More Lindsay Jackel

Wow "Lindsay Jackel" sure is a popular search term! We wonder why?
For those who are keen to know more about Lindsay, here are a couple more usernames:

Morphish
Omnidox
Nuance
Manumit
Tom Knoll
Matrix
Dad4life

Plus more. Let us know if that is not enough for you.

Too Late Lindsay

Lindsay Jackel/Dad4Life instructs a newer user not to use the same username on different forums.
It's a pity Mark Coutts AKA jesuslovesdads didn't listen to you Lindsay.

Points: 70 Joined: 22 December, 2008, 06:42 PM Primary group: General Member ','auto','http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/themes/default/images/forum_navigation/members.png');" class="ocf_poster_member">jesuslovesdad General Member	Marker Hi we had the final order by consent quite a while ago. Without identifying, here is a bit of a summary: - Mother is mentally ill - extensive history of psychosis. - She accused me of domestic violence; I was not believed regarding her physical assault of me and my concerns for our daughter. - Final orders were made after she allowed visits again. After final orders, I have not seen my daughter for two months and the mother makes up excuses that she is sick all of the time. I don't know if she is even alive. And I am wondering what to do next.
	,
Record and Act
	Posted 05 January, 2009, 09:44 PM #20676
Points: 20,040 Joined: 05 February, 2007, 11:11 AM Primary group: Percolo Alio ','auto','http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/themes/default/images/forum_navigation/members.png');" class="ocf_poster_member">dad4life Percolo Alio	Marker 1. Record all breaches ... both in writing and audio, then transcribe (don't wire tap phones, use loud speaker phone and set recording device in the same room). 2. Consider taking breach of orders to court (FMC). 3. Act. Don't delay. The longer you wait the more it looks to an impartial observer that you aren't concerned. PS As previously advised, don't use the same username on different forums.

Update on Acep74 and why she doesn't work.

On Steptalk.org
She/he wrote:

"Well got new estimate today as hubby has done tax.... now they would like $450 a month for CSA ... dont have to pay yet till old agreement ends in november , but its still taking its effect on me.

How in the hell can my hubby support 4 kids on his wage plus the sd's,? 2 of our kids have special needs, i dont work at present as our bs is waiting on groments and comes home from school regular sick, and hubby being in the army could be called away unexpeceted, at the new unit he will be away quite alot.... this is so !#*#! so what do i do? my letters i sent out , some officails have replyed that they cant help, i'll re-write them and send them again , someone will get sick of me and hopefully help. There must be men or women in the goverment who have had some of these issues why cant someone stand up and make a noise too. Media shows dont want to hwlp either, but this is a topic world wide even though different goverments run each country but there is unfair advantage out there which usually equals screwing the man who does the right thing!"

$450 a month is not the $6700 he/she (sometimes she, Mandy writes and other times Eddie writes)was spouting on familylawebguide.

Here she states that the new agreement starts in November 08 so they have only just started paying that if they have paid Child Support.

Acep74 says she can't work because her kids have special needs and yet here she offers up that the reason she doesn't work is that the child needs grommets and comes home sick sometimes. That does not mean "special needs"!

Both her and her husband have posted their garbage all over the net whining about having to pay child support and he tells his friends on D.O.T.A. it's because she has melt downs over it. He needs to man up.

Shared Parenting Council Campaigns for Blackmail

Wayne Butler posted on familylawwebguide.com.au

"The site has forum posts going back at least some years and there are many forum topics that relate to prior CSA legislation. The CSA legislative reform agenda has been vast and has spanned three years not just "bang". The formula change was implemented in July 2008. If you go to the CSA section in the guide part of this portal you will see a number of Fact sheets. Take a look at the first few which outline what has been delivered and when.

In respect to partners paying for children and aren't allowed access. You cannot blame the CSA for that surely. ... The issue around contact after separation is one we are working on most vigorously and have been since we started. The issues are complex, we face continual resistance from a wide range of groups that talk about firstly violence as the reason and then secondly when that becomes boring move on to entrenched conflict arguments and get poorly qualified and minimalist sampled surveys from authoritative researchers like Macintosh to support exclusion of contact when there is any sort of conflict or stressor indications. I refer you for example to the following article Almost the last word on family violence which we published to bring some sense to the ridiculous debate. The matters of refused contact have previously been the domain of the courts both Family and more rapidly dealt with through the agile Federal Magistrates courts. However we believe it is to little to late and we have undertaken to look at and suggest a range of initiatives late last year to change the way things will work after separation.

