Hello,has anyone had privacy issues with the Chid Support Aency.Did you know that if you pay or recieve support,all your infomation ie the value of your house,how much it is worth,how much you owe,how much you have in the bank,where did it come from,year,make, model of your car,do you own it,if not how much do you owe,is given to your ex-partners.These are just some of the very private and personal information you have to give or they will not reassess anyones case.The only information they regard as private ieyour address,phone number and your bank account number,what a joke.I contacted the Ombudsman`s office to be told that it was very close but still with in the law.I have now contacted my local federal member of parliament to whom I will talk to on Monday.Does anyone have any thoughts on this topic,if so I would like to here from you.If anyone has any ideas to help stop this gross breach of privacy,I would welcome your advice.I must add this is for both Mum`s and Dad`s,our privacy must be kept private.

They could figure out your car details by driving past your house.

The system is broken something chronic. Since when is it fact that the 'mother' is the best provider, by default?.

It's a horrible system, and I'm glad I'm not part of it. I feel for my friends who are.

The CSA has had a very poor record of protecting privacy, with over a hundred staff forced to resign or be sacked only a couple of years ago. Those staff were all caught accessing the files of people whose case they were not involved with or in some cases, the files of their own ex-partner. Several hundred more staff were "counselled" about their inappropriate use of the computer system at the same time.

I made several complaints to the Agency in regard to privacy infringements prior to that mass-sacking, which also affected Centrelink and the ATO. I have not had any interaction with the Agency since, because they will not consent to a meeting that i hve said I will record. Funnily enough, of the 6 grounds they have given as their alleged "reason" for not attending such a meeting, the only one with any basis in the law is the one relating to privacy and that is a very weak point.

It is worth noting that the Agency has recently been given a Govt award for their handling of privacy matters.

The lack of privacy is one of my pet hates with that mob as well. I think that you can withhold quite a lot of the information for some types of reassessment but I've not been able to get clear answers to that in the past.

Regardless of the requested reassessment process I know that when they do their routine assessments based on tax returns the statements they send my Ex's child support assessable income figure to me and I assume they send mine to her.

I assume the intent is to give the other parent the opportunity to note any glaring discrepancies between claimed income and their perceptions of that income.

Given how seriously privacy is taken elsewhere and the likelyhood that the people involved may already have some issues about privacy from the other parent it does seem seriously wrong.

On the other hand working backwards through the formula it's probably viable to work out the gross figures for those who want to based on the end result.

R0bert

well the court case re this has just been concluded B vs CSR, before Riethmuller FM

of course it was a copout but that now opens the appeal avenue

however there has already been an overturning of the Palmer case where the court said you have to go to Privacy Commissioner [or/and Ombuds] before going to court

OF course both these are simply firewalls to keep you away from court

so now yo all can go straight to court via s 98, the injunctive power of the PAct

PS the privacy award and the mock sackings were just red herrings to keep the mushrooms happy

now the gloves are off

the truth is CSR is allowed to have tax file number and address [which should be a PO Box if you have any sense at all] and that's it

just read the CSAAct to see the words

RObert,I think you are correct regarding our ex-partners receiving our taxable incomes,I can understand how this information can be relevant to both parties.

I fail to see how the price of our home,the value of our car and where the money in the bank came from is anyone`s business but our own,and lets not forget Big Brother.

It`s bad enough that you have to give this information to the Tax Department,All this information will cause is more animosity between the two parents.

no privacy, what type of reassessment is involved? Have you confirmed that it is specifically required for the reassessment?

CSA are not real keen to tell you up front that they don't need that info so you may have to ask.

R0bert

I fail to see how the price of our home,the value of our car and where the money in the bank came from is anyone`s business but our own,and lets not forget Big Brother.

you are correct

the CSA has no right to that info UNLESS you GIVE it to them

they get this out of you by rorting Part 6A [Change of assess as they call it]

a SMART bloke would never take part in that farce, so would be sitting in box seat to zap CSA under privacy act

The CSA-Registrar and the Commonwealth-of-Australia are being sued in the pretend Federal Court of Australia in Sydney over these very issues and this matter has been in there since Feb 2008 File No NSD 204, 2008, Whittaker and Rotary Kiln Services -v- The Registrar of CSA and the Cth.
The isssue is the unlawful use and access to the tax Commissioner's data-base of Tax File Number information without the consent of the recipient of the TFN and also calling in to question the constitutional vaility of the 1988 Act and the validity of a Deoarture prohibition Order signed and issued by a staff member not authorised under the Act to issue the PDO.
Counsel for the Applicant, Peter King, is the member of the Liberal party who was deposed by Malchom Turnbul in his seat in Sydney.
The decision in the Luton -v- Lestels is also being called into question as it was not a decision of the High Court of Australia as the matter went before the seven Justices of the Peace and a decision was made in this private hearing in a Tribunal, not the High Court of Australia.
The High Court of Australia, The Federal Court of Australia and the Fed Magistrates Court can not commence the exercise of their Jurisdiction until after the Governor-General issues the PROCLAMATION that authorises the commencement of the exercise of their power, no PROCLAMATION = no jurisdiction, section 2 of the Acts.
There had to be a reason why the Registrar s of the Courts will never sign and Seal with the seal of the particular Court any process issued out of the Court, not even the court orders from the decision in luton -v- Lestles.
Many attempts have been made to be provided with a photo-copy of the origonal, signed and sealed PROCLAMATIONS but they refuse to provide. The only document made available is a typed copy of what the document should look like, but no signature of the Gov-Gen or the GREAT Seal of the Commonwealth of Australia, just the LS stamp.

What's with this paranoid, privacy rubbish?

What are you guys trying to hide?

This has got nothing to do with "legitimate" privacy, but EVERYTHING to do with hiding one's assets and details, in order to avoid giving one cent to one's children and/or ex partners.

And you people know it!

Some pathetic people think their money and assets are totally theirs' and theirs' alone and F*#@ their responsibilities to their broken families.

It's because of irresponsible people like them that these laws exist in the first place.

You guys don't like it? Too bloody bad!

You took the 'sex' willingly.

Now how about now growing up and taking the resulting 'responsibility' willingly: Act like men.

JW perhaps you should have a look at your own sexist assumptions.

I'm the full time carer of my son so privacy does not save anything except my preference for my ex to not know my financial details.

My income comes from PAYEE employment so I don't have opportunity to hide income from the taxman even if that was a choice I was willing to live with.

I just don't want my details passed on to me ex nor do I think I should have access to hers.

R0bert

JW, it's because of irresponsible women that you that men like me object to the invasion of our privacy.

Take some responsibility for yourself and stop blaming men for the ills that obviously beset you. You might even try getting a job. Let's face it, you willingly took the sex.

For the record, I have 50% custody of my children and I don't want my ex to have any knowledge of my circumstances that she doesn't need to have, nor do I want to know anything about hers.

Poor antiseptic, you're obviously a bitter,twisted,unhappy man with a thin skin.

How do I know that? Well I made "assumptions" based on a few lines that you just wrote.

Just like you made "assumptions" based on a few lines someone else wrote.

My first sentence above is not my belief, (it was written to make my point). It's not my belief because how can I possibly directly abuse you like that, and be accurate, without knowing you and upon reading only one short post from you? Yet, that's what you've done with JW. You've offered personal abuse directed precisely towards him or her, yet I bet you don't know the person. And your abuse, directed squarely towards that named forum member, is there because he or she offered a strong, different opinion to your opinion. That person did not single you out, name you, and then directly abuse you. Yet you decided to do just that.

I think a good dose of growing up may help you cope with life better

I think any case where the CSA is involved, BOTH parents' personal and financial details should be fully available to the relevant authorities.The CSA needs to have the power, under law, to make relevant inquiries. I believe the full personal and financial details of a parent should not be given to the other parent, unless, it is relevant and necessary for the welfare of the children; such cases would be relatively rare indeed, but keep in mind some parents try to rort the system and the other partner, and even their children, by hiding income. Most parents are honourable and try to do the right thing by their children.

SallyG:"That person did not single you out, name you, and then directly abuse you. Yet you decided to do just that."

That person included me in a class of people she referred to as "irresponsible", "trying to hide" income or assets (which may be a criminal act) and several other epithets. I used her own epithets on her, yet you choose to condone her comment and condemn mine? Perhaps a good dose of getting over the man-hating night help both of you, hmm?

SallyG:"Most parents are honourable and try to do the right thing by their children."

Yes, they are. In fact, according to the CSA's own figures, the total amount uncollected each year is a trifling $50million, out of a total amount transferred of $2.6 billion. that trivial amount, which amounts to approximately $5 per annum per taxpayer, is used to attampt to justify massive intrusions into the lives of ordinary Australians. It was felt so important by the previous Government that they gave the Agency $143miilion in special purpose funding over 3 years (yes, you're right, that is nearly equal to the total amount outstanding over that period) to pursue it. Do you know how much that funding has caused to be recovered? Less than $5million in the first year, even after the Agency employed private investigators to spy on so-called "deadbeats". The current Minister, Dopey Joe Ludwig, has endorsed the use of such spies to recover that miniscule $5 per taxpayer per annum, much of which is an nvention of the Agency in any case, through inflated assessments and maladministration of the Acts.

At the same time, the current Government is prepared to give billions in corporate welfare to banks and other financial institutions.

The CSA does not exist to "benefit the children", it exists to punish non-custodial parents for the breakdown of their relationship.

Hey Sally ol' girl, you got it correct in that first sentence. He really does come across sounding like a bitter, thinned skinned twit. He thinks I was talking about him, must be his guilty conscience. If he'd never hidden any of his assets or money then my remarks wouldn't have applied to him, and I think he's probably too dense to realise that. My remarks were clearly applicable only to the guilty, and not the innocent. Ha ha, funny thing about a conscience, we all have one.

Don't worry about him Sal. He's thinned skinned in the extreme, and his response to me was basically because I've embarrassed him in some previous topics, so he gets aggressive and abusive whenever I post an opinion that he doesn't share. He's just a sad, abusive man with a thin skin. So I give it back to him in spades because he's very happy indeed to abuse others who don't share his opinions. A thin, thin, thin skin. Sad.

Sal, you're basically right about the CSA, but I'd go further. I think it's ok for both partners to know how much each other earns and what assets each other possesses, so big deal. This privacy crap is just that...crap. It's got nothing to do with privacy for the sake of privacy, but it's got a lot to do with privacy for the sake of deception. Some twits are just not prepared to pay more than a minimum towards their children, and that's their real concern, avoiding their full responsibility. These twits would prefer to self regulate their contributions towards their children, and of course we all know the consequences of that don't we.

It comes back to the welfare of the children and how much goes towards their benefit. A little bit of "parental" scrutiny/inside knowledge of the other partner can often benefit the children more than government scrutiny. Shame on the bastards, male and female, who are tight with their money towards their children.

JW:"He thinks I was talking about him"

I have no idea what you think you were talking about, but you were talking about me. I made a decision some 3 years ago, after the CSA completely ballsed up their assessment and then refused to revisit their error, despite acknowledging it contained "mathematical errors", to have nothing to do with the Agency. As a result, I have a considerable "debt" that is entirely fictitious. My ex-wife even tried to get the Agency to simply cancel it and was told that she would end up with a debt to Centrelink of approximately the same amount if they did so.

I realise that doesn't fit in with your "all men are bastards" ideology, but sometimes life is not as simple as the simple would like it to be.

