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...23 November 2012 02:0523 November 2012 02:05
Previous Previous
Next Next
New Post
 3/18/2013 11:59 PM

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: 23 November 2012 02:05
To: SMH; Age; Canberra Times; Fairfax WA; Fairfax Bris
Cc: Jenny Macklin

Fairfax Newsrooms – Get a jump on Murdoch.  This is larger than any current parliamentary cat o’wailing. Even Gillards two years discrepancy.


This email and attachments went on 15th November 2012 to Human Services Minister Carr (CSA) and other very senior Commonwealth Officers after a long and endless battle trying unsuccessfully to have CSA Officers comply with their own duties and legislation.  To deliver to families what The Legislature decreed and not what the ‘feminist template’ gender based ideological substitutes (‘women win’) that CSA Officers (and SSAT) instead deliver.  Them Implying that law breaking is OK in the alleged name of a child but it is only a charade for feminism benefiting the mother unlawfully to what The Legislature prescribed as ‘fair and just’ to the whole family.


There are now accumulated about four million fathers (and their paternal families) who have suffered ‘government’ victimization out of CSA and SSAT because each are running their own unlawful agenda of ‘overcharging’ father payers.  The Government via its Ministers refuses to investigate and remedy the ‘overcharging’ component and each successive Minister simply plays hard nosed debt collector.  Thereby ‘enforcing’ and ‘collecting’ the unlawful overcharge component as an alleged lawful debt.


Consequently the overcharges with some massive like $30,000 instead of $1,600 pa cannot be paid and ‘payer’ financial insolvency occurs  Depression and suicides follow the unlawful financial servitude and CSA has the highest suicide clientele of any Australian Organisation 74% {about 1,600 pa} of the annual about 1,800 annual male suicides.  The equivalent to the national road toll without a flinch for the ‘causes’ of the bulk of these male suicides.


No one wins – except short term for mothers – gaining from the overcharge.  Children lose fathers and the nation loses a breadwinner because most who suicide are aged between 24 and 34 years of age and are employed.  However I have two ‘pensioner’ clients on fixed child support payments of about $380 pa being hit for $5,000 pa out of their ‘self support’ government pensions with the fixed maximum $380 pa amount.  In most of these cases the mothers (a) had filed a false claim (b) CSA simply OK’d her claim and unlawfully increased the deductions from the fathers’ government pensions (c) while mothers simultaneously withhold contact of children with the father irrespective of paying or not paying the overcharge.  The blame lies with CSA falsely using the mothers’ allegations as their alleged ‘independent investigation on behalf of The Commonwealth Government.  Instead these Commonwealth offices are duping The Government by facilitating fraud by mothers making false claims on payer fathers via The Commonwealth Government service deliveries staff betrayals.


Is it no wondered fathers in unlawfully planned and enforced financial hardship and servitude {slavery} by ‘the overcharge’ modus operndi prefer death by suicide to the pain of a victimised second or third class existence of financial servitude {slavery}?


[I have never been a CSA client but I am the legal representative of about seven father payers clearly against their family facts and the legislation about which I have and excellent understanding are getting mercilessly unlawfully overcharged above what The Legislature decreed to be a fair and just amount to the whole family according to their income.  When CSA and SSAT Officers simply extract from the father what the mother decrees it is clearly not what The Legislature decreed.


CSA and SSAT THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT cause far more Australian male deaths per year from CSA suicides than the combined military deaths in recent wars.  Politicians capitalize politically upon public grieving military deaths but not a ‘shit’ about some 1,600 as year on a gender basis at home – over which they have total responsibility and almost total control.


Based on about four million victimised fathers across Australia this is a large readership base.  When I had letters published in NT New there was always a sparkle of responses of fathers and their parents complaining about the blatant unjust ways of CSA.  Even those who do not know how amounts are calculated realize the blatant overcharging and its source of CSA and SSAT simply using Government powers to ‘enforce the mothers arrogantly false allegations.  The Legislate decreed vial Public Service Code of Conduct for example a wonderful ‘filter’ in conjunction with ‘case facts’ and ‘legislation’ to deliver a ‘forever’ affordable regular amounts of child support.


This now grotesque – Waffen SS like including a predictable death toll – Government Department must be restored to it former democratic intentions of The Legislatureture and not the enforcer of ‘feminisms ideology” as it has become.


