Glad to hear the kids came close to the end of the rainbow perhaps they may realise that half the truth is in the fun of looking for the end in good company

Unfortunately with many dads and mums the importance of providing money to buy things is considered being a good provider and perhaps it is if you consider bling essential, society and government promote this extravagance and may well be why it promotes mothers as being the " home maker " for the simple reason they will spend much of the money in retail a lot easier than men, this is not so much of a gender bias comment but rather a reflection on surveys done that state women spending more retail dollars. They could be considered as keeping the country afloat, ina consumer society like ours.

It seems such a small step for men who work to fall into the meaning of " provider " is to go out and work till you die and get as much money as you can to provide for your family, hell we can't go out chucking spears like we use to so we need something else to show we are alpha.

So we end up with a social belief that promotes we spend less time with our children, do more work, support our partners more at home, be the discipliner as well as tend to the emotional needs of everyone sunder. And they say women are hard done by.

Cultural change that equalises the role of men and women will come in time but right now we are oh so aware that women are more equal than we are and any situation that can be shown to promote more equality for women will get flogged to death, promoting examples to reflect the whole in a gender bias way is common ground these days and of course one of the largest campaigns in this regard is the " Australia says no " which only covers violence against women but seems to neglect the fact that women are violent against men and children, so rather than say " Australia says not to violence " of any kind well Australia is just concerned with one gender after all we have to be politically correct........................ Hmmmm and here's me thinking including all citizens of Australia would have been politically correct, go figure.

In saying this many dads are their own worse enemy because they accept this interpretation of their role in life and I can tell you just how emotionally crippling it is not to be able to be this desired provider as well as how society judges you especially other men.

We need to change and this will take time, we need to learn how to defend our rights as well as our children and right now we have no rights apart from being good citizens and providing income that can be spent in the consumable society. We are confused at heart about our role and we are easily influenced by our sense of morality which incorporates our need to provide which has been indoctrinated on us not only bu society but our own fathers.

Simple truth is our kids need us in their lives just as much as they need their mothers and the sooner the kids get that the sooner many of these emotional and mental disorders will reduce in society, make it acceptable that kids still have both parents in their lives and both parent will accept they are equal and treat each other with respect.

There is much ground to cover to get there but in time if we keep at it chipping away it will come.

D4E

D4E,

You misinterpreted my mesage.

What I'm driving at is how so obvious it is that she made it all up. That what actually occurred was she told the kids to write those letters. If she had nothing to do with those letters, how come she had copies of them presented in Court? Obviously, to have ammunition against me.

Would be absurd to believe that she was controlled by the children.

Kids able to know how to plan such things? How do they know, in the first place, what goes on in Court?

But the Court simply bought all that BS. Makes job easier for them.

********************************

Democracy also means freedom of information. Needless for me to elaborate why publicise. We're not living in a communist country - supposedly.

********************************

Needless to repeat the importance to the children's health in maintaining father-child relationship. The less time the father spends with the children, the more detrimental it will be for the children's upbringing. Of course, the extreme is no father-chid contact at all.

As Warwick Marsh said, "The increased levels of violence against women are directly linked with the increase of fatherlessness in Australian society. 80% of rapists are fatherless and 85% of youths in prison are fatherless. The court says it is fighting violence against women and children but through the promotion of fatherlessness in its judgements, it is ensuring the reverse is actually the case."



____________________________________________________________
The bottom line is, why should the mother be dictating the terms and the father has to pay for bureaucratic arrogance?

I actually agree with you Al, this style of premeditated weapon is accepted by the system and society, if it's made unacceptable children will get to spend more time with the alienated parent and the tool will be removed and no doubt be seen for what it is, disruptive to the child.

We cant achieve change if we simply try and push aggressively and bully, we need to instead educate and acquire change via the system that is prejudice to change that prejudice.

The more father who ask for these changes the more the system will change and be easier for the next dad walking in their footsteps.

Bully. Who's really being bullied? Who's being thrown out of his home and treated as a dirtbag? And robbed his children of their right to have relationship with their father? And simply because the ex- made some cute statements like, "I have extreme fear for my life from him"?

How many dids have commited suicide due to being bullied by the system? The postings here and in many other similar sites clearly show that dids are sick and tired of being bullied.

The question is not whether we are being bullied. Yes, we are. The system is designed to bully us. Eg, tougher AVO laws. So, what should we do to stop being bullied? Ie, how aggressive should we be?

Aggressive. This has a broad meaning. From writing angry messages to staging riots.

The question is, how far in this range should we go to get our lazy public servants to change things?

Perhaps a better way of putting this is, how hard should we kick their asses before they start doing REAL work?

In the '60s, they brought the war to the campus to institute reforms. I certainly hope that Australia is no longer living in the '60s. Surely, we've grown out of those irrational behavior. Our govt should be mature enough not to wait until the last moment before intelligently doing something. To act long before the people resort to childish things.

Education. Education is like a knife that cuts both ways. Educate not only the people. But also the govt.

Our public servants must understand that they are paid by the taxpayer. As such, they are accountable to him.

To paraphrase Pres. Obama,"And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their govt".

"For the world has changed, and we must change with it".

*****

I don't disagree with you, D4E, that the media should suppress publication. Otherwise, they'd suffer the same consequences as Dids Inc. No more govt funding.

It's always best for the fls not to do business in the light of day.

Guess I should plead guilty for being a contributor to Dids Inc's downfall.

Who says Australia has freedom of information?





____________________________________________________________
The bottom line is, why should the mother be dictating the terms and the father has to pay for bureaucratic arrogance?

AT
Australia only has freedom of the information that the govt deems suitable and necessary. Recently south australia was in uproar about our road safety minister who it transpired had almost 50 traffic offences against him [ im not joking ]. Now the govt has deemed it necessary to stop anyone from knowing about things like this and it has been banned by law. We could have a child molester or paedofile as our family/childrens services minister now and no one would be allowed to know. As far as getting public servants to understand that they are servants of the public, best of luck.

Last 27th May 2009, I wrote my ex-wife's lawyer,
“Your letter dated 27th May 2008 said that the sum proposed to be paid by
your client to me represents 50% of the estimated net value of the
property. If this is true, then, why won't she agree to sell the house
at auction?

If she has the money, then, she can participate as one of the bidders.

It also said that if I do not accept the proposal, then, your client
will file Family Court proceedings without further delay. It has been a
year now and no legal action has been taken from your end. Why am I not
surprised?”

My ex-wife's lawyer replied,
“We are seeking instructions from our client, as to any action which she may
propose in this matter. We will notify you of any instructions which we
may receive.

In the meantime, we have no intention of conducting a public discussion
of this matter with you by broadcast emails, as you have continued to
do. We have advised our client as to the appropriate legal action which
she may pursue against you for doing so. Undoubtedly, the news
organizations to whom you have continued to distribute your emails, with
details of your dispute with our client, are aware of the legal
position, and so have refused to involve themselves in your dispute, or
have simply ignored you.

We expect that given your recent behaviour and actions, you will
similarly disseminate this email to them, so the above is notified for
their benefit.”

Last 1st June, I responded,
“Thank you for this reply.

I am surprised that you FINALLY did not ignore my email. And I am also surprised that my ex-wife has not yet terminated your services. Which was what she did with her previous lawyers.

I hope that she will not terminate your services. I look forward to seeing her and you in our Family kangaroo Court soon.

Please don't deal with my lawyer as I have no more money to pay him.”

Again last 15th June, I wrote,
“Re your email below, it is a fortnight now but still no legal action is taken against me by your client.

Once again, why am I not surprised?

I know what you will do. You will either ignore this email or advise your client to terminate your services.

She really has no intention of pursuing this matter, does she? After all, she will continue to have the matrimonial home for her own private use until this matter is settled.

She knows that, should I take this matter to Court, I will be bled dry.

Before you pass judgment on my behaviour and actions, how about your client's behaviour and actions?”

*****

Makes no difference really whatever my behaviour or actions. The Court will always look for excuses to keep my ex- happy.

As what happened during my contact application, one excuse the judge had was, "Had you signed the children's passport application [requested by your ex-], your children would now be eager to have regular contact with you". Yes, indeed! Any goddamn f**king excuse.

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps, the judge had a different interpretation. Viewed as a mother protecting her children from that terrible monster, viz., me. Keeping her children as far away from their father as possible. Ensuring their safety. As she said, "He beat the children until they were black and blue. He also literally threw the children out of the house".

After I was bled dry, not surprised if the judge rounded up the lawyers, court clerks, etc in his chamber and said, "Mission accomplished. Time to celebrate. Which [7-star] restaurant will we go to, to have dinner tonight?"

Who says Australia is not a frontier of beauty?


____________________________________________________________
The bottom line is, why should the mother be dictating the terms and the father has to pay for bureaucratic arrogance?

Again, last 1st July 2009, I sent to my ex-'s lawyer,
"It is a month now since your reply.

Still no legal action taken against me by your client.

What is the story? Did your client FINALLY terminate your services as she did with her previous lawyers? If no, is it because I am broadcasting my emails?

I can understand why the media ignored my emails. Our Family Law System is untouchable."

*********************

Just taking out the dirty linens hidden in the cupboard and showing them to the public.

Will our lazy public servants wash them? Always too busy.

Also as pointers for ex-wives keen on getting the best deal from ex-partners.

Sorry, dids. I know my postings make you unhappy. Can't help it.








____________________________________________________________
The bottom line is, why should the mother be dictating the terms and the father has to pay for bureaucratic arrogance?

Mate file a complaint with the Legal Services Commission NSW they are very pro active with respect to sorting out incompetent lawyers. More professional than the Legal Services Commission QLD.

Complain about their conduct and lack of response and the failure of the lawyer to achieve the main purpose as set out in the Family Law Rules 2004 Rule 1.08, Responsibility of parties and lawyers in achieving the main purpose.

Send the imbecile a letter asking if they are the legal representatives of your ex. If you receive no response then add that to your complaint to the LSC NSW and continue to add complaints as they investigate.

The more people that complain the sooner the media will involve themselves to expose the legal profession for what it is over paid and overrated garbage.

I can assure you that i have had more success representing myself than i ever have had with a lawyer. Its not hard to look up the various Acts and present it to the court. Plenty of lawyers out there that woudnt know shit from clay about the law. About the only thing they can do is fill out a form, well sometimes anyway.