JW:"This privacy crap is just that...crap. It's got nothing to do with privacy for the sake of privacy, but it's got a lot to do with privacy for the sake of deception."

All right, let's assume your silly little thesis is correct: where do you draw the line? What aspects of your life do you regard as being private? What aspects of your life do you regard as being public knowledge? What is the basis for your choices?

You've got it wrong again. If you have not done anything illegal, then NOTHING that I wrote applies to you. Repeat that 10 times out loud. There, do you understand now?

Now, tell me more about my "all men are bastards ideology". Don't just offer an opinion, actually quote me, show me where I have suggested "all men are bastards". Especially in light of the fact that I wrote "shame on the bastards, male AND female". You see, the CSA actions should apply equally to BOTH men and women. Then, tell me why you "assume" I'm female. This all men are bastards thing , the bitter anti feminism/anti female rhetoric you often write in other topics, and your "assumptions" about the sex of contributors show heaps about YOU and not the people you aim this trash at. It seems you're a quite bitter man with a pretty thin skin. Maybe that's why your ex is your ex. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during your breakup.

Oh me oh my, what you call a "silly thesis", is FACT. And naturally you're not that stupid to NOT realise that, you're just playing games as usual with these types of subjects. Your bitterness always easily comes to the surface.

Whether you openly admit it or not, there's parents who hide earnings, established funds and assets in order to minimise their contributions towards their children. That's a major reason why the CSA exists. You don't like that? Too bad. Live with it. These people LOVE to use privacy claims; privacy for the sake of deception and NOT for privavy issues.

JW the fact that some people cheat the system and try and hide behind privacy does not mean that all who object to the lack of respect for privacy are cheating the system. Your earlier post made a broad accusation against those of us who had already posted.

"What's with this paranoid, privacy rubbish?

What are you guys trying to hide?

This has got nothing to do with "legitimate" privacy, but EVERYTHING to do with hiding one's assets and details, in order to avoid giving one cent to one's children and/or ex partners.

And you people know it! "

I've done nothing illegal but that post did not include that exclusion.

It has everything to do with legitimate privacy for some fo us.

CSA and the taxman should have access to the relevant details but not former spouses.

Personally I think the harm done by keeping people tied together financially by an unjust and adverserial system far outweighs any possible benefits.

R0bert

JW:"I would love to have been a fly on the wall during your breakup."

You'd not have found it very gratifying, it was quite peaceable until the ex got some very bad advice and decided she could get more money without working.

As for your gender bias, I stand by what I've said. Go back and read your initial posts on this thread.
I note you've not answered the 2 simple questions I put to you. preferring to regurgitate the guff you'd already inflicted on us. Repeating rubbish simply makes it repetitious rubbish, it doesn't make it "FACT". Therefore, let me ask again: what parts of your life do you regard as being legitimately private and which parts are public knowledge? what is your basis for the difference?

JW:"Whether you openly admit it or not, there's parents who hide earnings, established funds and assets in order to minimise their contributions towards their children."

No doubt there are, but as I pointed out in a previous post, the total amount involved, even using the CSA's own self-serving figures, is tiny, amounting to about $50 million per annum out of a total amount assessed of $2.6 billion per annum. The CSA, OTOH, operates on the assumption that every non-custodial parent is doing so, just as you do. That leads to significant misapplications of the law, especially when anti-male zealots get themselves into positions of power within the Agency. That, together with the culture of dishonesty, cover up and unaccountability that the Agency fosters in its staff has lead to my contempt for the Agency.

My children would have been far worse off if I'd allowed the Agency to drive me into bankruptcy while refusing to fix what they had broken and doing their best to shut me up by threatening court action which they had no intent of taking.

Ok let's call your bluff.

(1) NAME those "anti-male zealots" at the CSA, and provide proof regarding those specific people

(2) Name the people there who practice "dishonesty" and "cover up", and provide proof regarding those specific people

Oh, by the way, after you name them, show the courage to provide "your" name in print (your "real" name).

Have you taken your "dishonesty" and "cover up" claims to the police?

Let's now see if your claims are legitimate and reasoned.......or the result of past bitterness, fear/loathing of feminists and an incredibly thin skin.

The ball's in YOUR court.

You ask, which parts are private and which parts are public.

As I have nothing to hide, I consider no parts to be secret or private. That does not mean I'll "volunteer" any info about myself to anyone, but it DOES mean if someone has a legal obligation to ask info about me, ANY info (for example.. police, medical authorities, govt. dept, insurance, employer etc etc etc etc etc etc) I have NO objection to them receiving ANY information about me whatsoever. I have nothing to hide, regarding ANY aspect of my life..

Now if a strange bloke in the street comes up to me and asks my name/address/bank account details I'll tell him to F off. But if a police officer comes up to me in the street, and I'm aware he is part of an investigation team regarding theft from my bank account, then I'll happily give him the information.

If ANYONE has a legal obligation to enquire about my details, I'll tell them whatever they want to know. I have nothing to hide.

And that includes my ex's. I have 2 of them. I couldn't care less whether they know I'm a pauper or millionaire, how many cars I drive or who I'm currently in a relationship with. I have nothing to hide.

How about you?

JW:"
(1) NAME those "anti-male zealots" at the CSA, and provide proof regarding those specific people"

lol, you're really clutching at straws, aren't you? I'll tell you what, you provide me with a list of the names of all those who are hiding income to avoid paying child support and I'll do my best to answer your silly little strawman above.

JW:"Name the people there who practice "dishonesty" and "cover up", and provide proof regarding those specific people"

Already been done and done, several times. do a google for my handle, which I've used for several years on various forums and you can have all the names you like. Have fun. One of them has the same initials as you do, funnily enough. She was both incompetent and dishonest.

Police action requires a criminal standard of proof, which is not possible because the Agency has (or had, I don't know the current policy) of not requiring records relating to their determinations to be kept by contract SCOs. I have a letter from the former State Manager, Angela Tillmans (there's a name for you) telling me just that in response to a formal request for such notes.

Furthermore, the Agency will not attend meetings with me, since I have informed them that my policy is to record all such interactions. Surely, if they're honest they've nothing to hide?

JW:"if someone has a legal obligation to ask info about me, ANY info (for example.. police, medical authorities, govt. dept, insurance, employer etc etc etc etc etc etc) I have NO objection to them receiving ANY information about me whatsoever. I have nothing to hide, regarding ANY aspect of my life."

Sadly, many CSA officers have a very dirty record when it comes to using information legitimately obtained for illegitimate purposes. That means they forfeit the legitimate right to obtain the information.

JW:"my ex's. I have 2 of them. "

Aren't you the lucky one? 2 blokes paying for you to do bugger all. Well done, you.

Ah, as I thought. You display a total inability to directly answer my 2 questions, with supporting proof, along with your real name. You make the accusations, but display total cowardice when called on the matter. You really are a waste of time.

It's interesting to note you "assume" (1) I'm female (2) my xs's pay for me (3) I do bugger all. All based on absolutely NO personal knowledge of me.

You're just an abusive man, who loathes/fears feminists, who possesses a transparent thin skin, who's prepared to make cowardly accusations without proof and who's terribly bitter, hurt and powerless (all this constantly displayed within your posts on this and other related threads).

You really need psychological help to enable you to better cope with your abusive and bitter nature, when in a state of conflict.

JW, I answered your second question; your first was as inane as the rest of your output. If you are incapable of using google, do a search on this site. I don't plan to spoon-feed you; they're your questions, not mine, you can do the work in your obviously copious free time.

As for the rest of your post, I can only say pot, meet kettle, you'll note she's black.

Anti, get real please. You've not answered at all. JW has asked you to back up your false allegations with names (plural) and PROOF, and also said basically you need to back that up by printing your own name as well. I agree with this, because if someone wishes to defame people, it's a measure of their integrity whether they are prepared to give their own name. You've refused to do this. You're making allegations and hiding behind a made up screen name.

JW is also right about you playing games. That's just what you're doing here. If not, you would have chosen to answer the questions properly and fully. You have chosen not to do this.

Your allegations concern dishonesty and cover up. These are criminal allegations.

You've made extremely serious criminal allegations, yet have shown you lack the balls to back that up with names AND proof. You lack the balls to write YOUR name. I agree with JW that this shows cowardice. Either back up your serious allegations or withdraw them.

Here's a list of the things you made up, just because JW does not share your opinion
(1)JW is irresponsible
(2) JW hates all men
(3)JW is obviously beset by ills and falsely blames men
(4)JW chooses unemployment
(5)JW has an "ALL men are bastards" ideology
(6)JW is simple
(7)JW has 2 blokes "paying" for her
(8) JW does "bugger all"

Your modus operandi seems to be "if someone gets in my way, I'll make up false allegations".

We should look at your CSA comments in that light. For me, you'd be a type of person to avoid in real lufe.

SallyG I notice that you are not overly bothered by JW's opening false allegations against people who had already posted on this thread.

As for names of CSA staff - last time I saw they were very protective of the identities of staff, first names only was the rule. The letters that come from CSA are in the names of senior staff not the people you deal with.

If naming individual staff here did occur that could easily constitute defemation against those individuals with the odds stacked in their favor regarding proof - their clients are not allowed to record converstaions, meetings reviews etc. Proving that someone has acted in a biased manner in court in defense of a defemation actions is very different to being a party to the interactions with that person.

Given that those JW thinks are trying to do the wrong thing are commenting on family law issues supplying our own names here could bring us(or them) into breach of the law and would certainly identify ex's, children etc. Harly a smart move to do so.

Given the power differences between the CSA and it's clients most don't want their opinions on record as it might have very real consequences with little real prospect of justice.

It was a silly ploy by JW to try and discredit those JW disagree's with not legitimate and meaningfull question's by someone seriously discussing issues of privacy around the CSA.

R0bert

SallyG:"You've made extremely serious criminal allegations, yet have shown you lack the balls to back that up with names AND proof. "

Oh dear, another one who can't use google or understand plain English. Do try harder, honey.

Now, as for your silly defence of the extremely silly JW, I'll remind you that I have made no allegation about JW, I've merely mirrored her insulting remarks to me and others. Interestingly, you take no exception to her inane comments, yet you do take exception to my own very similar ones. As I said earlier, a good dose of getting over the man-hating would do you both good, as would taking some responsibility for your own circumstances instead of expecting others to pay your way.

I note you've not commented on the fact that the abuses of the CSA are predicated on the fact that a miniscule $50 million PA is outstanding from the huge annual total of $2.6 billion in CS assessed.For the mathematically challenged, that is less than 2% of the total and amounts to a burden on the taxpayer of just $5 PA each. Those are facts, not silly little strawmen put up by the intellectually bereft.

R0bert, I have specifically named on several occasions 3 people as having colluded, one of whom was Regional Registrar at the time and who has since left the Agency under a cloud to take up a job for the grrrls as CEO of the CP League of Qld. I have made the allegations several times to the CSA in corrspondence which the Agency has chosen not to respond to. They have, however, run from a meeting they called, simply because I wished to record it.

The Agency made threats of defamation action against the site on which those details were published, but were forced to back down when their bluff was called. A simple (at least for most people) google search will reveal those details to anyone interested

Ok antieverything, for the THIRD time, you are being asked to name the people from CSA who have engaged in criminal actions during the term of their employment AND cite the *PROOF* AND print *YOUR REAL NAME*. HERE AND NOW ON THESE PAGES.

Show you possess at least a slight semblance of courage.

Stop avoiding directly answering the questions you've been asked.

Stop playing games.

Answer the questions properly and *FULLY*.

