First Articles  POSTED on 30/04/2009.

(Written and Printed under freedom of political speech)
 In spit of SA Labor government Minister's media propaganda  and defamation Laws which implies dictatorship and media control.

Written and given by Joe Rossi without any of some  7 University $120 thousand a year RANN spin doctors.
What you read is what you get.
No hidden meanings.

=================,,================,1,5 ================,,

Some Reasons as to Why Separations Take Place.

1. No longer couple compatible.
2. Financial stress (Lose of income to support life  style)
3. Partner increases their bad habits of :

(a) Gambling.

(b) Alcohol consumption.

(c) Drug taking or drug growing.

(d) Domineering the intellectual and spirit over the other.

(e) The effects of the children playing one partner over the other to get their own way.  The Parents not having a clear policy of demanding respect towards each parent.

        (Parents supporting each others decisions made about the child or children)

=================,,================,1,6 ================,,

6p1   

Which Partner seeks help first from the Police and or the Courts?

1. I assume by logic that the Domineering partner getting their own way would have no reason to seek help first..
2. I assume by logic that the down trodden, timid, and abused partner not getting any of their own way would be the first to seek external help.   

The abused would have every reason to seek help from friends,
    police,  and the  courts.

Who gets the raw end of the justice system?

1. The first person to ask for help is normally called the Applicant.  (I call it Victim)
2. The Domineering partner is called the Respondent.
3. The documents before the courts continue as Applicant then Respondent.
4. I have no problems with this procedure while the final Court hearing is not applicable.

(a) Problem starts when the Respondent has the last and final say in the court documents at every point.

(b) I feel that the role should be changed (reversed) on the final Affidavits and points of disputes.  To be presented in the Court hearing.

It seems more fair and equal in advantage between the to applicants if the Victim has the last say and line of Defence.

Where do the Judges and Magistrates get it wrong?

I shall stress and point out that my arguments (debate) have nothing to do with giving favour to the father or the mother.

It has to do as to who is the violent parent and what advantages that violent parent has under the new legislation changes of the Family Law Act 1975.

Whether a father or mother to me I concentrate on the violent one and makes no difference makes no difference to the application of the law or criticism of the Judges and magistrates.

The manipulation of the Court system and the law remains the same.

The past system since 1975 to 2006 favouring the violent manipulating, women partner,

The women had more unquestioned say by false allegations.

The present system since 2006 is favouring still the violent manipulating partner, this time the male.

The men have more unquestioned say by false allegations, using in their Defence they have the right to equal parenting while practicing the violence towards the children and vindictiveness towards the children’s mother.

No where there is reference to the past violent police records of either parent.

No where is there consideration for what is best for the child?

In theory there are Judges Orders of no denigration of each parent to each other in front of the children.  But no where is there enforcement mechanism to investigate at random and without notice to phone tap, surveillance cameras or any other means to determine the facts and the truth.

Scenarios:

To control a partner one has to then engage in denigrating and put down so as to make the partner feel incompetent and have low self esteem.

To keep full control one must bind the other partner by having one or more children Then he/she has no where to go without having life time contact with the children.

Then the next step is to control the partner by causing conflict to separate the partner from his/ her friends, and then this/ her family relations, (parents and then siblings)

Now they have control till at least the children become 16 years of age.

(With No money, no friends, no parents and no self esteem where is the B.B. going to go?  (BB. situation applies to male as well as female victim parent.)

When it comes to Lawyers and Court Judges put in the affidavit that the partner's parent was

(a) Vindictive, accusatory, threatening, harassing, argumentative, demanding,

(b) Controlling, patronizing, bombastic, insulting, hostile, abusive, iron fisted, went ballistic,

.  (c) Assaulted, molested, harasses, threatened, interfered, and engages in intimidation

The lawyer and Judges Sympathy will automatically go their way.  No questions asked.  (This is not an assumption on my part but a fact of what actually happens.

Now assuming that the details and accusation by the domineering son /daughter-in-law are correct and spot on about the grandparents.  I like to draw attention to what actually happened next.

(a) The Violent partner Lawyer believed it (The Naughty maternal Grandfather is to blame for the separation of this marriage)

(b) The Magistrate jumped in with the same belief.  The Naughty maternal Grandfather is to blame for the separation of this marriage)

.  (c) The Independent Children Lawyer been told by the Violent partner legal representative about the accused Grandfather (The Naughty maternal Grandfather is to blame for the separation of this marriage)

The Magistrate having a preconceived view ignores the plea of the victim and threatens court costs and court time wasting on to the passive already tormented mother.

Does not read carefully what is presented to him in affidavits and in my view punishes the victim.  The very thing the Family Law act says one should not use the children to get back at the other partner.  Yet it is absolutely legal for a Magistrate of Judge to use the exact same children to punish either parent.

One must ask if what the allegations of the grandparent( father/mother-in-law are correct then why should the victim go back to such a toxic environment from which he/she got away from by marrying some one.

If one assumes also that the marriage partner conducted themselves as bad as or worse than the behaviour of the so called violent parent No wonder the victim went back to the least violent environment between the husband and their own father.

Now let us consider that the Parent Paternal (Grandfather) and the son (father) partner are both violent people. (Genders of Grandfather and or son father could be switched visa versa for Grandmother , and daughter mother..)

The importance is a domineering 60 year old grandparent over a submissive 30 year old child parent who has a 4 year old child themself. The submissive person has no show of winning against domineering Judge, domineering parent and a domineering partner.

Should the conduct of the Magistrates and or Judges again act in a similar bombastic, domineering unsympathetic way as the victim’s violent parent?

I again stress that this is the actual behaviour that i am debating about and which needs rectifying in the court system.

This is based on true allegations, true events.

What is also true is that if the alleged violent grandparents were truly violent, would the marriage remain together, and all the children still remain at home or within 1KM of the violent parent’s home.  As is the fact I would suggest that the married child would move as far as possible away from a violent environment.  Not close to it.

=================,,================,1,7 ================,,

6p1   

Attorney General letters indicating policy at odds with Magistrate Court Conduct.

7^th. October 2008.

To Honourable Robert McClelland MP.

Attorney General Australia,

Dear Honourable Minister,

Reference: your 08/21315, MC08/1xx06

Received your response of 26/09/2008.

Family Law Act 1975

(a)  I note your 2006 changes to Family Law Act 1975

(b) The daughter of xxx has been going through the Family Law Act 1975 as from x1/04/2008 some 2 years after your so called changes.

(c)  No such less adversarial changes have been noticed by me in your courts in the past 9 months

As regards the reforms that ensure family law put children first.  That is also not noticeable by the judgments given by the FEDERAL MAGISTRATE ADELAIDE REGISTRY.

Your paragraph 8.

Family Relationship Centres (Community based dispute resolution services.)

(a) We have not been referred to any such dispute resolutions services.

(b) We have not been forced to go to any dispute resolutions services.

Your paragraph 8.

Children’s Contact Centres.

          (i.)          We live in Adelaide South, South Australia.

        (ii.)          The closest Children’s Contact Centres.  Is in Hindmarsh some 3 KM away.

      (iii.)          The husband Mr. Father Age 36 originally agreed to Hindmarsh centre in his first affidavit.  Yet changed his mind and requested Salisbury centre some 25KM away.

       (iv.)          In the mean times the Magistrate did not direct the father to register his name with the Hindmarsh Centre.

         (v.)          Salisbury centre is full and could not take further intakes after the first 5 visits.

       (vi.)          Hindmarsh Centre remained full and does not take further intakes.

     (vii.)          We were then referred to Campbelltown Centre some 30 KM away and directly across the city of Adelaide.  (Refer to attached letter to local Federal MP of Port Adelaide)

Your paragraph 9.  Family Relationship Advice Lines.

               i.          No such help offered or given.

             ii.          Yes there are plenty of paper work information but no compulsion to attend mediation.

           iii.          Co-operation, common sense can resolve all things with or without paperwork information.

            iv.          The biggest problem here is comprehension of the applicant.  Some read, hear what they want to believe and they forget the rest.  This is where written test and practical test will ensure the full comprehension of what has been discussed, taught, read, etcetera.

