7 Comments »

1. 

   Again, David Cun[silent-T]liffe’s covert operations come to fruition.

   This is the process he partook of back in early 2004-5 before he put forward the Child Support Amendment Bill (No. 4).

   Don’t be fooled, both Lational and Nabour have been planning this for a very long time.

   Put this in perspective with Mrs Clark’s contributions to the “Alliance of Civilisations” and her intent to bring this to fruition in Australasia and the South Pacific and you have a recipe for disaster.

   Every parent will be taxed for having children. At the first sign of transgression (like corrective discipline) your children will be whisked away to become children of The State.

   The HitlerClark Youth will report their parents, guardians and care-giversfor unpatriotic acts like not buying the latest X-box game.

   They will be schooled by The State (look carefully at the “new” curriculum being introduced to schools now); raised to think only in terms of blood and honour. I wonder if they will give out daggers like Adolf did?

   Comment by Ethos — Wed 7th November 2007 @ 4:32 pm

2. 

   November 8, 2007

   Tena koe Peter Dunne,

   I write to you this morning, as you are the Minister of Revenue. It is one in a series of letters to parliamentarians after the Prime Minister’s reshuffle of responsibilities. I am establishing evidence and calculating the affects of corruption of what I allege is the practice of indirect unlawful discrimination against fatherhood using as a primary example the accepted as faulted introduction of the Care of Children Bill (COC) 2003 a thereby is a direct and unlawful discrimination against children.

   I have alleged that the faulted introduction is illegal which the previous Minister of Justice Mark Burton has rejected. He has failed fully to answer my allegations not recognising that section 6 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 overrides any and all his comments. Additionally he paid no due attention to the points I have made that I brought my observations before the Court of Appeal as well the Chief Justice, within the required period for the COC fault to be retracted and that their conduct was improper protecting the corruptions of our system.

   You are familiar with my writing and hold in evidence, if any charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act or any other Act are eventually brought, a CD I sent you. On that CD in a home movie I challenge you that the circumstances for which my children and I are daily damaged and abused are protected against under s.7 of the Children Young Person’s and their Families Act 1989. That section directly relates to the alienation of children and whether in the opinion of the Chief Executive, in the best interests of every child the Department of Child Youth and Family should take measures to compete against those forms of alienation. You are aware that I allege that no such measures are taken, and as my case is evidential that that section of the Act is comprehensively unsupported.

   So my comments here are an allegation that the behaviour of successive Chief Executives of the Department of Child Youth and Family are protecting a behaviour that protects the alienation of children to one or other of their parents. In my self appointed position of advocacy for fathers I suggest for irrefutable evidence that it is fathers who bear the brunt of the negligence and its most cruel form in domestic violence.
   You have ignored my comments in the past, which is not inconsistent with a corrupt practice holding to that corruption. As I continue to place pressure on such an administration that could treat its citizenship to such ongoing cruelty eventually you must be bound to pay my words direct attention.

   Today, and for this letter on a day when the Terrorism Suppression Act is likely to pass into legislation, you will at last have the legal grounds to argue my guilt as a terrorist, where you would allege I attempt to subvert the political direction of a democracy. However, there is no certainty that any practice of parliament able to manipulate a society to such an unhealthy degree that the media would withdraw from directly reporting the constitutional corruption of the COC would be to press any such charge.

   I have been frustrated as my CD is evidence for my many attempts to be charged with sedition so that my defence can protect Her Majesty the Queen from any acting subverting practices against colonial governance. Maori too have been exposed to these kinds of overpowering yet disingenuous sovereign practice. While these practices of hiding the truth from public awareness are committed, my children’s and my relationship with each other for my parental rights, as much as our natural rights in association are damaged, corrupted and manipulated beyond any degree that is reasonable.

   You say use the Court. I say the Court is corrupt and I prove it. You say I will not help you. I say it is your job. You say pay your children’s support. I say give me back my children. You say go to Court. I say I prove the Court discriminates. You say go away. I say what about the COC? You say I don’t want to talk to you. I ask with which particular sentence of this paragraph you could disagree?

   In the UK at the moment a barrister, Michael Cox, is back in jail finishing a sentence he has been forced to undertake. Like me he is making a direct challenge. He doesn’t pay his child support because it is a tax that no one needs. He will say he should not be forced to pay a tax when it is his children who are being damaged by an institution that states money is a more important systemic consideration than the children themselves. Money is not more important than children.

