Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

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

I am busily writing my summary of argument for an appeal in a property case where the FM didnt bother reviewing the extensive documentary evidence, ignored the exhibits put forward during the trial and made orders based solely on the other parties evidence. The other party was only able to give verbal rebuttals of the documentary evidence (I'm calling it the "wasn't me" approach in reference to a skit by Eddie Murphy), unbacked by any tangible evidence.

What I am wanting to know is whether there is anything in the Evidence Act about the weight to be placed on documentary evidence (bank statements, emails, accountant reports) over a verbal denial (hearsay?) of the other party.

I'd also be interested to no of anything in the court rules or case law around whether the judicial is required to actual read and review the evidence put forward in affidavits/annexures. I was shocked to be told by the FM "I don't have time to read through pages and pages of documents so just summarise it for me". I would have thought that the court had a duty to review all evidence and make a judgement based on the evidence instead of assessing the way parties give evidence under cross-examination and determining which parties evidence to prefer at the exclusion of the other party.

Doing some searching on case law, it seems that my view isnt that left field with Mason J stating in Mallet v Mallet (1984) FLC 91-507, "[t]he section contemplates that an order will not be made unless the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to make the order (s.79 (2)), after taking into account the factors mentioned in (a) to (e) of s79 (4). The requirement that the court 'shall take them into account' these factors imposes a duty on the court to evaluate them. Thus, the court must in a given case evaluate the respective contributions of husband and wife under paras (a) and (b) of sub s.(4), difficult though that may be in some cases."

Any help or advice is appreciated.
Hello Melbournedad,

I am sorry about the response you got from the FM. It would be quiet a shock to hear those words. My only suggestion is to get a copy of the transcript proceedings and seek legal advice for a possible appeal.

If children are involved, the benefit oif having transcripts is that as children grow older they can read for themselves the difficulties you have been through and they will be able to see what you did for them.

Having transcripts helps children who become adults to perhaps launch a class action against the FM or Family Law. If a teenager or adult feels deprived and lived in poverty because one or the other parent has been stripped of his or her assetts the that child (who is now either a teenager or adult) could look into compenstation.I would like to see that happen.

It would be interesting if a group of professionals such as lawyers, psychologist etc where to assist in such class action against the family law. Class action is the key.

Thanks

Class action anyone?

I am not surprised the judge did not read anything or look at any evidence you filed. My experience mirrors this excatly. I got the feeling the judges are kind of bored referees who just decide to go with one party, after all there is always one winner and one looser in all these cases.  I had Justice Le Poer-Trench who got a good wrap from this site but my experience showed him in a different light. Le Poer-Trench had to be reminded by the other parties barrister to warn the other party formally as they had been a tax cheat for 16 years in Australia. Le Poer-Trench had made the comment "What's wrong with helping your relatives out?" as the other party had rented out thier house cash in hand and not declared any of it to the taxation department. I got grilled on having a bank account that I had declared in my financial statement and to taxation authorities. I had to say that as I lived in The Netherlands I was allowed by law to open a bank account in my name only. I was shocked such a line of questioning is encouraged in court rooms in Australia. This family Law court picks people off one by one and we need to be a strong group to try to counter them. This business of relationships and money and wealth transfer going hand in hand is outdated and just plain inaccurate with computing records showing contributions. There is a good opportunity here with this de facto bungle as well. Any one ready to join me and we approach a law firm to take the validity of the courts actions on?

The Facts About The Family Court of Australia

The FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 (act no 53 of 1975)

Creation of Court
Section 21 (1) A court, to be known as the Family Court of Australia, is created by this Act.

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

Be it Enacted by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows the Queen = Queen of Australia is a CORPORATION MYTHICAL PATRON with NO authority invented in 1973 by E G WHITLAM.


The Senate is corporate and foreign to our Senate.
House of Representatives of Australia, as follows is corporate and totally foreign to our House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia as follows
The FAMILY COURT of AUSTRALIA is NOT a COURT under OUR
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)[63&64 Vict.]
[Ch.12] and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (C'wth) as at 1st January 1901
Clause 5 Operation of the Constitution and Laws

This Act and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution shall be BINDING on the Courts, Judges, and People of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State
Therefore these Corrupt Corporate so called Judges sitting in their Corrupt Corporate Courts have NO Authority over us the Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia and Subjects of Her Majesty.

