We need to take the fight to them.

Dear Senator Madigan
I listened with interest to your speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAhTrniFPiM
Sadly there are a few small issues wrong.
David Collier is not a rather seemingly wonderful Judge at all, he is instrumental in a lot of the bad behaviour even assisting in creating and manipulating a case against the Fathers.
Diana Bryant is involved in the cover ups of all this.
Do I have the evidence – I sure do, and they know it. A lot of respectable people went to a lot of effort to nail them – this now is the most provable case against that court that has existed.
These people are very very frightened of me. Thats why I can publish this online and get away with it.
These links are the basis of what is what has now become a worldwide movement to bring the Court to its knees and prosecute these lot.
You can assist us or you can walk away – I am really not concerned.
Regards
Paul Rich
I would appreciate a reply one way or another.

Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee, Australian Human Rights Commission, EPP‏

Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee,

PO Box 6100, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600.

Phone: +61 2 6277 3439 Fax: +61 2 6277 5809 fpa.sen@aph.gov.au

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_Administration/Domestic_Violence

Cc

Australian Human Rights Commission

Level 3, 175 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Complaints Infoline: 1300 656 419 Complaint infoservice@humanrights.gov.au

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_Administration/Domestic_Violence

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Dear Members

Parliamentary Inquiry into the Domestic Violence.

We thank the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee for allowing us to present our submission to the Inquiry into Domestic Violence.

We note that the Committee’s terms of reference refers to “the prevalence and impact of domestic violence as it affects all Australians”. (underlining added).

The terms of reference then refers to “women” in four locations and “children” in one location. It does not specifically refer to “men” at all.

Our submission relates to all men, women and children.

We abhor genuine cases of domestic violence. This is, in relation to all men, women and children.

On 26 June 2014, the following matter was referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by the 27 October 2014:

  1. the prevalence and impact of domestic violence in Australia as it affects all Australians and, in particular, as it affects:
    1. women living with a disability, and
    2. women from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds;
  2. the factors contributing to the present levels of domestic violence;
  3. the adequacy of policy and community responses to domestic violence;
  4. the effects of policy decisions regarding housing, legal services, and women‘s economic independence on the ability of women to escape domestic violence;
  5. how the Federal Government can best support, contribute to and drive the social, cultural and behavioural shifts required to eliminate violence against women and their children; and
  6. any other related matters.

This an affront and blatant indictment of senate members, discrimination act against the male gender.

5  Sex discrimination

(1)  For the purposes of this Act, a person (in this subsection referred to as the discriminator) discriminates against another person (in this subsection referred to as the aggrieved person) on the ground of the sex of the aggrieved person if, by reason of:

(a)  the sex of the aggrieved person;

“women and their children”

I must insist that the committee publish my submission on indictment have been implied by the High Court from these parts of the Constitution. It is established that the Constitution protects ‘freedom of political communication’ or, in other words, the right of Australians to communicate freely with each other and with their elected representatives about political and public affairs.

The Parliament and government are linked in the relationship known as ‘responsible government’, which was described earlier. For this reason, we consider them together. These are powerful institutions, which control the law-making process.

Potentially, they protect rights in two ways: positively, by passing laws to protect rights that are not currently protected and negatively, by restraining themselves from making laws to infringe rights that are recognized by the common law or international law.

  • CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 28 Interfering with political liberty Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

A person is incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Member if he or she has been convicted of bribery, undue influence or interference with political liberty, or has been found by the Court of Disputed Returns to have committed or attempted to commit bribery or undue influence when a candidate, disqualification being for two years from the date of the conviction or finding.

Submissions closing date is 31 July 2014. The reporting date is 27 October 2014.

http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/partner-abuse-state-of-knowledge-project-the-gold-standard-of-domestic-violence-information/

Family Violence

May 24, 2013 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

It’s perhaps the most important event in the history of domestic violence research. Back in 2010, the senior editor of the journal Partner Abuse asked 42 researchers in the field of intimate partner abuse to conduct a thorough review of existing literature on the subject. All peer reviewed literature from 1990 to the present was examined and over 1,700 studies were included in the final analysis. The scientists divided their inquiry into 17 subject areas and assigned researchers to each. The resulting analyses were published by Partner Abuse between April, 2012 and April, 2013, and together comprise almost 2,700 pages of information including tables. The whole project is called the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK).