In the son-in-law case of xxx, comprehension is what he is very, very poor at.  (He reads his rights, knows his rights, and forgets his obligations and responsibilities.)

Your paragraph 11.  (Dispute mediation)

               i.          No such help offered or given.

             ii.          Where there is dogmatic confrontation.

a)    Confrontation.

b)  Consistent lying of a partner.

c)   Obsession with a parent-in-law.

Then force is the only means of bring about all parties together and reconciling.

Force

               i.          Can take the form of depriving a right till an obligation is met.

             ii.          A fine for not attending.

           iii.          Magistrate Brown has said he has no power to force PP. to a psychologist, yet intends Father Age 36to have unsupervised access to the children.

           iv.          I like to draw your attention to Professor Phillip Morris x1/x1/2006.report anxious timid obsession disorder

Which the Magistrate and the independent Children
             Lawyer

Denise M. Rieniets & Ass; MS Denise wish to totally ignore.

I am extremely concerned with this report.  It verifies my own personal profile of PP. as a person, let alone as a father.

Your paragraph 13.  (Right of the child to know both parents)

I totally agree with this.  At the age of 50 when my mother died I wanted to know more about my ancestry.

I would guess that only 5 percent of persons are born violent.  Of these a large percentage would use the children as a means of

                         i.          To assault, molest, harass, threaten or otherwise interfere with the protected persons) or person.

                       ii.           To assault, molest, harass, threaten or otherwise interfere with the protected persons) or person.

                     iii.          To engage in conduct that intimidates the protected persons) or person with whom the protected persons) has /have a domestic relationship.

                    iv.          To poison the minds of the children against the partner.

In my view the children should remain with the non-violent parent till such time that the children know right from wrong.  That the children can make decision of their own as to wanting to spend 1 or 8 hours or days with the other parent.

I guess that when the children have reached the school grade of 5 or age 10.

In this way and before that age, the children should be in a constant environment away from daily or weekly conflict.  The permanent guardian (sole Custody) has to watch what they say and do against the other in case the child understands and recalls denigrations.  Such recall of denigrations has the potential of the children demanding to stay permanently with the other non denigrating parent after the age of understanding.

Your argument that the child must know both parents at the same time is dashed when one considers that until the last world war thousands of children were brought up without a father who died in a war.  All those children did not become uncivilized or bad citizens because of no father.

It was because of the constant love and respect of the mother about their father that made most if not all good achievers of life.  (What use was there to talk evil of the dead?)

Your comment that the process is less adversarial and easier to navigate is a farce.

My understanding of visiting the courts in Adelaide under 3 Magistrates is that the father having been on drugs, growing drugs and being violent still has the right to access the children.  (This I consider absurd)

The father must undergo treatment, and be rehabilitated.  What better incentive than real love for the children.

What better way for the violent parent to show physically and mentally that s/he is really remorseful.

If not rehabilitated then the rights to see the children should be when the children have an understanding about right from wrong and at least 10 years of age. 

The children then can have a choice how often and what duration they want to spend with the drug or violent father.  (Parent)

(Not when the children are at their most vulnerable age of birth to at least 8 years of age.  At this low age they have no perspective or understanding of their environment.)

Your paragraph 14.  (Courts are required to ensure that child proceedings are conducted with as little formality and legal technicalities as possible)

                                  i.          I do not know when this came into effect.

As recent as x4/09/2008 Magistrate Brown and or the independent Children Lawyer had not implemented it.

Your paragraph 15.  (Allegations of family violence and child abuse that arise in family law proceedings are appropriately dealt with.)

                                  i.          In my opinion child abuse is very hard to detect in the best of cases.

                                ii.          Child abuse is very hard to define in normal married husband and wife relationships.

                              iii.          If is extremely difficult where the parent is unsupervised until it is too late.

                               iv.          In the case of the Violent parent PP he has admitted in his own affidavit of x1/04/2008 that his son age 4 has social and mental difficulty (Listed some 13 items.)  Yet the court has treated them as trivia.

I strongly suggest that you select some normal constituents (average education, and average back ground to seat as observers in the courts at random and anonymously to observe the proceedings of Magistrates and lawyers.

They should then once a year debate with you the pitfalls of the system so that you can bring about changes to the Court officers and the Regulations to the Act.

I still believe that the present Family Law Act should be changed.

Those lawyers should not be present in court.

That both parents be required to undergo psychological assessments and profiling.

I await your confirmation of receipt of my letter and also your considered reply to my complaint.

Yours faithfully, Joseph Peter Rossi.  On behalf of concerned Grandparents.

061008.

=================,,================,1,8 ================,,

6p3   

The best interests of the child.

30^th. January 2009.

.

To Honourable Robert McClelland MP.

Attorney General Australia, PO Box 861, Hurstville   NSW   2220.

Dear Honourable Minister,

Reference: COMPLAINS AGAINST FEDERAL MAGISTRATE STEWART BROWN – ADELAIDE REGISTRY.  Federal Family Court Act 1975

Reference: File No.  (p) ADC/2008.

Applicant BB, Respondent PP., Mr. PP. domestic violence.

PP. Army attached to RAEME.  Aviation Regiment as at 14/05/2008.

I wish to make urgent recommendations for amendments to the family Law Act 1975.

2. Federal Magistrate Brown :

I have complained to you about Magistrate Brown back in June 2008 on wards.

3. I want to achieve the following things by my complaint:

(a) All parents convicted of Domestic violence to under go psychiatric assessment before having unsupervised access to children.

(b) All parents accused of violence should be profiled.  By the family Court.

(c) A psychologists recommendation of persons with domineering compassion disorder to be given as a hand book to Magistrates and judges when assessing parent access to children of marriage break ups.

(d) Finally, those parents are to be assessed not lawyers.  So lawyers should not be the main persons that speak to magistrates and judges.  They may be present for advice but not to speak on behalf of disputing parents.

4. In the best interests of the child.

(a) This term is very vague in the Family Law Act.  Or is being interpreted very vaguely by officers of the court.

(b) The interpretation should be defined in the Family Law Act.

5. In most occupational Health and safety accidents there are investigation into the causes of and recommendation to avoid similar occurrences.

(a) Yet with children murders no such investigations are made.

(b) That the type of parent murdering their own children are not psychologically assessed and put into the family Law court for judges to ascertain future parents falling into that same category.

(c) That the Politicians, the courts, the lawyers do not seam to be interested in reducing such crime.

I question the commitment of the term

 IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.

By you all and also the media.

 Remember there are about 25 deaths of children caused by a violent parent.

6. Yet you and the media have done nothing and are happy to do nothing.

A view based on the response for help by me in the past 6 months.  I am sure there are many more parents that have asked for help in the past based by my interview of similar parents met at Child contact centres.

7. I as a father, have been quite strict with discipline but I have

(a)  encourage debate on all issues.

(b)  tried to get consensuses from all family members.

(c)  believed in a spanking every now and again.(1 or 2 a year)

8. My concern is that bearing in mind what I do, and  as a parent and the consequences there from.

               i.    I have never caused terror in any of my children.

             ii.    First was the behaviour of E.E. aged 4year 6 moths last June.  Then last week end xx and x2 January 2009 Bel aged 3 years came home upset distort and has been hard to handle to time of this letter.

When I compare these children trauma when having access to their father I question what discipline he gives.

           iii.    As I said to you in previous correspondence the behavioural problems of E.E and Bel from the eyes of the father PP.  I have grave concern.  Coupled with the regressive behaviour of toilet training, sleeping night terror and direct disobediences after a week end access to the father I strongly recommend surprise visits by Court officers to the violent parent place from time to time.

9.  I as a concerned father, I do not think this behaviour by all is appropriate under the circumstances of Law for the benefit of the children.

(a) Two personal physical assaults on a wife 12 weeks pregnant and again physical assault on a wife just 12 days after an appendix operation can not be considered normal.

(b) I appreciate assault because of lose of temper or intimidation but no excuse for premeditated assault.

(c) Followed by threatening life to the wife’s father.

 (Charged and convicted)

(d) Self indication of emotional disturbance of his children while totally under his care (Identified him self in his own first affidavit on separation xx/04/2008.

