You are here:   Forums
Register   |  Login

Welcome to the Crimes Against Fathers Forums

ForumForumNews from Freed...News from Freed...News Parent ForumNews Parent ForumNews From Rober...News From Rober...Senator Mailing lists and comments  Mon 14/02/2011 Senator Mailing lists and comments Mon 14/02/2011
Previous Previous
Next Next
New Post
 2/27/2011 12:13 AM

Folks I am sending you two emailing lists of all Federal Politicians abut 268 in total to select all and paste ‘to’ to run email campaigns for changes to family law and child support and false interpersonal violence statistics out of the Federal Jurisdiction.

I have previously sent you much of this information to ‘follow the leader’ and follow up on my posted mail and emails.  I hope you ALL have done this and  thus ‘lobbied’ all politicians.  For the changes I expect you to want to be made.

As a consequence of my last complaint and campaign I have miraculously achieved an internal investigation of CSA and I have been asked to assist them to identify the ‘administrative’ failings.  I will list some below for your use that I have raised with CSA and am in discussions about.  I did ask you all to come back to me with any of your own points but same as ever no one has – Seems like everyone is completely satisfied with how CSA are ‘ripping’ blokes off with unlawful over charges.

I will mail to you all a ‘word’ copy of my posted complaint against SSAT and I hope you will support the ripped off blokes by (a) making your own email and (b) attaching my ‘complaint letter from you to all Federal Politicians.  Below is a list of the first half of the failures of CSA under the 6A ‘administrative review’ process.  The other half will be available in the near future too for my discussions with CSA setting up the ‘criteria’ of the internal investigation. 

I have done this for you to make it easy.  I just can’t do any more to help you than reduce you complaint and campaigning work down to this small amount.

Regards Robert


As I have indicated we will continually revisit previous matters to add more detail and develop a better comprehension of both ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’ due process before adding in their specific evidences and case and officer identities.  Here on the proforma 6A application

  • The 6A proforma document is essential as the ‘initiating’ or ‘source’ document that that ‘legally’ commences a ‘due process’.
  • Some completed forms have  never been supplied to the payer and seem to have never existed
  • When they do not exist no lawful due process can commence.
  • In instances where they do not exist and due process has begun the process is for the said reasons wholly unlawful.
  • Some supplied are so inadequate as to fail the ‘qualification’ criteria of a lawful application.
  • Some supplied are intentionally false and misleading are not being rejected but are being used as the case officers ‘alleged’ investigation.  Where the false claims of the mother are simply quoted back ‘falsely’ to the father as ‘the case facts’ of an alleged CSA impartial investigation
  • In instances where an unlawful due process has been commenced it is as an unlawful  thereafter remaining only as a ‘favour’ to the applicant mother
  • Many appeals to SSAT commence without the 6A source document thus SSAT is condoning the wrongs of CSA and not upholding their duties to review the case {viz ‘audit} that CSA has complied to all legal points.
  • The villinary of SSAT is to proceed with proceedings although they have no legal beginning being completely uninterested in the legality of due process but obsessed with reaching the point of the fathers business and income.  Irrespective of it being under family law also a family asset and income also of the applicant mother.
  • Of special note here is why CSA and SSAT are not it make determinations whiles parents are in family law litigation but misandry ‘staff’ overzealousness prevails over officers ‘ government’ adjudication responsibilities driving ‘unlawful processing’..
  • In some cases where this source document has not been supplied to the respondent payer CSA has admitted it existence but refused to supply a copy save through Freedom of Information where most of the information would be removed.
  • The other parent is lawfully to receive a copy to be able to answer the claims of the other applicant parent and it is unlawful if they don’t and are treated as an ‘outsider’
  • Such 6A applications submitted and withheld by CSA to the other parent is an unlawful conduct intended to cause the respondent disadvantage by not ever seeing the initiating claim.
  • Thus being forced to ‘trust’ whatever CSA ‘alleges’ known often to be intentionally untruthful and misleading places the respondent in a disadvantaged situation  as set out herein..

Both CSA and SSAT indulge in these malpractices

  • Allegedly to ‘protect’ private information of the applicant mother such as her abode
  • Seldom is this a fact because both parent know where each lives and is often an address where children are exchanged’
  • If privacy is the issue these information’s could be blanked out but this is not what the CSA officers want.  They do not want their own and their colleagues misconducts revealed and so they unlawfully withhold the document revealing these evidences.
  • This malpractice turns both CSA and SSAT into ‘star’ secret chambers not a feature intended by The Legislature.
  • By this malpractice it is the ‘wrongful’ staff of these agencies who are ‘protected’ by such secrecy and withholding of ‘evidential’ material.

This again is only an insight to the greater ‘wormhole’ administration devised within and between  CSA and SSAT until ‘due process’ as intended by The Legislature no longer exist as the effective due process.  Reiterating again that due process cannot be understood simply off the face of the child support assessment legislation without incorporating Officers compliances and all other ‘interlocutory’ legislation and unique ‘interlocking’ due processes of earning income that then forms the CSA due process.

Child support legislation does not and cannot deny payer citizens their universal right of how they earn income comes before all and set parameters of CSA due process being ignored by CSA case officers including Registrars of the past and Senior Offices of the present administration.  Again this still and only refers to part of the whole basis of discussion and remedy.        

CSA should of its own accord make complaint against the failure of SSAT to perform its duties properly that would by returning ‘wrong’ dictions alert CSA to these now CSA Office ‘serial’ and ‘copycat’ failures.

Regards Robert Kennedy

 Email List Senators.doc
 email list MHR's.doc
Previous Previous
Next Next
ForumForumNews from Freed...News from Freed...News Parent ForumNews Parent ForumNews From Rober...News From Rober...Senator Mailing lists and comments  Mon 14/02/2011 Senator Mailing lists and comments Mon 14/02/2011