>>  Blog Home | F4E Home


Conflict of Interest

August 31

Dishonest Reporting on Australia’s Shared Parenting Laws starting to Wear Thin

Posted by Belinda Fehlberg on August 31st, 2010 | Category:  Anti-father hategroup spokesperson  Anti Shared Care  bias  BELINDA FEHLBERG  Conflict of Interest  discrimination  gender bias 

Editorial Note: This is what happens when you cry wolf too often. People simply stop believing you. Just read the comments below to get an idea of how people react to the "distortions" in this article by Belinda Fehlberg. The general public can detect an agenda a mile away.

Comments (1)

May 16

Oh what a tangle web we weave when we practice to deceive

Posted by Cheyl King on May 16th, 2010 | Category:  Conflict of Interest  High Court  Magill v Magill  paternity fraud  Judicial misconduct 

Oh what a tangle web we weave when we practice to deceive. ( unknown author) OK then, if the Murdoch hacks are too supine to do their duty, here’s the lowdown on High Court Judge Susan Crennan.

Comments (1)

April 12

Beneficiaries of Child Custody disputes RESIST change at every turn

Posted by Not Credited on April 12th, 2010 | Category:  bias  Conflict of Interest  Costs  double standards  Exploitation of Family Law  Family Law Reform  Feminism  welfare benefits 

The evidence is overwhelming. Absent fatherhood is tearing apart communities, schools and our youth. Yet every opponent of state House Bill 2916 represents an industry that profits from its existence.

Comments (1)

June 2

Chorus grows for Australian High Court Judge to resign in light of Conflict of Interest allegations

Posted by Rebecca Yin on June 2nd, 2009 | Category:  High Court  Conflict of Interest  Justice Susan Crennan  duty to disclose  impartiality  bias  Judicial Guidelines  Judicial Integrity  Judicial independence  Magill v Magill  paternity  

Submission to the Australian Governor-General to remove Justice Susan Crennan from the High Court under S72(ii) of the Australian Constitution due to her failure to excuse herself from the hearing of Magill v Magill in response to a clear and uncontested conflict of interest.

Comments (5)