(e) The yoyo letters sent to his wife since separation indicate to me that this person, father) may very well fit the profile of the other 25 parents a year that murder their own children.

As they try to hold on to power and domination down the chain line to the weakest link, the children.

In conclusion I like you to take into serious consideration of my opinions.

1. To request all documents from Magistrate Brown regarding case.  Reference: File No.  (p) ADC1xxx/2008.
2.  To have the file assessed by a few psychologists to ascertain potential mental disorders.
3. The Internet reports of Dr. Sam Vaknin, Books Malignant Self Love, and Relationships with Abusive Narcissists.  
4. Web site http://samvak.tripod.com/abuseefamily6.htmlhttp://samvak.tripod.com/abuseefamily6.html

(a)                        Coping with your abuser.

(b)                       The Guilt of the abused.

(c)                         Reforming the abuser.

I consider this fits PP. profile.  Perfectly.

A lawyer said to the wife (victim) “Why did you marry him?  Did you not realize his behaviour?”

The response to that is.

(a)                        Narcissists are not have mental problems but physical environmental taught by example behaviour of their own  parent's. home environment.

(b)                       PP. showed signs of well dressed, compassionate, caring and generally a well behaved well balanced person.

(c)                        It was not until stress of work, not meeting employment challenges that he and his father expected better. Due to not meeting expectations the behaviour changed for the worse.

The more the stress the worse he got.  1^st child bad, second child, worse the birth of twins broke him.

(d)                       Since April 2008 it is alleged he has lied about Household Insurance claim Attempted Fraud

(e)                        Since April 2008 it is alleged he has defrauded the Commonwealth about Army housing and transfer expenses.

(f)                         Since April 2008 it is alleged he has made false statements to the ADELAIDE Family Law Court.

(g)                        Life threatened his wife’s parents (Proven and Convicted)

Not unlike a life of a frog.  In goes from egg to fish to land animal.  In stages.  (Unless one observes a person over a long period one would not recognize the transformation or would think it is the same person they had met first..)

 (All argument start from misunderstanding not deliberate wish to have  confrontation)

For my self,  If I was the maternal Grandfather in question, I would have liked guidance by the court where the Maternal Grandfather had gone wrong and one or maximum 2 forgiveness by the Magistrate before the heavy handed came into play.

To punish the grandchildren for the sins of the grandfather is not justice.

To punish the daughter for the full duration of the court case is more severe than a murderer would get.

To punish the grandchildren for the first 16 young best years of their life is more severe than a murderer would get.  In jail.

The child's first 16 year of their life would be conflict issues  covering such things as:

(a)                        Continual criticism of a parent about another.

(b)                       Continual criticism of which school to go

(c)                        Continual criticism of which doctor to go

(d)                       Continual criticism of which sport to play

(e)                        Continual criticism of which parent to celebrate a Christmas, birthday,

(f)                         Continual criticism of which present to get from which parent.

PP. is already playing intimidation with these issues.

(These are Facts not fiction.  Mathematical Theorem (proven) not theory.)

The Family Law Act 1975 you continue to uphold with no changes will be a farce.

I thought that the Family Court rules had changed in the 1990 to be more family friendly.  I genuinely believe that family friendly is not the case that I have witnessed.

I am fascinated by the knowledge obtained from TV programs such as Doctor Phil (Human Behaviour) and

Doctor Harry (Animal Behaviour)

It seems that humans know more about training successfully animals and not fellow humans.

To me the rules are the same.  (Theorem not theory, facts not ideology or desires)

Every one has a place in society.  Every one should know their place in that society.

The throwing over the bridge of a child in Melbourne this week should have been avoided by the family Court if diligence, observation, psychiatric assessment had been undertaken.

You the present and past governments are to blame for not reviewing you legal implementation.  One law fit all.

The Federal and state governments were wrong in the  (The bleeding past single father organizations and the Forgotten Generation syndrome also the First Australians story where and why South Australia appointed the first Aboriginal State Governor, Sir Douglas Nicholls KCVO. OBE (Dec1976 to Apr1977) Nicholls was a victim of injustice as a youth.

You were wrong in the 1950’s and you are just as wrong now with the Family Law Act sorry to say.

In the 2010's it will be the Forgotten domestic violence Children generation.

I await your confirmation of receipt of my letter and also your considered reply to my complaint.

Yours faithfully, Joe Rossi, On behalf of the concerned grandfather.

=================,,================,1,9 ================,,

6p7   

I would like to draw the courts attention to PP. ABOUT HIS / Her CHILDREN PROBLEM and relevant clauses

 Affidavit dated x1/04/2008 he mentions the following child E.E. (Oldest son Age 4),

Had problems with

(1.) Poor speech development, poor learning capacity, poor social skills, poor social behaviour, Clause72.6,

(2.) Domestic violence impact of conflict on the children, Clause 74

(3.) Poor toilet training Clause 83.

(4.) Wetting and soiling him self, clause 83.

(5.) Experiencing night terrors clause 84.

(6.) Got lack of stimulation, interaction clause 85.

(7.) Children aggressive towards each other clause 85.

(8.) It is normal for toddlers to fight clause 89.

(9.) Has low social immaturity, poor development clause 96,

(10.)         Has severe expressive language disorder and
    poor expressive language skills, negative social effects, clause 97.

(11.)                    Low self esteem clause 97.

(12.)                    Is timid clause 102?

(13.)                    Is uncooperative and aggressive, experiences frustration clause 98.

Affidavit dated x1/04/2008 PP. mentions the following child

            Be (second child daughter ages 2 had problems with

                                                              I.      Children aggressive towards each other clause 85.

                                                            II.      Lack of stimulation, interaction clauses 85,

                                                          III.      It is normal for toddlers to fight clause 89.

This behaviour is not normal.  It shows signs of,  if not physical abuse,  then definitely mental abuse.

=================,,================,2,0 ================,,

6p8   

19^th. February 2009.

.

To Honourable Robert McClelland MP.

I appreciate your letter of 12/02/2009.

1. Agree with all the opinions you have recommended up to the second the last paragraph.

2. My writing to you is not to harass or get personally involved with the particular case.  My purpose is to inform you of the short comings of your government intentions and the aims of the legislation in question (Family Law act 1975.)
3. May I point out the short comings of not listening to idiots like me?
4. The lower down the social structure the quicker the vibration of discontent is noticeable.
5. I specifically like to remind you of the 25 or so children that are murdered by their violent parent.
6. I specifically like to remind you of the 25 or so children that are murdered by their violent parent there are like car accidents some 5 other children effected by mental scaring,.  Not to mention submissive parent and grand parents.

7. I do not disagree with what you have said but point out that your recommendations have not been followed by your department or state agencies.
8. Of the deaths that have occurred one in Copper Pedy South Australia and one in Victoria West gate Bridge in the last 6 months.

(I)   Has there been a coroners enquiry regarding why they were killed?

(II)  Has there been a profile made of the killers?

(III) Has there been a coroners enquiry regarding why the magistrates/ judges did not request a mental assessment of the violent parent?

(IV)     What recommendations have the Magistrates and or Family Court Judges and or Independent Children Lawyers made to you to minimize future deaths?

9. If your answer privately to your self or publicly to the media is nil.

 Then your last paragraph is offensive and irresponsible on your part in regards to ignoring your continuant.  I quote you “Neither I or my department is able to assist you”

I further quote you.  “I will not respond to any future correspondence”.

(I)   Sorry.  But I have to listen to your garbage in Parliamentary speeches and crocodile tears about Victorian Bush Fires.

(II)   Sorry.  But I have had to listen to your Prime Minister Bob Hawk about deaths in Chine Tanami square.

(III) Sorry.  But I have had to listen to your Prime Minister Bob Hawk about no child shall live in poverty by 1990.

(IV)     Vote Labor on all TV channels and radio during election periods 24 x 7.

10. I attach a copy of an article in the Adelaide advertiser about your paragraph 12 (4th Last paragraph) Where your opinion must be trivialized or irreverent.  (6 percent of cases investigated )

(f)   Can you tell me 6 percent of how many actual cases?

(g) That is 6 percent of referred cases.  How many cases like my case in question were not referred?

