Commissioner for IRD refuses to come out of the corner
Upon arrival home from work yesterday , disturbing correspondence from Crown Law was in my in-box summarised by the following;
The Crown Counsel has had dialogue and proposed that the Commissioner lodge a Case Stated Appeal to enable the progression of the Court Orders by Judge Rogers,  which directe a High Court referral creating precedence to address Family Court Jurisdiction and  a question of Just & Equitibility paying Child Suppport when said children had been abducted.
The Commisioner has refused to do so, therefore Crown Law albeit stumped now advise me, that perhaps I have to do the leg work and file in the High Court to have these questions asked.
Tui billboard. Yeah Right!!
My following reply yesterday was to Peter Dunn-Minister of Revenue, Mark Burton-Minister of Justice & Rick Barker - Minister for Courts with strategic CC’s. Â
Dear Sirs,
Perhaps collectively you may address this situation as it falls within the portfolios that you hold within Office serving the public.
Mr Dunne as Minister for Revenue which I believe encompasses Inland Revenue needs to explain the position, why the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in not wishing to be a party to any originating application when he is the Second respondent in the original application and would further the resolution of this matter?
Mr Burton / Barker need to address the matter of the Court Orders made by Judge Rogers on 29th June 2007 directing the proceedings to High the Court for an opinion on two questions of Law utilizing section 30 Family Courts Act 1980 as to why this still has not eventuated?
It is rather irksome that highly paid public servants have not performed in their civic duties and this matter is still ongoing.
If I had given financial assistance to a child abductor the systemic response would have been swift and I would now be incarcerated perhaps, awaiting approval for home detention.
Expediency is now demanded.
Yours Faithfully
Paul CattonÂ
Mr Dunn has responded by stating he has passed it on to the Commissioner to address personally and Mr Burton has also responded by stating that Mr Barker will give a substantive response.
I will keep you informed of the squirming, sliding, buck shoving by the overly paid Systemic agents as this hot potatoe is thrown about.
As an aside, it appears Labour Weekend (tongue in cheek) will be the best opportunity to host the Third Anniversary of my being an MRA with an open invitation to a sumptuous feasting for all supportive of MRA who can manage attendance in Auckland.
The weather will direct confirmation of the selected venue (Western Springs and the Zoo) and the event happening.
This is being co-ordinated on the back of the East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families (09) 940 6236
Again this event will be fully catered so all you need to bring is yourself (and partner), your progeny, and your personal choice of imbibing fluid.
Any correspondence regarding the Anniversary Celebration should be directed off-line to paulcat@woosh.co.nz or phone the East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families 940 6236Â
Posts RSS 2.0
Paul
What is an MRA?
Men’s Refuge Arranger?
Comment by John Brett — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 7:21 am
Surely no-one is suprised that Peter Dunne’s, United Future Leader and Minister Responsible for Child Tax,tax officials have behaved this way?
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 8:33 am
Well done Paul,
It’s not that the Commissioner refuses to come out of the corner at all, it is that You have got the Commissioner pinned in the corner -come clean man-tell the truth! Your a bloody legend!
Along with this, where noone need to do anyhting specific to assist Paul as far as I am aware, he has that matter under control, is another matter and that is my complaint in with the Human Rights Commission. Now it is taking some time for this matter to be dealt with by the Commission where the answer to my inquiry is really quite simple. The question reads along the line of: Is the practice of asking women going to hospitals questions on whether or not they are the subjects of domestic violence unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex.
Quite obviously the answer is: Yes.
So the Human Rights Commission will have to answer: Yes.
If they answer: No then they would be telling big porkies to the public and no government paid official is allowed to tell such porkies about such things are they?
Now my question above of: Are they? Is directed at every reader. You need to answer this noone else. Are government official allowed to tell eveyone big porkies?
What is happening in New Zealand and probably around the world is that we are winning our argument. We are winning our argument because “we” are right. The IRD Commissioner is not the only official in a corner at the moment they are clustered and they are in multiples.
So, it is likely that the HRC will answer, yes to my question. Noone like to be stuck in corners. But that leaves me with a problem (which fortunately I have been giving quite some considerable thought) of how, where it will eventually be recognised that with this discovery comes the natural condition that I am thereby exposed to the media on how to balance the story that I have to tell. My story is a little more detailed than that for the average Kiwi.