The purpose of this massive effort was to once and for all bring sound scientific methods to the field of DV research, one in which sound science has often been sorely lacking. As the introduction makes clear, the authors believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. And it is those facts on which public policy should be based “rather than ideology and special interests.”

That of course is arrant heresy as far as the domestic violence movement is concerned. For decades now, DV activists have substituted political ideology for facts and the scientific method. Unsurprisingly, they’ve been wrong about almost everything they’ve ever said about domestic violence. Like the Cross to a vampire, science has always threatened the domestic violence establishment, its cherished worldview, its fear and loathing of men and ultimately its lavish governmental funding.

PASK should (and well may) prove to be the stake in the heart of what has for far too long been our public policy on intimate partner violence. Simply put, no one who speaks, writes or legislates on the subject should do so without first reading at least the 62-page Overview of Findings, and preferably the whole analysis. PASK is the state of the art on domestic violence.

The project isn’t over. As more research is conducted (hopefully in the areas suggested by the authors) PASK findings will change. And in some areas, there is either not enough data (e.g. injuries to male victims), or the data are inconclusive, so public policy changes aren’t possible. But in most areas of inquiry, the facts are clear and must be used to guide policy makers. To do anything else would be to abandon even the pretense that the goal of public policy is actually the reduction in rates of intimate partner violence.

To be clear, what PASK reveals is that the claims of the domestic violence establishment are wrong and have been from the start. That establishment that receives such largess from governments and private sources has been revealed once and for all to be intellectually bankrupt.

Section One: Rates of Male and Female Victimization. The group studying information in this area analyzed 249 publications comprising over 1 million subjects. They found that, over their lifetimes, about 23% of women reported physical victimization versus 19.3% of men. Those figures will likely converge over time given the fact that more men than women reported victimization over the previous year. Gender symmetry in victimization appeared in aggregated data from numerous different countries including the U.S., Canada, the U.K., New Zealand and South Africa.

As to public policy, the authors stated the obvious:

This comprehensive review… documents the need for gender-inclusive responsiveness to this wide-ranging public health problem. In particular, there are currently few services for male victims and the high rates of violence experienced by women and men suggests a need for treatment and intervention strategies for victims of both sexes.

In other words, the roughly half of all DV victims who are men have nowhere to turn for help, and they need it.

Section Two: Rates of Male and Female Perpetration. The authors studying data in this area analyzed 111 separate data sets comprising about 250,000 subjects. They found that about 25% of those subjects reported perpetrating physical violence against a current partner or one in their last relationship. That represented 28.3% of women and 21.6% of men who perpetrated violence against an intimate partner. Subjects came from across the industrialized, English-speaking world.

The authors note that “gendered explanations of IPV do not adequately account for our findings.” Of course the DV establishment will hasten to say that rates of perpetration of domestic violence don’t deal with the severity of violence, only the incidence.

True, but the authors anticipate that argument.

[F]indings should be used to support the development and implementation of interventions that acknowledge the use of violence by women in intimate relationships but also recognized how participants’ treatment needs may differ.

That is, difference in the severity of domestic violence should no longer be used by the DV establishment as an excuse to deny services to male victims or female perpetrators. Those interventions should be tailored to the needs of those victims and perpetrators.

Section Three: Rates of Bi-Directional and Uni-Directional IPV. In this area, 50 separate studies that recorded rates of bi-directional versus uni-directional violence were analyzed. Researchers found that, in the largest samples studied, among couples reporting domestic violence, 57.9% reported reciprocal or bi-directional violence with the remainder, 42.1% reporting uni-directional violence. In the uni-directional group, women were over twice as likely (28.3%) to perpetrate violence as were men (13.8%).