(h) You and your government have spent 2 days this year crying and making love me speeches about the victims of Victorian bushfires.  (Some 201 deaths. over 10 years)

(i)   How many deaths of defenceless under 10 years of age children have occurred at the rate of 25 per year?  I calculate it to be a minimum of 250.

11. While children less than 10 years of age remain in danger of violent parents.

1.                  While your judges can not be sued or dismissed for undue care.  You will hear from or about me.

2.                  While there is no profiling of violent parents in the Family Court system you will hear from or about me.

3.                  While there are other parents effected by your department undue care I shall gather their opinions and you will hear from or about me.

6p8     =   6t5   =

12. I hope you get the message.  Do not be a coward behind Parliamentary Bullying.  Fix the problems.
13. Protect defenceless children.
14. If you can not protect children, how can you protect society from criminals?

15. Think about defenceless victim parents.  Victim parents leave the violent partner because of fear and violence.  What chances then, have children by themselves have with a violent parent?

16. If two adult parent can not handle 1 or 4 children between them.  How can one parent handle 1 or 4 children by them selves?

17. If the victim parent has 2 grand parents, to assist with bring up the children.  How can one violent parent be better to raise the children?

18. I stress that neither the grandparents, the mother or the violent parent have been forced to attend parenting classes.

19. I stress that neither the grandparents, the mother or the violent parent been forced to attend non legal seminars regarding the Family Court long term agenda.

20. I stress that neither the grandparents, the mother or the violent parent been forced to attend mental psychological assessment.

21. I stress that the cases I am involved with are not the only concerned grandparents facing the family Court system.  So why have you not collated all correspondence and found out the real causes and failures of your perfect Family law Act 1975.

In conclusion.  Please do not be so disrespectful and dismissive of concerned constituents.

I await your confirmation of receipt of my letter and also your considered reply to my complaint.

Yours faithfully, Joseph Peter Rossi.  On behalf of concerned Grandparents.

300109.

=================,,================,2,1 ================,,

6p9   

1. The Honourable Attorney General  expressed that the Department can not interfere with the Magistrates and Judges until the children have been effected by the Courts inconsistent decision)
2. Civil Engineers can not be interfered with till construction is complete and structures collapse and injure people first.
3. Nurses knowing full well that an operation procedure is being performed incorrectly can not stop medical doctors stopping a procedure till the patient dies then ask questions.
4. Police officer witnessing a domestic dispute can not intervene until a complaint is actually received.

Wake up Attorney General

The Honourable Attorney General has expressed that the Courts must act independently from the arm of Government.

In all cases where only adult are litigants and involved, that may be the case.

How ever where defenceless children are involved the case must be treated differently.

The present system could be like:

A police officer is about to shoot some one.

He is in authority.  No one should interfere in his carrying out his duties.

When is perceived duty is completed then the witnesses can appeal.

Appeal against what.

A dead person.  (Identical to how the Family Court system treats violent parents having unsupervised access to their children).

A mentally disarranged teenager.  That has gone through the Family Court system.

I have another idea about independent Court supervision.

Let every state population (electors) select a Chief Judge in every state.

Let us have the appointment of these Chief Judges similar to the appointment of CEO. of Multinational companies.  The Directors could be the Upper and Lower House parliamentary Leaders.

The Share holders could be the general population.

The Population registers to vote at annual meetings of Chief Justice.

Then let the total of all Australian State Chief Judges meet together to deliberate as a High Court.

In this way the High Court can not be politically appointed and corrupted so easily by one or two Prime Ministers.

The Federal Government will really have its hands tide.

No one, political Party will have control over Judges or the High Court.

As all Labor Party politicians believe in getting rid of State Governors and the Governor General.

Why not give the delegation of Supreme Court Appeals and Community Watch dog (all various ombudsmen to the State Governors of each state.  That the State Governors be selected in the same way as Company CEO’s.

I do not trust Lawyers disciplining lawyers, and Judges disciplining Judges.

Just think how Dictators rise from chaos communities.

Is this really a stupid idea?

Let the population decide.

=================,,================,2,2 ================,,6p10   

State Police not listened to.  Their Efforts all in Vain when it comes to Courts Judges and Magistrates.

1. Problems in State Police Procedures and policy.

(i)     The State Police Forces do not inform the victim parents of the partner injured by domestic violence.

(ii)    The State Police Forces do interfere with the civil court cases of the victim’s parents by with holding the Address to which court documents are to be sent to the offending solder and to the relevant court prosecuting officer.

(iii) The State Police Forces do not encourage victim statements to be produced in Domestic violence that refer to the Partner employed in the Armed Services.

(All under the so called federal government Privacy Laws)

(iv)   The court documents and Police offences do not transfer from state to Federal Courts.  But they should automatically.

(v)    The Defence Force administration and high ranking Officers do take an active part in Interfering with the civil court cases of the victim’s process by giving false work references that are produced in civil courts.

(1V) The privacy laws are there to protect the criminal.  An example is in the Family Law Act and the Federal Marriage Act.

Before marriage and during a marriage relationship the partners have no right to investigate each other about past crimes, past health history, current income, and finances.

On marriage separation they must discover partner's parents Family Trust Finances, taxation lodgements, and any other obstacles a vindictive partner may desire.

This I call absolute stupidity and irrational both in timing of discovery and morally.

It disadvantages the innocent.  It disadvantages the victim.  Most importantly it disadvantages the children.

Why.  Because during the marriage the criminal partner can obtain loans, get into Hire purchase; gamble all his /her income without the other partner having no right to veto the actions.  Yet that same concerned partner has no right to be treated the same during separation.

This I consider another deliberate law implemented by lawyers to go gold prospecting.  (Stuffing the future education, and shelter of the children teenage years.  Stealing the savings from the children.)

It also demonstrates the thinking of present day politicians.  What ever comes to their mind after a night either having or not having a sniff of the Parliamentary seats of the sexual desires?  (Reported in the media about sniffing seats)

=================,,================,2,3 ================,,6p10   

Reference: Government Censorship on Family Law.

Dear Reader.

I like to challenge the rule of government censorship on identifying children in Family Law Court matters.

2. My points of challenge of Government and or media censorship are:

                      a) Children under 6 years of age not able to:

(i)     .Read or write communication via Computer medium or newspapers.

(ii)    Can not use computers for the internet searches...

(iii) Can not seek employment paid or otherwise.

(iv)  Can not housing accommodation by them selves.

                      b) So what is the censorship protecting the children from?

It does not protect the children’s jobs or education.

It does not protect the children of safety of themselves and from the violent parent or the bad parent bad behaviour of traits.

                      c) So what does the censorship really do?

It does inhibit the constant love and attention of the victim passive parent.

It does inhibit name and shame of the violent parent.

It does encourage the violent parent to interfere with the selection of the best school for the child.

It does encourage the violent parent to keep harassing and threatening the passive parent.

It does give a constant atmosphere of distrust, conflict, and insecurity to the children from age 1 month to age 10 years.  The age at which the child can not decipher good from bad or express ones own opinions.

Does not protect the children’s jobs or education.

It does not protect the children of safety of themselves and from the violent parent or the bad parent bad behaviour of traits.

3. Passive Parent.  (Based on Facts not fiction)

(i)     A Magistrate or Judge ring up Centre link obtains the Passive parent’s residential address and gives it to the violent parent.

(ii)   Where is the protection of the children under the protection of the passive parent?

(iii) If the passive (least violent parent leaves the most violent parent, then the protection of the said children are also reduced.

(iv)  .If the passive parent and or his/her parent seeks the where about of the violent parent.  The Judge and or Magistrate refuse to divulge the information.  Reason is beyond my understanding.

     A violent parent has access to the address of a passive parent but a passive parent can not have access to the address of a violent person)  (Magistrates must have moments where they slipped a few gears.)

(v)    The passive parent can not find out where the children are taken, and in what safety environment the children are supervised etcetera.

                      b) So what and who, is the censorship protecting the children from?

                                ii.    I say not the children while they need protection.

When the children reach 16 they are not protected.

At 16 they need a job but they have a mixed up mind and low self esteem.

.  When the children reach 16 they are not protected.

At 16 they should have a balanced out look to life, but they may have a mixed up out look to life and the opposite sex.

When the children reach 16 they are not protected.

