return to menu


A Certain Canine Incident

Plagiarism in the Federal Magistrate Service

Table of Contents

Table of Contents	
1.	The Door Opens	
1.1.	The Justinian article	
1.2.	The wood and not the trees
2.	On the Surface	
2.1.	Where to start?	
3.	A Bit Deeper	
3.1.	COAT [Part 6A] - The Creation	
4.	Deeper Still	
4.1.	Gyselman Step 2 - Throwing the Formula Overboard	
5.	Getting to the Bone	
5.1.	BSU vs Deem & Destroy	
5.2.	What is a BSU Method?	
5.3.	Conflict with Deem & Destroy	
6.	More MeatyBites	
6.1.	Alter Ego	
6.2.	Intellectually Dishonest	
6.3.	Capitalised "Child Support"	
7.	Closing Thoughts	
7.1.	So Watcha Gonna Do About it Doc?	
7.2.	What about Rimmer FM	
7.3.	So What are YOU, my old things, Gonna Do About it?	
7.4.	Final Words by Sir Gerald Brennan	


Credits:  Just so I don't fall into the trap myself of plagiarism, the terms Lawrence of Amnesia, cookie 
cutter and The Lake Burley Griffin Boathouse are the intellectual property of another eco warrior who 
for privacy reasons I will just call 66.

Disclaimers:  No real live canines were harmed in the making of this polemic

Definitions & Explanations:

Polemic - A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine. 

Hairy Legged Lesbian case - An unreported and unpublished case where a hairy legged lesbian claimed 
discrimination because a Used Car Salesman said "I don't allow any hairy legged lesbians in my Yard".  
It was held in dismissing the case, with costs, that the HLL had deposed to being a lesbian and, on 
inspection, had [fat] hairy legs, hence there could be no discrimination.

 
1.	The Door Opens

1.1.	The Justinian article

1.1.1.	In words that Walters FM [via his own mouthpiece of Reithmuller FM] might describe as "a 
florid, almost incomprehensible polemic" [see WGB & CEM [2004] FMCAfam 17, para 130], the 
Justinian [apparently a type of Judge & Co BLOG] talked to the following:
A federal magistrate in Brisbane copies slabs of reasons from a judgment written by a colleague 
in Melbourne. Is it synchronicity or plagiarism? The federal magistrates have been overworked 
and are tired, sick, bothered & bewildered. Miss Ginger Snatch investigates 
Federal magistrate Jennifer Rimmer, based in Brisbane, is an admirer of the craftsmanship of 
Federal Magistrate John Walters, based in Melbourne. 
So much so that in her reasons for judgment in Frith v The Exchange Hotel she carefully copied 
out at least 25 paragraphs from an earlier judgment by Walters in Hughes v Car Buyers Pty Ltd. 
Both cases concern workplace sexual harassment but Rimmer has taken this common thread a 
step or 25 further. The plagiarised paragraphs are lifted holus bolus from Walters’ judgment, 
with just the names of the parties thoughtfully changed. 
And concludes as:
We know that when Chief Federal Magistrate John Pascoe (seen here) was running the bread 
maker George Weston Foods there was some funny price fixing business, and now here he is 
presiding over the cartelisation of judgments.

1.1.2.	Well in my submission, more than you could imagine Miss Ginger Snatch, more than you 
could imagine.  The really scary thing here is that now I read the Rimmer/Walters cases, firstly the 
copy paste was limited to what I refer to in the next Part as totally excusable albeit unnecessary "on the 
surface" stuff, ie waffle or padding of guidelines to the legislation itself and secondly that even in that 
part Rimmer FM injects the facts of her own matter. In contrast even these guidelines parts in the child 
support templates [see the rest of this polemic] are absolutely word for word for up to 4 pages.

1.1.3.	It is naive in the extreme in my submission to suggest Walters FM "owns" that judgment, as a 
search on AustLII reveals the great majority of some 50 such sex discrimination cases are by Driver 
FM and Raphael FM [the former Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle].  Further, in Frith Rimmer FM not only 
dismisses the secondary application for aggravated damages but adds an order for loss of wages 
[$5,000] and makes no order for costs.  Given that even the general damages at the Walters 
"intellectually honest" scale was $11,250 and Rimmer's [non specified] scale was $10,000 it is very 
hard to see what all the fuss is about, especially when one sees the wholesale template system 
herebelow in child support.

1.1.4.	As a great fan of the famous "Hairy Legged Lesbian" case I am a little bit sceptical of the 
jurisdiction here as it is totally airy fairy, arty tarty and namby pamby, being explained by Helen Garner 
in her book The First Stone.  The book explains the war between old and new feminism where [her] 
old type [not to be confused with the Greer type, now turned to pedophilia] was purely after equality of 
wages etc whereas she sees the new wave, as exemplified by the sexual harassment "case" against a 
college Master as a pure gold-digging exploit.  Helen explains it as:
"It's not a dialogue, it's a fucking war"
and quotes one of her old school feminists per:
"If you don't take certain positions these days you're 'not a feminist'.  Dear God if I know 
anything I know there are ten thousand ways to be a feminist"

1.1.5.	Helen explains, from memory, that Howard got rid of the Equal Rights Commission [in 
favour of Pru's Place I guess] and my memory says the bloke winning the Hairy Legged Lesbian case 
[also about a Used Car Saleyard] was probably the catalyst for that "never happening again".

1.1.6.	Also Rimmer FM stops way short of spicing her case up by the sort of thing in the Walters 
case eg:
j) On 9 October 2003, Ms Hughes lost her voice. One of her tasks was to telephone potential 
customers and, as she was unable to perform this task, it was arranged that she could leave work 
early. As she was leaving, Mr Wright "pulled her in for a rough hug and said: `Stop giving 
blokes blow jobs!'". Ms Hughes pushed him away. She left the office "feeling dirty". 

1.1.7.	Then we see that Rimmer FM has taken an entirely different view in Ryan v Albutt, where at 
the costs application case which followed the substantive matter [where she dismissed the case] she 
said:
4. This matter, as my reasons disclose, was a matter which rested entirely on the credibility of 
the parties and as I set out in paragraph 66 of my earlier reasons delivered on 12 October 2004
"As in many cases in this area of jurisdiction it is the interpretation of the facts rather than 
the facts themselves that are mainly in dispute. In this matter the applicant's claim depends 
upon whether I accept the applicant's version of events or the respondent's. There is very 
little evidence to corroborate either of the parties. The applicant bears the onus of proof to 
establish her case. It is not for the respondent to have to disprove it. The applicant must 
establish her case on the balance of probabilities."
5. Clearly the critical issue in the case was one of credibility and it was determined that the 
applicant did not establish her case. 

1.1.8.	But here is a bonus picture of the alter ego in the Rimmer case, available from 
fnqpanoramas.com.  All sales go to assisting my learned research and ensuing polemics, and general 
dog catching volunteer work.

