The BUZZ: 20 Oct 2007

The Australian
13 October 2007

Family Court grabs the lion's share of federal funding
By Michael Pelly

Attorney General Philip Ruddock has promised adjustments to funding for federal courts amid concerns the Family Court is citing the complexity of its work to justify massive discrepancies.

The court will receive $131million in funding for 2007-08, a figure that matches the total for both the Federal Court ($78million) and Federal Magistrates Court ($53 million).

Yet court statistics show it is doing a fraction of the work of the other two courts.

It's an understandable figure really. There are a lot of costs involved in supporting inhuman acts and abuses of civil rights.

Dear colleagues,

It is with great pleasure that I (for the second time in as many years!) have secured a commitment from Amnesty International' s International Secretariat in London to remove false and misleading statistics on violence against women from their websites and printed materials, and to conduct "thorough checks on the sources of all statistics to be used on the Stop Violence Against Women campaign pages" in the future.

Time will tell whether they keep this commitment up or whether they lapse once again into the lazy use of feminist factoids.

The WHO organization has also promised to withdraw the copy of this spurious report from its international pages.

Legal experts in the US have publicly declared that the administration of abuse and domestic violence legislation, especially VAWA, is unconstitutional because it assumes men are guilty until proven innocent. -- Wonder how long it will take Australia to find a few brave leaders or intellectually honest academics to do the same?

In aussie slang, "The Family Court is a BROTHEL and everyone knows it, including Ruddock. .." jez 'bout sez it all (but there is much more in this election year!)

Read more!

Last breath

Someone asked me recently what I would do if I knew I was dying; if I knew I was going to die tomorrow and I answered without hesitation: I would gather some around me for witnesses and I would make the dying declaration that my ex and her daughter lied to the courts solely for their own reasons.
That all they said and implied was a carefully rehearsed system of lies they concocted with their lawyer.
I would say that the courts that dispossessed me of my home and possessions when I was still struggling to recuperate from surgery was inhuman and illegitimate.

The person asked me if it would make any difference to anyone, and I said it would not. It would make a difference to me to know I would go from this world with one truth on my lips.
And that would be enough.

It would have to be enough, since there would be nothing more for me. And the reality means nothing to anyone else.
An artist said on ABC today that we seek to confine evil - as I once sought to see those who wronged me confined in jail. The great foolishness of my thinking was to assume that the law is concerned with evil. It is not. The law is concerned with itself and nothing else.
And in that narcissistic state, the law has released itself of the concerns of evil, and defined evil in itself.

We must, in order to live in any society, live within the rule of law. And there will always be selfish fools who will gain the positions to make and administer those laws. This is an inherent part of human nature, as much as bullying and abuse.
The best we can do as individuals is to accept the realities of the nature we all share.

Read more!

The BUZZ: Thurs 18 Oct 2007

What's the buzz?! - Tell me whatsa happening!
What's the buzz?! - Tell me whatsa happening!
Why should you want to know? What do you care about the future?? -- Jesus Christ, Superstar

Simon asks, "Does anybody know how many CSA clients die each year?"

Ash Patil, to every member of Fathers4Equality, Australia:

"I would like to ask for the support of each and every member from this list during this critical 6 week period. I think many of you would be aware that family law reform could be set back decades if the coming federal election delivers control of both houses to those candidates and parties representating anti-father and anti-family sentiments. Let's not underestimate the importance of this election to our cause."

Ash has clearly chosen to forego federal funding for Fathers4Equality for a while. The Howard administration has proven its willingness to deny and cut funding to organizations which take a political position, no matter how personal or close to home.

Two people with a mutual propensity of abuse actually *do* wind up together more often than not, actually. Just read what the actual social science on it, free of political pollution, looks like. It's *the* most common pattern, far more than either man-as-perpetrator *or* woman-as-perpetrator.

Read Insult-to-Injury: Rethinking Our Response to Intimate Abuse by Linda G. Mills. Mills was of predictably savaged by both right and left for her work, but was especially savaged by the so-called "feminist" (read: raging misandrist) set. Cathy Young and others have risen to her defense nobly, but sadly very few on either the right or the left are willing to look at this issue rationally. I've about convinced myself that the problem is genetic: no one can conceive of the abusive woman. Lefties are forever in thrall to the image of the Oppressive Male, and righties are forever in thrall to the image of the Female Who Must Be Protected. There seems to be no way out of the cycle. None of it will penetrate the dedicated partisan's soul.