At 16 they need to have a clean police record but they very well may have a mixture of police offences?

In my opinion it is bad enough to bring up children with good education, good life out look, and good self esteem with both parents co-operating.

It would be near impossible where the parents are bickering every week for 16 years.

4. So who is protected by this prohibition?  (Censorship)

I say censorship definitely protects the

(a)          Judges.

(b) Independent Children lawyer.

(c)          The violent parent from name and shame.

(d) Suppresses quick reaction by politicians to change the law as faults are identified.

5. The Family Law Act does not specify specifically the duties of:

(a)  Independent Children lawyer.

(b) Court Financial Mediator.

(c)  Punishment for lying to the court.

(d) Force Judges to direct psychological treatment of violent parents.

(e)  Give too much discretion to Judges (Only the Acts of Parliament without manuals on conduct and exceptions.).

(f)          Does not provide sufficient funding for Children Access Centres close to the major parent guardian.

(g)  Gives more power to lawyers than the biological parent and Grandparents.

(h) Allows muddying of facts by the lawyers at the expense of defenceless children.  (Lawyers who indulge in helping to falsify evidence should be struck off the professional register.

I a ledge and consider Norman Waterhouse Group of Lawyer Georgina Parker to had actively participated in muddying the facts and placing more emphases on protecting and adult over defenceless children.

(i)   It protects the community more than the children by allowing criminal parents to have direct excess to small children when same offences would have put them  in jail away from society.( On the bases every parent must have access to their children ) No qualification to crime, age and influence on the said children.  .  (Be violent, lose privileges).  Simple as that.  Every one makes mistakes, but I believe 3 strikes and you are out.  Go directly to jail.)  Children make mistakes; teenagers make mistakes but over 30!  No way.  Especially if the offences are the same offence for the same cause giving the same effect.

(j)   Such a blanket law should cost the litigant parents no more than 3 court hearings of 3 hours at $300 an hour for 3 litigating parties.  Total $6000 for court time and say $6000 for paper work time.  Grand total $12000.  (Not the average $50000 for each party.  Grand total $100,000

One quick observation you readers need to do?

Watch how many signs are up in any city in Australia advertising Family Court Matters.

More common than the old corner deli of the 1950’s.

Very lucrative for lawyers.  Win or lose.

=================,,================,2,4 ================,,6p12   

Who I would give instant sack, dismiss, deregistration from practicing Law.

1.        The Family Law Act Legal Officers.

            Magistrate Brown.

(a)  The Magistrate did not follow due care and practice independents and assess matters only presented before him that were factual.

(b) He does not have experience in a variety of legal field such as psychology, real estate, and empathy.  Court Financial Mediator.

(c)  He relied heavily on the Lawyers directions rather than his own.

(d) He displays a quick temper for situations that require patients and reconciliation.

(e)  In a relatively short time on the bench he has had at least 4 appeals to a higher court.

(f)    His display of sympathy for the violent partner indicates that he is very tolerant to violence and therefore not suitable to deter violence between litigants before the Family Law Court.

(g)    The behaviour of the Magistrate compared to the advice I received from the Federal attorney General was extremely at odds.  Indicating lack of reading of current law manual, sex discrimination, bias, and self agenda.

(e)    Did not issue Punishment for lying to the court or reneging on an agreement with the Court negotiator.  Again not according to the advice I received from the Federal Attorney General)

    He Magistrate Brown should be sacked or be retrained in his duties immediately.

Lawyers.

(a)   The court officers use the term “How do we get the heat off the situation"

        The Magistrate used the term; The Court mediator used the term.

        For such learned persons with the experience they should have had, it would be a simple conclusion.  Stick to the facts.

        Eliminate Lies.  Eliminate He said she said.  Most importantly read between the lines of the individual affidavits presented.

(b) Norman Waterhouse Group of Lawyer Georgina Parker to had actively participated in muddying the facts and placing more emphases on protecting an adult violent criminally convicted person over the right and defence of 4 children under the age of 5 years.

(c)   Georgina Parker Allowed muddying of facts at the expense of defenceless children.

(Lawyers who indulge in helping to falsify evidence should be struck off the professional register.

    It protects the community more than the children by allowing criminal parents to have direct excess to small children when same offences would have put them  in jail away from society.( On the bases every parent must have access to their children ) No qualification to crime, age and influence on the said children.  .  (Be violent, lose privileges).  Simple as that.  Every one makes mistakes, but I believe 3 strikes and you are out.  Go directly to jail.)  Children make mistakes; teenagers make mistakes but adults over 30years.  No way.  Especially if the offences are the same offence for the same cause giving the same effect.

(d)  Georgina Parker gave miss leading advice to her client in that she allowed irreverent evidence in the first affidavit of her client.

        Mainly

        (I) Army Major Psychologist letter that client was fully treated for domestic violence within 2 weeks of offence and on investigation only

            2 one hour   psychological treatment.  (If treatment was so easy and quick then there should be no long term violence in the

             Community.  (This annexure was red rag to a bull.)

        (II) Army Major Supervisor letter that client was a good father when he had never been at the soldiers place frequently to observe was

            Again miss leading and a cover up.  This was another annexure like a red rag to a bull.

        (III) Indicating the name of a Para legal helper for which the client had no previous knowledge was in my view totally irresponsible

            And nothing to do with the case before her.

        (IV) For giving miss leading advice to her client in that she allowed false information to be put in a client's affidavit about car air bags that were not there.

        (V) For giving false character reference to the Independent Child Lawyer about the maternal grand parents.

    If any one wants to find out why I am furious and mad just blame totally Ms. Georgina Parker for trying to tell me what to do with my freedom, my money, and my friends.  Just blame totally Ms. Georgina Parker for trying to treat Magistrate Brown as a fool.

    Just blame totally Ms. Georgina Parker for teaching me how to pursue a point in law no matter what.

Although I am not concerned with my family as I am not afraid of a Prime Minister little alone a glorified High Priests called lawyers.

No one else should experience such domineering, ruthless lawyers like the multi national lawyer groups like Norman Waterhouse group.

=================,,================,2,5 ================,,6p12   

7^th. October 2008.

To Honourable Robert McClelland MP.

Attorney General Australia,

Dear Honourable Minister,

Reference: your 08/21315, MC08/1xx06

Received your response of 26/09/2008.

Family Law Act 1975

(a)  I note your 2006 changes to Family Law Act 1975

(b) The daughter of xxx has been going through the Family Law Act 1975 as from x1/04/2008 some 2 years after your so called changes.

(c)  No such less adversarial changes have been noticed by me in your courts in the past 9 months

As regards the reforms that ensure family law put children first.  That is also not noticeable by the judgments given by the FEDERAL MAGISTRATE ADELAIDE REGISTRY.

Your paragraph 8.

Family Relationship Centres (Community based dispute resolution services.)

(a) We have not been referred to any such dispute resolutions services.

(b) We have not been forced to go to any dispute resolutions services.

Your paragraph 8.

Children’s Contact Centres.

          (i.)          We live in Adelaide South, South Australia.

        (ii.)          The closest Children’s Contact Centres.  Is in Hindmarsh some 3 KM away.

      (iii.)          The husband Mr. Patrick McCarthy originally agreed to Hindmarsh centre in his first affidavit.  Yet changed his mind and requested Salisbury centre some 25KM away.

       (iv.)          In the mean times the Magistrate did not direct the father to register his name with the Hindmarsh Centre.

         (v.)          Salisbury centre is full and could not take further intakes after the first 5 visits.

       (vi.)          Hindmarsh Centre remained full and does not take further intakes.

     (vii.)          We were then referred to Campbelltown Centre some 30 KM away and directly across the city of Adelaide.  (Refer to attached letter to local Federal MP of Port Adelaide)

Your paragraph 9.  Family Relationship Advice Lines.

               i.          No such help offered or given.

             ii.          Yes there are plenty of paper work information but no compulsion to attend mediation.

           iii.          Co-operation, common sense can resolve all things with or without paperwork information.

            iv.          The biggest problem here is comprehension of the applicant.  Some read, hear what they want to believe and they forget the rest.  This is where written test and practical test will ensure the full comprehension of what has been discussed, taught, read, etcetera.