 
1.1.9. I would find it extremely difficult to conclude that the Exchange Hotel [in the embodiment of its alter ego] did not get a fair hearing. The real [preliminary] issue here is if two separate cases have the same guidelines quoted, and perhaps similar outcomes then is there any difference if that was done by two judges or the same judge? To look from the other end of the pineapple [that lovely McHugh J phrase] one might well conclude that in the two cases being beat up here there was "good consistency of justice" or synchronicity as Ginger Snatch suggests, albeit tongue in cheek [no pun intended]. 1.1.10. In any case, as I say, the jurisdiction here is totally airy fairy, arty tarty and namby pamby so is open to all manner of innovative submission. If I was helping the Hughes bloke I would immediately file and serve based upon a submission that a race, distinguished as hotel owners was getting blow jobs while his race, distinguished as used car salesmen was not [or maybe vice versa]. Clearly, by proper submission, that is both sexual and racial discrimination and I would be seeking a John "ANZAC" Marsden 7 million based on pain and suffering. Litigation is simply what you make it to be, as ANZAC found out. 1.1.11. But that is not what I am talking about with this child support template issue - it is far far worse. The rantings [rantings are different to polemics] of the Justinian and Mail, unfounded as they therefore are if you actually read these two cases [and the 50 others] however potentially open the door for the sleeping mushrooms of OzLand to wake up. However my bet is that political correctness is so entrenched under Rodent Rule that the mushrooms will simply say "too hard" and go back to their dark corners and have another feed of bullshit. Now read on [ie non Mushroomians]. 1.2. The wood and not the trees 1.2.1. Students of the Child Support Scheme [herein CSScheme] will know that far worse things have been going on since 1992 within the CSA itself and since the departure of Di Bryant as CFM, in the FMS, and the paw marks that act as the duct tape to weld it all together is a character with many hats called Grant T Reithmuller [Rottweiler to his CSA victims, dead and some alive still, or Garden Gnome at the Townsville Bar, but herein GTR]. 1.2.2. It may well be that the Rodent plan to appoint Pascoe as a person "under a cloud" was a similar plan to the appointment of the failed GG Peter HolierThanThough, who had to be thrown overboard because his Australian Story was bad news [except for pedophiles], but a plan that has so far worked for Howard with "the CSA compensation problem". However this article purely seeks to make J Doe aware of what is going down here and, as for the Exchange Hotel case, allow the CSA victims to seek relief, if appropriate, once they see what branches "might go floating by" [Crawford & Crawford 1979] once the trees are given a bit of the Cyclone Larry treatment. 1.2.3. In this way I may, for convenience, make some "provisional" assumptions that certain persons [mainly GTR] were behind certain events based on probability, but the important point for those using this "polemic" is that the matters did happen rather than who caused them to happen. As an example I would say there is high probability that the term "provisional income" which the CSA simply "added to the legislation" via The Guide have the paw marks of GTR, but the only thing that matters to your relief is that such things are illegal. 1.2.4. However if I slip my Michael Moore cap on for a moment, the cloud Pascoe is under is a cloud of flour and flour comes from wheat and wheat comes from The AWB and ...... And this conforms with my own conclusions as to why the Rodent has hung on for 10 years while actually doing nothing, ie he has surrounded himself with fire extinguishers placed at strategic positions [eg the Lake Burley Griffin Boatshed] and instructed them to continually pour foam on any smoking guns. OK one of them [the short lived GG] had a bad service record and self ignited [imploded?] but Rodent was well clear of the shrapnel. Plus his other bit of genius of "never turn on the fans" [ie maintain political correctness to a higher level than Hitler did in WW2] ensuring that even if "sh***** happens" it stops at the fan and does not splatter. 1.2.5. But even though I am trying to remove myself from making conclusions, but rather just presenting the facts, I am a bit like that old Detective Colombo bloke who retains so many seemingly unrelated bits of "nothing" in his head but keeps asking questions until they all come together with the smoking gun. And a lot of you readers may suffer from Lawrence of Amnesia just like so many folk who "hang around courts" tend to do, like Murray, Alan, Carmen, and now the Packer kiddie, and some of you may even be taking memory retention classes like Carmen did in her Easton gig in the West. 1.2.6. Well I really feel it would be recalcitrant of me with such a brute of a memory to not mention that the Rodent has in fact been picking fire extinguishers with clouds over them since day one when he picked Gleeson with his Yeldham cloud for top job at the Boathouse over possibly our best ever legal mind in Kirby J to replace Mason CJ. Then there was Callinan with his White Industries cloud also heading for the boatshed, and I have mentioned the failed GG with his own little cloud. It is almost as if Rodent does this to have fire extinguishers that are beholden to him to keep pumping out the foam no matter how high the water rises on the deck of the good ship Tampa. 1.2.7. So it became almost impossible for me to not smell a Rodent when a complete outsider, and one under a cloud, was appointed as CFM of the FMS, and replacing someone who was obviously doing "too good" a job, especially in child support cases. The promotion of the Chief COAT GTR, with his Perryman cloud, to a FM of the FMS a year later simply confirmed that my hunch was correct. 1.2.8. So I will quickly give some background to all this mess called the CSScheme and move back to the child support cases of concern with Rimmer, Walters, and GTR [now FM too]. However I should make it clear up front that I do not share the views of the Justinian or the parroting Courier Mail regarding "plagiarism". It seems to me that would only be the complaint if Walters was aggrieved by the use of his [apparent] original material by Rimmer, and even if he was [as seems from late breaking Courier news] then surely they could just "have a punch up behind the toilet block". 1.2.9. But as you will see it appears the opposite is true and there is a grand scale "template exchange" going on here, same as at the COAT for some 14 years. So in my submission the assault on justice here is the same as in the Nuremberg Cases where Germany's top judge Janning admitted that he had made up his mind in the Feldenstein case [to execute him] before it even started. That is the problem when a court [or even a kangaroo one as is the COAT] uses "cookie cutter" or template judgments, ie it bypasses the whole basis of jurisprudence which says each case must be judged on its own facts/merits. 1.2.10. One of the greatest High Court judges Sir Harry Gibbs explained this in TAYLOR v. TAYLOR [1979] HCA 38; (1979) 143 CLR 1 (22 August 1979) when he referred to the Cameron & Cole case regarding "inherent jurisdiction for a court to set aside its own orders" saying: "If this principle be not observed, the person affected is entitled, ex debito justitiae, to have any determination which affects him set aside; and a court which finds that it has been led to purport to determine a matter in which there has been a failure to observe the principle has inherent jurisdiction to set its determination aside . . . In such a case there has been no valid trial at all. The setting aside of the invalid determination lays the ghost of the simulacrum of a trial, and leaves the field open for a real trial . . ." 1.2.11. So that is the issue here, ie to lay the ghost of the simulacrum of a trial because, to use that other maxim, justice must not only be done but be seen to have been done. Don't you just love those words "lay the ghost of the simulacrum of a trial". What a total contrast we have between those wise and fair judges of yesteryear and those with snout in the pig trough today. 1.2.12. So while I will not be twisting your arm to form any conclusions I will just venture that you will be hard pressed not to conclude that there is a horrible master plan, commenced in 1992 with the advisory Part 6A being morphed into a "COAT" by a plan that has been so wildly successful [albeit illegal] that the government is now converting the FMS into a Claytons COAT, and the common thread from 1992 is GTR. Now read on. 2. On the Surface 2.1. Where to start? 2.1.1. I will start as did the Justinians by simply detailing some of the obvious copy/paste, but in Child Support judgments. But the problem is knowing where to start in this matrix so maybe because a player can only enter a ruck from behind [and the new boss of Oz Rugby is a lawyer] I will start with WGB & CEM [2004] FMCAfam 17, before Walters FM. However because Mr W had been "docketed" to Bryant CFM herself, apart from her promotion to FCA, he would have been before Bryant CFM again. So maybe we might start with proper justice as in W & C [2002] FMCA fam 166 2.1.2. W & C was the start of Mr W's path to victory [until he used lawyers] where I provided Mr W with one of my famous learned submissions, and after Slater & Gordon for the wife failed to make any case at all, Bryant CFM simply "lifted" my submission to her judgment, per 12. Having regard to the definition it is clear that for the agreement to be a court-registered maintenance agreement it must have been registered in a court under the Family Law Act 1975 or registered in a state or territory court. 13. The father asserts, and it is conceded by the Mother, that the agreement was not registered in a state or territory court, nor in a court under the Family Law Act 1975. That being the case it is clear that the registrar of the Child Support Agency was not entitled to register the agreement pursuant to section 17 of the Registration and Collection Act and I find that the agreement was invalidly registered. To that extent the first ground relied upon by the father is successful. 2.1.3. When I say lifted I am not criticising Her Honour in any way because in the law there is only one correct path so having had the law stated to her in my written submission, which Mr W handed up to her as a SRL, then her only path was to simply say "that's correct" and repeat it in the Reasons for Judgment so the whole world can then follow that correct path. So what we had here was two professionals [she a lawyer, me an engineer] both using the KISS principle [Keep It Simple Stupid] to simply "dispose of the matter", without grandstanding, without obfuscation, without the pontificating we will see below from Walters FM [via GTR?] et al. 2.1.4. It is also flattering to me that the new Attorney General Mr Ruddock, fresh from the Tampa kiddie chucking competition, saw fit to actually axe the provisions of the FLAct to allow CSA victims to register a CSAgreement in a court [see Amendment Act 138 of 2003, introduced in 2004] . That means that no CSAgreements can be collected by the CSA any more. They still do you say? Well that is a problem of horses and water, and not of the law. The whole clue to how we could have possibly got into such a huge mess in child support is that few blokes drink water. 2.1.5. So to move on to pontificating, not only did Mr W's docket pass on to Walters FM but "on the steps of the court" he shot himself in the foot and not only hired lawyers but gave my next learned submission to the lawyers as we will see. So in WGB & CEM we started to see the template system of Pascoe CFM to replace the KISS of Bryant CFM. After warming up his Word Processor with a list of Authorities [the likes of which never seen before in the FMS] and general blurb, Walters gets to para 36: 36. The Commonwealth’s legislative scheme for assessment and enforcement of child support liabilities is contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act") and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. Certain aspects of this scheme were considered by the High Court in Luton v Lessels (2001) FLC 98-015. In that case, Gaudron and Hayne JJ said (at page 95,659): [.. 33 lines of waffle ..] 37. In the same case, Gleeson CJ said (at page 95,653): The objects of the Assessment Act are set out in section 4. The principal object is to ensure that children receive a proper level of financial support from their parents. To that end, the Act provides for a level of support to be determined in accordance with legislatively fixed standards, and permits carers of children to have the level readily determined without the need to resort to court proceedings. [.. 17 lines of waffle ..] 38. Gaudron and Hayne JJ continued (at page 95,663): [.. 13 lines of waffle ..] 39. The process involved in the consideration of an application for departure from the administrative assessment of child support was explained by the Full Court in Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279 at 79,064- 5, under the heading "Division 4 - Orders for Departure from Administrative Assessment in Special Circumstances". The Full Court said (inter alia): [.. 28 lines of waffle ..] 40. In Hides v. Hatton (1997) FLC 92-759, the Full Court said this (at 84,352): [.. 28 lines of waffle ..] 