Australian National


(anotd)
Wednesday 23rd September 1998

This on-line paper is now archived for perpetuity in the National Library of Australia

Subscriber's password check (have your subscription number handy)
Subscribers get free access to the monthly "The Strategy" on-line from April 1998.

Recent stories exclusive to  (how to) subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day now at the bottom of this page.


"ON NOW" weekly abbreviated anotd fax-back - Updated every Monday afternoon.
Dial: 1902 211037 and follow the instructions.
(Note: costs 0.75 c per minute will be billed to your phone account under "ON NOW NEWS LETTER")

Current topical links (available to all readers):
 [Links to the MAI]
[One Nation on-line DISCUSSION forum] [One Nation Federal Web Site]
Archive of weekly features (available to all readers):
 [The Canberra Column] [Economic Rationalism]

Today's Headlines
an Aussie's viewpoint on Australia's first daily Internet newspaper.
Since October 1995

Between the One Nation lines

G'day to Ballot 98 and anotd readers.

There is a certain irony about the story that we carry exclusively below on our anotd (Australian National News of the Day).

While the story below demonstrates quite clearly the hypocrisy of "big brother" (the mainstream media) in trying to keep the upstarts (like One Nation) from having a go - it also exposes their achilles heel.

The article (Reporters caught up in a web of intrigue) that Ballot 98 readers have read in today's on-line Ballot 98 (article by Catharine Lumby - Sydney Morning Herald) - says, in part:

The most recent example of One Nation's refusal to play by the usual rules of engagement was what at first appeared to be the appropriation of copyright material, written by Fairfax journalists, for use on a Web site linked to One Nation.

......

Scott Balson, who gathers the information for Australian National News of the Day, says, in a disclaimer, that his site is "in no way connected with Pauline Hanson's One Nation". But he also told me in an phone interview on Monday night that his news site documented "the rise and rise of Pauline Hanson" and that he substantially agrees with her views.

Last Thursday, a number of Fairfax reporters were shocked to find their articles appearing on the Web under the banner of Australian National News of the Day, a subscriber site which charges viewers for full access. The Web site is run by Scott Balson.

In a reply to a Fairfax lawyer, Scott Balson claimed there was a "coding" problem which resulted in the false impression that Fairfax material had been stored on the site. He also claimed that Australian National News of the Day has "absolutely no association with One Nation" and that the information presents "the author's own views on daily issues affecting Australians". Putting the coding claim aside, readers can check out the last assertion for themselves at www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/daily.html.

and this extract from Lumby's article, below in blue:

(right - the offending photograph referred to taken of Pauline with Margo Kingston (in orange) and Malcolm Farr (in white) at the One Nation celebrations after the June State elections):

Shortly after the Queensland election, Sydney Morning Herald reporter Margo Kingston was startled to learn she'd made a smiling debut on the One Nation Web site.

A photograph showed her and Malcolm Farr, the chief political reporter for The Daily Telegraph, with Hanson. One conclusion a casual browser might have drawn was that two of the country's senior political journalists were friendly with, if not active supporters of, One Nation.

The truth was rather different. As Margo Kingston tells it, she and Farr went to Hanson's victory celebration in Ipswich to confirm interviews for the following day. They decided to have a photo taken with Hanson for their reporters' scrapbooks. An unknown One Nation supporter decided to snap the same picture and make it available to the Web site.

Kingston offers her experience as evidence that One Nation is continally looking for opportunities to turn the tables on the mainstream media.

"They're constantly filming us filming them. From now on, if I'm on the trail of Hanson, I'll be aware that I'm on stage myself," Margo said.

It's widely acknowledged that One Nation is highly distrustful of the mainstream media and that the party has consciously exploited other forums to get its message out, with particular attention to the Internet.

