- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Mon 6th October 2014

Report of a fault with this site

Filed under: Gender Politics,General — JohnPotter @ 6:38 pm

This message was recently sent to me via the contact form. I will advise Tammy to check the comments her message receives.

Hi

I am writing because I believe this website maybe doing more harm than good. I know the intentions of this website are to help men who have been wronged but I believe you may be helping those that are truly criminals to get away with it.

This website has the ability to help a man who is looking for a way to get away with his wrong doings. I was thinking about thought processes and the reality is that a man who is guilty will be looking for ways to prevent himself from being caught or make himself appear like the innocent one in the situation. An innocent man will most likely be naive to the fact he needs to manipulate the system as in his mind he will be just thinking that it will go to court and he will be found not guilty.

I recently had a friend who’s children have been failed by both the family court and the IRD. Neither parties taking these situations seriously. The father in this situation used the tactics of this website to help him manipulate the system.

This website is open and able to give anyone access on how to get away with it, both the guilty and the not guilty. I’m just putting it to you that statistically a man is more likely to abuse than a women particularly physically and sexually.

This website helps them to use for an example letters to the court saying their ex spouse may put a protection order against them, this helping them with there case if they are actually guilty. I am just wondering how these things are taken into consideration when this site was developed? I have seen wrong doings towards men and towards women by ex spouses, in all of this it is the children who I have seen suffer, some in unimaginable ways. How does this fit with a persons continence?

I’m cutting this shorter than I had intended as I feel a rant is not necessary and want you to understand that what I am writing is not a dig but is from a person who is wanting to be informed as I find I am unable to sit back and watch more children suffer because of Adults.

Thank you for reading and I look forward to your reply

Tammy

40 Responses to “Report of a fault with this site”

  1. Hi Tammy at 1st it got my back up…but I can see your point an yes both sexs can be just as bad as the other…
    The true innocent males stories just break my heart, with the way they’re treated within the court an IRD systems …

  2. soMENi says:

    This website is open and able to give anyone access on how to get away with it, both the guilty and the not guilty. I’m just putting it to you that statistically a man is more likely to abuse than a women particularly physically and sexually.

    Wouldn’t the World be a great place without liars and their lies?
    Innocent people would never be accused of things they’ve not done. Guilty people would be held accountable for what they have done. And statistics would be accurate.

    Alas we live in an imperfect World.

  3. Alastair says:

    I support Donna. It’s a 2 way street. This site is open to all. For this everybody must be grateful to John. Over the years I have seen many of all persuasions attempt to manipulate both the famiy and criminal courts. Most fail. However I do believe we could do better by abandoning the present adversarial system and adopting the inquisitorial system as used in much of Europe.

  4. John says:

    Tammy,

    What do you say to women’s groups, whom I have seen while working as a professional in the system, when they help women concoct stories that will “sell well” to the police, the courts and the “system”. On both sides of the sexual coin there are bad people of both sexes manipulating the system. Heck, many family lawyers in the USA recommend that a woman files a complaint of abuse even if there is no abuse and we all would be naive to think that is not the case here.

    There is also a choice to be made. To find 100% of those who are truly guilty we must include many who are not guilty of anything guilty. To find 100% of those innocent not guilty we must let some guilty go free and find them innocent. The problem herein lies that women are believed and men are not thus many many more innocent men, as opposed to women, are seen as guilty when in fact they are not. This is compounded by what I see as an “inbred” legal system in NZ that lost its course decades ago and a Police department that is totally dysfunctional.

    So….you chose…..let some guilty folks go to protect the innocent, or punish innocent people who are guilty of nothing!

    Its a sad state in this country and getting worse by the week.

    Finally, legitimate research (and that is NOT Police stats as they mean nothing but identify who reports) indicates that the “perpetrator” of abuse in a relationship is about evenly split between the sexes.

  5. Downunder says:

    This website didn’t grow out of a desire to manipulate the system or abuse women.