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

What utter rubbish you write.

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. 

Absolutely True and Correct

Check it out for yourself before making a fool of yourself.  Of course you didn't do this hence your rash and absurd comment and unfounded criticism of something you know very little of. What is the saying …. Think before you write monterverdi.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  M K Gandhi
Hi Melbournedad - there are people on here who are more knowledgeable then me on this one. I do know from my own and friends experiences that the Judge can make whatever decision they like whether based on hard facts or not. Perhaps tell us more about what you and the ex were wanting and what you got.
Calista to Monteverdi said
Check it out for yourself before making a fool of yourself. 
Oh the irony of Calista saying this.
Calista to Menteverdi said
Of course you didn't do this hence your rash and absurd comment and unfounded criticism of something you know very little of. What is the saying …. Think before you write monterverdi.
Monti you must heed my advice, forget absolutely everything you have learned about the Law, stop talking to any legal people, stop all your reading and research and immediately pm Calista to arrange for an afternoons private tuition so that you too can become an expert like her. 
I had a look the other night at some freeman vids as per Calista's advice on U tube and it is very interesting, however I couldn't find a story that ended where the freeman advocate was successful.

The line of questioning one guy used (in Boston?) where he was always trying to understand the processes of the court due to being a lay person was very well thought out. I could see that his line of questioning would lead him to declare that he did not fully understand the processes before him, but he never made it to the end of his questions due to a frustrated judge.

I looked at some of the UK vids where the Judge vacated or ran out of the court room as they tried to arrest him. Again looks interesting but I couldn't see what the end result was.

I am not convinced either way until someone can show it actually works or not.
Fairgo you can't learn this overnight.  It takes ages because of all the brainwashing we have grown up with.  Here's a successful case
Constitution Halts Sheriff - YouTube   though not to do with family law.


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  M K Gandhi
I'm not sure if that was successful. They will be back when everyone is gone.
Calista said
Here's a successful case
Calista are you really serious that this was a successful case? For someone who has had as much court exposure as your good self surely you cannot possibly suggest that was a good outcome and in my wildest dreams is hardly a "successful case". If it is a successful case the bank will give him the house and forgive any and all debt. Pigs will fly before that happens.

Lets dissect it for a moment.

Mortgage holder defaults on a mortgage agreement with his bank. An agreement that he guaranteed, was not forced to sign and executed a proper (from what we know) bank agreement to borrow money with payment terms set out that required certain payments to be met on certain dates and certain interest and charges to be paid.

Bank goes to court. Mortgage holder looses and is ordered to pay arrears.

Mortgage holder appeals to Higher court

Higher court overturns appeal and orders in lower court stand.

The registrar of the lower court happens to be the Sheriff. The Registrar heard the initiating case and as discussed in the video makes an order and issues a warrant to seize the property.

Deputy sheriff turns up with warrant and two "Guardia" (Police) to assist him in excising the repossession order so that the bank may sell the property. (It looks awfully like a case we had late last year where the family simply refused to pay Macquarie Bank the mortgage repayments and they argued in court that the bank had no right to sell off the mortgage to another bank as part of the securities restructure at Macquarie Bank and that because the mortgage was transferred it became null and void… He lost)

Argument 1
The Registrar may only hear cases to the value of 36,000 pds and therefore he has no jurisdiction to run the case.

Argument 2
The Registrar is the Sheriff and that there is no separation of powers as set out in the Constitution and therefore it is illegal for the Sheriff to pursue the mortgagee holder.

Argument 3
Under section 40 sub section 5 of the Constitution in Ireland the man's house is unviable except to law. That is no one may take his property unless he has broken the law and they suggest he has not "broken the law"

Argument 4
Role of the Shire reef (Sheriff) was to protect people not harass and deliver repossession documents

Argument 5
Guradia (Police) may only uphold common law (laws passed under common law) and may not get involved in this case.

