From: Nick Collins
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:00 PM
To: 'g87'
Subject: RE: ANALYSIS OF YOUR 'YELLOW SHEETS AND
MORE
Hi
Geoff
Thank
you for sending through some further emails re your concerns with our process
and FDR more broadly. I will review with Alan Baker before we meet so we are
both across the issues you have raised when we meet.
Yours
sincerely
Nick
Nick
Collins
Senior
Manager Western Area | CatholicCare
Family Relationship Centre
Family Relationship Centre
Suite
2, 27-31 Myer Street
Geelong
VIC 3220
Strengthening
families and communities
Vision:
‘life to the full’ for families, individuals
and
communities in all their diversity
|
 |
P Please
consider the environment before printing this email
From: g87
[mailto:g87@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 28 July 2015 1:43 PM
To: Nick Collins
Subject: Re: ANALYSIS OF YOUR 'YELLOW SHEETS AND MORE
Sent: Tuesday, 28 July 2015 1:43 PM
To: Nick Collins
Subject: Re: ANALYSIS OF YOUR 'YELLOW SHEETS AND MORE
Nick
Collins
Senior Manager Western Area | CatholicCare
Family Relationship Centre
Family Relationship Centre
Suite 2, 27-31 Myer Street
Geelong VIC 3220
Dear Nick
ANALYSIS OF YOUR 'YELLOW SHEETS AND MORE>>>
AND SOME REFS TO YOURS OF 20
July
I make this overview of merely this document as below.
Kindly note that this is intended to be broadly a rough – and – ready dissertation of YOUR HELP SHEETS - THE SO - CALLED 'YELLOW DOCUMENTS' SENT US WHEN CATHOLIC CARE SENT US THEIR INVITATION TO ATTEND MEDIATION WITH DR ZEIMER.
AND THE OBVIOUS CORROLARY: YOUR PEOPLE’S
UTTERLY CONTEMPTUOUS BEHAVIOUR!
Note that I have not been able to append these helpful [no sarcasm] documents in the current correspondences - nor the first couple of CC posted letters.
Note that I have not been able to append these helpful [no sarcasm] documents in the current correspondences - nor the first couple of CC posted letters.
Note that there is possibly not much wrong
with the contents of your help sheets – except perhaps that your people
amazingly felt enabled to do what they did!
It does not much matter - because you obviously have the material in your possession. You will understand everything.....
And 'others' will get by / with what is provided here: AND THAT IS:
- A CRYPTIC ANALYSIS OF WHAT DR ZEIMER CLAIMED,
- CC DULY ALLOWED,
- AND MY ATTEMPT AT THE BAREST REAL - WORLD [AT TIMES
CRYPTIC] ANALYSIS OF THESE RESPECTIVE POSITIONS.
I make these remarks out of consideration to those who are / will be needing to come to terms with merely what resides herein.
There is nothing further to gain by going into the merits / considerable demerits of the causes of action by CC, Dr Howard Zeimer and ourselves. We did not do much except plaintively plead with CC for fair play....!!
I am however now thoroughly annoyed that even this is a massive encumbrance on my time.
The reader should be aware that an amalgam of ALL MATTERS MATERIAL IN ALL DOCUMENTS CAN AND WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE COURTS AND / OTHER PARTIES AS REQUIRED.
THIS TO ENSURE WHATEVER I WISH TO
ENSURE.
Again note prev, email: I have lots of
options of direct action and or reaction.
READ
THIS CAREFULLY AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE SENTENCE PLEASE
This entity does not imply any particular course of action we may take. You will appreciate we may wait for your and Dr Zeimer’s next move. Refer to earlier specified and non - specified items.
Enough of this preamble.
Note that these comments are reasonable
well written but perhaps difficult for those not familiar with said
documents.
Remember that this below was written in parts over days and may not flow.
It may be regarded as not my best work.
I thought to send it to you Nick so you
can avail yourself.....
GS
###################################
######################################
###################################
######################################
I
respond to your email and confirmatory hard copy of 20 July which has arrived in
the post.
And thank you for reconfiguring the
email as per earlier comments. Note that the below is not so much a response to
yours - it is an attempted thorough analysis of broadly your 'yellow sheets'
sent by your people with the first approach to us on 18 May:
'FAMILY DISPUTE
RESOLUTION INFORMATION. Note please that I am doing so via a
series of SOMETIMES numbered points in places so as to perhaps make it easier
for any of my / any parties to correlate.
And indeed easier for me also. Furthermore - who knows where these papers finish: I try to be practical to the authorities: and these pages will sadly have to be rewritten.
It is important to note carefully any partial repetition herein. THIS MAY BE SO - IN RELATION TO EARLIER EMAILS. But remember this is broadly a clear analysis of your own document and repetition is of no real import.