My practice so far has been to just let the truth set the pace and I don’t see this changing in any way as it serves as the greatest and most effective instrument, being thereby the best mechanism to accomodate the interest of the public. Yet, saying this, what has already been offered to the government is a plan of how we can work through these problems. I will be submitting that plan again in a form today. And if the HRC are going to answer: Yes it will be an imperative that government accepts my plan, if we are to stabilise agaisnt their corruption. So hopefully in the near future everything that We All have been doing to bring this particularly ugly monster of gender warfare to a grinding halt will be realised effectively rendering it as concretised and thereby motionless. The plan or whatever variation of its principles will be established and with that we can start again, putting the swinging pendulum of gender power back into the clock from whence it came and from here on should ever stay.
And: even if the HRC say “no”, it is time for us all to take stock of what we have been complaining about and properly and effectively implement the justifications that must be associated with being right. With numbers that is simple.
What this means: I need to come up from Wellington to Auckland for a meeting that coordinates the where to from here. If “you” are part of the “we” then you should be at this meeting. Hopefully Julie will help me to organise this and we can hold it in Waitakere somewhere.
Paul Catton rang me last night and has asked me for my bank account number. I have thanked him and supplied it, yet in writing this I feel justified to get that agitated feeling that it is Paul who is again not only doing more of the work that needs to be done, but also earning wages in order to pay for me to do my bit. Admittedly Paul, as is Bevan, is privy to my other almost daily writing so is pretty much up to date with what is presently happening.
So before again congratulating Mr. (Sir) Paul Catton on his amazing, as self respecting and disciplined work getting a Commissioner into a corner, the preview of my writing to government later today is that Lynne Pillay of Waitakere is in a corner. She has been caught and is trapped. She is in a corner because she has endorsed an action that compromises my ability to justifiably take the dole. She has acted in a way in order to do this that has seriously compromised the role of the select committee. I made a submission to parliament. That submission allowed me to come off the street and take the unemployment benefit. It gave me the licence to challenge government where I raise facts and truths that have been hidden from the public’s view. She, as it would appear without the full support and confidence of Chris Finlayson who is the deputy chair of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee has extinguished my submission as if it does not exist: and I promise you exist it does.
This means that I can no longer justify my existence onthe unemployment benefit because the challenge on government has been my work, minute in and minute out. This is to say that Lynne Pillay, improperly has extinguished the public interest and out of her jurisdiction so to do. She’s got big problems on her hands.
If you want to help me as I can steer this monster into the ground please conact me off line on fathercoalition1@yahoo.co.nz.
Let’s get working folks!
Well done Paul!
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 9:41 am
BTW
Get ready Bevan, your on. Tune your argument and focus it specifically to gender inequalities agaisnt social inequity as it is prevalent and damaging in New Zealand today. Men’s health will rest squarely on your shoulders. As I promised so much earlier you are going into the ring with the top guns. You are going to be directly arguing any point you can make with Laila Harre. I advise you begin to read everything she has ever written - if you haven’t already.
Most respectfully,
Benjamin Easton,
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 9:55 am
No Ben they do not have to answer yes.
Your situating your appreciation not appreciating the situation.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 11:11 am
Paul this may be of interest
This is another case which illustrates the deficiencies in the Child Support Act
1991 and is another example of a situation where the Commissioner has power to
initiate a process which alters the liability of the liable parent but where the liable
parent is not able to initiate a similar process on his or her own initiative. (see
Chapman v CIR, 22 September 2005, FAM 2004-032-000080, which dealt with
retrospective reassessment by the Commissioner).
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 11:26 am
Benjamin,
If you want to know where Julie is going, I shall tell you.
I am going to organise big events for men and males (the young ones) for next year. Holy shite. Does anyone remember the TV program the “young ones” How funny was that!
The Waitakere council loves me now. Not only are they backing me with more money but I have been invited to a workshop on how to organise big events.
Comment by julie — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 11:27 am
Your brave publishing that Scrap - under which exemption of the Act do you belong?
And sure - I know they don’t have to say yes, I thought I made that fairly clear - it was the point.
Julie you confuse me. If I am right and the answer from the HRC is yes, then I am asking you to organise an event. Isn’t that what you said you are doing on behalf of men?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Yes, Benjamin. I am organising events. But you have to be patient. Are you aware how I am the only female in my area who is standing up? Rome wasn’t built in a day.
I can only giver you a chance.
Comment by julie — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Sure,
but I am still left with a problem where there are serious issues that need to be discussed by all of those people who participate on any list to which you subscribe - or for who share in any form the views that you canvas.
I beleive it is likely that I am going to come up to Auckland next week. Once I know this I will put some pressure on the HRC to establish where they are at. Then, if the answer is yes that there is discrimination I would want to call some kind of meeting and because I am in Wellington and you are in Waitakere where the conclusions of my various complaints are to be drawn to center, and your talking about Rome like it is in your city, well then honestly Julie you really are barking at the bark.
What I am asking you is not complicated. It is exceptionally simple. No matter, I will wait until I know more about what Paul’s intentions are and then write back to you.
BTW Scrap, I advise you request to have your link taken down. I imagine if you leave it up you are in danger of being prosecuted - and probably quite reasonably I will add. If your doing it on purpose, breaching the Act, then good luck.
Cheers,
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Benjamin,
Just ask me to do something if that is what you want. But if you want an audience remember it is an effort to organise.
Comment by julie — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 4:56 pm
.
Ben its a link to the Family Court Website. The Family Court has published this decision on the web and the link in comment is to the FC website PDF of the decision.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Dear John,
MRA stands for Mens Rights Activist which was thrust upon me, involuntarily, by the episode Police Persecution.
Hence, my initial association with Saint Bagnall and the evolution to being a Systemic Challenger.
James,
The case you have put forward “of interest” has no similar dynamics to mine.
A District Court Judge has been stumped and referred two poignant questions of Law to a higher authority being the High Court and the wisdom of the second tier Judiciary.
To enable these questions to be answered, requires a formal and legalworx type approach for which under these cicumstances has never been done previously, Crown Law stipulated that this is a precedent for them and the easiest way to get it before the second tier of Judiciary would be to have the Commissioner lodge a Case Stated Appeal which would then enable the matter to be presided by the High Court.
Commissioner has said NO!!!!
Crown law then advise that I should approach and file application to the High Court to have these questions deliberated upon.
This matter now has nothing to do with me until I may perhaps make submission in the High Court when timetabled.
Judge Rogers has referred the matter to the High Court for the answer.
Government Solicitors acting on behalf of the Crown had advised the way forward, IRD have backed away from this Governmental advice.
The fight now is between the Judiciary in having its Orders upheld with having precedent established v IRD trying to stonewall.
I am now a spectator on the sideline in this issue waving my banner for natural justice.
What next, what bullshit will espouse from mouth or pen to extract the further stalling for resolution.
Ben,
Sufficient funds have been extended for you to come up stay at the Refuge thereby gain further momentum for the exemplary work that you are providing for Noelle and the value it will provide when you are jointly successful.
Kindest Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families (09) 940 6236
Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 6:10 pm
MRA also stands for Men’s Rights Advocate.
All of us are MRA.
Comment by julie — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Incorrect Julie,
A “Mens Right Advocate” tried to further the position by portaying the words of Men as they were encouraging being hit in the vicinity of a fan
They dismally failed therefore that term for abbreviation is defunct.
Evolution happened and Activist became the verb, F4J, Fathers Coalition and activism not advocacy has provided changes for the position of men to date.
Let us hope that the majority remain activists with a few to provide advocacy that eventually brings the pendulum to rest, perpendicular, rather than get tied into eons of advocate bull while men wither to nothingness.
Kindest Regards
Paul
Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Paul, well I’ll be. How does one keep up with this? I am way behind you guys. I think I am an activist.
Comment by julie — Thu 11th October 2007 @ 9:16 pm
Thank you Paul,
(not edited)
Your financial contribution of $100 enables me to pay, and have change for an overnight bus up to Auckland. And as you are absoutely correct I need to come up to Auckland for a period where
1: You need some support to recalculate your position and receive the direct positive feedback that you rightfully deserve for your extraordinary work rather than any more denial by ignorance and the point you accurately describe for its consistency to complacent advocating bull.
But that’s only one way. And after that I have to take a day out to hitch back which is a loss where I still do not know what is happening in Noelle’s case. As I said on the phone I plan to come up overnight on Tuesday and arrive Wednesday morning. I would stay Wednesday and Thursday night then head over to Waitakere for the weekend. I would hitch back down to Fielding for Monday - But there are three problems.
a: As stated before the hitching takes too long and loses a day. Someone else should pay the overnight busfair from Auckland down to Fielding. If any are up to this then you should make that pledge by way of off line email to: fatherscoalition1@yahoo.co.nz. I would give you my bank account number.
b: Noelle’s case is my absolute priority and there is a considerable indirect problem that has evolved for which noone anticipated and where my communiction is so limited for my funds I cannot override it as I want, would and could. I am quite simply underresourced to cope with the problem as I should be coping. I am reliant on others to do the work that I should be championing and they: quite reasonably are not in the position to figure out what I need to have done. I refer again to point a:
c: I still haven’t heard back from the HRC and this point is vital in our forward progress no matter their decision. Today, I am putting in the last piece of the puzzle to which they must reply. Last week I received a letter of reply from Ruth Dyson’s Private Secretary saying once again that they would not become involved in my request where I want CYFS to bring my former wife to heel. They have reiterated in their combined dumbness that my case has to be heard before the Family Court. It doesn’t. The issue that is being raised before CYFS is that they are not competant in performing to the tasks that they are obliged under which to perform. This is a human rights issue. CYFS are functioning as consistent with a principle that is directly discriminatory against the child and indirectly discriiminatory (as unlawful) against fatherhood. Under s.7 of the Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 they are bound to duty to interfere with PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) and they simply have not responded to compete with this syndrome. In my case it is absolutely profound because my former wife has openly perjured herself in Court and Judge Lockhart has misguided to the Jury to override her action as if it is me who has to be proactive (just like your beef with the IRD Commissioner Paul) by entering and using the Family Court. In those same proceedings under cross examination the CYFS manager came out openly and said that the problem was just “too big”. Bad mistake Cheryl - Bad mistake. WE HAVE RAMPANT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN NEW ZEALAND BECAUSE A PRIMARY AS CONTRIBUTORY COMPONENT FUELLING THAT VIOLENCE IS NOT UNDER ANY CHALLENGE FROM THE OPERATING ADMINISTRATIONS: THIS IS BECAUSE THE INSTIUTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MUST BE RECOGNISED AS AN INDUSTRY IN ORDER TO VALIDATE AND PAY FOR ALL FAMILY LAW AND ACTS.
d: Hopefully htere are a couple of readers out there who are up with what I just said because then you wil recognise the seriation of placement by the pieces in the puzzle. I have before the HRC a complaint that recognise that womens’ violence is not factored into our societal observation on teh constiution of domestic violence. Ohysical and sexual violence are the primary component to interpret domestic violence. Strains of emotional violence are as well recognise yet because there is no formal recognition of these forms of emotional or psychological violence as directly consistent with women’s behaviour they can be fully exploited by thos ewho have the access to exploit their legal function: this is where women who would abuse the law in order to benefit themselves as naturally linked to the child exploit that function. This is obvious where there are no programmes that have nbeen developed by CYFS to compete with PAS. All we have is living without violence, living without violence, living without violence.
“My former is as guilty as all get out”. CYFS, by not focusing on how she needs to have programmes developed in order to compete with her abuse by abusing the purpose of the law are directly discriminating agaisnt the children and indirectly discriminating against fatherhood: which is unlawful.
So this is where WE/ALL are at when it comes to directly challenging PAS. Your challenge goes into the HRC later this afternoon.
All the very best:
Kindest regards,
Benjamin Easton,
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 12th October 2007 @ 10:13 am
That’s great James - you had me wondering.
Sure Julie - I’ll be in touch.
(You should send me an email to laos_waitakere@yahoo.co.nz, as I asked before).
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 12th October 2007 @ 10:22 am
Benjamin,
Check your email for a message I sent you yesterday. Let me know if you haven’t got it (rcasdd@hotmail.com).
Comment by Rob Case — Fri 12th October 2007 @ 10:43 am
I’ve checked my mail this morning and had not received any message. I will email you from my address later this afternoon.
Regards,
Benjamin
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 12th October 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Thank you Rob,
I will be up in Auckland to discuss with Paul my plans as relative to the complaints I have lodged or am in the process of lodging with the HRC and at the end - the two big ones, one with the Ombudsman (David Graham McGee - master of rules - has just been appointed from 19 November so not at least until then) and the other with hte Judicial Conduct Commissioner. This is presuming that these actions are necessary and government does not choose to take the easier route and concede to their corruption out of official scrutiny. They are corrupt as are the judiciary - and it can be proved, I promise. Noelle is also putting up a website where this information can be stabilised and made accessible as necessary to the internet. Yesterday I replied to Ruth Dyson’s Private Secretary alleging that the Minister was complicit with corrupt practice ensuring for lack of action, direct as discriminatory against children to construct programmes that compete with the behaviour (predominantly accociable to women) of parental alienation syndrome, and as unlawfully indirectly discriminatory against fathers where the predominant programmes to protect children from this behaviour are isolated to living without violence courses. This kind of violence is insipid and needs a different set of principles to be explored - those of mental health - in order to compete with its vile intrusion over the lives and minds of the child. This is to say that the Ministry of Social Development rejects that parental alienation syndrome is domestic violence although they alone under s.7 of the Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 have the jurisdiction to institute programmes to protect children from its vicious as calculated damage. Hopefully there will be those many among you who will be prepared to become active when these complaints are tabled as to force them to mature. They will be put into place once I have heard back from the HRC on their view of whether or not the August policy of asking questions of women who attend hospital, if they are subject to domestic violence is discriminatory.
In the meantime we should be looking towards supporting Paul if he decides he will pursue the High Court decision proving that the IRD are consistent with criminal behaviour extorting money from a parent when his children have been proved to have been abducted - double dipping as they go.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 13th October 2007 @ 9:43 am
Latest response regarding this matter to Phil Clarke, Manager, Manukau District Court
Dear Phil
Any word from Judge Rogers as to why her orders are being held in contempt
and the High Court have not presided over the questions she has asked from
the Lower Court.
I do not accept that I have any involvement in this matter, only as a
sideline spectator waving my banner for Natural Justice.
Please detail what steps have been taken to date by the Manukau District
Court administration in complying with Judge Rogers Directions.
Kind Regards
Paul Catton
Comment by Paul Catton — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Again, Yesterday, I arrived home to find displeasing correspondence this time from the Commissioners Manager of of Correspondence, Mr Andy Rodger, who has documented that “As administrators of the Child Support Act 1991, it is not our role to campaign for legislative change on behalf of individual clients”.
I recall that a catchphrase slogan used by IRD in the past was “It’s our job to be fair”.
Statements like Andies are just a red rag, so I traipsed off to the Family Court wishing to seek an audience with her Honour or similar power to raise this matter and have the issue of contempt by any(or all) of the System to be instigated.
Nobody of significance was available to grant an audience however I received a telephone call today to advise me that the Ministry of Justice lawyers are likely to progress this matter to the High Court to have these two important questions answered by the second tier Judiciary.
However, full marks to the Manukau Family Court Manager, Mr Phil Clarke who is ever attempting to progress the matter.
As I have pointed out, George Bush was able to mobilize, probably, at least half of his armed forces with total logistical support to Middle East venues in the same space of time that I have been trying to get a Family Court Judges Order pertaining to two questions from Manukau District Court to Auckland City High Court to be executed, and it shouldn’t be my job to ensure this happens.
As an aside, I would like to personally thank all who attended the “Anniversary BBQ” and gave me the privelege of being able to provide a compensatory service of a kind, they being MRA supporters who assist (and indeed did in my case) in recovery from the depths of despair, pain and the jaws of death whilst being subjected to Systemic Abuse.
Thank you and I honour you all.
Kindest Regards
Paul
Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 25th October 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Good on you Paul,
the remedy that you have already effected, it would seem, if the MOJ are progressing this into the High Court may well set precedents for other areas of law where similar situations have not properly been thought out.
Andy Rodger’s comment is a qualitative example of how bureaucrats are led to believe they can view their association with those demands by ordinary people. They believe they are gods. What does he mean “individual clients”? It is an impossible answer. The commissioner’s intelligence has been filed as missing and he replies “We don’t actually have to own one”. That they are the practice of aiding and abetting a crime and this is the challenge on the department by this “individual client” not a small fact that should be able to rest off the radar. It may mean in result that there are other abductions that are being taxed, and that this tax may be repayable with interest. Hardly something that should rest on the responsibility of an individual client. It is an idiotic answer as if from a criminal who has to lie in order not to get caught.
Hopefully, for their acceptance of the problem the MOJ lawyers will be better equipped. Yet will they forward that this information could determine that other individuals have been treated very poorly by the IRD and that a full investigation into this criminal act of trading in children is theft? I doubt it. They would leave this up to teh individual to pay to have tested before the Court. And this cycle of abuse of the public interests starts all over again, as they wait for another Paul Catton to come along and stumble over their mistakes - hopefully not committing suicide on the way. Maybe not - we will see.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 9:02 am