41. A differently constituted Full Court in Ross and McDermott (1998) 23 Fam.L.R. 613 at 623-4 (paragraph 39) said: [.. 18 lines of waffle ..] 42. The Court must follow the three step process described in Gyselman in respect of each year for which a departure order is sought (see Hides v Hatton (1997) FLC 92-759). 2.1.6. So what we have in this warm up part of the cookie cutter template is 4 solid pages of A Grade waffle, mainly lifted from the High Court case Luton and presented as what the High Court itself termed "guidelines" [see Norbis Mallett 1986]. The High Court in Norbis [or was it Mallett?] was somewhat divided on whether the Full Court of the FCA should seek to "fetter" a trial judge by providing guidelines, but Nicholson CJ was a great fan of doing so, but only for the first case of a particular matter [and I personally agree with that]. Thus we have Gyselman for Div 4 of Part 7 of CSAAct, Ivanovich for Div 5, Patching for s 79A of FLAct, Horsley for s 79 and of course even pre Nicholson we have Mee & Ferguson on Child Maintenance [the case that "sparked" the whole CSScheme, or so they tell us, albeit it was Tingley 1983] 2.1.7. But it is absurd for even a trial judge in the FCA to do guidelines [so they never have] let alone a lowly magistrate, and then time after time as we will see. Now as we shall also see it looks like GTR paw marks are all over this 4 page waffle part of the template and not Walters at all but one must realise both are bigger drama queens than The DNA Kid, Tony Abbott [another fire extinguisher I forgot above]. GTR was selected of course by CSRegistrar Carmody in 1994 to go to Canberra to explain the COAT [before he had invented the COAT term] to the Joint Select Committee and he told Chairman Roger Price MP that he "felt like a magistrate" when he COATed blokes, and then we saw in CK & SML [2004] FMCAfam 119 Walters FM have a stand up biff with Kay J for calling a magistrate a magistrate: 73. In Rayson (2003) FamCA 1384 (unreported) Kay J said: The key findings of the magistrate (sic) which are not really challenged before me, is (sic) that it is difficult to pin the husband down as to what is his real earning capacity. This is so because there are years of operating a business without keeping accurate books of account. There is some minor evidence at least of lifestyle inconsistent with supposed inability to make payments. But at the same time I do not think it is an openly elastic exercise of saying 'well, I am not satisfied where the end is so I can be as generous as I like.' It is true that the court can be less than duly cautious where there is not full and frank disclosure (see Weir 1993 FLC 92-338). There is no finding here by the magistrate (sic) of lack of full and frank disclosure. There is a finding of being less than cooperative or fully cooperative in the process of producing documents but it does not seem to me, given that the material that the magistrate (sic) had and that I have, that takes the matter very far indeed. 74. I have no doubt that Kay J's reference to the Chief Federal Magistrate as "the magistrate" was simply an oversight. After all, the provisions of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 require that the Chief Federal Magistrate and Federal Magistrates be referred to as such. Like Family Court judges, Federal Magistrates are Justices appointed under Chapter III of the Australian Constitution.[7] They are appointed by the Governor General by commission. Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Act (which is expressed to have effect pursuant to s. 9 of the Act) describes how the Chief Federal Magistrate and other Federal Magistrates are to be styled. It follows that judicial officers of this Court are not "magistrates". 2.1.8. So we are dealing with a very precious little man with this "magistrate" Walters FM [or FJ?]. But wait a moment my dear old things [as Blowers would say], in paras 83 to 89 of this judgment too we have word for word the same four page waffle from WGB & CEM, take a look yourselves old things! But wait, there's more [cases that is, not steak knives]. We have QCA & QRJ [2004] FMCAfam 642, another Walters FM case, and AR & AL [2004] FMCAfam 597, another Walters FM case and GCL & GRP [2004] FMCAfam 673 (25 November 2004), another Walters FM case and CRW & CML (No. 1) [2003] FMCAfam 235, another Walters FM case and TGN & TMW [2002] FMCAfam 250 (14 August 2002), another Walters FM case. Every one of these repeats the same 4 pages of on the surface waffle, but as we will see some get far worse, and we haven't even started on the GTR ones. 2.1.9. Now if you are a politically correct old thing or part of the lawyers union you will be in your Stockholm Syndrome bunker and "doing a Pascoe" to say this is all just the folly of an overworked and underloved magistrate who thinks he is a judge, so we should forgive his sins. Given that this Part is "On the Surface" and there are far worse revelations to come, I might tend to just put these matters into the same "media frenzy" category of the Rimmer Hotel case and move on. In the popular parlance of the Blue Heelers from Relationships Australia, little Johnny Walters simply has a combination of later life ADD and Toxic Masculinity, both of which can be cured by 5 sessions at a RA Contact Centre [soon to be re-badged as FRCs] at the special magistrate/judge price of only $45 per hour - a $5 discount. 3. A Bit Deeper 3.1. COAT [Part 6A] - The Creation 3.1.1. As this story fully unfolds [via the evidence] it will become clear that the central issue in this whole CSScheme debacle/fraud is the "creature of it's own creation", the COAT. One of the cases Walters/GTR reference is Gilmour and it was in the transcript of [one of the days of] that case that the longest serving judge of the FCA Bell J said, in total frustration of/at the CSA: "It is a creature of its own creation. It is getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. It is bureaucratically .. it is eating itself". 3.1.2. The courtroom of the Cairns circuit court would have to be the best appointed courtroom vista wise of any in Australia or perhaps the world, and has a brass rail to tie up your horse/dog. The judge and the combatants can take their minds off the drudgery of family law and gaze out over the splendour of Trinity Inlet and the aboriginal settlement at Yarrabah [as a NIMBY] over the mountains and "enter another world". Certainly Nicholson CJ admitted to us that this was his favourite place and so he always put up his hand to be the relief circuit judge at Cairns, especially if the Divorce Doctor was proffering one of his renowned learned submissions. While most [generally uninformed] bunkerites of the Stockholm leaning tend to pour abuse on the former chief justice I can only say [per Otto in Fish Called Wanda] "love that man". 3.1.3. So that sets the scene for good old Justice Bell [my other best favourite of the Rumpole ilk] coming out of deep slumber in Cairns Courtroom and hearing of another CSA atrocity and reacting as he did. I seem to remember he was talking of an atrocity under the CSRCAct but nevertheless his excellent words describe the creation of the COAT by our CSA Eco Warrior GTR 3.1.4. It all started in 1992 when the Parliament decided to give us a facility much the same as the Rodent Custody Reforms 2006 innovation of Family Relationships Centres where one can obtain advice as to how one might fare if one was to take the matter to court [see Dwyer & McGuire for an explanation of the amending act and EM for Part 6A]. Similarly the Parliament in 1992 set up the same requirements as for the FRCs that before one could actually make a [valid] application to a court one had to ask for a determination from the Blue Heelers at the advisory service. 3.1.5. But the CSA had other plans from day one and actually changed an assessment for Mr Perryman, even though there was no head of power to do so, nor has there been since, nor will there ever be. Because Carmody was offering what HIH called Golden Hellos as a type of opening sale for the new COAT, Mr Perryman was actually adjusted down and not [dramatically] up as for the million suckers since then, albeit some 14,000 of them have since died at their own hands. 3.1.6. So he did an Oliver and Kay J did give Mr Perryman more reduction. So that was the "customer" side of the case and as you can see Mr Perryman had no need to have any "concern with the law", but Kay J did. So he dragged the CSA kicking and screaming into the case [and probably let Mr Perryman go home early]. Well who did Mr Carmody send along as "counsel assisting counsel assisting" but GTR with his barrister hat on. It is not fully clear if GTR was already moonlighting as a COAT at that time but if not it was very shortly after. 3.1.7. Kay J had obviously read the new Part 6A and was aghast that Carmody et al had decided to ignore the legislation [ie to simply provide an advisory determination] and make it an executive facility. So he said: 24. At the adjourned hearing I sought submissions from the parties and from the Child Support Registrar on behalf of the Commonwealth to the following questions: 1. On a s.117 application am I departing from the original assessment or from the assessment as altered by the review officer? [...] It was the submission of the Registrar supported by Counsel for the wife, that the document which issues as a result of the recommendations of the child support review officer is merely an amended "administrative assessment" which has been made by an exercise of the Registrar of his power under s.75. 27. I have some difficulty with the concept that one can make an administrative assessment by determining to depart from the provisions of the Act relating to an administrative assessment which it is determined to depart from. The matter is perhaps saved by the provisions of s.75(5). It seems unfortunate that s.75(3) has not been amended to include specific reference to a determination made under Part 6A. 3.1.8. So we had the first of the so called "laments" by various judges over the years regarding the Mexican Standoff where the COAT kept changing assessments without any power to do so, the judges kept lamenting that Parliament had never given a head of power and Parliament simply did nothing. The Sword of Damocles of s 75 somehow acting as a de facto head of power [as GTR put to Kay J but he did not accept] is about as absurd as a bloke winning a sexual discrimination case in front of Pru Goward. 3.1.9. By the time Rodent took office in 1996 we had passed what the Michael Douglas character in Falling Down [1990] called the Point of No Return. Obviously for the Parliament to insert a head of power [plus 14 other sections to make it read as executive] would be to [in the words of Rimmer FM, as we will shortly see] "open the floodgates" to billions of dollars in compensation for the four years up to then and ditto for the CSA to admit fault by starting to obey the law as it is. So the only way was to engage as many fire extinguishers as possible. 3.1.10. And so it went on until my first assault on it using Michael Hendy [Hendy v Deputy Child Support Registrar (2001) 164 FLR 236; 27 Fam LR 641] as the vehicle. Unfortunately he stopped his vehicle at the start of the Yellow Brick Road and took a fork to visit a so called men's group, filling his vehicle with such a load of old cobblers that he skidded off the road thus losing his case, but for the need to have used KISS. Plus he then effectively blocked the road for a proper submission made in Butler & Man [of course unreported, unpublished] 3.1.11. However by 2004 the dogs were barking very loudly, especially after my win for Mr W but moreso his next submission which I am certain would also have got up had Bryant remained at the FMS, thus effectively cutting the thread holding the Sword of Damocles and letting it crash down on the CSA. So I was in no way surprised when Rodent did two things. Firstly he spoke to the departing Nicholson CJ and convinced him to make a Practice Direction to simply stop hearing all child support matters in the FCA. Secondly instead of simply replacing Nicholson with say Kay J or SO'R he killed two birds with the one stone getting Di Bryant with her expert knowledge of child support and no nonsense "Kirby like" sense of fair play, into a position where "there ain't no child support done anymore". And the other bird was the placing of fire extinguisher Pascoe in the top job at the FMS. 3.1.12. As I say I was in no way surprised but what did take me by surprise was the audacious plan to essentially convert the FMS into a glorified COAT, but one with Rules of Evidence [which are not in Part 6A because it was never meant to be other than advisory]. This had almost Kurtz like proportions, per: "And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized...like I was shot...Like I was shot with a diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead...And I thought: My God...the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure." 3.1.13. The plan, to promote GTR from Head COAT to what he always wanted to be ie a magistrate [and in fact a judge according to his mate Walters "J"] and to convert his COAT Standard Templates to FMS COAT Templates must be seen as Rodent's finest hour, and as I say it rocked my socks - but there's more to come my dear old things. 3.1.14. But I should backtrack a bit to explain COAT templates. The JSC in 1994 pointed out that your so called Notice of Decision from your COAT hearing [giving you a 20 grand phantom debt] was only available to that particular victim, ie there was no facility [like AustLII] to compare one to another. From the bloke's side, each bloke saw himself as Robinson Caruso and from the COAT side it allowed the full use of the Rimmer/Walters copy/paste, but on a grand scale. Essentially there were about four templates and after the 15 minute kangaroo court hearing the moonlighting lawyer [called a Senior Case Officer by GTR] says to "the girl", eg "another standard track deem & destroy, and give this bunny 15 grand debt". In this way a production line not unlike Hitler's Final Solution is able to convert the menial $300 payment from CSA to SCO per victim into a very attractive hourly rate. 3.1.15. How do I know this? Well as the Divorce Doctor I help literally hundreds of CSA victims and they send me their Notices of Decision and I can tell you they are the dead ringer of the Rimmer/Walters example. In fact in one case they had missed one of the places to substitute a name and the Notice started with the pasted name of my new client in Queensland but on the last page was the name of a client in WA who had sent me his Notice the month before. 3.1.16. But would Rodent be so bold as to simply export this method to the FMS where things can be seen [if published] at AustLII etc? Well my dear old things it seems he has done it, and not just for the "new look COAT", but also in Pru's Province of DV, sex harassment mit blue heelers and the normal deal 4. Deeper Still 4.1. Gyselman Step 2 - Throwing the Formula Overboard 4.1.1. Gyselman is very definite about the process at Step 2 should a party get across the Blue Mountains of Step 1 and to the green pastures beyond. Here is The Bible on Step 2 according to Nicholson CJ et al: 130. The wording of subparagraph (b) appears to make it clear that if, but only if, a departure ground has been established, in the exercise under subsection (4) the parties are to call evidence about the "proper needs of the child" and that it is not sufficient or appropriate to rely upon the formula level to perform that task: See Maples (1990) FLC 92-180. That seems to be so notwithstanding that in s 4(2)(b) one of the particular objects of the Act is to ensure: "That the level of financial support to be provided by parents for their children should be determined in accordance with the legislatively fixed standards." 131. In this case evidence was called by the wife as to the financial needs of the children and the cost to her of satisfying those needs. 132. The other unusual aspect of this matter is, as was pointed out by Kay J. in Savery (1990) FLC 92-131 at page 77,900, that s 117(4) and (6) are to be contrasted with s 66D(2) of the Family Law Act which allows the Court in determining the needs of the child to have regard to "any relevant findings of published research in relation to the maintenance of children." 133. It is difficult to know why that provision is not replicated in the Assessment Act. The view may have been taken that s 66D(2) of the Family Law Act would apply to proceedings under the Assessment Act. Whether that is so or not, it is clear that the matters set out in S 117(4) are not exclusive. Section 117(9) provides: "Subsection (4) to (8) (inclusive) do not limit other matters to which the court may have regard." 134. In any event, evidence of published research of acknowledged experts in a particular field of specialty is admissible, provided it is properly proved. 4.1.2. That is backed up by the fact that every appeal based on judge erred by using the formula has got up and I am proud to say that the last win was my learned submission to Kay J [sitting as a single judge full court] for Mr W in WGB & CEM in appeal from our judge cum magistrate "person" John Walters. I said to the Full Court [and it agreed]: I will move quickly to the several instances of judicial error under this ground but in my view the following passage is integral to an understanding of the error HIS HONOUR: And if the husband opens the door then he - it doesn't matter which of you succeeds in showing that there should be a departure. Once you get to that point I have to look at all the factors and can go in any direction. MS TULLOCH: I suppose that's correct. I suppose that's right. As you said, if the door was opened for a departure to take place, then it has to go assessed as to what is an appropriate level of child support to be made. HIS HONOUR: What the law does say is if possible I should try to retain the integrity of the formula, so there are ways and means that I could do that. I could, for example, make a finding that the husband's income is X and the wife's income is Y and then the formula should lie where it falls, on the basis of those findings. In my submission his Honour and counsel for the wife are discussing firstly the method set by the Gyselman guidelines and secondly the method used regularly by the COAT and badged as "Reason 8", which has never survived an appeal if used in a court. For example in Gilmour & Gilmour (1995) FLC 92-591, the full court said: In the present case Bell J. recognised that it was necessary for him in determining the husband's application to consider the provisions of Section 117 of the Assessment Act (see passage earlier quoted from his judgment at page 7 of the Appeal Book). However, as will be apparent from our analysis of his Honour's judgment at the commencement of this judgment, he did not then proceed to follow the three-stage process required by Section 117. What his Honour appears to have done is simply to make a finding as to the husband's taxable income for the year ended 30 June 1992 and then with "assistance from the ready reckoner of the Child Support Agency" to have determined what sum a person on that taxable income would be required to pay for two children if an assessment had been made by the Registrar of Child Support. His Honour's approach could be said to be well founded as a matter of common sense. But the difficulty is that it is not an approach open to the Court when confronted with an application for an order under Division 4 of Part 7 of the Assessment Act. 4.1.3. So it is very clear that Walters FJ has been made aware of the Final Solution by GTR [approved by Rodent] of launching the lifeboats to rescue the formula, thrown overboard by Gyselman, and then chucking Gyselman overboard. And if you read all the other cases hereabove, he succeeded. The obfuscation GTR is trying [and succeeding] to pull off here is by twisting the words in Gyselman: 38. Further, on a practical level, the order which is made needs to be consistent with the structure of the formula. The order would normally need to be applied administratively in the years thereafter if repeated applications to the Court are to be avoided. As Kay J. pointed out in Savery's case at 79-899: "...the formula loses its mathematical integrity if only the amount payable is varied without any reference to the component parts that lead to the eventual result." 4.1.4. For example a judge may perform the proper exercise at Step 2 and decide to reduce the child support [for one child let's say] from $200 pw to $100 pw, and in such a case he would generally [eg Gilmour] simply make such an order [see s 118(a) herebelow] with CPI [not Hestia] rise or fall annually. But he could also make an order under s 118(b) [s 118 is the Div 4 of Part 7 Head of Power, as well as s 141, but Part 6A does not have one] to "retain the formula integrity" that the percentage be reduced from 18% to 9% per: 118 Orders that may be made under Division (1) The orders that a court may make under this Division are as follows: (a) an order varying the rate of child support payable by the liable parent concerned; (b) an order varying the child support percentage, adjusted income amount, child support income amount or exempted income amount of the liable parent; But there is a huge difference between coming back to the formula for the form of the order and using the formula as the benchmark in deciding to depart from the formula, the Final Solution Rodent has entrusted to GTR. 4.1.5. Now the huge contrast in the illegal COAT process is that because the COAT is a creature of its own creation and not subject to any type of appeal at all [you can discount Part 6B introduced in 1999] the SCOs simply do as they please. The main device of terror by the COAT is of course the Deem & Destroy Template [which I will cover in detail in the next Part] and it is totally reliant upon using the formula at Step 2 after first taking the blokes actual income and deeming it up by 100% - hence deem & destroy. It is therefore a total farce that the GTR template since 1994 or before starts off to say "I must follow the 3 step process from the full court in Gyselman ....." But then completely ignores Gyselman or in fact the whole of s 117 but instead quotes from GTR's own version of the legislation he calls The Guide. 4.1.6. But that is as expected in a genuine kangaroo court so no surprise there. What is of major concern is that we will now see that via the Rodent diamond bullet plan there is a blatant push to overrule Gyselman and use Deem & Destroy in the FMS. Presently it is working save for the single appeal I won for Mr W. 4.1.7. So getting back to the proper method, once on the fertile green plains past the Blue Mountains at s 117(4) we are looking at the method unchanged since Mee where the Full Court said: 40. But putting aside for the moment the question of the liability or the relevance of step parents it appears to us that the question of child maintenance should be approached by considering the following issues: (a) the financial needs of the particular child; (b) the extent to which the child has financial resources to meet those needs; (c) a comparison of what can be described for the moment as the respective financial circumstances of the parties to meet the needs of the child. 41. There is a tendency at times for this to be done in reverse order, that is, to look at the financial resources of the respective parties and their capacity to pay as a generality, without first considering the financial needs of the particular child. 4.1.8. Then the court dispenses with (b) using the funny joke regarding Boris Becker: Obviously it would not be appropriate for an Australian Boris Becker to look to Mr and Mrs Becker for his support. On the other hand it would in ordinary circumstances be unreasonable to expect that pocket money and other small sources of income derived from paper rounds and casual work after school and the like ought to be taken into account in diminishing the financial responsiblity of the parents for the needs of that child. 4.1.9. So while this bloke Asche ACJ [Liz must have been on holidays in 1986] was a judge like none other, smart as a tack and with jokes on the side, it is uncanny that he was looking some 6 years into the future and identifying exactly what GTR was to set up in his COAT empire, and now in the FMS. As seen the main issue at Step 2 is that the exercise is finite and no longer progressive, as for an admin assessment. In the greater majority of cases mum is a LOP [Little Ozzie Pensioner] and her income is not considered at (c) so there is no need at all to even know dad's income, provided it is not a "low" income and he is pleading that he can't satisfy (a) and is asking J Doe to chip in. 4.1.10. So a smart dad [eg Carpenter & Carpenter (1995) FLC 92-583 ] will simply say "Yer Horror, I can afford to pay the amount in (a), but not one penny more". He would simply depose that in his affidavit and the only issue which would extend the court case beyond 15 minutes would be to put mum in the box and carve her down from her elevated figures of $10,000 a week to keep junior to the figures in BSU/Henman, now totally endorsed by Prof Parkinson himself. SO'R as QC for dad in Carpenter shows how to reduce mum to a blubbering mess. It's dead easy. 4.1.11. Here is what RC as judge said regarding Mr Carpenter's financial details: 103. It is now necessary to consider Mr Carpenter's position. He has made an admission that he is able to meet any amount of child maintenance the court may order. He was not cross- examined on his financial material. It is not necessary, therefore, to deal with this question in any detail. [...] To put it shortly this is a case in which the focus in on the proper needs of the children, rather than on the capacity of the respondent to pay. So we have total conformity to the KISS principle, and I might just add that as you read of Mr W having his whole life dissected in WGB & CEM at a fee of $30,000 to his own lawyers and 3 days away from his dental surgery, the submission I had written for him, which got thrown overboard once he shot himself in the foot, had this exact same admission of "ability to pay". "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?" 4.1.12. But the GTR COAT method is as Asche ACJ forecasts, ie start from the reverse end and base the whole case on dad is telling porkies about his financial affairs, deem an income and illegally reapply the formula. As you can see that is exactly what was done to Mr W in WGB & CEM. Neither Party Has Made Full and Frank Disclosure 45. The duty to make full and frank disclosure of one’s financial position has been set out in a number of cases determined by the Full Court over the years. Those cases were most recently summarised in the decision of Chang v Su (2002) FLC 93-117. For example, where the court cannot be satisfied as to the extent of a party’s property, it can be less cautious than might otherwise be the case when making relevant orders (see Mezzacappa (1987) FLC 91-853, Black & Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287 and Weir (1993) FLC 92-338). Full and frank disclosure is required as a matter of principle in proceedings between spouses or former spouses under the Family Law Act or the Child Support legislation (see, for example, Oriolo (1985) FLC 91-653, Briese (1986) FLC 91-715 and Giunti (1986) FLC 91-759). 46. That a judge (or federal magistrate - [ed. huh?, you said you were a judge Walter) is entitled to take a "robust view" in relation to findings regarding a parties’ financial position (including a party’s capacity to meet any proposed order) - where that party has failed to make full and frank disclosure of his/her financial position - is clear from the authorities referred to above, and from the decision in Chang v Su at paragraphs 71 and 72 (at p.89, 198). 4.1.13. So my dear old things, you will be asking from your Stockholm bunker how do I know that GTR is pushing the buttons of Walters FJ? Well for starters take a look at a GTR special eg Cottle & Cottle [2005] FMCAfam 18 In Giunti and Giunti (1986) FLC 91-759 the court made the point that: In Briese and Briese (1986) FLC 91-713 Smithers J said 33. Similar comments are made in a variety of cases that have been reported: see, for example, Tate v Tate (2000) FLC 93-047. Oriolo and Oriolo (1985) FLC 91-653; Suiker and Suiker (1993) FLC 92-436; Black and Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287; Weir and Weir (1993) FLC 92- 338; and Chang v Su (2002) FLC 93-117. 4.1.14. So GTR is far smarter than Walters, Rimmer or in fact the whole lot of the ex solicitors hired as FMs when the new FMS kicked off, so he is careful to do the "judicial juxtaposition" from case to case but an inspection of the above shows that all his old favourites [on full and frank disclosure] are there, but simply jumbled a bit. But Walters FJ is not so smart with the template supplied to him by GTR as we see from QCA & QRJ [2004] FMCAfam 642 The Husband has not made Full and Frank Disclosure 52. The duty to make full and frank disclosure of one’s financial position has been set out in a number of cases determined by the Full Court over the years. Those cases were most recently summarised in the decision of Chang v Su (2002) FLC 93-117. For example, where the court cannot be satisfied as to the extent of a party’s property, it can be less cautious than might otherwise be the case when making relevant orders (see Mezzacappa (1987) FLC 91-853, Black & Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287 and Weir (1993) FLC 92-338). Full and frank disclosure is required as a matter of principle in proceedings between spouses or former spouses under the Family Law Act or the Child Support legislation (see, for example, Oriolo v Oriolo (1985) FLC 91-653, Briese (1986) FLC 91-715 and Giunti (1986) FLC 91-759). 53. That a judge (or federal magistrate) is entitled to take a "robust view" in relation to findings regarding a parties’ financial position (including a party’s capacity to meet any proposed order) - where that party has failed to make full and frank disclosure of his/her financial position - is clear from the authorities referred to above, and from the decision in Chang v Su at paragraphs 71 and 72 (at p.89, 198). 4.1.15. So we see that the only change from the template used for Mr W is the heading here says "the husband" whereas it was "neither party" for Mr W. Hey, Rimmer FM is starting to look like her only sin was to spill the sugar at the Sunday School fete. 4.1.16. The device GTR is using in his template is to do a blow job [or maybe it's a snow job] to blow away the reader, especially other lawyers, with mumbo jumbo case references that appear to make the author know what he is talking about. Kirby J said of this device in his AustLII Keynote Address Kirby (1999) 'Free The Law - Beyond The "Dark Chaos"', and no, it is not a reference to John Marsden. Absorbing the data: Making sure that users of AustLII do not make the mistake (which many photocopiers of books, articles and judgments may make) that gaining access, and even gaining a copy, somehow puts the information into the head and judgment of a human being. The data in AustLII is only as good as the brain cells of the people who use it. A printout and hard copy are meaningless unless the substance is digested, understood and analysed in a way that is useful and legally relevant. Nothing is worse, in a court of law, than suddenly being bombarded by a thousand undigested cases. A small proportion (if at all) may have relevance to the task in hand. [...] Thinking conceptually (indeed thinking reflectively at all) is still a great challenge to some lawyers. So Kirby J has GTR down to a tee in this analysis of "the dark chaos" 4.1.17. But why is GTR taking all of his authorities from s 79A cases under the FLAct? Well simply because there are no mentions of "full and frank disclosure" in proper child support cases because the FCA simply follows the legislation. The Spanish Inquisition we are now seeing in these FMS cases is simply an import of the COAT methodology, making Abu Ghraib look like a Bible reading class. But even if there was a need to examine "full and frank disclosure" then GTR knows that the authority is Lord Brandon's speech in Livesey v Jenkins (1985) 1 All ER 106 in the House of Lords, which is conveniently [mis]quoted in Morrison & Morrison (1995) FLC 92-573 42. We take this opportunity once again to reinforce the view that the duty of disclosure is a basic duty. Ordinarily, a failure to comply with that duty will amount to a miscarriage of justice. In saying that, however, we adopt (with slight modification) the words of Lord Brandon in Livesey and Jenkins at 119 where His Lordship said: "I would end with an emphatic word of warning. It is not every failure of frank and full disclosure which would justify a court in setting aside an order of the kind concerned in this appeal. On the contrary, it will only be in cases where the absence of full and frank disclosure has led to the court making, either in contested proceedings or by consent, an order which is substantially different from the order which it would have made if such disclosure had taken place that a case for setting aside can possibly be made good. Parties who apply to set aside orders on the ground of failure to disclose some relatively minor matter or matters, the disclosure of which would not have made any substantial difference to the order which the Court would have made or approved, are likely to find their applications being summarily dismissed, with costs against them ..." 43. Rather than use His Lordship's test of "the order which it would have made", we would suggest that the test is more properly expressed as "the order which it might have made". 4.1.18. Having gone to the enormous effort of seeking out the full judgment in Livesey from some archive deep in the bowels below Martin Place and reading the full speech [of which the other Lords agreed] I was livid that Fogarty J et al should seek to alter such a masterpiece. I wrote to Lord Brandon of Oakbrook [as well as Lord Keith of Kinkel] to apologise on behalf of all Australians. 4.1.19. But all that aside, Mee [as replicated in s 117(4)] simply says the main task is the absolute cost of the kid [see BSU in next Part] and the incomes simply act as a ratio to divide up that cost, usually 100%:0%, but who cares if that result is say 30% of the lousy formula result. 4.1.20. So you dear old things, in or out of the Stockholm bunker, politically correct or otherwise, please read my lips that this Final Solution by Rodent carried out by fire extinguisher GTR is happening. There are perhaps only 50 cases so far in the FMS [most unreported and unpublished] so that is a tiny portion of the million or so that have passed through the official kangaroo court of the COAT, but it is happening, with one small snag that Kay J held out for Gyselman, 'cept that has now been fully foamed over. 4.1.21. So it looks like the plan is to launder the illegal COAT operation by having these various template judgments at the FMS from Walters, GTR et al [including Rimmer as we will see] sitting there to simply "smother" Gyselman [as they can't overturn it] and simply replace anyone who knew of such justice with marketing and results oriented people, going forward, like Matt the new CSA Manager/fire extinguisher. That is to say the plan is to still do 99.9999% of the Final Solution at the COAT but with GTR template judgments from FMS on AustLII to scare blokes away from the court path, and I will explain how the lump sum device in these cases is used to that end 4.1.22. And here is the proof, hot off the press, a new tender for what is to all intents and purposes Hitler's Tender Specification for the Gas Chambers: Description: CHANGE OF ASSESSMENT SENIOR CASE OFFICER SERVICES Are you or your organisation highly motivated, passionate about achieving results, highly skilled and experienced in the field of Family Law and administrative decision-making The Child Support Agency (CSA) is seeking individuals or organisations who can supply CSA with contracted Change of Assessment Senior Case Officer (SCO) services. CSA intends to enter into a panel arrangement to offer contracts for the immediate supply of Change of Assessment SCO services to a number of providers on the basis of best value for money in terms of price, quality and service delivery. CSA also aims to create flexibility to respond to potential policy changes. For example, changes in legislation may substantially change the volume of customer demand. CSA seeks to establish a panel of additional providers who may be invited to sign a standing offer agreement for the supply of services at a later time. SCO service providers make administrative decisions about child support assessments for parents in special circumstances. To change a child support assessment a SCO must be satisfy ed that one of the 10 reasons set out in Section 117 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 is established and that it is just and equitable and otherwise proper to proceed with the change. SCO service providers will: - make administrative decisions to resolve CSA change of assessment applications - base their decisions on files prepared by CSA staff and will consider the financial circumstances of each parent - hold a personal or telephone conference with each parent in most cases - write a notice of decision for each case they resolve 4.1.23. You don't need me to explain to you that such a Job Description has nothing at all do with setting up a justice system but is simply a triumphant statement by Rodent that the GTR COAT has worked so why not get really serious. And I am afraid that rampant political correctness in Australia as we know it today will simply allow it to happen, exactly as for Nazi Germany. Here is the top judge of the Nazi Regime explaining how political correctness simply allows anything as long as there is a catchcry, in our case "let's get those deadbeat dads so we save money for the taxpayer" Ernst Janning Confesses his Guilt to the Tribunal Janning: And history tells how well we succeeded, Your Honor. We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. The very elements of hate and power about Hitler that mesmerized Germany, mesmerized the world. We found ourselves with sudden powerful allies. Things that had been denied to us as a democracy were open to us now. The world said, "Go ahead. Take it. Take it! Take Sudetenland! Take the Rhineland! Re-militarize it! Take all of Austria! Take it!" And then, one day we looked around and found that we were in an even more terrible danger. The ritual begun in this courtroom swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a "passing phase" had become the way of life. Your Honor, I was content to sit silent during this trial. I was content to tend my roses. I was even content to let counsel try to save my name, until I realized that in order to save it, he would have to raise the specter again. You have seen him do it. He has done it, here, in this courtroom. He has suggested that the Third Reich worked for the benefit of people. He has suggested that we sterilized men for the welfare of the country. He has suggested that perhaps the old Jew did sleep with the 16 year old girl after all. Once more, it is being done -- for love of country. It is not easy to tell the truth. But if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it -- whatever the pain and humiliation. I had reached my verdict on the Feldenstein case before I ever came into the courtroom. I would have found him guilty, whatever the evidence. It was not a trial at all. It was a sacrificial ritual in which Feldenstein, the Jew, was the helpless victim. Hans Rolfe: Your Honor, I must interrupt. The defendant is not aware of what he's saying. He's not aware of the implications! Janning: I am aware. I am aware! My counsel would have you believe we were not aware of the concentration camps. Not aware. Where were we? Where were we when Hitler began shrieking his hate in Reichstag? Where were we when our neighbors were being dragged out in the middle of the night to Dachau?! Where were we when every village in Germany has a railroad terminal where cattle cars were filled with children being carried out to their extermination! Where were we when they cried out in the night to us. Deaf, dumb, blind!! 4.1.24. The reason the COAT is far worse than justice in Nazi Germany is that there were still rules of evidence in the courts, albeit as seen in this case any evidence was to be disregarded [or is that exempted?], and a party could have legal representation. The COAT has no rules of evidence, nor does a party have the basic right available even to Saddam of legal representation: s 98Q(4) Any hearing before the Registrar, and any inquiry or investigation carried out by the Registrar, is to be carried out as the Registrar thinks fit and the Registrar is not bound by any rules of evidence. s 98Q(5) A party must not be represented by another person before the Registrar. 4.1.25. Of course the reason for no rules of evidence and no representation is, as in Part 1 of this polemic, the COAT was never intended to change anything, hence it mattered not if mum lied that dad had a secret plan to become a rocket scientist. But by usurping power for the COAT mum can advance any hunch she likes and both rocket scientist or brain surgeon claims are accepted with alacrity perhaps 100 times a day in COAT land. But my worst fear is that Stage 2 of the Parkinson plan for July 2007 will see a huge increase in the number of RICATs, ie Stalin type investigations initiated by the CSA under s 98K, per: - base their decisions on files prepared by CSA staff and will consider the financial circumstances of each parent 4.1.26. As far as I know the RICAT has been used just once, as a punishment for myself and my client Mr Butler for daring to question this head of power issue in Butler & Man, but it sure looks like it will now skyrocket. 5. Getting to the Bone 5.1. BSU vs Deem & Destroy 5.1.1. To advance a bit further with Walters FJ's decision in WGB & CEM we have: 129. The husband’s second affidavit (sworn 31 October 2003) comprises a lengthy submission intended to persuade the Court to adopt what the husband describes as the "BSU" or "Budget Standards" method of ascertaining the costs of maintaining the children. 130. The husband’s submission is a florid, almost incomprehensible polemic, and I do not propose to waste time dealing with it. 131. In any event, the husband’s submission was rejected by Rimmer FM in Swiatek (2003) FMCAfam 301, and by Warnick J (on appeal from her Honour) in Swiatek (2003) FamCA 1133. 132. In paragraph 79 of the first instance decision in Swiatek, Rimmer FM said: In summary, the Federal Government of Australia has set out a system of child support assessment which meets the object of that Act. That is, that it will provide to the parties a formula for calculating child support payable by parents and that it will do so to ensure, where possible, an equitable share of the resources and the income and property interests of parties, taking into account their responsibility to support themselves and also their necessary commitments for others they have a duty to maintain. That thereafter it will be easily ascertainable for both of the parties and those separating parents in Australia to be able to have determined issues of child support without resort to Court proceedings. 133. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded that the formula - which is an integral part of the child support scheme established by Parliament - should be abandoned in the circumstances of this case. The financial circumstances of the parties are such as to enable their affairs to be comfortably brought within the purview of the formula, and, in reality, the only "special circumstance" applicable to these parties - leaving aside the issue of the need for child support to be capitalised and paid in lump sum - is the fact that neither party has been open and frank in relation to his/her income and financial position generally. 5.1.2. What's this I hear? A magistrate called Walters who thinks he is a judge quoting direct [permission?] from a magistrate called Rimmer who thinks she might be out of a job. But I don't think so my dear old things. We have a most overworked magistrate in Melbourne called Walters who takes almost 2 years to produce a cookie cutter judgment for WGB & CEM [and you note from the list above about three almost identical ones the same month, which all took more than a year] and he is saying that he not only knows of the judgment in an unpublished and unreported case in Brisbane by his [reputed] arch enemy Rimmer FM but he also has somehow seen the submissions made to Rimmer FM in that case and established it to be the same as the one Mr W is [not] making. Moreover Walters FM is using the same words of "florid, almost incomprehensible polemic" to describe it as GTR used when he first fielded it at the COAT in 1998. 5.1.3. So if you had any doubts my dear old things about the smoking gun, then that is over. The reason the FMS worked so well under Bryant CFM was that being Australia's leading QC on child support before coming to the job, she simply did the majority of the cases herself, and with quick turnaround. The likes of Walters, Rimmer etc were quite able to handle the easier cases like Tampas and blow jobs, and indeed put them out in the hundreds at the FMS website. So with the departure of Bryant, Walters and Rimmer etc had to take on the complexity of child support and so they heard the cases but were told "the one that is coming" would not only provide a template with lots of authorities but would also extinguish any "curly" ones from that divorce doctor pest. Hence GTR was called in as a "consultant" on both these cases. 5.1.4. The trouble is I have always known how to upset him by leaving a few bones lying around and in this case he forgot his smarts once he saw "a BSU submission" on the file for Mr W. But it was never presented in the case - it couldn't have been as Mr W had decided to use lawyers so they presented his case. In which case Walters FJ should not have made any mention of it at all, except he was pressured by GTR and as a result it was written up in a Victorian lawyers rag as a "victory over the dreaded BSU". 5.2. What is a BSU Method? 5.2.1. There is no such thing. It is just a term invented by Sue Price, Uncle Buck etc of the so called men's groups [who operate under the Not Invented Here Syndrome to pass on news of any bloke trying to win in family law to the FLIndustry for a kickback] and thus to GTR who [on behalf of Walters] used it here to describe a simple ground by the Gyselman guidelines. I first became aware of it via Savery & Savery (1990) FLC 92-131 13 Fam LR 812 per: Accordingly I leave open for discussion what to do in a future case where the application of the formula will lead to a result that will more than adequately provide for the proper needs of the child, having regard to the child's age and other factors relating to its particular needs. 5.2.2. And Nicholson CJ stated in Beck & Sliwka FLC 92-296: Finally we turn to the argument of counsel for the wife about the relevance of stage 2 in the determination of a stage 1 case. It is not, in our view, open to this Court to conclude that the stage 2 formula can be directly applied to a stage 1 case. Although in cases of this sort the distinction between pre and post 1 October, 1989, may appear artificial the fact is that the stage 2 legislation is prospective only in its operation. 5.2.3. Clearly, I reasoned, if the formula was simply a "first go" at getting to "just right" then one of the grounds for departing to just right had to be that the formula was simply out of whack for a particular case. It took less than a minute to find it and a day or so to put a submission together which survives to this day totally unchanged, as GTR stupidly conceded, regarding these cases before the pair of Rimmer and Walters [or rather not officially before Walters]. So is the divorce doctor guilty of using a template as Uncle Buck and Aunty Sue keep whining? Not at all my old things, not at all. To be able to say one did not need to change one word in a submission argument in 8 years [because it was always 100% correct] is a total triumph in logical "solving of unstructured problems" as the Human Resources gurus call it. 5.2.4. Here it is in a nutshell: s 117(2)(c) that, in the special circumstances of the case, application in relation to the child of the provisions of this Act relating to administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent for the child: The legislation thus requires the person seeking relief to argue an A-B test where 1 Test F = Formula is "provisions of this Act relating to administrative assessment" [lets say = $200 pw as per the earlier example] 2 Test B = Benchmark is "that which is not unjust and inequitable" [lets say = $100 pw as per the earlier example] Then you would argue that the 100% difference is "within the generous ambit of discretion" sufficient to warrant getting to the top of the Blue Mountains and, in this case, the Step 2 exercise has already been done. 5.2.5. So how did you get to $100? Well s 117(4) defines it: (4) In determining whether it would be just and equitable as regards the child, the carer entitled to child support and the liable parent to make a particular order under this Division, the court must have regard to: (a) the nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child (as stated in section 3); and (b) the proper needs of the child; and (c) the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the child; and (d) the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of each parent who is a party to the proceeding; So we are back to the good old Mee Three Step [or Two Step if no Boris Becker] - KISS 5.2.6. BSU simply means I use the BSU/Henman figures at Mee Step 1 as that is the only proven survey, to comply with Gyselman. 5.3. Conflict with Deem & Destroy 5.3.1. So as not to make this polemic into War & Peace I will not detail my many encounters on the Yellow Brick Road with GTR in respect of the BSU vehicle, except for the explanation above as to why GTR lost his cool with Swiatek, and thus blew [no pun intended] his cover on the whole template/consultancy deal with Rodent. 5.3.2. But the main sticking point is one that dovetails with the previous Part, being that Deem & Destroy relies upon the use [or more correctly abuse] of the self same s 117(2)(c). If you are one of the million or so Deem & Destroy victims [and are still alive] then you will know that the COAT Form you got from the CSA with Buttercup's demand for more money talked to "fairness". She is saying that "the formula is no longer fair because you are dealing with your income" - correct? And of course the COAT jerk agrees and you end up with a negative income after tax and child support - correct? 5.3.3. If you look above you will see that the words "just and equitable" defeat the whole Deem & Destroy method [because they appear in both Step 1 and Step 2 of Gyselman]. So the solution to that problem was for GTR to rewrite the CSAAct as The Guide and simply substitute just and equitable with fair, thus severing the connection [albeit by GTR Law and not Parliament]. So all that remained was the problem that Gyselman says not to reuse the formula, but that has never been a problem in the COAT [as it is a kangaroo court with no scrutiny at all] and as seen, except for the one appeal by Mr W, Gyselman is simply getting suffocated by the sheer number of FMS case that GTR has been able to get through via his loyal template users like Walters FJ. 6. More MeatyBites 6.1. Alter Ego 6.1.1. Our stalwartess for justice Ginger Snatch also notices the use of the expression alter ego in both judgments per: 44. In any event, Car Buyers is, in every sense, the alter ego of Mr Wright. In my opinion, there can be no relevant distinction between Mr Wright's acts and behaviour in relation to or in connection with Ms Hughes' employment and the acts and behaviour of Car Buyers itself. 81. In any event, the Exchange Hotel is, in every sense, the alter ego of Mr Brindley. In my opinion, there can be no relevant distinction between Mr Brindley's acts and behaviour in relation to or in connection with Ms Frith's employment and the acts and behaviour of the Exchange Hotel itself. 6.1.2. Hey there Ginger, that is a GTR special, used on some 500,000 COAT victims since 1992 in the Deem & Destroy cookie cutter template. It is even used by Walters FWhatever in Mr W's case 69. Although the husband’s father may have an interest in GLW (and, perhaps, the other entities), Mr Taylor’s evidence confirms that these are, in effect, the husband’s entities. In other words, they comprise his alter ego. Do an AustLII search and you will find that anyone not PAYE is an "alter ego cheat". So you need to dig deeper Ginger! 6.1.3. Here is a repeat of the alter ego for Mr Brindley, available from fnqpanoramas.com. All sales go to assisting my learned research and ensuing polemics, and general dog catching volunteer work.
6.2. Intellectually Dishonest 6.2.1. OK Ginger, you have noted this crass expression of Walters [the Indeterminate] and have noted that to her credit Rimmer FM did not use it. Well that simply goes to prove Rimmer was not guilty of the nasties suggested, ie she had a "crass limiter" that went off when she got to that part of the template she was being asked [by Pascoe/Rodent] to use. 6.2.2. Just on that point you will be aware that for Blue Heeler matters [like these sexual discrimination matters] Rodent needs a "Minister Advising the Prime Minister on the Status [now Matters] of Women". So Ms Patterson, until she got the chop [no pun intended] for Pork Barrelling at MensLine after my Ministerial to W Entsch, would have been in on the deal. 6.2.3. Being a supercilious little "thing" [insert your own word] as he is, Walters uses it in all his templates, property or child support, eg: FUA & FR [2003] FMCAfam 548 66. In my opinion, the husband's initial financial contributions favour his case significantly. The wife's post separation contributions outweigh those of the husband and favour her case. Overall, and doing the best that I can with the evidence available to me, I conclude that an appropriate division of the parties' assets available for distribution between them on the basis of contribution alone is something between 35 per cent and 40 per cent to the wife, and the balance to the husband. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to conclude that one of those figures is more appropriate than the other. Accordingly, I conclude that, on the basis of contribution alone, the split should be 37.5 per cent to the wife and the balance to the husband. and; LESLIE & LESLIE [2004] FMCAfam 357 149. Overall, and doing the best that I can with the evidence available to me, I conclude that an appropriate division of the parties' property available for distribution between them as described in the schedule contained in paragraph 75 above -- and on the basis of contribution alone -- is something between 60% and 65% to the wife, and the balance to the husband. As it would be intellectually dishonest of me to choose either of those two figures, I conclude that the appropriate split on the basis of contribution should be 62.5% to the wife and 37.5% to the husband. and; KK & KG [2003] FMCAfam 609 63. But even if the husband's earning capacity were not to be regarded as significantly greater than that of the wife, it would make no difference to the conclusion which I now reach. Thus, and on the basis of the evidence before me (and having regard to the fact that the purpose of the section 75(2) adjustment is to assist the court with the process of arriving at a just and equitable result) I conclude that an adjustment should be made to the wife's entitlement on the basis of contribution alone by increasing that entitlement from 60 per cent to something between 80 per cent and 85 per cent. In my view, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to choose either of those two figures, and hence I select the midpoint -- being 82.5 per cent. and; OSF & OJK [2004] FMCAfam 63 94. In my view, the correct, just and equitable split of the categories of property in order to provide the wife with a total amount of $162,909.00 (being 60 per cent of the overall property pool available for these parties) is something between 10 and 20 per cent of that amount to be in the form of superannuation entitlements, and something between 80 and 90 per cent to be in the form of realisable assets. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to do other than choose the midpoint of each range. I have concluded, therefore, that the total amount of $162,909.00 to which the wife is entitled should be allocated as to 15 per cent in the form of superannuation entitlements and 85 per cent in the form of realisable assets. The dollar figures are as follows: 15 per cent of $162,909.00 is $24,436.35. 85 per cent of $162,909.00 is $138,472.65. and; MNJ & MEB (No.2) [2004] FMCAfam 294 117. In my opinion the most significant section 75(2) factor is the matter raised in paragraph 107 above. Taking that matter into account, together with all the other matters discussed under the general heading of the section 75(2) factors and the comments appearing in the preceding paragraph of these Reasons, I conclude that an appropriate adjustment to the wife's entitlement on the basis of contribution alone is to increase that entitlement from 50 percent to 55 or 60 percent of the total property pool of $103,013.00. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to choose either of these figures in preference to the other, and hence I conclude that the appropriate result should be the mid point of the two -- being 57.5%. and; AER & AG [2004] FMCA 641 94. Overall, and doing the best that I can with the evidence available to me, I conclude that an appropriate division of the parties’ property available for distribution between them (as described in the schedule contained in paragraph 39 above) -- and on the basis of contribution alone -- is something between 5% and 10% to the wife, and the balance to the husband. As it would be intellectually dishonest of me to choose either of those two figures, I conclude that the appropriate split on the basis of contribution should be 7.5% to the wife and 92.5% to the husband. 6.2.4. So my dear old things, [apart from Rimmer FM looking better by the minute] all of the above are under Part VIII [Property and Spouse Maintenance] of the FLAct, and it sure looks like templates, from GTR or self created by the judicial kid himself Walters FJ, are not only in Pru and child support territory but rampant in the whole FMS culture, going forward. And there were 6 more but I got bored. But wait a moment, we have already seen this one above under child support AR & AL [2004] FMCAfam 597 99. I have already concluded that a fair allowance for the costs incurred by both parties in maintaining J (which allowance represents J's proper needs) is a total of $860.00 per week.[15] When I take into account the matters set out in s.117(4) of the Assessment Act -- which factors have been discussed above -- I conclude that it would be just and equitable for the husband to bear something between 80% and 90% of these costs. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to choose either of these percentages, and hence I conclude that it is appropriate for me to choose the mid point of the two -- being 85%. 6.2.5. Holy Cow, a kid worth $850 a week [when BSU/Henman/Parkinson says about $200 max]. This must surely be a kid from Venus! 6.2.6. Now the very first time I heard Walters use this crass expression in Mr W's case [too] I thought of Otto as the intellectual [not] in Fish Called Wanda, per: Otto: You said you loved him! Wanda: That's right. Now let me give you a multiple choice question - A. Wanda was lying. B. Wanda was telling the truth. Which one you gonna pick? Otto: You told me you were not planning to see him! Wanda: Because I knew you would come along and fuck it up. I'm setting up a guy who could be incredibly important to us - who's gonna tell me where the diamonds are and whether they're going to come and arrest you and you come loping in like Rambo without a jock strap and dangle him out a fifth floor window. Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was that good tactics? Or was it stupid? Otto: Don't call me stupid. Wanda: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. I've known sheep that could outwit you, but you think you're an intellectual don't you, ape? Otto: Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things here. Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself,' and the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up. Now, you have just assaulted the one man who can keep you out of jail and make you rich. What are you going to do about it huh? What would an intellectual do? What would Plato do? 6.2.7. Of course we then go into the very funny "apology scene" for Otto, but perhaps the forced apology, as Wanda mentions, by the Cleese character upside down on the 5th floor might be appropriate for some of the players here? "I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact and was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future." 6.2.8. But check how closely the template Walters uses for property cases, for full and frank disclosure matches the GTR template for the invented full and frank disclosure in child support, and yes, he does know of Livesey and Jenkins [but I bet the whole dog pound he has never read it]. Here we go with all the favourites once again 47. The manner in which the court can deal with a finding such as the one that I have just made was dealt with by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Chang v Su (2002) FLC 93- 117 -- and, relevantly, at pages 89,195 through to 89,199. I do not propose to read out all the passages on those pages, but it is important to record that the court made mention of earlier cases such as Mezzacappa (1987) FLC 91-853, Monte (1986) FLC 91-757, Giunti (1986) FLC 91-759, Black v Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287, Stein (1986) FLC 91-779, Weir (1993) FLC 92-338, Briese (1986) FLC 91-713, Livesey v Jenkins (1985) All ER 106. I refer, as well, to the Full Court's decision in Stay (1997) FLC 92-751, and in particular at page 84,130 where the Full Court said: 6.2.9. So to conclude this further idiosyncrasy of Walters FWhocares, I return to my former question: The real [preliminary] issue here is if two separate cases have the same guidelines quoted, and perhaps similar outcomes then is there any difference if that was done by two judges or the same judge? 6.2.10. The passages from the two cases were 64. In Leslie v Graham (2002) FCA 32, Branson J awarded damages of $16,000.00 for non- economic loss. In Elliott v Nanda (2001) FCA 418, Moore J awarded damages of $15,000.00. Both were sexual harassment cases, and when I have regard to the awards in those cases, together with the other awards in HREOC's "Federal Discrimination Law 2004", I conclude that the appropriate award for (general) non-economic loss in the circumstances of this case is between $10,000.00 and $12,500.00. I am of the view that it would be intellectually dishonest of me to chose either of these two figures in preference to the other, and hence I propose to adopt the mid-point of the two -- being $11,250.00. and: 96. In Leslie v Graham (2002) FCA 32, Branson J awarded damages of $16,000.00 for non- economic loss. In Elliott v Nanda (2001) FCA 418, Moore J awarded damages of $15,000.00. Both were sexual harassment cases, and when I have regard to the awards in those cases, together with the other awards in HREOC's "Federal Discrimination Law 2004", I conclude that the appropriate award for (general) non-economic loss in the circumstances of this case is between $10,000.00 and $12,500.00. I propose to adopt the figure of $10,000.00 in the circumstances of this case. 6.2.11. So apart from cheating a bit by copying "Walters'" authorities, please refer to what I said in 1.1.3 above that Rimmer's overall judgment/orders was totally different to the Walters case, and from the point of view of the actual parties that is all that matters. But in these 16 property cases by Walters, firstly every single one got the same in effect "2.5% markup" on the s 75(2) "factors" [which are actually matters my dear magistrate], and secondly we are talking far bigger bikkies here Thirdly s 75(2) is invoked by: (e) the matters referred to in subsection 75(2) so far as they are relevant; and that since the insertion in 1989 of: (g) any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 that a party to the marriage has provided, is to provide, or might be liable to provide in the future, for a child of the marriage. that s 75(2) should no longer be relevant [called double dipping], just because she "gets" the kids. 6.2.12. Fourthly, even setting aside the double dipping issue [because it did not exist in 1986], the High Court judges in Norbis Mallett warned against the insidious practice of simply grabbing arbitrary percentages irrespective of the monetary implications. In my submission Walters totally offends in that regard, but ditto for the entire FLIndustry. 6.2.13. Fifthly, every family law bloodsucking lawyer knows the deception of these percentages [called Dench factor]. For example Walters considers 65% [ie 15% Dench, having come up with 50/50 for Step 1] and goes for 67.5% - so that's only 2.5% more, right? Wrong! 65% means mum gets 85% more than dad, and if mum gets the Walters bonus offer of 67.5% then she gets 107% of what dad gets, so not 2.5% more but 22% more. So it was amusing to see a recent leave application to the High Court with Callinan J as judge: HIS HONOUR: Mr Bowler, tell me this. Years and years ago I was in a case called Mallet that came to this Court and the Court there I thought - it was many years ago - said that this notion of any predisposition with respect to a division was, in effect, wrong. I think the Family Court had been saying up until then that 50:50 was the starting point. Has there been legislative change since then? MR BOWLER: Not as far as I am aware, your Honour, and I have not read the case to which your Honour has referred. So after drawing a blank with Mr Bowler he asks the well known scoundrel of the Brisbane Bar Mr Page HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you. Mr Page, what happened in Mallet v Mallet? MR PAGE: It still is very good law, your Honour, and there has been no legislative changes that have affected - - - HIS HONOUR: One would not think that from reading these judgments. MR PAGE: No, and that case did commence on the basis that the court was applying as a primary premise an equal division and that was dispelled and has remained dispelled and our system operates extremely well. HIS HONOUR: Is Mallet actually applied? MR PAGE: Yes, it is. HIS HONOUR: And is it applied here? MR PAGE: Well, indirectly, yes. It has become such an axiom of our work there, your Honour, now that it does not need to be referred to by name. It is simply the basis on which we go to the court. 6.2.14. Of course Mr Page is blowing it out his arse [to protect the whole FLIndustry]. The crass statement "we go to court with a Norbis axiom under our arms [but don't understand it]" simply takes this submission back to Kirby: A printout and hard copy are meaningless unless the substance is digested, understood and analysed in a way that is useful and legally relevant. Nothing is worse, in a court of law, than suddenly being bombarded by a thousand undigested cases. and Wanda [per Cleese] Otto: Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it. 6.2.15. But to return to hotels and used cars, in my submission these 16 cookie cutter property judgments I found simply by searching for "intellectually dishonest" provide far, far more degraded access to justice for those blokes losing the shirts off their backs in these so called property cases than the measly bucks involved in the Blue Heeler jurisdiction herein. Rimmer has copied some words from a Walters case [which he basically "copied" from the Mutant Ninja Turtle] but the substantive parts, ie the judgments are totally different in the two cases, and there the matter should rest Ginger Snatch and the Blue Heelers from the Mail. 6.2.16. If one was to genuinely question access to justice generally from such courts as the FMS under Pascoe rule then one would, in my submission, find far far greater fault without needing to go any further at all than these randomly selected property cases from Walters FM. In all cases the blokes were double dipped and in all cases the extra 2.5% [actually 22%] bonus to Buttercup was applied as if we were back in the days of Janning J in Nazi Germany. 6.2.17. In all truth these 5% of blokes who tried to get some justice by using the court system may just as well done as the 95% do, ie House & Garden. If you don't understand House & Garden, well it seems it was not only GTR lining up to confess to Chairman Price at the JSC about "feeling like a magistrate" [and now I are one], but the unofficial leaders of the family law bloodsuckers Watt [now Watt J] and Taussig were keen to explain House & Garden to the bewildered Chairman. CHAIRMAN-I would be very pleased to do it. I must say that some of your colleagues from Queensland talked to me about a house and garden separation and costings somewhere in the order of $10,000 to $15,000 per party. Mr Watt-I really want to, with respect, go back to just what this definition of house and garden is because the reality is that these days house and garden cases do not go to court. The profession, the parties themselves or the court through its conciliation processes settle the house and garden case today. It is only if there is something almost pathological about one of the parties that house and garden cases do not settle. We are really talking about now the lower end of the range of the cost of running a three day case in the Family Court, but they are very rarely what I believe you, Mr Chairman, would think of as a house and garden case-that is, where the only assets are a house, a couple of cars, perhaps some superannuation, maybe a few shares or investments here and there Mr Taussig-A couple of debts Mr Watt-Yes, a couple of debts and a couple of children. That is what we think of as a house and garden case. They just do not go to court anymore and so talking about the cost of those is not realistic. I firmly believe that unless there is a skewing factor in the predictors of how that case would be decided, it just will not go to court - in other words, grandma left the wife the house and they cannot agree what weight that should be given in dividing it up after 20 years of marriage. That is the sort of thing that makes cases hard to settle. But the cases of just the ordinary wage earners who have accumulated a house, some superannuation and some cars just do not get out of solicitors' offices into the courts anymore. 6.2.18. Apart from the total arrogance and total disdain for their clients [and their children] and "everything they have worked for all their lives", you will see Ginger Snatch and you other old things that in House & Garden there is not even intellectual dishonesty but no intellect at all, but simply 80:20 squared, ie dad sees kids 20% of time and therefore gets 20% of the property. But for any bloke who thinks the nightmare is then ended, lets move on now to another GTR innovation of capitalised "child support" 6.3. Capitalised "Child Support" 6.3.1. Two years ago I did a similar polemic to this about a new flavour of the month racket of capitalising [lump sum] future liability for "child support" and then diverting it to the lawyer's trust fund [see http://csacalc.com/divorce/trust1.htm - Lawyer Trust Funds - the Ultimate Oxymoron]. That article explains the "business opportunity" for lawyers within the CSScheme, originally devised by ex lawyers Slithery Slattery in the Parsons case but then taken up by GTR in his final days as a barrister before being made into a fire extinguisher at FMS. 6.3.2. I had almost forgotten about this article so I was wondering if anyone [eg GTR] had even read it, so I applied "The Test", which is to ask the question at the Forum at Dads On The Air [DOTA]: Has anyone seen this article - its totally amazing lawyers can get away with fraud http://csacalc.com/divorce/trust1.htm My topic lasted 2 minutes 13 seconds before getting the gong, thus confirming that it is a "known known" but is being carefully foamed over on a regular basis. 6.3.3. So it was no surprise at all that Mr W too was to get some $70,000 capitalised. Or to put it another way, when I saw what was going down in his case it further confirmed paw marks [if indeed there was any further proof required]. The key to this deception is 1 c) The husband do provide child support to the wife for the child B for the period from 1 January 2004 to 7 September 2007 otherwise than in the form of periodic amounts payable to the wife - such child support to comprise a lump sum payment by the husband to the wife of $67,250.00. (2) I shall now hear Counsel regarding the precise terms of the orders necessary to give effect to this judgment. 6.3.4. I had seen the exact same thing in Parsons pain and suffering case where the Reasons for Judgment [on the www] said a quarter million "to the kids" but my "spies" had the actual orders which said to Slithery Slattery Trust Fund, before it got closed down. In Mr W case the dash for the cash was swift and relentless and Walters actually imprisoned Mr W to, as he said, "show the powers I have" [albeit illegally]. He also illegally took his passport. We tried to "clue up" the mum that she was not going to get a bean from the 70 grand by "serving" a copy of my polemic on her. 6.3.5. The polemic observed that if Mr W had been charged $30,000 to lose his case in front of Walters by his "own" lawyers, the fee for winning would easily eat up the 70 grand, but she decided to trust [no pun intended] her lawyers. Walters said the polemic was "colourful" but did not disagree. Of course no Buttercup is ever going to admit to the ex husband she got done over so we will never know for sure, but I would bet London to a dog that she got no more than 5 grand. 6.3.6. So it is no surprise that with this "trial run" by Rodent of 2004 of injecting $9 million into Legal Aid lawyers to enforce phantom debts [as well as reclaim phantom debts from the estates of those who suicided] having worked so well that Stage 2 of the Parkinson Reforms [in 2007, a year before the sparkling new formula] calls for a full scale assault, using the very same tricks 7. Closing Thoughts 7.1. So Watcha Gonna Do About it Doc? 7.1.1. Absolutely nothing. The main purpose of a "statement" polemic like this is not to "tell everyone what's goin' on so that everyone will cry out in protest and boats might be launched from Murray's Boatshed and justice will be done" [with left hand on heart and an American Apple Pie in the other]. 7.1.2. Indeed the reason is for my own personal security. The strategy says that if one is writing primary polemics to assist people to obtain access to justice but which, as a consequence, might interfere with blood sucking by blood sucking lawyers, then such a person is looking at a very much shortened life expectancy. In my case an assassin was sent with a meat cleaver when I started doing primary polemics but as Clint says in Unforgiven "I was lucky with the order of events" and he spent 18 months in the clink, still trying to get my 7-Iron out of his neck. 7.1.3. I then got professional advice which said one must document the knowledge they have, leave a copy with their Will and let the person or persons concerned with the knowledge know it is with one's Will. Well that was before the Internet took off so now the same strategy can be cemented with far more effect by a statement polemic, such as this, and forget the Will. 7.2. What about Rimmer FM 7.2.1. Obviously a beat up, started internally, to get rid of her like Di Fingleton, but the actions she has admitted to are totally normal and with no possible deleterious effects visited on the litigants. Why does Pascoe want to get rid of her? Well to explain that would compromise the case [shortly to be featured in a court near to you] of a bloke who, as we speak, is just getting into his vehicle to head down the Yellow Brick Road - so mum's the word as dogs have very sharp ears. 7.3. So What are YOU, my old things, Gonna Do About it? 7.3.1. Well going on the track record I would say "F*** All Yer Honour". I don't think one mushroom will come out of the dark Stockholm bunker, especially from the men's groups, and until I see those pigs circling overhead I would say not one snout will emerge from the trough. Not one person I know of has even commented on the Trust Fund expose of 2 years ago, but we see one for sure, Mr W, who has simply walked straight into the same trap with his cheque book flapping in the breeze. 7.3.2. In a nutshell Rodent is a smart leader, the FLIndustry is the biggest and best marketed industry in Oz [even better than AWB] and the fire extinguishers put in place are all doing a great job. By any measure this Rodent/Pascoe plan to convert the FMS into a glorified COAT with template judgments is working even better than Hitler's Final Solution. Do I care? - no! Do you care? - don't know, don't care 7.4. Final Words by Sir Gerald Brennan 7.4.1. The issue at stake here is to what extent can a government save money [and achieve side benefits such as power] by converting the courts to sausage factories, even the High Court [Kirby J "dissenting"]. The brilliant words of Kirby J in Harrington and Lowe [1996] refer to what Gaudron J called the "pre conditions" in Harris & Caladine, per: Depart from those pre-conditions and neither statute nor a rule of court may sustain what is done for it is forbidden by the Constitution. Kirby J was referring to some Secret Wimmens Business Rules that had snuck into the Family Law Rules, so after Harrington they got "snuck out". 7.4.2. But back in 1991 in Harris & Caladine itself, there were even bigger fish to fry as the new Nicholson CJ was stoking the fires to get his sausage factory of the Family Court up to full production via Nuremberg type speeches by Deputy ReichFuhrer Fogarty J about how to cut corners with justice [ie using similar devices as the present FMS templates]. Brennan J summed this all up per: 22. [...] Noting that there is a changed perception as to the effect of divorce on the status of the parties, his Honour [Fogarty J] suggests that the determination of the 40,000 applications for divorce each year - mostly undefended and "dealt with routinely in the matter of a few minutes each" - might be dealt with by non-judicial officers. It seems that the pressures on the Family Court are such that there is no time to pay more than lip service to the lofty rhetoric of s.43 of the Act. That is the section which speaks of the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life (par.(a)) and the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children (par.(b)). 23. It is a matter of public notoriety that the Family Court has frequently been embarrassed by a failure of government to provide the resources needed to perform the vast functions expected of the Court under the Act. But the Constitution does not bend to the exigencies of a budget and, if the humanly important problems of familial relations create a mass of controversies justiciable before the Family Court, Justices must be found to hear and determine them. 7.4.3. Don't you just love this dressing down of both FCA and government? In my submission it would be impossible for even a Politically Correct Stockholm Mushroom [looks like I just coined a PCSM] to not see these words of Kirby and Brennan JJ reminding us in Australia that we have a Constitution that defines certain standards in "the justice business" and that once you let it slip to a sausage factory by a one size fits all template, you are doing exactly what happened in Nazi Germany. 7.4.4. As Janning J [a substituted name for the actual judge] said: And then, one day we looked around and found that we were in an even more terrible danger. The ritual begun in this courtroom swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a "passing phase" had become the way of life . In my submission that disease in our courts [or at least in the FMS since Di departed] presently resembles the situation with the AIDS disease in the world, which is that the faggots that caused it are normally wealthy [many are lawyers] and can afford the expensive drugs but the millions of poor victims simply die. 7.4.5. But all of that is over to you my dear old things [to give Blowers the last word]

return to menu