The Appeal
First. Thanks to all of your for the congratulations.
I have been forced to live through an appalling time for these last six months, never knowing who will coming banging on the door to swipe the kids. Never knowing the outcome of the ‘next’ court hearing. And living in a perpetual state of intense stress.
I had to place my considered faith in someone other than myself, and I did. Hooker. Without wishing to seem as if I’m blowing smoke up his arse, I can say I have never noticed that faith waver. I had made up my mind I had the best possible defender and that win,lose, or draw, neither he nor I could do more than as much as we could do.
I would have thought no less of his skill had we failed in the High Court.
The Judgement.
Prefacing this tome, and in very large black letters is the caution that no part of this judgement may be revealed except by….and goes on to list a few exceptions.
I am not sure if this embargo will remain in place once the case is entirely complete.
But on Monday I shall ask Hooker how I can best go about providing a copy of it to all those needing it.
However, what I can report is the judgement has now set a proper standard of proof for all interlocutory applications such as Custody orders, Restraining orders, Non-association orders, Wardship orders, etc.
This judgement will have far-reaching affects on all future FC orders, including final orders. Although I am clearly restrained from providing specific data, you may all be very assured it has taken 99% of the bounce out of the Kangaroo Court, AKA, the FC.
So far as I can see, from reading the various cited cases Asher J used in his deliberations, no such standard has ever been set for the Family Court. But now it has and thus it is enshrined in New Zealand Law.
I believe, although from my non-professional position, that this judgement could be used by many of you as a go-back tool. By that I mean you could start further proceedings and use this judgement to facilitate a reversal of a previous judgement because, now, you will have a tool which sets a very high standard of test on ‘evidence’.
The ‘evidence’ to be accepted as such must now be corroborated. The words, ‘I think’, ‘I feel,’ ‘I believe’, ‘I believe’, and all other such hyperbolic phrases used in past in the FC, will no longer be acceptable.
Although the judgement distinguishes between criminal and civil test levels, it comes down firmly in favour of the minimum of a civil test.
Believe me people, this is huger than huge. It represents a massive shift in how disenfranchised appellants will be treated by the FC. I just wish I could relate the substance of the judgement. But you’ll appreciate I really don’t want to get done for contempt when I have come this far and survived.
But having said that, if your case is desperate, get hold of me. I now Hooker will help me find a way to get the judgement to you, legally.
By now Boshier will have read the judgement. I wonder where he will attempt to hide his shameful face in future?
And for the record, I hold no sense of angst for Mathers J. He was, after all, attempting to make sense of an utterly muddled legislation and just doing his best within the precepts with which he had to work.
I suspect there will be many FC Judges who will welcome this appeal because it now provides clear and unequivocal guidelines for them.
Lastly, may I say, this judgement is going to poke a large hole in the aspirations of many a future DPB wannabe.
We got there Jim!
It will be equal shared parenting unless the other side can come up with substantial and corroborated ‘evidence’ which ‘clearly’ supports the making of even an interim judgement against.
My beautiful grand-daughter is sitting nearby, as I write this. She’s doing her art.
I just mentioned to her how in awe I remain of her strength to deal with the dreadful times we have sustained. I also mentioned that our suffering has now actually made a massive difference to the lives of so many children and fathers ( and some mothers) in the future.
That got a smile. And when my girl smiles I can turn the lights out and still see clearly.:–))
At the end of her first year at school she was awarded the Perseverando Prize. This little dinky kid, with the light of the universe in her eyes won it for refusing to give up.
She is one hell of an artist and, one day, presented me with a most exquisite book-mark. Etched into the background colour is that word, PERSEVERANDO. “Never give up”.
That book-mark has kept safe my place in hundreds of books since. Each night, as I use it, that single word is my goodnight kiss of sanity and proprietry. NEVER GIVE UP.
She has never given up her faith in me, and latterly Hooker, and I’m damned if I’m going to be seen by her as less courageous.
I think all kids have such courage and will maintain it so long as they can see that their most important people also NEVER GIVE UP.
We fight till we can fight no more. No more means, you’re dead.
Fight hard enough and long enough and, sonner or later, an Asher J arrives to let you know that the fight was worth it.
Thanks for your enduring support folks.
I shall report more as I am able.
Cheers David.
PS: To Lizzie Curtis and her sisters at CYP. ‘My Girl’ nearly scored a goal at soccer today, but in any event the team won the game.
