Woman Blackmails Ex with Sex Tape To Keep Custody of Kids (allegedly)
Woman Blackmails Ex with Sex Tape To Keep Custody of Kids
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9912740/Sex-tape-used-to-blackmail-court-hears
Yes a number of laws broken here. Making of an intimate recording without the persons consent for one. Blackmail.
All carry an indictable sentence. But will it?
What sort of woman would sleep with her ex just so she could record it and threaten to show it to his new partner in order to secure custody of their children?
Is there no limit to what what a woman can cause or do to a man and his children?
This conniving woman should be charged for rape due to non-consent from the man. But as usual, our under-the-skirt justice system will let her off scot-free. Wake up lawmakers. The pendulum has long swung the other way. Men are not the ONLY perpetrators of violence. There are a lot of male victims who are falling through the gaps.
Comment by Ashish A Naicker — Mon 7th April 2014 @ 3:42 pm
This is all perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour if your a women Why not ? what ever it takes, cheat, lie,steal extort, after all if you have boobs and the law behind you , who’s gunna stop them. (this excludes the nice women of course)
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Mon 7th April 2014 @ 4:18 pm
It shows how much a woman can love her children – what matters is the quality of the love? (perhaps – what goes with the children?)
It certainly looks as if the lady has done something “else”, which has resulted in having the book thrown at her?
Or is the caught$ system trying to create an image of fairness and equality? Unfortunately the public are far too easily conned by occasionally throwing a token woman to the wolves, to prove that they really are fair?
In a sense, the guy set himself up for it all, so it is a good value warning for all separated men.
The surprising thing is, why did she bother, when she probably would have got everything on a plate anyway?
It shows that the lady thinks the familycaught$ are really stupid and easily manipulated. I guess I agree with her.
NZ would be a much safer place if we did have a caught system that did what it is paid to do, with a bit of wisdom and knowledge thrown in too.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 7th April 2014 @ 4:22 pm
@MurrayBacon
Let me make sure I am understanding you here.
A woman wants to move to Wellington and take her child away from the vicinity of the father and schemes to record a sex-tape to blackmail the child’s father, destroy the parental relationship this child relies on, interfere (by some perceived right) with the life of her ex partner, and you are calling this love for a child?
Comment by Downunder — Mon 7th April 2014 @ 5:19 pm
Note she already has the benefit of the pussy pass, not so much because she was granted name suppression (though men get name suppression less frequently even when they have children who will be identified), but because of the lack of public complaints about her name suppression. Whenever a male defendant is given name suppression all manner of people rail indignantly against this regardless of any consequences that might fall upon the man’s family.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 7th April 2014 @ 5:59 pm
#4 Downunder is right. What we are talking about here is pure evil meant to abduct children away from a dad. Dam nasty business.
Abduction of a child using a consensual sex tape is not quite the bottom rung. It is not as repugnant as ones that sleep with their ex and make a false rape complaint.
Woman blackmailing men using sex seems to be showing itself so much on this site over the past few weeks.
I hope the chaps new wife can accept what has happened, be strong and get over it.
Comment by Lukenz — Mon 7th April 2014 @ 6:22 pm
The old definition of rape included obtaining intercourse by “misrepresenting the nature or the quality of the act”. In this instance, the woman obtained intercourse by misrepresenting the nature of the act, in that it included the making of a recording that if he had known about it, he would not have consented to take part in intercourse.
I guess today, the issue of the unconsented intimate recording is covered elsewhere in the Crimes Act.
#4 DownUnder – I think you are exactly getting my point. The woman-mother is trying to manipulate all of the relationships, using dishonesty, unconscionable threats and illegal acts on her part. To display these behaviours doesn’t exactly show her to be a suitable sole developer of children, particularly if the children are to be separated from the father.
However, I have seen sufficient examples where the familycaught$ have pressured fathers to not enforce laws against mother child abductors, to ignore perjury, that it appears that the familycaught$ is lost in every sense of protecting children, vulnerable people, integrity or justice. This is why these legal clowns are so against honest recordings being made.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 7th April 2014 @ 9:52 pm
MurrayBacon #7: The current definition is still similar:
.