And do it HERE AND NOW ON THIS OLO PAGE.

Or stand condemned as a total waste of time, whose presence here is defined by bitterness, false allegations, avoidance and use of personal abuse.

JW:"AND cite the *PROOF* AND print *YOUR REAL NAME*. HERE AND NOW ON THESE PAGES."

erm...

already done and done elsewhere, dear. Ask one of your fellow idlers to show you how google works. It's not my job to educate you. BTW, I'd go and see someone about your blood pressure if I were you.

JW:"Show you possess at least a slight semblance of courage.

Stop avoiding directly answering the questions you've been asked.

Stop playing games.

Answer the questions properly and *FULLY*.

And do it HERE AND NOW ON THIS OLO PAGE."

You're very used to being able to bully people, aren't you dear? Your first name isn't Judith by any chance?

I'm not yours to order around, dear, so toddle off and yell at the kids or something.

JW:"a total waste of time, whose presence here is defined by bitterness, false allegations, avoidance and use of personal abuse."

I'd not have said you were a total waste of time; you provide enormous amusement for us all and I'm sure we're all very grateful.

Gee, you really are made of jelly aren't you antiseptic. You're so weak, you can't even answer a few questions.

When someone makes allegations of criminal behaviour, yet refuses to back it up or write their real life name to the allegations, it says it all!

We all know why he won't provide evidence and names and "his" name here don't we. It's because he CAN'T.

JW is right, anti is a complete waste of time with his inane refusals to prove his allegations and provide his real life name. If he tried that, he knows he'd be held accountable. He's been called cowardly. Ain't that the truth.

JW I am not stalking you.
Surprised by my clash with you in another thread I thought I would look at your post history.
Why the heat?
Why the anger?
What are you trying to achieve?
How can you see your own point of view but not even glimpse others?
I treasure my privacy.
Always will but pay my way owe no one anything am not hiding from anyone.
Why do you want posters to use their own names?
What would it achieve?
In your short post history you seem to want verbal war not two way debate.
Do you ever consider if your self assurance is miss placed?

Perhaps JW would provide the evidence to support the serious allegation she made against others on this thread in her opening post.

"What are you guys trying to hide?

This has got nothing to do with "legitimate" privacy, but EVERYTHING to do with hiding one's assets and details, in order to avoid giving one cent to one's children and/or ex partners.

And you people know it!" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2162#46214

Later she said "My remarks were clearly applicable only to the guilty, and not the innocent. " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2162#46450

At the point the original post was made no privacy, Stg, Antiseptic, myself, Divorce Doctor and Young Dan had posted to this thread.

Which of us was JW accusing of cheating the system? The wording in JW's post suggested all of us but apparently JW intended otherwise. I've never cheated on tax or falsified information supplied to legal authorities so no guilty conscience on that front but the wording still read as though I was being accused of doing so.

JW who are you accusing of "hiding one's assets and details, in order to avoid giving one cent to one's children and/or ex partners"?

Where is your evidence that any individual involved in the discussion has tried to hide assets or avoid their legal obligations to their children?

R0bert

SallyG:"f he tried that, he knows he'd be held accountable"

Actually, I've tried to get the Agency to make good on their threatened Court action for years. It seems they're very big on threatening, but not so big on actually standing in front of a Court where they have to prove their case. They much prefer their unaccountable in-house processes, leaving them plenty of opportunity for cover-up. I don't really care either way any more; if they want me to deal with them they have to take me to Court and make their case, which they have no chance of doing.

If you do a google search, you'll even find a thread on another forum in which I directly challenge the General Manager of the Agency to take action against me over their claim of "defamation". That was the last anyone heard from the Agency on that site and Mr Miller declined to accept my challenge.

Now, as you're so keen to have my name made public knowledge, perhaps you and the "I consider no parts to be secret or private" JW would like to start the ball rolling?

R0bert, I suspect that the egregious JW is a contractor to the CSA who may well be in bad odour with the Agency since her protector, the unlamented Angela Tillmans was booted out. If my suspicion is correct, her extensive record of past poor behaviour would indicate that she considers all men to be guilty until proven otherwise. Having two failed marriages might help to explain that. OTOH, the attitude might well explain the failed marriages.

My God antiseptic, you are so inane (to use a word often repeated by those here to describe you). Do you possess any intellectual ability at all? Probably very little.

A person asked you to name the people you accused of unlawful acts and follow that up with your evidence of those unlawful acts and to back all that up with your name at the end. You now say the CSA refuses to take action against you, therefore, you have nothing to fear.

So do it.

Instead of being a pathetic jerk and running around the issue with crap like "do your own searches".

Answer the inquiries about the alleged unlawful acts, move on, and then grab a life.

Oh dear, the signal-to-noise ratio just deteriorated again.

phillips, do try reading for comprehension, difficult as you seem to find it. I have no intention of breaking the law of the land by publishing details of a CS/FL matter that could identify third parties, including my ex-wife and children.

If I did so, you and others who have incited the illegal action would also find yourself at the mercy of the Court. No need to say thanks, I'll take it as read.

Still, if you're interested, do that google search I keep mentioning. I'm sure you can work out how to do that eventually. Have fun.

Me (two days ago):"Now, as you're so keen to have my name made public knowledge, perhaps you and the "I consider no parts to be secret or private" JW would like to start the ball rolling?"

After which there has been dead silence from both SallyG and JW. It seems that JW is only unconcerned about privacy when it's someone else's, which would be consistent with her prior record if my suspicions expressed above are correct.

I too have waited for answers to questions you ,myself and RObert asked.
For give me for saying it like I truly think but is man hating part reason of the problem?
I am forced to have little regard for some posters, and while my comments may fan the flames they are my true thoughts.

Antiseptic has continued to display his cowardice by NOT providing proof following his claims of illegality. He, of course, knows he can't provide proof, because no illegality has occurred. But the coward is VERY happy to imply illegality, without taking responsibility for his words, and that's why he's displayed cowardice by not attaching his real name at the end of his false allegations.

I see you're still having trouble with google, JW. Now, as you're back, perhaps you could show us all how committed you are to the principle of full disclosure by telling us a little about yourself. You, after all, are the one that claimed "I consider no parts [of mylife] to be secret or private". Here's your chance to show us you mean it.

You could start with your name and CSA staff number and we can move on from there. Thanks.

Yet AGAIN, antiseptic displays a TOTAL unwillingness to answer.

It's part of the "blame the woman" defensiveness within his character. He "thinks" I'm a woman. If he actually answers my request for proof of CSA illegality, and signed with his real name, it means he gets "beaten" (in his own mind that is) by a woman. He couldn't tolerate that: No misogynist could.

So, how about committing yourself to print here and now on this page and actually answer my often repeated request, or admit in print here and now on this page that you can't name CSA names, followed by proof of specific illegality attributed to each individual employee, followed by your real name.

Or openly admit that your accusations of CSA criminal acts are FALSE.

The ball's in "your" court.

JW:"The ball's in "your" court."

Nope, the ball's in the CSA's court. Nice of you to confirm that your own statement that you "consider no parts to be private or secret" was no more than hot air though. Thanks.

Antiseptic continues to TOTALLY avoid backing up his charges of Illegal conduct by CSA employees.

As we know they are false charges.

His avoidance shows the type of individual he is. His misogyny makes it emotionally impossible for him to provide a straight answer.

He knows he can't provide proof, because his cowardly charges are FALSE.

He's a waste of time.

JW:"As we know they are false charges".

How do we know? Have you finally cracked google? If so, well done and pray explain why they are false. Take your time...

JW:"his cowardly charges are FALSE"

Judith? Is that you? See above.

Has Mr Miller withdrawn his delegation? Oh dear.

Again, a TOTAL unwillingness to openly state names followed by specific charges backed by proof and signed with his real name.

A cowardly individual, and a sad waste of time.

JW:"a TOTAL unwillingness to openly state names followed by specific charges backed by proof and signed with his real name."

Who are you to ask?

I can now see that antiseptic is not serious about all of this, you can tell that by the way he writes his posts. I doubt very much he's had any contact with anyone at CSA, ever. I suspect, but can't prove, he's also another contributor here, and adopts a different persona for that character. He's probably had bad relationships and is now bitter against any women who say "boo" to him, or any women who don't allow him to be in charge. I wouldn't be surprised that his claim of having a child and having partial custody are also made up. Why does he do it? I suppose it gives meaning to his life to come here and have people respond to him.

He's got a real problem with himself.

Sally G that is a strange post why?
And who do you think is a puppet?
I will never understand why we need to slander one another.
And why some like too cast shadowy unfounded insults.
You defend some one who by post history revels in insults and verbal warfare
Who is the puppet please tell us.

I'm not defending antiseptic, I'm criticising him. I mentioned no one other than antiseptic in my post.

But yes, you're right, antiseptic does have a history of abuse and verbal warfare and that's why I, and seemingly others, find him to be offensive.

Now he has the right to be offensive here if he chooses, but don't forget that people here also have the right to treat him as he chooses to treat others. You mention slander, I don't know your level of education but FYI, you can't slander a screen name, you can only slander an identifiable person whose identity is known. I guess that's why antiseptic won't answer questions about his paranoid CSA charges and put his name to it, as antiseptic knows he can be sued for slander if he reveals his identity, and answers the questions as asked. If the charges were truthful and antiseptic was in possession of proof, then antiseptic would have nothing to fear by revealing everything, including his identity.

SallyG, you'll find belly is not complaining about you defending antiseptic, but he thinks you're defending me. But you're right, you didn't even refer to me once in that post. I'm sure the last thing on your mind was me.

Belly has taken a dislike to me, that's why he wrote that post, and for a few days has followed my posts around making personal comments about me, while not referring to the subject matter. That's "his" problem, let's forget him.

Antiseptic, from his posts, is the type of man who can't stand having a "woman" in control. It upsets him, and triggers his personal abuse and put downs. Again, that's "his" problem.

PS: If antiseptic posts under different handles, I wouldn't worry about it. Just forget it. He, in the past, has accused others of doing that (I guess he thinks that making things up gives him some type of advantage). I suspect, in his case, it's merely the pot calling the kettle black. I also suspect that you're right, he's probably never had any direct dealings with CSA. I guess that him saying he has, props up his arguments (in his own mind). But who cares whether he's lying or not. He's obviously a waste of time, and just a joke. Good entertainment though.

SallyG:"antiseptic would have nothing to fear by revealing everything, including his identity."

And who is SallyG to demand I reveal my identity?

SallyG:"you can only slander an identifiable person whose identity is known"

And truth is a valid defence, which is why the CSA and the individuals I have identified, including one with the initials JW, funnily enough, won't take action in Court. Glad to have cleared that up for you.

JW:"Antiseptic, from his posts, is the type of man who can't stand having a "woman" in control"

Actually, I won't allow you to order me around, which is an entirely different thing. It must be really hard for you when you're so used to being able to bully people willy-nilly in your job at the CSA.

JW:"I also suspect that you're right, he's probably never had any direct dealings with CSA"

I've had lots of direct dealings with the CSA, thanks. In every direct contact I've had, the staff involved have either lied, offered dishonest "advice", falsified records to suit their preferred version of events or failed to competently carry out their duties in some other way. The one with the intitals JW lied, dishonestly misrepresented information she was given and failed completely to demonstrate any ability perform simple arithmetic.

JW:"But who cares whether he's lying or not."

You seem to. Must be a guilty conscience, eh Judi...JW?