Argument 6
The bank is owned by Her Magisties Treasury (Give me a break) (Not sure what angle they using there)

Argument 7
When the Global Financial meltdown came the banks were bailed out by the tax payers and the same people who are now in the bank running it.

Are those the arguments as you see it?

As a  result the sheriff departed as he could not serve the documents to the unruly mob. So from that you suggest he has won his case to retain his property? That is absurd.

Has anyone considered the most obvious missing link here? The mortgage agreement between the bank and the mortgage holder was a binding contract. What is a binding contract Calista? What were the terms of the binding contract? In Australia the sale and purchase of land and mortgage documents are strictly regulated and believe me they are binding.

I think with respect, they are completely missing the plot here and I would like to see where they are in a few weeks. Have you the guys phone number as I will call and follow this up.

Basically if you don't want to pay the mortgage repayments you have two choices.

1. Don't take the loan and sign up in the first place
2. Walk away from the property but in Australia expect the banks to attack any and all of your personal guarantees.

Calista said
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

Be it Enacted by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows the Queen = Queen of Australia is a CORPORATION MYTHICAL PATRON with NO authority invented in 1973 by E G WHITLAM.

On what basis do you make that deduction?
What does it mean?
What is a "Mythical Patron" and why?

Calista said
The Senate is corporate and foreign to our Senate.
What does this mean?
Which Senate is foreign to OUR (Australian Senate in Canberra)

Calista said
House of Representatives of Australia, as follows is corporate and totally foreign to our House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia as follows
The FAMILY COURT of AUSTRALIA is NOT a COURT under OUR

Under our what?

Calista said
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)[63&64 Vict.]
[Ch.12] and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (C'wth) as at 1st January 1901
Clause 5 Operation of the Constitution and Laws

This Act and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution shall be BINDING on the Courts, Judges, and People of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State

Therefore these Corrupt Corporate so called Judges sitting in their Corrupt Corporate Courts have NO Authority over us the Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia and Subjects of Her Majesty.
Good luck with that extension. It doesn't make any sense to me, but look I am open to the discussion, so you are going to have to step through this more carefully and reference various sections of the Constitution to make it very clear what you are trying to achieve.

Are you wanting to show that ALL appointments as judges in the Family Court are invalid?

What about the federal Magistrates Court formation? is that the same? If it is then is this argument here only about Family Law Courts or all law courts?

What are you wanting to achieve in relation to cases that have been heard. Are you wanting these to all be marked as invalid and decisions re heard? What about all the cases that have settled by consent, where BOTH parties agreed?



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
 
ATTENTION: Frank & Mary Colosimo need OUR SUPPORT on Thursday 1st March when the Sheriff thinks he is going to evict them from their property of 40 years Lets take a lesson from the Irish and band together to fight this corruption.  Come on Aussies Come On Come On.
PARTY  AT  FRANK & MARYS  PLACE
 
When: Thursday 1st March from 9AM
Where: 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale 3341(b/w Bacchus Marsh & Ballan)
RSVP: 03 5368 7250 or francesco.c@skymesh.com.au
 
This is from Frank: THIS IS OUR BATTLE ON BEHALF OF ALL AUSTRALIANS The Sheriff stated to be coming on Thursday 1st March to give us a final notice, and to vacate. I told him I am not vacating, as my title is held in FEE SIMPLE, and he replied that that does not apply or protect me nor do the High Court NO TRESPASS Cases apply or protect me. I finally told him that when he comes next time I will sue him for trespass, and he said he is still coming. I also told him the mortgage has been paid by a promissory note, which is legal tender according to instructions in the Legal aid paperwork, on what the Sherrif can take, and upon telling him that I have sent him a promissory note, to which he responded that he has not seen it. The Sheriff involved in our case is from the Grampians region of Ballarat. All welcome next Thursday, but let me know of numbers, for catering purposes. GOD bless you all cheers, Frank.
 
