MENZ article in breach of the Care of Children Act
A couple of days ago I recieved the following email from the Ministry of Justice.
I believe this is designed to suppress complaints made about the lawyer who was involved in the case, rather than to protect the children.
As I don’t have a spare $2,000 lying around, and have other plans for the next few months, I have complied.
I am disapointed that this information, and the discussion that followed has had to be suppressed, but the power and control in this situation is in the hands of the anti-male brigade.
I strongly encourage everyone to publish details about their cases, but please don’t break the law in the process.
Dear John Potter
Article on menz.org.nz in breach of the Care of Children Act 2004.
I write to alert you of the contents of an article and comments posted on your website menz.org.nz.
The article, titled “Dear xxx and xxx”, has been posted by Bevan Berg and can be found at http://www.menz.org.nz/2006/dear-xxx-and-xxx. The article is followed by a comment posted by Mike Paterson on 11 May 2006. The article and comment relate to an unsuccessful application for interim custody.
We consider that information contained in the article and comment is likely to lead to the identification of the children who were at the centre of the proceedings and the parties to the proceedings.
This is in breach of section 139 of the Care of Children Act 2004, which prohibits the publication of any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of a child who is the subject of proceedings under the Act or parties to the proceedings. A person who publishes details likely to lead to such identification is liable on summary conviction to:
- in the case of an individual, either imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $2,000; or
- in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $10,000.
Please note that section 139 of the Care of Children Act does allow persons to publish reports of proceedings as long as the report does not include identifying details. The prohibition on publishing identifying details is to protect the privacy of children involved in proceedings.
We request that the article and comment be removed from your website immediately. To avoid any further action being taken, please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm by 11 July 2006 that you have actioned our request.
Acting Chief Legal Counsel
Please post Kwoks e-mail address.
Ivan Kwok needs to be added to the **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition** E/Wellington Central, BOTHERING list when **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition** Wellington finally find those with the courage to stand and BOTHER those who damage our **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY**
Ivan Kwok has chosen to be an accomplice to the Anti-FAMILY brigade who damage the **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY**
Bureaucrats like Ivan Kwok can no longer hide behind the idea that they are only doing their job as do lawyers and Judges.
In due course it will be found that the Care of Childrens Bill which led to the act was established on illegal grounds and Kwok seems to be a major contender for the prosecutions which will follow if he is still alive. His job speck below suggests his responsibility to track and adjust bills is enormous.
Copied from Treasury website;
Treasury Solicitor: Ivan Kwok
The Legal Group’s services include developing drafts of legislation, assisting its passage through Parliament and interpreting and applying legislation on a day-to-day basis. Major areas of work include:
Annual legislation such as the Appropriation Acts and Imprest Supply Acts
the Public Finance and Fiscal Responsibility Acts
the SOE’s and Crown Forests Assets Acts.
The group provides legal support to the New Zealand Debt Management Office. The Legal Group also advises Treasury staff on statutory interpretation and general legal issues.
The Treasury, 1 The Terrace, PO Box 3724, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND.
Tel: +64 4 472 2733. Fax: +64 4 473 0982.
As at 25March05
Onward – Jim
Let’s see how men in other countries feel about this on the Priority News Exchange Program. Ivan Kwok, you are a dork, and then some.
care of children act 1994
TO: mr kwok
In an effort to better understand, care of children act 1994
I seek a response to the following:
Could you please explain in what context we are referring to; when you say; identity of the child is a criminal offence, in reference to a child’s identity being made public when they are part of a family court proceeding.
Is there a less likely chance of the child not respecting HIS father, if it was HIS father whom made his childs name public ?
Could another child at school who pay’s much attention to public debate, poke his tongue out at the named child and thus scare him ?
C. YOUR ANSWER PLEASE MR KWOK, no croc please, inform us lesser mortals of the gravy train you so very much endorse, PROTECT THE CHILD FROM WHAT, A. or B, or PROTECT THE CHILD FROM YOU MAYBE…
PLEASE DO TELL MR KWOK WHILE YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS ONCE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY, WE ARE ALL EARS…
should be care of children act 1984, (orwell inspired)
just to let you know, ‘Timocrat’ has issued this onto my forum under the ‘Priority News’ section.
I give mention to this only to show you support, and let you see that we abroad give you our best with this.
I shall draft up an email to Mr. Kwok and ask in the ‘chitchat’ area (the section that receives the majority of traffic) to give this a read through and maybe do their own email too.
All the best !!!
Timocrat is with the Honor Network and works the US and UK for us.
you can’t just go round legislating laws that are a pile of croc, i say every parent name his child pubically who go through the family court to show that the law ain’t worth the paper it is printed on, let the public know the the victims of the family court as they stand, innocent victims we know as children that is the family courts doing.
—– Original Message —–
From: Bevan Berg
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:28 PM
Subject: Menz website.
Kwok you on about wanker,
I would have thought an officer of the ministry of justice would have been above legal deception and intimidation. If I did breach the queer of children act, you would have been to see me by now wouldn’t you. Understandably you are only the Acting Chief Legal Counsel. No doubt the Chief Legal Counsel wouldn’t have a bar of such scurrilous behavior.
This tells us something about your standard of truth, and the state of the ministry of injustice, doesn’t it. How’s it feel to be climbing the ladder knowing you left your dignity on the bottom rung?
You be sure and take some hay to bed — fed those nightmares — conscience is something you can’t leave behind.
The email came from: [email protected]
I see Stuart Cummings is using the system to try to protect himself again by threatening innocent fathers with jail and or fines.
What a wanker!!
this is just a kwok of shite!!
While acknowledging that the Neuremburg trials established that “just following orders” does not absolve people of responsibility for their actions, I am concerned that this thread seems to be playing the man rather than the ball.
The important issue as I see it is Stuart Cummings dishonest behaviour. Naturally he is concerned that a Google search would reveal this to potential clients, so he has used the COC Act to cover up Bevan’s legitimate complaint.
I don’t see a problem with exposing unethical Family Court professionals on this site long as it does not identify a specific FC case.
They are protected by Libel and Defamation laws, but this would only apply if the information is untrue.
I have to agree JohnP we should as much as possible play the issue rather than the person. When people like Kwok step out of the woodwork and abuse their position of authority then I think they deserve to be openly humiliated and publicly attacked. This guy goes hand in hand with the Judge McCormack who fronted the Herald review to make Stuart Cummings and Judith Surgenor look like the lily white angels of the family court. Now if I put Ivan Kwok, Menz and corruption behind the New Zealand family court in the same sentence maybe that will be a permanent reminder of the part he didn’t play in properly investigating this matter
South Canterbury, Canterbury,,is there anyone interested in helping or in need of Union of Fathers here, we are keen to get some support for those in the far south that need it, and there a few that do, some are facing all sorts of false allegations to stop them from seeing thier children,,please leave a message if you are or you can email [email protected]