Fighting Dirty - Now they are sending trojans

WARNING DO NOT GO TO ANY OF THESE SITES:

DADS ON THE AIR, DADS IN DISTRESS or THE FAMILY LAW WEB GUIDE

I am not even going to link to their websites anymore.  

Enclosed is a list of trojans on one of our staff members computers.  

This was a direct result of visiting them.  A email claiming to know who we are was send through a foreign site stating that they believe that they know who we are.  The email contained a malicious code that destroyed one of our staffs computers.  We will be taking legal action for this.  It is also noteworthy to know that one of the leaders of the Family law Web guide has a high degree of IT experience and may or may not be behind this as a way to hurt the current campaign.

The Shared Parenting Scam

Australia's Family Court Money Trail

If you have ever accessed the court as a survivor of violence or a protective parent, you'll know what I mean when I say that they lick their lips at the sight of money.  Getting the child to the abuser is like hitting the jackpot as they know this will lock in the family courts financial future.  Lets face it, dead beat dads are bad for them as they know that they will give up when they have had their rampage against the ex.  Protective parents will keep litigating until they have lost everything.

An urban legend is spreading through Australia about the Federal Magistrates court having wild parties, snorting cocaine amongst other cocktails of indulgence to eliminate the pain of compassion and humanity at is worst.   It is called the "Debauchery house" and as the legend goes,   a lawyer who saw what they were doing and wrote about it in a book.  Just before he published it, he was called in for a meeting with a warning that he would be disbarred if he were to proceed and even when he altered it to fiction he was .  It might explain the recent reports of judges not even bothering to read the evidence, presenting disheveled in attire and requesting its litigants to "speak in simple terms'.  If this "urban legend" is true, we ask you to come forth.  We want names, we want any footage that you have acquired and any other evidence you have.  It is about time a change of culture occurred in the court, whether or not this urban legend is true.  We have a way of releasing this information without being affected by Australian Law and its treaties.  

It is about time victims of violence and child abuse receive true justice.  its about time that the lies and propaganda that surrounds a deep lack of transparency is exposed.  True justice has no place for those who seek to be, "above the law".  So lets begin with the information that has already been revealed.  There is a 5 million dollar black hole in the Federal Magistrates budget.  $60,000 of that was spent on fine bone china.  According tot he australian , the 5 million dollar black hole was associated with 16 magistrates.

The minimum fees that are charged between the two courts appear significantly different by a couple of hundred dollars.  At the Family Court, it is $1905 which includes initial application, final order application and two hearings.  This does not include the costs to file affidavits and other forms not mentioned in the fees and charges section.  In the Federal Magistrates court it costs $1367 for the same set of fees.  An average lawyer will cost you $3000 per hearing plus expenses for the time spent advising you and preparing the forms.  In February 2009, submissions for the access to justice inquiry was closed and leading up to that date, there were mainly internal submissions  or input from liaising organizations.  Just before the deadline closed, Child concern Australia and a few other organizations supporting women  and children submitted their concerns on the access to justice and thoughts about the proposed changes. Prior to this, media releases were on plans to axe the Family Court and divert its traffic to the Federal Magistrates.  This would have been a negative outcome for children and women affected by family violence.  The reason why the federal magistrates are so cheap is that they are for short court cases where everything is rushed through and family violence is ignored as a result of its processes.  Its actually a batterers paradise , where there is no time for him to be investigated, no time to delve into the history and an enormous pressure place upon the mother to give in to what may come of it including her or her children's life. Just rush through, threaten severe consequences if she does not obey her ex husband and "cha ching" get as much money out of it as possible.  At the very beginning, they pretend that they are going to look into family violence, but really its about gathering as much information from you so that you will become silent.  Snatching evidence must be part of the training as the reports of this is widespread.  They don't tell you this to begin with as it will ruin the "surprise" and most importantly those initial filing costs.  You must file relatively early for a final order, so this is also part of it.  Getting as many people through the doors is how the money reaches maximum income.  The very reason why the SPCA is supporting the Federal Magistrates Court is that it will reduce the visibility of victims and support the notion of false allegations which is a common reference to "unsubstantiated".  With haste and a drive to put as many couples in and out of this court system as quickly as possible, victims are invisible and their perpetrators have less time to keep the "charm" going without being found out.  With this system it is virtually impossible to substantiate allegations.  Once the final orders are rushed through to the end, a litigant cannot apply for three years.  

