http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topicview&type=misc&id=2919&start=0#post_18633
You're talking to yourself again Michael/Sisyphus/Agog. Are you feeling a bit confused at the moment?
People are onto you, you know and it must be embarassing to insist on keeping up the charade when a simple "who is Monaro on FLWG" search on Google by new users will bring up this blog to reveal all.
Also quoting the same old mantra and insisting that every member, new or old has to read through all of the posts to find out what a special "portal" it is is preposterous and proves that you have limited knowledge of not only the internet, but of human nature itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So then who is Monti on FLWG???
Monteverdi is one of the few members of that group that show a fairness at times and a measure of common sense. We can't quite forgive him for being a part of the cesspit though.
He's not a lawyer but works for a major Sydney newspaper.
Be very careful of joining the SRL group!! They want all new users with current legal issues to join the SRL, not so they can help them but so they can know who you are and what your story is. The only person that has any sort of legal background is Michael Green and that was years ago and he is not allowed to practise law now, but we think he still does. He is a divorced father as well and obviously is still carrying a lot of unresolved anger towards women. The others, including Artemis the self proclaimed "Google Queen", Ross Mitchell/Monaro, MikeT, Dad4life/Lindsay etc etc all rely on their own limited experiences and from hanging out at the courts (who is working if they're at the courts all day?)and reading on the web. There is a gross amount of misinformation being bandied about on that website so be very careful.
Here is some more misinformation to consider
Artemis said
'I am mindful of the Liam Magill case, where the poor chap found out 2 of his 3 children were not his.
My concerns for your friend are:
he was married to this woman when he signed the birth certificate. It is not clear if she was divorced when this happened.
Did he raise the child at any time?
It's a line ball really, it may come down to his/her honours feelings on the day, and the ex is right - he does have to pay for a DNA test, but he can ask for the court to make orders saying that half is re-imbursed to him if it is found he is not the father.
His medical issues are something he could annexure to an affidavit when he makes this request.'
But hang on a minute!
The case overcsa raised is nothing like the Liam Magill case.
Liam Magill was deceived. This man was not - he knew the child was not his and signed the birth certificate anyway.
The only person who has been deceived here is the child.
Oh, and the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
It is no way a line ball.
Either the child is his and he will have to pay child support or it is not and he may have to pay a fine for a false declaration which is cheaper than supporting the child he deceived.
Makes you wonder.
All the fathers Rights groups love to quote the Liam Magill case in relation to Child Support but the interesting thing is that although Liam Magill was in fact deceived by his wife that the children were his, he didn't actually over pay any Child Support at all. He was assessed at paying the barest minimum CS and was in arrears when he discovered the deceit and the Child Support Agency allocated the payments he had made for the children that weren't his, to the child that was his. (He was apparently still in arrears even then). The subsequent court case was not about overpayment of Child Support to children that were not his as is commonly broadcast by the Fathers Rights Groups but for compensation for Liam Magill. The decision was overturned and Liam Magill has been complaining ever since and still only assessed at the barest minimum of child support which he may or may not be paying.
Post a Comment