Of particular interest to us is that the anotd has been produced daily for nearly three years without any legal threats being received. Yet, the day after we wrote last week in the anotd the words reproduced in red below we received legal threats from both Fairfax and News Limited . This resulted in the interest and the subsequent writing of the article by Catharine Lumby from which the above extracts have been taken.

anotd 16th September 1998:

"Kill the cow"....

three cryptic words used by a desperate Lachlan Murdoch to his senior News Limited editors days before the federal election was called. More than likely he was acting on his father's instructions.

This horrifying abuse of Australia's political system was confirmed to me by an extremely reliable source.

The cow is Pauline Hanson of course. "Kill" referring to her political career.

What we are now seeing in the feeding frenzy of biased reporting in our polarised Murdoch-dominated media - the results of that one instruction by a single, powerful young man half my age. A man who wields the power to make or break governments... and we think that we live in a democracy. Our extensive report "The Four Corners of Australia's Trojan Horse" documents how Murdoch and his editorial cronies are ruling Australia through the media.

The legal, threatening fax Fairfax sent to us on Thursday night has been scanned and placed on the net together with our response faxed to them later that evening. We have done this in the public interest.

Follow this link to view it and for our side of the story. In the Fairfax threat the legal department claim that anotd had breached copyright and "defamed" journalists.

(News Limited's threat about copyright was verbal from The Courier Mail's managing editor Gary Evans).

Well, lo and behold on Saturday after claiming the moral highground on these issues The Sydney Morning Herald ran an article in "The Good Weekend" magazine headed "The first eleven" by Frank Robson which was about as balanced as the Mafia's cash book.

For example, in the article Frank Robson states in a comment aimed at maximising damage and minimising the truth: "If he (Jeff Knuth) does, he'll try to implement his plan to have rural aborigines return to the old system of working, without pay, for white pastoralists."

You can see Knuth's statement sent to me yesterday morning from this link.

Here is an extract: "In conclusion the journalist had quoted some truth in what I have stated but has twisted what I have said to show malice towards myself and One Nation and has personally branded me as a racist or as one with an ideology of returning to black slavery. This is far from the truth and has left my faith in interviews with journalists in mistrust."

On Monday this week one of The Courier Mail journalists was given the exclusive opportunity to cover Jeff Knuth's side of the story - which included listening to the taped conversation between Knuth and Frank Robson. The journalist took up the opportunity and wrote an article giving Knuth's side of the story - the story was censored (not published) by the paper's chiefs-of-staffs.

Instead they ran a front page story headed "Please Explain" son asks Hanson - when commenting on a story by her son, Steven, in New Idea claiming that Pauline Hanson is a poor mother. Steven was paid Au$25,000 to give the magazine the story - a fact not mentioned in the article. In fact that is the only story about One nation in a paper full of feel-good stories about the Labor party and the Coalition. 

My response to the use of GWB's copyright material by Fairfax on the front page of The Sydney Morning Herald and the manner in which I was treated in the Robson article "The first eleven" is detailed below in a letter that was faxed to Fairfax's legal department on Saturday night. (We have not yet had a reply):

19th September 1998

Att: xxxxx
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

From: Scott Balson
Interactive Presentations Pty Ltd trading as Global Web Builders

By Fax:

Dear Sir,

We are most concerned at the breach of our copyright on two images used on the front cover of The Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday 19th 1998 alongside the heading "One Nation what you really get".

The two images are of Jeff Knuth and Ken Turner (the bottom two in a block of four).

We had earlier given the Fairfax library specific instructions that these images could only be used in the "Good Weekend" magazine insert and specified in our email that if they were to be used anywhere else our permission would need to be sought. Any use of the images was to be accompanied by the statement "Courtesy Global Web Builders, Brisbane".

This was not done on the front cover of today's issue of The Sydney Morning Herald.

The images appeared correctly, in terms of our written agreement with Fairfax, on pages 37 and 39 of today's "Good Weekend".

Furthermore, on page 39 of the "Good Weekend" your reporter, Frank Robson, refers to the writer, personally, as and we quote, "Their (One Nation's) karaoke scribe..."

The writer finds the comment highly defamatory and offensive.

