Minter Ellison are still trying to intimidate Centrelink clients over one year later after their first abortive attempts to sue Centreflunk for copyright breaches and to sue Heretic Press to try and stop valid public criticism of biased retrospective child care assessments by public servants. Minter Ellison with their barristers are again on 12th November 2007 completely ignoring copyright and access conditions of this site in an attempt to intimidate and silence the poorest Australians from criticising the Howard government. If they are proud of the just cause of their action they should be happy it will all be available in the public media and preserved as digital records for many years to come.
A lot of negative publicity for Minter Ellison which can only be ameliorated by negotiation, not by baseless threats and breaches of the access conditions and copyright notice. Hereticpress writes validated webpages which have high page ranking for internet searches. Google search for Michael Tehan. Yahoo search for Michael Tehan. Minter Ellison have been recorded on the public record as Centrelink's representatives acting against impoverished Australians. For the $5,000 they were paid by Centrelink to "draft and send letter" the webmaster will edit this page to remove references to your legal threats and that income will be declared for the editing expenses incurred in producing and editing this large webpage.
Minter Ellison's representatives have not replied to emails asking them to observe the copyright and access conditions, they have not even attempted to mitigate the cost of a baseless action to a client with very deep pockets by contacting the webmaster as they were invited to do.
A reply to Paul Zawa and Minter Ellison who are trespassing on this site, the webmaster's reply.
Reporting solicitors.
Virgin schoolboy targeted by Child Support Agency. Take that as a warning young laddie, if you were older it would have cost you thousands to prove you were not the father and your bank account would have been drained and your salary if any, garnisheed before you could even appeal. New legal action in 2007 by Centrelink against an aggrieved critic Jason Pickett.
The CSA have just admitted that they have been screwing 10,000 parents, mostly fathers for child support based on the lies by the custodial parent about their income. About time, how many of these men could not cope with the ridiculous appeals process and bias of the Child Support Agency and the perjuring parents who were never rebuked for lies about their income. An admission by CSA that they have been unjustly impoverishing 10,000 Australian men, myself included.
Minter Ellison server logs
Treasurers Department Victoria IP 192.189.209.0 - 192.189.209.255
Centrelink access logs
fproxy2.centrelink.gov.au, lions.minterellison.com and scansafe using solicitors, please send me an email agreeing to access conditions. Centrelink access condition breaches on 12th November 2007.
New Centrelink action against critics. Another $5,000 of taxpayer's money given to Paul Zawa of Minter Ellison.
Last updated 12th November 2007
NB: The use of the first person singular, "I", means the anonymous page author, not the editor, publisher or webmaster. If the plural is used "we", it means the editor, publisher or webmaster.
I have no choice but to be Centrelink's aggrieved client. The reason why I do not identify myself is to not breach family law rules about naming or identifying parties to a case.
I emailed Hank Jongen and the minister in March 2006, to notify them of their web site's disgraceful condition and also to try and get work fixing their inaccessible website. They did not even reply. They seem too busy trying to legally intimidate critics.
I have made a formal complaint about Centrelink's web site under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, perhaps it may help re-focus them on their responsibilities under the Social Security Act and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
This website was until March 27th being threatened by Centrelink with a defamation action. Michael Tehan of MinterEllison represents Centrelink. The MinterEllison solicitor for correspondence. Daniel Pproietto
Minter Ellison's Michael Tehan, an expensive dinner date for Michael with the Victorian labour government at $1,000 a head. Bracks who resigned suddenly in mid 2007 to take up a highly paid position with KPMG who he favoured as premier, Bracks auctioned off his company for dinner to the best offer.
Patrick Carson Business Leader on instruction from Sean Meehan Legal Services Branch took instructions from Centrelink to employ Michael Tehan? Paul Zawa of Minter ellison has also been employed to sue Jason Picket. Are Minter Ellison becoming Centrelink's preferred ambulance chasers to sue impoverished clients? Which Centrelink staff instructed the Legal Services Branch to pay $5,000 is not disclosed.
Minter Ellison are doing well financially from the Australian taxpayer, but they are not doing so well in the public media.
The abandoned defamation threat which never had any substance cost Australian taxpayers $5,000. Actions against Jason Pickett's Centreflunk cost taxpayers twice that amount. How many expensive dinners did taxpayers shout Paul Zawa and Michael Tehan while clients survived in poverty on reduced benefits?
I received notification on 27th March 2006 that No further legal action was pending, as if the Ministers, Mal Brough or former Joe Hockey ever had any right to spend public money on this farce. Retraction of legal threat.
I requested documents of all payments made to legal firms for defamation actions by Centrelink. My Application was refused by the Centrelink FOI Officer. They disclosed only the $5,000 authorised to threaten hereticpress.com, they refuse to let anyone know how much public money they spent to threaten other Centrelink critics with defamation actions!