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




Minister K Carr


CSA Assistant Secretary K Campbell




Commonwealth Ombudsman – who has upon complaint ‘watch dog’ overview and remedial powers that the ‘administrative’ processes as set down by The Legislature are adhered to by Commonwealth Officers who are delivering the services to the Citizens.


OMBUDSMAN PLEASE NOTE - CSA officers are not following legislated administrative due process during ‘case confidentiality’ on file material marked ‘confidential’ essential to but not available outside of CSA to expose ‘Officer Misconducts’ while they are involved in their duties of ‘case administration’ and ‘making determinations’ on behalf of The Commonwealth.  Even The Commonwealth Ombudsman cannot adjudicate on the correctness here unless they (a) know the correct due process (b) have to hand the ‘confidential’ grounds of the CSA Officers determination – for comparison (c) also have to hand the ‘family case facts’ upon which the determination hinges (d) checks that  the officers simultaneously adhered to their Code of Conduct which upholds the ‘ethics’ over the ‘legality’ and ‘factuality’ of any such determination.



Note further The Minister and Assistant Secretary are remiss in their own undertakings (a) by allowing themselves to be misled by subordinate staff – {as below} (b) then condoning and ‘enforcing’ the staff’s unlawful determination of OBSTRUCTIONISM AND OVERCHARGE via Taxpayers Resources upon hapless and innocent citizen victims (c) the staff and Minister and A/ Sec are consciously aware all of the while because the nature of the determination has it at all times the second person is equally involved in the ‘confidential’ deliberations of each case (d) supported by the legislated FINAL check “Is it fair to all members?”.


However such complaints primarily against ‘Officer Misconduct”  are serially and unlawfully waived by the Complaints Officers and condoned by their superiors and The Minister as set out briefly but clearly herein as in attached reply by Officer Andrews which avoids addressing any complaints at all.


And Bcc           Politicians - (alert to all for unlawful conducts out of Australian Government Service Deliveries – here specifically CSA and SSAT ).

Community Members   - (should also note and lobby the Minister on their own CSA history and the CSA history they know of others.  Your silence otherwise is only condoning the unlawful overcharging and its enforcement and collection).




Whereas Child Support legislatively is the payment and transfer via Government Administration an income and formulae determined amount of money between parents for the upkeep of child or children The Department {CSA} has re-modeled itself {unlawfully} instead upon being ‘Mothers Advocate’ – Feminists Template.  The consequential unlawful change of emphasis by The Department to ‘gender’ and ‘ideology’ opposes the intentions of The Legislature and instead achieves the ‘feminist template’ of ‘women win’.  The basis of this complaint is instead of ‘serving the children’ CSA is now instead become yet another arena of the feminists ‘Gender War Against Men’ out of Government Service Deliveries.  Consequently it is no longer impartially serving children and the family fairly as The Legislature decreed and requires of each Commonwealth Officer making a determination.  To which they allege they have but ‘audit’ of the ‘confidential’ component of the determination reveals they regularly have substituted the ‘feminists template’ in THEIR own preference to what The Legislature decreed.  The template of The Legislature appears a lost component of CSA and SSAT.


This complaint does not on any account opposes or disagrees with The Legislation or the structure of The Administration or its Processes.  The complaint is solely and strictly about the dishonesty – integrity - of Commonwealth Officers while having conduct of cases who behind ‘confidentiality’ do not comply with the intensions of The Legislature and substitute different values and ‘gender ideological’ criteria instead.  The child becomes only a chattel to their real intentions of making whatever ‘administrative’ manipulations that produces by {mothers} ‘false claim’ and ‘overcharge’ the highest yield to ‘the mother’.  Quite often to the extent after family court property settlement a ‘defacto’ second property transfer until the payers is financially insolvent.  Something the template of The Legislature cannot yield.


This complaint further stresses that Commonwealth Officers to whom this complaint material is provided deliberately ‘obstruct’ and refuse to deal openly and properly with the range of complaints made on behalf of a range of ‘payer’ clients.  As set out below herein.




