Ringside Seats available, Catton v IRD 9/5/2008
Dear Readers,
The process has now reached full circle and is now in the final stage,
Directions in November 2007 by High Court Justice Asher directed submissions needed to be filed by 25th April 2008, IRD have failed, Lawyer appointed to assist has failed.
Crown Law who refused to forward on behalf of the Ministry of Justice as directed by Judge Rogers the questionable law requested for Higher Judiciary to give opinion, have advised me they will now be intervening on behalf of IRD Child Support as per letter 24/04/2008.
After speaking today with Maria Deligiannis (Counsel for the Commissioner for Inland Revenue) which started rather somewhat acrimonious developed into mutual concern, she had only received the file last week, was not fully aware of the phrasing of Justice Ashers requirements, knew nothing of the historical nature of the case, previous application, affadavits, memorandum or otherwise nor that she would be filing out of time.
Morning Tea and Lunch served at the High Court on the 9th May 2008. Morning Tea will consist of Hot beverage and pastries/sandwiches. Lunch will consist of BBQ Steak, Chicken, Sausages, Salads and refreshments.
Kindest Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
(09) 940 6236
Posts RSS 2.0
Gee Paul. Are you giving us a years notice? hehehe
I was so looking forward to joining you in 2008.
Comment by julie — Tue 29th April 2008 @ 2:48 am
Request for Affidavits covering damage done by Child Abduction in NZ
If you have experience of child abduction in your family, not just in the extremely narrow definition of the Crimes Act as presently applied by “judges” (that is - only applying to men), but simply with one parent removing children from the location that the children were - by mutual agreement of the parents - right through to international abduction, then please consider forwarding an affidavit covering the experience and the impacts:
1, directly onto the children - how did it affect them, what did it show them?
2. onto the parents and indirectly onto the children - emotionally, financially
3. long term effects and costs
This issue is important, as it is these less dramatic abductions that fuel the damage done by acrimonious parental separations (and provide the pressure to drive fleece-able customers into the hands of the familycaught and their legal workers).
If the existing legislation was interpreted by real judges, so that any unilateral removal of children from the agreed location was prosecuted as abduction and that both women and men would be prosecuted, then the workload in the familycaught would drop back to practically nothing.
This is similar to land conveyancing under the Torrens Land Registry system, it proceeds smoothly and with very little legal input, due to clear legislation interpreted clearly and reliably by judges. (This is why new fields for “applying” legal skills are being actively sought after by the “legal profession”.)
Its not that most of the present family legislation in NZ is particularly low quality, unclear or ambiguous, it is the the present untrained “judges” interpret it unclearly and unpredictably, in their personal paramount financial interests.
This is a clear conflict of interest, as most of them could be laid off, if they were to interpret the present legislation in a reliable fashion. People would solve their problems by good faith negotiation, without getting near to a familycaught room. Children would suffer much less from their parent’s divorces.
Affidavits from people who divorced a decade or two are valuable, because they can show a long term perspective and the dust should have settled on their judgement.
Affidavits from people who have divorced or separated recently are valuable because they show that the sames issues are still causing problems today.
I suggest that we need to be building up a collection of evidence, that can be used to show politicians that the NZ Government should be prosecuting internation and within NZ child abductions, in accordance with the natural english meaning of the present legislation. This is particularly when a parent (mainly women it seems!) move in defiance of familycaught “Orders”, or of the requirement that parents not move when a custody hearing is in prospect.
The “twisting” of the meaning of legislation does not protect or serve children.
The present prejudiced application of these laws does much social damage to families and also puts pressure on families to pay legal workers for services of dubious or even negative value to families.
These affidavits may also be used by Paul Catton, to try to persuade the High Court that abduction is a crime, because it is not in children’s interests to be abducted. In fact, it is clearly in children’s interests, that they NOT be abducted.
This needs to be shown very clearly to the High Court judge, so clearly that the protection of children can be seen to be more paramountly important than furthering the paramount finances of the legal workers.
I realise that many people will find it quite painful to look back and quantify the “needle and the damage done”, but it is only through facing it square on that we can protect our children and children of the future from this ongoing scourge. Get help by discussing these issues with friends.
Most people will find the damage flowing on from the unilateral removal of the children ( OK it is abduction) to be far far larger than what they forsaw at the time. This is why it is so important to look back and quantify the damage. Through this, we can appreciate how important it is to handle this situation competently.
The number of international abductions per year out of NZ is probably in the range 60 to 150. (60 Hague Applications per year.)
The number of children impacted by within NZ abductions unilaterally by one parent, is about 3,000 children. This is about the equivalent of all of the children in Ngaruawhahia - every year, year after year!
The flow on “legal costs” are about 20 to 50 $million, per year, all for negative value.
Thus, about 5% of all of our children will experience unilateral abduction at some time through their childhood. This only happens because people don’t stand up for the protection of their children, as guaranteed by NZ legislation! ha ha! - but largely not honoured due to apathy of parents and greed of legal workers.
What are we teaching our children about good relationships?
Why scrimp on food and holidays and pay it out on unwarranted unwanted “legal work”?
If your family has experienced unilateral removal of children by one parent:
If you want to help to put pressure onto “judges” to follow the present legislation, to protect our children from abduction and our parents from extortion, please record your experiences in affidavit form and forward to myself or Paul Catton.
Best regards, MurrayBacon.
ph 09 638 7275
34 Valley Road, Mount Eden, Auckland.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 4th May 2008 @ 11:57 am