"Divorce Doctor,

', any bloke can apply to a court for parentage testesting '
Really? What are his chances of success? Does he not need the mothers consent?"

why would he need the mother's consent?

what must be realised here is that [save for some recent Howard aberations] Parliament does not make gender biased legislation, or as seen in Brandy the High Court can knock it on the head

the spin comes from the spinners, and maybe you tell me where you got YOUR spin on this bit of mis-information

I am fairly sure I dealt with this DNA issue in my book, so please check it out at http://www.ablokesguide.com

The one group the scheme is supposed to help are sometimes the worst hurt by it.

Kids grow up with parents who should be moving on with their lives who are instead locked in conflict. One parent feeling that the other owes them and should be doing more, the other parent feeling ripped off by a system that ignores their needs.

We need to get seperated parents out of each others finances as quickly as possible, not keep them tied together finacially for years.

R0bert

Court of Australia. Do you have any evidence this matter in dispute and allegedly settled by the High Court, was actually conducted by the High Court or was it a private hearing of the dispute conducted by the individuals, who are appointed as justices of the High Court, but who can also hear and determine disputes in private LEGAL PROCEEDINGS under sec 34 of the Cth Acts Interpretation Act 1901with the parties consent.

You would be fully aware of the hearing of Luton -v- Lessels, File No C40/1995, allegedly conducted by the High-Court-of-Australia but what you are not aware of is that this was one just hearing of the issues in dispute conducted by the individuals, who are appointed as justice, but who heard this matter in private legal proceedings, pursuant to sec 34 of the Acts Interpretation Act, and then the Commonwealth published this result as a binding High Court authority creating the common law of Australia in relation to the payment and collection of Child Support.

If you were to inspect the file at the Registry in Canberra you wont find the SEAL OF THE
HIGHCOURTOFAUSTRALIA displayed on any of the documents issued by the COURT, not even the original copy of the originating documents or the order held on the file issued on the 11 April 2002, six months and one day after the private hearing was conducted. The only stamp you will see on most of the documents filed and issued from the Office of the High Court is the OFFICE SEAL.

You may consider yourself the Divorce Doctor but before you can effectively assist your clients, you should first discover and identify the disease or virus that has infected the legal system you deal with and operate in. This is how they enforce Government POLICY and ignore the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. Kirby had a hand in this along with most of the pretend judges but they only had the parties implied CONSENT.

Missing part of my previous post.

Divorce Doctor, you have referred to the matter of Brandy allegdly conducted in the High Court of Australia

young dan, I have NFI of what babble you utter

34 Power to determine includes authority to administer oath

Any court, Judge, justice of the peace, officer, commissioner,
arbitrator, or other person authorized by law, or by consent of
parties, to hear and determine any matter, shall have authority to
receive evidence and examine witnesses and to administer an oath
to all witnesses legally called before them respectively.

all that says is a judge etc has authority to receive evidence etc for witnesses

besides, Luton was a put up job mate. The lawyers did a pass around the hat at certain boo hoo mens clubs and then did the old trick of if you dont ASK the court the right question they dont have to answer

they asked is COAT a judicial process - well of course it is not, it is "officer" in your beloved s 34, as was Mr Baston QC [from memory] in Brandy

but the guts of the issue was, was there an appeal path to a Chapter III judge so the Act in Brandy got zapped

as Callinan J pointed out in Luton there was a de novo path at s 116 of CSAAct against a COAT [Part 6A] - well until Nazi Howard zapped the lot [but we then zapped him, so Kevin 07 will soon need to "mend" the law back to what is lawful, "soon to come up at a court near to you"]

I cover all of that in the book mate

Divorce Doctor- are you really trying to constructively contribute to this thread or are you shamelessly trying to flog your book?