  • Contrary to their own Professional and Legal Code of Conduct – Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.  Extract attached.
  • Contrary to their Public Service Act of employment.
  • Contrary to other interlocutory Acts under which they work [eg Crimes Act Cwth 1913].
  • Pending Mandamus.  [Specific court orders upon specific Officers to do their specific official duties].
  • Contrary to the Acts under which the ‘service delivery’ is made [eg Child Support Assessment Act.]

That provides the nucleus of ‘ethics’ and ‘law’ and ‘protocols’ that apply to

·         The case facts of ‘the family’

·         Which The Legislature intended to be used

·         So as to provide factual and legally and ethically based determinations.

Which should pass the simple legislated ‘officers’ final litmus test of “Is it fair to all family members?”  That each case officer signs off on in each case as being ‘fair’.


CHILD SUPPORT OFFICERS ‘SERIAL’ REFUSAL TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST CSA OFFICERS for their managerial MISCONDUCTS that causes  ‘OVERCHARGING’ OF THE PAYER PARENT – from such as below in so far as it applies to the amount of  ‘overcharge’

  • Many false applications for 6A change of assessment (COA} are made and not properly investigated by CSA Officers and are given false credibility contrary to the Commonwealth Officers responsibilities {see above and attached} to the Commonwealth and Its Citizens.  Such Officers are indulging in fraud against The Commonwealth with the false applicant mother is a crime under the Crimes Act Cwth 1913.
  • Such false applications also become subject to further truncation and improper dealings by Commonwealth Officers unlawfully passing and bypassing otherwise ‘rejection’ criteria.  Are offences against The Commonwealth and it Citizens as such Officers progress their fraudulent ‘collection’ and ‘transfer’ of the ‘overcharge’ piggybacking the Commonwealth Government system.
  •  There is particular focus by CSA [and SSAT] on ‘self employed’s’ falsely alleging they are cheats {irrespective of their ATO confirmed returns] whereby CSA [and SSAT] simply ‘make up’ a higher annual incomes upon which they calculate ‘child support’ and then expect that matching annual income to be earned by the payer.  Such powers are not only not in the legislation but is disallowed under the Australian Constitution as ‘civil conscription’.  Under the constitution The Government cannot as in Centerlink make civilian citizens do a particular amount of work or earn a particular income.  However CSA is going beyond the law and Constitution and ‘demanding’ some payers earn particular specific amounts of annual incomes to match the CSA and SSAT ‘OVERCHARGED’ amounts.
  • There is also the instances of ‘Commonwealth Pensioner” status payers by law limited on ‘self support’ to maximum of $360 per annum being charged as much and more than $5,000 pa child support out of their ‘pension’.
  • Clearly in these cases the ‘overcharge’ comes from (a) CSA Officers failing to check for valid applications and not rejecting invalid and false applications (b) Moving pensioner payers unlawfully from ‘taxable’ income to ‘Administrative 6A assessment without qualification (c) applying unqualifying 6A criteria to ‘pensioners’ on fixed payment amounts.  {So they go ‘broke’ and many consequently suicide to avoid humiliation and ‘slavery’ hardship}.
  • Many individual complains made to CSA or the above nature on issues on behalf of clients individual components are simply glibly ignored and not answered so as CSA can avoid answering the elements of the complaint made about Officer Failures.  No interest is shown in investigating the complaint further by seeking any further and better particulars to the former only elementary complaint.  Note reply of CSA Officer Andrews attached above.  No complaint has ever been made about the legislation save to compliment it as ‘worlds best’.  Such responses of Officer Andrews are dishonest ‘red herrings’ to divert focus off the complaint about Officer Misconducts.  Such letters are constructs of falsehood and ‘Obstructionism’ that are portrayed falsely to The Minister – Misleading Government –  as The Department having in context of the provisions {above} been fully applied lawfully and ethically.
  • Of course no such compliances as set out herein and elsewhere previously has occurred as a factual and lawful and ethical determination.  Because the substitute template used by CSA [and SSAT] is  based solely on  ‘women win’.  Irrespective of what The Legislature decrees CSA and its own template decrees something else always ‘overcharging ‘father payers.  Whilst wholly unlawful is ‘ideologically’ acceptable to staff prepared to wholly abandon the legal and ethical undertakings of their Commonwealth Officer duties.
  • There consequentially becomes ‘accumulated’ unanswered complaints residing with CSA identifying the ‘principles’ of failure and ‘areas’ where such principles apply.  Complaints to CSA based on the ‘accumulated principles’ aspect are mostly ignored and those answered (a) are in generalizations of ‘denial’ (b) refusing to answer them unless ‘specific’ instances are quoted.  Please now refer to point one [above] to reveal the obstructionism and hypocrisy of CSA Officers to avoid handling complaints against CSA officers and the consequences it imposes unlawfully upon their Payer Clients.
  • Note attached Stakeholders Emerging Issues.  As a stakeholder of the panel I am entitled to raise these issues of payers that do not otherwise get raised. [Note above CSA obstructionism at ‘client’ level to deal with Officer Misconduct].  At the meeting I raised the absence of my subject on the agenda and I was taken aside by the CSA Director of Stakeholders – who also chaired the meeting – {I suspect because of my agenda submission] and he told me (a) that it was not going to be on the agenda (b) that I was not to raise it in the meeting (b) it was clearly implied if I did I would be removed from the meting.  Indeed in the meeting I was reminded it was not an agenda item and as it was part of other business I could only refer to it as “The unmentionable”.  This demonstrates once more the degree CSA is prepared to go to and conceal their Officer Misconducts and their rigidity of upholding ‘the feminist template’ over the ‘template of The Legislature’.
  • These are only examples in part of the much wider and comprehensive and individual complaints CSA indulge heavily in obstructionism to avoid restoring the template of The Legislature over the fraudulent ‘women win’ unlawful feminist’s template. As set out in Stakeholders Emerging Issues and CSA Stakeholder Directors denial to deal with it and CSA Officer Andrews also response to many, many complaints made but out right denial to deal with them and false reporting that they had been dealt with.  As in the instance when I had contact with CSA Liaison Officer Albanese it continued discussion ‘about’ complaints and as soon as I named about five specific persons the CSA contact was severed with me never to be resumed to explain each complaint.  I believe because higher officers than Albanese instructed him once he had names – but not the substance of the complaint – to have no more to do with me.
  • This extensive and unfinished business is what CSA misleads The Minister and Parliament “Has been dealt with” and “unless something new” as per Officer Andrews letter refuse any further contact with me.  Such is the way CSA Officers behave unlawfully and misleads Parliament.