Internet Legal Forum For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
Kerry Terry at Centrelink's Charlestown Privacy and Information Access Team's NSW Office, replied to my FOI request on 2nd May 2006 stating that, they would not process my FOI request without the $30 fee or proof of hardship. They have already been informed that I am a health care card holder, which is sufficient for other FOI applications to waiver the fee. They have done the same thing to Jason Pickett, denied his application threatening that Jason will have to pay their costs when he is the victim of discrimination by Centrelink. Jason's hall of shame to nominate your worst Centrelink staff member. We can name public servants they work for us. The public are fed up with your departments FOI policy Kerry Terry! Are you just following orders from Hank Jongen and the minister Mr Hockey. Refuse to follow illegal orders Kerry and start granting FOI appeals.
What is Kerry Terry's role? Maybe they should change the team's name to make it match their behaviour, "Centrelink Privacy and Information Access Denial Team". She seems to be conducting FOI application requests nationally! Jason Pickett from Centreflunk was also more than threatened, their webserver was silenced by Centrelink. Jason received the same reply to his FOI application also from Kerry Terry. Kerry is processing applications at least from NSW and Victoria, she seems to be only acting to deny FOI requests from aggrieved and impoverished Centrelink clients. You should be right up there at the top of Jason's hall of shame Kerry.
Please note that Jason is requesting information on what Centrelink paid to close down his webserver Indy. It is not just an FOI application on his Centrelink file, it is an action that goes to the pithy heart of a matter that should concern a democracy which values freedom of expression on the internet and government accountability. There are even false allegations from Centrelink of threats made to staff that assume guilt while never having to produce a shred of evidence. If you raise your voice against injustice in Australia, you are vilified unjustly. This is a fiction against Jason for which he is discriminated against by an Australian government Agency.
FOI replies from Kerry Terry to Heretic Press and Jason Pickett
It looks like an easy job, nice work if you can get it and you don't mind acting unfairly onbehalf of a corrupted organisation. A Centreflunk template letter, consisting of six basic parts:
Repeat what you requested in your FOI application
Deny the application until a $30 fee is paid
State that your claim does not relate to your file so the $30 fee is required
State that the Onus of proof of financial hardship is on you
State that If you do not pay $30 you do not want to proceed
State that if you do proceed you may be charged for "decision making time"
Jason's web reply to Centrelink, Centreflunk. The Heretic Press reply to Centrelink's FOI refusal. Centrelink cause hardship by arbitrarily taking away benefits and then they have the gaul to say, prove you are in financial hardship or we will not show you what we spent on expensive solicitors to try and silence both Heretic Press, Jason Pickett and how many others? What is the legal bill of Centrelink nationally, not to prosecute welfare fraud, but to launch actions outside the Social Security Act, defamation actions and internet censorship.
They take away meger benefits and then threaten clients with unfounded defamation actions or close the Indy web server down, to stop them telling others what they have done! Then, if you make an FOI application to see what they wrongly paid solicitors, they will not tell you nationally what the spent and then want to be paid for decision making time, preposterous!
Centrelink's decision making is arbitrary and fundamentally flawed, no client who has been wronged and then threatened for telling others, should have to pay Centrelink's moronic anti-democratic decision making fee. This is how Centrelink treats clients who they have wronged. You could provide a truckload of evidence about hardship and they will still charge you and delay your request when they have squandered thousands of dollars of public money on solicitors to inappropriately threaten you.
Process my full FOI application Centrelink and Jason's and immediately disclose how much is spent by Centrelink to threaten Australians. Reveal all payments made to silence Centrelink critics on the internet.
Tell your bosses you are complying with UN Article 10 of the Convention on "Public reporting".
The UN Convention on Anti-corruption was approved by the General Assembly in October 2003 and adopted in December 2005 after it was ratified by 30 countries. Article 10 of the Convention on "Public reporting" encourages countries to adopt measures to improve public access to information as a means to fight corruption:
An International FOI report's conclusion:
In Australia, there were 39,265 information requests between July 2004 and June 2005, a decrease of 3,362 (7.9 percent) compared with 2003-04. As with previous years, over 90 percent of those requests were for personal information, mostly to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, and Centrelink.
There are many criticisms of the effectiveness of the Act. The Australian Law Reform Commission and the Administrative Review Council released a joint report in January 1995 calling for substantial changes to improve the law. The review called for the creation of an office of the FOI Commissioner, making the Act more pro-disclosure, limiting exemptions, reviewing secrecy provisions and limiting charges.
In June 1999, the Commonwealth Ombudsman found widespread problems in the recording of FOI decisions and probable misuse of exemptions to the disclosure of information under the legislation and recommended changes to the Act and the creation of an oversight agency. The Senate held an inquiry in April 2001 on a private members amendment bill to adopt the recommendations of the ALRC and ARC report but to date there have been no substantive changes in the Act.