    It came about as a response to feminist abuse, corruption in the court system, and the behaviour of a bunch of bottom-feeders who wouldn’t have enough integrity in their blood to pulse the veins of a fungus gnat.

    There’s nothing in the form of help here that anyone couldn’t obtain elsewhere and the few people that might use any information from here other than to reasonably defend themselves would be insignificant compared to the number of women who learn from female support groups, family court lawyers and women’s industry workers that false allegations, lies and deceit are legitimate forms of attack against their children’s father or ex partner.

    What is here, is a long record of the history and nature of the corporate abuse from government, courts, IRD, and various individuals who have made it their business to behave in any manner they want.

    If you think one or two women might have come off second best because of the existence of this site, I doubt you’ll get too much sympathy here, and rightfully so, because they would not have suffered to the same extent that men are expected to tolerate, as the legitimate entitlement of women.

  6. GreatFather says:

    Great comments. We do need comments. The system is so backdated. It is an outrage.
    The system encourages parents to fight supposedly for the best interest of the children. Parents’ fighting surely does not accomplish that purpose.

  7. yes we all know there are good and bad guys and girls ?? there are always 2 sides to the story ….. the only fault with this website is the fact that it is not better known publicised and more widely used, there is little for nothing for guys trapped in horror situations like I used to be myself, after setting up a Facebook site with a colleague to do exactly that which has taken off, someone has the ********** to say that ? ** **** yourself in the nicest possible way ! (insert words to what ever you want it to mean)have a great day 🙂

  8. “I’m just putting it to you that statistically a man is more likely to abuse than a women particularly physically and sexually.”

    and im just putting it to you Tammy that for many many reasons that statement is a big fat load of poop. (I have put a few links in)

    A long-standing NZ population study confirms that most of the domestic violence committed (excluding fatal occurrence) is evenly split between men and women:

    http://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago014519.pdf

    A 2012 Family Violence Death Review report also revealed the rather ‘inconvenient truth’ that the majority of children are killed by their mothers in domestic violence events:

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/227441/children-most-often-killed-mothers
    http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/
    http://www.oneinthree.com.au/overview/
    http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/women-more-aggressive-to-partners-1
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/07/feminism-domestic-violence-men?commentpage=1
    http://www.saveservices.org/
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9930142/Women-hitting-your-man-is-not-cute-its-abuse.html
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/the-cycle-of-the-female-abuser/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KgBVedec_0&feature=youtu.be&a
    http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/07/28/why-do-women-make-false-rape-allegations/
    http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

  9. Mits says:

    I look at it another way

    in that the femily caught system with all the snouts in the trough is so inept,blinded by self interest,corrupt and just downright wrong that Tammy is complaining that by perusing Menz Issues men can easily hoodwink the system and the guilty go free…….. what a crock
    How is it wrong to tell the naive man about to be drawn into the living hell of a vindictive ex who has a financial stake in hanging on to the kids so she can draw an income from their existance that the femily caught havn’t the first notion as to what justice is.
    An innocent man will most likely be naive to the fact he needs to manipulate the system as in his mind he will be just thinking that it will go to court and he will be found not guilty.
    Except in femily caught there is no “not guilty”
    That pretty much explains my own dealings with femily caught. Didnt do it, she’s lying so I’ll be right. What an eye opener to find out that according to all and sundry, as I wasn’t attempting “to manipulate” the system (which is the way youre supposed to play the game)then Im guilty.
    Subsequent visits to the caught taught me to catch on quick and not be such a naive smuck believing in fairness, justice,or even a legitimate legal process. Unless Tammy has sent the same message to the Femily caught, womens refuge, feminist groups and legal proffession then it appears she only wants to muzzle the men who have the audacity to not roll over play dead and cough up the readies.
    Good on ya John P and all the posters on here. I gained valuable information on the system from your posts
    As for Tammy and her comments this should prove an encouragement for you to keep up the good work exposing this foul system.
    Make the caught fair and less able to be manipulated would be my call.
    Not calling for the shut down of free speech