We reserve all rights to take action against Fairfax and The Sydney Morning Herald for this statement and a clear breach of our copyright on this paper's front cover.

Yours faithfully
Interactive Presentations Pty Ltd trading as Global Web Builders

Scott Balson
Managing Director

When you read this you are correct in your assumption that this is a David and Goliath scenario. We are well aware that Fairfax could squash us financially like a fly by pulling us through the Supreme Courts.

The question we ask, however, is any price too high when it comes to the destruction of our democracy by the media barons who have now become our thought police based on "growing" their financial interests and protecting them? (Fairfax is now effectively controlled by Packer).

Of more concern is the manner in which the mainstream parties fawn to the media barons and the influence of their lobbyists in the halls of Canberra with senior bureaucrats - bureaucrats who make the real decisions while the career politicians jump up and down with carefully practised rage or denial in the Upper and Lower House while knowing that they are the real puppets in Australian politics.

This is the reason we call the major parties (and yes that includes the Democrats) as "Laboral factions". The Laboral factions all represent the interests of big business who fund them. The Laboral factions can be likened to a slice of bread.

The foundation (the bread) is the system controlled by big business with no input or interest in the concerns of you - the Australian voter. The jam is the lies and "spins" put on policy by the major parties to attract our vote.

That is why, for example, they say "globalisation is good" when clearly the opposite is true for most Australians.

The real lie in this election is that One Nation is somehow about division in this country - One Nation is about the rise of people power - and that has got to be stopped by the Laboral faction and their media mates at any cost. Therefore it makes perfect sense for the Laboral factions to exchange preferences.

After all they are one and the same and that is why Lachlan Murdoch told his senior editors to "Kill the cow" which is a blatant crime against our democracy and why media reporting is so distorted in this country.

But you won't read about that fact in the mainstream media - not in a month of Sundays. In the words of John Swinston, New York Times Chief-of -staff:

"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting to an independent press? We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes'."

Making the news" -
an indepth exposé of media and political collusion at the highest possible levels in Australia.

email the editor

You say:

Letter to the Editor - The Election.

Voters should look long and hard at the rhetoric and the reality about the upcoming federal election. The rhetoric is that the major parties want you to think that it is about taxation reform, whereas the reality is the fact of ongoing globalisation of Australia.

Past decades have seen the Labor and Liberal parties combine their efforts to hand away control of Australia to foreign interests, politicians and the media continually espouse their myopic viewpoint of Globalism being a good thing.

The current state of the nation exposes the false god of Globalism, we have surrendered much of our manufacturing industry and farming to global controllers, we have internationalised our economy and allowed the dollar to plummet, we now allow foreign imports to displace domestic production to the tune of $50B annually, we have surrendered control of our country to the United Nations and other globally controlled entities, we have divested over 90% of Australia to global investment at the expense of local ownership, we have disposed of or "privatised" most of our wealth earning capabilities to global capital, Australians now pay 91% of the tax burden while the global investors pay only 9% despite owning over 90% of the economy.

The Liberal and Labor team have not served the voters by "selling the farm" for the cause of Globalism, they have penalised all Australians present and future to a future of being dole recipients and under employed, and, to the disgraceful legacy of having the highest foreign debt per capita in the world.

A vote against the major parties would be a vote against the "economic rationalism" of the globalist agenda, any taxation proposals that do not address the major problem of tax avoidance by the globalists is a sellout of your country by party politicians.

Noel Mc Donald
Geelong

PC Diversity

Jared Taylor described two kinds. There is a 'functional diversity' of people, such as in the range of occupations - teachers, cabbies, lawyers etc. Then there is the PC kind that groups people according to their differences like race, language, age, sex, culture and even sexual 'preference', and demands special rights and privileges for them. He called this 'status diversity'. And he is highly critical of it:

"The idea that status diversity is a strength is not merely a myth, but a particularly transparent one. Explaining why diversity is bad for a country is a little like explaining why cholera is bad for it. The trick is to understand how anyone could possibly think it was good.

