You are here:   Forums
Register   |  Login
etter_Future_Ahead_01

Welcome to the Crimes Against Fathers Forums

Minimize
 
ForumForumNews from Freed...News from Freed...News Parent ForumNews Parent ForumNews From Rober...News From Rober...maladministration bias against fathers of Child Support Agency and Social Securities Appeals Tribunamaladministration bias against fathers of Child Support Agency and Social Securities Appeals Tribuna
Previous Previous
 
Next Next
New Post
 3/23/2011 9:05 PM
 
 Modified By host  on 3/23/2011 2:06:52 AM



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Kennedy
Sent: 10 March 2011 04:53
To: xxxxxxx
Subject:


Hi Folks and Blokes

The following email was sent to the following mailing list of Government Officers complaining about the maladministration bias against fathers of Child Support Agency and Social Securities Appeals Tribunal in particular.  I urge you to make whatever complaints you have or can relate to these officers to support the work I am doing by directness and numbers and ‘background static’ to make them change to do what The Legislature set out and not what Emil’ys List and feminist have substitutive as due process of decision making.  There is more in this campaign coming to you to do the same and let them know I am not the only one wanting the return of democracy to the administration of these heterosexual relationships administrations.  That is - family law, child support, child abuse and abduction and alienation; family violence.  None of these “wrong’ against father occur out of law or case facts but by corrupt officer trusted with the decision making.  Please give your support to change like the dad in his letter to NT News by mailing as above and writing to editors and media and all politicians and a little less only to each other.    Regards Robert


xxxxxxxxxxxx


CSA Ciriaco Albanese (ciriaco.albanese@csa.gov.au); 'CSA Craig Anderson'; CSA Phillipa Godwin (phillipa.goodwin@csa.gov.au); Jane Macdonnell  (info@SSAT.gov.au); CW AG McClelland (R.McClelland@aph.au); A N A O (ag1@ano.gov.au); Ombudsman CW (ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au)



Attention all Officers as listed.


I am keeping you informed on matters requiring a full and frank inquiry into the failure of CSA and SSAT not adhering to ‘legal’ due process.  In the interim I cite four cases from four states noting that if I had not been these Citizens CSA Representative none of these failures indicative of a serial failure would ever have been exposed.  Some of their material has been previously outlined to you and client numbers and party names will be revealed under appropriate circumstances later in the current proceedings CSA has undertaken as a trigger to a more substantial ‘overhaul’ of their ‘staff discipline’ and ‘compliances’.


Note that each case is from a different state and the failure is no only serial but widespread consequently victimizing many innocent citizen who rely upon expecting to receive the utmost integrity but don’t.  In circumstances they frequently cannot explain legally what is right but know they are being delivered something extremely unjust and unfair.  Thus citizens consensus otherwise is not to be relied upon to ‘discover’ due process.  Knowing what due process is the professional responsibility of The Public Service employees working these areas and it is the responsibility of their superior officer to ensure not only are they trained in its use but that without fault it is being applied in every case.


Therefore there must be a national inquiry by Government into CSA and SSAT on these matters and Others ‘administration’ of all heterosexual government services to families.


Case 1

CSA

·         A father payer received only phone calls from CSA out of an alleged 6A reason 8 application allegedly by the mother.  There was no exchange of this legal source document and it was never supplied to him or his representative for him to respond to as due process requires it to be the ‘initiating processes’.

·         The father payer appointed me as his CSA Representative and further informed CSA he wanted me present at his ‘objection hearing.  I was never contacted by CSA and the hearing seemingly never occurred by progressed nonetheless without due process to a ‘final’ determination.

·         Without his representation the father payer was denied due process and ‘ambushed’ at an inappropriate point and in an unlawful way.


