well, just stop it and stop talking about it because you are boring

cotter:"Are you perhaps confusing mens rea with motive?"

Me(a couple of posts previously):"This is what is known as "evidence as to motive". It is intended to establish that a "mens rea" existed at the time of the killing."

So, no, I'm not confusing the two and it appears you've just discovered that mens rea is an important aspect of any criminal trial, such as would be required to prosecute your claims. Well done, we may be starting to make some progress.

cotter:"You apparently base your comprehensive up-to-date practical legal knowledge on your own case in Family Law, from some time ago."

That got me interested and so I began researching. At present, I suspect I know about as much about the Family Law as any layperson does and more than many lawyers. Certainly a great deal more than any of the Mother's Rights advocates I've seen posting here.

cotter:"in one case mum was the SRL, and the judge warned her before her cross of the father 'Be very careful lest i decide you are an unfriendly parent'. "

I don't believe you. If the judge was to do such a thing it would be prejudicial and would be grounds for an appeal and possibly for dismissal of the judge and a new trial. In fact, I don't believe you that this woman was allowed to cross-examine the other parent. Judges are extremely reluctant to allow SRLs to cross-examine, for obvious reasons. Apart from anything else, a SRL rarely has the skills to do so effectively and so it wastes the Court's time.

cotter:"The abiity of the law to protect itself is profound "

I agree to an extent, but the same applies to other professions as well. When I first commenced self-representing, I made a complaint to the Law Society about the behaviour of my former lawyer and that of the other party's lawyer, which lead to the people involved being censured by the Society. If the case is good, the society will act. It won't undertake investigations to find evidence, however.

Antiseptic: re Cotter: I don't believe you. If the judge was to do such a thing it would be prejudicial and would be grounds for an appeal and possibly for dismissal of the judge and a new trial. In fact, I don't believe you that this woman was allowed to cross-examine the other parent. Judges are extremely reluctant to allow SRLs to cross-examine, for obvious reasons. Apart from anything else, a SRL rarely has the skills to do so effectively and so it wastes the Court's time.

Instead of challenging your ever-present disbelief, if the Family Court web is wrong? perhaps you better enlighten them, then tell us when you have it fixed.

Final hearing
A final hearing is usually conducted in the following way:

Applicant’s evidence – you (or your lawyer) outlines your case. The respondent may cross-examine you or your witnesses. You may then re-examine your witnesses.

Respondent’s evidence – you (or your lawyer) outlines your case. The applicant may cross-examination you or your witnesses. You may then re-examine your witnesses.

Isn't prejudice and poor behaviour what everyone is highlighting? Isn't that what betrays the less well informed moreso than the law itself? Men and women are each trying to say - howver ineptly -that the system can discriminate, ignore facts, evidence etc. And many children are suffering because of it, especially so where actual violence and actual abuse is a feature of their lives and the system fails to protect them.

Jacksun, if a SRL is to be allowed to cross-examine they must first convince the Judge that their line of questioning will be useful and relevant and that they will act in accordance with the rules. If the Judge isn't convinced he may advise the SRL to seek further advice or he may simply refuse permission.

It is especially rare for an SRL to be allowed to cross-examine when there have been allegations of the type you have made about your fictitious "nephew". More usually, expert testimony is called and independent expert examination is undertaken.

Still, it's good that you're starting to understand that process is important.

Everyone lies

In this endless argument

Except the sad men

<Everyone lies> Not really

<In this endless argument> That depends

Except the sad men
Posted by Shintaro, Saturday, 8 January 2011 12:28:48 PM

So what happened to make these men sad?

Maybe it was life experiences dealing with false feminist ideology.

Had an interesting discussion with a woman from another culture the other day and she pointed out how she the western anglo saxon culture seemed to be so miserable.

She correctly pointed out that people were only concerned with their narcassitic selves.

She said that women's magazines should be banned because of the misery they cause.