Note the wording above defines consent as not having been given if a complainant was ‘mistaken’, regardless of whether the accused did anything to cause the complainant to be mistaken. Much of s128A was written in a similar style in 2005 by the Clark government in order to give women almost unlimited scope for having men prosecuted for rape regardless of the intention or actual behaviour of the man. She was frightened that force might be applied by the man or some other person, she was too drunk, she was intellectually slow, she was mistaken about who the man was, she was mistaken about the nature and quality of the sexual activity; in any of these circumstances fully consenting participation by the woman at the time of the sexual interaction can be retrospectively defined as having been without consent, meaning the man committed sexual violation or indecent assault. Because this law was intended to advantage woman and to clobber men, you won’t see it being used against this female offender. Yet clearly, under s128A(7) she should be prosecuted for sexual violation carrying a maximum tariff of 20 years imprisonment. Instead, the maximum tariff for blackmail is 14 years imprisonment and for making an intimate visual recording 3 years imprisonment.
Want to bet on the odds that she will get even 1 day in prison? Just wait for the rest of the pussy passes that will be shown, such as “…did it out of her commitment to stay with her children…” and “…understandably felt used by the complainant…” so “One lash with a wet bus ticket”.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 8th April 2014 @ 12:38 am
Dear Ministry of Men’s Affairs,
as you observe, enforcement of legislation is very “cultural”. There was no need to make female homosexuality illegal, as women just didn’t do “it”. Surprisingly, arousal studies have shown that about 30% of women are easily aroused by images of women, but only a few% of men are easily aroused by static images of men. So, Queen Victoria’s guesses were a bit wrong, on one occasion. Ease of arousal does seem to be playing a big role….
Similarly, judges just don’t like enforcing many laws on women. Most people in society don’t.
familycaught$ doesn’t follow legislation anyway, because noone is watching.
But issues about whether the behaviour of any of these adults reflects good parenting for the involved children, apparently just doesn’t arise!
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 8th April 2014 @ 8:09 am
@ 8 MOMA
I did not know that if a person considers they were mistaken about the nature and quality of sex, it is then recognised as ‘consent was not given’ and therefore rape.
So what you are saying is”¦. Consent can be given and then legally withdrawn afterwards if your partner was mistaken about the quality or if your partner (normally a woman) thought you were going to continue to date her and you didn’t then that’s “consent was not given” and also rape too.
Doesn’t seem to have a time limit on it either.
Comment by Lukenz — Tue 8th April 2014 @ 8:30 am
Divide and rule – pit man against women, mum against dad….. race against race……..that is why you see these DELIBERATELY biased rulings favoring one side over the other – it is designed to force CONFLICT on society. who Benefits ??? Only the lawyers…..And they are very successful in doing so…….
Racism is MORE POWERFUL than a RIFLE – ………. and always will be so long as we allow it to continue………
I have said it here many times, PARENTS – TOGETHER – MUMS and DADS and all people of all Races MUST unite against this oppressive and highly corrupted Family court system. Only then will you force change…….
If you keep buying into this FORCED DIVISION and Separation – which creates the ONGOING CONFLICT they DESIRE – you only encourage the system to keep doing this……you give it legitimacy and those abusing it – more power….to do the same……..
The first thing that must be removed – is the SECRECY – SECRECY only protects those who have corrupted the system for their own personal gain.
Comment by hornet — Tue 8th April 2014 @ 10:13 am
#6 – from my experience, any excuse – ANY Activity – is currently permitted JUSTIFY ACTION which ensures children remain with ONE parent – and the other Parent – usually the one with INCOME – is deliberately DEPRIVED.
Once we accept this TACTIC as the basis for ensuring that CONFLICT between parents continues in the Family court we can then start asking WHY?
WHY would a system – a service we go to for help = encourage and facilitate this? Because it ensures CONFLICT continues which means more Business for LAWYERS – that is all that is going on here……
That is WHY they will never allow a parent to see their own child as of right – they want one deprived – for revenue.
Comment by hornet — Tue 8th April 2014 @ 10:19 am
The Nanny State Motto
Steal his coin
Lay his coffers bare
Take his children
Care not their welfare
Let him work not
Free trade is of the past
Call it unsustainable
Make certain he will not last
It’s his fault
For being a simple man
He wasn’t progressive
Or in our final plan
Comment by Soothsayer — Tue 8th April 2014 @ 1:56 pm
@10 Lukenz, You got it. Men in NZ now live in a permanent war zone surrounded by women snipers authorized by the law and supported by the Courts to pick penis-owners off at will.
It would be interesting to know what lengths the man in the story above had to go to in order to make the police do anything.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 8th April 2014 @ 9:38 pm