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

Letter to Steve Gill

Filed under: General — dpex @ 9:40 pm Fri 25th August 2006


Jason and Vikki have been doing fighting with Jason’s Ex, impressions.

Vikki sets up a vid-cam to record the next visit of the Ex, the collect the child.

Vikki loses it. But thinks the vid will help to get Gill to see the nature of the Ex.

Gill sees evidence supporting the Ex, so he produces the vid in court. Jason and Vikki are his clients, not the Ex.

He asserts he just ‘had too’ on account of he’s an officer of the court.

Turns out CYF wrote a report on the Ex, highlighting her less than lucid state. Gill refuses to produce this in court.

Then, at the eleventh hour (Jason and Vikki are up for a final judgement, whereupon Jason will lose his son unless something good happens) Gill files to remove himself from the case!

What Gill didn’t factor into his bizarre performance was, this site, me, and Hooker.

Yup! Hooker is on the case.

My letter to Gill.

Hi Steve,

You don’t know me, but I think I know you.

Jason and Vikki tell me you produced a defamatory video to the FC on account of you had to because you’re an officer of the court. That it helped to tarnish their case is not your issue, is it? After all, you’re an officer of the court. The fact the court wasn’t paying you but Jason and Vikki were, to properly represent them, seems to have escaped your understanding.

Well, by the time Jason and Vikki finish suing you through the WDLS for failing in your fiduciary duty toward your client, we will all be most interested to see exactly how much of an officer of the court you are.

My guess is, you’re actually a legal fringe-dweller. A small bug which comes out under the cover of darkness to sup on the efforts of the bigger bugs.

They further tell me you failed/refused to present CYF evidence of crucial value to your client.

And then they tell me you bugged out on them within 48 hours of their most crucial hearing.

Do you have an answer for any this, Steve?

Of course you don’t. You’re just another boy who will soon be the subject of our attentions and, of course, that of the WDLS. And so we will just have to resile to lawful protest.

Welcome to our list, Steve. You deserve to be here.

And know this. Hooker is now on the case of your earstwhile clients. And Hooker will have much to say about your performance.

I almost feel sorry for you now that Hooker’s on the case.:–))



  1. Please don’t use the kind of language (which I have had to remove) in future David.

    Also, if Jason and Vikki are planning future legal action against Gill, publishing details might not be the best idea.

    Comment by JohnP — Fri 25th August 2006 @ 10:05 pm

  2. Vikki and I would like to thank David for his advice and support during this trying time.
    Even though the lawyer had withdrawn from the case, the information provided on this site was of great comfort to us, along with Davids support which I personally wish to thank him.
    I believe that the issue with the Lawyer is a mute one as I received a positive result.
    Even though I was left representing myself, I was armed with some of the information supplied on this site which relates to the balance of probabilty. In asking the opposing side to provide proof to all their unfounded allegations, their lack of proof was noted by the Judge who was fair and consistent, which could have gone to custard without his even handed approach.
    As private people we would have preferred to keep our story complete with names quiet, and are shocked to see our names associated with that post.
    That said it does not take away from the information, and support I have obtained from this site, and also forwarded onto others as well, that has ended up as a good result.
    I intend to continue following this site, and thank all who have contributed to the battle in evening up the playing field, which will allow me to continue, the right to seeing my son without a protection order hanging over our heads.
    I hope that my experience in the Family Court is one of many, that now will reflect the changes made by that decision on the 12/08 and expect that fairness has resulted for all parties for the future.
    Good work well done.

    Comment by Jason and Vikki — Sun 27th August 2006 @ 7:57 pm

  3. I have read your item with interest and I note an item published in the Hutt News dated 8/10/2010 related an item to Steve’s partner Gail McAsey “LYING LAWYER GUILTY” the item also goes on to say her law partner Steve Gill was prohibited from practising conveyancing matters in 1993, after he pleaded guilty to several charges including incompetence in conveyancing transactions.

    Comment by sanjeet — Sun 31st July 2011 @ 9:59 pm

  4. I used to work for Gail and Steve. I would never ever ever ever recommend them to anyone. I have to agree Gail is fast with her conveyancing matters but Steve – terrible! He was a useless family court lawyer and why anyone would use him and keep after the first hearing (if he ever attended) is just mind blowing to me. He is a rip off, waste of money – majority of the time you are paying for someone else who you dont know or does not know anything about your case, to represent you because he ‘is being delayed and wont make it to your court hearing’. I feel sorry for those people who he has charged for his time and actually never helped them.

    Comment by bonnie — Thu 15th December 2011 @ 2:35 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