We want to see early intervention and both Centerlink and CSA funds paid only on the basis of some short form , 3 key points, agreement. In the past it has been too easy just to rock up, apply for and get the money and forget the rest. We also want to see some start point at CSA (MikeT) (The money side) that on day one a concept exists that the parenting has been shared 50 / 50 and so that until a parent agreement, or a formal parenting plan, a short form agreement, a mediated plan via FRC's (Family Relationship Centres) or a court order is in place then that is the start point for CSA. Then there is no argument on day one who has got what when no one agrees anyway.

These are just a few thoughts and if I was to write what we had been up to the last year I would never have time to glance through worthy posts. Suffice to say I do say that pretty well all the moderators here are giving time voluntarily and also much credit must be given to some members here who continually posts some darn good stuff. For without these members, who continue to show interest and sometimes getting a few tough comments back, continue to question and debate then the legislation and workings of the acts around family law and child support and the respective regimes would most assuredly be a terribly depressing environment.

Do take some comfort in the fact we have come an extraordinarily long way in the areas of contact after separation and in legislative reforms. The SPCA has done a lot. There are many others who have done much, there are many other groups independent of our affiliations who have achieved results in one way or another so it is not a hopeless task. There are specialist groups here like the SRL-R and FLRA (Grandparents and Education policies) and LFAA groups to name some. Join the SPCA or one of the other groups as paid up member by all means. The key thing is to identify specific issues, focus on presentation of evidence to support a required change and see that through to a satisfactory legislative or departmental instruction to change.

As a last point you say there are many issues. That is certain but far less than there were a number of years ago...unless the issues are clearly identified, allocated to groups or people to work on, supported with evidence and a plan made to make changes then nothing will happen. Petitions in my view will not change anything, they may give some advice of dissatisfaction, but you need to join a group, roll your sleeves up and participate in a more formal way. Work with people who have been around a while in getting things done and take heart from time to time when it all looks bleak, that some really significant progress has been made, that Government is listening and engaging with key advocacy groups including ours and that Australia in particular, is a great place to live."


What a wank!!! So domestic violence has become boring has it Wayne? Why don't we talk about child sexual abuse allegations instead then?
You want to blackmail mothers (because you are a Fathers Rights Group) to give the kids in exchange for financial or child support?
Be careful, in exposing too much about your agenda, you really have lost all credibility as an organisation especially when you look at YOUR history and the fact that you are a class one liar.
And the big posts praising your efforts in doing exactly zero are tedious, just how many times can one blow one's own trumpet? Do us all a favour and confine it to the privacy of your own home.

We were dared to post this...

and we just can't resist a dare so here it is:

Our pet names for our favourite posters on Familylawwebguide.com.au:

Sisyphus Sissypussy

Oneringrules Myringrules

Monaro Monaroisaboguncar

MikeT Miketbone

Bigred BigredMoron

Gooner Goner

Styx Styxuphisass

Jon Pearson Jon Pisson

Matrix Matriarchix

Agog Agrog

Artemis Arsemiss

D4E Padwithwings (for obvious reasons)

Monteverdi MintyVideo

Danytink Danystink

Conan Gonad

Barry Williams BazzaWilly

So there now we've done it!!

Acep74 second wife whining about Child Support on FLWG

Acep74 instead of posting all over the internet and whining about how badly off you are, why don't you get off your butt and get a job. You expect the ex wife to work, you even expect the step children to get a job at 13 and 16 to support themselves, but yet you stay at home moaning about the pissy amount of Child support your husband has to pay. You breed em, you feed em. He's their father, he's responsible. If you think $6000 a year is half of the expenses for two teenagers then you are deluded. Just who do you expect to look after these children? Using the same logic, why are you not contributing to your own 4 childrens needs? Surely if you expect the ex wife to put in her share for her kids, then you also should put in your share for your kids.
No wonder his kids don't want anything to do with him, you are probably the problem. What an ugly personality.

www.familylawwebguide.com.au loves losers like you.