In the son-in-law case of xxx, comprehension is what he is very, very poor at.  (He reads his rights and forgets his obligations.

Your paragraph 11.  (Dispute mediation)

               i.          No such help offered or given.

             ii.          Where there is dogmatic confrontation.

a)    Confrontation.

b)  Consistent lying of a partner.

c)   Obsession with a parent-in-law.

Then force is the only means of bring about all parties together and reconciling.

Force

               i.          Can take the form of depriving a right till an obligation is met.

             ii.          A fine for not attending.

           iii.          Magistrate Brown has said he has no power to force PP. to a psychologist, yet intends Patrick to have unsupervised access to the children.

           iv.          I like to draw your attention to Professor Phillip Morris x1/x1/2006.report anxious timid obsession disorder

Which the Magistrate and the independent Children Lawyer

Denise M. Rieniets & Ass; MS Denise wish to totally ignore.

I am extremely concerned with this report.  It verifies my own personal profile of PP. as a person, let alone as a father.

Your paragraph 13.  (Right of the child to know both parents)

I totally agree with this.  At the age of 50 when my mother died I wanted to know more about my ancestry.

I would guess that only 5 percent of persons are born violent.  Of these a large percentage would use the children as a means of

                         i.          To assault, molest, harass, threaten or otherwise interfere with the protected persons) or person.

                       ii.           To assault, molest, harass, threaten or otherwise interfere with the protected persons) or person.

                     iii.          To engage in conduct that intimidates the protected persons) or person with whom the protected persons) has /have a domestic relationship.

                    iv.          To poison the minds of the children against the partner.

In my view the children should remain with the non-violent parent till such time that the children know right from wrong.  That the children can make decision of their own as to wanting to spend 1 or 8 hours or days with the other parent.

I guess that when the children have reached the school grade of 5 or age 10.

In this way and before that age, the children should be in a constant environment away from daily or weekly conflict.  The permanent guardian (sole Custody) has to watch what they say and do against the other in case the child understands and recalls denigrations.  Such recall of denigrations has the potential of the children demanding to stay permanently with the other non denigrating parent after the age of understanding.

Your argument that the child must know both parents at the same time is dashed when one considers that until the last world war thousands of children were brought up without a father who died in a war.  All those children did not become uncivilized or bad citizens because of no father.

It was because of the constant love and respect of the mother about their father that made most if not all good achievers of life.  (What use was there to talk evil of the dead?)

Your comment that the process is less adversarial and easier to navigate is a farce.

My understanding of visiting the courts in Adelaide under 3 Magistrates is that the father having been on drugs, growing drugs and being violent still has the right to access the children.  (This I consider absurd)

The father must undergo treatment, and be rehabilitated.  What better incentive than real love for the children.

What better way for the violent parent to show physically and mentally that s/he is really remorseful.

If not rehabilitated then the rights to see the children should be when the children have an understanding right from wrong and at least 10 years of age.  The children then can have a choice how often and what duration they want to spend with the drug or violent father.  (Not when the children are at their most vulnerable age of birth to at least 8 years of age.  At this low age they have no perspective or understanding of their environment.)

Your paragraph 14.  (Courts are required to ensure that child proceedings are conducted with as little formality and legal technicalities as possible)

                                  i.          I do not know when this came into effect.

As recent as x4/09/2008 Magistrate Brown and or the independent Children Lawyer had not implemented it.

Your paragraph 15.  (Allegations of family violence and child abuse that arise in family law proceedings are appropriately dealt with.)

                                  i.          In my opinion child abuse is very hard to detect in the best of cases.

                                ii.          Child abuse is very hard to define in normal married husband and wife relationships.

                              iii.          If is extremely difficult where the parent is unsupervised until it is too late.

                               iv.          In the case of the Violent parent PP he has admitted in his own affidavit of x1/04/2008 that his son age 4 has social and mental difficulty (Listed some 13 items.)  Yet the court has treated them as trivia.

I strongly suggest that you select some normal constituents (average education, and average back ground to seat as observers in the courts at random and anonymously to observe the proceedings of Magistrates and lawyers.

They should then once a year debate with you the pitfalls of the system so that you can bring about changes to the Court officers and the Regulations to the Act.

I still believe that the present Family Law Act should be changed.

Those lawyers should not be present in court.

That both parents be required to undergo psychological assessments and profiling.

I await your confirmation of receipt of my letter and also your considered reply to my complaint.

Yours faithfully, Joseph Peter Rossi.  On behalf of concerned Grandparents.

061008.

=================,,================,, ================,,

30^th. January 2009.

.

To Honourable Robert McClelland MP.

Attorney General Australia, PO Box 861, Hurstville,   NSW   2220.

Dear Honourable Minister,

Reference: COMPLAINS AGAINST FEDERAL MAGISTRATE STEWART BROWN – ADELAIDE REGISTRY.  Federal Family Court Act 1975

Reference: File No.  (p) ADC/2008.

Applicant BB, Respondent PP., Mr. PP. domestic violence.

PP. Army attached to RAEME.  Aviation Regiment as at 14/05/2008.

I wish to make urgent recommendations for amendments to the family Law Act 1975.

2. Federal Magistrate Brown :

I have complained to you about Magistrate Brown back in June 2008 on wards.

3. I want to achieve the following things by my complaint:

(a) All parents convicted of Domestic violence to under go psychiatric assessment before having unsupervised access to children.

(b) All parents accused of violence should be profiled.  By the family Court.

(c) A psychologists recommendation of persons with domineering compassion disorder to be given as a hand book to Magistrates and judges when assessing parent access to children of marriage break ups.

(d) Finally, those parents are to be assessed not lawyers.  So lawyers should not be the main persons that speak to magistrates and judges.  They may be present for advice but not to speak on behalf of disputing parents.

4. In the best interests of the child.

(a) This term is very vague in the Family Law Act.  Or is being interpreted very vaguely by officers of the court.

(b) The interpretation should be defined in the Family Law Act.

5. In most occupational Health and safety accidents there are investigation into the causes of and recommendation to avoid similar occurrences.

(a) Yet with children murders no such investigations are made.

(b) That the type of parent murdering their own children are not psychologically assessed and put into the family Law court for judges to ascertain future parents falling into that same category.

(c) That the Politicians, the courts, the lawyers do not seam to be interested in reducing such crime.

I question the commitment of the term

 IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.

By you all and also the media.

 Remember there are about 25 deaths of children caused by a violent parent.

6. Yet you and the media have done nothing and are happy to do nothing.

A view based on the response for help by me in the past 6 months.  I am sure there are many more parents that have asked for help in the past based by my interview of similar parents met at Child contact centres.

7. I as a father am quite strict with discipline.

(a)  I encourage debate on all issues.

(b)  I try to get consensuses.

(c)  I do believe in a spanking every now and again.

8. My concern is that bearing in mind what I do as a parent and the consequences there from.

               i.    I have never caused terror in any of my children.

             ii.    First was the behaviour of Ee aged 4year 6 moths last June.  Then last week end xx and x2 January 2009 Bel aged 3 years came home upset distort and has been hard to handle to time of this letter.

When I compare these children trauma when having access to their father I question what discipline he gives.

           iii.    As I said to you in previous correspondence the behavioural problems of Ee and Bel from the eyes of the father PP.  I have grave concern.  Coupled with the regressive behaviour of toilet training, sleeping night terror and direct disobediences after a week end access to the father I strongly recommend surprise visits by Court officers to the violent parent place from time to time.

9.  I as a concerned father, I do not think this behaviour by all is appropriate under the circumstances of Law for the benefit of the children.

(a) Two personal physical assaults on a wife 12 weeks pregnant and again physical assault on a wife just 12 days after an appendix operation can not be considered normal.

(b) I appreciate assault because of lose of temper or intimidation but no excuse for premeditated assault.

(c) Followed by threatening life to the wife’s father.

 (Charged and convicted)

(d) Self indication of emotional disturbance of his children while totally under his care (Identified him self in his own first affidavit on separation xx/04/2008.

(e) The yoyo letters sent to his wife since separation indicate to me that this person father) may very well fit the profile of the other 25 parents a year that murder their own children.

