Bookmark and Share
Previous article

News Articles

  • Child Support Agency --- Notice of Objection
  • By Gman
  • 11/11/2012 Make a Comment (4)
  • Contributed by: Gman ( 1 article in 2012 )
Click to receive your Free Guide
Be Grateful Today!
Below is my reply to a csa decision.

I am just beginning to learn about my rights so by no means is this response well written however if we read the csa acts in relation to human rights many things the csa do are unlawful.

I for one have had enough and am seeking ways to hold these people accountable, they state they are not liable however legal dictionaries and human rights state otherwise.

All acts must be read subject to our government supported human rights.

I have no issue paying child support, although when the other party doesn't declare and I'm forced to pay twice and then the csa refuse to send a bill, I have to wonder what's going on!

If no bill is issued how am I to pay?

Whatever the csa is up to it is unlawful as no bill is being issued.
I have a decision (hence this objection) though a decision is not a bill.

Note: please Youtube Robert Arthur Mernard for information regarding your rights and excuse the spelling (I have very little time to deal with these wankers) and and crumbs stuck in keyboard preventing some keys working lol.

Gman...

*****************************

NOTICE OF OBJECTION


9/9/12

Members of the CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY. Fax 1300 309 949
Australian Human Rights Commission Fax: (02) 9284 9611
Commonwealth Ombudsman Fax 02 6276 0123
Jacinta Allan MP Fax: 03 5443 8979

The following three people have been reported to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for violations of human rights.

To all those concerned,

I am writing to all listed here in order to object to the decision made by senior case officer A??A??????? and endorsed by general manager child support operations D????? M???, and further supported by their principle ???????, dated 21/8/12, received on the 24/8/12, I do so under protest and duress, i also write to all those concerned for oversight off this dilemma.

Australia is a common law jurisdiction, my consent is needed for any intercourse, i do not consent to contract with the members of the child support agency. I can manage this situation without governance as was proven before the csa created havoc.

This agency has recently stated that it is not an agent of the other party but are in fact just offering a service. I do not consent to this service, you are forcing this upon me.

Below is a list of some acts of parliament that i believe are relevant.
I am also demanding full disclosure! I require a full list of each and every Act that is relevant to this exchange of security interest and please list each part of the acts that is relevant to this forced action.

Partial list of acts being relied upon:

Child Support (Registration and Collection Act) 1988
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Crimes act 1958
The universal declaration of human rights
Bills of exchange act 1909
Charter of human rights and responsibilities act 2006
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
Act interpretation act 1901
Equal Opportunity Act 2010

Please respond with full disclosure of every single relevant act.
In no means is that which is stated here a complete list of violation and grievances.

It is more than clear that the entire decision is made with bias.

To entertain the idea of a set amount arrived at arbitrarily is a direct violation of the mandatory and inalienable rights set forth by THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and the CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2006. also numerous other acts which support the above.

It is stated in the letter dated 13/8/12 from the csa goons that in 2008 the equal amount for self support was adopted into the child support formula.

The declaration of human rights was adopted by the Australian government in (1948) and the child support agency enacted i believe in 1988.therefore there had been forty years of human rights enacted before the agency came into being and thus the agency from its inception was to be established following the principles set forth in the declaration of human rights.

Yet it seems it has taken sixty years from the codification of these rights to identify a simple violation of rights issue and correct this via the adoption of an equal amount for self support. And over two hundred years and counting to act in correlation with the constitution of Australia.

Now that the equal amount for self support has clearly been identified and legislated (not that it needed to be) the actions of A?? A??????, D???? M??? and ???????? seek to dismiss this fundamental and inalienable right. This is a direct violation of equality.

The discrimination of these people also surfaces in other forms.

The proposed actions effectively steal my property and thus forces me to tender twice.

I have almost 25% actual care of my child. Setting a minimum amount of child support is also directly disregarding the actual care percentage i have with my child and is thus discriminating.

The right of association is being altered to one of a right of association but only with an addition of financial component attached to the visitation of family.

The right of religious observance etc, both recognised in the constitution and human rights related acts is being violated in this case, again this is being altered to a right with financial component.

The right of travel also recognised in the constitution and human rights related acts is also violated. Again a financial component is being added.

The right of equality is violated on numerous levels.