In February 2006 the Ombudsman released a report on the Act which strongly recommended that the Government establish a FOI Commissioner, possibly as a specialized and separately funded unit in the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The key was to ensure that an independent body would be tasked with monitoring and promoting the law. The Ombudsman's report more generally found that requests were often not acknowledged and delayed and that there is still an uneven culture of support for FOI among government agencies, even 20 years after its enactment.
It has been previously noted that budget cuts have severely restricted the capacity of the Attorney General's Department and the Ombudsman to support the Act and there is now little central direction, guidance or monitoring. Kerry Terry seems to be in the short term, free to deny FOI requests as she pleases, but a valid legal complaint will be made under international law.
Other Centrelink staff behaving badly, privacy breaches.
Centrelink seem to have a policy to reduce the benefits of separated fathers as well as funding the CSA $140 million for investigations. Centrelink staff have authorised Commonwealth public money being spent with Minter Ellison to sue Centrelink clients or Sparke Hellmore acting for Centrelink to close down the Perth based Indy web server until they removed documents from Jason Pickett.
The Australian Communications minister is Senator Helen Coonan. Tel: 02 6277 7480 Fax: 02 6273 4154 Email Helen, did Helen approve of the Centrelink censorship of Jason's articles on Indymedia? Contact the Human Services Minister Ian Campbell and ask him how Human Services took over the Communications portfolio?
I bet the previous minister Joe Hockey did not even inform Helen he was taking over her portfolio and closing down Australian internet sites critical of Centrelink.
Another minister who should have been responsible for avoiding any internet censorship was Mal Brough MP. Send an Email the Communications Minister, to Joe Hockey and Mal Brough.
Mal has his own communications department, (MINCORR) Ministerial Correspondence Unit mincorr@facs.gov.au
Call Howard's ministers and make a formal complaint about Centrelink acting as an internet censor of their critics and aggrieved clients. Complain to the Human Services Minister Campbell about sexist anti-father arbitrary reassessments of child care percentages and refusal to process FOI applications in general. FACS Switchboard Toll Free: 1300 653 227 or email FACS.
A review of Joe Hockey's the former ministers website, as at 27th June it has 143 HTML page errors and has a misleading picture of a much younger thinner Joe. Vanity of vanities Joe. I recommend you change that picture to a contemperory likeness, it could be considered as misleading. Joe has just approved $143 million to the Child Support Agency to investigate parents (called deadbeat dads by sexist Joe) for non compliance with child support obligations.
Women can be violent as well! A Canadian report.
The McGill case. An update, the CSA asks for legal costs from a father ripped off on child support for 10 years, paying for children who are not his. Liam is now being ordered to pay CSA legal costs. What mongrels the CSA are towards men!
CSA manager Angela Tillmans said she would cause people to fear her phone calls. Is that a decent way for a public servant to be speaking to the public, I don't think so. The sexist CSA Gestapo Medusa has the minister suckling at her vinegar breast funding her with a private Amazonian anti-male police force.
DOTA discussion CSA funding and bias.
The FTB Part A is means tested from $33,361 up to $86,213 for families with one child. An additional allowed income amount of $3,431 is added for each FTB child after the first. For FTB Part B the income free amount is $4,088. The cut-out amount for an FTB part B is $11,233.
FTB Part B child under 5 years $3,066.00
FTB Part B child is 5 - 18 years $2,138.90
FTB Part A standard rate (under 13) $3,573.35
FTB Part A standard rate (13-15) $4,529.65
FTB Part A standard rate (16-17) $1,149.75
FTB Part A standard rate (18-24) $1,547.60
I first made a valid claim under 7.(2) of the Family Assistance Act in 2001 that the Secretary was satisfied with. The Secretary must follow the ministers direction. Email Dr. Jeff Harmer The Secretary at the time determined the rate to be 39% shared care of my two children. In 2001, I satisfied the Secretary and Centrelink by sending them copies of court orders and a list of dates I had my children in care.
Over the last five years there have been numerous court cases appealing against incorrect Child Support Agency (CSA) assessments on the questions of relative incomes and child care percentages! I made an application to the Federal Court for CSA assessment purposes, that as I had more than 40% nights in care of my children, that I should be assessed as having equal care. In contested hearings the number of "nights in my care" was calculated by Bryant CFM, as being from a low in one year of 34% to slightly over 42%. Her calculations clearly show a pattern of care around 40%.
On 3rd January 2006, I received seven letters from Centrelink, four of them were dated 23rd Dec 2005 and are statements saying that I had been overpaid child support for the years 2001-2005 and that I had to refund them over $3,000 within three weeks.
The fifth letter dated 27th Jan 2006 stated that:
"As the shared care of 30% for your children X and Y set out in Court Order, was not taken into account you have been overpaid Family Tax benefit from July 1st 2005. We are therefore required to recover this amount."
These reasons for judgment were obtained in an appeal to the Federal Magistrates court, to reassess the mother's income for CSA child support assessments, after the CSA internal COAT appeals process thrice-rejected my appeal. The question of the relative percentage of nights in care, was also considered by the judge.
Even though I did have more than 40% nights care in some years, my application to be assessed as having equal shared for Child Support Agency assessments was rejected. This question of percentage care has been litigated to death through the CSA and Federal Court. I may not be currently assessed as having equal care, but my care is not lower than 39% of nights, or a little more calculating with "hours" as Centrelink do, only the CSA exclusively use "nights" in care.
It makes child care more onerous with so much accounting for government recognition of shared care.
It was legally determined by the Secretary in 2001 and formal calculations were made by Bryant in 2004, that I have a pattern of care of around 39% nights care of my children.
Nothing has changed since 2004 with respect to the pattern of care arrangements. Now with no notice at all, as is required under Section 196 (2) of the act, the mother has provided the same court orders again and two Footscray Centrelink Family Assistance Office staff, acting for the Secretary, Kerry and Karen have now unilaterally used the same orders to arrive at a different conclusion about the pattern of care. They decided that I only have 30% custody and not 39%, as I had claimed in my application.
The review officer said that they have received copies of court orders on November 10th 2005, the same court orders I presented years ago now suddenly have a different meaning.
Before being threatened with a defamation action by Minter Ellison, I noticed many web searches for the name Karen Miloshis which led to this web page. It is very easy to get search engine ranking for an unusual name. Centrelink staff who wish to be remain anonymous on internet searches should change their name to Smith. Does Karen Miloshis personally know Michael Tehan from her other roles with the Maribyrnong Safety Taskforce? It seems Michael Tehan specialises in industrial relations law, not defamation actions! Do Centrelink staff have the discretion to employ any solicitor they please to try and silence any criticism of their decisions?
So far as of 2nd May, Centrelink has resisted my freedom of Information application to try and answer these questions.
Hank Jorgen, Centrelink manager emailed me, after I emailed my complaint to him, Hank stated that, he would have this matter investigated, but Centrelink is contemporaneously spending time and public money instructing solicitors to threaten me. They should instead, be quickly investigating and fixing their own errors and ensuring that staff are trained to comply with the provisions of the Family Assistance Act 1999 regarding patterns of shared care.
A copy of the email sent to Hank is below in Word format. Still no reply from Hank as to Friday 16th February 2007.
Kerry claims she sent me the letter from Karen stating they would be reviewing my child care percentage, but I never received it and they acted as if it did not matter whether they sent it or not. I had no opportunity for input in her decision, she disregarded a comprehensive list of nights sent to her detailing when I had my children, which I first sent to Centrelink in 2001 as evidence of my child contact details.
The Secretary of the Family Assistance Office and Centrelink accepted this assessment of 39% care in 2001, and the ex-wife did not provide any documents to dispute it.
An arbitrary assessment retrospective for five years is unsupportable. I have had contact with a total of five staff from the Footscray Family Assistance Office, four of them have spoken down to me (the exception is the authorised review officer the only male), assuming that I had made a fraudulent application in 2001 and was a "deadbeat dad"!
A determination made by the Secretary in 2001 about the pattern of care continues under Section 123 No changes can be legally made, without giving me two weeks notice to respond.
Keep a diary of all the nights and hours you have your children in your care, copies of all court orders and everything from the Centrelink Family Assistance Office. How can untrained staff make determinations on legal matters already litigated before the Family Court?
The Family Assistance Act 1999 allows the Secretary of FACS may make any determination. 28.(1)
Whilst the FAO have used Family Court documents to make determinations, they are not required or obligated to under the Act.
But this power is not isolated from a wider legal context in the law of tort, to take reasonable care.
In every project the proponent agency must consider what skills are required to complete due diligence. In an appropriate case, a proponent agency may have to retain external consultants with the necessary skills.
The determinations of the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant have been submitted to Centrelink, which could guide the Secretary as to the "pattern of care". Bryant states in one year, I had as much as 42% access. The CSA were so arrogant they resisted implementing Bryant's orders on income, until I got them to the door of the Federal Magistrates Court!
The FACS Secretary and Footscray Family Assistance staff, should let the determinations of judges guide their decisions. Bryant delivered a nine page Reason for Judgment, in contested hearings on the questions of income and actual nights in care percentages for CSA child care assessment purposes.
Her reasons for decision are a highly persuasive argument for the Secretary to consider and they are a powerful argument in any forum, tribunal or court. Will Centrelink's Secretary and the Review Officer take her determinations into account? Junior Judges and the Secretary should look outside the Act and follow precedent made by Family Court judges.
Perhaps Hank Jorgen can get to the bottom of it and save us the trouble of further legal and media appeals, but it is not encouraging to see Hank's denials of Centrelink errors or bias and Hank's attitude towards Centrelink critics such as Rod Whyte, who he described in the media as a former "junior manager" making money from Centrelink clients?
The level of his position is irrevelant to the validity of his criticisms. This comment from Hank that is not likely to inspire his "junior" troops.
When you are unavoidably on government benefits, life must be very frugal, to have meager amounts just taken with no due process has serious consequences about life and death for people. Will I be able to pay the rent, bills and buy food? When the consequences for errors are so grave, Centrelink has an onerous duty of care to its clients.
The decision to reduce my child care percentage was made on 23rd December 2005. The Secretary has 13 weeks to decide if the Reasons for Judgment I provided for him are relevant to my appeal under Section 195(4).
I first appealed on January 3rd 2006 by phone, and then again on 12th January in writing with supporting documents. Finally a little progress, on 2nd March, the Authorised Review Officer, contacted me by phone, saying that he was on the case and it would be another couple of weeks, until he made a determination. I asked him to consider the contents of this page in my appeal.
I gave the Authorised Review Officer this webpage URL over the phone, but to date, 8th March, the webmaster has informed me that server logs do not show any hits from Centrelink after 2nd March? I just phoned the review officer and he said my appeal had come to the top of his work pile, he must be very busy reviewing lots of arbitrary Centrelink decisions.
It is approximately three months since the arbitrary decision that a simple review might be finalised. Initially, I was told a review would take 10 days! If this appeal is denied, it will require another appeal, more paperwork and more delays.
The Secretary may review decisions on his own intiative. The Secretary on application of a review may determine that an overpayment is not a recoverable debt, especially if it is debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error.
Centrelink move these documents around all the time, they are moved deleted and obscured by incompetence or deliberate attempts to make them harder to find. I have updated these links to external web links which are much more reliable than Centrelink web pages. The Centrelink website and IT policy is an international disgrace.
Providing evidence of shared care.
The tedious Centrelink appeals process:
* Internal review:
1. original decision-maker(What a waste of time)
2. authorised review officer (1.1.A.140)
* External appeals:
3. Social Security Appeals Tribunal SSAT The RTF word document appeal forms are 16 MB! Very difficult to download on a dial-up connection
4. Administrative Appeals Tribunal AAT
5. Federal Court
6. High Court
In this case the authorised review officed determined that the level of care was higher than 30% and that the amount owing was reduced by about $1,800. He accepted most but not all of Bryant's calculations. The next step in the tedious appeals process is to the SSAT.
Apart from waiting months, while a Centrelink decision is reviewed, after you make a complaint, it seems more than coincidental that you start to be a target for extra information. Today 20th Feb 2006, Centrelink wrote requesting information under Section 63 and/or Section 192 of the Social Security (Administration) Act. The Secretary requested full pay details for ALL employers you are working for and the dates you started your employment. My part-time job income has been declared to them, Centrelink are perhaps wrongly assuming that I am in cahoots with an internet Millionaire Heretic Press, hiding my squillions and bludging off Australian taxpayers. If I made any money from other work, I would declare it, hereticpress.com hosts this page free of charge.
We applaud all legal efforts to catch welfare cheats, but this is an extreme police state type of undemocratic measure.
The democratic Westminster doctrine of the Separation of Powers is being trashed in Australia by Centrelink, hell-bent on catching cheats, with no regard for any costs their illegal actions impose on the wider community.
Federal Human Services Minister, Joe Hockey is congratulating himself on catching 13 welfare cheats and saving taxpayers $100,000, but at what cost to 487 innocent commercial drivers and also to our democratic structure?
You have made a reasonable start on your web site Joe, it is encouraging to see a larger text option for low vision users, but the WC3 validator shows 139 page HTML errors. It is not worth checking the accessibility with so many HTML errors.
Mal Brough's webpage has only four HTML errors, but no accessibility features, like a larger text option. We could fix it for you and help you make more friends.
Victorian police and Centrelink stopped 500 Victorian commercial vehicles to question the drivers about their income and activities. Centrelink do not seem to be a compassionate organisation helping Australians, it looks as though they consider themselves by Ministerial direction to be Centrelink police.
Human Services Minister Joe Hockey announced a $143 million funding for the Child Support Agency to spy on fathers.
If they had a Magistrate on hand with police and Centrelink staff, they could have all branches of government present and conduct trials on the spot. The Social Security Act seems devoid of any power to immediately request information by stopping commercial traffic, they can request information in writing, allowing 14 days to respond, they cannot conduct roadside interrogations under the Social Security Act.
As well as the constant audits Centrelink do of their clients, there are already many ways to report Centrelink fraud within the existing democratic struture.
We emailed joe@joehockey.com to complain about stopping 487 innocent drivers to catch 13 welfare cheats and to remind Joe of Blackstone's famous legal maxim that it is better for one guilty man to go free than for 10 innocents to suffer, or in this case 487 innocents. "Sorry I'm late boss, Centrelink bailed up the van and stopped deliveries."
Centrelink can request information but, they have no power to conduct roadside interrogations, Victoria police do, but not for Social Security purposes. Are any other Australian state police forces making alliances with Centrelink, like Victoria Police have? Centrelink are acting ultra vires, beyond and outside their legal powers.
What a misguided organisation, by Ministerial direction, thinking they have police powers to detain people for questioning without any cause. This attitude explains why they are so aggressive in other areas as well, trying to suppress media reports. It is fine for Centrelink tocorrect media errors.
It is another matter to try and impose a general censorship of media reporting of Centrelink errors which are exposed by a critic.
Public money is being spent waging an immoral legal war by a government suppressing critical comment on the corruption of liberal political philosophy and the failures of the machinery of state.
A $5,000 thousand dollar cost to have a go at intimidating Heretic Press and trying to close it down? An expensive letter. The FOI application to discover the costs being paid by Centrelink for other defamation actions was refused. Who authorised Legal Services to pay to Minter Ellison; the manager, the Secretary or Minister of FACS? It might have been a very senior manager. They only disclosed the single document from the Legal Services Branch Instructing Officer Sean Meehan to spend $5,000 to draft and send letter. Some very vague and poor instructions for $5,000.
Heretic Press feels so flattered, spending all that public money against us :-) , except, that we could use some of that money FACS gave Minter Ellison, (we could fix your webpages and make them accessible) so could every other Australian taxpayer or Centrelink client. If you are going to really sue someone be more frugal with public money than to instruct solicitors to, "draft and send letter".
Centrelink are trying to silence Heretic Press (and others) like Jason Pickett, with threats of legal action. The solicitor threatening Heretic Press, did not even observe the access conditions of this webpage.
I have a counter claim and action for misfeasance and negligence against your client Centrelink,
Heretic Press sent an email to the MinterEllison webmaster concerning the breach, but to date we have received no reply.
An expensive dinner date with the Victorian Premier Mr Bracks who allows Victoria Police to run off hand-in-hand with Centrelink. Ask Bracks, if he remembers Joe Bjelke-Petersen's response to the question of, what the doctrine of SEPARATION OF POWERS means. He seems too busy spending public money on an advertising orgy glorifying himself, to notice anything else.
If you think you have been defamed in this webpage, with a simple email, your concerns would be given immediate attention and due consideration. If you want to make an anonymous comment, you can use the WebChat page, the Aus Legal newsgroups or the DOTA Forum.
The story ACA really wanted, was on deadbeat dads. See the article Cockroaches and Cameras. . ACA ambushed Rod Whyte and his partner with old photos of their children, taken ten years ago and made allegations to them on camera that they owed child support themselves. Instead of the story on Centrelink's harsh and cruel errors, ACA was working with the ex-wife
to depict Rod and his partner as Deadbeat Dads, who owe money in child support. Is anyone owing child support, worthy of vilification? The CSA make so many wrong assessments that can only be changed through tedious court applications. Just because an assessment has been made, does not mean it is the correct assessment.
One citizen's initiated solution is class action. Join the group action.
Personally, I can confirm the Border Morning Mail's editorial letter about Rod Whyte, that he is a gentleman ready to help those disadvantaged by Centrelink bias without considering any personal fee for his services, to his own financial detriment.
It is not fair Centrelink and Channel Nine, to attack the messenger. Centrelink, just because of employee numbers, will have some organisational problems complying with provisions of the Social Security Act.
A record of Centrelink unauthorised access attempts on this website fproxy2.centrelink.gov.au , you are filling the weblogs a bit with Centrelink hits. Centrelink staff have access to this site. Due to breaches of Hereticpress access conditions, you must email the webmaster with your agreement to access conditions (Excepting the authorised review office who I asked to consider this page in his review). With a simple email you were invited to contact the webmaster with any concerns about any content, which we would give serious consideration, instead you started a taxpayer's funded action for defamation against a benevolent internet publishing company and an individual client and author, aggrieved by Centrelink.
I hope I have provided some insights into this Centrelink example where child care percentages are manipulated in a most arbitrary and unjust manner. Not to mention the legal threats for reporting bad Centrelink decisions on the internet with supporting document scans. How many others have had the same thing happen to them? Is anyone making a complaint likely to be legally threatened or labelled as a deadbeat dad?
Will the ABC or channel Seven take on Centrelink and the ambush by A Current Affair of Rod Whyte? (Sydney radio FM 89.3.
interview Monday 27th Feb 10.00am), exposing the delay in having bad decisions reviewed, and legal threats to their own aggrieved clients?
This case is different from Welfare Watchdog, it is the hungry client making a complaint who Centrelink are trying to intimidate with legal threats. A hungry client, who has been working and cares for his kids.
How can you keep a hungry man quiet? Threaten him legally not to name those individuals acting for the FACS Secretary, ultimately that is Dr Jeff Harmer who inappropriately took bread from his mouth.
