If EVERYBODY followed this method, a MASS ACTION which is Co-ordinated, each step of the way the team analyses results from each response, collaborating together in refining each persons unique complaint as a hive. This kind of action is virtually unstoppable.
If you have a Criminal case in a lower Court as low down as the Magistrates Court (VCAT,NCAT, QCAT etc do not apply) AND you raise a Constitutional Matter AND the AG’s either fail to reply or reply in the negative for intervention (thinking your case is too trivial or lacks merit) THEN not only can the Magistrates Court decide the matter but the Prosecution CAN NOT APPEAL it unless granted Special Leave by the High Court.
The husband applied for the discharge of that order. He relied on new evidence of the father’s testamentary “wish[es]” that, first, the wife should receive from the Group a lump sum cash payment of $16,500,000 in the event of her divorce from the husband, and, second, that the wife should receive from the Group an annual payment of $150,000 until the date (if any) of the lump sum payment.
The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim in the proceeding, this application was refused by the Judge, except in respect of agreed deletions, the Judge also ordered adverse costs orders against the plaintiffs.
“The law gives some guidance though. It says it’s never reasonable to apply force to a child’s head or neck (except where the force applied is ‘negligble’) or to apply any force that causes harm for more than a short period. Obviously it’s best not to smack your child but if you feel that it’s necessary to change their behavior, be mindful of the law and don’t overstep the mark.”
Fair enough I suppose, but is it signalling a kiss good bye to the McKenzie Friend? They are related in that the McKenzie friend is the big brother of little amicus curiae in that little amicus would normally only put in a written submission for the Court to consider where as McKenzie friend gets to speak before the Court.
This paper examines the legality and enforceability of the new Australian Government “No Jab, No Pay/Play” Legislation with the view of potential aspects to challenge the validity of this new law.
The Government has introduced this new Bill to address problems in the current system with enforcement of Financial Agreements made between couples outside the scope of the court.
The Full Court ordered the husband to pay the wife spousal maintenance of $534 per week for as long as he receives disability insurance payments on the basis of a total disability.
Many people are often armed with the opinions and advice of friends and relatives, a common misconception is a child between the ages of 12-16 should have the choice and be able to make this decision.