Principal Family Court Judge Boshier questioned by father’s coalition about the Court’s theft of property.
How many cases do we need to elaborate on, utilising MENZ and other websites nationally and internationally from local and overseas contributors that will eventually impede the devastating effects that do eventuate from the Family Court forum.
PRESS RELEASE AS FOLLOWS
In a letter of limited distribution, a father’s coalition father, Benjamin Easton, has questioned Principal Family Court Judge Boshier on the Court’s practice forcing the sales of property before justice can be seen to be done. On Thursday February 7th in the Family Court of Palmerston North, the Court will consider 9 issues relating to a Court order that a great grandmother is not capable of signing the papers to sell her property and the Registrar can sign in her place.
The woman’s view is that the domestic violence she alleges occurred in the relationship should be brought to a test before any question of selling the property is raised. She also claims that there never was a marriage as she was forced to marry out of church and under the threat of violence. Among the applications she believes is being ignored is one to have the marriage annulled.She believes that there is no sense in the Court that domestic violence is repugnant to justice and that everyone is concentrating first on the issue of the property. Most of the applications being considered by the Court have been written and submitted by Mr Easton. The father’s coalition advocate has no legal training and only limited Court experience. He is attempting, however, to step in and defend the grandmother from what he describes as the Court’s overarching demand in asset theft. “The registrar’s list proceedings don’t require any defence to be at Court” says Mr Easton, “and the applications submitted should be adequate”. Among the applications is one for Mr Easton to defend the woman in Court. “That the Court has railroaded this woman isn’t a question of doubt; yet what I have asked in the applications is if the practice of proceedings is fair.
I have applied to be her advocate in the Court because I don’t believe she has the capacity to stand up against what is a cruel and vicious system stripping assets as the access point to justice.
If the Court say she does not have the capacity to protect from the sale of her house, because her view of justice is inconsistent with the Court, they can hardly refuse her application to have someone other than a lawyer stand up to defend her against that Court practice. The biggest problem I have with any Court,” says the protesting father “is that in their independence if there is abuse or corruption no one in the public would know. If a basic demand of the justice system is for it to be seen to be done, then I believe the responsibility here falls on the Principal Family Court Judge.
In these proceedings, if the Court is fair then it has to demonstrate how it considers domestic violence is repugnant to justice and not more simply an inconvenience in the processes of arbitration and asset stripping.
REGISTER YOUR PERSONAL INTEREST IN THIS CASE BY CONTACTING THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT JUDGE PETER BOSHIER ph. 04 914 3447 REQUESTING FULL PUBLIC DISCLOURE REGARDING FAM 2003-015-111.
Kindest Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
(09) 940 6236_
Posts RSS 2.0
I would have to agree and hope that the courts do see things fairly. This was a very interesting piece. Experience life
Comment by Ruthann — Mon 25th August 2008 @ 9:23 am