BTW, feel free to check with GrahamY about my use of different handles. He'll happily confirm that I do not. Will he do the same for you?

Again JW I'm asking which of the small number of posters who had already commented on this thread you were refering to with your opening post

"What are you guys trying to hide?

This has got nothing to do with "legitimate" privacy, but EVERYTHING to do with hiding one's assets and details, in order to avoid giving one cent to one's children and/or ex partners."

As I pointed out earlier only no privacy, Stg, Antiseptic, myself, Divorce Doctor and Young Dan had posted to this thread at that point.

Who were you accusing of "hiding one's assets and details, in order to avoid giving one cent to one's children and/or ex partners"?

Do you have any evidence to back up that serious allegation made against other posters?

You seem very keen to demand detail of others, I'm asking much less of you, just some clarification about a post you made on this site.

R0bert

I've visited divorce doctor's website. To get a definitive answer to your question Robert, I suggest you also visit that website. Do a little homework.

samsung, the original allegation was plural. A suggestion that more than one was involved.

Given JW's demands regarding the providing detail to support allegations it's not unreasonable to ask the same of JW especially when it relates to allegations against other posters on this site.

Are you in a postion to answer on JW's behalf?

R0bert

I wrote that post to you Robert as an experiment. Rather than saying I knew exactly what one or more posters have done in their past lives, and honestly answering your query with detail, I replied to you in exactly the same way antiseptic has been replying to what I consider to be legitimate questions put to him by JW.

The result of my little experiment is. You seem not to be antagonistic towards antiseptic after he basically says in reply to JW's queries "do your own research". In other words he doesn't answer the question. Yet, you seem to be not happy with "my" answer to you where I basically suggest the same thing "do your own research". In other words I didn't answer your question.

Conclusion. Your query, which has been repeated several times to JW, is not based on a desire for all round truth within this OLO topic. Your query is based on a defence of an argument position. You apply one standard of proof to one side, and a different standard of proof to another side.

Am I wrong with this Robert? Have I misread you? If so, then I'll be waiting for you to put equal, repeat equal, pressure on antiseptic to answer the questions put to him. Then I'll sincerely apologise for misunderstanding you.

So come on antiseptic, when are you going to fully and properly answer the queries asked by JW?

You can continue to avoid answering, and continue to post replies all you like, for as long as you like, but I have a feeling if you are still doing that in 6 months time there will still be people replying to your every post, calling you out on the matter. You're going to be one very tired little boy keeping up appearances with your constant avoidance to answering properly.

phillips:"So come on antiseptic, when are you going to fully and properly answer the queries asked by JW?"

Already been done. When are you going to add something to a debate - any debate?

phillips:"but I have a feeling if you are still doing that in 6 months time there will still be people replying to your every post, calling you out on the matter."

And the collective hen-pecking continues. As anyone who knows chickens can tell you, it's always the old boilers who give the rooster the hardest time.

He continues to refuse to answer me. These are the challenges I asked of him; name the CSA employees who have engaged in illegal activity and include the proof and his real name at the end. That's it, not hard to answer.

He continues to refuse to answer.

Antiseptic now has no credibility, as almost everyone here now knows. He's even been reduced to doing what Sally did, trying to make out people against him are posting under a different name. At least Sally admitted she only suspected antiseptic of posting under another name. But antiseptic is not like that, he just address someone by another's name, thinking that mud will stick and help him look more credible.

As I've said here before, this is all just a game to antiseptic. He has no "real" interest in equality for all men, all women and fairness for all all children, unlike almost everyone else here. As soon as anyone defends a woman, he's the first to imply that you don't care about men and therefore you must be a woman, or even worse..a reviled feminist. He's a defensive and mildly disturbed man judging from his posts here.

Note his false implication that I'm a "woman ", a "CSA" employee and he's even falsely identified me because my on line name is "JW". It seems he knows of someone at CSA who has the initials JW, and he's been falsely implying, time and time again on this thread, that I am that person.

He's a conspiracy theory specialist, and a rather paranoid one at that. On other topics, I've noticed when the argument doesn't go his way he sometimes implies that some people invent a little friend. He thinks his little conspiracy theories help him look authoritative and in control.

The basis of his refusal to answer my straightforward challenge is he can't stand to get beaten, and getting beaten by someone he "thinks" is a woman is anathema to him.

Continued...

I'll continue to repeat my challenge to him whenever he replies, for as long as it takes. I'll continue to expose his anti woman philosophy and his unwillingness to consider children "first" in CSA and other life matters.

He's so caught with his own anti female paranoia and anti child "first" philosophy and conspiracy theories in various areas of life, that he's lost touch with reality. He's unraveling before our very eyes. It's quite sad really.

JW:"Note his false implication that I'm a "woman ""

JW:"My husband and I have always done our own thing when it comes to eating. He's quite um...large, while I'm pretty skinny. I keep telling him he'll die young while I'll live to a happy and healthy old age, but he doesn't want to listen. What is it about men and the way so many of them neglect their health? Maybe it's a chromosome abnormality."

Posted by JW, Friday, 29 August 2008 2:18:41 AM

So, what is it JW? Are you lying about having a husband or are you lying about not being a woman? So much for "credibility", eh? I note that the disparagement of men is consistent, however. At least you have your values, eh?

It must be difficult for you to adjust to telling the truth after so long telling lies as part of your job with the CSA.

You've still not answered the simple question about who you are, or what you claim as your authority in your numerous efforts to order me to do your bidding. You needn't bother now, you've already demonstrated that whatever you say is likely to be a lie. They do say that character will out...

samsung, all I'm trying to do is see if JW abides by the standards he or she demands of others. In this case with a question which has far less serious consequences to answer and which could potentially reflect on me.

As one of those who had already posted in support of concerns about the lack of privacy in CSA's processes JW's comment would appear to claim that I was trying to hide details of my assets in order to cheat the system. Nothing unusual about someone making blatently false allegations against other posters and later doing a wiggle to suggest that the comment only applied to those who were doing so but given JW's moralising about the need to answer questions and to back up allegations it seems appropriate for JW to do the same.

I'm no big fan of Divorce Doctor, and have not been overly tempted to visit his website. His postings on this site are enough to tell me all I need to know. If DD was the sole target of JW's original post on this thread then that should be an easy question to answer (with perhaps a side note to say that the plural was a mistake).

Simply it seems that JW is happy to make a broad and nasty accusation against those with different views to his or herself and demand a level of accountability of others far beyond what JW has shown for his or her self so far.

It's possible I've utterly misunderstood JW's behaviour but I doubt it.

I don't like my ex being supplied with my financial details by a third party nor do I think I should be supplied with hers.

That does not imply an attempt to cheat the system rather it reflects on the fact that she is someone who I have had significant conflict with and who I don't trust to use information fairly.

R0bert

R0bert:"Simply it seems that JW is happy to make a broad and nasty accusation against those with different views to his or herself and demand a level of accountability of others far beyond what JW has shown for his or her self so far."

JW claims that "I have nothing to hide, regarding ANY aspect of my life" but obviously feels that she does have to try to hide the fact she is female. She also seems to feel that she needs to hide her name and her employment by the CSA. Whilst the last bit is entirely understandable (after all, who'd want to admit to it) it shows that she is as dishonest outside her job as she is when she is at work.

I guess that when one is used to working for the CSA and having authority with no responsibility, one becomes habituated to dishonesty. Yet another reason not to trust the Agency with any information at all.

I can't believe what I'm reading. The personal attacks from antiseptic are staggering. Why is he doing this?

He's also made up a quote from another member, and claims that the quote was written by that member. Read his first post on this page. Well guess what? I went back and checked , and such a quote doesn't exist, anywhere in any of the posts by JW. I checked every single post written by JW since he's been on this OLO website. I guess antiseptic wasn't expecting anybody to take the time check up on him.

Yes, he made it up.

And he's now claiming to have revealed the real identity of JW. He's revealed what he says is JW's real name in a past post, says JW is a woman, says says JW works for CSA and is hiding it. Antiseptic has shown he's a nasty piece of work with his lies. He writes phony quotes (and got caught out) and now makes phony employment accusations. JW has said in the past he's a male.

Someone has written that antiseptic is a conspiracy theorist when he gets in defensive mode. I think that's just been proven to be true.

Get help for your yourself antiseptic, there's people in the professional community who can help you.

Antiseptic, I'd rather stay out of guesses about peoples real names and genders etc. I've found the quote you mentioned where JW claimed to have a husband, I saw a more recent one refering to JW's wife. I don't like the aspersions JW posted about those of us who want some privacy from ex's knowing our details but I know little else about JW.

I tried to find the post you refered to from the "Posted by JW, Friday, 29 August 2008 2:18:41 AM" but could not find it. Can you post a link to it please. Any chance that you've mistaken JW for someone else?

From JW's posting history -
.....
» 1/09/2008 4:13:13 PM I can see why Antiseptic has problems fitting in. When you read his posts on other topics,.....
» 29/08/2008 2:08:20 AM Hear, hear SallyG and AJPhilips. You have both shown there's more than one side to the to.....
» 17/08/2008 2:50:14 PM I read that earlier post by Pericles, and I too thought it sounded like a made up story. .....
» 30/07/2008 2:19:39 PM Yes they do Steven. ALL war criminals deserve prosecution......

R0bert

Hi Robert, a while ago you wrote that maybe the only person I was talking about in my first contribution here was divorce doctor. Well, you pretty much got that correct. My comments were NOT directed towards you. I basically have no real arguments with your opinions, we don't agree 100% on a few things, but most people don't agree 100% anyway. I should have read more closely what you've been saying here, but every time I come to this site I'm pushed for time and always rushing. Again, my apologies, my initial comments were NOT meant for you.

Sal, I've dealt with antiseptic, and he continues to avoid backing up his outrageous charges of CSA illegality, but is happy to engage in his silly little game playing. Thanks for the backup Sal, but I wouldn't bother about it, I can easily defend myself. By paying him attention you're just giving him more fodder for his cannon. Maybe we should all just ignore him. He just comes up with excuse after excuse for what he does. It's never ending, he just posts again and again and again and again and again. He's probably one of those poor souls who MUST get the last word!

Like I said, he's been dealt with, and it's there for all to see. Don't worry about him. His biggest problem is himself.

Not related to topic: Here's a message for Stony (you know who you are). Thanks for the 2 emails and the music, but your address is now bouncing. Try again and include your mobile no. as well. I'm off again in 3 days time, and it's a 8 month trip this time, for once we'll include Ghana. Hoping you'll see this in the next day, as I've lost all contact details and I'll need the phone number because I'll not be accessing the internet at all while away. Good luck with the audition.

SallyG:"such a quote doesn't exist, anywhere in any of the posts by JW"

Now that IS interesting, becasue the post most certainly did exist and it was by JW. In fact, it appears to have been removed, no doubt at JW's request. It was in the thread "My Partner made me fat" and there are the following replies referring to a post by JW that seems to have disappeared:

1. From GrahamY:"Come on JW, I doubt that it has anything to do with the lack or otherwise of a y chromosome. I'm sure I've got a Y chromosome and I've never been shy of looking after my health.

I think the reasons that men are less likely to police their health than women have to do with the work pressures that are put on them, combined with the risk-taking bravado that characterises many male social groupings - the sort of thing that turns drinking from a social occupation into a competitive sport. So you don't want to appear a sissy by being too picky about the risky behaviour you undertake, it might lower your score.