    Good on you all
    Mits

  10. Tammy says:

    I find it interesting that people who have commented on this and been rather rude if you ask me are obviously those who have had bad experiences.
    I didn’t write this to dig at anyone, I didn’t even realise it would go on a forum I thought I was just sending this to the creators of the site as I really wanted their thoughts and intentions behind this website.
    My intentions are purely at finding justice for children not for adults as we are the ones that mess it up for the kids. If a child tells you and many other people they are being abused by a family member wouldn’t you want to do something about it?? And if the family court get it so completely wrong that these children remain in care of there father because he has manipulated the system(which is what court is all about)would you not wan to find a way of understanding what has gone wrong??
    On another note I clearly state that I am not doing this as a dig but as a person who would like to be informed. And those that question some of my statements they all come from people who have been on the bad side of the justice system, male and female(unfortunately way to many). Also I have found it very hard to find statistics that split violence and sexual abuse cases up it all seems to go into one pool, if anyone can point me in the right direction for finding these separated statistics that would be great. And I would prefer NZ statistics not overseas ones as our culture is much different.
    This is not coming from a person who has been affected by the court system or have anything against males, my interest in this is to do with children’s protection from abuse.

  11. GreatFather says:

    Tammy,

    I have so far not been on the bad side of the court system. However I have looked into various scenarios possible , the bests and worsts.

    It is really terrible once you enter the court system. In some cases it is a requirement and it is better for the children.

    However, the majority is cases are surely not about abuses of any sort. It is really about financial gains.

    Overall, I find your comments naïve.

  12. GreatFather says:

    Tammy,

    btw, I don’t think people on this site are willing to be that rude but they feel a great sense of injustice that they are very direct with their comments.

    The reality is that it is pretty much the same in other countries.

    All the best.

  13. andrew says:

    Tammy thank you for your comments and the courage that it took to say them. Without a doubt there are people everywhere who are guilty of manipulation of the court be it family or criminal and there are guilty ones who proclaim their innocence on sites such as this. As to the quantities/percentages of those who are guilty according to gender these are in doubt. I suspect that a 50/50 split would be a point at which to start. I further suspect that females are the ones who normally goad and provoke and that males are the ones who on occasions respond violently, in an instant. I suspect that females are the ones who are likely to be believed even when lying and that it is rare for anyone [male or female] to confess that they have lied. Without a doubt there are many [most?] on this site who have been unjustly condemned or accused. These unjust dealings have a great effect on the innocent, men, women and children. As someone has written above, often the matter is about money not the welfare of all.

  14. Tammy says:

    I was naive before when I thought the court systems worked in favor of children but discovered they care more about the he said she said bull crap of adults. Maybe you are the naive one, maybe you haven’t seen the cases that aren’t published in papers and on websites as the justice system would not like judges to start being questioned, after all they are not held accountable to anyone. Apparently held accountable by the public, but who wants to face the possible repercussions of pursuing such battles.
    The cases around abuse/neglect are the ones I am interested in. The financial pursuit of adults does not interest me as this usually ends up being a matter of selfishness by either man or woman, otherwise it would be easily settled.
    There will always be two sides to a story but there is also a third and that is children’s, the third side is very rarely correctly pursued.

    Thanks

  15. The man in Absentia says:

    There are statistics on child abuse in NZ
    The 2004 Families MSD document is a great start.
    It shows the safest parent is the father and mother.
    Mothers commit one third of all child abuse.
    Step fathers are especially risky, and make up the bulk of the rest or the abuse.
    Not fathers.

    30% of young male sex offenders were sexually abused by their own mothers for example.
    It could be a good place to start if you want to protect children.

    When both parents proactively raise the child, is when the results are the best.
    The system however demands conflict for its own profit.

    Inequality is its mechanism of destruction.

  16. JohnPotter says:

    There are some reliable NZ data on child abuse in this paper:
    Fathers- Myths and Realities about Child Maltreatment written by my wife, Felicity Goodyear-Smith.

    There is more informative research on this page: Noteworthy Research and Papers on Domestic Violence.

    Part of the problem is that we have an adversarial legal system, and lawyers are trained to advocate for their clients. As family lawyer Terry Carson pointed out in his 2001 article ‘Fiction in the Family Court‘, the 1995 Domestic Violence Act rewards dishonesty.

  17. The man in Absentia says:

    To Tammy

    I have posted on this site long enough to know that nobody is trying to let people get away with it.
    It is virtually always the opposite.
    They seek justice and equality before the law.
    And in the services that society provides.
    I have seen no posts condoning child abuse.

    If you have point them out to us, so we can discredit them. Or you, for misinterpretation.

  18. Downunder says:

    To update the Terry Carson file: Aug 2007

    The Family Court Matters Bill before Parliament is apparently designed to improve the standing of the Family Court in the eyes of the community.

    More information about the court will become available and judges will wear black formal gowns to give, in the words of the principal judge, more gravitas.

    However, I would suggest that the problems with the Family Court, and how it is viewed by the community, run much deeper than the issues the bill might address. The court suffers from being the only court in our legal system that appears to frequently operate in a moral vacuum.

    In the Criminal Court, laws that state “thou shalt not kill or steal” enjoy general public acceptance. The Civil Court compensates those who have suffered loss at the hands of wrongdoing third parties. And its equity jurisdiction has a historical moral basis.

    The Family Court operates differently. The no-fault divorce ideas of the 1960s have led to family law legislation that often seems to reflect no clear social values, apart from financial equality, regardless of behaviour.

    Nowhere is this more evident than in the Family Court’s property relationship jurisdiction. It is ironic that if one enters into a business partnership with a total stranger, the law requires the partners to act towards each other with the utmost good faith and a civil court will enforce that requirement.

    However, one can lie, cheat and betray a spouse, civil union or de facto partner and the Family Court usually will order the payment of half the family wealth to the offending partner without making any moral judgment.

    Indeed, if the other partner brought a house or more wealth into the relationship at the outset, the effect of the law means the Family Court can richly reward a partner whose actions may have been morally reprehensible and have destroyed their family.

    It has been legally fashionable during the past 40 years to pretend that conduct does not matter in family relationship breakdowns and that it always takes two people to make or break a relationship.

    But the social expectation that people in a committed relationship will behave with some degree of decency or loyalty towards one another, has been deeply ingrained in our society for more than 1000 years.

    Individuals who have seen their families destroyed and homes lost through the selfish behaviour of a partner, find no consolation in the lack of interest the Family Court often displays to their circumstances. This comment is not an adverse reflection on judges, it is simply how the law operates.

    Often in the Family Court litigants try to raise issues that have caused them considerable upset in their relationship breakdown, only to be told they have no relevance in law.

    Sometimes, they are told in an unintentionally but nevertheless patronising manner, they should only focus on their future. Important personal issues are left unresolved for these people. They see the Family Court as having failed them.

    While much of our family law legislation continues to lack any connection with the values still held in most parts of our community, the Family Court is likely to continue to struggle to attain the respect it should have.

    * Terry Carson is a South Auckland lawyer, with more than 35 years practising in the Family Court

  19. Downunder says:

    Now: The writer’s website

    Terry Carson is a full-time writer and small publisher who lives in New Zealand. He spent most of his working life as a lawyer until he decided that there had to be a better life outside of the profession. So many of his former colleagues asked him how he managed to escape his former hectic and stressful legal life that he decided he had better write a book about how to do it.

  20. The man in Absentia says:

    Sexual predators love matrimonial property law.
    All you have to do is bullshit the relationship until the prescribed date.
    It would be interesting to see a graph of numbers of days a relationship lasts for.
    To see the unexplainable to politicians, spike.

