I note Bettina’s reference to trauma-informed practice. It relates to something that bothered me during Judge Lee’s delivery on Monday. IMHO he spent more time per word on Higgins’s trauma and memory than he did on average for all other topics. Why did he labour this point? Who do you think fed him or referred him to that junk science? Another puzzle: Who linked up the mad man from Channel 7 with Stiles, lawyer on the Channel 10 side for that last floorshow?
Men are all presumed guilty. The absolute bias that is shown here is no worse than my own case. Female Magistrates. Prosecutors judging a man fighting for his life against the false accusations of a woman and her tyrannical. Feminist supporters This is the nature of our society today.
What a revealing and really quite scary article Bettina. How do the zealots like Yates get into these positions of power where they can incessantly erode our value systems and force their whacky ideas on society generally? I understated better now how some of these crazy LGBTQI++ ideas and others are able to be forced upon our schools and other institutions. These unelected activists infiltrate our institutions and and stack them with like minded fellow travellers and militants who then work from within where It would seem that their power is beyond the reach of even the most well meaning elected representative.
An outstanding article again Bettina. Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism and now Feminism. All ideologies which lead to systemic support of false accusations motivated by personal gain.
"Enhanced convictions" for decades the way trials in allegations of sexual assault have been conducted has slowly been changed with the main aim of convicting more men, regardless of the evidence.
I am quite taken by the inciteful summary from Jamie below. I applaud your openness and honesty, your admission of being gay, yet distancing yourself from this self-centered and quite dangerous government official called Yates misusing her powers. I am also grateful to Bettina for exposing the truth about this repulsive scam against us, Australian citizens, who place our trust in this government, only to find out later that we have been hoodwinked. More than a gender issue, I see this as a sad indictment on our judicial and political system, that this young woman Higgins was rewarded for her crimes. And no, not for being drunken and disorderly, but for her lies. I too, like many of us hope that Sofronoff has the intestinal fortitude to say it as it is, and that Albo acts to right these wrongs. That to me would be true leadership.
OMG that smirk when she stood at the centre of the gaggle of girls around Higgins outside the Court. On taking Mordaunt's poem and playing with a couple of words, we get: “One crowded hour of glorious fame/Is worth an age without a name”. She has had her day in court. She conned the judge. May she now slip into oblivion.
💯 Bettina. The media refuse to state to absolute obvious. All this corruption, injustice and lack of ethics to pit it mildly, is born and carried along by the ideology of feminism. It is feminism.that is at the core of all of this and it won't be addressed until people call it out for what it is. Which is why your efforts are so vital. Thank you Bettina.
Very much hoping for Sofronoff’s report to at least acknowledge the difficulties this case suffered due to Higgins/Sharaz bombarding the media, and selected politicians, with full details of the alleged offence prior to filing a complaint with police. This, imo, is why the case needed to have been permanently stayed. Instead we ended up with a circus….
Honestly, how can this happen, ACT is now a dangerous place for a man to go! Time for all men who work in the ACT to either stand up and just leave the state. Then we will see what happens.
Its time we as a nation faced up to the mistake which was Canberra and the ACT, a bad choice on every level , Sydney could have been the Capital and a much cheaper option.
Canberra is remote from the ordinary Australians and this allows MPs and all the hangers on to avoid accountability. Close it down and move the capital to a more suitable and maybe more geographically central location.
Not addressing this issue directly but, nevertheless pointing to the relevant history of lies, when Gillard claimed she was a victim of mysoginy and that her sole support was from women, I know otherwise. As it happend, I conducted a series of surveys, door-to-door through a pre-measured demographic corridor on the Sunshine Coast, which was the most churned population in Australia and therefore very representative. Survey participants were indeed divided by gender. Most of Gillard's support was from men. Most women detested her. The most common criticism from women was "I can't stand that woman's voice. As soon as I hear it I turn the TV off." But, sorry, I forget the actual statistics and no longer keep hard copy records. The price of homelessness.
You make an interesting point , about women disliking Julia Gillard, the PM at the time.
Most women detested her you say, because of her voice , what can you make of this apart from saying that maybe this is a good example of why women were denied the vote in earlier times.
A mature thinker would overlook the flaws in a politician's appearance or speech focusing on their policies, but often from women more so than men a decision on who to vote for is based on the personality of the candidate.
No doubt these women you mention would not vote for Gilliard because of her voice.
Now political campaigns are more like popularity contests and politicians know that if they want the womens vote they need to have charisma.
.Of course not all women are this shallow and many men are just as bad , it raises the question of the process of voting and should it be compulsory, I say it should not be and would go further and have a test before a person could register to vote .
Mind boggling that this retinue of misandrists and misanthropes would go all out in such a high profile case, Imagine what they have colluded upon to lock away a complete nobody. They were very certain of themselves getting a conviction. Shouldn't the history of Drumgold and Yates be trawled through after this?
Having gone through the complete mess that is the federal family court for 4 years (apparently there is a backlog) I can guarantee that believe women! has sunk the impartiality of that place. It is crawling with sneering women all too happy to use children as pawns to get back at men. No wonder the court put out a note saying the system is a mess.
It's worse than 'not being impartial', it denies justice as it accepts lies, make statements themselves that are lies, and therefore has no concern for justice. There seems to be no concern for the psychological damage caused to children when they are deprived of both parents in their life, not to mention grandparents who disappear from the child's life, aided by lies from the female variety. The note saying the system is a mess, was this a public statement, or just trying to justify the huge fees that achieve nothing.
The public statement/note was something along the lines that the court is overseeing an increasingly adversarial system that does not benefit the applicant, the respondent nor the children.
I don't doubt that men lie in affidavits too. However, I doubt their crap is believed on such an industrial scale compared to the perjury coming from the other side of the species.
And that is the problem with the family court. Any old jilted party can lie through their teeth in an affidavit, one can prove they are lying in a rebuttal but it does not stop the process. The lawyers control the process and they are incentivised to keep the whole show rolling along at $500/hour (plus all the rest). You can't game theory that because you aren't in the club of Lawyers sans Mercedes.
If there really were adults in charge and there was a dispute about facts they would stop the process and send it to mediation and it stays there never to go to trial.
So for example; the ex in her opening shot claimed I had never provided financial assistance nor had I seen the child in X years. I provided bank statements showing transfers of considerable amounts of money on a weekly basis, plus photographs and signatures on separate days of me signing the child into day care etc etc. Her affidavit was a demonstrable lie.
If the judge actually read the material provided, and if they were an adult they would have stopped it there and prevented the remaining 4 years of shyte. But they didn't.
When it finally got to mediation the man running it verbally abused me for standing up for myself because I challenged his obvious bias.
The moral of the story? Find yourself someone who believes in God, family and never giving up.
And I have not even gone into the crap that led to the AVO against me, which Bettina has written about. That's part of the process I wrote above; family court -> avo/dvo -> wait for the man to top himself under the weight of lawfare.
I wish politicians would see this as the huge problem it is. Surely robo debt would make them realize that the responsibility of politicians is to ensure courts and legal people are doing what they are paid to do. To just say, "This is the family court: the system is......" ie If a person lies to a police officer in every day life, the police officer is justified in assuming nothing the person says is truthful. Not so the family court. Whereas, in the family court, there is absolutely no effort to ensure the truth is told. In fact barristers and legal people know it is untrue, and not a thing is ever challenged. For this reason, it is time for Royal Commissions to actually enforce the submissions that the tax payer has paid millions to be found at the Royal Commission. Too often we hear a person say, "nothing is ever achieved from a Royal Commission or Inquiry." It is not long before exactly the same thing is happening. The enquiry into Qld Police Misconduct, Banking Royal Commission achieved nothing. We should all apply pressure to our politicians to release the names of politicians responsible for Robo debt. They should be sacked and fined huge amounts. It is time everyone who is doing a job, lawyers for example, did what the average man on the street believes they do when they pay money to be represented.
Pauline Hansen was co chair of the commission, I forget what it was called, into family court. I was so disappointed to realize that submissions presented to her were never submitted to anyone. They appear to have disappeared.
Thank you for all your tireless work, I really appreciate it. I just want to get one thing as straight as possible.
Is what you are saying is that in the ACT a woman must be believed at all times and without any real detective work or evidence and that as soon as a person is interviewed pertaining to allegations, that a court case should be or is the next step regardless of the outcome of the interview and investigation?
If that is so, then what happens to innocence before proven guilty, and what then happens to our federal political arena?
There is absolutely no benefit of Innocence until proven if you happen to be the male when the female decides to move on. An ADVO can be served on you, with no investigation at all, and you have to be gone from your home, child/children, marriage within an hour. No lies told by the woman are checked. You are denied your basic rights. You have to accept the lies told, or borrow funds to defend yourself. You may have provided care at home while the wife worked, walked out and in when it suited her, but when the child is old enough to walk to school, she can fabricate a reason she "fears" you. You have no idea of what your child/children, neighbors have been told. You are gone!
I note Bettina’s reference to trauma-informed practice. It relates to something that bothered me during Judge Lee’s delivery on Monday. IMHO he spent more time per word on Higgins’s trauma and memory than he did on average for all other topics. Why did he labour this point? Who do you think fed him or referred him to that junk science? Another puzzle: Who linked up the mad man from Channel 7 with Stiles, lawyer on the Channel 10 side for that last floorshow?
Men are all presumed guilty. The absolute bias that is shown here is no worse than my own case. Female Magistrates. Prosecutors judging a man fighting for his life against the false accusations of a woman and her tyrannical. Feminist supporters This is the nature of our society today.
What a revealing and really quite scary article Bettina. How do the zealots like Yates get into these positions of power where they can incessantly erode our value systems and force their whacky ideas on society generally? I understated better now how some of these crazy LGBTQI++ ideas and others are able to be forced upon our schools and other institutions. These unelected activists infiltrate our institutions and and stack them with like minded fellow travellers and militants who then work from within where It would seem that their power is beyond the reach of even the most well meaning elected representative.
This instagram is very interesting https://www.instagram.com/thetinmen/
An outstanding article again Bettina. Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism and now Feminism. All ideologies which lead to systemic support of false accusations motivated by personal gain.
lol
Salem witch trials... clever analogy!
"Enhanced convictions" for decades the way trials in allegations of sexual assault have been conducted has slowly been changed with the main aim of convicting more men, regardless of the evidence.
I am quite taken by the inciteful summary from Jamie below. I applaud your openness and honesty, your admission of being gay, yet distancing yourself from this self-centered and quite dangerous government official called Yates misusing her powers. I am also grateful to Bettina for exposing the truth about this repulsive scam against us, Australian citizens, who place our trust in this government, only to find out later that we have been hoodwinked. More than a gender issue, I see this as a sad indictment on our judicial and political system, that this young woman Higgins was rewarded for her crimes. And no, not for being drunken and disorderly, but for her lies. I too, like many of us hope that Sofronoff has the intestinal fortitude to say it as it is, and that Albo acts to right these wrongs. That to me would be true leadership.
Her overt bias should result in her dismissal
OMG that smirk when she stood at the centre of the gaggle of girls around Higgins outside the Court. On taking Mordaunt's poem and playing with a couple of words, we get: “One crowded hour of glorious fame/Is worth an age without a name”. She has had her day in court. She conned the judge. May she now slip into oblivion.
💯 Bettina. The media refuse to state to absolute obvious. All this corruption, injustice and lack of ethics to pit it mildly, is born and carried along by the ideology of feminism. It is feminism.that is at the core of all of this and it won't be addressed until people call it out for what it is. Which is why your efforts are so vital. Thank you Bettina.
Great work Bettina.
Thank God someone is doing it.
Cheers
Peter
Very much hoping for Sofronoff’s report to at least acknowledge the difficulties this case suffered due to Higgins/Sharaz bombarding the media, and selected politicians, with full details of the alleged offence prior to filing a complaint with police. This, imo, is why the case needed to have been permanently stayed. Instead we ended up with a circus….
That's it, I'm cancelling my trip to Canberra.
Honestly, how can this happen, ACT is now a dangerous place for a man to go! Time for all men who work in the ACT to either stand up and just leave the state. Then we will see what happens.
Its time we as a nation faced up to the mistake which was Canberra and the ACT, a bad choice on every level , Sydney could have been the Capital and a much cheaper option.
Canberra is remote from the ordinary Australians and this allows MPs and all the hangers on to avoid accountability. Close it down and move the capital to a more suitable and maybe more geographically central location.
"Stinking ideological swamp", corrupted to the brim morally and otherwise.
Great piece thank you!
Not addressing this issue directly but, nevertheless pointing to the relevant history of lies, when Gillard claimed she was a victim of mysoginy and that her sole support was from women, I know otherwise. As it happend, I conducted a series of surveys, door-to-door through a pre-measured demographic corridor on the Sunshine Coast, which was the most churned population in Australia and therefore very representative. Survey participants were indeed divided by gender. Most of Gillard's support was from men. Most women detested her. The most common criticism from women was "I can't stand that woman's voice. As soon as I hear it I turn the TV off." But, sorry, I forget the actual statistics and no longer keep hard copy records. The price of homelessness.
You make an interesting point , about women disliking Julia Gillard, the PM at the time.
Most women detested her you say, because of her voice , what can you make of this apart from saying that maybe this is a good example of why women were denied the vote in earlier times.
A mature thinker would overlook the flaws in a politician's appearance or speech focusing on their policies, but often from women more so than men a decision on who to vote for is based on the personality of the candidate.
No doubt these women you mention would not vote for Gilliard because of her voice.
Now political campaigns are more like popularity contests and politicians know that if they want the womens vote they need to have charisma.
.Of course not all women are this shallow and many men are just as bad , it raises the question of the process of voting and should it be compulsory, I say it should not be and would go further and have a test before a person could register to vote .
I would never be concerned about Gillard being targeted because if her gender, the woman gave as much as she got. She was never a victim.
So true, LOL.
Mind boggling that this retinue of misandrists and misanthropes would go all out in such a high profile case, Imagine what they have colluded upon to lock away a complete nobody. They were very certain of themselves getting a conviction. Shouldn't the history of Drumgold and Yates be trawled through after this?
Having gone through the complete mess that is the federal family court for 4 years (apparently there is a backlog) I can guarantee that believe women! has sunk the impartiality of that place. It is crawling with sneering women all too happy to use children as pawns to get back at men. No wonder the court put out a note saying the system is a mess.
It's worse than 'not being impartial', it denies justice as it accepts lies, make statements themselves that are lies, and therefore has no concern for justice. There seems to be no concern for the psychological damage caused to children when they are deprived of both parents in their life, not to mention grandparents who disappear from the child's life, aided by lies from the female variety. The note saying the system is a mess, was this a public statement, or just trying to justify the huge fees that achieve nothing.
I call it Child Abuse to deprive a child of a father & his parents.
The public statement/note was something along the lines that the court is overseeing an increasingly adversarial system that does not benefit the applicant, the respondent nor the children.
I don't doubt that men lie in affidavits too. However, I doubt their crap is believed on such an industrial scale compared to the perjury coming from the other side of the species.
And that is the problem with the family court. Any old jilted party can lie through their teeth in an affidavit, one can prove they are lying in a rebuttal but it does not stop the process. The lawyers control the process and they are incentivised to keep the whole show rolling along at $500/hour (plus all the rest). You can't game theory that because you aren't in the club of Lawyers sans Mercedes.
If there really were adults in charge and there was a dispute about facts they would stop the process and send it to mediation and it stays there never to go to trial.
So for example; the ex in her opening shot claimed I had never provided financial assistance nor had I seen the child in X years. I provided bank statements showing transfers of considerable amounts of money on a weekly basis, plus photographs and signatures on separate days of me signing the child into day care etc etc. Her affidavit was a demonstrable lie.
If the judge actually read the material provided, and if they were an adult they would have stopped it there and prevented the remaining 4 years of shyte. But they didn't.
When it finally got to mediation the man running it verbally abused me for standing up for myself because I challenged his obvious bias.
The moral of the story? Find yourself someone who believes in God, family and never giving up.
And I have not even gone into the crap that led to the AVO against me, which Bettina has written about. That's part of the process I wrote above; family court -> avo/dvo -> wait for the man to top himself under the weight of lawfare.
I wish I could do more than just expose the lies!
I wish politicians would see this as the huge problem it is. Surely robo debt would make them realize that the responsibility of politicians is to ensure courts and legal people are doing what they are paid to do. To just say, "This is the family court: the system is......" ie If a person lies to a police officer in every day life, the police officer is justified in assuming nothing the person says is truthful. Not so the family court. Whereas, in the family court, there is absolutely no effort to ensure the truth is told. In fact barristers and legal people know it is untrue, and not a thing is ever challenged. For this reason, it is time for Royal Commissions to actually enforce the submissions that the tax payer has paid millions to be found at the Royal Commission. Too often we hear a person say, "nothing is ever achieved from a Royal Commission or Inquiry." It is not long before exactly the same thing is happening. The enquiry into Qld Police Misconduct, Banking Royal Commission achieved nothing. We should all apply pressure to our politicians to release the names of politicians responsible for Robo debt. They should be sacked and fined huge amounts. It is time everyone who is doing a job, lawyers for example, did what the average man on the street believes they do when they pay money to be represented.
Pauline Hansen was co chair of the commission, I forget what it was called, into family court. I was so disappointed to realize that submissions presented to her were never submitted to anyone. They appear to have disappeared.
What do you mean, presented to her? The submissions had to be sent to the committee?
Thank you for all your tireless work, I really appreciate it. I just want to get one thing as straight as possible.
Is what you are saying is that in the ACT a woman must be believed at all times and without any real detective work or evidence and that as soon as a person is interviewed pertaining to allegations, that a court case should be or is the next step regardless of the outcome of the interview and investigation?
If that is so, then what happens to innocence before proven guilty, and what then happens to our federal political arena?
There is absolutely no benefit of Innocence until proven if you happen to be the male when the female decides to move on. An ADVO can be served on you, with no investigation at all, and you have to be gone from your home, child/children, marriage within an hour. No lies told by the woman are checked. You are denied your basic rights. You have to accept the lies told, or borrow funds to defend yourself. You may have provided care at home while the wife worked, walked out and in when it suited her, but when the child is old enough to walk to school, she can fabricate a reason she "fears" you. You have no idea of what your child/children, neighbors have been told. You are gone!