No Fathers’ & Men’s Lawyers Are Allowed In New Zealand?
Lawyers May Not Be Involved in the Father’s Right Movement and be allowed to be a Lawyer in New Zealand)
In a land mark case the High Court of New Zealand will be faced with dismissing a properly certified lawyer applicant after being turned down by the Wellington District Law Society for his activist work on the behalf of the father’s & men’s right work. The call on supporters worldwide to contact the New Zealand government and demand Peter Zohrab be accepted with no prejudice or political bias immediately when his appeal to the law societies decision comes before her government.
The Crown Law email address to contact and voice your complaint: [email protected]
Peter Zohrab:
[update]
It might be better to email the political boss of Crown Law (the Attorney-General) because the Library at Crown Law might just ditch political emails.
So I suggest you ask everyone to email [email protected] , which is the current Attorney-General (Dr. Michael Cullen)’s email address. Unfortunately, there is going to be a cabinet reshuffle, apparently, but hopefully emails would be forwarded to the new one.
Her organization has been virtually accused of denying me a certificate for political reasons, and all she can say in response is to spell out some legal technicalities of the admission process!
In a free society, there is no legal basis for denying someone entry to the legal profession on the basis of their political views. The fact alone that a female Council member laughed when I told the Council about being assaulted by feminist law students casts doubt on the judgment of the Council.
It is relevant to raise the issue of the broader context, which is the apparent inability of many men and fathers to find lawyers who take a sufficiently pro-men stance.
For those wishing to express more anger as well, contact the Wellington District Law Society who have already turned down Peter Zohrab due to a disregard to Law for the sake of dishonourable poltical agendas : [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Lawyer application
Dear Madam / Sir,
I wish it to be known that I am against the recent decision in a landmark case in which our woman Prime Minister of New Zealand will be faced with dismissing a properly certified lawyer applicant after being turned down by the Wellington District Law Society for his activist work on the behalf of the father’s & men’s right work.
It is relevant to raise the issue of the broader context, which is the apparent inability of many men and fathers to find lawyers who take a sufficiently pro-men stance.
I will be watching this case closely with much interest, as will men’s and father’s rights activists world-wide.
Sincerely Yours,
Stephen Gee.
Comment by Stephen — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 2:50 pm
Sent: Friday, 24 March 2006 4:31 p.m.
To: ‘[email protected]’
Subject: Lawyer application
Dear Madam / Sir,
I wish it to be known that I am against the recent decision in a landmark case in which our woman Prime Minister of New Zealand will be faced with dismissing a properly certified lawyer applicant after being turned down by the Wellington District Law Society for his activist work on the behalf of the father’s & men’s right work.
It is relevant to raise the issue of the broader context, which is the apparent inability of many men and fathers to find lawyers who take a sufficiently pro-men stance.
I will be watching this case closely with much interest, as will men’s and father’s rights activists world-wide.
Sincerely Yours,
Jim Bailey
http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 4:33 pm
John, What happened to scraps post about Good Morning New Zealand?
Comment by julie — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 6:02 pm
Sorry John, I see it. (Post from scrap)
Comment by julie — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 6:24 pm
[email protected]
Our Prime Minister cannot defend the indefensible, that is, Peter Zohrab is the victim of unlawful gender discrimination – as it is a well know fact that the judicial system is influenced by hateful feminazi’s. I have produced overwhelming evidence that the bias experts were wrong in proceedings brought against the Prime Minister and others for malicious gender discrimination – however the evil one got it struck out and the Crown was awarded costs. Over my dead body will I pay the corrupt scum one bloody cent, ref.- Human Rights Review Tribunal decision HRRT 028 /2005! You be warned if you deny Mr Zohrab his fundamental right to practise law you are opening yourself for huge litigation covered under the International Human Rights. Think hard — does Helengard & your dishonest law society really want to have to explain to the International Court of Justice in The Hague ( dreams are free) Oh that’s right our dishonest low life PM can do anything as she has proved to us all she is above the law – however the fact is the judiciary is supposed (lol) to act independently from the executive. Ask MP Nick Smith about that !!!!!! If a complainant can prove that a political view has shown prejudice then you open the door for a big time class action lawsuit on behalf of all parents that Mr Zohrab is assisting. We eagerly await your learned decision. Just remember all Miss Clark has no values or morals where as Mr Zohrab has shown many that he is a credible person trying to address the many problem’s men face when confronted by a unfair system. If you fail as a law society to fulfil the obligation to be impartial and fair – then it simply underlines the need for a full public inquiry ??? For too long now judicial immunity has been based on the average citizen not knowing their rights and therefore the people who do, can not have their rights either.
Stop the prejudice and corruption for the sake of so many good parents and sad children.
dad4justice
Comment by Peter Burns — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 9:48 pm
Allow me to put my hand up as a financial contributor to a fighting fund to help Peter Zohrab.
John, is there any chance you can get and post a copy of the WDLS’s decision?
Cheers
David.
Comment by dpex — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 7:03 am
History will judge you harshly if you continue this newfound way to enslave your own citizens. This could well happen in your lifetime.
In an internet age this is not too far fetched.
Do it now before it’s too late, before you or your children will regret it.
Before your own children will renounce you for the depravity that you so blithely exercising today in your ironic practice of Justice.
I say restore Peter Zohrab to his rightful position of practicing lawyers of New Zealand.
Do it now or live with its consequences forever.
Comment by Aard V Atheian — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 9:01 am
The basis of this behaviour is that a women’s mind is a legal entity and yours is not. Your opinion doesn’t count. These people do not think in terms of matriarchal society, they think in terms of gynecocracy. You don’t factor in the decision making process. You may think their behaviour abhorrent, however in their mind they have acted correctly and legally. Until New Zealanders understand what they are voting for, individually more and more men will meet the face of this regime, without finding any accountability, or redress. You will never defeat them in their courts. Freedom will always be the vain dream of men who lack the virility to kill the tyrants of irrational control, and challenge the selfishness of what is ultimately the epitome of social self defeat.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 11:30 am
the more you give a woman… the less she thinks she has… and the more she grabs…
that is the law of woman nature…this is in todays world known as womans rights…
no longer will you find one who will sacrifice for the good of the family…only for self… when a male makes a stand against it or when someone stands for fathers and mens rights he is penalised.
ethics say ‘discrimination’ …. a woman would probably say… ‘ i think not’… and the males are branded as never being able to understand a womans mind…
Comment by stan — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 10:05 pm
I got more court papers today, for my trial.
I don’t have a lawyer, there is none.
No expert ones, actually representing men’s issues.
It seems having one, is a hard task for men.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132318640/in-defence-of-defence-lawyers-the-heavy-toll-of-defending-sex-crime
So what it’s saying, is defending men is not a nice job.
Destroying lives, on the balance of probabilities.
Not being able to tell who lied, the defendant or accuser.
You become responsible, for the guilty going free.
The accusers life harmed, by not being believed.
Did the lawyer try, but the innocent is made guilty.
How can they go home at night, without regrets.
Why do they accept, on the balance of probabilities.
The defence happens, by the decision to prosecute.
Should a defence even happen, without guilt being certain.
There is no, he might be guilty cases.
I have no doubt, some lawyers are great lawyers.
But to me they are all guilty, of ignoring men’s rights.
The standard is not, beyond reasonable doubt.
Men only are prosecuted, female crimes are ignored.
Would they prosecute women, to the same standard for sex crimes.
Everything a women does, becoming an accusation.
What if only female crimes, get prosecuted by society.
We know that is very wrong, but prosecutor’s in NZ do exactly that.
Because no lawyers defend men as a group, this equivalent happens.
If a white person, commits a sex crime.
They are not prosecuted, because they are white.
If a black person, commits a sex crime.
They are prosecuted, because they are black.
How can the legal system be valid, only prosecuting men.
Lawyers may do a great job, representing individuals.
They probably even think, they deserve a pay rise.
But for men as a group, things are as evil as it gets.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 15th June 2023 @ 12:49 pm