And last week she took out the 400 X 50 free-style; and that was just after she got elevated to Grade-3 Piano, that afternoon.
She’s also recently been tested and proven to be in the top 1% for grammar. I feel able to reasonably report she got a great deal of her understanding from me. Of course, I have put in all I have to her grammar because I’m grooming her to become articulate. And so much time into her sporting development because I’m grooming her to enjoy all life has to offer.
Naughty me. Grooming just a child for such wicked ends.
And you, you insufferable creatures of hatred, could have easily have denied this extraordinary girl the ability to achieve any of this.
Hope you enjoyed the judgement, Lizzie and CYFsters. :–))
The main event, whereupon your sickness can be lawfully reported in the media is yet to come. But it’s coming.
D.
I would like to see these papers also. But be careful not to get too cozy for they still have the Court of Appeal don’t they? And they may change the law. It will not just be CYFS worried.
I seriously think you should share your story to the parents here. They have a right to know who and what they congradulate.
Comment by julie — Sat 12th August 2006 @ 8:45 pm
David, You can delete both these comments. I just had to have my say (I have no more to say over it) and I am sure you will agree it wasn’t nasty. I am sure you can understand that our group wil be against what you have done.
Comment by julie — Sat 12th August 2006 @ 9:04 pm
Dave,
Congratulations. You have provided the beacon of hope we all have been waiting for, and paved the way for fair justice for Men.
Bravo my friend, bravo.
Comment by Moose — Sat 12th August 2006 @ 10:48 pm
Dave
This is good news for all fathers struggling in the lewd world of family litigation. Only through the repeated efforts of inspirational activists, like yourself, will we clearly show the ignorant public that large parts of current legislation is problematic and totally unbalanced for a Father. As you rightly assert, justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done and who knows, you’re case may provide many aggrieved litigants a platform to reach for the real stars and reunite in happy times with their lost , sad children. I would give all the money in the world to be allowed to watch my two daughters playing a game of soccer but a judge says I can’. However after your success it has given me a much needed injection of spirit and I will NEVER give up my fight with the judiciary to achieve this. In solidarity —brother
Comment by dad4justice — Sun 13th August 2006 @ 9:49 am
Congratulations David,
What next? A class action lawsuit on behalf of fathers and kids alienated from one another by the femily caught’s unethical lack of due process for them?
Comment by Stephen — Sun 13th August 2006 @ 3:48 pm
I am not 100% sure what you have done;but it sounds fantastic.You haven’t gone away and stuck it to them.As I have said ;my FC drama went on for 3 years and I had my day.What does this julie represent?
Comment by keith — Sun 13th August 2006 @ 3:52 pm
Hi Keith,
The group I talk about is ‘Single Parents Trust.’
We are into supporting parents that are seperating and have seperated.
I like David so my harsh stand is not against him as an individual but about his actions because we do not agree (the group) and I (myself) at what he has done. I and many in our group are pretty much against people whether personally or CYFS taking children away from the family members.
Just because someone is not coping or because they are not what you want them to be is no reason to remove their children and raise them away from the family.
My personal argument is that if you want to help children, you help them from outside the family boundaries first and then from within as a coach or friend. And you never take over. Well, that is a statement to follow but in reality if a child’s life really was in danger, I would do something. (hasn’t happened yet, never had to in all my life.)
Comment by julie — Sun 13th August 2006 @ 6:20 pm
I’m sorry Julie, but I fail to understand how you arrive at the conclusion that the new rules created by my successful appeal will unreasonably affect anyone.
Comment by dpex — Sun 13th August 2006 @ 6:42 pm
David,
I am calling this how I see it and how it feels. I am glad we had the chance to discuss this through e-mail because to discuss it here is negative. We just have 2 very different views on this. But we are both on the same team with the men’s movement.
The law papers I have done have taught me that a precedent is only available to a case when you can find distinct similarities. Your case is very different in that “Grooming” is different than “Domestic Violence” or “Sexual allegations” and you are a different player to fathers and mothers.
But in saying that we need to understand what specific laws were involved and how they were interpretated. You need to ask Hooker.
It may be that your case will help other males in a similar situation dealing with CYFS, etc.