   In New Zealand there is a movie being shown on how the IRD acted in a case where it decided that it didn’t like an individual and it used its power to cripple that individual. Also in New Zealand we have a father, Paul Catton who has proved that his children were abducted and has asked an obvious question of whether or not the IRD are abetting a crime claiming Child Support against him when his children were stolen from his care. The Chief Commissioner of the IRD wants to know nothing of this case. They would prefer that Paul went away. On menz.org.nz there are numerous posts of people who complain about the stress and damage of your child support policies and there are numerous complaints that you don’t listen, that you don’t care. And I agree with them. You don’t demonstrate a desire to fix the problems to ease the pain of the people. You continually demonstrate a desire to smooth things over and with the power of your office that behaviour, where children’s relationships with their fathers are constantly suffering and quality of life for the provisions of child tax after a separation is crushed, your attitude is irresponsible to any pledge made that is protective first of the child. Child Support is taken using the philosophy of the IRD as its justification that has little to do with the child and everything to do with money. Your running an improper system that does not principally care directly for the interests of the child. And other loving dads will go to jail because of your behaviour as an ignorance of their difficulties. These people who challenge the behaviour of parliaments as damaging of fathers have valuable points to make to better society. I ask you follow the links at the bottom of this page to recognise that the problems we describe are real and need immediate attention.

   Where I have acted in the past seeking protection for the given defence of a now to be repealed law of s.81 of the Crimes Act 1961, sedition, the Terrorism Suppression Act is its replacement which will probably be put into law from today. If I am charged under this and found guilty then you could have me put into prison for life.

   For my ongoing desire to be charged with sedition I wrote what I thought was a seditious document against government practice and on Fathers’ Day 2002 cracked three eggs on the Waitakere District Court, asking to be charged with sedition. I was warned and then arrested for trespass at the Henderson Police Station and then held in the Henderson Police Station cells until going before a judge on that charge. Now, because Her Royal Highness’s defence (the law of sedition) against the corruption of Her authority in this land is to be finally repealed, I will have to do more than simply crack eggs and write challenging documents to bring a charge that would see my allegations heard in Court. If found guilty of the charge, not only would you be a party to stealing my children for falsely protecting the children’s mother but you would be a party in stealing my liberty.

   For your involvement in these events whether or not you have legally and factually comprehended what I have said I am challenging you on your behaviour in this country where you refuse to accept that there is a corruption to which your Ministry is consistent in practice. You have not paid my allegations the responsibility of your oath to your justified election. I should not have to commit a crime in order for my argument to be properly heard.

   My advocacy works to support those men who society alienates as not being decent citizens. Many are in prison. Many are very violent and for horrendous acts of violence deserve to be in prison. Yet they are still human and it is likely that they are in poorer condition because of the way they have been neglected by policy rather than for whom they could be or would naturally develop. My arguments are all centered on this point. The policies being enacted in this nation are not protective of them. The primary programme of their rehabilitation is living without violence, whether or not their violence is in fact truthfully requiring rehabilitation. Obviously these people would be my army. So I despair as my advocacy and the corruption of process I prove is ignored as if I am either moronic or bad.

   I believe for your lack of recognition to observe responsibility to your parliamentary duty and take up my complaint that the COC was not put in proper, failing to act on the unlawful discrimination against fatherhood while maintaining the principles in damage for not adjusting the child tax to a more effective child support programme that you are left with greater responsibility now for having read this publication.

   I have asked Ruth Dyson our Minister of Social Development to address women’s violence. This can be done by fully implementing programmes to compete with the alienation of any soon or daughter to one or other parent. At the moment Child Support acts as an attractive proposition for women who wish to leave their marriages taking with them their children. This can be exploited where the mother (more often than the father) might use her position of custody to an advantage embittering the children for the circumstances of the separation against the father. This is improper behaviour and needs to be recognised as such. It acts as an incentive to get out of a relationship to which for whatever reason they wish no longer be a part.

   Additionally those children who could be born of assisted reproductive technology are entitled to a full relationship with their fathers or donor parents. That is the inheritance of life and is an association that must be protected at every cost.

   If any part of this letter registers with you then I believe you have a lot of work to do. I believe you have to comprehensively review the way you think that money and the protections of its exploitative systems are more important than children. Subsequently this would evolve to support better programmes to assist parents and families before they should split, mitigating the damage to those families from when they do split and how that money should not be such a problem after they do, because there are agreements in place as against formulas and orders.

   In all I am stating that before you properly transact in any financial arrangement after a separation that you should be able to prove that your policies and departmental philosophies are not a cause in that separation.

   http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/
   http://www.menz.org.nz
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nZPBbHrNA8 F4J Prison Break In 1of 2
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKic2pWmAok F4J Prison Break In 2of 2
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1a8aLxbnIg 1of 2 Michael Cox vs CSA
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXxcjRcc9P4 2 of 2 Michael Cox vs CSA

   Respectfully,

   Benjamin Easton
   (of a) fathers coalition.

   Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 8th November 2007 @ 12:45 pm

3. 

   I wonder if there will be an explosion of spouse/kid murders or i wonder if jails will fill up with parents due to this ? Mmmmmmmm, yes is the obvious answer

   Comment by martin swash — Mon 26th November 2007 @ 5:15 pm

4. 

   (not edited)

   If your comments are relative to the recovery of Child Support then answer is yes on both counts if the theory giving grounds to my letter is followed.

   Point 1: The conditions of adversity are identical, even if generally put together as a comparable problem. A means to identify their similarity is closely observed using a common analogy of: “It is better to have a fence at the top than to wait for the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” or something to that affect. The generality to the primary problem, historically is two fold.

   a) That the debate on whether it is better to limit people from making their own decisions (such as building fences) or;

   a.1) Better to allow foolhardy minorities to their own devices (such as the ambulance at the bottom)even though;

   a.2) The analogy does not, however, condition the circumstantial and causal question of whether or not there is a direct demand by those who subscribe to the latter would be the primary conditioners exploiting any form of instability to that “cliff”. And;

   b) That the full conditions of any specific problem consistent with the analogy have not as yet been effectively resourced, (or canvassed) to command any remedial function. This is the basis of Martin’s observation and self determined if not prophetic reply.

   To answer Martin’s observation, there is a suprising similarity between the final conditions of point 1 a.2) & b). both leave the analogy in a state where noone has an answer, yet we all hold a view consistent with our own experiences and (otherwise) observation. The public are left with the problem and no-one, without direction to arrest any cause that in its fact damages the public.

   Thos who would contest the breadth (any damages) of its expansion, furthering its pepurtuity, demand that no consolidated view, other than that of the assented authority, has any absolute power to limit either function, that being the cause or any capacity or incapacity of its arrest). That is to say that this is how we are forced to best reflect God in a free and democratic society. This is to say if we build a human problem, without knowing how to stop its advance then it can only ever get bigger: Which was exactly what Martin said.

   The problem then becomes quite different, wiht one exception. The exception is that the equation may have been defined into two simple categories. The categories can then (in legal terms) be condensed into their legal questions. The questions, (although not here bound) in this submission are applicable to specific frames of law.

   So, following this theory something different has happened to limit some of the behavoiur that could effect perpetuity of any given problem. The isolated problem here is: that the collection of Child Support is a contributory funtion of domestic violence and ongoing crime. This means that a more primary cause has been identified before any “fence” can be constructed or ambulance employed. That’s the theory. It says that the bad behavioour of the Crown can be isolated for the asking of legal questions.

   So what is its question if it is based into a construction of remedy for the asking of a legal question. Now the problem becomes more complex, because it is forced to compete with an alien condition. That condition ios called “corruption”.

   So what do you do, create a fence or wait for an ambulance?

   Now at this point I believe the whoile situation becomes somewhat exciting and its conditions of cause (corruption under the theory) is open to a challenge that it has never before had to face. Corruption is under a direct test.

   To claim accuracy to this theory there is a simple test that can be applied to New Zealand. This is not to say that the test will provide an answer to the primary problem, which has evolved now under the theory to a single question of “are we corrupted”, but it does define, if we are infact analysing that possibility.

   POINT [Now at this point I know I have lost thousands upon thousands – not because they/you any, are not able to condition themselves to recognise the problem, but because they are too embedded with the carnage that is caused in its truths effectively to dis-establish the affects over an individual’s capacity, or lack there of, for whatever any reason, to register in its harm].

   The above point is to assist any reader to jump ahead of themselves, simply by answering the question of “are we testing ourselves against corruption?” If the answer in New Zealand is yes, then there is a determinable necessity for everyone to become in some form involved. This is because everyone is caught to the same problem of complexity in the fence or ambulance question, in whichever area of their life it is most relevant. Are you a cause? Or are you alternatively not resourcing yourself enough to the problem and that this provides a favourable condition for it to thrive? The principle question, if any have come this far then can be asked: Am I corrupt?

   Then you arrive at a more interesting part of disaffecting corruption, and as directly in the same place where I believe the nation is presently being challenged. Are we being violent towards children by concentrating more on the financial conditions associated to and for the child than by directly recognising the exact needs of that child?

   Now if someone, any cannot answer that problem, then the equation has identified the direct problem to which Martin alludes. If you haven’t comprehended what I have said, is it dismissable? If you have comprehended what I have said and you disagree, what does that do for you? Do you become angry: or do you react in some other adverse way, whether or not it is in a direct response to the questions I have posed? Has a reader read down this far and figured out precisely waht I am saying?

   The likely response is no. Most will not have read down this far. So comparitevly to Martin’s statement there are two conditions for those who have not figured out the relativity to the writing. Anger or acknowledgement.