Smaller samples revealed similar rates of bi-directional violence but community surveys showed 22.9% of women versus 17.5% of men perpetrating uni-directional violence. Among subjects in high school and college, 31.9% of women perpetrated uni-directional violence versus 16.2% of men.

Only in the sample of U.S. military personnel and “at-risk” males did men’s (43.4%) uni-directional violence rates outstrip those of women (17.3%).

The researchers make clear that, in all samples, the salient feature is the prevalence of bi-directional IPV. That means that, if a doctor, hospital or any other reporter finds evidence of domestic violence victimization, the chance of DV perpetration by the same person is good. Rates of bi-directional IPV among gay men and lesbian women didn’t differ significantly from those of heterosexual couples.

Likewise, rates of bi-directional DV were almost identical for white and Hispanic couples, i.e. about 50% for each. African-American couples on the other hand reported a rate of about 62% bi-directional IPV. The ratio of female-on-male/male-on-female uni-directional IPV was 2.27 for African-Americans, 2.26 for whites and 1.34 for Hispanic couples.

I’ll write more about this valuable body of work at a later time.

The National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

The National Parents Organization is a non-profit organization that is educating the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents and extended families. If you would like to get involved in our organization, you can do so several ways. First, we would love to have you as an official member of the National Parents Organization team. Second, the National Parents Organization is an organization that believes in the importance of using social media as a means to spread the word about shared parenting and other topics, and you can visit us on our Facebook Page to learn more about our efforts. Last, we hope you will share this article with other families using the many social networking sites so that we can bring about greater awareness of shared parenting. Thank you for your support.

Australian Human Rights Commission

Posted on May 20, 2014 by Kids First – Children’s Rights Activists (CRA)

As you may be well aware of the antisocial discrimination against males that has arisen, I need to bring a complaint of very wrongful belief of women and the Australian Human Rights Commission, that children belong to women.

I must make complaint to you as Australian Human Rights Commission.

Males are violated and abused nearly as much as females, discriminated against more, females violate and abuse children more than males do, equates to most DV is perpetrated by women.

Inquiry into the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011

5. The Commission commends the actions that the Australian Government is taking to combat family violence and child abuse, including the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and “their” Children 2010-2022 and the development of a national scheme for recognition of domestic violence orders across Australian jurisdictions. These initiatives evidence the ongoing commitment of the Australian government to this area.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/inquiry-family-law-legislation-amendment-family-violence-and-other-measures-bill-2011

Australia Concise Oxford dictionary Fifth Edition; P1496 “their” … belonging to them or themselves.

This is in breach of Article 4 and unlawful as it enslaves children to women …

This is a serious repeated indictment of antisocial discrimination by AHRC ‘women and their children their property’ enslaving victimizing children.

Enslavers on breach of Article 4 of the UDHR states that ‘No one shall be held in slavery or servitude: slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms’.

Slavery was the first human rights issue to arouse wide international concern yet it still continues today. Slavery like practices remains a grave and persistent problem today.

The mandate on contemporary forms of slavery includes but is not limited to issues such as: debt bondage, serfdom, forced labour, child slavery, sexual slavery, forced or early marriages and the sale of wives. As a legally permitted labour system, traditional slavery has been abolished everywhere, but it has not been completely stamped out.

There are still reports of slave markets. Even when abolished, slavery leaves traces. It can persist as a state of mind- among victims and their descendants and among the inheritors of those who practised it –long after it has formally ended.

Slavery-like practices are often clandestine. This makes it difficult to have a clear picture of the scale of the contemporary slavery, let alone to uncover, punish or eliminate it.

The majority of those who suffer are the poorest, most vulnerable and marginalised social groups in society. Fear, ignorance of one’s rights and the need to survive do not encourage them to speak out.

In order to effectively eradicate slavery in all its forms, the root causes of slavery such as poverty, social exclusion and all forms of discrimination must be addressed. In addition, we need to promote and protect the rights of all especially the most vulnerable in our society. Where human rights violations have already been committed, we are called upon to help restore the dignity of victims. http://www.ohchr.org/…/srslavery/pages/srslaveryindex.aspx

I wait your compliance common law, humans and children’s right treaties .

Steven C Wickenden

Fathers Australia, formally Fathers Union of Australia, formally fathers Australia. http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/

 

There is another Parliamentary Inquiry. This one is on domestic violence in Australia.

Hi to Everyone.
There is another Parliamentary Inquiry. This one is on domestic violence in Australia.
The following details may be possibly of interest to you.
The closing date for submissions is 31 July 2014.
I have also attached a copy of our submission to the Inquiry.
Regards
John.

John Flanagan,

Deputy Registered Officer,

Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting),

PO Box 57,

THIRROUL.. NSW. 2515.

Mobile 0415 899 574.

Email: noncustod@yahoo.com.au

17 July 2014.

 

 

Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee, PO Box 6100, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600.

Phone: +61 2 6277 3439 Fax: +61 2 6277 5809 fpa.sen@aph.gov.au

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Parliamentary Inquiry into the Domestic Violence.

 

We thank the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee for allowing us to present our submission to the Inquiry into Domestic Violence.

 

We note that the Committee’s terms of reference refers to “the prevalence and impact of domestic violence as it affects all Australians”. (underlining added).

 

The terms of reference then refers to “women” in four locations and “children” in one location. It does not specifically refer to “men” at all.

 

Our submission relates to all men, women and children.

 

We abhor genuine cases of domestic violence. This is, in relation to all men, women and children.

 

Family Violence

 

Domestic violence is about power and control. There are many ways this control can be expressed. Domestic violence can also happen in many forms, including physical, emotional, economic and psychological violence. One form of psychological violence is withholding access to children.

 

Family violence is simply a form of domestic violence.

 

An easily-made family violence allegation will give one parent, normally the mother, a significant advantage. This is both in terms of custody and also financial benefits.

 

There is a direct and significant link between an application for a family violence order* (AVO, protection order, restraining order or intervention order – please see below for more details) and the contact and residence arrangements later made for children of separated families.

 

Sole custody then brings with it significant financial gains. These financial gains include

increased social security payments, child support payments and property settlements.

 

Procedure to Obtain Sole Custody of Children and to Cause Psychological Violence.

 

The procedure to obtain sole custody of the children and to cause psychological violence is as follows:-

 

1. An application for a family violence order* is made in the local court in NSW (or in the magistrates court in the other states and territories) or at the local police station.

 

2. The police with their limited resources will usually not investigate the allegations. As a result, the allegations will usually remain unproved during later court proceedings.

 

3. When the matter comes to court, the police prosecutor will then pressure the alleged offender to accept a family violence order “without admission”. This is a trap.

 

4. Once an order for a family violence order has been made, the initiating parent will then make an application for residence and contact orders in the Family Court/Federal Circuit Court.

 

5. Under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975, any issues of violence will be sufficient reason to restrict or, in some cases, prevent all contact by the Family Court/Federal Circuit Court.

 

6. This establishes effective sole custody of the children for the custodial parent. This then goes “hand in hand” with increased child support payments and larger property settlement payouts.

 

Conclusion

 

As stated above, we abhor incidents of genuine domestic violence. The perpetrators of

these incidents, once proven to be guilty, should be strongly dealt with by the due process of law.

 

However the temptation to misuse a family violence order is very often too great for some parents.

 

We believe that children from separated families should have the right of contact with both parents.

 

Our legislators are doing nothing about this problem – that is with regard to the implementation of a rebuttable presumption of equal time shared parenting into the Family Law legislation.

 

Therefore, the real reasons for domestic violence are often disguised behind more significant problems in our overall system.