-- Dean Esmay from his San Diego Mens Center blog
One of the more important points Dean makes is when a man or a woman comes to the Mens Center, they are treated equally - something that is not available at the 2000 or so Womens' centers around California.

It is with great pleasure that I (for the second time in as many years!) have secured a commitment from Amnesty International' s International Secretariat in London to remove false and misleading statistics on violence against women from their websites and printed materials, and to conduct "thorough checks on the sources of all statistics to be used on the Stop Violence Against Women campaign pages" in the future. - from the F4E newsletter

Sadly, like so many other small victories, this announcement will have to remain anonymous in the public forums. However, Greg is due enormous congratulations from the sad but privileged few.
(You almost want to wish the women's organizations would allow men into their leadership because whole organizations would benefit from a more balanced and fair perspective. -ed.)

Take notice this is only the beginning of filings across the nation!!!

LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. - Two county men have sued 15 defendants — including the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and their own lawyers — accusing them of conspiracy in child support cases. (full stories here...)

Figures Lancaster County would be the first for something like this. Those big ole farm boys are too smart to be held under too long.
Other stories from the international press:

-------------------- Related stories...

Child Support Director Confirms Need For Investigations

http://www.krightsradio.com/blog/?p=49

------------------------------------------------------------------

Welfare Reform on the Backs Of Non Custodial Parents

http://www.krightsradio.com/blog/?p=36

------------------------------------------------------------------

Hamilton County Ohio CSEA Steals Support from Four Year Old

http://www.krightsradio.com/blog/?p=29

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Old News: Psyche reports on quotas

A man tells the story of catching up with some friends socially, where a frank discussion of the career path for Australian psychologists ensues.
Such frank discussion is rare outside the closed chambers of the psyche profession. The saddest fact is the admonitions are confirmation, not revelation. What is exposed here is notorious to the general public, even those who have never been to court.

To an observer, it is not surprising that Australians have a jaundiced and cynical view of the psychology profession. The ethics of psychology in Australia more closely resemble the arguments for working at McDonald's than a responsible profession.
This sort of institutionalized and socialized prejudice has produced a profile of Australia as a truly sick society. Imagine, if you will, a nation where 97% of fathers are unfit to raise their own children. - Yet that is the goal of the quotas in reporting, based on the experience of one frank commentator within the profession.

Caught up with mate today at a small social gathering and one the folks there was a psych in private practice.

His comments and observations were interesting.

He claims that all well paying/regular paying psych work means the psych must agree in advance as to the outcomes the customer is seeking. In the event it is a Govt department or a private insurer or whatever, the psych is required to produce a predetermined ratio of outcomes.

If the psych wants the work, and some of it is very lucrative, they are effectively forced to only seek out and record information that suits the required outcome. If the psych doesn't like it then the customer will have no trouble finding another psych who happily will do it.

He gave examples.
Workers seeking disability payments due to mental stress. The insurer would only accept a rate of one in ten regardless of merit.
He explained it was not always easy to produce the outcomes and if he has a person who displays say twenty symptoms of stress and only two behaviors that do not indicate stress then he must concentrate and report on the the two non stress indicators just so the person's application can be disqualified.

He refuses to do Government work and especially Family Court work.
He recalls Court work required him to pre-agree to produce reports which favoured the primary care giver or the lowest income earner of the marriage. He alleged he was only permitted to report negatively on mothers if they were drug dependent to the point of complete dysfunctionality.

The trouble with this predetermined system is that litigants are unaware of the predetermined quota arrangements and therefore unaware of the corruption of professional evaluation and independence.

How would it look in the family court as soon as the psyche was called as a witness. " Ms. Stare-Decisis, "I understand you are required by the govt to produce reports favouring mothers and disparaging fathers in %97 of all cases".

In a proper legal process, the judge would have no option but to dismiss these reports as biased and contaminated. (Comment by the psychologist, in summary.)

Read more!