"In fact, diversity became a strength after the fact. It became necessary to believe in it, because skepticism would be "racist." Otherwise intelligent people began to mouth nonsense about diversity, only because of the blinding power of the race taboo. After diversity began to include sex, mental disabilities, perversions, and everything else that was alien or outlandish, to disbelieve in the power of diversity was to show oneself to be "intolerant" as well as "racist."

"Of course it is only white societies - and white groups within multi-racial societies - that are ever fooled by guff about diversity. Everyone else recognizes the Clinton-Harvard-New York Times brand of diversity for exactly what it is: weakness, dissension, and self-destruction." (The Myth of Diversity, by Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, July-August 1997)

I wonder what the Racewatchers think of that?

Antonia Feitz

DID YOU KNOW?

ASIANIZATION
1. Bill Hayden as foreign minister called for the Asianization of Australia. Mr Hayden said that It was inevitable and desirable that Australia become a Eurasian society in which whites are eliminated by intermarriage.
2. Dr Mahatir, the Prime Minister of Malaysia reckons that the Asianisation of Australia is inevitable, desirable and will happen within the lifetime of most of us, although he has said Australia cannot consider itself to be part of Asia until it is 70% ethnic Asian

RACISM
 PREDICTION: When Pauline Hanson was elected in 1996 it was predicted there would be increased racism and loss of international students
FACT: According to the Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW, complaints of vilification in 96/97 were 25 per cent less than the previous year.
FACT: IDP Educations Australia , reported that in the past 12 months, the enrolment of international (mainly Asian) students increased by 22 per cent.

STUDY
 Although costs of studying for students of different races is the same, such as books, travel, accommodation, ect some students receive much more than others according to their ancestors. A single person living away from home aged above 21 yrs, on Austudy receives $264.70 . A student in the same conditions that has Aboriginal ancestors no matter how many generations ago is entitled to $387.20 on Abstudy. This is the Apartheid system at its best and is supported by the Labor and Liberal parties. The One Nation party is the only party that promises to make it the same for all Australians regardless of where your ancestors came from. Clearly the One Nation Party is the only party that is not racist.

Cathy Hewitt

Encouragement and Suggestions

Keep expressing your opinions no matter what the cost. There are many silent voters out there, even if they do say they're voting for someone else. Especially the older generation; war veterans etc. they don't want to see our country worsen any further- afterall they are the only witnesses to the depression of Australia from a wealthy nation to a struggling nation.

Speaking from my position as a teacher it is very difficult to oppose those that oppose you. Here I am in a situation where I can easily manipulate the minds of children but, as a professional, choose not too. However some of my colleagues have abused their position. It is not their fault- they have been manipulated by the press. I doubt any of them have read your maiden speech with an open view. I have attempted to give an open debate on your views with some of the older children. Children described you as racisT. I explained that you could be seen this way. I explained to the class what PATRIOTISM was and the disadvantages/advantages of it were.

You don't get much of a go with the most popular media. May I suggest that you focus more of your campaign on the net. One in four Australians now use it. Your main concern should be voicing your ideas to the public and this is a form of media that allows you to do that without prejudice.

Teunis

The loonies are running the asylum

Our elites have done it again. They've pulled another swifty on us.

Prudential regulation of financial institutions in the domestic economy has been radically reformed (that's a worrying word). Did you know that under the Wallis 'reforms', bank depositors are no longer protected by the Reserve Bank of Australia in the event of a bank failure?

Yep. Banks and all other deposit-taking institutions now come under the Australian Prudential Regulations Authority. APRA can establish and enforce prudential 'guidelines' (another worrying word). It can take over financial institutions in trouble and even close them down. But as it has access neither to the RBA funds, nor any funds of its own, if an institution fails and hasn't enough funds to repay depositors - it's just tough luck.

Depositors are to be exposed to greater risk of individual loss. Why? Making lenders and borrowers more 'sensitive to risk' will improve the system, according to these lunatics.

