, not the issue'.
It is the chidlren's right to have contact with their parents. Those whom feel they can convince the court that the child not have contact with the other party are bound support those with  factually based arguments.
It is indeed inappropriate when any group (cult) directs any person in a group as to who they may associate with. Such directives are not associated with norms in a democratic evironment where even children can and possibly will eventually determine who they choose to be with.
Those persons who set out to control others by limiting whom they have contact with are probably afraid of their power over that child/person being diminished.
'Those immersed in compulsive thinking, are avoiding what naturally is'.

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
I cannot help but wonder if the exclusive bretheren are more successful than the general public in keeping their children from falling victim to the pitfuls of modern society. I do not know. And I wonder if their children have better manners because they do not watch tv or go on the internet. Mine do too much of each, and are more aware and experienced than most children, however, they need constant parent input because there is so much negativity and vulgarity in the mix. I taught my kids to turn off shows not fit for them to watch, and they do it. Somehow, despite the cult appearance, the exclusive brethern methods do seem to describe a peacefullish existence.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets