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


Filed under: General — dpex @ 11:17 pm Wed 19th July 2006

This process of appeals to the High Court fascinates me.

It seems to me a judge becomes a judge having demonstrated a slightly greater degree of legal understanding than a mere lawyer.

Then said judge (with the aid of a lawyer to assist the court) comes out with a judgement which the mere lawyer finds (on several points) wrong in fact and law.

The mere lawyer then has to ask the judge who made the erroneous judgement for permission to appeal the judgement.

The mere lawyer sets out the grounds for the appeal.

The judge, having seen the ‘possible’ error of his ways allows the lawyers application to appeal against his own judgement.

Surely, this process is a farce? In fact a grande farce!

Is it not exactly the same circumstances where a female ex accuses the other of felonious actions, then accepts her words may have been distorted and thus petitions the court to allow another court to test her accusations of the erroneoulsy accused father?

For an appeal, the poor bastard appellant gets to pay $10k to have a judge in a higher court tell the judge in the lower court to get his act together.

Can the appelant then ask the lower court for costs? No?

Well. I am beginning to investigate this issue since the Crown Liabilities Act took away the absolute and uniform protection from government servants.

It seems to me that if a senior Family Court judge errs, and then costs a party to the proceedings $10k to get that ‘err’ reversed, then the court, et al is liable. After all, we tax-payers pay these men and women serious money to do their jobs properly.

It seems to me that if an FC judge makes a judgement which is overturned by a higher authority, then the FC judge has erred. In other words, to take it right down to the factory floor, the erring judge did not put 20 grams of peanuts into the 20 gram bag. And, therefore, as an employee he can be held accountable by the employer.

If I, as a consumer end up buying a 15 gram bag of peanuts for the cost of the 20 gram bag, then I get to sue the employer of the peanut providor for false representation. Does it not follow that I should also be allowed to sue the judge’s employer for false representation when the employee (the judge) represents law and is found to completely unrepresentative…Ergo, his judgement is found wanting in fact and in law?

Perhaps if a few folk started suing the Family Court for costs, having had a judgement overturned by the High Court, the folk in the Family Court might be just a little less inclined to deal in uncorroborated speculation and more inclined to deal in corroborated fact.

I fully intend to follow this course.

This madness has to be stopped.

The Jane Doe,s of this world, and the palpably mad women who lurk in the periphery of this bizarre system, simply have to be stopped.

But it ain’t going to be easy, folks. There’s a huge vested interest factor which doesn’t want any part of the family destruction process stopped.



  1. It is agood propsal curry on

    Comment by danies — Thu 20th July 2006 @ 1:47 am

  2. David,

    I agree 100% with your comments on appeals. My partner and I have been dragged through the system for over four years and have instructed three lawyers to present the true facts to the court. These facts which where disregarded form all 3 lawyers are now being used for the purpose of an application for a re-hearing. We have paid an outrageous amount of hard earned money to lawyers, valuers, accountants etc etc. There was an appeal in with the High Court which was abandoned on the understanding that the lawyers agreed to mediation. It never happened. Guess who paid? The proceedings where then transfered to the High Court on an application from her lawyer due to the “complexity” of a claim to overturn a trust which owns the house my partner and I purchased for our family home. Due to the failing of the true facts being presented and a bias Family Court Judge, my partner has spend the last four years trying to protect what has not been taken. Along with being locked out of and losing the family home he spent many hours of hard labour on while being buit, losing his business shares (he had to sell due to stress, having his access to his two sweet little girls go from every week to every 2 weeks, to every 3 weeks, to once day every 3 weeks, then to the current situation of not being allowed to see them and has not seen them now for nearly two years. Oh, he has tried and spent two nights in Auckland Central Police station for his efforts.

    The children are being used for the sole purpose of benefiting their mother in more ways than one.

    What sickens me most is that I have witnessed the destruction of one of the best fathers I have ever known. The destruction of a confident businessman who wanted nothing more than to build an empire for his girls, retire and then devote his life to their upbringing.

    The Family Court has supported this destruction 100% through allowing a very sick, emotionally unbalanced, vandictive women to have full control a gift from God to both her and my partner.

    Having to raise my children without a fathers influence has shown me how much our children need their dads.

    The corruption and prejudice within the Family Court has to stop. The power given to mothers has to be put back into prospective and the family unit has to be reintated for the future of our children and country.


    Comment by Carol — Thu 20th July 2006 @ 8:13 am

  3. Right-On,

    The “Empire of Injustice” grows itself daily

    Onward – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 20th July 2006 @ 8:54 am

  4. well said Carol. does anyone ever wonder why it is that lawyers are busy suing everone else (or encouraging their haples clients in the fight) for mistakes or negligence when their client hasn’t achieved the result they wanted while at the same time, lawyers get it wrong 50% of the time. why don’t people sue their lawyer when they lose in court for their bad advice?


    Comment by Frank — Thu 20th July 2006 @ 9:20 am

  5. PS by the way, i’m not advocating that there should be more litigation, quite the opposite. people should engage professionals for their expertise but should ultimately take responsibility for their own decisions. we all know when we employ someone that there is a trade off between competence and price. getting back to my first point tho, if your lawyer strings you along and at the end you lose, applying the same principles they encourage to everyone else, why not sue them?

    Comment by Frank — Thu 20th July 2006 @ 9:51 am

  6. Why not refuse to use lawyers at all? Hiring them only encourages them.

    Comment by PaulM — Thu 20th July 2006 @ 11:29 am

  7. probly doing something like this on a mass scale would be better?

    Comment by starr — Thu 20th July 2006 @ 1:17 pm

  8. Here, here on Paul M’s point. You get this BS in the US big time. This lie of, “If you get the right lawyer you can win!!!” In the US that means big bucks and a lot of luck in which judge your draw.
    Some of the bigger prettier sites are supported by lawyers, or run by them, to find customers period, and so they don’t bite the hands that feeds the site or are in fact the monster itself. Only when we move money from the judicary & bureaucratic branch to the legislative branch or out of the system completely will the system fall. If every activist man in New Zealand, and a few Aussies to boot, would go calling on these people’s doors with all the cash to organize it smoothly, instead of using it on each of our own court cases to minimium effect, they would move quicker to just reform.

    This would cost us a lot of short term loses of minimum access, but break the system or cause a real conflict that the state could not let stand(and either reform itself or start arresting men for opting out and action).

    They have us by the gonnads otherwise, with the idea if you love you kids and want any access you must go bankrupt to prove it, and then they still look down on your love anyway as if can’t never measure up with a mothers love or even a social workers love.
    Use your money to greater effect, as you see fit, but stop walking like Zombies (as we did) into the lawyers offices in the blind faith of believing you won’t be taken to the cleaners and with your superiour diplomatic skills will get treated nicer than us angry white men.
    We were all more naive sofer spoken diplomatic blokes when we went into the meat grinder, but like in WWI we have come back wounded in many ways. For you on the outside to judge us is like those generals who sat 10 miles behind the lines shouting “over the top or you are cowards”, or even worse in say WWII, sitting back in New Zealand saying lets go on stike at Wellington harbour and screw the Yanks fighting the Japanese to the north west. Stand together or wait to be bankrupted individually.

    Comment by Intrepid — Thu 20th July 2006 @ 1:28 pm

  9. I agree with you Dave, It seems to be a case of the blind leading the blind when it comes to the judges/lawyers decisions and interpretation of the law.

    The law is flawed and biased and therefore open to exploitation. Therefore we, the people, are open to exploitation by lawyers and judges.

    If the law was hole-proof and as fair as humanly possible, it’s exploitability would be reduced, and with that the lawyers and judges paychecks. So the only people who benefit in the end are the lawyers/judges.

    I guess it comes down to those ‘praised and esteemed citizens’ who essentially affect our quality of life this way.

    In the end, the lawyers will always be the winners. And they win by inducing and perpetuating conflict between us.

    Comment by Moose — Thu 20th July 2006 @ 10:56 pm

  10. Moose,

    If the law is so flawed why haven’t we discussed the actually parts of the law that are wrong?
    Why isn’t Wayne Pruden specifying the changes in law needed in his petition?
    Why are people petitioning outside lawyers and judges homes instead of outside parliament?

    Comment by julie — Fri 21st July 2006 @ 9:28 am

  11. Dear Julie,
    Do you speak legalese? If not you must pay a hug amount to have someone translate for you, and place your hope that this person is willing to be self-critical of themselves and say how much his fellow alumni are vultures. Added is the modern tendency to make law from the bench( which means changing it to suit the PC times). Governments change, but the bureaucrats and legalese oligarcy remain until dead. The more difficut the language the more important they think their profession is, nad the more they can change. Those studying to be a lawyer usually go into massive debt to be schooled in social enginnering from the bench, and are therefore concerned with earning the dream money back on the backs of blue collar men and having lifestyles that befit those who use less men like cattle.

    Comment by Intrepid — Fri 21st July 2006 @ 10:42 am

  12. Hi Intrepid,
    Legalese – the conventional language in which documents are written. (dictionary)

    So I have a new word in my vocabulary. Thanx. But I can’t find the meaning of ‘alumni’

    This is the first step the judges use in deciding what the law means. Being the meaning of words written and it is lawyers that make the law so they write it the same way but with meaning to how government officials mean’t for it to be. One complements the other.

    And yes, this is what my questions are directed as.

    But I want to share something with you. You know that i deal with single parents and yes I have a vehicle to put me in a high position along with support from other credible people in NZ to charge hourly rates as I feel fit for my knowledge and yes I have an influence on shared parenting issues and yes I am lucky to have you to help me understand more (I checked you out, you also have credibilty) but back to my point.
    I am not the only female spinning out. Many other females in positions as social workers that visit the homes of parental break ups for the court and many psychologists are now questioning the women and backing up the fathers. (Oh my, I think many are forgetting to consider the feelings of the women.)

    The fathers that speak up and show themselves as decent fathers are making a big impact as us women have been fooled by the women’s rights movement. We are only mere women as you are considered mere men.

    I so much like what you have to offer.
    Your history of behaviour is so special. I would love for you to post something on your knowledge. Many of us in society learn what is today but don’t know to consider yesterday. Could you please remind us with history. We think we are doing the right thing by dealing with the here and now but we don’t consider the long term.

    Comment by julie — Fri 21st July 2006 @ 12:06 pm

  13. I have spent 4 years battling applications from my ex wife in the family court over false accusations used as an act of aggession. This has cost me and my family a lot of money that we don’t have and we have only accomplished more debt. My ex left us 4 years ago with large debts. I was left with all the finanical responsabilties and also the 4 children while she was able to aquire a freehold house from her family. Now that I have been taken to the cleaners with our property we will be forced to sell the home and me and the children will have to rent after working for alot of years to provide a home for my family while she had the luxury of staying home and living off my hard earnt money. The court process frustrates me. After doing all the work preparing evidence we finally get to a hearing my ex wife being releaved of all finanical obligations and paying a total of $1300 over the last four years in child support waits until the day of the hearing to provide her manufactured evidence. The Judge takes that evidence and makes a ruling on it. I was not in a position to defend it because the evidence was introduced on the day. This was done because she knows if she had put it in her affidavit I would have been able to defend it. The appeal court decides to decline leave to provide evidence.
    So she gets away with this. So because of this we end up homeless and she gets $80,000 after leaving us in debt and my family is left with a $100,000 debt helping us over the last 4 years.
    This is not equal division.

    Comment by Mike — Wed 16th August 2006 @ 12:52 am

  14. Dear Mike,
    That is totally insane!! They call that equality? Men are supposed to be the same as women under the law, are they? This is something that must be rooted out at its core. Unite and fight!

    Comment by Intrepid — Wed 16th August 2006 @ 1:37 am

  15. If your wife puts you into debt.
    It makes it finanically profitable for them to run away from it, leave their children wait until the property goes up in value and profit from it. While we are left with all the finanical stress and forced to change our role from providing the income to care for the children as well. Disparity does not apply because it is only assessed on the position during the marrage not the changes in roles after the marriage and the finanical impact that has

    Comment by Mike — Wed 16th August 2006 @ 1:58 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar