From ETT [their silly stuff is in blue]
Some more questions that have been bothering us today [seems like they are always bothered or angry]
1. Why is Michael Green constantly on our blog and yet does not bother to reign in his flunkies? He has made 3 visits so far today and never fails to check us out first thing in the morning when he can't sleep (hopefully because he feels some guilt about his deceit of the Australian public). There is no other conclusion than to declare that all of the harasment and lies perpetuated by Peter Saxon are on the instruction of Michael Green.
Here we go again – another unfounded accusation/allegation this time that Michael Green is visiting their site and cannot sleep because of his guilt – what childishness! How on Earth do they know that Michael Green is visiting their site? OUR CONCLUSION - How can someone who is not currently in Australia [a phone call to his office confirmed that] visit their site 3 times today and then be making someone who does not write this blog expose the lies and deceit of ETT.
Does ETT write Fairy Tales for a living?
2. Why do we constantly get visits from people at work like Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Government departments and Fairfax? Are you being paid to look at our site or are you using your time that is paid for by your employer?
Well of course your site is being monitored - just “PERHAPS” the FLWG or SPCA reported you to the AGs department for reporting and IDENTIFYING the real names of people involved in two current cases.
We also understand the SMH is currently preparing a series of articles on angry [vitriolic] first wives wars against second wives and CSA issues between first and second partners. What better research materials than the unfettered anger displayed on your site!
3. If Monteverdi works for SMH, how does he get to spend so much time in court helping fathers get control of their ex wives and children?
My goodness this actually proves you do not read either the site or your own material. Just a few weeks ago you were complimenting him for helping women in the Courts.
Should you rephrase this “as helping Mothers and Fathers in the Courts”.
Who on Earth said he works for the SMH?
4. Isn't the familylawwebguide and therefore the Shared parenting Council, responsible for printing details of court cases and therefore liable under Section 121 of the Family Law Act? If we can easily find out who is who on there, so can anyone else.
Since the SPCA has no control over what goes in the Forums what liability would they have? A proper read of the site and Section 121 [which is on the site] would confirm the site does not breach any 121 sections. Saying you can find out who they are is the height of “I am clever” self deception [hallucinogenic behaviour]
5. What are the penalties for printing details of court cases?
Obviously a rhetorical question because if you had read Section 121 you would know the answer. Perhaps you have read it but do not understand it? A 12-year-old child could understand it – quick go and find a 12-year-old child to explain it to you.
Some suggestions ETT:
- Read what you have written previously – because you are now beginning to contradict yourself
- Read the Privacy Act
- Read the NSW AVO legislation
- Read Section 121 of the Family Law Act
And get someone to explain them to you before you make yourself look any sillier.
1 comment:
(((yawn))))
Post a Comment