Surgenor Again
Ms Surgenor and I have had a few email words over the last few days. My reply to her last is below and reading between the lines will allow you to understand the nature of my comments.
“When in the act of erring, and found wanting, as appears to be the case in this instance, (as regards your sexual predilections) I am always quick to raise my hand. And so please accept my most profound apologies and pass same to your receptionist.
Mind you, my own observations could well have been coloured by the plethora of public opinion to which I have recently been exposed. By that I mean; whenever I mention your name some person will metaphorically spit on the ground and utter words such as, ‘Oh, that bloody lesbo.’
In your defence I must also say that the guy who fixes you car did assert you had a few men-friends. And don’t go getting all paranoid. I met him as a part of my regular business and the subject somehow got around to the FC and thus you. Albeit, at the time, you were still pretending to act properly for me.
Isn’t it amazing how innuendo, half-truths, perceptions renamed truth, and so much harsh untruth can so easily contaminate the lives of the innocent? Perhaps you might like to reflect upon that when next you buy into ‘bad man/good woman’ games; games so often played at the inevitable expense of the children involved.
However, I do not resile from my position that you took my money under, essentially, false pretences. You say, in your email reply to my negative comments about your ‘interest’ in my case, that “had I asked” you would have referred me to Hooker. A comment which begs the question, ‘Why would I have had to ask if you were a competent lawyer acting in best faith for ‘my’ position?’ ”
If you had asked for a referral to another lawyer in a matter such as yours I probably would have suggested Rod Hooker
The immediate above were Surgenor’s actual words in her email to me.
I continue.
” For the record I do know a few decent men and the odd decent woman. But I meet both men and women (mostly through my business) whom I would not be overly happy with having care for my grand-daughter’s dog. These people are often poorly educated, enjoy the intellectual skills or marginalised rabbits, yet hold unswayable opinions based on anything but fact, and leave morality at the door of convenience.
Emblazoned on the metaphorical caps they wear is the word ‘Pragmatist’…. a name used to foreshorten the ethic, ‘Needs must as the devil does.’
I class your conduct, as regards your efforts in my favour, in a similar realm. So I guess I can reasonably refer you to a recently well publicised catch-phrase….”If the cap fits…!” ”
Regards
David
So far, Ms Surgenor has not replied.
Odd……I sent her 2 emails also and have failed to elicit a response to either one.Perhaps she is working through a heavy backlog,although I feel the lack of fiscal inducement in doing so is the real culprit!
Comment by Mike — Thu 13th July 2006 @ 12:23 am
Jan
You clearly have issues you need to deal with. I do not intend continuing this correspondence. Go and get help!
—– Original Message —–
From: Jan
To: Judith Surgenor
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Hearing?
Judith,
You have grown overweight on the gravy from the train that you perpetuate and you are but trying to protect it.
I know that the family court is corrupt and you are a liar to deny it.
You have a terrible attitude toward men!
They are not my thoughts they are facts.
What is it that you disagree with Judith?
Did I make an abusive threat to you ?
I get the impression you would like me to feel sorry for you, I do but not the way you think.
You deserve NO court-esy!!!
—– Original Message —–
From: Judith Surgenor
To: Jan
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Hearing?
Dear Jan
Thankyou for sharing your thoughts. You have the right to express them. I have the right to disagree. At least I won’t be making abusive threats to you for saying what you think. It’s a shame people like you and the men’s groups cannot afford me the same courtesy.
Kind Regards
Judith Surgenor
—– Original Message —–
From: Jan
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:59 AM
Subject: Hearing?
Judith Surgenor,
Thankyou for exposing yourself.
You made a fool of yourself on TV one Last night.
Shame on you!
You are a Bigot!
You are a Corrupt fool.
You kid yourself.
You cannot be taken seriously.
Jan
Comment by Jan — Tue 18th July 2006 @ 10:24 am
judith surgenor plays on ‘care’ but made $1.2 million out of tax payer and always pretends busy, causing troubles> when a parent asked her if this parent can take the child for a show or travel, she made a few affidavits and heavily disturbed and made $2000-$3000 each time, then ended up at the court hearing after 2 months or longer, everything is MISSED, too late………..reason bitter naustiness. Minister in parliament wants to change family court system, they are so RIGHT!, without this so call ‘child lawyer, who never advice the child their rights any way, due to no witness, all children are minor, even a teacher sitting next to the meeting, had no idea what shall be asked and what Judith reported to court, it can something entirelly different. No quality control………..total needs to be sued for compensation. if you want to take judith to NZ law society, or open court, do it, get suppor from us. wake up and stand up to it.
Comment by confidential for now — Fri 16th September 2011 @ 9:32 am