NOR DO THESE WORDS PURPORT TO LIMIT MATTERS TO WHAT RESIDES HEREIN: I AM MERCIFULLY BEING SUCCINCT!
Kindly note the issues you refused to
contemplate! Note the exclamation mark.
Further note that this is by no means a complete document / entity. Depending where this lamentable matter goes, the numbering system will also be a convenient method for those parties to come to terms with. Unorthodox but surely helpful. And easy for me to add to / your people to respond to.
I have not examined the Family Law Act.
Again - please note. I am herein...
merely notating your 'yellow' docs.
AND
TO PLAINLY DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU HAVE PLAINLY BROKEN EVERY RULE IN YOUR OWN
BOOK!
WORSE _ THESE RULES OF BEHAVIOR ARE / WERE INCUMBENT ON CATHOLIC CARE TO OBEY: THEY HAIL FROM THE FAMILY COURT!!
I will some day soon ask you about the socialist SPONGIAN theology pasted around your rooms at Malvern.....pure trite codswallop.......
I
offer the above to caution your people: it is not a good idea to play procedural
games with me. Sadly your letter is so. Surely pure sophistry. ANALYSIS OF SAME
will be left for another day
[ALREADY PARTLY DONE PER PREV
EMAIL!]
. I
have a feeling that this document will surely be seen as some significant
debunking of your letter - which
sadly misinterprets and worse selects issues that you feel safe to expand upon.
This is no way to handle my person.
Please do not so insult me: it will be seen as, at best game - playing.
SO:
I guess you can have nightmares contemplating the grave reductive over -
simplicity of your 5th line.... ''MY UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR REASONS FOR COMPLAINT
WERE:'' I guess you will by the multiple denouements see what is implied
here.
THE YELLOW SHEETS IN MAIN
HEADINGS
I
now list various key 'motherhood - type' words phrases that are extant in said
yellow documents All deserve extrapolation at a later date.
- BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
- IMPROVE COMMUNICATION
- REDUCE CONFLICT
- ANY MATTER CONSIDERS RELEVANT TO THE
FDR
- MAKE A GENUINE EFFORT TO RESOLVE
ISSUES
- PRIVACY .. and mercifully no more for
now.././,/,;.,.,.
MATTERS IGNORED BY
YOU!
You
are so gently cautioned that there were lots of things I / we [my wife Eva]
tried to tell you that should have been noted.... I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS
POSSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS' TERMS TO BE SO EXECRABLY EXCORIATED ...TREATED
I
note for my consideration mainly for now:
- TO WIT ADLER!!
- LSC!!
- GADENS... I leave this alone: where in your yellow
papers are you allowed to treat the other party with clear contempt?
THE
ABOVE CONCERNS CC IN THAT I WAS PLAINLY IGNORED WHEN I TRIED TO MENTION
SAME!!!
SO HERE COMES THE LIST DIDACTICALLY
NOTE
Page 1/4
\
''Needs and best
interest of the children'' >>> HOW SO??
To improve communication >>>> REALLY? BY ENSURING THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION???!!!
AND OF COURSE THE DEAR LADY TOOK ON FOR HERSELF THE UNILATERAL DECISION TO ENSURE THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION!! AND WORSE: THAT THERE WAS NO MEANS OF HOLDING THE OTHER PARTY TO THE BAREST ELEMENTS OF TRUTH SHE HAD TO KNOW THIS! THIS WAS NOTHING BUT GUILELESS MANIPULATIVE OUTRAGE!
''ANY OTHER MATTER THE FDR CONSIDERS RELEVANT TO THE FDR PROCESS''
OH DEAR - THIS IS PATHETIC... NO TIME TO GO INTO THIS MANIFEST CHIMERA DERIVATION OF HER HYPOCRASY ENCRUSTED ALL OVER THIS!
Page 2/4
READ PART % !!
COMPULSORY FDR: ''THE OBJECT OF SECTION 601 is to
ensure that all parties to a dispute about matters relating to
children MAKE A
GENUINE EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BY FDR PRIOR TO COURT PROCEEDINGS
BEING COMMENCED.''
J'ACCUSE!!
See
item 6 ... certificates
See
6and [b]... no time to write out!
also 6.2... rewarding
costs!!!
Now
we come to the confidentiality scam: ''CONFIDENTIALITY OF COMMUNICATION... THERE IS SOME UNCERTAINTY..
Really? no time
NOW
7.1 to 7.8,,,, WOW..
Page 3/4 IT says: AN FDR PRACTITIONER MUST NOT DISCLOSE UNLESS ... 7,2 to 7.8
WOW!! FEDERAL STATE LAW!! OH - I can hardly wait to contemplate what the FEDERAL OR STATE LAW HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE ENTIRE / ANY PART OF THIS!!!!!! Even as the barest simplicity of any tangents of what is so brazen and what is less brazen and what are plain lies!!!