So where to start, maybe with the wrongly portrayed number of nights of care i have with my child, the csa have a copy of our court orders, so there is no excuse for this referenced number other than that of a deliberate action.

Court orders broken down

Paragraph 9, (c),(i), (ii) and (iii) lists 3 nights per fortnight and four nights per each school holiday.
Paragraph 9, (v) lists 5 days this coming summer.
Paragraph 24 provide altered term holiday periods
Paragraph 25(b) provides this years and each year following, altered summer holiday period of 5 nights.

THUS IT IS AS FOLLOWS:
26 fortnights x 3 nights = 78 nights
minus 3 fortnights for school term holidays = 9 nights
plus 3 school term holiday periods x 4 nights = 12 nights
minus 1 fortnight for summer holidays = 3 nights
plus 1 summer holiday period x 5 nights = 5 nights
plus one night over Christmas = 1 night.

78-9=69
69+12=81
81-3=78
78+5=83
83+1=84

As it can be clearly seen there is currently a minimum of 84 nights I spend with my child, not the 66 fraudulent nights claimed by d???? m???? and a?? a???????. Further provisions in these orders allow for special circumstances such as birthdays and fathers day etc but I just cant be fucked working this out. There have been many other nights of contact such as when the other party has been ill ( and she has admitted to this), or simply as ?????? wishes to see me, I think we could safely assume that 84 nights could be raised to a quarter care percentage of 91 nights. Especially when you factor in special occasions and the fact that when ?????? will not go to school and this has happened often that i retain her care until 3pm or later even though the orders state 9am.

Even though the claimed 66 nights care is stated and is clearly wrong, all the care i have of my child has been completely disregarded in this matter and instead an arbitrary decision has been presented. Where is the inalienable equality established here?

Blacks Law dictionary 8th edition defines inalienable, as, not transferable or assignable.
Blacks Law dictionary 8th edition defines inalienable right, as, see right.
Blacks Law dictionary 8th edition defines right as, 1, that which is proper under law, morality and ethics, 2, something that is due by just claim, legal guarantee or moral principle.

Blacks Law dictionary 8th edition describes, equality before the law as, The status or condition of being treated fairly according to regularly established norms of justice.......that officials and others are not exempt from the general duty of obedience to the law., that the discretionary governmental powers must not be abused, and that the task of superintending the operation of law rests with an impartial, independent judiciary.

An impartial, independent judiciary. The csa goons have stated this is not a judicial assessment thus they hold no authority.

This bias takes further forms.

These agents have in their communication attempted to justify the theft of thousands of dollars already paid in child support.
Neither the child support goons or the other party have rebutted the fact that the payments made to the other party where made in advance to cover any debt which may arise after an adjusted taxable income is made available. It has not been rebutted that i could do this due to partial self employment thus I am yet to pay tax and superannuation.

It has not been rebutted that I am expecting two debts concerning this and payed child support upfront in greater amounts to avoid underpayment and thus a third debt.

It has not been rebutted that all three debts at once would be crippling.
I have asked the csa members if they claim that I must exist in a state of debt and they have not supplied an answer.

An unrebutted claim stands as fact in law. Yet the child support goons have stolen these payments and now expect me to pay for a second time, based on an arbitrarily derived decision.

Blacks law dictionary, 8th edition, defines arbitrary as being found on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact it is further stated that this type of decision is often termed arbitrary and capricious.
Blacks law dictionary, 8th edition, defines capricious as, contrary to the evidence or established rules of law.
Blacks law dictionary, 8th edition, defines prejudice as, damage or detriment to ones legal rights or claims.

Still further evidence of bias.

D???? m??? states in his communication dated 3/8/12 that to credit the amounts already payed would not be fair as it would result in the other party not receiving child support for some time, here he has admitted the claim as stated above, admitted that to credit these when the other party should have been receiving nothing due to my level of care and income, would therefore cause hardships and thus has made his decision based on bias. not only have the amounts been noted, crediting these has been refused, the csa have stolen my property and expect me to now pay for a second time based on a completely unlawful decision and if i do not comply as is my duty and right they will simply confiscate my property again.

D???? m???? in the same document claims that i have the capacity to pay and therefore justifies theft.
As already noted it has not been rebutted that i payed in advance anticipating work related financial debts. And could do so as i am yet to pay taxes and superannuation. I made a choice to put myself in a situation of credit with child support And did so to alleviate the burden of all these debts on a weekly basis. D???? m?? notes that to credit these amount would leave the other party without child support, that in and of itself is an action made in complete bias and thus is discrimination.

The decision sets an arbitrarily derived amount negating the human rights related acts and in doing so further mentions finances available to the other party that are not to be considered. To not take these available yet non included finances into account and in the same breath dismiss the expenses i face in regards to self employment and am yet to face highlights further concerns of intentional targeting.

The child support goons have again violated human rights via way of the right of travel and association. It has been mentioned in their paperwork (and i note reworded to alter the circumstance of the event), that as i can travel two hours in my car 2 or 3 times a year for a weekend break to visit and stay with family that this is also a means to increase and fix a set rate of child support, thus effectively attaching a financial component to the right to travel and the visitation of family members thus the right of association (the csa goons alter the fact and simply state, travel to Geelong).

The child support goons have again discriminated on religious grounds by including a Christmas present of around $300 and paid off as it was purchased on credit card as another means to increase and fix a set rate of child support. They have violated the right of religious observance, the constitution, the act legislation act and human rights related acts, the discrimination act and no doubt numerous others.

The members of the child support agency have also admitted theft of my property by way of garnishment of my tax return and attempted to justify theft by way of my ability to vary payments made to their principle, however this does not change the fact that my property was stolen. And to this day is yet to be returned. These actions have created liability on the other party by way of receiving stolen property. I have forwarded a proposal to have my funds returned though they have been refused even so an account with interest will be kept, either that or i can pursue criminal charges.

As i was not required to forward funds for MR ????????? to the other party during the period i did, and as stated by d????? m????, i have the power to vary future payments to regain these over payments then it stands to reason that this is what shall take place until the entire amount is recovered. However as the csa will not credit the actual payments made they will persist with their discrimination and harassment.
This also does not negate the theft of my tax return and does not apply for this part of their abuse.

In relation to stated said duties, It is not my responsibility to inform the csa members of their principle being paid, the bills of exchange act states that i have the option of tending to agent or principle. The choice is mine and once payment is tendered , any contractual obligations on my behalf have ceased, the csa statements of accounts do not list any further contractual obligations thus the contract is fulfilled. if the principle does not wish to declare the payment I believe that amounts to fraud.

Essentially the csa members have knowingly or not been a party to fraud and once this information had been disclosed to them they have attempted to justified fraud and theft.
I am well within my rights to cease all involvement with both parties here, agent (csa) and principle (??????)
Any further interaction with these criminals on my behalf would be criminal in and of itself, and thus i act under protest and duress as the csa goons will steal my property no matter what legislation and/or law states otherwise.

If these people had any common sense they could have waited until I can have my tax return completed in late October / early November ( when my accountant can fit me in) to secure an adjusted taxable income however they have decided to forgo all logic, reason, rights and law. I could have been finalising my paperwork instead of responding to this waste of tax payers money. They are therefore guilty of inappropriate use of common funds.
These child support agents have proven they are unfit to hold office and should be removed immediately. They have admitted to theft,they are criminals hiding behind the legislation of a corporation.

Contact details are
c/o (Authorised Administrator and beneficiary of MR ????? ?????????)



    By:Mic from Victoria, Australia on September 19, 2016 @ 7:30 pm
    No contract can ever exist with CSA or any agency. A valid and enforceable contract must contain all the essential elements and can only be between 2 living men/women. Get them to prove any debt with conditional acceptance process and see what happens. Poof! All is bluff based on our ignorance. Time we all awoke...yeah? Hope this helps...cheers
    By:JL from SA, Australia on September 19, 2016 @ 12:59 pm
    Companies like http://www.childsupportconsulting.com.au/ can help you reduce the payment and deal with CSA.
    By:NB from NSW, australia on May 16, 2013 @ 10:55 pm
    Self employment through my own company was my saviour
    By:Terrence Dowd from Victoria, Australia on May 6, 2013 @ 4:02 pm
    Did you get a reply?

 6+4= 
(Note: If wrong - comments will not be posted)
Footnotes:

1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.

To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here

To contribute a news article Click Here

To view or contribute a Quote Click Here

Hosting & Support by WebPal© 2019 f4joz.com All rights reserved.