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

Letter To Boshier

Filed under: General — dpex @ 9:13 pm Sat 5th August 2006

Dear Sir,

I also wish to add my voice to the growing number voicing significant concerns regarding the way in which the Family Court system deports itself.

The first of my concerns regards that of the statutory requirement for substantive hearings to be heard within sixty days of the first interlocutory hearing.

On Tuesday, 2nd August, during my appeal of your minion, David Mathers’ judgements, much to my amazement, and that of Asher J, cases such as mine, which have dribbled on for well over five months are doing so simply for lack of funding.

I’m sure this is an excellent excuse in many cases, but in many more clever lawyers are using the underfunded court system to stretch cases, hoping appellants will simply give up.

Sir, your job is to ensure your court operates at the level dictated by statute, thus I am required to ask why you have not been doing your job. Why is there insufficient funding for the Family Court?

The next significant issue which disturbs me; also resulting from the the Appeal Court process, is this.

My lawyer found significant breaches in Mathers J’s judgement.

He then applied to Mathers J for the right to appeal. Mathers J allowed the appeal. It follows that Mathers J had to accept his judgement was potentially incorrect.

But Mathers J is a judge. One assumes a man of greater legal skill than my mere lawyer. So, perhaps you can explain how my mere lawyer saw such significant fault in Mathers J’s judgement which then led him to applying to Mathers J for the right to appeal and having Mathers J agree

In other words Mathers J allowed the appeal against his own judgement. If Jones J, another Judge, had allowed the appeal, I could understand. But Mathers J allowed an appeal against his own judgement.

Out here, in the real world, when one accepts liability for a mistake, normally one pays.

It seems to me the Crown Liabilities Act enables me to sue you and your masters; being Mathers J’s masters, for malfaction. And I fully intend to do just that.

You people; you judges, are supposed to know more about the law than mere lawyers.

Mathers J had the benefit of support in the form of Barry McLean, Lawyer to Assist, the mauderings of Crown Counsel, plus the dribble from the Child’s lawyer, one Shona-Let’s-Not-Mix-fiduciary responsibility-with-My wishes.

The whole lot of them got it wrong and Mathers J agreed; because he allowed the appeal. Let me say it again. Mathers J allowed the appeal on HIS OWN JUDGEMENT!

Now allow me to attend upon the appeal.

Asher J, clearly a man of significantly more capable intellect than Mathers J, listened closely to the often turbid offerings of opposing counsel, including McLean. Finally he suggested the issue of evidential validity had never been properly tested in the High Court. And, in fact, two quite separate sets of legislation in this matter contradicted themselves.

You should have known this. We the tax-payer pay you an ugly sum to be good at your job. But it is now quite clear that you didn’t know because Asher J said so.

The appeal addresses the issue of ‘probability-V-possibility’.

I sincerely trust it will come as no surprise to you that no test has ever been set to determine the rectitude of the definition of these two, quite clearly opposing adjectives. Probability requires some level of controvertible, but at least significant test. Whereas possibility remains in the realms of the likes of Mathers J’s imagination. And the imaginations of all previous judges against whom the men of the MENZ group now protest.

It is this aspect (possibility-V-Probability) which has caused so many angry men to begin protesting. What other solution do they have?

They are fighting a ghost in the Family Court, and this ghost is named ‘possibility’.

These men are sick and tired of fighting this ghost.

I am much luckier than so many others. I have the financial resource required to complete my protest via legal channels. Most men who daily face your minion’s decisions do not. Thus they suffer. Inevitably, unreasonable suffering must have its outlet. History shows many such examples, and the MENZ protests are nothing more than a reflection of such history.


Allow me to address this issue.

You, your minions, and all the dead-floggs who inhabit the Family Court system have the Power. You all have it because you all operate on tax-payers money, whereas I, and some like me, pay, and pay, and pay.

In my case, I have paid now $30,000. But in the Court are three dead-floggs being also paid, in part, via my taxes, by me. They are: The lawyer for Child (who is worth less than a petty insult). The Lawyer to Assist (who is worth not much more), then there is the Crown Office Lawyer whose intellect, in my opion, could be likened to a small dead rabbit.

Then there are the judges, the Court support staff, as so it goes on. My lawyer estimates the tax-payer has paid in excess of $200,000 for your Mathers J to mess up.

And it all gets down to one simple issue, Sir. The issue is; in FC proceedings there is no standard of proof set.

Hopefully, Asher J, clearly a man of intellect surpassing anything discovered in the Alice In Wonderland domain over which you preside, may well yet provide the gathered throng with some precedent which reasonably equates the proper test of law.

What you completely fail to understand is that the system over which you so carelessly preside allows, enables, and causes men to be defrauded of their children.

If you, Judge Boshier, had taken the time to read and understand the legislature under which you and your minions operate, you may well have discovered the arbitrariness of your domain.

But you have not. And that you have not should cause you significant shame. And in that shame you should, if you you have any real concern for law, begin to understand why so many fathers, grand-fathers, and grandmothers have joined the mounting howl of outrage against the outrage which is the dominion over which you, personally, preside. Otherwise Known as the Family Court.

A Court which has no concern for children, but which concerns itself with process. A process which has more flaws than a rotting tree stump.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr Boshier, for your complete failure to bring justice to the Family Court. You do not deserve the title Boshier J.

Kind regards
David P


  1. Hi David,

    I get the impression that you are going even higher for this child. I don’t know why you want to spend all this money, really I don’t. I think if you put the money into this young girls bank account she will benefit. Putting lots and lots of money into Hooker’s bank account is silly even if his is a favorite lawyer.

    Comment by julie — Sat 5th August 2006 @ 9:39 pm

  2. I mean your grand-daughter when I say this young girl.

    Comment by julie — Sat 5th August 2006 @ 10:24 pm

  3. David

    the only thing lawyers have to sell anyone is adversary and bullshit. You should never expect logical reasoning from our current legal system because it is not scientific, it is based on emotion and the predjudices, whims and feelings of judges. The right for elected representatives to make law was demanded and won and we should not forget that. It is high time, well overdue, for lawyers and judges right to interpret and thus make law to be removed for good. Everyone except the legal fraternity will be better of if we have clear rules for everything, not just matrimonial matters.

    Comment by Frank — Sat 5th August 2006 @ 10:28 pm

  4. Hi again David,

    I am not meaning to be a bother but I am researching for clear ways for parents to deal with CYFS to put on my site. And to my suprise there’s is nothing out there.
    (not really suprised)

    But I have come across a site where lots of parents are fighting the system just like yourself. It is a blog site.

    I have heard about this from this site and other men here. I tell you it is huge.

    Comment by julie — Sat 5th August 2006 @ 10:52 pm

  5. Hi Julie, thanks for that reference. I’ll check it out


    Comment by David — Sun 6th August 2006 @ 10:59 am

  6. David, when I said it was huge I had mistakenly read the views as comments. For a minute there I thought it had over 200 comments on average per post.

    Comment by julie — Sun 6th August 2006 @ 12:49 pm

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