A lesson from the Irish - This youtube shows what a good support group can do to hold off the evil corporate cartel
20th February 2012 - Constitution AND asking for their oath Halts Sheriff from taking possession of home - www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpUjl4LvQM8&feature=youtu.be&fb_sour
ce=message     
The deputy Sheriff arrived at another Irish family's home to repossess it and give the keys to the bank, thus putting another Irish family onto the streets.
Ben Gilroy from "Freedom From All Debt.com" questions the sheriff outside the gates to the house and does an interview at the end of the video.
More info at http://freedomfromalldebt.com/sheriff

* Know Your Constitutional and Common Law Rights
* Licenses are illegal
* Fines are unlawful (unless imposed by a jury in a court)
* Tax is Voluntary

Public educational meetings are held monthly on the last
Tuesday of every month from Februrary through to November.

Community Law Resource Group
CLRG – Community Law Resource Group
info@clrg.info


 

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  M K Gandhi
I'm sorry to be hijacking Melbournedad's topic but feel we should give Calista a fair go.

I am aware that you can write to the ATO and request to have a tax debt wiped and they seem to be obliging to individuals but not entities such as companies especially when it comes to GST debts. I have had advice from my accountant on this topic.

I also have a couple of very intelligent friends who have discussed what Calista is on about over the last few years but I don't think they have tested the theories. I remember them saying something about our constitution mentioning that we cannot make laws that are not in the best interests of the people and my friend's case was that the Famly Law Act was hurting more people than it was helping.

There's no harm in following the above case as it is more local that the other.
These cases that continually come up are in relation to people either failing to pay or refusing to pay for a variety of reasons, their mortgage and contractual obligations to financial lenders. I cannot see how default on a commercial loan WHICH these people entered into freely and without coercion relates to the issues that were raised in the topic. I don't have a problem giving Calista a fair go but the linkages are simply non existent to give weight to any legitimate legal challenge so far.

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
 

Juges and constituion

Interesting discussion going on here. Please keep up the information flow as there just might be something to this. It is going into the origin of how these courts were created.

Is Callista saying:

1. The Family Court of Australia was not created correctly under the constitution so it has no legal legal standing as a court and it's judges and court officers therefor also have no legal standing over the people of the commonwealth?

2. There is also a judiciary Act of 1903 where the judges, must follow the constitution. Section 78B allows you to notify the Attorney Generals department is you are going to discuss the constitution in court.
Melbournedad, I had a similar experience where my extensive documentary evidence backed by objective evidence was unrebutted by the other parties, and ignored by the Magistrate, including the evidence of my witnesses and the exhibits I submitted, also, case law.  My best witness was not even mentioned in the judgement and exhibits were identified incorrectly.   In short, the judgement was not a reflection of what was before the court.  The magistrate went with the fraud of the other parties instead. The recordings of the trial and the transcript demonstrate this including all filed documentation.   I have come a long way since my trial because of what happened in my case and have learned what is actually happening when one goes to court. A court isnt what you think it is.  A court is just a meeting room for members of the private corporation who you thought were there to hear and adjudicate your case and administer the law and justice. Well this isn't so.
 
Moderator Note
Parts of this post have been removed as they were not relevant to the topic or the SRL forum

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  M K Gandhi
Calista said
Melbournedad, I had a similar experience where my extensive documentary evidence backed by objective evidence was unrebutted by the other parties, and ignored by the Magistrate, including the evidence of my witnesses and the exhibits I submitted, also, case law.
IF YOU ARE ARGUING CONSTITUTIONAL issues DO NOT ARGUE them in the Federal Magistrates Court or the Family Court as the judicial officer will not hear it.
Calista said
…I have come a long way since my trial because of what happened in my case and have learned what is actually happening when one goes to court. A court isnt what you think it is. A court is just a meeting room for members of the private corporation who you thought were there to hear and adjudicate your case and administer the law and justice. Well this isn't so.
That statement does not give us any information about what it is that the private corporation is all about. So you are saying that a court (not sure if you mean ALL courts) are just meeting rooms… Read Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR

The provisions around 77i and many others were set down by an instrument of Government (constitution) are not easily amended or remedied and intended to endure indefinitely.

To hold that the Parliament cannot confer Federal jurisdiction in respect of matters (say under s75 and 76) would create immense practical problems and could hardly have been intended. The Interpretations Act goes someway to sorting "Misinterpretation" or "Ambiguities" out and then you have a range of process to follow. There are a lot of rules to follow around different approaches to interpretation.The Ministers second reading speech is always useful to see what they actually meant.