Wayne Butler Snivels again

Wayne Butler and his comments regarding this site:

Secretary Spca said

"This post sums up the situation we continuously face with the anonymous detractors and soothsayers of doom who draw on much strength from the place of anonymity and dark places they live, never coming forward to validate a view. The fact is that a new age has dawned of positive engagement and consultation, of change and progress... and some dislike the new found rules. Those of us who stand in their way of turning the clock back pay a huge price through vile and filthy comments that spew forth from their evil diatribe. There is one consolation we all take heart from and that is these anonymous cretins can never contribute anything of any value to families which is in great contrast to the many unsung hero's who frequent this place."

One question Wayne, what did you contribute to YOUR family? Maybe we should ask your ex wife and son that? You're an ass.

Who's who on Familylawwebguide.com.au

First of all they are ALL Mens Rights supporters. Any women you see posting there that have lasted more than a day are all second wives only intent of fighting the ex wife to either get the kids or reduce the child support.
The Shared Parenting Council of Australia owns www.familylawwebguide.com.au and the S.P.C.A. are an amalgamation of various MENS RIGHTS GROUPS set up a few years ago.
They are not mother friendly and actively campaign to take children off mothers and to reduce CHILD SUPPORT for children. In other words, not nice people at all.

They set up familylawwebguide.com.u because they got funding from the government in excess of $750,000. That is why they try to pretend it is a family friendly site instead of the woman hating secret agenda that they do have.

Some of the main posters are:

• Agog and Sisyphus are both user names of Michael Green president of Shared Parenting Council of Australia. He is really abrasive and cannot hide his arrogance or derision for women. He is an ex QC who still likes to create the impression that he is still one. He has a mediation practice in Sydney and we question his impartiality.
• Oneringrules and Secretary SPCA are both user names of Wayne Butler who is Secretary of Shared Parenting Council. He owns the website and is very bitter about women probably due to allegations his ex wife made about him regarding his child. Outcome unknown. He is not the brightest spark and doesn't usually read a post very well and gets it wrong a lot of the time. His manner is quite patronising.
• MikeT is Mike Taylor and IT worker from south of Sydney who also does not know how to read. Has set himself up as the self professed expert on Child Support legislation but that mainly consists of cutting and pasting excerpts from the act.
  
• Dad4Life and Matrix are both Lindsay Jackel who is Victorian Director of SPCA and key member of Dads On The Air. Absolutely hates women most likely due to his ex wife leaving him to commence a relationship with another woman. Also hates homosexuals.
• Director SPCA is Ed Dabrowski who is Director of SPCA and very active in fathers rights mainly in Western Australia.
• Nemos Mum is Coral Slattery a grandma who is also a member of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia and a grandmother who supports mens rights.
• Styx is a guy called Peter who lives in Melbourne and chooses not to work so he doesn't have to pay child support. He is also very active on Dads Of The Air.
• Vascopajama is Simon Hunt a crazy nutter who has been banned from seeing his child until she is an adult. He spreads his lies all over the net about how the court stole his child and yet it is his own actions that have prevented him from seeing his daughter.
  
• Monster is a young girl who lives near Sydney who is currently pregnant by deceiving her partner and who also chooses to fight her partner's battle against his ex partner. He has a 4 year old son. Not very bright and they easily manipulate her. She has taken to attacking mothers on familylawwebguide in support of the men on that group. She seems to be desperate for their approval.
  
• Artemis is also a second wife from Queensland who chooses the forum to denigrate her husbands ex partner. She was once a single mother herself in receipt of benefits but now chooses to join the men in their fight against mothers.
• Monteverdi is Mike from Sydney also a staunch Mens Rights supporter.
• Conan and Viking are both user names of Peter Saxon from Sydney also another supporter of Mens Rights and also associated with D.O.T.A. and D.I.D.S.
• D4E is a total drip and again a mens rights supporter. Whines on and on about himself and never makes any sense. You can pretty much discount all of his posts. Very anti mother.

As you can see there aren't any pro mother or pro family members that post regularly. We have information on most of the posters there so if there is someone who you want to know about just let us know.

More than you have ever wanted to know about Monster.

Monster is over at www.Essentialbaby.com.au spouting her usual garbage without any qualifications and giving out free legal advice. What is surprising is that Monster admits to deceiving her partner to deliberately get pregnant. Isn't this exactly what the Mens Rights groups accuse all women of doing?

Oh her user name there is Xmasbelle.