 

 

Our Recommendations are:

 

  1. Implement the rebuttable presumption of equal time shared parenting into the Family Law legislation.
  2. Initiate a series of strategies around data collection & awareness of men and women experiencing domestic violence.
  3. Include in any hospital data collection, to include fathers or husbands, who are abused or have attempted suicide.
  4. Have the Police Intervention Team collect similar data within the suicide and self-harm programmes.
  5. Arrange for the state health departments to have fathers being asked about domestic violence – similar to women.
  6. Have the Family Court/Federal Circuit Court and the Child Support Programme (formerly known as the Child Support Agency) recognise, as psychological violence, withholding access to children.     Deputy Registered Officer,http://www.equalparenting.org.au
  7. *  Family violence orders have different names in different states and territories.       These names are as follows:-
  8. Non-Custodial Parents Party.
  9. John Flanagan,
  10. Yours faithfully,
  • Queensland – Protection orders
  • New South Wales – Apprehended violence orders
  • Victoria – Intervention orders
  • Australian Capital Territory – Protection orders
  • Northern Territory – Domestic violence orders
  • South Australia – Intervention orders
  • Western Australia – Violence restraining orders
  • Tasmania – Family violence orders

Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project the Gold Standard of Domestic Violence Information

Your experience with an Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL): Survey

independent-childrens-lawyer

Independent Children’s Lawyers (ICLs) are assigned by the Courts to specifically and solely represent the best interests and rights of the children in the midst of a child custody or child contact dispute.

This may be the logic, however a lot of questions have been raised as to the quality of representation, the effectiveness of that representation, and knowledge and skill of the legal practitioners assigned, and the independence of these legal practitioners from ideologies that may compromise their effectiveness.

These concerns have been so significant the Australian government has recently assigned the Australian Institute of Family Studies to research into how ICLs could be better and more effectively utilised within the Court process.

Here we survey parents who have gone through the child custody dispute process and were assigned an ICL, to rate their experience.

What has been your experience with Independent Children’s Lawyer?

FAMILY COURT JURIES

 

The Voice of The Australian Constitution – Supporting Documents

A “Court” is a “place where Justice is administered”. “Justice” is “the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs”. The Right to Trial by Jury belongs to everyone. It is inalienable, ie: it can neither be taken away nor given away. In any action in any Court, there must be the clear and unequivocal consent by both parties to be without a Jury – otherwise, the Court has no Jurisdiction to proceed summarily (which means “without a Jury”). Should a Court try to proceed without such consent, the Jurisdiction of the Court must be Challenged – whereupon only a Special Jury will decide whether Australians have the Right to Trial by Jury.

 

The Family Court, as it is presently constituted, is not a “Court” because the Right to Trial by Jury is being unlawfully denied. The Family Court is a “Den of Inequity” that exacerbates wrong and injury….. “in the place of Justice wickedness is there”.

 

It is the Democratic Right of every Australian to be able to access Trial by Jury for redress and remedy. If both parties to an action do not want to have a Jury Trial, then both must sign a Memorandum of Consent to that fact, and a Judge can hear, try and determine the case.

 

Also presently, the Family Court (by way of Judges) administers Statute Law which are merely Acts of Parliament and often the product of vested interest groups within the Parliament or the result of pressure being exerted by militant or mischievous groups upon the Parliament. Under the Australian Constitution, there are 3 Arms of Government, ie: the Executive; the Parliament; and the Judicature. Australian Judges are part of the Executive Arm of Government because they are appointed by the Crown of the United Kingdom, ie: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second. [This is a matter for resolution at another time].

 

“Judicature” means “the administration of Justice”, and the 19th century framers of the Australian Constitution knew what they were doing by using that word. They knew that the Judiciary, or “body of Judges”, is of the Executive Arm of Government and the presence of Judges in a Court is to ensure that the Judgments of Juries are carried out by employing the facilities under and at the disposal of the Executive, such as the Sheriff, the Departments of Police, Correction, etc..

 

Section 118 of the Australian Constitution guarantees that all Australians should enjoy all the Rights and Privileges as set out in the “Charters of Liberty”, ie: Magna Carta 1215; Petition of Right 1627; Habeas Corpus 1640; Bill of Rights 1688; etc., which became entrenched Constitutional Enactments in Australia in 1828, because of the likes of men such as William Charles Wentworth and others who transformed Australia from a Penal Colony under a military Governor into a country where Englishmen could be as free as if they were in England.