The Legislature made fair and just laws when combined ethically with family facts as is required under the Australian Public Service Code of conduct are indeed fair and just on all family members as it required of each case and superior officers making determinations on behalf of The Commonwealth.  As herein and elsewhere explained Parliament is being misled by CSA and The Minister. Please fix.


SUMMARY from ‘complaint’ perspective.

    1. CSA Officers who are Commonwealth Officers are bound by strict law and protocols are participating in fraud with false application mothers duping innocent and naive payers and using their Government employment to facilitate the fraud – within the ‘confidentiality’ component of case administration - by way of ‘overcharge’ and ‘transfer’ to someone not lawfully entitled to the ‘overcharge’ component within the normal transfer.
    2. CSA and SSAT Officers so indulging – ever so strenuously – as they do in upholding this fraudulent misconduct of ‘overcharging’ and ‘transfer’ have successfully destroyed as a Government Service Delivery what The Legislature decreed is fair and just to the family involved.
    3. CSA and SSAT Officers so indulging in this form of fraud should be made to bear the full weight of the law under such as The Crimes Act Cwth 1913. They have not naively ventured there but have stridently and ruthlessly resisted all afore efforts to go to and remain opposed to the rule of The Legislature.
    4. CSA and SSAT are being operated from a ‘clerical’ and ‘urban mythology’ perspective by officers so that they achieve ‘personally’ desired ‘ideological’ outcomes of ‘women win’ and ‘father lose’.  In substitution to what The Legislature decreed and such Commonwealth Officers are employed by The Government to do.


PLEASE FIX.  I am aware of accumulating war clouds amongst the victimised community and Mandamus or Class Action against CSA SERIAL misconducts is on the horizon.  PLEASE FIX.

Most sincerely

Robert E Kennedy          Coordinator        NT Office Status of Family, PO Box 988,  Palmerston, NT 0831.    Ph 08 8931 3339
Previous Previous
Next Next
ForumForumNews from Freed...News from Freed...News Parent ForumNews Parent ForumNews From Rober...News From Rober...23 November 2012 02:0523 November 2012 02:05