But in saying that you had the child when you went to court so that puts you as the day to day caregiver and the FC puts the child’s interest first and it is usual to give the prime caregiver at the time of court action custody. (old term)
I guess after raving on the answer is, “Who knows (yet) if others can use it”
Comment by julie — Sun 13th August 2006 @ 11:13 pm
David,
I hadn’t read your question right and I am suprised you would ask me that but I will answer it.
You are not related to this child and I don’t know if you have known her for very long.
Your appeal has now given anyone the right to go for anyone’s child and win day-to-day care previously known as custody.
It seemed bad enough that parents have to worry about CYFS taking their children but now it is worse because the sports coach, the nieghbour, the bus driver can befriend your child and take you to court for custody. Your appeal is wosre than CYFS having custody because with CYFS the parents still have access and do have a chance to get them back.
In your case you cannot offer the family access because it is very likely they are plotting your death.
This appeal is extremely unreasonable in my view, as it gives rights to predators.
I can imagine right now that you are regretting asking me. Yet I cannot believe you don’t see what you are doing as wrong. This is how laws against men sitting on planes next to children come about. The ripple affect from this case has many damaging scenarios.
You should of just helped from a freindship relationship like I told you. You made a bad choice to take this so far, David. You are not a hero.
And by the way, I asked to have R.Hookers name down as a lawyer to protest against. He is a greedy, manipulative man who only cares about how much money he will get. He doesn’t give a toss for values.
Comment by julie — Mon 14th August 2006 @ 10:04 am
Julie,
Your assumptions are becoming more wild and preposterous; so for the record…
1. I have had the responsibility (and may I say joy) of rearing this child for the last ten years.
2. I have absolutely no wish to restrict access of the child’s mother. In fact, quite the reverse. I wish she would take a far greater interest in the well-being and activity stream of the child.
3. I have been extremely supportive of the mother, despite often feeling intense anger at many of the awful things she has done to me and many others.
4. The apeal is not about ‘my case’ per se. It is all about the Appeal Court finally setting a minimum standard against which all ‘evidence’ must be judged.
5. This judgement does not enable any old person to simply walk in and gain custody of a child. If anything it strengthens the safety of any child.
You have clearly developed a completely unsubstantiated mind-set which has gone so far away from fact as to be on the way back.
It is this very thing, ‘unsubstantiated’ allegations, upon which the FC have been operating for years.
Cheers
David
Comment by dpex — Mon 14th August 2006 @ 11:32 am
To help full in the gap, what is a brief synopsis of this. In simple terms would help.
If I read julies comments right this is the case of a stranger using the courts to sever the relationship with the biological family.
I think it would be helpful to give a brief neutral synopsis.
regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 14th August 2006 @ 1:01 pm
Hi all
sorry DPX but i did not seem to follow this too well either..
can you describe briefly your relationship to the child etc and how the situation came about?
Comment by starr — Mon 14th August 2006 @ 2:26 pm
David, David, David.
What do you take me for.
How could you have had. CYFS wanted to take the children off the mother only this year. Why would CYFS consider taking the children off the mother if you had been looking after one of them for the past 10 years?
I think it is a bit late for that.
Just so I get the picture, Are you asking me to believe that you took this mother to court for her child so that the FC will behave better towards ?????????
Why didn’t you just go against CYFS for accusing you of “Grooming” Why go for custody.
As soon as CYFS realised you had been given the kids (from the mother working out what was better for her kids, you or CYFS) they dropped the case on the mother. You should have stepped back, then and stayed as support for the family.
Comment by julie — Mon 14th August 2006 @ 5:08 pm
The only details I know about David’s case are those I have read here, which don’t seem to justify harsh judgments against him as far as I can see.
If, Julie, you are promoting the idea that the biological parents should always be considered the best caregiver no matter what, you are putting ideology ahead of commonsense. This is exactly what we complain that the feminists have done.
I have no doubt that there are a number of families where children are very real danger from biological parents, especially in situations where drugs like alcohol and “P” are involved.
I do believe it is vitally important that as a society we get this right, and in this regard David’s precident looks like a step forward to me.
Comment by JohnP — Mon 14th August 2006 @ 8:03 pm
Does this mean “I don’ know – he might have” doesn’t stand up as substantiable eidence?
Comment by Al D Rado — Mon 14th August 2006 @ 9:07 pm
Hi John,
I actually thought that was what the father’s coalition is promoting. I had no idea that was what the femisinsts have promoted also.
John, I have no idea what the answer is myself and I have never considered asking parents at kindy or school if they were biological parents nor do I ask at sports. Actually, I never ask.
I have seen children in care that only want to go home to their parents. You can spend 5 years on them and get nowhere because they want to go home to their parents.
It is a toss up whether these children would have been better off at home with their parents rather than in care.
Even with the alcohol and ‘P.’ Not all alcoholics and ‘P’ users put their children in danger.
Comment by julie — Mon 14th August 2006 @ 9:19 pm
John,why discriminate by calling a parent a biological parent? They are the parents others are not the parents they are strangers.
I agree there has to be an element of commonsense here? For example if a kid is beaten black and blue by the parents then they are unsuitable to parent and care should go to strangers.
However given the total number of parents and children the reality is that real abuse is a very very tiny figure.
For example disputes between parents, based on e.g. a “custody battle” should not be a ground to remove a parent from a childs life. This has happened far too often in the FC.
The danger is that parents are devalued at the expense of strangers without any real evidence (Bit like the satanic panic child abuse of the 1980’s)
There is a myth out there that family violence is a major problem, reality is that with over one million children the figures of so called abuse dont even make up 1% of the population.
I agree that in a very small number of circumstances parents are unsuitable to parent. There are another group who may not want to parent but I suspect that number is also tiny in comparrison to the total population of parents.
What I do know is that kids would the “worse parents” parenting together end up with the best outcomes as they grow.
I grow very uneasy when I see time and time again the State exercising the removal of children based on unproven allegations.
I grow very uneasy with the social engineering of a number of well funded lobby groups. For example claiming that a notification of suspected abuse equates to real abuse as a number of organisations have done. Or as Womens Refuge and the police claim that domestic violence is underreported because the “reported” figures do not support the ideology and income stream.
Please note this is not an attack on Dave, its a response to John and Julies thoughts.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 15th August 2006 @ 9:40 am
Scrap,
Thank-you for your last comment. I am glad that someone in your line of work (job) and charitable work actually sees the reality.
I was talking with a friend who I would love to get involved in all this (in fact I have many friends that would be perfect for this) but they choose their own things to give for. I mean that there are many choices when you are ready to give of yourself.
Anyhow, we were discussing the show on TV where the compared ages of people. I think it was on the topic of, “What is the perfect age.’
What my friend said was, “Anything you learn from the age of 20, stays. Apparently something to do with the brain.”
Well that makes me a perfect person to talk about people. I have seen so much and heard so many stories. In fact, I can tell people things they never want to know and things that will save marriages. Oh my God, I had no idea what gifts I really had. No wonder so many people believe in me.
But I don’t have the papers to go with it. (After this semester, I will)
I cannot get over the intelligence that you have because you have the street smart and the education smart.
I think you are fantastic. I have never met people giving so much of themselves to help others. I guess I have been too wrapped up in my own thing with my children etc. I am envious that others ‘win’ because of going to court. Systems like court have always been a fear for me.
My ex-husband doesn’t have the same fear and I should have trusted him more but to spend the risk, the money, as others have done was not my idea of smart thinking.
Don’t I feel guilty now. Our boys would have never endured what they had if we used the system.
Anyhow, I also want to thank-you for not taking sides between me and David.
Comment by julie — Tue 15th August 2006 @ 5:00 pm
Scrap asks:
I disagree. Step-parents are not strangers, nor are adoptive parents, and nor are extended family members who have undertaken a parenting role. In New Zealand there are untold non-biological parenting arrangements which work extremely well, and I think the men’s movement must include and support these people.
Don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe the State should only sever the bond between child and biological parent if that parent has been convicted beyond reasonable doubt of having abused that child AND is considered to be a danger in the future.
But we have to face facts, these parents do exist and there has to be some kind of strategy in place to minimise harm of the children involved, and to support alternative parents when necessary.
Actually, I think one of the strongest arguments for reforming CYFs is that their current obsession with removing thousands of middle-class fathers from families is stealing scarce resources from genuinely abused children who actually do need protection.
Getting rid of the meaningless “Balance of Probabilities” standard of proof in the Family Court would go a long way towards achieving that goal.
Comment by JohnP — Tue 15th August 2006 @ 8:12 pm
Noooooooooo!
John, what the appeal has gotten rid of is the completely inequitable “Balance of POSSIBILITIES”.
The balance of ‘probabilities’ requires a whole new level of test.
