Questionable Family Lawyers Targeted
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
Posts RSS 2.0
Paul what you are doing is just great these “family destroying lawers” that are aided by the “family destroying courts” are long over due a bit of back-lash from us dads that they have been ripped off so badly for so long.I have not been able to attend the last two visits to the scum lawers as you call them,So I look foward to being there next time and invite all you other dads who have been shafted by these so called lawers to join us Watch this space for time & place.
Comment by DAVE L — Wed 29th March 2006 @ 9:48 pm
I found Simon Maudes comments in the Herald quite amusing.
Quoting : “…whose task and responsibility it is to represent father, mother and child without fear or favour”
I didn’t think it possible, but it appears they [the judges] believe that they are actually being fair with thier rulings.
Although I guess they are just exercising the law laid down, but somehow it doesn’t seem right : To be a Judge, do you have to have no concept of morality ?
Comment by Moose — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 1:09 am
Great Stuff
Full article: Why-300000-PlusNZKidsWithoutDADtonight-HELEN - Pictures of the 2XVans and protestors in action to follow
Regards - Jim - http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz
Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 9:43 am
Don’t want to be a wet blanket but caution should be exercised here. Who is to be judge& jury that the lawyer is guilty of ignoring the Child’s best interests? I am happy to condemn a professional who acts unprofessionally but the problem with issues dealt with in the family court is that it’s not about science. Before a lawyer is condemned why don’t we organise a jury (amongst our peers) to look at the case against them. To condemn a lawyer without proper cause would bring us down to a level that we are campaigning against
Comment by Kevin — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 10:44 am
I want to add that my first appearance in court was infront of a female judge. I was shocked at what I experienced as hatred displayed toward me by her. I felt I had reason to take her life at the time. Down-stream I appeared before her again, this time, from my point of view, she was brilliant and my hero.
I’m just making the point that we cannot expect perfection from individuals that operate in one of the most emotionally driven courts in the system. Consistent patterns of bias I will protest against.
Comment by Kevin — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 10:56 am
thanks Kevin. It just goes to show that the judges and lawyers do not exercise sound judgement of BEING FAIR. Instead become the ‘pencil’ pushers of the court system just relying on biased policies to cover their behinds.
Had they exercised sound judgement in the first place, your second incident would not have occurred nor would there have been the need to waste court time, money and strong emotions
Comment by STEVE2 — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 11:56 am
Dear Kevin,
The targeted lawyers are not drawn at random from the Yellow Pages.
They have subjected themselves to this form of protest because of family devastation they have willingly abetted.
The judge & jury does consist of a panel of peers, who are dedicated in trying to establish the concept of equal parenting despite the obstructional practices of all that are fed from the belly of the System.
Our panel is formed from a coalition of fathers/parent interest groups, and have well over 60 years collective experience with our own and our further involvement in the assisting of others who fall as prey in this devastating and profitable Industry.
We are fully aware which apples in the barrel are free from taint.
Regards
Paul Catton
Comment by paulc — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 10:14 pm
I must say I’m not personally comfortable with protests targeting individual’s homes, although I fully understand the motivation. Commercial premises and public buildings are fair game I reckon, but private houses smacks too much of intimidation. I think groups like the Australian Blackshirts who regularly use these tactics actually harm efforts to raise public support.
I fully agree with Jim’s comments in the NZ Herald article:
I also think we need to be very aware of the danger of an ‘agent provocateur’ or two initiating some illegal act designed to destroy the credibility of Union of Fathers. This tactic seems to have stopped the very successful UK Fathers4Justice group in its tracks.
I have discussed this issue previously, in the editorial for the October 2000 MENZ Issues.
Comment by JohnP — Sun 2nd April 2006 @ 11:54 am
In reply John – Re October 2000 MENZ Issues.
These people act with impunity, and their behaviour doesn’t improve as complaints are never acted upon. When the state is concerned with its own interests rather than that of its citizens, then there is little option other than to get personal. Looking back at history, one can only say, it was an effective protest, and the North Shore Family Court got a whole more friendly when the Silly Bitch left, shortly after.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 2nd April 2006 @ 2:39 pm