From: g87@optusnet.com.au
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:59 AM
To: Complaints
Subject: DSS LETTER OF 29 Sept 2015 and my response to
Ethan
Dear Ethan
Below I have made corrections to yours of 29
September
There are two elements of these corrections.
-
Relatively minor errors as per some of the hereunder.
-
Structural problems.
I need to detail here and explain what I call these ‘structural’
problems.
It is possible I may be wrong – but there are a number of apparent
paradoxes – even apparent contradictions imbedded in the rules / guidelines of
Family Law.
Catholic Care have called them FAMILY DISPUTE RESOLUTION
GUIDELINES.
These Guidelines were sent to me initially by Catholic Care with their
invitation to attend FDR with Dr Howard Zeimer: they have been often referred by
myself as the so – called YELLOW DOCUMENTS.
Naturally these documents have been used by myself to point out how CC
have broken their own rules – basis these ’own rules’ being the guidelines
CREATED PROUDLY BY THE SOLICITOR OF CC Alan Baker.
So this solicitor proudly told me when I interviewed him and his manager
Nick Collins for over an hour on July 30 from memory.
I have no reason to question the veracity ofAlan Baker’s works.
However often these rules and guidelines have been potentially ambiguous
in simultaneously showing how CC behaviour was illegal and yet contain the
elements of excuses that could be abused by CC.
Let me demonstrate merely some of these phrases: EX THEIR ‘YELLOW’
DOCS.
-
‘’WE DO NOT IMPOSE AN OUTCOME ON PEOPLE’’
-
‘’...THE PRACTITIONER’S EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN COURT...’’ [7.2 to 7’8]
-
[IN] admissibility of anything said in FDR in evidence in court [8] [AKA ‘’CONFIDENTIALITY’’...see below]
The above chimeras are understood by reasonable people. To wit – that you
could have minor / irrelevant contradictions – but they matter not in the
general scheme of things when one considers deliberate malfeasances of a
party!
Unfortunately CC obviously have during their prolix correspondences with
me abused and debased their own rules!
It works like this.
CC have surely more than once used the above – 1, 2, 3 as a means /
justification of hiding behind said 1,2,3!
TO WIT: from memory a phrase comes to mind wherein they seek to justify
errant –understatement!! – behaviour via this: SEE CC5! It is deemed unnecessary
to debunk the ‘’confidentiality’’ scam the lady Jenkins writes on July
13!
I have expended much effort in pointing out that their multi – layered
excuses excuses are untenable.
One merely needs to again look at their guidelines to note these phrases
that rest uneasily with their abuse of same:
THE NUMBERS ARE CC’S DOC NOS. You have copies of everything.
1 BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
1 REDUCE CONFLICT
1 IMPROVE COMMUNICATION
2 ANY OTHER MATTER THAT THE FDR PRACTITIONER CONSIDERS
RELEVANT
4 !!! see 1
5 COMPULSORY FDR!!!... make a genuine effort..’’!!!
6 MAKE A GENUINE EFFORT...
7 CONFIDENTIALITY
8 !!!’’may be admissible in court’’!!
9 privacy,,,
I try to make things simple – and / but always seem to provide extra
info.
SO kindly note that some of what you have written may allow CC to
continue their excuses of the inexcusable.
So some words and phrases have been changed below.
Even your reasonable phrase ‘balanced mediation’’ could be used by them –
AND THEY HAVE – to claim that IT IS NOT OUR ROLE TO TAKE SIDES’’!
See part quote below from their letter / email of 22 – 23 Sept – appended
merely to my CC blog CC 12.
‘’It is also completely inappropriate for Family Dispute
Resolution Practitioners to corroborate, substantiate or validate one party’s
version of events. As such we cannot respond to your emails about the specific
details of your situation.
Given we
are unable to proceed further with FDR, a section 60I Certificate could be
issued. In relation to
the issuing of a Certificate, they are only issued by accredited Family Dispute
Resolution Practitioners and are not determined by clients. Under the Family
Law Act there is no need to specifically issue a Certificate at the end of a
family dispute resolution process. Certificates serve the purpose of allowing
people to file an application in Court.
I understand
from your email correspondence that you find this outcome extremely frustrating,
however the FDR process is one that attempts resolution in good faith between
parties.’’
Regards
Geoff
PS
NOTE THE BELOW WHICH
HAS BEEN CHANGED PER HIGHLIGHTED AREAS
Dear Geoff
Thank you for your communications with the Department from 13 August 2015
onwards where you raised concerns about Catholic Care.
The following key concerns have been identified from your emails and phone
calls which the Department will look into:
1. That Catholic Care failed in their primary duty of providing an
appropriate, acceptably – legal mediation between you and Mr
Zeimer.
2. That mediator Jenkins accepted claims by Mr Zeimer that you and your
wife were causing alleged distress to your grandchildren when they were
participating in scheduled visits to you. And, that mediator Jenkins didn’t
consider whether or not Mr Zeimer and his wife were actually causing unnecessary
duress to the children.
3. That mediator Jenkins failed to merely contemplate
whether or not the alleged / claimed stress being experienced
by the grandchildren was being caused by a mosaic, being
constructed at their school, in honour of their deceased mother. Indeed
this should have been seen as an absurdium: who on earth would glibly think that
the children were distressed at an honour being bestowed on their
dead mother?
4. That mediator Jenkins allowed mediation to proceed without allowing to
be considered the multiple previous fraudulent sworn affidavits from Mr Zeimer
that we showed her.
These were tendered to the Family Court and Magistrates’ Court by Dr
Zeimer. And note - the documents as per his affidavits were proven to be to be
fraudulent. Note also that in these same false affidavits Dr Zeimer also made
similarly disproven allegations about us causing health / sickness / mental
psychological problems to the children. Catholic Care refused our entreaties to
seek confirmation from Dr Zeimer as to ailments of children.
5. That mediator Jenkins allowed mediation to proceed without allowing you
the opportunity to point out Mr Zeimer’s claims against you, claims made years
prior which were proven to be fraudulent by the family court. This in
general refers to the fraudulent affidavits tendered by Dr Zeimer in the
infamous INTERVENTION ORDERS HE PROSECUTED against us in 2009!
6. That mediator Jenkins did not consult with you - nor had any
rational legal reason for her own improper initiative
to ensure that you and your wife would not meet face to face with Mr Zeimer
during mediation sessions.
7. That based on a meeting with mediator Jenkins, Mr Zeimer stopped the
grandchildren’s visits to you and your wife, despite court orders permitting
scheduled visits. These court orders were provided to Jenkins as
requested and they were ignored.
8. That Catholic Care leaked your private documents with Catholic Care to
Mr Zeimer.
9. That Dr Zeimer and Gadens solicitors, wrote to the
grandchildren’s school, banning you and your wife from visiting their school by
misrepresenting Court Documents. Catholic Care allowed this criminal fraud by
allowing Dr Zeimer to claim ‘’privilege’’ over these papers. I further note that
the childrens’ school has also been refused permission to release the docs to
us. BUT the school read it’s content to us on the phone.
10 That the last 3 items involve criminality and should be sent to
the Attorney Generals’s Department and Registrar of Magistrates’ Courts and
Registrar of The Family Court. Much unspecified – to - date material exists
which will be sent to all parties
If you believe that I have not accurately reflected your concerns, please
contact me on the number below as soon as possible.
I have attached a privacy consent form and I ask that you please sign and
return the form using the contact details below. Alternatively, you may choose
to remain anonymous; however it is important to note that without your consent
it will be difficult for the Department to comprehensively address your
concerns.
Once we receive either the privacy consent form or advice that you wish to
remain anonymous, the matter will be allocated to the appropriate area for
action. As such, you should be aware that you may be contacted by another DSS
staff member seeking additional information.
PO Box 7576 Canberra Business Centre ACT 2610
Email Facsimile Telephone 1300 653 227
National Relay Service: TTY – 133 677, Speak and listen – 1300 555 727,
Internet relay – www.relayservice.com.au
www.dss.gov.au
2
We will endeavour to provide a final written response to your concerns
within 28 days of receiving your signed consent form. We will treat all
information about you confidentially in accordance with the Commonwealth policy
provisions and laws.
If you wish to discuss the progress of this matter, please feel free to
contact me on the details listed below.
Yours Sincerely,
Ethan
Ethan
DSS Feedback Coordination Team
Ph: 1800 634 035
Fax: (02) 6133 8442
Email: complaints@DSS.gov.au
Post: DSS Complaints, PO Box 7576, Canberra Business Centre, ACT 2610
DATE: 29/9/2015
Our Reference: 2015/3329
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.