 

Fathers committing suicide as a result of Family Court Injustice is a senseless tragedy. Kids in Distress as a result of Family Court Injustice is an offence against the nation … all for the lack of knowledge ……. knowledge as to what is the Rule of Law.

 

It is the paramount duty and responsibility of a Jury to not only determine what are the facts but what is the law, to judge the justice of the law, to decide if the law is appropriately being applied, to judge the moral intentions of the parties, and to vote for a judgment entirely according to their conscience. This was known to our forefathers – but we have not been taught this Truth. Now, because of the arrival of the Internet, we can discover what has been withheld from us.

 

One party to a Family Court action may well decide that the existing Statutes are to their advantage – while the other party must believe that the Statutes are unfair. The Statutes are Acts of Parliament given Royal assent by the Executive. Judges are of the Executive to “well and truly serve” the Executive. However, “Law and Justice are not synonymous because a Law can be unjust” is a Legal Maxim.

 

Meet the ‘latte pappas’: The Swedish men who stay home to look after the children

This Story sent to us Thanks to Hans Ekblad

Sweden is the land of the stay at home dad and if you walk the streets of Stockholm you are bound to spot them. The Feed speaks with one Aussie dad who says he has it so good in Sweden he wouldn’t live back home.

They’re known as the latte pappas – the thousands of Swedish men who each year take substaintial leave to help with the rearing of their children while mums return to work.

Andrew Gillard is an Australian father who is living in Sweden with his wife Sara and their three children.

Andrew and Sara’s first two children were born in Australia with the third born in Sweden.

Sweden has some of the most progressive social policies in the world and since the 1970s the Swedish government has made it possible for both parents to take time off with pay to raise their kids.

“Here in Sweden the parental leave is a right, it’s a law,” says Andrew. “It’s basically the parents who decide who’s going to be the one to stay at home.”

“You do get a lot of dad’s who are basically pushing prams around.”

null

Swedish parents receive a generous 480 days paid leave per child that’s around 68 weeks paid at 80 per cent replacement wage.

The leave is shared between the parents and fathers must take at least two months.

This means every dad – from top CEOs to janitors – take substantial time off to share parenting responsibilities.

Andrew says it’s not uncommon to see a lot of young fathers looking after their children in a local cafe.

“You probably wouldn’t see the same thing happening in Australia,” says Andrew. “You’ve got four or five guys all around 30 years old pushing a pram, going into a cafe, and having a latte.”

“It’d probably look quite strange if you were doing that in suburban Melbourne for example.”

null

Sweden’s policy has been in place since the 70s and the impact is significant – about 80 per cent of Swedish mothers work, compared to just over 60 per cent in Australia.Abbott’s proposed Paid Parental Leave will give mothers 26 weeks paid leave at full salary capped at $100,000 dollars.

It allows for just 2 weeks out of the 26 to be taken by the father at his full replacement wage up to $150,000.

Damien Arnup is a stay-at-home dad in Australia who decided to be a full-time parent because his wife has the ability to earn more.

He says paid parental leave is really important for new parents who need to spend time with their children.

“Speaking to some people and their like ‘oh it’s daddy day today’ and I’m like it’s daddy day seven days a week,” says Damien. “Being able to have that time with your family and with your children is absolutely crucial.”

“The Swedish system… would benefit families here in Australia because everyone’s situation is different.”

“It’s a very short part of your life and… if you don’t get to be involved you’re really missing out.”

And while Sweden does pay high rates of tax – Andrew and Sara say it all helps to cover schemes that will benefit the children.

“I suppose people do take advantage of it, but then it’s there to be taken advantage of,” says Andrew. “At the end result the winner is the child.”

Join the conversation by following The Feed on Facebook and Twitter.

Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs

Parliament of Australia

House of Representatives

Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs

Thursday, July 03, 2014

Dear Members,

50/50 shared care is the civilised standard.

I write to you with deep sincerity and concern, at as to the health and wellbeing of children in these circumstances.

  • linkages between Family Court decisions and Child Support’s policies and processes; and
  • how the scheme could provide better outcomes for high conflict families.

“Family Court decisions” Oppression and Tyranny

From my 4 year experience with the Australian Family court judiciaries and associated bureaucracies, there is absolutely no rule of law or accountability, only an absolute maniacal sociopathic narcisstic lust for power and money.

I am witness to cronyism, corruption, abuse, misconduct and misbehaviour from Brisbane family court judges oldest and newest, reputably the most corrupt judiciary in Australia.

Corrupt ICL lawyers, family report writers, pseudo experts and practitioners, this is a dysfunctional criminally corrupt secret industry kept a corrupt secret with 121 FLA, ICL Child Lawyer and consultant’s purger to obstruct pervert and defeat justice.

In secret courts with NO juries, Our Children, our families, our culture, our future under attack from within, organised crime, graft, profiting from crime and judicial corruption ambush psychological war against Australian Children and Families, with destructive and lethal consequences’.

If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington (22 February1732 – 14 December1799)

It is an antisocial psyche war on children and families aimed at defeating justice for power and profit, thousands of Australian families are victimised, trapped every year.

Until there is true public accountability of judiciaries, bureaucracies and associate you are ‘pissing against the wind’

WE MUST CHANGE THIS FOR OUR CHILDREN AND NATIONAL BEST INTEREST, ONLY PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY WORKS, DEMOCRACY AND JURIES.

50/50 shared care is the civilised standard.

If for no good reason one parent works against 50/50 it could be said they are being dysfunctional, antisocial and should be assessed for personality disorder APD NPD.

Stop graft, exploitation and abuse in the child trafficking industry.

  1. Repeal rescind revoke and annul 121. Family Law Act (FLA) their iron curtain secret gag law stopping communication with the Australian public, covering corruption exploitation and abuse.
  2. Open the court objective truth, juries on appeals, not subjective bigoted parasitic judiciaries.
  3. Abolish legal aid. Stop funding corrupt illicit sex discrimination. Legal Aid should be nothing more than a self help webpage, not slush funds for politically violent corrupt law firms.
  4. Hold public employees to account, to the public, by the public, for the public.

Sincerely

Fathers Australia formally Fathers Union of Australia.

http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/

The Committee will inquire and report on the following:

  • methods used by Child Support to collect payments in arrears and manage overpayments;
  • whether the child support system is flexible enough to accommodate the changing circumstances of families;
  • the alignment of the child support and family assistance frameworks;
  • linkages between Family Court decisions and Child Support’s policies and processes; and
  • how the scheme could provide better outcomes for high conflict families.

As part of this inquiry, the Committee has a particular interest in:

  • assessing the methodology for calculating payments and the adequacy of current compliance and enforcement powers for the management of child support payments;
  • the effectiveness of mediation and counselling arrangements as part of family assistance frameworks; and
  • ensuring that children in high conflict families are best provided for under the child support scheme.

In carrying out this review, the Committee should assess whether any problems experienced by payers or payees of child support impact on the majority of parents and other carers involved in the system, or a minority, and make recommendations accordingly (e.g. there may be a case for specialised processes and supports for some parents meeting certain criteria).

Committee, SPLAChildSupport (REPS)

Thank you for your submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Child Support Program. The Committee has considered your submission,and hasdecided to publish it online.

All accepted submissions to Parliamentary inquiries have the protection of parliamentary privilege. Publication of your submission includes it being loaded onto the internet (with your signature and/or contact details removed) and being available to other interested parties including the media.

Your name may have been withheld from the published version of your submission either at your request or at the discretion of the Committee. If you would like to know what number your submission is, please contact the Secretariat.

If your contribution contains confidential material and you have concerns about it being published, please email the secretariat as soon as possible at childsupport.reps@aph.gov.au.