Another reason is that doctors are always running late, and tend to be most available during work hours. A combination of factors that means men are less likely to go to see one. I combat at least one of them by ringing up 30 minutes before my appointment to see how late the doctor is running. Makes the visit a little more manageable.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 29 August 2008 10:54:59 AM"

cont

2. This from Bronwyn:
"JW

"What is it about men and the way so many of them neglect their health?"

[deleted for brevity]

Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 29 August 2008 11:08:56 AM"

Perhaps the moderators might like to respond to the question of why that post of JW's was deleted?

JW:"I'll not be accessing the internet at all"

And you've no doubt got lots of other lies you'd like to tell us about yourself as well, all in the name of having nothing "that is private or secret", of course.

I wonder what a search of the forum's IP address logs might show up about where JW works? Anybody like to place a little wager?

JW thanks for the clarification. I'm still wondering about the plural aspect of your comment but if that the result of a typo during a rushed post then fine.

I've not worked out how much of your conflict with antiseptic flows from elsewhere, I have the impression that it may be be a considerable portion. I've posted some comments on the DV thread to Fractelle which put my position regarding Antiseptic and Usual Suspect. If you have an interest in the issues around privacy and CSA may I suggest that you leave off the attacks on antiseptic and talk about how you think it should work. I'd like to see what changes if antiseptic (and Usual Suspect if he's still around) were not under regular personal attack but rather debated on what was actually said in their posts.

Do you think that there are real benefits in providing details which some do consider private to people who may already be in conflict? Is the risk for increased harm worth the potential benefit.

Are there ways of providing privacy and still allowing for some kind of check of the credibility of claims made. A third party interviewing both parties perhaps?

R0bert

R0bert:"Are there ways of providing privacy and still allowing for some kind of check of the credibility of claims made. A third party interviewing both parties perhaps?"

The fact is that the vast majority of CSA collections are based entirely of formula assessments. To that end, there is no need for anyone to have any information other than taxable income as defined in the tax act.

The problems with CSA inevitably arise when a custodial parent decides she needs to file a Change of Assessment application. At that point, the formula is thrown out and an entirely unaccountable and bogus process is set in motion, the outcome of which is a higher-than-formula, but nonetheless "valid" assessment that remains "valid" even when it is demonstrably wrong. The Agency has (had possibly, the winds of change are blowing) a whole section devoted to covering up objections by those who feel ill-used by this process.

JW, if she is who I suspect she may be, was a key member of that Change of Assessment Team, charged with making determinations under the Act, but instead choosing to create dodgy stitch-ups of non-custodial parents time after time. Her only interest in Privacy is hiding behind it to remain unaccountable, as her risible efforts here clearly demonstrate.

Wow,I have been gone for a a while and look what I`ve come back to.RObert you and I are on the same page yet again,I like yourself would never hide anything from CSA,Tax dept etc.My whole point of the matter was to see if anyone else agreed that it was not a good idea for our EX~S to know OUR bussiness.IT was never my intention to deceive anyone.

MY reasons for comming to this forum was for advise as you all seem highly intelligent,and wow did I get some.For the record I am female,I love and respect men,I chose to have my daughter with my ex-husband and my marriage did not work out.Thats just the way it goes,I`m not angry or sad ,you just get on with being a good parent.IT has nothing to do with being male or female.I have not spoken to my ex in seven years,and it is for this reason that I have a problem him knowing about my financial affairs.

There is no dark under lying reason that we dont speak,just that he has a new family now.I should add that my daughter is well loved and cared for,and very happy,oh and Im married.I now hope everyone understands where I am comming from.

Antiseptic you are on the money with your comments.I do wish for a change of assement,my reason for this is not that Iam money hungry but as my ex has not lodged a tax return for five years,his information is a little dated.

I still wish there was a way for me not to have to show my ex my details.

pps I should add that my daughter speaks to her dad on a weekly bases,he is my ex but he will forever be her dad.I just would like his help in raising her through high school,I don`t wont to break his balls.Thanks for reading this.

JW,
I have only read bits of this thread but one things jumps out at me.
Your correct about people using their own names.
Why should people use their own names? What good would that do some ask?
Because if they are too much of a coward to ID themselves then they shouldlnt be involved.

No privacy you are a good person I thank you for coming back to your thread and brightening all our day, mine starts with a smile thanks.
However people against live exports and extensive farming, you would be well aware I do not respond to your posts.
I however read them all.
This morning I found two, time does not exist to read every thread.
While it is your view we should all give our names can you for a second think.
Why?
And please stop the rubbish it is a sign of weakness not to do so, in forums such as this all over the world it is not done.
You and I will always differ, it is my firm honest view you have no respect for any view other than your own, your early morning posts this morning seem purely combative.
I have no intent to insult or provoke you , none to get involved in a debate with you just a wish that threads not be used to do so.

As usual, the poor lasses from PALE are struggling with reality.

PALE:"JW,
I have only read bits of this thread but one things jumps out at me.
Your correct about people using their own names."

If you read this thread, you will see that the dishonest JW and SallyG have gone out of their way to conceal a piece of identifying detail aposted by JW about herself that contradicted her own lies. She wanted OTHER people to reveal their names, while she did her very poor best to conceal her own

No privacy, I do see where you're coming from. Unfortunately, the unaccountable CSA may well be a reason for your ex's behaviour. In my own case I was happy to pay a reasonable amount of CS and did so for some years. Where it all went wrong was when the ex decided to ask for a change of assessment. That was the point at which JW got involved and decided to try to stitch me up with an assessment based on "capacity to earn" as she determined it, resulting in an assessment based on an income some 25% greater than I was actually earning, leaving me unable to meet basic living costs. the real problem was that she completely failed to justify her determination of my earning capacity and the Agency swung in behind her to try to bully me into compliance. As those who know my history here will attest, I don't take kindly to bullies and I especially dislike cowardly bullies who won't take any personal responsibility for their actions. Needless to say, the situation deteriorated, with me refusing to pay anything in the end until they fixed their errors. I might add that all this took place just as my ex decided that she needed more custody of the children, presumably to increase her claim on Govt support and CS.

My point is that if my ex had simply come to me and negotiated, we'd all be better off. By delegating her own part in the negotiation to the CSA she gave away her right to influence the outcome. The matter became something that was between me and the CSA, not between me and her. My recommendation is to discuss things with your ex, because if you don't and he is in a position to make things difficult for the CSA, you may well end up with a non-result and you'll still have to deal with the CSA.

If it helps, the new CS legislation requires all parties to a CS matter to lodge tax returns annually.

I've now realised what antiseptic did, and how he's manipulated the people here.

He's a bit smarter than I gave him credit for initially. Initially, when I looked up his quote by JW, I assumed antiseptic made it all up, because when I checked there was no such post by JW. Therefore, I assumed antiseptic falsified the entire quote and that he didn't expect anyone to check up on him.

Let's go to the beginning. What was antiseptic's reason for the presence of the quote in his post? It was to show that JW was a woman, after JW said in a post here that he was a man. that's it. That's the ONLY reason for antiseptic's insertion of a JW quote, a quote that JW did not fully write himself by the way. As everyone here knows, you can get posts deleted after they've been posted. Many posts are deleted, for many reasons.

What antiseptic has done is this. While checking JW's history, he's inadvertently come across a situation where it's obvious JW has had a post deleted. He knows this because of the replies to JW's post by forum members. They even quoted things that JW said in the deleted post. Now, what better way to defame another forum member is there than to invent just a few words, the beginning of the quote where JW implies he has a "husband", and then finish the quote with some of the real JW phrases quoted by other forum members. These would be the "real" quotes written by the "real" JW.

This is a great plan invented by antiseptic. It would be almost impossible for JW to argue against. Antiseptic has shown he HATES and REVILES a particular woman at the CSA. Because JW has the same initials as this woman he's been CONTINUALLY casting doubt on the honesty of that poster and claims the poster is really his hated woman at the CSA. It's yet ANOTHER conspiracy theory from antiseptic.

But just having a conspiracy theory is not enough for antiseptic.

He goes further and falsifies missing posts.

CONTINUED..

I've now realised what antiseptic did, and how he's manipulated the people here.

He's a bit smarter than I gave him credit for initially. Initially, when I looked up his quote by JW, I assumed antiseptic made it all up, because when I checked there was no such post by JW. Therefore, I assumed antiseptic falsified the entire quote and that he didn't expect anyone to check up on him.

Let's go to the beginning. What was antiseptic's reason for the presence of the quote in his post? It was to show that JW was a woman, after JW said in a post here that he was a man. That's it. That's the ONLY reason for antiseptic's insertion of a JW quote, a quote that JW did not fully write himself by the way. As everyone here knows, you can get posts deleted after they've been posted. Many posts are deleted, for many reasons.

What antiseptic has done is this. While checking JW's history, he's inadvertently come across a situation where it's obvious JW has had a post deleted. He knows this because of the replies to JW's post by forum members. They even quoted things that JW said in the deleted post. Now, what better way to defame another forum member is there than to invent just a few words, the beginning of the quote where JW implies he has a "husband", and then finish the quote with some of the real JW phrases quoted by other forum members. These would be the "real" quotes written by the "real" JW.

This is a great plan invented by antiseptic. It would be almost impossible for JW to argue against. Antiseptic has shown he HATES and REVILES a particular woman at the CSA. Because JW has the same initials as this woman he's been CONTINUALLY casting doubt on the honesty of that poster and claims the poster is really his hated woman at the CSA. It's yet ANOTHER conspiracy theory from antiseptic.

But just having a conspiracy theory is not enough for antiseptic.

He goes further and falsifies missing posts.

CONTINUED..

**Sorry for the double posts above.**

It took a day or two to figure out what antiseptic's really done, as it was a sneaky and involved plan. I guess we can now see why authorities would throw up their hands when dealing with antiseptic.

I've also seen that antiseptic wrote that his partner should have just come straight to him to negotiate child support, and then all their troubles would be over. NO THEY WOULDN'T. He seems such a controlling and manipulative man, and dealing directly with his partner would put him in the box seat to exert even more **CONTROL**.

I reckon that's why she went to the CSA instead of him. Can anyone really blame her?

SallyG, I've had enough of your dishonesty. GrahamY himself said that the post existed and he deleted it. Are you suggesting Graham is lying to back me up?

SallyG:"What was antiseptic's reason for the presence of the quote in his post? It was to show that JW was a woman, after JW said in a post here that he was a man. that's it. That's the ONLY reason for antiseptic's insertion of a JW quote"

Yep, that about sums it up. JW claimed to be a man and I showed where she claimed to be a woman. That would make her a liar. See, it's not that hard, is it?

SallyG:"a quote that JW did not fully write himself by the way."

Oh, I see, the post didn't exist, but if it did, she didn't write it. LOL, my kids learnt not to try that on some years back and they're not teenagers yet. Perhaps you might tell us who you imagine DID write it?

SallyG:"He seems such a controlling and manipulative man"

I imagine showing you and your little friend to be entirely dishonest would make you say that. Tell us again about credibility, hon.

SallyG:"he's inadvertently come across a situation where it's obvious JW has had a post deleted"

No, I copied from the post, then it was deleted. JW was embarrassed to have been caught out so easily and tried to cover her tracks by having it deleted. See, it's still easy to follow.

Would you like me to ask GrahamY to confirm the sequence of events? I'm sure he can even tell us what time JW's email asking him to remove it was sent.

Just go away Sally, you're a liar and not even a good one.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Didn't you even bother to read my post?

Well, of course not.

Your first paragraph shows how accusatory and manipulative you are. Because, in my post I actually said the POST EXISTED, and I actually said the post WAS DELETED. Therefore, I couldn't possibly be saying Graham is lying about the post's existence and deletion.

You are sooooooooooooooooooo manipulative.

I've reached my post limit, and unfortunately that gives you the opportunity to continue unabated for another 24 hours with your personal attacks against, and criminal accusations against, CSA employees.

This is the post that JW had deleted, in its entirety:

"My husband and I have always done our own thing when it comes to eating. He's quite um...large, while I'm pretty skinny. I keep telling him he'll die young while I'll live to a happy and healthy old age, but he doesn't want to listen. What is it about men and the way so many of them neglect their health? Maybe it's a chromosome abnormality."

Posted by JW, Friday, 29 August 2008 2:18:41 AM

I have made no additions or deletions to the post as it was posted to OLO.

Oh dear me, he's still trying to get in the last word.

Here's a quote written by antiseptic,

"I despise all women who disagree with my opinions. If a woman agrees with me then she's a fine example of womanhood"

Posted by antiseptic, Saturday, 30 August 2008 9:24:46 AM

Just because I typed in a quote, does this mean antiseptic REALLY posted that? NO

Let's say he did post it, hypothetically, but he really wrote that he loved all women no matter what. Could I re-write the quote as I have above, putting my own words/interpretation in? Yes I could. In fact I did.

Anyone can type in a so-called quote. Doubt has been cast upon the accuracy of antiseptic's JW quote.

As I've shown ANYONE can type ANY quote and say that someone else is responsible for that quote, and that the quote is word perfect. It can't be "proven" otherwise, when the quote no longer exists.

I tend to believe SallyG's version of events. She says the quote existed, was deleted, that antiseptic typed with his own hand a very similar quote and altered it marginally. Is that you're suggesting SallyG? It seems to be.

Hang on Sally G, as it says in one of my posts I re read every one of JWs posts.
Startled by what I saw as pure venom from her I tried to work her out.
Those words did appear in her post.
However I truly am unsure is it her or him?
I note you told us one of us was a sock puppet, that is using two different sign ins.
No insult intended but that private message JW posted in this thread and some other actions make me question are there more than one of her/him?

Thanks Belly,you made me smile too.Whats going on ,and why is everyone so angry.I think your all great.Just when I think I know whats going on,someone throws a spanner in the ring and I get all confused again lol.

phillips:"Doubt has been cast upon the accuracy of antiseptic's JW quote."

No, it hasn't. Doubt has been cast on the sanity of SallyG, however. In fact, I'll correct myself; there is no doubt that SallyG's sanity is marginal. There is equally no doubt that JW is a liar, just as there is no doubt that you yourself are a few neurons short of a full cerebral complement.

phillips:"It can't be "proven" otherwise, when the quote no longer exists"

I refer you to the moderator's coments. He is the one who removed it and his comment was: "Forrest Gump, I removed the quote. It did exist."

Thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight.

Just so there's no confusion and in case it slipped past those lonely neurons floating in the void that passes for your mind, JW asked for the post to be removed after I quoted from it because it clearly showed her to be a liar. Her efforts and those of both SallyG and yourself since have only confirmed that she is also stupid. Well done.

Now, here he goes again, if someone shows that he manipulated a quote he then throws juvenile accusations of insanity. That's a typical controlling behaviour exerted by abusive people, especially within the sphere of domestic violence.

We should note that antiseptic lied (yet again) in his above post. By quoting the moderator as saying "I removed the quote. It did exist", antiseptic is attempting to IMPLY that when he manually typed his reproduction of the quote, he did not alter it. My claim, as antiseptic very well knows, is NOT that the quote didn't exist. My claim is that antiseptic altered it slightly, in order to say what the original quote did NOT say. The moderator did **NOT** say that antiseptic typed a word perfect reproduction of the quote. All he said was "I removed the quote. It did exist". EVERYBODY knows that.

Antiseptic KNOWS that nobody can PROVE he altered that quote slightly. So he feels on safe ground.

I refer yet again to GrahamY:"Forrest Gump, I removed the quote. It did exist."

SallyG:"Antiseptic KNOWS that nobody can PROVE he altered that quote slightly"

Nobody sane would make the accusation. Feel free to take the matter up with the site moderators. Expect much derision.

Antiseptic + other posters

Thats the whole point really isnt it.
If we all used our real names there would not be a problem.

All I can say Anti everything is if I had to put my money on whos telling the truth- due to experience with you on OLO my money goes to the other ponies!

I still cant understand WHY you accused on a public forum our organisation of offering you a BRIBE-

This was based on the fact we said quote
Anti IF you are really interested to help animals we would be happy to assist with a small amount of funding. ie Computers. net connection paper etc.

From THAT you said we offered you a 'bribe!?

So you dont get our vote as a honest person- or a very nice one either.

Shame on You

PALE & IF:"if I had to put my money on whos telling the truth- due to experience with you on OLO my money goes to the other ponies!"

I merely reiterate yet again what the site moderator stated:":"Forrest Gump, I removed the quote. It did exist."

Take it up with GrahamY or your psychiatrist. I know which one will give you more time and it's not necessarily the one you'd get the most benefit from listening to.

PALE & IF:" still cant understand WHY you accused on a public forum our organisation of offering you a BRIBE"

Because you did. Glad to have sorted that out. If you've any further questions, I charge by the hour, just like your psychiatrist.

It seems unlikely that Graham would state that he had removed a post which has been quoted elsewhere if that quote was a misrepresentation of the content of the post. I assume that the site would maintain a copy of deleted posts for auditing purposes and for legal protection and if thats the case Graham would have access to the original.

It's possible that Graham has just checked the date of the post and noted that one was removed but given the contention over the content it seems unlikely.

I'd rather the thread move on from a focus on JW and Antiseptic and look for better alternatives to disclosure of personal details to ex's.

No Privacy, welcome back. Thanks for the info on your situation.

R0bert

Robert, I bet Graham doesn't remember the EXACT wording of the deleted post. There's probably nothing more he can do than state an original post existed and that the post was deleted. Like I said, everyone knows that now. I suspect antiseptic has been contacting Graham and complaining for all he's worth, and trying with his usual manipulative ways to engage Graham's support. I'm sure Graham throws up his hands every time antiseptic complains about people who don't share "his" opinions and complains about those who engage in the same behaviours here that "he" engages in. I believe in free speech, and won't contact a moderator or forum owner no matter how much manipulation someone like antiseptic uses.

Antiseptic has been shown to be a liar, and that's where it rests. I'm glad to have cleared that up.

SallyG:"I bet Graham doesn't remember the EXACT wording of the deleted post."

I refer you to GrahamY's words:"Forrest Gump, I removed the quote. It did exist."

Thanks for the opportunity of clearing that up for you.

SallyG:"I believe in free speech, and won't contact a moderator or forum owner"

If only because you know that he will confirm my statements. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to make that clarification, I'm sure everyone appreciates it.

Sally, I'm not privy to the back end workings of OLO but my guess is that a deleted post would be kept somewhere in case it became the subject of a legal dispute. The exact wording of a post, the details of who posted it and how long it was visible on the site could be significant issues in a variety of legal scenario's.

I'd rather not buy into the dispute between you and Antiseptic but I don't see the evidence supporting Antiseptic having lied. I'd expect Graham to have given a different response if he did not know that the quote was correct but that's an assumption, I don't know for sure.

I've made my point elsewhere that I'd rather Antiseptic and those who don't enjoy conflict with him try different approaches. To try giving the other the benefit of the doubt a bit more often and see what that changes. To focus on the topic rather than the personalities (with me posting an off topic post yet again).

The original topic was about privacy and CSA, do you have any ideas on how some verification of detail can achieved without passing on financial details to ex's?

R0bert

R0bert:"do you have any ideas on how some verification of detail can achieved without passing on financial details to ex's?"

The detail will be in the tax return. The law now requires all parties to a CS matter to lodge tax returns in a timely manner, thereby largely eliminating the need for the ex to know details other than gross personal taxable income. If a company is used to hide personal income, rather than as a vehicle to allow income to be earned, that's a matter for the tax commissioner, not the CSA. I'm sure he is ever vigilant for that sort of thing.

As it stands, the ex is able to use the CSA as a weapon for the mere cost of a phone call and the filling out of a couple of forms. I see no reason for my ex to know anything at all of my affairs, for all that things are relatively peaceful now.

Antiseptic, "I see no reason for my ex to know anything at all of my affairs, for all that things are relatively peaceful now."

Agreed but I also recognise that some people do lie to the tax department and CSA. I assume that passing on the details to an ex is designed to give the ex opportunity to protest - claiming an income of low $20ks and living in a luxury waterfront apartment etc. The assumption is that the tax department will miss stuff that an interested party might know.

In theory people could reverse the formula to work out the taxable income but many would lack the maths skills to do that reliably. They could also get estimates on the value of a property by persuing it elsewhere.

I don't like the system in the first place nor do I like the assumptions about responsibility it makes but if we have the system and responsibility is based on earnings then how can that be made to work while respecting peoples privacy and minimising the causes of conflict between the parties?

Robert

All people do not declare their full income in tax returns. For someone wishing to hide income, a tax return is their best weapon against a former spouse or partner, for obvious reasons. Other people often know that the person is really earning much more. If a so called evader has nothing to hide, then let him/her reveal full details of tax return declared earnings to partners, where child support issues are relevant. Privacy? What rubbish! You sure are a secretive bunch aren't you. Hmmm.

If a former partner, or anybody else for that matter, knows or suspects someone is hiding income from the authorities regarding child support issues, then they have the legal responsibility to bring such matters to notice. It doesn't matter whether it's the custodial, joint custodial or non custodial parent.

The evaders and whingers will complain, but who cares? Only they care. Care about themselves that is, and their unresolved squabbles with their ex's. Their children come second.

I am happy to have cleared that up for you Robert and antiseptic/austin powerless.

samsung, no need to clear up any confusion. Antiseptic and I are both well aware that you are focussed on point scoring and not the least interested in honest discussion of the issues.

For those who are interested honest people also care about their privacy at times, they don't necessarily consider that providing their financial details to a third party is of any benefit to their children, more likely the potential for increased conflict with an ex resulting from such disclosure will be detrimental to their children rather than helpful.

R0bert

Antiseptic,i wish i could negotiate with my ex,but he is not that easy to talk to,and all that would come from it is yet more dramas.I would rather bite my arm off than talk to him one on one.Antiseptic you are wright and I know this would be the easiest solution but I guess I`m stubborn in that way.

Samsung,One could only wish that all you needed to do was to lodge a tax return and all our problems would be solved,not.I was told by tht tax department that unless you owed them money you dont have to lodge a return as they are more than happy to keep your money in there coffers,I dont know how true that is.

I dont see why I have to lodge a change of assesment form anyway ,the CSA have on more than one occasion said that these forms needed to be lodged.Why cant they just do it on my behalf.I feel that I`m being bullied into it.

Lets say I do what they ask,I have two mortgages,(I work 2 jobs and my parents have past away)does this mean I should get less support if my ex is renting?.I own my 97 celica,if my ex has a car on hp is that another strike for me.Why does my ex need to know how much I owe on my mortgages does he make the final decision? I hope not.This whole thing is a joke.

They wonder why the mums and dads end up hateing each other,there is no point in giving this kind of information.In a perfect world all these cases would be made on an individual bases.I cant see how they can make these poor men and women pay these huge child support payments while others pay none.I thought that the CSA was all about supporting one another,and moving forward not keeping us stuck in the past.

