"Or some similar group" is that what I wrote? And was I right ? I think I was spot on don't you? Me owned? No, I'm not your ex, you don't get to own me, I asked you not to comment on my posts, I don't like you and I would rather you stay away, or are you one of those men who can't take no for an answer and stalk your victims? I wasn't talking about PEOPLE, as in other people, I was talking directly about you dumb f*#k.
VIC Respondent Didn't File Any Evidence-in-Chief - What to Do?
- Thread starter Malissla
- Start date
-
- Tags
- evidence family court trial
"Or some similar group" is that what I wrote? And was I right ? I think I was spot on don't you? Me owned? No, I'm not your ex, you don't get to own me, I asked you not to comment on my posts, I don't like you and I would rather you stay away, or are you one of those men who can't take no for an answer and stalk your victims? I wasn't talking about PEOPLE, as in other people, I was talking directly about you dumb f*#k.
When I post here for advice, I do so in the knowledge that I may get advice from people who have legal knowledge or who are lawyers, I do not post to get smart mouth activists who have no legal knowledge. This site is appropriately named Lawanswers.com not Activistsanswers.com, open your own dam website and stay away from the one's in which you are out of your depth.
Malissla, you are correct to think if you seek for the matter to proceed undefended some leeway could be afforded to the respondent. All facts missing, accounting for respondent being unrepresented, like yourself, there appears to be a few main possibilities-
1. Respondent files no further affidavit and attends trial - observer or seeks, on the day, to rely on previous - could be granted
2. Respondent’s last filed affidavit is as good as a withdrawal
3. Respondent seeks leave before trial - could be granted, files a trial affidavit - either seeks by self or as result of you making application, between time, for matter to proceed undefended
If it was me, I would not rock the boat and wait until trial - the decision is yours
1. Respondent files no further affidavit and attends trial - observer or seeks, on the day, to rely on previous - could be granted
2. Respondent’s last filed affidavit is as good as a withdrawal
3. Respondent seeks leave before trial - could be granted, files a trial affidavit - either seeks by self or as result of you making application, between time, for matter to proceed undefended
If it was me, I would not rock the boat and wait until trial - the decision is yours
Ok
Now this information is as much for your deluded self as for others who might be looking at this thread and thinking they can just waltz into court and get the orders they want simply because of one or two lines written on a piece of paper but, before we go onto that let’s talk about YOU.
You obviously have a weak argument to present to the court, you obviously are trying to find underhanded devious ways to stop your ex seeing the child/children. If your argument is that weak you need to take a good look at your entire case as just relying on technicalities (as you will soon see) USUALLY, does not win the prize
Your man hating attitude has already been displayed a few posts ago, I would say, and it is a guess, that you are one of these Mums who simply do not accept that a child has a right to a relationship with both parents.
Your underhanded way of trying to get the orders you want PLUS your comment above would lead any reasonable person to that conclusion. If your case is rubbish, then its rubbish and looking for loopholes to counter a weak case is quite disgusting
Now let’s move onto family las trials/hearings: These are usually cases that are quite complex and need serious investigation and/or a swift conclusion. You do not get cases transferred to the FLC from the FMC for nothing and if you file in the FLC and your case is simple chances are it will be transferred to the FMC.
As far as I am aware, cases in the FLC are still held under the LAT concept. Here is a link to LAT trials and what happens Less Adversarial Trials - Family Court of Australia.
If you read carefully you will see that the judge has wide ranging powers outside of the norm of other kinds of hearings to direct the trial/hearing as they see fit. I have experienced a LAT trial/hearing and at one point the judge actually came down off his chair and spoke to us normally, he also did not wear any robed. Wig or the like
Judges in these trials have great power when it comes to how they accept or adduce evidence from all parties, they have wide ranging discretion which goes above and beyond the already different (and we will discuss that soon) rules of evidence that apply in the FMC or not LAT hearings/trials. It is not carte blanch to do what they want as they still have to act within the law but the wide-ranging power they have is immense in these hearings
Now, lets move onto the rules of evidence, which are (for better or for worse) different I n family law hearings. Just because someone dose not write a particular thing, does not mean that they are not going to be allowed to VERBALLY say that thing during the course of a hearing.
This is especially true for self-represented people. In fact, there are actual precedents which say how judges should give a tad of extra leeway or direction to self-represented people as they are often confused, do not know what to do or how to behave and can often get things wrong
This leads us to your ex. I do not believe for one second that he filed a one-line affidavit saying words to the effect of “I will not be filing anything” There HAS to be more, there has to be a reason. Maybe he did not understand the order? Maybe he will ask permission to rely on his other material and just did not want to double up on stuff? Maybe he was restricted by the new rules on the size of affidavits?
Maybe your argument is so pathetically weak that he feels he does not have to file anything? There could be a whole raft of reasons why and it is quite clear you are being economical with the truth as no one, and I mean no one would just file a one-line affidavit
But even if he did, given the rules of evidence and given the LAT system and given the vast powers judges have in the FLC to think that you will simply be walking into court and winning on a technicality is so far off the mark as to be plain stupid. Again, it does give us an insight into how weak your case must be AND your mindset if you think this can or will happen.
I would say that, despite what you claim has happened so far (which I do not believe anyway) that this hearing will go ahead, that even if he has not presented any final affidavit he will be allowed to question YOU on your stuff and any reports to the report writers and that, possibly, he thinks that that might well be enough to get him over the line on
1: What he is asking for
2: To prove you as a combative raving lunatic who does not want the kids to have any relationship with him
Sure, he might well get a slap on the wrist for not producing final material, but that is not the be all and end all of FLC cases and ESPECIALLY LAT type cases
In my experience (and I have a lot) so much more is decided on what is said during an actual hearing rather than what is written. I have seen it happen over and over again.
So, in conclusion,
A: If you have to revert to underhanded methods to win your case your argument must be weak
B: If you think that not producing a final affidavit wins the prize in a LAT hearing or ANY family law hearing you are mistakes
C: Self represented people are given a lot of leeway when it comes to procedural and final hearings, especially if they do not understand what is going on
D: The normal rules of evidence DO NOT APPLY in your case.
E: If you come across as a smart assed man hating know it all (which you have on here) then you could be in for a big shock
F: Keep repeating the words evidence in chief as much as you like, it wont help you.
G: If you want advice form a lawyer then dont post on a public forum, stick your hand in your pocket and go and pay a Lawyer
On a personal note, your ex had a lucky escape if this is what you are like in the real world. Opinionated, rude, aggressive, insulting and combative is not a good look for long lasting happiness OR court. Go buy a mirror and have a good long look into it because you, your behaviour and your weasley way of trying to win your case is quite disgusting (IN MY OPINION)
Over and out
Now this information is as much for your deluded self as for others who might be looking at this thread and thinking they can just waltz into court and get the orders they want simply because of one or two lines written on a piece of paper but, before we go onto that let’s talk about YOU.
You obviously have a weak argument to present to the court, you obviously are trying to find underhanded devious ways to stop your ex seeing the child/children. If your argument is that weak you need to take a good look at your entire case as just relying on technicalities (as you will soon see) USUALLY, does not win the prize
Your man hating attitude has already been displayed a few posts ago, I would say, and it is a guess, that you are one of these Mums who simply do not accept that a child has a right to a relationship with both parents.
Your underhanded way of trying to get the orders you want PLUS your comment above would lead any reasonable person to that conclusion. If your case is rubbish, then its rubbish and looking for loopholes to counter a weak case is quite disgusting
Now let’s move onto family las trials/hearings: These are usually cases that are quite complex and need serious investigation and/or a swift conclusion. You do not get cases transferred to the FLC from the FMC for nothing and if you file in the FLC and your case is simple chances are it will be transferred to the FMC.
As far as I am aware, cases in the FLC are still held under the LAT concept. Here is a link to LAT trials and what happens Less Adversarial Trials - Family Court of Australia.
If you read carefully you will see that the judge has wide ranging powers outside of the norm of other kinds of hearings to direct the trial/hearing as they see fit. I have experienced a LAT trial/hearing and at one point the judge actually came down off his chair and spoke to us normally, he also did not wear any robed. Wig or the like
Judges in these trials have great power when it comes to how they accept or adduce evidence from all parties, they have wide ranging discretion which goes above and beyond the already different (and we will discuss that soon) rules of evidence that apply in the FMC or not LAT hearings/trials. It is not carte blanch to do what they want as they still have to act within the law but the wide-ranging power they have is immense in these hearings
Now, lets move onto the rules of evidence, which are (for better or for worse) different I n family law hearings. Just because someone dose not write a particular thing, does not mean that they are not going to be allowed to VERBALLY say that thing during the course of a hearing.
This is especially true for self-represented people. In fact, there are actual precedents which say how judges should give a tad of extra leeway or direction to self-represented people as they are often confused, do not know what to do or how to behave and can often get things wrong
This leads us to your ex. I do not believe for one second that he filed a one-line affidavit saying words to the effect of “I will not be filing anything” There HAS to be more, there has to be a reason. Maybe he did not understand the order? Maybe he will ask permission to rely on his other material and just did not want to double up on stuff? Maybe he was restricted by the new rules on the size of affidavits?
Maybe your argument is so pathetically weak that he feels he does not have to file anything? There could be a whole raft of reasons why and it is quite clear you are being economical with the truth as no one, and I mean no one would just file a one-line affidavit
But even if he did, given the rules of evidence and given the LAT system and given the vast powers judges have in the FLC to think that you will simply be walking into court and winning on a technicality is so far off the mark as to be plain stupid. Again, it does give us an insight into how weak your case must be AND your mindset if you think this can or will happen.
I would say that, despite what you claim has happened so far (which I do not believe anyway) that this hearing will go ahead, that even if he has not presented any final affidavit he will be allowed to question YOU on your stuff and any reports to the report writers and that, possibly, he thinks that that might well be enough to get him over the line on
1: What he is asking for
2: To prove you as a combative raving lunatic who does not want the kids to have any relationship with him
Sure, he might well get a slap on the wrist for not producing final material, but that is not the be all and end all of FLC cases and ESPECIALLY LAT type cases
In my experience (and I have a lot) so much more is decided on what is said during an actual hearing rather than what is written. I have seen it happen over and over again.
So, in conclusion,
A: If you have to revert to underhanded methods to win your case your argument must be weak
B: If you think that not producing a final affidavit wins the prize in a LAT hearing or ANY family law hearing you are mistakes
C: Self represented people are given a lot of leeway when it comes to procedural and final hearings, especially if they do not understand what is going on
D: The normal rules of evidence DO NOT APPLY in your case.
E: If you come across as a smart assed man hating know it all (which you have on here) then you could be in for a big shock
F: Keep repeating the words evidence in chief as much as you like, it wont help you.
G: If you want advice form a lawyer then dont post on a public forum, stick your hand in your pocket and go and pay a Lawyer
On a personal note, your ex had a lucky escape if this is what you are like in the real world. Opinionated, rude, aggressive, insulting and combative is not a good look for long lasting happiness OR court. Go buy a mirror and have a good long look into it because you, your behaviour and your weasley way of trying to win your case is quite disgusting (IN MY OPINION)
Over and out
There is insufficient evidence or affidavit material upon which the respondent could reply on that has previously been filed, so possibility 1 is unlikely. It is possible the respondent could seek leave from the court to file either directly or as a result of me making an application for it to proceed undefended. Of course the court would need to also provide sufficient time for me to reply as well, so I am considering filing for it to go undefended two possibly three weeks prior to trial, if I file I have to do so in a time frame that would not allow for the court to allow time for the filing and reply prior to trial, so perhaps just two weeks prior to trial. You said if it were you then you would wait until trial - by that do you mean turn up on the day and simply raise with the court that the respondent has not filed any evidence or affidavits and let the court come to the realisation that the respondent has no case? Or simply apply on the day for the matter to proceed undefended?
Another example of someone trying to weasel there way to victory by underhanded means. You are nothing more than a con artist trying to hoodwink the court. You should be ashamed of yourself. Run your case and run your argument and dont be dishonestly sneaky
No, your wrong again, I have a very strong case that is dependant upon very good strong evidence, supported by everyone involved, the ICL, CPS, the children themselves. I do not hate men, I simply dislike you for obvious reasons that are apparent to anyone reading the crap you type. Judges have power? Yes I am aware of that interesting information, thank you for that great insight. When the court makes an order that evidence in chief MUST BE MADE BY AFFIDAVIT, then surprisingly enough that is exactly what the Judge meant, the order does not say don't bother, just turn up on the trial date and I'll let you do it verbally, (this is why I dislike your pathetic stupid comments) He did not file, if your looking for an excuse then I cannot provide what I do not have, and I am not in your business of speculation, it gets no one no where. Frankly, I don't give a dam what you believe or think, you provide bad advice which is of no use, no matter how much you blabble on. No, what you don't like is strong women who can stand up to you and don't take the crap you try giving out, I don't want you commenting on my posts for the same reason your child's mother left you.. because your a c*@t. Now you obviously lost in court to that STRONG woman and now you have nothing better to do than waste your time learning to how to fight the battles you previously lost, but please not on my time, and not on my posts, go get a life? Oh you previously said I would be owned by today? I am waiting ?
Last edited:
Perhaps you could - try - to explain what you consider to be dishonestly sneaky? Seems to me I play the game within the rules provided.
You just can't stand the thought that there are women out there who are far superior to your own lack of due diligence when it comes to these matters, which is probably why your ex beat you in court. Welcome to the real world.
Similar threads
