And where does it say in the Constitution that the courts are going to protect one from life's disappointment, from the pain of discovering that one hasn't "beaten the system" after all? Only the pursuit of happiness is mandated, not getting laid without getting hurt (or facing the horror of hurting someone else).
What he gave was a gift, if you want to reduce it all to legalities. There's nothing in the code of law to get his toys and movie tickets back. Property law is one of the easier codes to understand--and it's a long civil suit struggle to prove otherwise. Perhaps he'll get hit with his ex's legal bills in addition to everything else, since everything MUST come down to money. It's a waste of the courts' time---and my money, since my taxes maintain the courts. (Of course, this is Australia we're talking about, but the two countries are under the same tradition of English Common Law.)
LOL!! NOOOOOOOOOO! WHAT????
Man, are you spinning now! Look, a gift is something given WILLINGLY!!. Come on, now.
Dont you realize that you are using the same arguments that Liberals use because they dont want strict constitutional judges on the courts?
Arent you aware of that? The laws of this country are very clear on Fraud, they are nonexistant on allowing fraud in the case of tramatising a child.
If you spin any faster, you are going to get very dizzy. You can do better than that.