Asher J has said, ‘In this interim application where the criteria must be proven to the CIVIL standard, the decision is relatively straightforward. The threshold has not been reached, and certainly not crossed. The Court cannot be satisfied on the “balance of probabilities” that abuse has taken place, or is likely to take place”.
He went on to say…”The general approach (of the FC judge) was dictated by the general approach of unacceptable risk, which I have found was the wrong approach. If he (the FC judge) had applied the correct test of satisfaction on the balance of probabilities, then in my view he would have dismissed the application.” (S78 removal order)
And so, you see, Asher J requires of the FC substantiated, more or less unequivocal ‘evidence’ of abuse. The words, belief, feeling, think, maybe, ‘possibly’, could, might, etc, are no longer acceptable currency in the FC.
This judgement is also going to have a significant affect on the ‘opinions’ of sundry, court-employed shrinks who choose to entertain the gathered throng with their utterly untested theories.
I gather, from Hooker and sundry lawyers involved in my case,The Crown included, that the number of shrinks prepared to stand up and attempt to apply objectivity to their subjective opinions, is shrinking, rapidly. ‘Scuse the pun.
Apparently, the wee dears can’t hack the CX. Oh dear, how sad.
From now on ‘proof’ must be offered.
Cheers
David
Comment by dpex — Tue 15th August 2006 @ 8:41 pm
John,
Here’s a play-time.
What sort of shit are YOU smoking? LOL.
(LOL means ‘Lots of Laughs’ to me because I think ‘Laugh out loud is stupid’)
Anyhow, don’t you realise that the information you provide (comment) on this post contradicts what you are saying on your site?
So now I am confused. Who is anyone for?
Comment by julie — Tue 15th August 2006 @ 9:03 pm
`
John,
I would say that there is more agreement than disagreement.
I am concerned that as a society we devalue the fundemental right of a child to be parented by his or her parents and a parents right to parent their children.
My view is that we need to carefully look at the langauage we use.
Parent is both a nature (biological) and social (nuture)role. Only two people are parents, the mum and the dad others are not parents.(By my definition)
They may be carers, extended families, aunts and uncles providing a type of social parenting but my view is that soxiety has devaluled the crucial input that a parent has in favour of “alternatives”
FYI the term stranger parents comes from the adoption process, the legal servering of parental rights and responsibilities in the favour of strangers.
Care by people other than parents does occur (for example I have 2 “step-children” whos dad is deceased) and this is somehing that society needs to address.
There are some parents, both male and female, who will try their hardest to stop the other parents involvement in a childs life in favour of a “replacement parent”. There are mums and dads who do not want to parent. There are a small number of unfit parents.
You are quite right when you say we need to have some kind of stratergy to minimise the harm to children and support akternative parents when necessary.
For the last few years it has become clear to me that decades of failed social engineering has created a horrendous mess for parents and kids.
There needs to be reasoned and well informed debate over these questions.
Julie, I take your last comment to John in the hunour it was intended :o)
As to who is anyone for, sometimes debate is just as important as position.
John has provided a much needed voice for men for a very long time, without censorship and the debate this produces is very much for our kids rights and the right of parents to be parents.
The change needed is going to take another 10-20years, thats about how long it will take to get the law change required.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 16th August 2006 @ 12:02 pm
To make it clear to un-informed readers, this is not an actual legal term, whereas “Balance of Probabilities” is. I welcome the fact that the test has been tightened up, but it still is pretty subjective.
Julie asks:
No I don’t. Can you be more specific?
This site was actually set up to represent the interests of all NZ men, not just fathers.
Comment by JohnP — Wed 16th August 2006 @ 10:07 pm
Scrap,
I am aware of the great work John has done for men’s rights. Of course I don’t know it all.
The reason I complement you guys is because of the work you do and have done and mostly for the fact that you have done it for years with value. There are so many people, men and women that have all the answers, all the great words, everything from the outside sounds good but they do not follow through. Their words are just that, words. This is the stuff con-people are made of.
I, myself struggle to stay focused and I have to put things in place like mentors. So because I believe it is so easy to be distracted and throw in the towel because it seems too hard or that you won’t make much of a dent in the problem, I respect you guys even more.
Well, that is frightening. I personally disagree. I think with technology the way it is and with the amount of charity groups around I think once the laws start changing through the recognition (that seems to be the first step) of male’s rights it will snowball. I do however think the implementation will take around 10 years to complete but then who knows.
John,
That makes me think differently but I was talking about information on violence towards children from step fathers etc being high while biological fathers are genearally not abusive. You have the statistics available on your site.
Comment by julie — Thu 17th August 2006 @ 10:03 am
Julie wrote:
The same statistics also tell us that the vast majority of stepfathers are not abusive, and most are doing a fine job of parenting. Many MENZ readers will be step parents at some point in their lives, and I believe they deserve society’s support.
The increased risk of a stepparent perpetrating abuse only becomes relevant when the State is considering removing a biological father because he might be abusive in the future (ie: situations where there is no actual evidence of past abuse).
If on the other hand, a biological parent is convicted of child abuse in a criminal court, the Family Court may be quite justified in removing custody – previous acts are one of the few accurate predictors of future behaviour.
Comment by JohnP — Thu 17th August 2006 @ 11:51 am
John,
Your last comment does not match what I percieved these statistics to say.
It makes complete sense to me that a stepfather is more likely to abuse a child than the child’s own father. But then of course I know fathers that beat their children. These father’s have usually been raised that way themselves.
From a females perspective, I would say that stepfathers do not actually choose to be such but are instead interested in the mother (female).
I would think that the stepfather becomes such because the child comes with the woman. There is a saying that I have heard from men. ‘The way to a mother’s heart is through the children.’ This is not neccessarily a ‘con’ but just ‘mere’ cleverness.
There are things that are an issue. Sometimes there is a jealousy issue between the stepfather and the stepchildren. They both want the attention of the female.
I would think that alot of women are aware of this and are often more protective of the children that are not biologically the new fathers. Sometimes this only creates more tension between the stepfather and the stepchild as there is a power struggle.
There are not many men that I know of that allow the child to have the power and control. Yet a single mother does allow a child this power and control. That to me is one of the problems with children not having fathers.
Comment by julie — Thu 17th August 2006 @ 4:19 pm
Hi again John,
I didn’t read your comment very well the first time around.
Yes, I understand what you say. And I concur.
Comment by julie — Thu 17th August 2006 @ 4:27 pm
Hi again, again John,
Through the course of today, I had the opportunity to talk to a few men about the comment I placed on your site. (comment 28)
Well, it has come to my attention that one of my friends (we call each other peers) is struggling with being a stepfather by the behaviour of a child that is now a teenager. The child does have a father who is involved which in a way is not being helpful to the relationship of the stepfather, mother and child.
In fact the stepfather is not called “Dad” but is in the home where the mother is and the day-to-day care of the children are.
One of the guys said to me that it is very difficult being a stepfather because you want to please the female by standing by her stand towards the children’s behaviour but you find yourself being played and it is very difficult to know how to play altogether.
One reason is that a male stands by the woman and persists in a stern way the rules. Next thing ‘Dad’ gets told the stepfather was hard and ‘Dad’ is angry.
Two, is the children know they have a father and threaten the stepfather with this by saying things like, “You touch me and Dad will get you.”
And three, if there is no father around (no shared parenting) the mother threatens the children with things like, “Wait till so and so gets home.” (She would possibly do the same if there was a biological connection) Anyhow, the stepfather may overstep what the mother thinks reasonable and conflict starts in the relationship. This conflict will power the children especially if the are of teenage years.
I think it is wonderful that you want to help stepfathers as well. If you do decide to have certain writers on certain topics, I have some candidates that would be perfect and I think if you approached them in the right way they would help. And help they will.
I know this sort of thing even for my own situation and we were laughing about it. I said, ‘imagine bringing in a man to my home with my 2 boys.’
So I have been told to get rid of the kids, put them in their own flat and then get a man. LOL.
Comment by julie — Fri 18th August 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Hi – Interestingly (?) I have a judgement from BOSHIER (chief “Family” Court Judge) in my possesion that I should probably not have.
He made no bones about the CAPITAL LETTERS stating that copies of his judgement were only to be held by lawyers and that both parties were to only view said judgement at Lawyers offices (with no copy of anything to leave offices).
Well now, since I took it upon myself to remove my file from the large and uncaring law office in order to represent myself…. Well, guess what… Hang on a second while I change hats and read the judgement to my hearts content whenever I feel like it……
Comment by Tony — Tue 22nd August 2006 @ 12:52 pm
i URGENTLY need to talk to you! We have court this friday. 0273565222
Comment by vikki and jason — Wed 23rd August 2006 @ 2:06 pm