"Will/can I achieve a meaningful outcome"?

I want to Maximillon. My complaint UOG:

My complaint is a single situation at the beginning of February when I saw a two-and-a-half-year-old girls little soul crushed, her world ripped apart in a heartbeat. She was taken screaming and terrified, desperately trying to cling to me and all she had ever known (she was with me from 10 months old) to be placed with strangers.

This is the “transition” referred to in the letter. Her whole life with me (2 hours a month access with biological parents, no pre-school, bonded to another small child in my care of the same age). After meeting the new male caregiver once, she was gone because a non government organisation arranged it.

I can’t even fathom what this would have done to her. I can barely understand what it is has done to me. How it affected her little pretend twin here was devastating. No I have not seen her again.

I foster children through DoCS, she was placed through DoCS. What I was hoping to achieve was finding that someone/something is held accountable for the care of children that the courts have taken.

What I believe I have found is countless cases of abuse while in care, DoCS and NGO’s. Ignored, discarded children and well funded organisations. I have found that older children have no rights in this system except the right to ask or be heard, no action required.

I believe I have discovered why the Ombudsman’s offices exists and that being to delay complaints, muddy the waters, before carrying on to do nothing because they have no power to do anything beyond make suggestions.

What I can’t do, being me, is walk away now I understand these things, but I have no idea how to move forward. I am already being punished I believe (better keep inserting those two words). I suspect a slow withdrawal of children from my house with no intention of sending more has been in progress since the complaint was lodged. This to my mind leaves me little to lose.

ok, see that they GAVE YOU A POWER of attourney over the child's well being..[the child is YOUR ward,this trusteeship was greated over the child..when you signed up to care for its well being[unless you signed a release..it must hold a weight of law]

you as the childs careg-giver nhave the rights duties and obligations that are due you[and the state contracted you into, in your case..you made the honourable standing before god as well as the state..

[god allways has the higher..'standing'...you need to know that law is all about standing..[in honour]..that god has joined..even if only by seeming act of chance[ie being ;'selected' to care give to the child's well being ,is a higher duty that no state may subvert,no proces,no act or law may subdue

see that you must retain the duty..[power of attourney]..on behalf of the inherant rights held by this child made ward of the state, wether it be by acts of man or acts of god

your duty of care is to the higher power[god]..you have become aware of possable real and present systemised dangers and must act

[you have been given the path,..and accorded a hearing [be heard]
your child has been exposed to real and present danger[i say your child..but all children belong to god] even real parents are only ENTRUSTED to care for their legal charges

the state accorded you the rights equal[maybe even abouve that of the mother]i suggest you find out and define them clearly[if only in your own mind]ask for proofs, ask questions demand answer[if god be by your side [who can STAND against you]..when in doudt remind them your standing stands only under god

they will try to trick you by asking you if you UNDER-stand..[thats a trick question,..they are asking do you stand under their right to do as the do/or have done..[law is tricky]

[NEVER SAY YOU under-STAND]..your standing is equal to the standing of the child's standing..[directly under god]..in law the question ASKER has the higher standing..[dare to question]

[the respondant has lower standing]

..ask if THEY under-stand...lol

Hi Jewely, Now you know what a mongrel communism is. We have a mixture of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, here in Australia sponsored by a mixture of gangsters, and the lawyers who represent them in court, and have to have a product to sell. These gangsters with enotmous criminal funds, traffic in humans. It started in 1970 when Abe Saffron was able to bribe the Premier to abolish the Supreme Court in New South Wales and replace it with a Lawyers Court.

Paul Keating’s government took steps to reinstate Protestant Christian government in 1995, and it became law in 2001, but the gangsters in and out of Parliament have not allowed this law to be enforced, except by their lawyers, so we are still under communism.

The section 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) reads as follows: Crime against humanity: enslavement or other severe deprivation of physical liberty. (1) a person ( the perpetrator) commits an offense if: (a) the Perpetrator imprisons one or more persons or otherwise severely deprives one or more persons of physical liberty, and
(b) the perpetrators conduct violated article 9. 14 or 15 of the Covenant and
(c.) The perpetrators conducted as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a civilian population. Penalty 17 years imprisonment.
The perpetrators you are complaining of are the State of New South Wales and its lawyers who since 1970, have conducted a systematic attack on parts of the civilian population of New South Wales with a view to making them slaves of the State.