3rd Jan Hand delivered Appeal to Centrelink. To date 4th March, no reply from Hank 16th Jan Complaint to Hank Jorgen Centrelink Manager Acknowledged by Hank
Firstly, if you are going to give the matrimonial home away or anything else of value to the ex while in the throws of being emotionally upset, make sure it is included as credit for child support payments as a non-agency payment.
Make sure the non-agency agreement states the children's birth dates and period of time the amount will offset child support credits for. Do not accept a promise to enter such an agreement, only a signed witnessed agreement in conformance with the CSA guidelines for non-agency payments. By agreement anything is possible. Anything is worth the effort to avoid having anything to do with the most powerful, unaccountable Child Support Agency for as many years as possible.
Also closely watch educational issues, investigate which schools suit your children's talents and dispositions, consult with them to make a selection or the ex will determine where they go and you can pay thank you with no say at all. If you voluntarily pay school fees with good will, the Court will say, you did that as extra on the ordered or assessed CSA amount, so it doesn't count towards child support. You can pay school fees of thousands, even have receipts
but, CSA and the courts will say, that does not count towards child support. Agree to pay school fees only if they are deducted from the child support assessment amount due.
The CSA, can too easily assume you are a "deadbeat dad". The CSA annual report looks like an American marketing firm's commission structure for awarding a sales bonus to staff for effective fleecing of parents. The collection rate is boasted about; 87.5%, how many deaths did this figure contribute to, how much was paid in bonuses for contributing to the suicide of parents unable to cope with the theft of their wages and a biased appeal process following a wrong and even fraudulent CSA assessment?
The CSA report states that 1.4 billion was transferred for the benefit of children. This is incorrect; 1.4 Billion was transferred from the minor care giver to the major carer, there is no obligation that the money is spent on children. Your ex can dress the children in torn rags, while she wears tailor made linen and silk suits with matching accessories. Any money transferred from me to the ex does not go to the children, when you pay their school fees and buy uniforms, because their mother will not, that is not counted as money towards the children or assessable child support.
Previous Annual CSA Report by Catherine Argall
Could we also please have a breakdown on the percentage recovered by each state manager, to compare the performance of the jackboots Mr Mutton with others. Is the Victorian rate higher than average? Maybe Catherine was happy with "jackboots" rather than counting the dead he leaves behind in the wake of unfair assessments that cannot be effectively reviewed? Will the new Victorian manager Bill Lodge be any better? Not likely if he is trained by Centrelink to be a toady servant of minister Joe Hockey! Their report makes another incredible claim, that is totally unbelievable. "The Commonwealth Ombudsman reviewed the Child Support Agency Complaints Service and concluded it functions at a high standard." If this is true, please find for me the email link to make a complaint about the CSA. They are totally unaccountable, it functions to the highest standard. Absolute bullshit cover-up, just like their survey of satisfied "clients".
To apply the magic CSA formula, you will need a copy of your court orders to establish your level of care percentage of nights in your care.
Above 110 to 145 days is Substantial care. Have two or three copies of any court orders ready to file.
The CSA Online Form. 10 Resons for requesting a change
First you must file an objection (within 28 days) on at least one of the 10 reasons for requesting an alteration to an assessment. This form will be sent to your ex who will have 14 days to reply and you will receive a copy of their response, if any. They then invite you to a conference to discuss issues, another waste of your time, they have made their mind up already, just for appearances. During the appeal period the previously made assessment will be enforced unless you request that a court makes a Stay order on the collection of child support. But you cannot request a stay order until you have been through this internal CSA COAT appeal.
So while you are waiting, CSA will continue to garnish your salary on the wrong assessment and there is nothing you can do except wait for the CSA to deny the appeal.
These procedures for appeals seem to be for respondents with the lesser amount of care. When the major custodial parent requests it, CSA staff forget the objection appeal process and write directly themselves to the other parent (breaching procedure), telling you that if you do not reply within 14 days your child support would be cancelled. No appeal process, just another fraudulent letter from the ex to the CSA who, then help her instead of being impartial.
You must go through a three level appeal process to get to a court, but the ex can cause you hundreds of hours work with one phone call to the CSA, the sexist police will have your salary and support the ex.
Here is another example of bias, again from K. After appealing to a court that a previous court order should be enforced by the CSA, the CSA reply is to state that you no longer have the level of care and your benefit will cease.
Notice the CSA have made the claim for the ex, they should not have, but they arrogantly did on their letterhead, the ex did not have to appeal and submit the forms above as everyone else would though a COAT appeal. She just tells the CSA another lie and they bypass all procedure in sending me this letter. K should not be representing my ex wife as if she were a private client. My ex should be put through the appeal process not assisted in perjury and breaching every fair process by K who is supposedly unbiased towards each parent.
Follow due process for both sides CSA!
So now the torture from the CSA continues and if I do not reply I will be struck off in 14 days and the CSA will award the ex "sole care" What a mongrel dog thing to do CSA and K, forget all proper procedure to help the ex to commit perjury again. My reply to this new outrageous claim took about six weeks work (including this webpage thanks to Heretic Press for all their help) with diaries and court orders. The word document is the type of daily contact summary you will have to compile, to keep the CSA at bay from constant threats, to take any meager benefits away.
It is a good idea to establish on your first appeal, the relative income and caring percentage of nights. After winning an appeal regarding income, the CSA then bring up the claim that your contact level has been reduced and it starts all over again. Against all legal principles The burden of proof is on the respondent, CSA will act as if the ex told them the absolute truth and act on this to take your wages. During the long appeal, you are still assumed to be liable for that amount, no presumption of innocence or due process before taking a worker's wage.
Now we have to deal also with the injustice of Victorian state laws removing a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Bracks/Brumby Domestic Violence Bill also removes any rights to question false accusations.
After five months of appeals to the Child Support Agency Change of Assessment team, four hundred pages of paper, everything in quadripulicate for filing and four trips to the Family Court and CSA to deliver and file documents,
$100 just in ink jet cartridges and about 100 hours work. Total cost for a moderate priced solicitor to do about $5,000. The case is listed for a stay order and departure application on this Monday 6th September 2004 in the Federal Magistrates Court Melbourne.
A lot of time, effort, worry, stress and money to appeal to a court against the arbitrary exercise of power by the Child Support Agency, for the third time! This week the CSA have called me by phone five times demanding that I withdraw my court application or they will oppose it.
They posted me the letter below, supposedly an offer to settle on the 1st September 2004 from someone I have never heard of from before K, they sent it by overnight post two working days before the case is due to be heard, though I have made the same points for many months (even years), many times through the useless, long-winded and (corrupt at worst or ignorant at best) CSA change of assessment team COAT
In an earlier case in 2004, my ex-wife again lied to the child support agency about what her income was. I was having my pay garnished on this fraudulent amount. After an appeal to the change of assessment team, and an objection after that to the appeal being declined, you are allowed to appeal to a court.
I appealed to a court and was successful before Chief Federal Magistrate Bryant who has since been promoted to head the family court. Her orders to the Regional Director of the Child Support Agency on 16th April 2004:
Orders page 1
Orders page 2
Orders page 3
I hand delivered sealed copies of these orders to the CSA offices in Essendon to make sure the regional director knew what amount he should use in assessing child support. Instead of what I expected, I was amazed that the regional director Geoff Mutton would not implement the orders of Bryant CFM.
CSA claimed they have implemented Bryant's orders, I said they had not, Magistrate Bennett would not even look at the letters (links below) I had from the CSA and Geoff Mutton stating that Bryant's orders did not apply. Bennett would not let me subpoena The Regional Director Mr Mutton to explain why he wastes my time. Bennett would not even allow a stay order on collection of arrears from my tax return! Maybe she does not like Bryant or me? She seemed polite enough to all the solicitors who went before me.
In my humble layman's opinion, it was a very poorly made and rushed decision, topped only by Registrar Benjamin who ordered my daughter (lived with me 100%) to be taken off me at an interim hearing (Should preserve status quo), against my daughter's will (no Family report). Bennett seemed not prepared or too rushed to look at the evidence I had to show her and the ex was ranting at 110 Db. A fair trial? Maybe she thought so.
The bottom line is that there is another hearing scheduled for 8th december.
If I contest the issue on that date, Magistrate Bennett said I could be liable for the CSA costs! An incredible conclusion without reading pertinent evidence, without looking at Bryant's reasons for judgment which state that I "had no other choice" but to appeal to a court against an incorrect CSA assessment. Now Bennett suggests I could pay CSAs costs when they refuse to implement Bryan'ts orders!
If the CSA comply with orders (and my care is not struck out), I will soon owe the ex almost nothing and at the moment (for the next 14 days at least) she is assessed to pay me $362 a month. CSA will do everything to stop me being paid anything by the ex. If I have over 40% care the amount would be a lot more as it was for me to pay her when she took a years leave to have another man's baby, another father to get for child maintenance with the support of Child Support Agency. I will wait for ongoing assessments from CSA, (See if they do strike out my level of care and court orders) claim my income tax return and see if they do comply, if so, I will drop the December case. Bennett's comments regarding charging me the CSA's costs to harrass me with incorrect assessments and refusing to implement court orders against me; a client (In Person) who objects with good reason is to be much too polite, unsustainable in logic or law.
Minter Ellison are still trying to intimidate Centrelink clients over one year later after their first abortive attempts to sue Centreflunk for copyright breaches and to sue Heretic Press to try and stop valid public criticism of biased retrospective child care assessments by public servants. Minter Ellison with their barristers are again on 12th November 2007 completely ignoring copyright and access conditions of this site in an attempt to intimidate and silence the poorest Australians from criticising the Howard government. If they are proud of the just cause of their action they should be happy it will all be available in the public media and preserved as digital records for many years to come.