  21. Tammy says:

    Thank you to those who have given helpful feedback and not destructive.
    Remember the statistics out there is only from those that have spoken up and been herd. It does not reflect those that have been silenced.
    Thank you Downunder for that, I def find the views of ex lawyers interesting.

  22. soMENi says:

    I was naive before when I thought the court systems worked in favor of children but discovered they care more about the he said she said bull crap of adults.

    Not one of the lawyers nor the Judge would attend Court if they weren’t getting paid, regardless of who else showed up. That includes children.
    Their priority is their income rather than George & Mary or their children.

    They’re there to do a job – removing fathers from families and transferring wealth from men to women.

    There will always be two sides to a story but there is also a third and that is children’s, the third side is very rarely correctly pursued.

    My understanding is that children are appointed a Counsel for Child where a separate lawyer represents their best interests. That certainly occurred during my 2½yrs in the Family Court.
    Unfortunately too many children succumb to parental alienation perpetrated by one or both of the parents (usually the mother) and that makes their best interests difficult to ascertain.

    If your friend truly believes that her children have been/are being abused by their other parent then surely she has made a complaint to the Police to investigate that. Yes/No? I certainly would have. In fact, I did.

  23. Downunder says:

    After all the jacks are in their boxes,
    and the clowns have all gone to bed,
    you can hear happiness staggering on down the street,
    footprints dressed in red.

    And the wind whispers Mary.

    A broom is drearily sweeping
    up the broken pieces of yesterday’s life.
    Somewhere a Queen is weeping,
    somewhere a King has no wife.

    And the wind it cries Mary.

    The traffic lights they turn blue tomorrow
    And shine their emptiness down on my bed,
    The tiny island sags downstream
    ‘Cos the life that lived is, is dead.

    And the wind screams Mary.

    Will the wind ever remember
    The names it has blown in the past,
    And with this crutch, its old age and its wisdom
    It whispers, “No, this will be the last.”

    And the wind cries Mary.

  24. Tammy says:

    There has to be either physical evidence or a child has to disclose to a interviewer of whom they have known for no longer than a week or may have just met on the day. If nether of these are there the words of teachers, councilors, neighbours, friends means nothing.
    If anyone read the decisions and the appalling handling of this particular case you would not believe it, I didn’t believe it at first and then when i saw things and herd things straight from the childrens mouths, I couldn’t not believe it there is no doubt in my mind anymore. I was truly naive to the system i thought it was there to protect the children instead every part of it has failed these kids. And yes complaints have been put in but this does nothing! Did you know in NZ even if the father or mother was the abuser children still have to visit them in jail, apparently we are one of the few countries left still doing this.
    Maybe my city just has a really dysfunctional family court?? I dunno but I pray everyday the truth will come out not only about the abuse but about how the government and justice systems have failed this family.

  25. Man X Norton says:

    A few points:

    1. I am not aware that this site encourages men or women to manipulate Court systems dishonestly. There may be a very small number of such comments from a few particularly wounded or extremist participants, but they will be rare. I challenge ‘Tammy’ to provide evidence of any such encouragement or advice on MENZ Issues. I challenge ‘Tammy’ to show us exactly what “tactics of this website” were used to help a man manipulate the system. And I challenge ‘Tammy’ to show us what content on MENZ Issues might “give anyone access on how to get away with it, both the guilty and the not guilty”. (Of course, ‘the not guilty’ couldn’t be given advice on how to get away with it because they did nothing to get away with.)

    There is advice here on how to protect oneself against lies from a vindictive or greedy ex and/or others, and how to protect one’s relationships with one’s children against others who may try to wreck those relationships.

    2. Tammy’s references to ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’ in the context of Family Court suggest a poor understanding of that Court. Nobody is convicted of crimes in the Family Court and its processes cannot establish criminal guilt. That’s one of the huge sources of injustice and child abuse in that Court; it is allowed to treat accused parents as if they are guilty without according them a fair trial, and on that same inadequate basis it is allowed to punish those parents’ children by wrecking their parent-child relationships. If ‘Tammy’ was implying that MENZ Issues helps guilty offenders to avoid conviction in criminal Courts, that is even more unfounded and again I challenge ‘Tammy’ to show us anything in the history of this site that might do so.

