A well known case of alleged "paternity fraud" is heading for the High Court. At this stage in December 2005 the transcript of the leave application Magill v Magill  HCATrans 974 (18 November 2005) has been tabled, with leave granted. However the High Court is expecting the Appellant to file/serve a Notice of Contention, to "broaden" the argument regarding deceit/fraud, and it will be up to Liam's lawyers to attempt to do so.
It is our view that the main issue of [financial] deceit [and it seems the High Court is looking for dollars] is the issue relating to child support, and in our view the All Singing All Dancing Calculator fills the bill, analysis wise. Since the introduction of the Calculator all manner of men's groups and government departments [particularly Ms Patterson and her Toxic Masculinity MensLine] have come out with great intent to "terminate with extreme prejudice" so we KNOW we must be spot on, going forward.
We see the PROJECTION feature of our Calculator as being a totally invaluable tool to assist in this case, and here's why. Minds have so far been concentrated on how much Liam paid, how much CSA reduced the liability after the DNA tests and the Attorney General's efforts in "fixing" the wrong Act.
But our view of deceit is that implicit in an act of deceit is the intent to "get away with it" [otherwise it would seem pointless to do so in the first place, going forward]. For example the AG would have been hoping that punters would not know the difference between child support and child maintenance [which virtually ends in 2007]. If one is to accept that premise then firstly the deceit would never be known unless someone happens to "spring it", and secondly the timing of the springing should not be seen to limit the original INTENT of the deceit. To relate that to Liam's case we must examine the various scenarios for their full intended term [until each nominated child reaches 18], and that is where the Calculator is invaluable.
Child Support application is not compulsory [except to the extent that failure to apply may affect Centrelink "benefits"]. So the mother could have opted to not apply at all after separation, but [if she wished] still maintain the deceit about parentage. And we will stay right out of such "non financial deceit".
Secondly she could have simply applied for the one child from the "loins of Liam" [and we will also remain silent as to her knowledge pre DNA as to which were and which were not Liam's kids].
Thirdly she could have made "separate" applications for each child/father scenario.
Now there are some possible hairy legal issues, particularly with the last scenario, but we will just state the 3 scenarios and do the maths, leaving it up to the legal eagles to use our figures if they wish
While the calculator is accurate to 15 decimal places, we are simply looking for a "ball park" result, and in any case we need to assume some of the input data, particularly the income of Liam. We have settled on $50,000 pa - not based necessarily on ATO figures but on the knowledge that the COAT will always "deem & destroy" with their so called capacity to earn policy. Finally, you can ignore the GREEN results as the professor's new formula is way too late to save Liam [or the mother]. So here are 3 pages to cover the 3 situations above.
So the deceit situation in Result Page #1 says some $190,000 was possible but Result Page #2 says only about $90,000 of that was "legal", meaning that the deceit can be measured as about $100,000.
But what is interesting is the scenario in Result Page #3 where the mother was legally entitled to $165,000 from "the other bloke" [we assume he too is deemed at the same income], giving a total of $255,000 simply by filling in the Form 101 at the CSA to identify each kid/father combination. However an inspection of the CSAAct and the FLAct shows that such a path might be a little difficult [as well as giving the game away as to any non financial deceit intended]. But don't shoot the messenger, we are just providing the figures.