Antonia Feitz

One Nation Symposium on Family Courts

The following letter was sent to the Hon Daryl Williams AMQC on 31 May, 1998 and a reply was received in late August in the form of an explanation of the Family Law Act of 1975.

Dear Sir

Re: Sexual Discrimination and Anomalies in Family Law

I have been considering all week (Domestic Violence Week) writing this, and have decided to go ahead, as the matter is quite serious.

The picture in my mind of domestic violence is a poor bruised, bleeding woman holding her sad faced children obtaining aid from solicitors, the government etc to help her carry on with life.

Not so any more.

Advertisements in every daily newspapers from solicitors stating "Are you getting your fair share in the marriage settlement? Let us help" and the law have created a new breed of woman - the professional "abused wife" , making a substantial living from the laws liberating women from the stresses of having to have an "unhappy marriage". With the added incentive now of additional claims on a man's superannuation, her future income is now even more substantial and long lasting if these laws are used and abused (legally) as I see happening in the case of my son.

Consider this scenario.....

My son, a young man in his late twenties who has worked hard to save and get his own home leaves his work and is suffering depression and all his friends are marrying and having children. He feels alone even though he has a loving family, he has not met anyone with whom to share his life ...

He meets an older woman with two children (a Jehovah Witness) who tells him of her unhappy and violent first marriage and he decides to be her protector and she seems devoted and very loving to him. He asks her to share his life, and she finally agrees to marriage, as she will accept nothing less because of her religion.

He organizes the marriage in December 1996, she and her children live with him for almost a year till she is pregnant, and then she leaves him. He finds where she is some weeks later and she has rented a house nearby. She has the baby in July, 1997 and he is delighted and bonds with the child. He is now paying child support as well as all the other money she is obtaining from DSS. She will not return to him so he visits at every opportunity (several times a week before and after work hours) and often stays the night, and we think a reconciliation is likely .... but..

When he is enamoured by the child, at the age of seven months, she takes the three children and vanishes. We are all in a state of shock, as she has given no indication of this move, in fact, the reverse had happened. After some weeks he found she had moved to Sydney, and was under the impression from the police he could travel there to bring his child home with him. Some friends of his were going to go with him, but we talked him into consulting a solicitor first.

Was this a mistake? Probably. He was advised not to do this, but start legal proceedings to have her relocate at a cost to him of several thousand dollars. A legal letter was sent first asking her to return to avoid all of this, but then she retaliated. Parenting orders were sent to him, discussing DOMESTIC VIOLENCE given as the reason for her sudden departure. She said he could have Access in SYDNEY provided he gave 10 days notice, and a Hearing for the case was to be held in Sydney in May and if it went to trial, the cost would be upward from five thousand dollars to thirty thousand dollars. But she is entitled to legal aid, while he pays for any legal matters. She then moved again, address not given so how could he give 10 days notice? Her 16 th move in 10 years, we think He has not seen his child for five months, yet he pays support. We don't know what is happening, he is still working and paying legal costs and support, and life is unbearable.

We found out from neighbours of his who had lived beside him for ten years that she had verbally abused him since their marriage and had caused them to sell and move through her noise. They thought we knew of the situation and were very sorry for him, living with the abuse nightly until all hours of the morning. I then found out her ex-husband's phone number interstate and heard his version of their marriage. Verbal abuse, laziness and fights, resulting in a divorce where she obtained $105,000 in settlement from him which she squandered in less than ten years. Not bad money, considering she'd been getting a disability or supporting mother's pension (or both) from DSS as well as Child Endowment and his child support as well. The settlement alone is more than we've lived on in that same period. As well, he'd been labelled violent to all her friends and her church members.

The point of this letter without going further into these matters is......

A woman can do and get whatever she likes as long as she uses the words DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. A man can't.

Isn't that a prime case of SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION?

She can get married, say DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and be awarded a huge property settlement on divorce. $105,000 used in less than 10 years. DSS payments for disability or supporting mother's pension or both. Child Endowment (mine used to be 50 cents and 20 cents a week). Two lots of Child Support payments from two husbands. Free health care cards, free legal costs. Rent assistance. What a life!

My son now has the tag of an abusive person, like Husband number 1. Poor woman to have been so unlucky to have picked two such abusive husbands. She is believed by all.

A murderer gets imprisonment and then freedom after a few years, but I see nothing in my son's future. He is tied for payments for years of Child Support and this for 50 weeks marriage to a woman who is wise to the ways of the law, and all its loopholes. The 50 weeks must have been purgatory, as he was too ashamed to tell anyone of his problems, as he thought she was "perfect" and had had such a terrible life.

The sad thing is, that I believe she is doing all this to him out of vengeance, as the second marriage had not worked as she wished. So this shows how well-informed women can obtain a fantastic livelihood out of the words DOMESTIC VIOLENCE as well as giving a label to an undeserving recipient.

So what is the answer? He works all the time, has no child access, makes payments to her, pays solicitor's bills, has no life, and can expect nothing good in the future. Perhaps she will want all his assets as a marriage settlement from a divorce. No wonder we read in the papers of marriage/defacto partners causing mayhem and violence if this is all there is for them to look forward to.

What Justice is there? And if it's there, who can afford it? And if you borrow money to try to get justice when you are in the right , the woman is always believed anyway, so why spend that money?

Yours faithfully

Name withheld on request

end of letter sent to A-G Dept

..............................................

The following is the text of the reply from the Attorney_General's Department to my original letter of 31 May, 1998, dated 17 August, 1998.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mrs xxx

FAMILY LAW

Thank you for your letter, dated 31 May 1998, to the Attorney-General, the Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, concerning family law and domestic violence and your view that family law is biased towards women. I am responding on behalf of the Attorney-General and I apologise for the delay in doing so.

2. Unfortunately, the breakdown of a marriage and the subsequent re-adjustments that the parties must make are a major traumatic experience. Accordingly family law proceedings are notoriously stressful.

3. The provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 pursuant to which the Family Court is required to make decisions are not intended to discriminate against men, but apply to men and women equally. The Court evaluates individual cases on the basis of the evidence before it provided by both parties, and this inevitably involves a balancing process. However, protecting the interests of the child must remain the overriding concern.

4. If you son is unable to reach an agreement with his former wife regarding contact (formerly known as access) to his child, it is open to him to apply to the Court for a contact order.

5. If he already has such an order, here are certain provisions within Part VII of the Family Law Act concerning the location and recovery of children. Under these provisions, a person who has a contact order (formerly an access order) may apply to the Court for a location order and a recovery order.

6. A location order is an order requiring a person or government agency to provide the Registrar with information about the child's location. Once the Registrar has received this information, it can only be disclosed to a limited range of people, such as the police to recover the child, and cannot be disclosed to the applicant. A recovery order is an order requiring the return of the child and authorising or directing a person to do all things necessary to secure recovery of the child. Such an order will generally be served by the police and will authorise them to retrieve the child.

8. Successive Governments have taken the view that there should be no link between a parent' s child support liability and contact with a child. The obligation to maintain a child is something that cannot be abrogated because of non-compliance with a contact order. The "best interests of the child" remains the paramount consideration, and the need to secure adequate maintenance is seen as essential to that end.

9. I hope that, with the assistance of the Court and a solicitor if necessary, these matters will soon be resolved more to your son' s satisfaction..

Yours sincerely

Deborah Turner

AIg Senior Government Lawyer
Family Law Branch

................

In paragraph 4 of the letter of reply, it states "it is open for him to apply to the Court for a contact order". However, do these people realize the financial cost in so doing?

It is easy to say, apply to the Court, but many thousands of dollars are involved in each application, and as well there is the emotional stress to take into account, which can be extreme to say the least. Women in her position get Legal Aid, but since my son is employed (at present), he pays top dollar in legal fees.

Finally this August, he takes leave from work to go to Sydney to see his child, to which she agrees. But on his arrival, she insists he stop all legal concerns and I think emotionally blackmails him so that after he sees the child a few times in that two week period, he returns home with lots of photos of the baby who is now over a year old, but nothing resolved. She barely speaks to him, derides and lowers his self esteem even further, and still he has nothing but a photo album of memories. He has barely spoken of the trip, has paid all his solicitor's bills and stopped all proceedings, thinking it will all go away.

So OK, a lot of it is to do with religion. Since he didn't convert to her religion, he is the subject of her retribution and is being punished for that, but she is doing this by taking advantage of the Family Law Court and citing domestic violence.

He married an older, experienced woman who was a Jehovah Witness and who is supposedly a Lyme Disease sufferer. (Leading to neurological problems and the inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, possibly ending in insanity).

He did not convert. She is in disgrace with her religious elders so becomes pregnant to have another church follower in his place, and leaves him within a year. (he hasn't been told this, but friends of mine who have been involved with JWs have been through similar situations).

She lives elsewhere, involves him with the pregnancy, has the baby and bonds him with the child,

At the end of h few months when her current rental lease is about to expire, she leaves the state without notice, telling her church friends it is because he has threatened her and she fears for her life. They hide her in their community and he is in despair of losing his child. He is paying child support and now has no visitations.

He finds where she is and wants to take the child. We tell him to do it LEGALLY and this starts his problems. A legal letter asking her to return leads to a ridiculous parenting order against him because of violence. His solicitor insists he will win and wants him to proceed, eventually to trial for custody. (at about $8,000). Letters go back and forth, he is represented at an initial hearing ($1,000+) but he is not present at the interstate hearing.

Months go by. He badly wants to see the child and his wife agrees, but only has a few access visits and lots of emotional blackmail and stress. (another $1,000 for airfares and backpacking living interstate for the duration). Another waste of time and energy.

She will go ahead with her orders and he is shattered by her actions and distrust of women in general.

All of this is done in vengeance as she believes he did not meet up to her expectations. She did not live up to his either, but he was prepared to continue with the farce of a marriage for the child's sake.

She is also firmly convinced in her mind that he is violent (the Lyme Disease syndrome), just as her first husband was, and she took him for $105,000 after about 4 years of marriage and two children, and she didn't have this disease then. He has to give up because of the financial and emotional burden.

So with the laws as they now stand, WHAT USE IS THE FAMILY COURT? It is expensive, prejudicial to women, and he stands no hope as paragraph 7 of my letter of reply from the A-G's Department indicates. "The best interests of the child" is always with the mother, except for exceptional cases, and certainly for an alleged "cunning, conniving, vengeful, sick, religious fanatic" who has successfully poisoned her other two children against their father, and will do the same thing to my son's child as well.

Yours faithfully

Name Withheld

Personal trivia, from the global office:

Another perfect day in paradise.

Have a good one.

Search Engine Boosters! 
This Ring Name site is owned by One Nation.

Want to join the One Nation ring?

[Skip Prev] [Prev] [Next] [Skip Next] [Random] [Next 5] [List Sites]

Recent stories exclusive to  (how to) subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day:

Where the politically correct hang out - 20th September 1998
A brief lunch time controntation with Jeff Kennett- 8th September 1998
One Nation's Primary Industry Policy- 7th September 1998
One Nation's Tax Policy- 4th September 1998
One Nation "Media Adviser" shows true colours- 1st September 1998
One Nation Federal Fund Raiser - 21st August 1998
B'nai B'rith's discriminatory and un-Australian "Racewatch" - 18th August 1998
Four Corners become "Flawed" Corners - 11th August 1998
The Nicholas Street Rally - 4th August 1998
Their first day in Parliament - 28th July 1998
The 60 Minutes debate/debacle - 26th July 1998

Return to Australian National News of the Day

#


Web development, design, and storage by Global Web Builders - Email: global@gwb.com.au

See GLOBE International for other world news.

anotd