- 7.5..
''may disclose for the purpose of... [a] protecting a child from harm...
PSYCHOLOGICAL!!!! EXCUSE ME = IS WHAT THE FATHER DOING NOT RING ANY SOCIALIST
BELLS??? HOW CONTEMPTUOUS OF THE WELFARE OF CHILD --- WE MENTIONED THIS AND WERE
IGNORED!!! SHAME!!!
- 7,6
: FDR PRACTITIONER MAY DISCLOSE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO
GIVE A CERTIFICATE NECESSARY UNDER SUBSECTION 601/8 OF THE ACT'' WOW!!! THIS IS
ALLOWED AND UNDERSTAND THAT PRIVACY IS SURELY OBVIATED!! I COULD WRITE A THESIS
HERE!....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
- 7.7
section 10J of the Act..ie that: ''THE PRACTITIONER'S evidence is not admissible
in court even if subsections 7.2 to 7.6 allows the practitioner to disclose it
in other circumstances.'' DO NOT THINK THIS ENABLES HIDING FROM HAVING TO GIVE
EVIDENCE IF MATTERS GO TO A SITUATION THAT FORCES DISCLOSURE!! AND I WILL DO
SO!
- THIS
FURTHERMORE DOES NOT OBVIOUSLY OBVIATE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A PRACTITIONER... if
it goes to said credibility ... and much more re law may be a proverbial ass -
but not an immoral one!
Note that it is not merely the
credibility of the said practitioner.
or the insurmountably adverse bias
thereof.
Nor do I want to contemplate what I will
discover from being able to ensure that the Practitioner / when is examined by
the processes IO will set in place.
And the reader eloquent will note that
this is a virtual mirror of serious allegations against the p.
It is the sheer absurdities that get to
me: why did she think she would get away with it?
Has she never met a grieving, eloquent,
very determined grandparent who is determined to use his skills to familiarize
himself with processes of her chimera?
Surely this is all so irregular.
It was starring them in the face: DR ZEIMER AND HIS WIFE'S OUTRAGES WERE STARING THEM IN THE FACE ---- on so many fronts.
It may be seen that if this could happen
they should be barred and worse....
Look for goodness sakes; they did everything to protect Zeimer.
We were denied natural
justice.
THIS IS IN TOTO FRAUD!
It is an insult to the family court to allow them to practice their 'craft.'
J'accuse!
There is no way they did any / all in
good faith and any attempt at protecting them will leave CC suffering as an
inevitable indubitable bi product.
People have motivations for acting the way they do.
I search for it.
This is a serious allegation: but in the
absence of anything else, like my baldness and ' or ageism - I am going where it
is natural to go!!!!
Page 4/4
item 8
This area sadly for
Catholic Care refers ONLY to matters / evidence said / admissions
made.
IT PLAINLY DOES NOT ALLUDE TO WHAT THE PAIR PRIMA FACIE REFUSED TO ALLOW US TO MENTION.
IE mention when we were told ...see some
dot points below:
- They allowed unimpeached the obscene idiocy that the
children were distressed with the honour bequethed on their mother by the
school!
- AND this was touted as reason for
bedwetting!
THIS IS
THE ULTIMATE IN CC FAILURE!!!!!
IE ANYTHING THAT
WENT TO THE ZEIMERS LACK OF CREDIBILITY AND MORE IMPORTANT - LACK OF COMMON
SENSE! AND PATHETICALLY CC - WITH ASTONISHING SYCOPHANTICY TO HIS MEDICAL DEGREE
AND BETTER LOOKS THAN MINE AND BETTER RESOURCES BEING A BILLIONAIRE - SWALLOWED
THIS ADULTERATED GARBAGE!!!!!
I AM SO HAPPY HE IS A BILLIONAIRE - THE CHILDREN WILL NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HIS SOWS EAR!!
You
can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - Idioms by
...
idioms.thefreedictionary.com/You+can't+make+a+silk+purse+out+of+a+s...
·
·
Definition of You can't
make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear in the Idioms
Dictionary. You can't make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear phrase. What does You
can't ...
WHITHER THE BAREST
ELEMENTS OF MORALITY! Oh - forget morality: how about common
sense?
Just for the record - what manner of people are the duo of CC?
how could they so expose themselves to
legal sanction if only for this?
I have decided to not bother for now with the last page [4/4 item 8] of the document.
For no particular
reason.
I HAVE HAD ENOUGH
OF THIS FOR THE DAY: I HAVE OTHER THINGS TO ATTEND TO>
I do wish that you to contemplate our inchoate meeting and the obvious impossible situation.
I do wish that you to contemplate our inchoate meeting and the obvious impossible situation.
I would like to think you would not have acted the way the duo did........
Yours
Sincerely
Geoff
Seidner
 |
This email
has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.