    3. ‘Tammy’s’ statement “This website helps them to use for an example letters to the court saying their ex spouse may put a protection order against them, this helping them with there case if they are actually guilty” is not credible. Writing such a letter to the Court would not achieve anything useful or help anyone’s case and I doubt it has ever been recommended on MENZ Issues. Besides, ex-spouses cannot put protection orders on anyone; the Family Court makes such orders.

    4. If children allege abuse at the hands of an adult, this can and should be referred to police as a complaint. It will be investigated and if the allegations have a chance of being seen as credible in a criminal Court police will prosecute. Unfortunately, the Family Court will treat such allegations as if they are true, even if they are hearsay (i.e. one of the parents claims that the children told her/him that the other parent abused them). However, under our criminal law such hearsay evidence would and should never be enough to allow prosecution. Hearsay allegations would never be safe especially if they arise in the context of a Family Court dispute over the children. It’s only sensible and just that the children at least would have to state their allegations to an independent interviewer and/or that there is physical evidence of the alleged abuse.

    Unfortunately, while ‘Tammy’ may be entitled to write what (s)he wants, close inspection of ‘Tammy’s’ correspondence shows little worthy of the time required to respond.

  26. JohnPotter says:

    Man X Norton says:

    Writing such a letter to the Court would not achieve anything useful or help anyone’s case and I doubt it has ever been recommended on MENZ Issues.

    This has actually been recommended in the past, at the suggestion of a Family Court lawyer. What it achieves is that the court is then less likely to issue a Protection Order ex-Parte (ie: without a judge hearing both sides of the story). This tactic would not help a man “get away with it” if there was any real evidence of abuse, it just makes it harder for a woman to manipulate the system by making a false accusation.

    Tammy says she:

    heard things straight from the childrens mouths

    If the children in question have been previously subjected to repeated ‘evidential’ interviews and/or counselling, this could mean nothing at all.

    In the Christchurch Creche case for example, children made all sorts of bizarre accusations which were clearly impossible. As the interviewers who implanted these “false memories” were never held to account, and some are still working in the field, children’s stories should be treated skeptically unless there is corroborating evidence.

    Children who have been exposed to parental alienation are also likely to make false allegations of abuse against the alienated parent. As they come to genuinely believe these stories they can be quite convincing when they repeat them to others.

  27. Downunder says:

    Agree with John,

    Writing such a letter to the Court would not achieve anything useful or help anyone’s case and I doubt it has ever been recommended on MENZ Issues.

    A protection order is in effect an injunction. Advising a court, be it Family Court or High Court that you wish to be heard in advance of any injunction being granted can be a sensible thing to do.

    It is not an abuse of process as being suggested, nor is an abuse of the other person, unless you believe that a woman is entitled to a protection order if she wants one.

    The same advice was available from Union of Fathers when they battled to stop the automatic or willy-nilly making of protection orders.

  28. Allan Harvey says:

    # 26 Yes John that was an extremely successful tactic we used in the past. Write a letter to Court stating there had been no physical violence and if any was alleged that the person in question wished to be heard before any without notice orders were made against them.
    This pre-emptive defense became null and void about 2005 and especially after the broadening of the Domestic Violence Act and CoCA section 60 to include psychological violence and now also “economic” violence.
    Now the standard advice is only an application for a Protection Order yourself is any pre-emptive defense against a without notice Protection Order application. Hence why lots more applications are being made. Lawyers are also at this as it is a way to avoid the need for mediation and for them to ensure they get on the Legal aid payments or directly paid by the client rather than do it yourself lottery that Judith Collins and Chester Burrows have now left us all with.

  29. Downunder says:

    @Allan

    What you’re saying is that a cross application for a protection order for yourself is now the only pre-emptive defence?

    I don’t like that you call it a tactic, men are entitled to defend themselves.

    You can see how the goal posts keep shifting; imagine if that were the case with High Court applications, there’s be an uproar – but this is what feminists keep fighting for, unobstructed access to what a women wants, and politician keep passing these laws.

  30. andrew says:

    There are some very thoughtful and caring comments about this topic that Tammy brought to our attention. All any of us can do to improve the NZ situation is to make our own motives be for the good of all; be it children, men or women.
    Thank you Tammy; pity some CYF, some police and some in the family court [with attendant lawyers etc] cannot work with the same idealism.

  31. Phil Watts says:

    Man X Norton was the best answer to Tammy’s bullshit attack on men couched as an enquiry.

    If Tammy had done any research (which i, knowing females, guarentee she did), she would know that women commit 99% of psychological violence and manipulation of men and children domestic violence and women commit 60% or 70% of physical violence and men rarely hit back, as everyone knows.

    Read Greg Hallet’s book, he has everything spot on except the solutions to domestic violence and post separation minimising child abuse.

    Females lie 90% of the time, lawyers encourage and help them to lie and the Judges and cops and government pretend they believe them and they continue to punish fathers and children in order to disenfranchise males and make money from their misery.

    I notice Tammy ignored the question from one of us mere males (as females like to call us in their sexist condescending and abusive ways in Women’s Weekly magazine) asking if Tammy had written a similar letter noting her concern about the children.!

    Hitler used the same double speak.

  32. Allan Harvey says:

    @29 Hi Downunder,
    No that is not what I am saying. A cross application never works for DVA matters.
    What I said was a pre-emtive strike. You get in first. That is unfortunately becoming the standard legal worker tactic.
    I have always likened the DVA as like the wild Wild West gunfights. You line up back to back and step off your 10 paces. However the DVA with without notice applications means when you turn your applicant has already drawn 2 guns on you, has not stepped away from the start at all, already has the Protection Order against you alongside an occupancy order and furniture order, don’t come back as this is no longer your home!

  33. I speak from experience learned and can agree with Alan (on the get in first), after first being on the receiving end for stuff all (pushing past each other in a hallway)and then learning and going no freeken way is that acceptable, after being assaulted multiple times by closed fists dodging knives and bleeding all over the place whilst recording it all, its better to either have your neighbours call the police or you do yourself and it works out considerably better, (feel free to ask for her videos or her 6 convictions in court for this) and I still have my house,,, when she hits you for what ever reason for nothing, be a man and stop screwing up the numbers for all guys and dont keep silent or be asshamed , “as its not okay to hit guys” this is my experience with the rubbish in NZ.

  34. Man X Norton says:

    JohnPotter (#26): Thanks for clarifying the issue of ‘Tammy’s’ comment

    This website helps them to use for an example letters to the court saying their ex spouse may put a protection order against them, this helping them with there case if they are actually guilty.

    I understand now what this statement was probably referring to behind its inaccuracies.

    The strategy was of course recommended not as a misuse of the Court or encouragement to lie, but as an attempt to ensure one is heard concerning any allegations before a protection order is made. ‘Tammy’ complains that this could be used by truly ‘guilty’ men, but the same applies to anything else one might do on behalf of one’s case in Court proceedings. Also, both men and women equally can make use of any advice or suggestions offered on MENZ Issues. ‘Tammy’s’ references only to MEN being helped to ‘get away with things’ suggests a misandrist attitude.

    I still look forward to any evidence that this site encourages dishonest methods to ‘get away with things’. Liars will lie but it is often more effective to remain honest. However, the truth can only make an impact when Court proceedings are managed in a way that ensures the truth is heard.

  35. Kumar says:

    The whole female cau$ght system is with them, money power, political power, white fibbon, propaganda and tons of dollas…we have only this network group which has no funding (self funded). Shame on you.

  36. Warren Payn says:

    Thank you..but still bemused as to what answer is. reading through has raised reflections of my experience in f/c.. TRUTH.?? Why can’t an applicant be held for perjury..blatant lies..but gets believed by ‘powers that be’.. same old story…Accusations are very easy…Defense is very difficult. I thought all I needed to do was be honest and truthful…how wrong I was..
    Was once said…”the meek shall inherit the earth”..haha…the meek shall never succeed in f/c..system.
    I am certain that there are a lot of men out there that in hindsight were ‘the meek’ in the relationship.. What did it get us??? Great loss and empty pockets and messed up children..

  37. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Warren, if perjury laws were ever accidentally enforced in familycaught$, then the total hours charged would drop to about 1/3, maybe even less and hourly rates would drop also.

    The outcome would match what Parliament intended, when it created familycaught$.

    Conflict of interest.

    Remember – the familycaught$ only damages people who take it seriously.

    People who look before they leap, understand what they can realistically expect from familycaught$ and they structure their lives (and assets in particular) so that they are much less vulnerable to asset stripping and manipulation.

    Only gamble with wives that you want to lose.

    Be prepared:
    Have a few spare children, so you can afford to lose a few along the way….

    Cheers, MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

  38. Downunder says:

    That’s all fine Murray, except men do expect to be taken seriously when they are dealing with their lives, the welfare of their children, and when they are in a court of law.

    It’s a shock for any reasonable thinking man to find that that Family Court accepts anything from a perception to a convenient point of view to be a matter of fact because those are the demands of the feminist ideology.

    It’ll be a long time before this country finally admits that the Family Court was the biggest legal fuck-up ever trialled here.

  39. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Downunder,

    I have seen men who were not surprised by what happened in familycaught$. They were pragmatic and well informed, long before they ever needed to consider putting any paperwork toward familycaught$.

    At first I thought they were cynical and self serving.

    I observed that they didn’t seem to achieve any greater victories than most men in familycaught$. However, after a while I noticed that they had fewer fights with the ex-wife (as they had removed most of the incentives for fighting from reach of ex-wife or familycaught$). In the end, they were able to protect their children’s interests better than most my (like myself), as they had resources for protecting the children and they didn’t inadvertently give the ex-wife incentives to attack them or use the children as pawns.

    In essence they reduced their exposure to the familycaught$, long before they had any problems that might drag them into familycaught$.

    They had arranged forces around them, that achieved what Parliament intended familycaught$ to achieve for all families, constructive negotiation and protection after the breakup of marriage. They had achieved this, by arranging their affairs to protect themselves from familycaught$!

    It’ll be a long time before this country finally admits that the Family Court was the biggest legal fuck-up ever trialled here.

    I suggest that the idea for the familycaught$ was created and initially championed by Judge Trapski of the District Caught and the first familycaught$ principal judge. A man of integrity and heart, but lacking street wisdom and lacking understanding of organisational design, in particular management of conflict of interest.

    The legal workers initially supported the new familycaught$ and it worked well and served the public, but within months saw clearly how they could manipulate the familycaught$ process and parties, to maximise their paramount financial interests. The rest, unfortunately is history.

    After 2 or 3 years, Judge Trapski was so disillusioned at his inability to reign in the rape and pillage, that he resigned early and left the legal profession.

    Of course he was greatly complimented by the legal workers, for what he had created, as it served them dangerously well.

    We have other examples of great ideas for legislation, that ended up serving legal workers, at great social and financial cost to the public and Government. Most of these are multi-billion$ achievements of legal workers! The public needs to protect it’s interests from legal worker MPs more carefully and insighfully.

  40. Downunder says:

    I hear what you are saying, I think.

    It might have been a well intentioned mechanism to free vulnerable women from the clutches of mental institutions but instead the system fell victim to the unscrupulous money men and the agents of feminist ideology.

    To put it bluntly; the informed man may be pragmatic about it but the average Joe got the shit kicked out of him.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar