Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

New precedent set in Court yesterday

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Court Ruling from the Melbourne Age , Australia (AP) -

A seven year old boy was at the centre of a courtroom drama yesterday when he challenged a court ruling over who should have custody of him.

The boy has a history of being beaten by his parents and the judge initially awarded custody to his aunt, in keeping with the child custody law and regulations requiring that family unity be maintained to the degree possible.

The boy surprised the court when he proclaimed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and he adamantly refused to live with her. When the judge suggested that he live with his grandparents, the boy cried out that they also beat him.

After considering the remainder of the immediate family and learning that domestic violence was apparently a way of life among them, the judge took the unprecedented step of allowing the boy to propose who should have custody of him.

After two recesses to check legal references and confer with child welfare officials, the judge granted temporary custody to the Queensland state of origin team, whom the boy firmly believes are not capable of beating anyone.

  • 2 weeks later...

free bump :dry:

There was me and 1 other supporting QLD in the first game at the Jerra Pub. Wouldn't mind a few more SAU'ers and maybe QLD can win and I get bragging rights for a few weeks.

Or maybe QLD loose and I get dumped on again.

Either way its always social at the Jerra.

  • 2 weeks later...

you bastard!!! :thumbsup: nice work though.....

im still going to jerra tomorrow night guys, so i hope many of you will be there. save me a seat, i might be late, but i should be there before kick off. i have other commitments before hand, but hopefully all should be good.....

see ya there!

BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES! BLUES!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...