SSAT

  • An appeal of the CSA objection was accepted by SSAT
  • In the SSAT prehearing conference it was deemed by SSAT officers a panel hearing had ‘legal grounds’ to consider as ‘the appeal’ {before proceeding with any other case material}.
  • A hearing that if this legal argument should have occurred for the appeal to be adjourned for CSA to supply the alleged document or not be able to supply it for an appeal based upon it to proceed or not proceed and in the case of non supply the determination of CSA be deemed null.
  • In the consequent appeal hearing {as explained in more detail other correspondences} The Panel departed from a just due process format and would not take legal argument and relegated me to a weakened form of ‘witness’ to speak only at the end of the hearing – out of their own redesign of due process.  I was constantly under the threat of ‘dismissal’ from the hearing if I interjected in the manner a representative would normally be ‘legally’ allowed.  The ambush of my client was thus complete and absolute also concealed under a suppression order raised at the beginning of the hearing.
  • The Panel was excessively ‘compassionate’ to the mother appellant and bruskly bureaucratically ‘bullying’ to me and my client in furth4er modus operandi of ‘gender bias’ and our ambush.  To intentionally conceal diverting from due process and keep blocked any return to it by concentrating on an ‘advanced’ stage of ‘financials’ father mistakenly think mistakenly is the only due process of the proceeding and are easily ambushed.
  • Not only was the legal argument not allowed an ‘airing’ by The Panel but a massive amount of other ‘prerequisite’ due process was dispensed with by The Panel to arrive with disgusting haste at the fathers income.
  • Once at the father’s income it was apparent that the Members did not know and understand the many interlocutory Government and Legislative factor’s applying to income earning and tax assessment ‘earning entity’ is entitle to and further and to what child support assessment applies to under s117.  Clearly they had an ‘advocacy’ to which they were looking for ‘cut and paste’ unrelated factors to verify their ‘advocacy’ and via a wormhole modus operandi as indeed they did ultimately.
  • Such as they added back the business loss of ‘depreciation’ and accepted CSA’s false application of CSA payment calculations causing an ‘unlawful’ over charge based on his business and not his personal income as the latter at s56 and s34A and s43 of the Child Support Assessment Act sets our.  Noting there were no legal documents supplied by CSA verifying at all there were any grounds at all to commence any 6A ‘Administrative Assessment’ processes. to look at all at any s117 factors.  Notable also being misused by CSA and SSAT to use ‘business taxable income’ and not ‘personal’ taxable income’.  Another wormhole modus opeandi substitution for due process.
  • On the other hand the matter of family assets and income was a matter of disputed ownerships in the family court is a ground both CSA and SSAT should not have involved The Commonwealth Government in the family dispute and tried to override and preempt the family court with investigative and decision powers appropriate to the situation and not legislatively available to either CSA or SSAT.  Thus neither CSA or SSAT should have acted upon any 6A application valid or not or in this case apparently ‘unlawfully’ given a ‘wormhole’ journey at the waste and ‘abuse’ of Taxpayers Resources as a means of deliberately creating an unlawful monetary over charge of the payer father.
  • Notwithstanding (a) the father  had been paying the ‘prescribed’ amount (b) there was monetary investment ‘family assert’ available to the mother by the father but the  mother refused to counter sign its release to her is yet another ground both CSA and SSAT should not have involved The Commonwealth Government in ‘attacking’ the father and his income earning capacity without equally considering under reason 8 {allegedly} the mothers own share of family assets and ‘capacity’



It be noted that much of the criteria set falsely by CSA and SSAT improperly in such instances during  family court hearings is also fed back to the family court ‘allegedly but falsely as ‘evidences’ for the mother and against the father.  Is precisely the secondary intention of the wormhole modus operandi.




Case 2


CSA

  • The Human Services Minister caused an increase of staff for investigation of all CSA cases back one decade.
  • There is an ‘absolute’ statute of limitations of seven years at s93.  Thus although cases can be investigated beyond seven years assessments beyond seven years cannot be applied or collected.
  • There is freedom for CSA to apply re- assessments up to eighteen months and scope after eighteen months up to seven years to seek ‘approval’ from the court to ‘apply’ a higher re- assessment
  • My client who had submitted his returns in that era were not processed until ten years later under the Ministers review were then three years beyond the absolute statute of limitations.
  • His objections grounds were put by me to the attending CSA officer who allegedly had never heard of the statute of limitations and ultimately did not allow the grounds to prevail.
  • During the hearing she retorted to me “Well if you were the other parent would not you want the money” is self explanatory of officers becoming mother’s advocates above their professional duties to The Commonwealth Government and it Legislation and responsibilities of impartiality to citizens.  [CSA is not a ‘gift house’ but the Government administrator and adjudicator of comprehensive legislation and case facts as decreed by The Legislature to be impartial and fair and just to all family members being dealt with by CSA  and later by SSAT].


SSAT

  • In the file ‘bundle’ supplied by CSA to SSAT and client there was no material at all bearing any of the grounds of the objection.
  • Thus when SSAT received my submission of the assessment being beyond the absolute statute of limitations they did not seem familiar or concerned at all with what the legislation said.
  • Further it was put to SSAT that CSA had never after eighteen months south or obtained a departure order to apply a re-assessment up to seven years.
  • SSAT behave just as mindlessly and obsessively about ‘money’ as it has nationally and did not allow the appeal upholding the determination of CSA...