As they try to hold on to power and domination down the chain line to the weakest link, the children.

In conclusion I like you to take into serious consideration of my opinions.

1. To request all documents from Magistrate Brown regarding case.  Reference: File No.  (p) ADC1xxx/2008.
2.  To have the file assessed by a few psychologists to ascertain potential mental disorder.
3. The Internet reports of Dr. Sam Vaknin, Books Malignant Self Love, and Relationships with Abusive Narcissists.  Web site http://samvak.tripod.com/abuseefamily6.htmlhttp://samvak.tripod.com/abuseefamily6.html

(a)                        Coping with your abuser.

(b)                       The Guilt of the abused.

(c)                         Reforming the abuser.

I consider this fits PP. profile.  Perfectly.

A lawyer said to the wife (victim) “Why did you marry him?  Did you not realize his behaviour?”

The response to that is.

(a)                        Narcissists are not mental problems but physical environmental taught by example behaviour of the parents.

(b)                       PP. showed signs of well dressed, compassionate, caring and generally a well behaved well balanced person.

(c)                        It was not until stress of work, not meeting challenges that he or his father expected that he changed for the worse.

The more the stress the worse he got.  1^st child bad, second child, worse the birth of twins broke him.

(d)                       Since April 2008 it is alleged he has lied about Household Insurance claim Attempted Fraud

(e)                        Since April 2008 it is alleged he has defrauded the Commonwealth about Army housing and transfer expenses.

(f)                         Since April 2008 it is alleged he has made false statements to the ADELAIDE Family Law Court.

(g)                        Life threatened his wife’s parents (Proven and Convicted)

Not unlike a life of a frog.  In goes from egg to fish to land animal.  In stages.  (Unless one observes a person over a long period one would not recognize the transformation or think it is the same creature, person.)

 (All argument start from misunderstanding not deliberate wish to confrontation)

For my self I would have liked guidance by the court where the Maternal Grandfather had gone wrong and one or maximum 2 forgiveness by the Magistrate before the heavy handed came into play.

To punish the grandchildren for the sins of the grandfather is not justice.

To punish the daughter for the full duration of the court case is more severe than a murderer would get.

To punish the grandchildren for the first 16 young best years of their life is more severe than a murderer would get.  In jail.

(a)                        Continual criticism of a parent about another.

(b)                       Continual criticism of which school to go

(c)                        Continual criticism of which doctor to go

(d)                       Continual criticism of which sport to play

(e)                        Continual criticism of which parent to celebrate a Christmas, birthday,

(f)                         Continual criticism of which present to get from which parent.

PP. is already playing intimidation with these issues.

(Facts not fiction.  Mathematical Theorem not theory.)

The Family Law Act 1975 you continue to uphold with no changes will be a farce.

I thought that the Family Court rules had changed in the 1990 to be more family friendly.  I genuinely believe that family friendly is not the case that I have witnessed.

I am fascinated by the knowledge obtained from TV programs such as Doctor Phil (Human Behaviour) and

Doctor Harry (Animal Behaviour)

It seems that humans know more about training successfully animals and not fellow humans.

To me the rules are the same.  (Theorem not theory)  Every one has a place in society.  Every one should know their place in that society.

The throwing over the bridge of a child in Melbourne this week should have been avoided by the family Court if diligence, observation, psychiatric assessment had been undertaken.

You the present and past governments are to blame for not reviewing you legal implementation.  One law fit all.

(The bleeding past single father organizations and the Forgotten Generation syndrome.)

You were wrong in the 1950’s and you are just as wrong now with the Family Law Act sorry to say.

I await your confirmation of receipt of my letter and also your considered reply to my complaint.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Rossi

On behalf of the concerned grandfather.

=================,,================,, ================,,

I would like to draw the courts attention to PP. ABOUT HIS CHILDREN PROBLEM and relevant clauses

Affidavit dated x1/04/2008 he mentions the following child Ee. (Oldest son Age 4),

Had problems with

(1.) Poor speech development, poor learning capacity, poor social skills, poor social behaviour, Clause72.6,

(2.) Domestic violence impact of conflict on the children, Clause 74

(3.) Poor toilet training Clause 83.

(4.) Wetting and soiling him self, clause 83.

(5.) Experiencing night terrors clause 84.

(6.) Got lack of stimulation, interaction clause 85.

(7.) Children aggressive towards each other clause 85.

(8.) It is normal for toddlers to fight clause 89.

(9.) Has low social immaturity, poor development clause 96,

(10.)                                                                    Has severe expressive language disorder and poor expressive language skills, negative social effects, clause 97.

(11.)                    Low self esteem clause 97.

(12.)                    Is timid clause 102?

(13.)                                                                    Is uncooperative and aggressive, experiences frustration clause 98.

Affidavit dated x1/04/2008 PP. mentions the following child

            Be (second child daughter ages 2 had problems with

                                                              I.      Children aggressive towards each other clause 85.

                                                            II.      Lack of stimulation, interaction clauses 85,

                                                          III.      It is normal for toddlers to fight clause 89.

This behaviour is not normal.  It shows signs of if not physical abuse then definitely mental abuse.

=================,,================,, ================,,

19^th. February 2009.

.

To Honourable Robert McClelland MP.

I appreciate your letter of 12/02/2009.

1. Agree with all the opinions you have recommended up to the second the last paragraph.

2. My writing to you is not to harass or get personally involved with my particular case.  My purpose is to inform you of the short comings of your government intentions and the aims of the legislation in question (Family Law act 1975.)
3. May I point out the short comings of not listening to idiots like me?
4. The lower down the social structure the quicker the vibration of discontent is noticeable.
5. I specifically like to remind you of the 25 or so children that are murdered by their violent parent.
6. I specifically like to remind you of the 25 or so children that are murdered by their violent parent there are like car accidents some 5 other children effected by mental scaring,.  Not to mention submissive parent and grand parents.

7. I do not disagree with what you have said but point out that your recommendations have not been followed by your department or state agencies.
8. Of the deaths that have occurred one in Copper Pedy South Australia and one in Victoria West gate Bridge in the last 6 months.

(I)   Has there been a coroners enquiry regarding why they were killed?

(II)  Has there been a profile made of the killers?

(III) Has there been a coroners enquiry regarding why the magistrates/ judges did not request a mental assessment of the violent parent?

(IV)     What recommendations have the Magistrates and or Family Court Judges and or Independent Children Lawyers made to you to minimize future deaths?

9. If your answer privately to your self or publicly to the media is nil.

 Then your last paragraph is offensive and irresponsible on your part in regards to ignoring your continuant.  I quote you “Neither I or my department is able to assist you”

I further quote you.  “I will not respond to any future correspondence”.

(I)   Sorry.  But I have to listen to your garbage in Parliamentary speeches and crocodile tears about Victorian Bush Fires.

(II)   Sorry.  But I have had to listen to your Prime Minister Bob Hawk about deaths in Chine Tanami square.

(III) Sorry.  But I have had to listen to your Prime Minister Bob Hawk about no child shall live in poverty by 1990.

(IV)     Vote Labor on all TV channels and radio during election periods 24 x 7.

10. I attach a copy of an article in the Adelaide advertiser about your paragraph 12 (4th Last paragraph) Where your opinion must be trivialized or irreverent.  (6 percent of cases investigated )

(f)   Can you tell me 6 percent of how many actual cases?

(g) That is 6 percent of referred cases.  How many cases like my case in question were not referred?

(h) You and your government have spent 2 days this year crying and making love me speeches about the victims of Victorian bushfires.  (Some 201 deaths. over 10 years)

(i)   How many deaths of defenceless under 10 years of age children have occurred at the rate of 25 per year?  I calculate it to be a minimum of 250.

11. While children less than 10 years of age remain in danger of violent parents.

1.                  While your judges can not be sued or dismissed for undue care.  You will hear from or about me.

2.                  While there is no profiling of violent parents in the Family Court system you will hear from or about me.

3.                  While there are other parents effected by your department undue care I shall gather their opinions and you will hear from or about me at election time.

12. I hope you get the message.  Do not be a coward behind Parliamentary Bullying.  Fix the problems.
13. Protect defenceless children.
14. If you can not protect children, how can you protect society from criminals?