    Courts have a legal obligation to apply relevant legal rules of statutory interpretation; but these legal rules must themselves be interpreted and, once applied, may fail to yield a definite answer to the question of how a legal provision should be understood
     This is where theories of statutory interpretation become important: they may provide guidance to Courts (and other interpreters) as well as help us evaluate the soundness of the legal rules of statutory interpretation currently in force in any given jurisdiction
    May need to interpret the interpretation

HOW SHOULD COURTS INTERPRET LEGISLATION?
The Laws answer:
    Common law rules of interpretation
    Legislative rules of interpretation

Traditional Common Law Rules of statutory interpretation
    At Commonwealth and State there are laws that tell you what laws are statutory rules of interpretation'
    Displaced by legislative reform
      ○ The common law rules are still relevant because they assist us in:
         - understanding the legislative provisions about statutory interpretation
         - reading older cases that applied the common law rules of statutory interpretation
         - interpreting Acts to which the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) or the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) may not apply -  these Acts provide that they apply to an Act unless a contrary intention appears (ss 2(1) and 5(2) respectively).
         
Common Law Rules of Statutory Interpretation
   Literal Approach:
      natural, ordinary meaning of words in the context of the whole Act
      qualified by
      Golden Rule: in cases of absurdity and inconsistency
      grammatical and ordinary sense of words may be modified to avoid absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of the Act (Grey v Pearson (1857) (Lord Wensleydale)
      
Mischief Rule: in cases of ambiguity
   - what was the mischief that the common law did not provide for and that Parliament was trying to remedy by enacting the legislation the Court is interpreting
   
   What was parliament trying to do when enacting the legislation
   - construe the provision so that the mischief is suppressed and the remedy advanced (Heydons Case (1584)
   This evolved into the purposive approach.

Purposive Approach:
   - resolve ambiguities through an appeal to the purpose
   - purpose ascertained through an examination of the Act itself and, where necessary, extrinsic material (Parliamentary debates, official reports, etc.)
   
Legislative provisions about statutory interpretation
    States and Commonwealth legislative provisions
    They have displaced the common law rules of statutory interpretation.
    The NSW provisions (ss 33, 34 of the Interpretation Act 1987) are virtually identical to their Commonwealth equivalent (ss 15AA, 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901)
   
Purposive Approach
 s 15AA of Acts Interpretations Act 1901 (Cth):
   (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.

If you read 531 in the case I referenced at the beginning you will see a discussion on why Government can confer powers and limit those powers to specific courts. They had done so in the Federal Magistrates courts.

I am still very unclear about what you are saying. You have made sweeping statements that the courts (I assume you mean all of them) have no power to hear and determine matters? is that all matters ? On what basis is that? I want you to refer me to the specific section of the constitution or prior Act that excludes courts from having standing and or proper formation. Don't just tell me the queen is a virtual corporation so that I can get to the bottom of what it is that you are suggesting and I can look up the related Acts, parliamentary discussions etc..

IF you say courts are simply corporations what is stopping a corporation from making policy and then enacting policy and consequently disciplinary action for not following policy or guidelines. If the Manager or Director of a corporation says "as an employee you need to do that or that, because it is set out in our Corporate Policy"… Then you can either follow the policy or procedure set out and told to you or you can leave the corporation and at that point the policy or direction is no longer binding. In a court the policy or direction issued is wholly binding in all areas of life and you cannot escape it by "leaving".

PS
In relation to the moderators note there are many moderators and if this is teh post you refer to as being moderated I will look at the original.

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
 
IF YOU ARE ARGUING CONSTITUTIONAL issues DO NOT ARGUE them in the Federal Magistrates Court or the Family Court as the judicial officer will not hear it.


Why Not

Constitutional issues

  Yes Taylor you are right. They are supposed to adhere to section78B of the judiciary act 1903 where it states it's the courts duty to ensure the attorney generals department is notified of constitutional issues so they can make a submission to the court before proceeding with the case.  In my experience with the court Justice Le Poer-Trench just ignored this requirement and did not want to hear anything on the constitution at all.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets