Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

No-Justice's Thoughts

Posts from various other threads that No-Justice has hijacked and waylaid.

Jadzia said
How good are the courts at seeing through parents who try to impress them superficially? For example an abusive partner who are often seen to be the most charming, lovely person to most people, who are surprised and even shocked to find out that the nice person is actually an abuser".
Not very good. My Ex is an example, Justice M and an Anglicare Worker were surprised but accepting that my Ex acknowledged before told, she was a victim.

My Ex claimed she was the victim, because as I have now learnt, she was the abuser not I. It was I who could not understand not undoing your buttons before putting your shirt in the wash was not a reasonable excuse for verbal and emotional abuse. (Only one of the minor issues claimed by my Ex as her reasons of dislike of our relationship). Coffee in the sugar was another, (now changed) sex was never citied but a life at home causing other than partner sex might have been, evidence presented by my 3, 4 and then 5 year old daughter including who might have been, I now see nether and he has some of my work tools.
Jadzia said
"Unfortunately the past non compliance apparently won't be taken into consideration, we have to start the whole process again, which may take months. Also anything said in past counselling/mediation sessions is in confidence and not allowed to be used. Hence my suggestion that there should be the ability to use such information as it shows the willingness or lack thereof of warring parties to do the right thing."
SECT 69ZU. Evidence of family consultants; The court must not, without the consent of the parties to the proceedings, take into account an opinion expressed by a family consultant, unless the consultant gave the opinion as sworn evidence.

This means you would need an affidavit in support of your application to enforce an agreement (Promissory Estoppel) pursuant to the Law of agreement (Promissory Estoppel) of legally united parties. Your legal unity is the children and marriage if applicable.

I put it to you; you do not need a certificate as you can show the other party has demonstrated an other than" making a genuine effort to resolve the dispute before starting a case".

The Law of Promissory Estoppel is contract not only commercial as Agog say's.

Read OWEN J: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/wa/WASC/2000/236.html?query=%20Promissory%20Estoppel  from paragraph 80 The Law of Promissory Estoppel, this helps my case on first blow.
At paragraph 86 Owen J said
Priestley JA thought that it would be possible to extend the scope of promissory estoppel  as explained in Waltons Stores to cases of the latter kind. He expressed the principle in this way, at 610:

"For equitable estoppel to operate there must be the creation or encouragement by the defendant in the plaintiff of an assumption that a contract will come into existence or a promise be performed or an interest granted to the plaintiff by the defendant, and reliance on that by the plaintiff, in circumstances where departure from the assumption by the defendant would be unconscionable."
Paragraph 87, Kirby P expressly agreed with that proposition:

Paragraph 93 There are four other relevant principles relating to promissory estoppel  that I ought mention. The first three relate to the question of detriment, which is the fifth of the points mentioned by Brennan J in Waltons Stores. The first arises from the phrase "detrimental reliance" which is a short-hand way often used to describe the combination of the third and fifth of Brennan J's points. In his outline of submissions, counsel for the plaintiff contended that "a representation made after the detriment will not found an estoppel". While that is technically accurate, I think it may mask the real issue. One of the essential elements of a promissory estoppel  is that the representee acts or abstains from acting in reliance on the representation. There must be some act or omission that is established on the evidence. It must also be established that the act or omission occurred in reliance on the representation. It follows as a matter of logic that the act or omission must occur after the time at which the representation was made. But even that is not enough. It must further be established that the representee's action or inaction will occasion detriment if the assumption or expectation brought about by the representation is not fulfilled. That is to be judged at the time when the representor proposes to resile from the representation. In Grundt v Great Boulder Gold Mines Ltd [1937] HCA 58; (1937) 59 CLR 641 Dixon J pointed out, at 674, the real detriment or harm from which equity gives protection is that which would flow from the change of position if the assumption or expectation were deserted that had led to it. This means, I think, that the relevant chronology and elements can be seen in this light. First, a representation is made. Secondly, the representee changes his or her position by doing or omitting to do something that he or she would not have done or omitted to do if the representation had not been made. Thirdly, having so changed position, the representee would suffer a detriment if the representor were allowed to resile.

94 The second point I wish to make about detriment is that it involves questions of degree. It is not any prejudice or misfortune that will ground an estoppel. It must be "real detriment or harm" (Grundt at 674) or "material disadvantage": Thompson v Palmer [1933] HCA 61; (1933) 49 CLR 507 per Dixon J at 547. In Verwayen Deane J, at 444, referred to detriment using the phrase "significant disadvantage". This question of degree is relevant in two contexts. It is a factor in deciding whether or not the representation is of a type that ought to attract the intervention of equity. If it is, then the degree of harm is relevant also to the fashioning of relief. This is because the primary goal is to avoid the detriment.

95 The third point is that detriment is not confined to financial loss. Personal circumstances and inconvenience may amount to relevant detriment: Verwayen, at 416, 448-49 and 461-62.

96 Finally, it is not the mere fact of resiling from a promise that brings promissory estoppel  into play. As Mason CJ and Wilson J said in Waltons Stores, at 406, mere reliance on an executory promise to do something, resulting in the promisee changing position or suffering detriment does not itself justify intervention. Something more is required, namely unconscionability. In Verwayen, Mason CJ returned to that theme, at 416:

"The breaking of a promise, without more, is morally reprehensible, but not unconscionable in the sense that equity will necessarily prevent its occurrence or remedy the consequent loss. In the same way with an estoppel, something more than a broken promise is required."


97 That is all I propose to say about the legal principles of promissory estoppel.

My point is, it is the promise, the expectance of the promise to be fore filled, the harm done by the broken (to the children, the need for the Court Appearances and interaction the broken promise denies).

Estoppel as Agog has said, is Commercial Law of handshake Contract enforcement but paragraph 95 reinforces it is applicable to all contracts including personal, this is reinforced by:
[9] Dixon J said
'The principle upon which estoppel in pais is founded is that the law should not permit an unjust departure by a party from an assumption of fact which he has caused another party to adopt or accept for the purpose of their legal relations. This is, of course, a very general statement. But it is the basis of the rules governing estoppel. Those rules work out the more precise grounds upon which the law holds a party disentitled to depart from an assumption in the assertion of rights against another. One condition appears always to be indispensable. That other must have so acted or abstained from acting upon the footing of the state of affairs assumed that he would suffer a detriment if the opposite party were afterwards allowed to set up rights against him inconsistent with the assumption. In stating this essential condition, particularly where the estoppel flows from representation, it is often said simply that the party asserting the estoppel must have been induced to act to his detriment. Although substantially such a statement is correct and leads to no misunderstanding, it does not bring out clearly the basal purpose of the doctrine. That purpose is to avoid or prevent a detriment to the party asserting the estoppel by compelling the opposite party to adhere to the assumption upon which the former acted or abstained from acting. This means that the real detriment or harm from which the law seeks to give protection is that which would flow from the change of position if the assumption were deserted that led to it. So long as the assumption is adhered to, the party who altered his situation upon the faith of it cannot complain. His complaint is that when afterwards the other party makes a different state of affairs the basis of an assertion of right against him then, if it is allowed, his own original change of position will operate as a detriment. His action or inaction must be such that, if the assumption upon which he proceeded were shown to be wrong and an inconsistent state of affairs were accepted as the foundation of the rights and duties of himself and the opposite party, the consequence would be to make his original act or failure to act a source of prejudice.' Grundt v Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641 at 674-75.
(Enough of that, it is a subject close to my heart so I could go on for ever.)

I am here for the children not you or he, your issues are not in my knowledge other than your side so I trust you to do right by them.

Your argument suggests your children and your are split emotionally and physically between the 2 of you,  your Ex has concerns over financial and power and hurt of working for the family with an outcome of no family but the responsibilities of having a family.

You can do what you want, it is up to you if you do what is in the best interests of the children or what you ultimately want, your words suggest you want control but at the same time want what is best for the children. Sorry if my words sound harsh but I say it as I see or hear it. He has issues, you have issues, don't we all?

The question is what is best for the children?

Would he or has he joined this site?

If you pursued or informed him of the Estoppel argument, would that cause him to come back to the Table?

Have you contributed to his behaviour or is it his sole doing, honestly?

Questions you need to ask YOU not answer me.


It is up to YOU what happens next, the Best for your Children or NOT.

Interaction with both of you is a Lawful Right of your Children, how that occurs is up to you BOTH not only you or he.

Do all your children interact? This can be a start point for amicable relations.

Yes even after abuse of our children and I, I still hold my Ex in a special place as the mother of our children but she can never be my partner in any way again, I could never trust her in any way, or me not to take revenge.

No Justice

"enough of that, it is a subject close to my heart so I could go on for ever"

Promise me you will not!

You very nearly mentioned your mate - 'The Judge'.

Promissory Estoppal - good to read about this from your point of view. A bit too long winded and you always always come back to your case. Let go of your history and use your knowledge and experience to help others.


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
Hmm, Let me answer your post after each point raised. The stuff about Promissory Estoppel just confused me, I really need it in plain English :thumbs:
No-Justice said
SECT 69ZU. Evidence of family consultants; The court must not, without the consent of the parties to the proceedings, take into account an opinion expressed by a family consultant, unless the consultant gave the opinion as sworn evidence.
So unless he consents, which won't happen. That I already knew, it will only come about if there is a threat of harm or child abuse.
No-Justice said
This means you would need an affidavit in support of your application to enforce an agreement (Promissory Estoppel) pursuant to the Law of agreement (Promissory Estoppel) of legally united parties. Your legal unity is the children and marriage if applicable.

I put it to you; you do not need a certificate as you can show the other party has demonstrated an other than" making a genuine effort to resolve the dispute before starting a case".
I do need a certificate as my lawyer has stated that the past actions are no longer valid due to the new laws, I have to start again.The agreements never made it to court as he, after two years has never responded to the requests to sign and get the agreement put thru the courts.

No-Justice said
My point is, it is the promise, the expectance of the promise to be fore filled, the harm done by the broken (to the children, the need for the Court Appearances and interaction the broken promise denies).
No doubt that will be part of the final court action should it get that far.
No-Justice said
Your argument suggests your children and your are split emotionally and physically between the 2 of you, your Ex has concerns over financial and power and hurt of working for the family with an outcome of no family but the responsibilities of having a family.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

My ex works part time, plus cash in hand (according to the children and other family members) to avoid paying maintenance. He has two children living with him at their choice, and sees the two living with me every school holiday and has unlimited phone contact (other than obvious times such as they are in bed).

He has a new partner who has caused docs to be involved and his treatment of my children has been raised as a concern but nothing acted upon.

I have followed up on the police/docs involvement to keep myself informed and again on the advise of his family and friends. The relocation of those two is not an issue. Emotionally yes they are split. My ex tells them lies about me such as I am the town bike, he verbally abuses them when they talk to me over the phone making calls impossible, he tells my daughter with him that I have money that I don't so she constantly demands expensive items such as laptops, mobile phones etc.

If he ever refers to me it is always prefixed with "your stupid (or any other expletive) Mother" (that was one of the reasons the marriage broke down), He never ever calls me to arrange things but tries to do everything through the kids. He promises the kids stuff such as hunting trips during school term times, gets to ring me then I have to deal with upset children because they can't go. He gets them to ring and threaten me, or my family (i.e. he is going to f'ing punch my father out).

My youngest daughter now wants to move with him. Last time this happened she was subject to police involvement due to his partner and came home never wanting to go again. She thinks she will get everything her own way, as does the daughter who is currently living with him, get more stuff and who knows what else has been promised (the latest was a new tv). I'm not perfect, they see me upset when on the odd occasion we do talk on the phone and he starts on with the emotional stuff "u never wanted the children, they are only money to you, accusations etc".
No-Justice said
You can do what you want, it is up to you if you do what is in the best interests of the children or what you ultimately want, your words suggest you want control but at the same time want what is best for the children. Sorry if my words sound harsh but I say it as I see or hear it. He has issues, you have issues, don't we all?
What I want is an end to the no man's land of agreements half made and only adhered to when it suits him, where the children are not used by him as a payback tool. I also know how manipulative my ex is and am worried that he will "pull the wool" over the courts eyes. I do have witnesses to past abuse of both me and the children, but I still worry.
No-Justice said
The question is what is best for the children?
A home where they are happy, and where the parents at least pretend to respect each other so the kids aren't torn.

Would he or has he joined this site? He refuses to have internet access, as it was one of the conditions of contact with me, so who knows. But if he did you might see some of his attitude come through. At mediation he told all parties I was entitled to nothing out of settlement as he was the one who worked while I stayed home doing nothing but having babies. (I worked for at least 5 out of 14 years)
No-Justice said
If you pursued or informed him of the Estoppel argument, would that cause him to come back to the Table?
No he doesn't see he is doing anything wrong, nothing was signed.
No-Justice said
Have you contributed to his behaviour or is it his sole doing, honestly?
Of course I contributed, by letting him keep doing it to keep the peace and hoping it will all sort out. No more - hence the legal action.
Questions you need to ask YOU not answer me.

It is up to YOU what happens next, the Best for your Children or NOT.

Interaction with both of you is a Lawful Right of your Children, how that occurs is up to you BOTH parents not only you or he.

Do all your children interact? This can be a start point for amicable relations.
Yes even after abuse of our children and I, I still hold my Ex in a special place as the mother of our children but she can never be my partner in any way again, I could never trust her in any way, or me not to take revenge.

Site Admin - I have edited to reformat layout. Some small text changes at last Para. I may have got some Para's incorrectly quoted  by NJ but I think I have been careful. Feel free to edit.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Jadzia, the post from No Justice was just a 'look how smart I am'. Unfortunately it again went on about matters that are not relevant to you. His tactics and application and interpretation of the law(s) result in his spectacular failures in the Courts, which is not exactly an endorsement for anyone to take him seriously.

He has the opportunity to offer meaningful and constructive help on this site but instead he still tends to regard it as a personal soapbox and has gone from a position of sympathy for his case to one where even a layman could tell him why he keeps getting defeated.

Personal post in SRL area for you

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

No-Justice's Thoughts - 4 January 2008

Morning Monteverdi.

Yes our life's experiences do form the bulk of us common folks thinking. We (common folk) don't get to interact with large numbers of other common folk going through similar issues to us, only small numbers. This means we make reference to our issues, can not by Law (s121) directly state others issues other than in general terms.

It is the understanding of our issues by others that we can hopefully help others not fall into the same traps and judicial word games we have.

What Americans call Psych 101 is probable a good course for newly separated and couples undergoing relationship counselling to start. Yes, the counselling does touch the a few of the topics of Psych 101 but only as those topics apply to that couple and not in a learning way but in an optimistic application to that person or couple. Yes the courses for parenting and anger management do provide a learning environment for the Psych Topics relative to those courses only.

Counselling, parenting and anger management, often cause rejection of the optimistic notion of these Psych topics due to a lack of understand of the overall effects due to a lack of knowledge of the other topics that cause a proper comprehension of how to apply this new knowledge. Like taking a sentence out of context, the newly learnt is used in the wrong way like the sentence out of context conveys an alternative picture.

A proper learning environment of the main aspects of the topic would take away the "you must do this" concept that causes rejection of the new learning. Put it in the "this is how others do it" basket, still open to rejection by the hard and fast "I" people but the "this is how others do it" basket makes it more palatable to the hard and fast "I" people. Yes, the book "How to win friends and influence people" is along the lines I am talking, I think, no I have not read it and should, but think how easy that would make my life. lol

I suggest an abridged or short course of this subject be caused to be undertaken by warring parties so a good overview of Psychic behaviour and application of that behaviour can be achieved.

Maybe they are already being run by DiDs and the like in the way I am saying, and I just don't know about them.

If so can this site or does this site, other than the SRL area, have a place advertising these courses and required reading?

I have been refused SRL membership because my thoughts and issues are claimed to be too provocative rather than accept I am further in my thinking than the newbie's on the SRL site.

If not is a place for these courses envisaged for the near, with supplement ability to purchase courses and books to help fund this site?

What do you mean, I nearly mentioned my mate self prohibited from hearing any further matters of mine without undoing the harm done? I did but in a way acceptable to this site's members. Lol
Promissory Estoppel - good to read about this from your point of view. A bit too long winded.
From the words "At paragraph 86" that is Owen J's words and thinking with references, not mine, I have made comments within these words of Owen J and His Honour's words and thinking does support my thinking. Yes I have had training in Contract Law as it applied to the industry I was in, plus engineering and building and, and, and, but no formal training of General Law so my thoughts are not restricted to the thinking Lawyers are trained to confine their Legal thinking too.

Does anyone remember the title of the Promissory Estoppel matter where a neighbour promised to help the first neighbour cut up a tree ordered removed by the City Council?

I seam to have misplaced my copy and it is the Case Law matter that proves Promissory Estoppel is not confined to commercial or contract law but open to be applied to all promises where there is evidence of a physical attempt to exercise a right or expectation created by the promise given.

My mind is open to total applications of the Law and I keep 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act in mind. That is; "(1)  In the interpretation of a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or not) shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object."

"Let go of your history and use your knowledge and experience to help others."

My history is what makes me, me. It is how I use it that gives me the knowledge and experiences I have.

Yes, I have a rep of being a problem solver and creator due to I have solutions looking for problems to solve. Come on problems where are they, other than me, lol.

I'm in Vic so any problems looking for a solution other than me, most welcome. Maybe the SRL exec's could reconsider and give me guidelines as the site rules don't seem to apply to them. I accept I did myself step over or at least on the line of the rules of this site as do a lot of newbie's, have I modified my posts or is more modification needed, if so where and how? I am open to direction.

Have a nice day all.

PS how do I contact a member directly, morning onering

SRL-R Response to No-Justice

No-Justice said
I have been refused SRL membership because my thoughts and issues are claimed to be too provocative rather than accept I am further in my thinking than the newbie's on the SRL site.
No Justice.

It is quite apparent on this site that your idea of facts are somewhat distorted.

You were NOT refused membership to SRL-Resources.

The email to you from the membership area was:
As you have read on the Familylawwebguide SRL-R 'spells out' its involvement in the SRL process and defines the areas we operate in.

To date your posts on the FLWG site have concerned an issue with Mushin et al.

Your issue does not directly relate to our primary purpose and none of our people will be diverted (or have the time available) into a drawn out process that will not achieve an equitable outcome for the greater good.

As an organization we operate at both Case and Appeal level in the Family Courts If you wish to join for other reasons such as pursuing a child action or sharing knowledge then subject to approval you might be welcome. If this is the case I can email an application form".
Because you seemed unable to understand what our purposes are - these are stated very clearly on the FLWG site -the first three paragraphs are relevant.

You chose not to make an application. How you construe this as 'refusal' is indicative of perhaps your continuing problems with the Courts.

SRL-Resources. the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) www.srl-resources.org  Non gender Professional and peer support for SRLs. Closed site, no public forums, no search engines, no lurkers, guests or the other side and their Lawyer and Friends.

Whereabouts ?

Agog said
Jadzia, the post from No Justice was just a 'look how smart I am'. Unfortunately it again went on about matters that are not relevant to you. His tactics and application and interpretation of the law(s) result in his spectacular failures in the Courts, which is not exactly an endorsement for anyone to take him seriously.

He has the opportunity to offer meaningful and constructive help on this site but instead he still tends to regard it as a personal soapbox and has gone from a position of sympathy for his case to one where even a layman could tell him why he keeps getting defeated.

Personal post in SRL area for you.
Thanks Agog for that, where abouts in SRL as I am a bit lost trying to find it.

Cheers

Jadzia

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Agog said
 His tactics and application and interpretation of the law(s) result in his spectacular failures in the Courts, which is not exactly an endorsement for anyone to take him seriously.
How very succinct and ACCURATE.

Here's the Agog Post

Thanks Agog for that, where abouts in SRL as I am a bit lost trying to find it.
Jadzia.  Go to:

SRL-R (Self Represented Litigants Resource) Members

And the thread with the title Jadzia
Thanks for the reminder, my lack of reapplying was multi fold, I was working away from home so no time, I felt I needed to show you all I am open minded but determined in causing justice to occur not misbehave by ignoring or obstructing the Laws of Australia.

If you feel I have demonstrated to your personal I am not a single minded person but have matters I will endeavour to be caused to be determined by the Courts then I would be more than willing to be a helpful member of your SRL site open to direction including censorship of post until your happy with my input.

That is could you send me another application when you are ready or confident I will be a problem solver rather than causer.

It appears Agog does not think my reliance on the Law I have been taught, learnt and interoperate is correct.

In regard to the Law of Consent Orders, what is the foundation law for the Law of Consent Orders.

My understanding it is the Common Law of Promissory Estoppel that gives rise to the Law of Consent Orders and is the Law applicable until Consent Orders are made by a justice.

My understanding is it is the Common Law of Res Judicata that is the founding Law for the Law of Enforcement of Court Orders whether they be Consent or Not.

Am I miss-conceived,  if so tell me were I have gone wrong, this is not a demonstration of being smart as some would like to derogatorily put it in contempt of the rules of this site. I am only saying and using what I have been taught or learnt and interrupt. If I am wrong don't put me down tell me what is right, if I as I believe am expanding the use or returning the use of Laws where they can be used is that being smart or a proper use of Law that has not been used to its fullest extent. Like s.34 of the Act  and s.39B (1EA) of the Judiciary Act.

The following is a link to case law I rely on for the s.34 Writs to prove my point, if I have read to much into what the HC say in this matter please correct my thinking:

Re Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green [1984] HCA 82; (1984) 156 CLR 185 (6 December 1984))

The attachment is an abridged file of mine of the above link.

Attachment
 
No-Justice said
Thanks for the reminder, my lack of reapplying was multi fold, I was working away from home so no time, I felt I needed to show you all I am open minded but determined in causing justice to occur not misbehave by ignoring or obstructing the Laws of Australia.
  You made a statement you had been 'refused' - do you not keep copies of emails? What has working away from home got to do with making a misleading statement

No-Justice said
That is could you send me another application when you are ready or confident I will be a problem solver rather than causer.
 
Judging from the fact that you seem unable to comprehend what a multitude of people are saying to you - I would guess this is likely to happen when the Government introduces a 'Presumption of Equal Parenting Time' amendment



Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
dad4life said
Thanks Agog for that, where abouts in SRL as I am a bit lost trying to find it.
Jadzia.  Go to:

SRL-R (Self Represented Litigants Resource) Members

And the thread with the title Jadzia
Thanks - tells me I don't have sufficient access tho :'(

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Oops my fault - I put it in the members area, which begs the questions - have you applied to join? Or why haven't you?

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

Transfer of Post

Posts from this topic have been moved by members.

This post has been transferred.

This post from 'No Justice' contained errors in law that could cause someone severe problems in case preparation and in the Courtroom.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Are you meaning the use of affidavit evidence of a Counsellors opinion?
No-Justice said
Are you meaning the use of affidavit evidence of a Counsellors opinion?
Partly -but at least you seem aware that what you said about the above was very misleading.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

SLR Registration

 
Agog said
Oops my fault - I put it in the members area, which begs the questions - have you applied to join? Or why haven't you?
I have registered for the website and have a login, is there another subscription method I have missed? ←- ok found it and email requesting membership sent. I wait patiently. :thumbs:

Last edit: by Jadzia


When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Posts from this topic have been moved by members.

Two (2) posts have been transferred.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Thankyou No-Justice.

I do have legal advice but I love these forums for the varied opinions and options given. This informs me better and helps me also ask the right questions to my legal advisor as I tend to think they have seen it all, done it all before and give us the answer that experience tells them has worked best, whereas I do like to have all the options and explore avenues that may reach the same solution in the end.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets