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.

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

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

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.

Regards,
Benjamin

Sure Julie - I’ll be in touch.

(You should send me an email to laos_waitakere@yahoo.co.nz, as I asked before).

(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.

Kindest Regards
Paul