Hi RObert,glad to be back,thanks.You always seem to have a calming influence on everyone.

no privacy, thanks but obviously not calming on everybody. I probably should not have bothered responding to samsung, a poor choice on my part playing his or her game.

My understanding is that not owing tax is not an excuse to avoid filing a tax return, they generally don't penalise you for late returns if they owe you money but you are still required to file one.

In theory CSA are trying to balance capacity to support children against needs, they can take circumstances into account. What they do is probably designed for the most part with good intentions in mind. They are also trying to reduce the welfare burden on the taxpayer by trying to get the maximum out of payers that they can and presumably meeting some performance targets for their own reporting.

My overall view is that the cost in prolonging and or creating conflict, contributing to income reducing behaviours by both payers and payees and the impact on child residency arrangements makes the whole thing far more harmful than helpful.

R0bert

I come back to the thread a bit like RObert I know I should let it lay.
But with total honesty I think evidence exists of tag team posting in this thread.
And one poster pretended to miss understand one of my posts on purpose to gain ammunition for further insults.
Just maybe some who post here know each other elsewhere.
Some true nit picking has taken place and it has every sign of being controlled.
Privacy, well it is a right we all claim, but under attack on every front.
Remember the Aussie card? I fought my party on that one every day, and celebrated its defeat.
I still fight for the right to not see privacy lost, even my party.
Some times my drivers license is demanded as proof of who I am.
Only a police officer will see it from me ,ten other cards I will show but that document has long ago lost its use as proof of age.
Nit picking does not win the debate, it however highlights that some come here to do so not debate.

Belly

I am a liitle tired of your complaints on each thread we comment on that we have done so.
We made 'one' comment unlike you.
Well may bullying be part of the trade union movement but it wont work with us.
We will post on any threads we see fit.
Just as YOU do.

Well said Belly ,well said.

no privacy, I'm sorry that you and your ex can't settle things. Having been in a similar position, I can only sympathise. However, I'd strongly urge you to try to work it out without the CSA. The price you may pay for handing over your authority to them is potentially far greater than any benefit that may accrue. It would be preferable to engage solicitors to intermediate if you can't talk face-to-face.

On the tax issue, the new CS laws make it an offence for anyone with an active CS matter to lodge returns annually. I've not yet investigated whether the authority to enforce lies with the CSA General Manager or the Tax Commissioner. I'll have a look later.

The CSA want you to initiate a Section 6B (CoA) application because it greatly expands their authority to act. It also allows them to throw out the formula and make up figures willy-nilly, which can then only be disputed in Court, thereby increasing everyone's costs and potentially preventing some people from challenging their determination for want of available funds to do so. Your ex's car is of no relevance, hp or no, and nor is your mortgage. Failing your lodgement of the CoA application, all is based on gross taxable income.

I can also only agree with your comment about the CSA keeping people in the past. The effects are overwhelmingly negative.

PALE only a group like yours could find any reason, any at all, to think I was in any way referring to you.
I am unsurprised by your miss understanding of my post.
But lets clear this up.
Long ago I came to the conclusion you and I need not communicate with one another.
I intend to stick with that.
But had to defend myself against your false claim.
Rest easy, while I did not agree with a single word you posted in this thread.
I at no time thought you to be part of my alleged tag team.

I've given him some time now to think about it, but I see that antiseptic still has not answered any questions about him providing proof (not mere "accusations") about CSA illegality, despite REPEATED requests. That says it all! I'm happy to have had the opportunity to clear that up.

Antiseptic's altering of that infamous quote has never once been denied by the person who deleted it, Graham. Graham has 'only' said "a quote existed and I deleted it". That also says it all. Glad to have cleared that up as well.

I've just noticed a few pages ago that antiseptic is still up to his old tricks of attempted manipulation. He's now accused the PALEIF people of directly offering him a "bribe". I invite anyone to go back and read the "bribe" posts, and you'll see what an obnoxious drama queen antiseptic has become. He's one "Calamity Jane" after another, a real self obsessed "victim". In one thread, just on thread, he's accused the CSA of illegality, accused a poster here of posting under false pretences to hide their employment with CSA, falsified a past quote and accused PALEIF of attempting to bribe him. Yes people, as usual, that says it all! I'm happy to have cleard that up too.

Yes indeed, now that it's all cleared up, we can now move on.

But, I wonder if "you know who", with veins bursting, will rush in to provide yet another of his "last word" attempts?

SillyG:"a quote existed"

Actually, what he said was "Forrest Gump, the quote existed. I deleted it."

You'll not the use of the definite article by GrahamY in relation to THE quote. I'd be happy to provide a short tutorial on the difference between the indefinite and definite article if it helps.

Don't you get tired of looking stupid, Silly? No? As you were, then.

HA HA! I knew it. He just loves trying to get in the "last word", doesn't he.

And true to form, all he offers is his usual juvenile language and sly insults.

Just imagine what his three ex partners had to put up with.

But he loves to paint himself as a victim, and will continue to do so, while at the same time making malicious allegations against people. All bullies see themselves as the "victim". He still refuses to provide proof of his most malicious allegations yet....the alleged CSA employees use of illegality. He will never answer that, because he CAN'T.

Oh dear, those poor ex partners. Hey Glenn, wouldn't it be interesting to have them come here and tell THEIR side of the story; we've only heard YOUR side so far.

SillyG:"sly insults"

Poor Silly

It's most revealing to see that he STILL refuses to provide PROOF of his malicious lies and false allegations regarding the criminality of certain CSA employees.

He CONTINUALLY refuses to do this, obviously because he CAN'T.

I'm so happy that I could be of assistance and glad that the matter is now clearly visible and understood.

SillyG:"the criminality of certain CSA employees"

Thanks for bringing that up, Silly, it's a fact that bears repeating.

He again, continues to display a propensity for malicious and false allegations against the CSA (just like his drama queen PALEIF bribery allegation), without being man enough to provide any PROOF whatsoever.

A TOTALLY cowardly act, done from the safety of web anonymity.

Now that that's all cleared up, let's move on.

Antiseptic/austin powerless has spent nearly 20 pages so far refusing to answer the question put by SallyG and others. You'd think he'd be embarrassed to put his name to it all. Hang on: He hasn't has he! You're right SallyG, being anonymous here has turned our poor, hapless little victim into a raging bull, in front of the computer screen at least.

He can make any charge, against anyone or any organisation he wishes, and feel safe in the belief that he'll never, ever, be obliged to support fake charges with proof of illegal actions. I bet that makes him feel powerful. He now possesses the power, supported by anonymity, that he didn't possess during his three failed relationships. All this rubbish he writes is his revenge; that's all he's capable of; false charges supported by his anonymous presence here without any obligation to prove his charges.

phillips:"the question put by SillyG and others"

Who are SillyG and "others" to demand answers from me? Let's see some ID from you too, for that matter, lovey.

I'm sure JW can help you out with all the answers you like; she's good at making up stories.

Antiseptic/austinpowerless continues to avoid offering even one tiny bit of proof to back up his malicious claims of illegal activity within the CSA. He's been asked probably 30 or so times to provide proof, and on 30 or so occasions he's refused.

He's clearly a contemptable liar.

phillips, you and others have been making demands of me that you are unwilling to live up to yourself. Who are you to demand (anonymously) that I reveal anything at all about myself to you?

If you and your dishonest friend JW wish this to be finalised, go to your boss in the CSA and tell him to subpoena Graham's records. Be sure to tell him why, won't you? After he finishes laughing at you, he'll tell you that the Agency will have no part of my matter, largely because JW made such a mess of the simple task she was given. But then, you already know that, don't you dear? Keep chewing that "Belgian chocolate". You must be used to the taste by now.

The dishonest antiseptic has yet to provide one bit of proof that the CSA adopted illegal behaviour.

He's been asked, page after page after page after page after page, to provide that proof. He's decided not to provide proof. He can't provide proof, because there is none! Nobody is supporting him here with his dishonest CSA allegations, conspiracy theories that anybody who opposes him here must be a CSA employee and his bribery claims against PALEIF: NOT ONE PERSON. It's easy to see why.

Antiseptic comes across as a self obsessed, dishonest jerk.

SillyG:"a self obsessed, dishonest jerk"

Poor SIlly. Even with your best imaginative efforts, that "Belgian chocolate" still tastes like poo, doesn't it? You should never have tried to wash it down with a cup of bile, hon.

The dishonest and lying antiseptic has yet, after 21 pages, to provide one bit of "proof" that the CSA adopted illegal behaviour in their dealings with him.

Poor Silly, that bile really does taste bad, doesn't it?

The dishonest and lying antiseptic has yet, after 21 pages, to provide even one tiny bit of "proof" that the CSA adopted illegal behaviour in their dealings with him.

SillyG:"the CSA adopted illegal behaviour in their dealings with him."

So you keep saying, Silly. Sometimes it was simple incompetence, other times deliberate dishonesty, others an effort to cover up that dishonesty. Your friend JW managed both the first two and was corruptly protected by more senior staff. As you point out, that's illegal.

The dishonest and lying antiseptic "KNOWS" he is "only" being challenged on his claims of CSA illegality.

The dishonest and lying antiseptic has yet, after 22 pages, to disclose even one tiny bit of "proof" regarding CSA illegality in their dealings with him. That says it all!

SillyG:"CSA illegality"

The CSA is perfectly legal, Silly, if also perfectly unnecessary. Surely you're not suggesting otherwise?

In fact, if your friend JW had not been so incompetent and dishonest and the culture of the CSA in Qld so corrupted under the Regional Registrar of the time, the CSA and I would have no problems at all.

Sadly, your obvious problems would still exist, I fear.

Within the ENTIRE 22 pages of this topic, the dishonest and lying antiseptic has yet to disclose even one tiny bit of "proof" of CSA illegality in their dealings with him. That says everything!

I'm happy to have had the opportunity to clear that up.

SillyG:"CSA illegality"

As you keep pointing out, Silly, the CSA's actions are disgraceful. Why don't you write a letter to Matt Miller and tell him why? I'm sure JW has filled you in on all the details.

By the way, Silly, we've not seen your lying friend JW since she showed herself to be dishonest and then tried to cover it up by having a post deleted. I do hope she's not been disciplined for misuse of CSA resources, the silly sausage?

The dishonest and lying antiseptic continues to refuse to provide on these public pages... "proof". "Proof" that the CSA conducted illegal behaviour towards him.

That certainly says it all. Antiseptic = dishonest and lying.

I'm so happy to again have had the opportunity to clear that up.

I've given the dishonest and lying antiseptic a few more hours to provide "proof" of his allegations.

But of course, the dishonest and lying antiseptic continues to display an INCAPACITY, both on this topic and the violence against women topic, to publicly back up his false allegations with "proof" that the CSA broke the law in their dealings with him. He can't do that because there is NO proof, as he very well knows.

Antiseptic = dishonest.
Antiseptic = a liar.

I don't know Antiseptics case details but some coverage of alleged CSA breaches of their responsibilities can be found at

http://www.mensrights.com.au/1cs6-02.doc

R0bert

Firstly, that link is from a "mens rights" group. No different from the radi-fems groups. Both are full of wackos. Both have no credibility.

All examples in the radi-mens link are "alleged", and NO defence whatsoever of the allegations is presented. Totally biased, one sided and no credibility.

No criminal behaviour is cited.

Your defense of the dishonest and lying antiseptic via this method is pathetic.