Individuals are also encouraged to complete the questionnaire. All responses to the questionnaire will be provided directly to the Committee.

If you have any questions regarding your submission or the inquiry, please contact the Committee Secretariat.

Parliamentary inquiry into the Child Support Program

(02) 6277 2223 | www.aph.gov.au/ChildSupport | PO Box 6021 Parliament House ACT 2600

Parliament of Australia House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Dear Members, As I have had nil response from my previous email.

I must insist that the committee publish my submission on indictment have been implied by the High Court from these parts of the Constitution. It is established that the Constitution protects ‘freedom of political communication’ or, in other words, the right of Australians to communicate freely with each other and with their elected representatives about political and public affairs.

The Parliament and government are linked in the relationship known as ‘responsible government’, which was described earlier. For this reason, we consider them together. These are powerful institutions, which control the law-making process.

Potentially, they protect rights in two ways: positively, by passing laws to protect rights that are not currently protected and negatively, by restraining themselves from making laws to infringe rights that are recognized by the common law or international law.

  •    CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 28 Interfering with political liberty Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

A person is incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Member if he or she has been convicted of bribery, undue influence or interference with political liberty, or has been found by the Court of Disputed Returns to have committed or attempted to commit bribery or undue influence when a candidate, disqualification being for two years from the date of the conviction or finding.

I wait your compliance.

Steven C Wickenden

Fathers Australia, formally Fathers Union of Australia, formally fathers Australia.

http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp

Committee, SPLAChildSupport (REPS)

Dear Mr Wickenden,

Your submission has been published online. It is submission n.90, and is available at this page: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Child_Support_Program/Submissions

Regards,

Thomas

Inquiry Secretary

Parliamentary inquiry into the Child Support Program

(02) 6277 2223 | www.aph.gov.au/ChildSupport | PO Box 6021 Parliament House ACT 2600

 

Tomorrows Town Hall sydney Lukesarmy protest 1pm 06 07 2014

Save Medicare Campaign Sydney's photo.

Just getting ready for tomorrows town hall protest. Lukesarmy and the Abused children will also be represented Too!. Help is Needed in handing Flyers, & talking to the Public . Just look for the yellow & purple ABUSED Children Flag .

The office of AC/DC Foundation. will have A table & a P.A. and much more sett up tomorrow. YOUR HELP is NEEDED for the Voiceless Children, handing out flyers & talking to the Public,PLease HELP ???.

Parliamentary Inquiry into the Child Support Program

The deadline to make submissions to the Parliamentary Child Support Inquiry has now been extended to Friday 4 July 2014.
If it helps, our understanding is that this inquiry will be about whether the existing system should be changed. We believe that the following six (6) changes should be made. These issues are listed below.
1. Child support should be based on net income and not gross income.
2. Overtime should be excluded from child support.
3. There should be a fairer cap on the maximum income to determine child support payments.
4. The payer should not be penalised if the payee chooses not to work. This is when the payee has the ability to do so.
5. Court-ordered custody arrangements should determine child support payments – not claims by the payee.
6. As a general comment, the child support system should be fairer
Your support (if you have not already done so) is encouraged by snding in your submission by 4 July 2014.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Child_Support_Program
Public Hearings.
Note – anyone can attend a public hearing and also give a three (3) minute talk to the Committee. This is during the Community Sessions. We would suggest that you take this important opportunity.
Future Public Hearing Dates (already held in Canberra (26 June 2014) and Sydney (27 June 2014)).
17 Jul 2014 – Canberra (2), ACT.
18 Jul 2014 – Melbourne, VIC.
21 Jul 2014 – Newcastle, NSW.
22 Jul 2014 – Queensland, QLD.
23 Jul 2014 – Mackay, QLD.
04 Aug 2014 – Adelaide, SA
05 Aug 2014 – Perth, WA.
06 Aug 2014 – Karratha, WA.
TBA – Ballarat, VIC.
TBA – Hobart, TAS.
Regards
John Flanagan
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)