Stay tuned for more on Australia's Family Court Money Trail

REAL FREESTYLE M.I.A Paper planes beat....Real Song Comming Soon - L Dot

Against Protecting Children and Women

Proposed Family Court of Australia amendments
The petition is part of a Family Court - Saftey First campaign which will culminate in a national Petition and Mayday! Rally on Sunday, May 3. The date is International Press Freedom Day and will mark the anniversary of the deaths of two children killed i
	Posted Yesterday, 03:15 AM #24275
Percolo Alio	Found on another site and relates to a request for possible legislative change. link http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=69087938967# Editors note: How do you legislate for bad parents? Much emotive language and little fact at law. Testimony from children is often tainted by pressures from the lives with parent who has all the time to make the appropriate suggestions over long periods of time. Caution , accuracy and a sensible approach is needed here  Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia  Was my post helpful? If not, please let us know how we can do better  If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
	Posted Yesterday, 11:19 AM #24278
Bronze Member	How can a parent "prove they are safe"?? If a vindictive ex says you are violent, how do you disprove it? Seems like an issue where any legislation will necessarily end up very biased towards either the accuser or the accused. I can't see how you can legislate a fair middle ground; it has to be assessed case by case.
	Posted Yesterday, 11:15 PM #24292
Percolo Alio	Frankly there are some quite ridiculous comments in the petition. yet we routinely sentence children to regular contact with parents they have seen beating another parent or who have abused them. I absolutely reject that statement. The Family Court and Federal Magistrates court, in most cases that I am aware of, err on the side of caution with supervised contact. On What basis is this allegation made? If you care about keeping children safe after separation or divorce, please find a moment to sign this petition. Of course we care about keeping children safe. What a silly comment to make as it is obvious the vast majority want this as a given. I refer to a news item and input from our esteemed colleague Michael Green QC now retired.  Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia  Was my post helpful? If not, please let us know how we can do better  If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity

The FLWG community

Source:  http://tau-psychology-2007.googlegroups.com/web/flwglinks.JPG?hl=en&gda=ydkmnD8AAAAMMyn9NAff_3Z5dxH_-T5WzlcFiC2Y_dVBii_Z-m9nEdCagnqNivHDCtEqgBwzYmSccyFKn-rNKC-d1pM_IdV0&gsc=diT-ghYAAADHeGm-Uo6Wn9GwuXJAYrwh57an5Fe8QJeePd7zpGv9tg

Shared Parenting Council is Just Another Mens Rights Group

The Shared Parenting Council also known as the Family Web law guide, attempts to appear gender friendly, but their forums and policies reflect an extreme patriarchal attitude that reflects the fathers rights movements agenda.

Family Violence

On the subject "Family Violence" where most FR groups reject world data that violence is mostly against women, the Family Law Web Guide indeed reflects the same values. The family Violence Forum has the post about "Women being more domestically violent than men" and "yellow Ribbon Day" at the top to ensure women posting about violence know that its not going to be welcome here.  We have had numerous reports of users who have posted their stories to have had them deleted.  Posts accepted by moderators are often ones that reflect the agenda.  Below, highlighted in red are some of the topics that sympathize to the fathers rights agenda:

                                          

Below is a topic posted by the moderator about "Yellow Ribbon Day".  The moderator of the site states, "Also a day to symbolize the need to return "Family" to children isolated from a parent."  He further states "We need to link the growing incidence of Violence by women with some of the adverising that has been happening."  Implying that statistics about violence against women is not correct.  He then speaks out against the reporting of domestic violence and claims that children are harmed by the reporting.  He refers to intervention orders as, "This is often expressed as an application for a restraining order against their own children".

Shared Parenting 

Shared parenting in the fathers rights agenda is just a stepping stone for fathers to gain full custody.  Note the topic below about divorced dads wanting more time and then in detail it states, "Three quarters of divorced fathers want to have custody of their children for at least fifty percent of the time".  The subject below it is quite ironic stating that "separation diminishes the fathers role".  Other subjects highlighted are more fathers rights agenda focused topics.  The moderators(SPCA) have the opportunity to neutralize the topics, but indulge in their own passions to persue fathers rights.

Spca Activities

The shared parenting council reports their presence on the child support committee highlighting Dads In Distress and The Lone Fathers involvement.  They also admit to trying to establish a monopoly of a national peak body for men and boys health and well-being.  They admit to campaigning against fathers being taken off the birth certificate and preventing the removal of "father and paternity leave"  from 57 acts in parliament.

Family Law Web Guide "Myths"

They state the common fathers rights agenda that Children separated from their mothers below the age of three is not harmful.  Note the lack of references to credible sources that enforces the information.

The corruption behind Shared Parenting is beginning to show

Recently, a blog was started to attack sites that revealed the truth about the Shared Parenting Movements.  In Australia, it was not even their idea.  

It was a copy - cat corruption ring that plagued the US courts and spread the virus here.  Yes, ladies and gentleman - Its a virus and a deadly one.  Why ?  Because it intends to conceal the abuses to women and children.  Advocates for children's and mothers rights warned heavily against it because they were aware of the widespread homicides, abuses and oppression that go with the "Shared Parenting Regime".    

I would like to thank "Exposing the Truth" for educating me on a deeper level on the activities of the FR movements, particularly the Family Web Law Guide.  

The charges that the privacy law prevents me from disclosing about leaders of various groups is abhorrent and quite sinister.  

In America, groups are allowed to reveal such things about criminal records. A good example of this is Dean Tongs, "Abuse Excuse" Website that many mens groups still continue to support.  

He claimed that he was "falsely accused of domestic violence" but his charges show otherwise.
They claim that they provide a mothers group, "Mothers 4 Equality", yet this is a sham. The most who posts there is D4E who is a moderator and a women hater. One of our users who spoke about domestic violence against women had her posts immediately deleted and captured this snapshot:

One thing is that these men have plagued the internet continually gratifying abusive actions of men against women and little is actually done to uphold responsibility for these behaviors.  

Simon Hunt from the FLAG group had even submitted to the 2020 summit that children should see their dads regardless of violence :

"FAMILY VIOLENCE' Be they genuine or contrived, Family Violence allegations and AVOs must not be allowed to compromise a child’s relationship with either parent when change overs can be made at school or through third parties (ie: thereby avoiding direct contact between the parents). "

His posts have been accepted at this forum as he continually proceeds to degrade women.  One thing that has not actually been realized is the ungratefulness towards women that they have risks their lives at times and bear the burden of sickness, pain and vulnerability to bring a precious life into the world. 

Women are not baby factories and children are not possessions.  Australians change of terms did not change the meaning that shared care imposed.  Camouflaged with the word "best interests", they continued to state that fathers need to be with their children, whilst degrading single mothers and child advocates during the campaign.  The law community even played a part in this barbaric campaign:

Government Funded Propaganda

Many members of the online community have expressed their distaste on the Family web Law Guide, Notably Anonymums and Expose the Truth.  Even well respected researchers such as Dr Michael Flood have been attacked by these groups as "misandrist" or "feminazis".  Few have challenged them without attacks.  This is one of the latest distortions of two bloggers who have simply wrote to expose the true animosity that these hateful groups display in their scramble for yet again...more control over children and mothers.  They have been obsessively plastering the internet with their agenda in one form or another and seem to develop meaningless rationales for needing more rights, particularly the rights to abuse more than anything else.  The wording may change but the agenda is still the same.

The most abhorrent is that the previous government funded these men a quarter of a million dollars to continue to spread this propaganda and distort facts and figures so that they have more opportunity to harass, abuse and control women and children without reprisals from authorities.  

Above is what they are supposed to be funded for, however, the blog reveals quite a lengthy waste of time and government resources.  

Here is a confirmation that it in fact does come from the family law web-guide:

Please feel free to contact FACSIA and report this fraud at:

fraud@fahcsia.gov.au