That includes the little girl removed from your care for commercial gain. Prior to 1970 baby farming as it was called prior to the repeal of the Acts preventing it, was effectively prevented by the right of every person to go to a court, on behalf of any other, even a little girl, and have a jury decide what was in her best interest.

Under the communist system introduced by the Liberal party, in 1970 a Judge decides and ordinary people have no say at all. Make sure Kevin knows

We have tomes and tomes of corporate law… thousands of lawyers making a good living out of defending it, challenging it and rewriting it.

Corporations are divided into shares which are owned by share holders, some holders being other corporations but they all end up being owned by someone, a real person, somewhere.

“Until corporate owners and officers are held liable for all the harms they cause, we will remain disadvantaged by the law as it stands.”

I am not quite sure what bucket head is complaining about but I am sure his grievances are either defendable or deniable in an Australian court and if he don’t like it, then obviously, he might think to consider his agenda and how reasonable it really is.

As for employer liability for work related illness and injuries… the employee is not excused a share of liability for his own negligence, incompetence and stupidity. Pretending the method of corporate ownership which works successfully in the western democracies is at fault is both naïve and pointless unless he is prepared to come up with an alternative which has not been proven as a complete failure in the past, such as government ownership and the other wretched attributes of socialism and worse.

To which, when I recall the cancers which have plagued the maintenance staff of F111 fighter fuel tanks, government employees are not guaranteed perfection either.

The nature of joint stock companies was invented by the Dutch around 300 years ago and adopted around the world because it enables greater trade and commerce to take place. Anyone who pretends they can instantly improve the present nature of corporate ownership and accountibility is kidding themselves.

Anyone who thinks unions are out to represent anyone but power crazed union officials is delusional.

Peter, what would I be saying to Kevin? Do PM’s listen, or listen to housewives from the Central Coast?

This is state law you are explaining, does federal law come in to it? Does Federal Law and State Law clash or are they always in tune with each other? Wouldn’t anything to do with children be Federal since they can cross or be taken across state lines?

When this little girl was taken, before, during, and after I wrote to everyone (not Kevin though). The Premiers office said they would approach Linda Burney who got her Dir-Gen to write to me thanking me, in part, for supporting this transition to which I replied “I didn’t”, are they all nuts? The Children’s Guardian (who I stupidly thought was like the children’s guardian for NSW but turns out they just accredit the NGO’s) wrote and told me to take it to the Ombudsman’s office.

But it isn’t just this wee girl or the mess I got myself in trying to protect her (failed in the end). Can I help any of the foster children?

Especially now the government is backing the Justice Woods that NGO’s take over from DoCS and enlarge their caregiver bases. This will cost the government a fortune, NGO’s cost a lot more per child; I thought this might have stopped it.

But I suspect somewhere and somehow the courts benefit because I can’t see where the government does.

UOG, I take this advice, get things in writing and refuse to understand, luckily the latter comes naturally. And I am not to assume they have a higher standing than me or the child during this meeting. Yes?

Col, does corporate law cover organisations like “Charities”? “Life Without Barriers” for example?

Jewely, Lionel Murphy explained it better than I can in 1984. Federal Law overrules State Law, in this case in 1984. There is an hierarchy, that unfortunately State officials have been ignoring. What I quoted about abuse of civil rights is federal law, and overrules State law. That is why Kevin needs to know how you have been treated very badly. This case is called Metwally.

Our legal system is based on the principle that there cannot be inconsistent laws. This principle operates at federal and State levels and whatever the source of law (constitutional, legislative, delegated legislative or decisional (common) law). If these laws would produce an inconsistency, then one prevails; the other or others are not law, and are often described as invalid or inoperative. The supremacy between what would otherwise be inconsistent laws is resolved in a number of ways. For example, where two laws emanate from one legislature, the later prevails. Where they emanate from different legislatures, constitutional law provides that one is superior, and its law will prevail. In Australian constitutional law, there are two general supremacy clauses, one in the covering clauses of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (s.5) and the other in the Constitution proper (s.109). Another limited clause is s.105A (agreements with respect to State debts). Section 106 subjects State Constitutions to the ( Federal) Constitution; s.108 similarly subjects State laws to it.

I would be asking Kevin why he is allowing lawyers to control and own the Federal Court so that you cannot get a remedy not only for this little girl but all the others. To give all the children a go, he has only to repeal S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and Order 46 rule 7A Federal Court Rules and get Chris Bowen the competition Minister to have the Federal Court compete in enforcing civil rights with State authorities, and all would be fixed quickly