MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

shipton, schollum, rickards…NOT GUILTY.

“PREVIEW”
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing. Edmund Burke

My name is Kevin Thompson. I am a high school physics teacher in Massachusetts and just one of the thousands of fathers who have been victimized by the organized crime in this state’s family courts.

I have found that the system is corrupt to the core, from the incompetent mediators and DSS investigators to the unprofessional, biased judges; who stereotype fathers, write law from the bench, and ignore any evidence that might threaten its agenda to give mothers everything at the expense of fathers.

In a state where 17 of every 20 citizens polled believe that shared parenting should be the presumption in child custody rulings, there exists a family court system where not a single employee agrees with such a presumption.

The family courts have brainwashed the public for years with the claim that their biased rulings protect the best interests of the children. That is a LIE! Their self-serving decisions are based solely on the financial interests of lawyers, judges, case-workers, and tax-funded agencies, whose pockets are lined by inefficient, unproductive days in court and gender-biased policies that promote and prolong litigation.

What is frightening about the discrimination against fathers in this state is that it is perpetrated by an institution with a professional duty to be honorable and protect the rights of its citizens. What fathers discover quickly in the family courts of Massachusetts is that this protection does not apply to them.

In a system without checks and balances where absolute power corrupts absolutely, family court judges are arrogantly aware that they can deny Constitutional rights, treat loving fathers as criminals, and blatantly ignore the law with impunity.
(more…)

Access to Court Records - Call for Submissions.

This project is reviewing existing rules providing access to Court records and developing principles to govern access to Court records, the retention and archiving of records. It is considering the appropriateness of a single code providing rules for all jurisdictions.
Draft Consultation Report
Published 29 Mar 2006
Access to Court Records – Draft Report for Consultation The Law Commission’s draft report Access to Court Records is now available for consultation. The Commission makes recommendations for the rules and principles governing access to court records, and other information held by courts. The Commission welcomes any comments on the draft report and the recommendations made in it. The closing date for submissions and comments on the draft report is Monday 24 April 2006. The draft report is available by clicking on the heading. If you have any inquiries, please contact Janet November ( 04 914 4801, JNovember@lawcom.govt.nz) or Rachel Hayward ( 04 914 4811, RHayward@lawcom.govt.nz).
http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/ProjectGeneral.aspx?ProjectID=119

Terms of Reference [47 KB pdf]

Working incentive ‘not worth it’

‘Jenny’ (not her real name - I wouldn’t give my real name either, if I was just admitting to being a solo-mum bludger) is content to stay at home, whilst her boys are at school, simply because she is given too much incentive not to work.

What she means is that with a net benefit of close to $400 per week, = $20,800 after tax per annum, or $30,000 before tax per annum, why should she work?
She has not even needed to secure an accomodation grant!

Apart from the fact that her maths is blatently deficient on one major count - her figures, if she were to work, make no reflection of any additional incoming child support.
Does the boys’ father work? If so, surely there should be a reasonable level of CS coming in.
If he doesn’t, why can she not have him care for the boys either side of school hours, so that she is free to work?

Fair enough, whilst she lives on a benefit, his child support contributes to funding her benefit.
But even that notwithstanding, no mention is made of the father’s involvement either financially, or in practical terms.
Furthermore, she contends that she would be unlikely to earn above $13.50 per hour (= $540 before tax per week for 40 hours/week, or = $28,080 before tax per annum).

So she isn’t prepared to try. Not even part time.
(more…)

“As the world around us grows more violent and less understandable, our need for vengeance and revenge seems to be growing at a camparable rate. The challenging reality we might have to (we know we do) face, if we are serious about making a difference for our children and grandchildren and turning the tide of increasing societal violence (all types of abuse), is that until we stop shifting the blame and looking for solutions and work instead on finding the courage to deal with the issues in a holistic way, nothing will change.”

“Historically the attitudes of some of those who have been involved in the oversight of women within the criminal justice system have incorporated seeing women as the weaker sex and thus less responsible for their deviant behaviour. ”

“Things are changing in this regard, with women increasingly being held accountable as adults for the crimes they commit rather than being simply seen as ‘naughty girls’. The arrival of female and younger male judges on the bench appears to have had an impact in this regard.

“It has seemed at times in the past as if the different treatment has been not only about a failure to see women as adults responsible for their bahaviour, but also about a reluctance to send women to prison because doing so allowed the women to evade their responsibility as a mother. ”

“It can only be a good thing that women’s criminal behaviour is now being judged on the basis of more objective and less patriarchal criteria.”

Lashlie, Celia. (2002) “The journey to prison, who goes and why”. Published by HarperCollins (NZ) Ltd.

We are still considering women to be needed in the home and as the weaker sex in some circles but as the femisnist movement and masculinist movement continues so will the accountability. Also as father’s are being seen to be just as capable in parenting, women will receive thier due. I have great faith that we can achieve equality, fairness and balance as those learning the hardships speak out.

The second of our protests in Auckland last Sunday conducted against Family Lawyers who have merited the attention of the group seems to have hit the nail squarely on the head.
Page A4 of the New Zealand Herald has these de-fathering (and occasionally de-mothering) money grabbing scum crying foul to their Body.
Perhaps this is because the campaign is directed at a more personal level in their immediate neighbourhood as opposed to traditionally outside their practice or Family Court.
This is an ongoing campaign and we welcome fellow supporters to join our swelling ranks and perhaps you may know of a worthy candidate for possible inclusion.
Contact: Paul Catton 09 271 6326 paulcat@woosh.co.nz

Far too many MENZ members will be aware of the ease with which the Family Court, Legal Aid Services, CYFS and various social and medical services will provide support without adequate investigation into the veracity of the need for such support.

My quandary is not that it is so freely available, but that it is recklessly squandered to the extent that an onlooker can only be gobsmacked and appalled.

When a spouse has been plainly dishonest with the most outrageous lies for a period of years, to the degree that serious harm is occurring to the children involved, not to mention the abuse inflicted upon the innocent partner and their family, one can only wonder at the competence of the decision makers involved.

Even after such obviously malicious abuse of the system and all parties involved, the offending partner – having rightly lost custody – remains on a benefit even though young and able-bodied. This enables an offender who has practiced everything from child abuse, defamation, harassment, benefit fraud and perjury to escaped any form of accountability.

Instead of the devious malice aforethought practiced by this person getting the recognition and retribution from the law that it deserves, a soft-option acceptance of the possible presence of a delusional disorder has allowed complete exoneration! The person concerned is now free to embark upon renewed efforts to prove the custodial parent unfit and is doing so with gusto.

What action would MENZ members suggest to get the latest outrageous example of this that I have seen out into the light of day?

In last weekend’s NZ Herald article Two-home children can have best of both worlds, Simon Collins writes:

The term “solo parent” no longer reflects reality for many split New Zealand families, says a new report.

New terms such as “two-home child” or “two-household child” would indicate that many children now split their lives between two separated parents, say the authors of the Families Commission study, Paul Callister and Stuart Birks.

The recent census provided a good illustration of this issue -

Mr Birks said this month’s Census was typical of officialdom’s failure to catch up with split families, asking people only about their relationships to other people in the same house.

The online Census guide says: “For example, if someone in the same household as you acts as your mother and you think of her as your mother, select ‘my mother’.”

“They have to be in the same household to count as the same family,” Mr Birks said. “But for a lot of children in two-parent families, the parent could well be living somewhere else.”

Holes in the Crown case against Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards and two former police colleagues are too great for any jury to convict the men, the High Court at Auckland was told yesterday.

Lawyers for Rickards, 45, Brad Shipton, 47, and Bob Schollum, 53, gave their closing addresses to the jury of seven women and five men, saying the complainant, , had lied and fabricated events and the Crown case did not come within a “bull’s roar” of what was required.

The jurors will retire today to consider their verdicts

This case will be judged by the philosophical view of the men and women on the jury. I have kept a close eye on this case as it represents to me, and I’m sure to the feminists, how society interprets the actions of woman in relation to men. Louise Nicholas has claimed that she had non consensual sex with the three men. Yes, she admits that she didn’t say no or complain at the time but claims the justification was intimidation. She therefore feels she was not responsible for her actions. Feminists and the like need to heed the words of Yasuhiko Genku Kimura

In public discourse we hear more about the violation of individual rights than about the abdication of individual responsibility. Yet it is the abdication of individual responsibility that leads to the violation of individual rights, because it is intrinsic in the nature of responsibility that responsible individuals respect and honour the rights of others. Today we live amid a pandemic of irresponsibility — irresponsibility within governments, business, education, the media, the arts, academe, and other sectors. In this culture of rampant irresponsibility, responsibility as such has become almost a forgotten ethical value and moral virtue. However, it is the responsible action that alone carries with it the requisite integrity that brings about real change. Therefore, unless we can transform the present culture of irresponsibility into a culture of responsibility, social movement of any kind, including peace movements, will bear only bitter fruit, if any.

When a man rejects a woman or has an affair that she finds out about, the woman feels the only way of handling it is to get revenge and hit back in any way possible to hurt the man. Even using the children. Why? Because that’s the only power she thinks she has left.

When a woman leaves a man the same outcome applies. She feels she is not being respected and/or loved so she fulfils her needs somewhere else whether with another man, work, etc. In her mind the man is at fault and should pay for the children etc.

Women think when relationships break up that they have been wrong done by. In both scenarios the man has to fight back so that he doesn’t lose everything including the children. The more he fights, the more he feeds her. The more he fights the harder she hits. It becomes a one on one fight like in a boxing ring except the bell never rings. She has to win.

Now, when a husband and wife split up mutually, agree equally to break up they generally work out who gets what and how the children will be raised. They don’t need the courts, admin reviews and the rest.

This makes sense that the ultimate solution is for both sides to come together and agree how things will be done regarding the children etc. The female won’t make the first move. The male must. He must put aside his pride and basically put on a mask with matching facial expressions and body language. Females pick up easy on body language.

Males have alot more power than they seem to give themselves credit for. He can have her eating out of his palm if he wanted to. I would think it would be worth a try to win her over instead of paying $40,000 + to lawyers and spending so much time in Admin Reviews.

Of course all this is easier said than done but very possible.