The dishonest and lying antiseptic continues to display an INCAPACITY to publicly back up his false allegations with "proof" that the CSA broke the law in their dealings with him. He can't do that because there is NO proof, as he very well knows.

Antiseptic = dishonest
Antiseptic = a liar.

Sally, no attempt was made to hide the source of the article. I don't often quote from mens group sites because of the point you make but in regard to an issue like this they are likely to be the only ones covering it. Would you attack a woman who posted a link to an article on a womans group site for doing so?

Your carry on over at least two threads and a long period attacking Antiseptic because he won't dance to your tune is seriously off. Based on the extremes you went to in accusing Antiseptic of lying over the earlier quote from JW I doubt that anything he could do here would make the least difference to your mindset anyway.

Firstly you accused Antiseptic of fabricating the whole thing then when Graham pointed out that the post existed you decided that he had noted the details of a post, posted a misquote from it and by good fortune the original was deleted. No backing off based on your earlier claims being shown to be false, no acknowledgement that Grahams post appeared to suggest that Antiseptic's quote might have been legit.

Antiseptic has mostly replied to your obsessive carry on with good humour.

Many of us who have dealt with CSA have formed the opinion that they don't always act ethically or in the best interests of children or clients. I tried on a number of occasions to get them to confirm in writing that they had the legal authority which they were claiming in spoken conversations and they pointedly failed to do so. They refered to other legal authority in written responses but ignored the specific authority I'd refered to.

I've not had recent dealings with them but when I have they have not allow recording of conversations or third parties as witnesses to meetings. The people I've dealt with from CSA have not disclosed full names. They protect themselves from "evidence" of the kind you claim to want.

Why are you so bothered by Antiseptics claims regarding CSA?

R0bert

(1) It's got nothing to do with "dancing to anyone's tune". It's got everything to do with "honest" allegations backed up with proof. Antiseptic's allegations of criminality are dishonest. He knows that, and it's why he can't provide "proof".

(2)Graham's post did NOT suggest in any way that Antiseptic was right. That's a mischievous misrepresentation of Graham's post. Graham merely said a post existed and he deleted it.....and Graham is correct. A post DID exist and it WAS deleted. It's the **CONTENT** of the post that was debated and NOT the fact it existed and was deleted. DUH!

(3)Yes, antiseptic has replied to my request seeking "proof". But what you "conveniently" ignore is the fact that he has totally avoided the request by NOT providing "proof", so in reality he shows an incapacity to answer the actual question asked. He doesn't address the actual question asked (to provide "proof on this public forum, the same forum where he made his false allegations), because he CAN'T answer it.

(4)I'm concerned about antiseptic's false charges of criminal acts because of his earlier statements regarding his situation with his 3 ex partners, children, child maintenance and the CSA interaction. His words had a ring of "revenge" about them. BUT, if he had answered directly and honestly, the questions asked of him regarding the authentication of his allegations, then that would have simply been the end of the matter, regardless of the reply. He chose not to address the actual questions asked and instead embarked on a ritual of juvenile sarcasm and personal abuse. He has not been able to get away with that because people here have challenged him.

And finally the most important thing of all.....

(5)The dishonest and lying antiseptic continues to display an INCAPACITY to publicly back up his false allegations with "proof" that the CSA broke the law in their dealings with him.
Antiseptic = dishonest
Antiseptic = a liar.

Sally you are misquoting Graham. "Graham merely said a post existed and he deleted it."

His post which appears to refer to the post Antiseptic referenced is at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153&page=0#47350

"Forrest Gump, I removed the quote. It did exist.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 9 October 2008 3:01:27 PM"

The plain meaning is that Antiseptic's post was accurate. Not a post, "the quote".

You have not proven that Antiseptic has told any lies, just that he does not choose to post proof of his claims on this forum. We have seen credible proof of Antiseptic's earlier claim on this forum and you chose to disregard that proof in favor of a more unlikely scenario.

If you have proof that Antiseptic has lied post it, if you consider that he lacks the proof it's fair to point that out and maybe even to prompt from time to time when similar claims are made. To effectively kill off two threads with large numbers of repeated unsubstantiated claims that Antiseptic is lying interupts more useful discussions and makes it look as though you have an unspoken agenda.

Many users of these forums choose not to post identifying details for a variety of reasons. That does not in my estimation make them any more prone to telling lies than those happily identify themselves.

You have repeatedly called Antiseptc a liar, by your own standards the onus is on you to prove those claims and his failure to respond in the way you think he should does not constitute proof.

R0bert

Poor obsessive illiterate Silly, still unable to understand the difference between the definite article and an indefinite one, not to mention the difference between a quote and a post. I quote GrahamY: "Forrest Gump, the quote existed. I deleted it". Do ask someone to explain what GrahamY meant by that statement, won't you?

Poor sad obsessed Silly.

SillyG:"He doesn't address the actual question asked (to provide "proof on this public forum, the same forum where he made his false allegations), because he CAN'T answer it"

If I did do so, I would be in breach of the CSActs, which expressly forbid publication of details that may identify third parties. You had the chance to provide your details and your authority to see the information and you chose to just carry on with your obsessive ranting. Poor deluded obsessed Silly.

SillyG:"the CSA broke the law in their dealings with him"

Yes, they did, Silly, thanks for reminding us.

Robert, you have just lied. And you are attempting to misrepresent what Graham "actually" wrote. I'm afraid the "agenda" is "your's".

How did you lie? You said I misquoted Graham, and that's a lie. I wrote "Graham merely said a post existed and he deleted it" I DID NOT QUOTE HIM. What did Graham actually write? He wrote, "I removed the quote it did exist". For your information......."Graham merely said a post existed and he deleted it" MEANS EXACTLY THE SAME AS "I removed the quote it did exist". So Robert, how about dropping your "agenda".

How are you attempting to misrepresent what Graham "actually" wrote? You are falsely implying that Graham wrote that the original post is EXACTLTY the same as antiseptic's altered re-writing of the post.... Graham DID NOT say that. You are putting words in Graham's mouth, words he DID NOT write. Poor Graham must throw up his hands every time antiseptic contacts him in an attempt to manoeuvre an advantage. No wonder Graham wrote a short, sharp and unambiguous post, explaining a post existed and he deleted it. There's no doubt about it......as I have said on numerous occasions a post did exist and it was deleted.

Now to my final point regarding your "agenda". Antiseptic made the allegations of CSA law breaking, and it's up to him to PROVE HIS CASE. He's refused. Robert, you clearly don't give a damn. I guess it doesn't fit your "agenda".

The dishonest and lying antiseptic continues to show an INCAPACITY to publicly back up his false allegations with "proof" that the CSA staff broke the law in their dealings with him.
Antiseptic = dishonest
Antiseptic = a liar.

The dishonest and lying antiseptic now, after 25 pages of denial, now "SUDDENLY" claims that he must not give out information because it "may" identify third parties. He says this after himself identifying several people from the CSA within this topic, accusing them of dishonesty. So he's TOTALLY insincere.

Therefore, the dishonest and lying antiseptic is merely using this as a "tactic" to avoid answering my one question........"provide 'proof' of CSA lawbreaking in their dealings with him". He doesn't give a damn about identifying people.

The dishonest and lying antiseptic continues to show an INCAPACITY to publicly back up his false allegations with "proof" that the CSA staff broke the law in their dealings with him.

Antiseptic = dishonest
Antiseptic = a liar

SillyG:"For your information......."Graham merely said a post existed and he deleted it" MEANS EXACTLY THE SAME AS "I removed the quote it did exist"."

Oh dear, Silly...

SillyG:"CSA staff broke the law in their dealings with him"

You're quite right Silly, they did. Thanks for pointing that out for us.

Seeing antiseptic/austin powerless is too shady to answer the question asked, I will now also continue to ask the question. So:

Antiseptic/austin powerless, how about providing "proof" of your assertion that CSA broke the law with you. You've been asked for about 20 pages to do that, and you've consistently avoided answering the actual question. You stand condemned as a dishonest liar because you can't back up your assertion.

SallyG is correct: Antiseptic/austin powerless=dishonest and Antiseptic/austin powerless=a liar. Antiseptic's little sock puppet now in hiding, austin powerless, knows all about that.

Oh dear, there goes the signalto-noise ratio again.

phillips:"how about providing "proof" of your assertion that CSA broke the law with you"

Give me your name and address and some evidence of your authority to see such proof and it'll be on its way to you like a shot.

Otherwise, you and Silly can sit there sharing your economy-sized cup of bile 'til kingdom come.

Obsessed much, phillips?

Antiseptic/austin powerless has no "proof" that the CSA broke the law with him. He's been asked to provide that proof onto the same public pages he made his public accusations. The sniveling little coward responds to every request with what SallyG described as "juvenile sarcasm", plus avoidance. Antiseptic/austin powerless is doing everything he can to avoid writing the proof onto these pages.

So again: Antiseptic/austin powerless, in your next post type the proof onto these public pages. If you don't, you prove yourself to be exactly what you've been called: Dishonest and a liar.

phillips:"in your next post type the proof onto these public pages. If you don't, you prove yourself to be exactly what you've been called: Dishonest and a liar."

Another one in need of some remedial reading classes.

From my last post:"Give me your name and address and some evidence of your authority to see such proof and it'll be on its way to you like a shot. "

Oh dear, phillips.

Sally you have made very specific allegations about Antiseptics actions at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2162#47407

You have gone to great lengths to demand that Antiseptic back up his claims (when doing so might well breach the law). If you actually do believe that a failure to produce evidence is proof of lying then perhaps you will post the evidence to support the claims made in that post.

For the record saying a post existed and that it was deleted does not mean the same as "I removed the quote. It did exist" when the basis of your claim is that there was a post deleted but not one containing the quote that Antiseptic used. I think that you know the difference.

If you don't consider that you have quoted Graham then I'll withdraw my use of the word quote. You have misrepresented what Graham said in a way that alters the most credible meaning.

R0bert

Hi Droogs,

I have been in "the hole" for a month [like andy in Shawshank]

I was "holed" because I was being so bold as to inform you as to your rights [even though most of you couldn't give a toss]

I have observed some 30 pages of red herrings and complete "forgetfullness" of original complaint

well done chaps, the CSA LOVE ya

Ahh, the dishonest and lying antiseptic's comrade DD has returned. These 2 loonies of the radi-mens rights groups sure have a lot in common. Both are bitter and both resent women who don't share their radi-mens rights opinions. Has anyone visited DD's website? It's a good lesson on how a person can be consumed with bitterness against women. The poor bugger can barely write, his syntax is just as deplorable there as it is here. But these 2 comrades would be surely happy together, girding their loins against anyone who is not a comrade and especially if they're female and not submissive to their will.

Now back to business.

The dishonest and lying antiseptic continues to show an INCAPACITY to publicly, on this page, back up his false allegations with "proof" that the CSA staff broke the law in their dealings with him. He can't do that because there is NO proof, and the dishonest and lying antiseptic knows that.

Antiseptic = dishonest
Antiseptic = a liar.

SillyG:"Now back to business"

Poor obsessed Silly.

SillyG:"CSA staff broke the law in their dealings with him"

Dear me Silly, I do hope you're going to provide proof of your allegation?

Poor obseesed thing.

The dishonest and lying antiseptic continues to display an INCAPACITY to provide on these pages "proof". Proof that the CSA staff broke the law in their dealings with him. He can't do that because there is NO proof, as he very well knows.

Antiseptic = dishonest
Antiseptic = a liar.