15. Think about defenceless victim parents.  Victim parents leave the violent partner because of fear and violence.  What chances then, have children by themselves have with a violent parent?

16. If two adult parent can not handle 1 or 4 children between them.  How can one parent handle 1 or 4 children by them selves?

17. If the victim parent has 2 grand parents, to assist with bring up the children.  How can one violent parent be better to raise the children?

18. I stress that neither the grandparents, the mother or the violent parent have been forced to attend parenting classes.

19. I stress that neither the grandparents, the mother or the violent parent been forced to attend non legal seminars regarding the Family Court long term agenda.

20. I stress that neither the grandparents, the mother or the violent parent been forced to attend mental psychological assessment.

21. I stress that the cases I am involved with are not the only concerned grandparents facing the family Court system.  So why have you not collated all correspondence and found out the real causes and failures of your perfect Family law Act 1975.

In conclusion.  Please do not be so disrespectful and dismissive of concerned constituents.

I await your confirmation of receipt of my letter and also your considered reply to my complaint.

Yours faithfully, Joseph Peter Rossi.  On behalf of concerned Grandparents.

300109.

=================,,================,, ================,,10p1  

The Honourable Attorney General has expressed that the Courts must act independently from the arm of Government.

In all cases where only adult are litigants and involved, that may be the case.

How ever where defenceless children are involved the case must be treated differently.

The present system could be like:

A police officer is about to shoot some one.

He is in authority.  No one should interfere in his carrying out his duties.

When is perceived duty is completed then the witnesses can appeal.

Appeal against what.

A dead person.  (Identical to how the Family Court system treats violent parents having unsupervised access to their children).

A mentally disarranged teenager.  That has gone through the Family Court system.

I have another idea about independent Court supervision.

Let every state population select a Chief Judge in every state.

Let us have the appointment of these Chief Judges similar to the

=================,,================,,================,,

appointment of CEO of Multinational companies.  The Directors are the Upper and Lower House parliamentary Leaders.

The Share holders are the general population.

The Population registers to vote at annual meetings of Chief Justice.

Then let the total of all Australian State Chief Judges meet together to deliberate as a High Court.

In this way the High Court can not be politically appointed and corrupted so easily.

The Federal Government will really have its hands tide.

No one, political Party will have control over Judges or the High Court.

As all Labor Party politicians believe in getting rid of State Governors and the Governor General.

Why not give the delegation of Supreme Court Appeals and Community Watch dog (all various ombudsmen to the State Governors of each state.  That the State Governors be selected in the same way as Company CEO’s.

I do not trust Lawyers disciplining lawyers, and Judges disciplining Judges.

Just think how Dictators rise from chaos communities.

Is this really a stupid idea?

Let the population decide.

=================,,================,, ================,,

1. Problems in State Police Procedures and policy.

(i)     The State Police Forces do not inform the victim parents of the partner injured by domestic violence.

(ii)    The State Police Forces do interfere with the civil court cases of the victim’s parents by with holding the Address to which court documents are to be sent to the offending solder and to the relevant court prosecuting officer.

(iii) The State Police Forces do not encourage victim statements to be produced in Domestic violence that refer to the Partner employed in the Armed Services.

(All under the so called federal government Privacy Laws)

(iv)   The court documents and Police offences do not transfer from state to Federal Courts.  But they should automatically.

(v)    The Defence Force administration and high ranking Officers do take an active part in Interfering with the civil court cases of the victim’s process by giving false work references that are produced in civil courts.

=================,,================,,================,,10p1   

Reference: Government Censorship on Family Law.

Dear Reader.

I like to challenge the rule of government censorship on identifying children in Family Law Court matters.

2. My points of challenge of Government and or media censorship are:

                      a) Children under 6 years of age not able to:

(i)     .Read or write communication via Computer medium or newspapers.

(ii)    Can not use computers for the internet searches...

(iii) Can not seek employment paid or otherwise.

(iv)  Can not housing accommodation by them selves.

                      b) So what is the censorship protecting the children from?

It does not protect the children’s jobs or education.

It does not protect the children of safety of themselves and from the violent parent or the bad parent bad behaviour of traits.

                      c) So what does the censorship really do?

It does inhibit the constant love and attention of the victim passive parent.

It does inhibit name and shame of the violent parent.

It does encourage the violent parent to interfere with the selection of the best school for the child.

It does encourage the violent parent to keep harassing and threatening the passive parent.

It does give a constant atmosphere of distrust, conflict, and insecurity to the children from age 1 month to age 10 years.  The age at which the child can not decipher good from bad or express ones own opinions.

Does not protect the children’s jobs or education.

It does not protect the children of safety of themselves and from the violent parent or the bad parent bad behaviour of traits.

3. Passive Parent.  (Based on Facts not fiction)

(i)     A Magistrate or Judge ring up Centre link obtains the Passive parent’s residential address and gives it to the violent parent.

(ii)   Where is the protection of the children under the protection of the passive parent?

(iii) If the passive (least violent parent leaves the most violent parent, then the protection of the said children are also reduced.

(iv)  .If the passive parent and or his/her parent seeks the where about of the violent parent.  The Judge and or Magistrate refuse to divulge the information.  Reason is beyond my understanding.  (A violent parent has access to the address of a passive parent but a passive parent can not have access to the address of a violent person)  (Magistrates must have moments where they slipped a few gears.)

(v)    The passive parent can not find out where the children are taken, and in what safety environment the children are supervised etcetera.

                      b) So what and who, is the censorship protecting the children from?

                                ii.    I say not the children while they need protection.

When the children reach 16 they are not protected.

At 16 they need a job but they have a mixed up mind and low self esteem.

.  When the children reach 16 they are not protected.

At 16 they should have a balanced out look to life, but they may have a mixed up out look to life and the opposite sex.

When the children reach 16 they are not protected.

At 16 they need to have a clean police record but they very well may have a mixture of police offences?

In my opinion it is bad enough to bring up children with good education, good life out look, and good self esteem with both parents co-operating.

It would be near impossible where the parents are bickering every week for 16 years.

4. So who is protected by this prohibition?  (Censorship)

I say censorship definitely protects the

(a)          Judges.

(b) Independent Children lawyer.

(c)          The violent parent from name and shame.

(d) Suppresses quick reaction by politicians to change the law as faults are identified.

5. The Family Law Act does not specify specifically the duties of:

(a)  Independent Children lawyer.

(b) Court Financial Mediator.

(c)  Punishment for lying to the court.

(d) Force Judges to direct psychological treatment of violent parents.

(e)  Give too much discretion to Judges (Only the Acts of Parliament without manuals on conduct and exceptions.).

(f)    Does not provide sufficient funding for Children Access Centres close to the major parent guardian.

(g)  Gives more power to lawyers than the biological parent and Grandparents.

(h) Allows muddying of facts by the lawyers at the expense of defenceless children.  (Lawyers who indulge in helping to falsify evidence should be struck off the professional register.

I a ledge and consider Norman Waterhouse Group of Lawyer Georgina Parker to had actively participated in muddying the facts and placing more emphases on protecting and adult over defenceless children.

(i)   It protects the community more than the children by allowing criminal parents to have direct excess to small children when same offences would have put them  in jail away from society.( On the bases every parent must have access to their children ) No qualification to crime, age and influence on the said children..  (Be violent, lose privileges).  Simple as that.  Every one makes mistakes, but I believe 3 strikes and you are out.  Go directly to jail.)  Children make mistakes; teenagers make mistakes but over 30!  No way.  Especially if the offences are the same offence for the same cause giving the same effect.

(j)   Such a blanket law should cost the litigant parents no more than 3 court hearings of 3 hours at $300 an hour for 3 litigating parties.  Total $6000 for court time and say $6000 for paper work time.  Grand total $12000.  (Not the average $50000 for each party.  Grand total $100,000

One quick observation you readers need to do?

Watch how many signs are up in any city in Australia advertising Family Court Matters.

More common than the old corner deli of the 1950’s.

Very lucrative win or lose.

Face Book Joe Rossi.
Webb www.army-rann-children-courts.com.au
Webb www.jp-rossi-political-sa.info
Telephone 08 82430151

=================,,================,end ================,,10p1