   Now for either answer in the anger there are two conditions. These are: Point 1 a.1) and Point a.2). In the acknowledgement given the status of the text and its unique condition, Point b) is direct.

   So the summary, using Martin’s commentary as a sum to figure out whether or not he is right, I have written a mathematical formula, in words to test if he is right using our present political environment as its effective test.

   Now I am most likely for the unique status of having written this equation likely the only person who realistically has the full grasp of what it means, but that’s OK, I’m used to it. I hope to put this into the legal question I will be asking on behalf of Karen who is questioning whether or not to use the IRD Commissioner to review the circumstances of their payments. I’ll write the questions far more comprehensibly.

   Respectfully,
   Benjamin Easton
   (of a) fathers’ coalition.

   Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 27th November 2007 @ 2:30 pm

5. 

   I am in a situation where I am being forced to pay an unlawful tax (child support) to the Inland revenue.I am living in Australia and pay child support for one child who lives with his mother in new Zealand and I have my 18 year old son with me here in Australia.My story is far too long to discuss here and give it justice.but in a nutshell I am now paying more child support for one child than I was when I was paying for both.How does this figure? My penalties increase all the time and no matter how much I pay inland revenue I cant seem to make a dent in my so called debt to them. I was told once by child support that it is not a tax but I maintain that if its not a tax then why are they collecting it? If we want some plumbing done we don’t ask an electrition right?

   Are there any organisations that can offer me advice on how to fight these corrupt pack of usurpers and leaches?
   By the way it should be noted that the wording of this comment in no way reflects my utter despair and total anger towards these criminals who pass unlawful laws at the expense of everyone they deem beneath them.
   Im sure if
   I fought this, the full weight of anti terrorism laws would apply against me because there r no terrorists except the ones who make these laws

   Comment by Trevor — Mon 9th March 2015 @ 8:56 pm

6. 

   Hi Trevor, my suggestion is an administrative review, not taking No for an answer

   A little snip from the childsupportnz.com site. really opens your eyes:

   karen
   March 9, 2015 at 7:59 pm

   My husband (deceased) paid through the nose for years and fought hard to see his daughter. We saw the writing on the wall and left NZ. He improved his circumstances and paid his cs and then some. He paid for his daughter’s airfares to Perth.
   In the end, the lack of communication between him and his ex plus not seeing his daughter on a regular basis became too much. In the end, despite paying all of his child support, IRD sent him a demand for $119000. Yes you read that right. So he bankrupted himself and took his life a couple of years ago.
   I have no husband. His daughter has no dad and his brother has lost a brother.
   I am still on the emotional roller-coaster over his loss.
   And I struggle.
   Thank you NZ Child Support and thank you NZIRD.
   You have taken my love, my friend, my rock and you have crushed my heart.

   Comment by goose — Tue 10th March 2015 @ 12:47 pm

7. 

   Trevor #5

   As one who has been in the system for over 14 years (with 2 more still to go) I
   empathise with you. It is hard to stay positive I know BUT burning up energy moaning about “unlawful laws” and “unlawful tax” is counter productive and deflects one from addressing the real issues! There is no such thing as an “unlawful law”. Whatever is put on the Statute book becomes a law however much some are opposed to the statute. Whether that law is moral or not is another matter, of course. As for Child Support, just because IRD collect it in some circumstances does not make it a “tax”. What is “tax” is itself defined in the Income Tax Act is it not? (I may be wrong as I haven’t read it for some years now).
   Much as it pains me to say it, IRD are merely a collection agency in cases where parents don’t reach a voluntary agreement or one or both parents are receiving a benefit. Would your view be the same if IRD weren’t involved but, say, a separate Child Support Agency was involved as happens in other countries? Whatever case applies child support would still have to paid!!

   As a child support payer what I find harder to stomach is that part of the general tax I and others pay goes towards benefits to custodial parents in cases where the liable parent does not pay their child support obligation! If the liable parent had paid then that money would have been netted off against the benefit their ex partner receives and my and others general taxation would have gone elsewhere like the health service(hopefully).

   As for you request for advice on how to “fight the usurpers and leaches” the first step is to confine your energies to fighting the key issues; get rid of the angst and bitterness against the principals as it is mentally destructive (as I know all too well having made the same mistake myself in the early years)and deflects from and dilutes what you should be concentrating on.

   Finally, in the absence of any details about your particular circumstances there seems little anyone can do to help you. But I may wrong! I hope I am and that there is someone out there who frequents this site who has is prescient enough to pick out the facts from what you say. As for your despair, I am sure that takes a toll on you, as evidenced by the language you use. Again all I can offer is advice to try to stay focussed and as positive as you can in the circumstances. Emotive statements add nothing to your case. Good luck, you seem to need it by the truck load!

   Comment by Non custodial dad — Tue 10th March 2015 @ 2:09 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.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