Case 3


CSA

  • My client came to me well advanced in family court property and parenting proceedings.
  • The mother had ‘done a runner’ with the children in contravention of family court parenting orders and the father was trying to reestablish the orders and his contact with his children
  • The mother then submitted falsely to CSA that her situation was the status quo she had the children 100% of the time for the highest payments in a situation she had herself falsely and unlawfully created.
  • A senior CSA officer handling the case in fact mentioned in his determination that it was a ‘hard’ decision because the matter was before the court and he assigned the full residency amount to the mother.
  • Not only did  this office ignore his duties to CSA and the family court to ‘uphold’ orders of a court he made himself and CSA prosecutable third parties under family law ‘assisting’ the contravention of parenting orders.


SSAT

·         As this fathers CSA representative I was allowed to outline the legal case as set out above

·         On completion of the submission I was told I was finished with and would be disconnected from the phone.

·         I protested briefly and professionally that my client might need to consult with me but I was ignored and disconnected.

·         Thus the hearing became a ‘secret chamber’ in which the unrepresented father was ambushed.

·         He later could not explain to me what happened after I was ‘dismissed’

·         I did not receive an oral or written determination such are the misandry attitudes within SSAT.  The father inofrmed me that SSAT simply upheld the decision of CSA.



Case 4


CSA

  • Had behaved serially and overcharged as briefly set out above.


SSAT

  • At the SSAT prehearing conference I put it directly to the SSAT stated Director conducting the conference that this case would indeed be ‘reviewed’ in the appeal hearing under the same legislation {and due process} as CSA and as according to Government literature to that effect about the responsibilities of SSAT in CSA matters.
  • The Director replied “I don’t think you will”.
  • I challenged to ask “Why not” and he replied “Because we can make another decision”.  I knew they can and under what circumstances so I further challenged stating to do so was their first duty and he said it was not.
  • Whilst SSAT can make another decision to what CSA made it is only after a full and proper ‘review’ of the case under the same legislation and same case facts and same due process that establishes there is just cause to not only alter but make a different determination to CSA. Comes from compliance to due process and not a ‘personal’ or ‘ideological’ origin.
  • Clearly SSAT is making determinations erroneously outside of legislation and case facts and due process on ‘false hypothesis’s’ and ‘make it up’ completely without any legislation or case facts or lawful due process.
  • It explains SSAT also using  ‘wormhole’ modus operandi to ‘coincide’ with the ‘wormhole’ modus operandi of CSA
  • I ‘hear told’ without my own evidences that SSAT employ ex CSA employees in CSA adjudication – I say thus is the consistency and too why as consistently ‘women win’ out of SSAT as they do out of CSA.  As being the only thing consisted because case fact and law and due process are not being used...
  • Thus SSAT is not an impartial and transparent adjudicator of CSA determinations from the state director down to the ‘occasional’ members bearing much “Urban Mythology” that forms individual CSA adjudication panels



There must be a full inquiry that has powers to view case files to ‘sight’ the evidences upon them that support CSA and SSAT are not complying with legal due process.  The confidentiality and suppression orders criteria to protect families have become perversely inverted by CSA and SSAT staff to conceal their victimization of fathers end consequently their children.  With no lawful good in it for mothers who know with the cooperation of CSA and SSAT enduring ‘women win’ more and more mothers are rotting the system ‘administratively’ and ‘financially’.  Whereby paying fathers are just as frequently by being overcharged driven into financial insolvency and unable to pay the higher amounts of child support they otherwise would and often consequently suicide as an escape from their government victimization.


It be noted a case is being mounted by detained asylum seekers on the hypothesis of undue distress and harm caused to them by excessively determined.  The grounds for a similar individual or class action arise out of the conduct of CSA and SSAT causing unlawful overcharging and harassment for collection and eventual psychological and financial harm to this class of male citizen  


PLEAS FIX and avoid putting these unnecessarily and ‘intentionally’ government agency victimised fathers on a litigious course against their ‘abuser’ The Commonwealth Government.


Please contact me for any further information

Sincerely

Robert E Kennedy          Coordinator        NT Office Status of Family, PO Box 988, Palmerston, NT 0831      Phone 08 8932 3339


 Emilys List control of Gov 08.pdf
 CSA bullying and civil conscription 050311.pdf
Previous Previous
 
Next Next
ForumForumNews from Freed...News from Freed...News Parent ForumNews Parent ForumNews From Rober...News From Rober...maladministration bias against fathers of Child Support Agency and Social Securities Appeals Tribunamaladministration bias against fathers of Child Support Agency and Social Securities Appeals Tribuna