Time for a boycott?
I am still finding the Family Court is very much tilted in favour of the woman. Consider protection orders. In Australia they expire after a year or two depending on type. Here they last forever unless you can persuade a judge to discharge it. I am making my third attempt in 5 years to get mine discharged. I don’t even see my ex or my kids. Whether the lunatics running the Family Court asylum consider this to be sufficient reason for a discharge remains to be seen.
Perhaps the best approach would be to try to get a men’s boycott of the Family Court going. Comments please.
Would love to; sadly I can’t see it helping me much.
Comment by Frank & Earnest — Tue 13th May 2008 @ 7:52 pm
Hi Eric,
I agree with Frank & Earnest. Boycotting the FC won’t achieve much when the FC is the only forum in which a dad can fight for legal contact with his children.
We might be able to boycott child support. Imagine the impact of everyone withholding their child support payments at the same time. Sadly this cannot happen because most CS payments are extracted automatically and without consent.
If we are ever going to organise a boycott, it cannot affect contact with our children, and that excludes the FC.
Boycotting the elections will make an impact, but only if we can show that we have numbers in support, and this will require a huge publicity campaign. Are we up to it?
Comment by xsryder — Tue 13th May 2008 @ 8:45 pm
Ben has been boycotting the Family Court for years. For his trouble he gets not to see his kids.
Eric if you have had three discharge applications declined then something is wrong with the advice you are receiving. Enlist the help of your local UoF group and get some decent advice and help with your applications. [email protected] mention my name if you wish Allan Harvey.
Comment by allan Harvey — Tue 13th May 2008 @ 8:54 pm
A successful boycott by all fathers would totally undermine the family court. It would be the worse nightmare for the divorce industry. Unfortunately it would mean many fathers giving up all hope of contact with their kids like Ben.
An alternative is to work to undermine public confidence in the family court by exposing it.
Comment by Dave — Tue 13th May 2008 @ 9:04 pm
The Family Court worked to impliment the Mother Principle for most of its 25 years. Mummy gets the kids and Dads should just F Off and if they don’t here is a Protection Order for your trouble. All a boycott would do is a return to that principle imposed by ourselves.
Comment by allan Harvey — Tue 13th May 2008 @ 9:22 pm
If the family court [or any court] looses public confidence then it looses all power and authority. If you read propaganda from the Family Court you will notice that this is what concerns them. They are not concerned about the children they are concerned about public confidence in the family court.
If [and it is a huge IF] all fathers actually did boycott the family court then the family court is obviously a dead duck to anyone with half a brain.
If a few fathers boycott it – then nothing much will change.
Comment by Dave — Tue 13th May 2008 @ 9:39 pm
I think that it would get publicity, which is exactly what is required for th
fathers. But obviously the solidarirty is just not there.
Mothers get kids , fathers pay is a situation that governments have wantedto make. It is only to save them money, they allowed women to divource easily, gave them financial support, then realised that the costs were escalating, so they came up with the old black male slave trick of separating Dads from their families in order to make them pay (child support). Some dads leave their kids but the majority pay up, so the government are happy. All this creates work for lawyers so the establishment are content with the situation.
A boycott will only be successful if ALL NY Dads follow it, it would create big publicity
Comment by Martin Swash — Tue 13th May 2008 @ 10:21 pm
All the men proposing not boycotting are really saying lets do nothing. But as i have said on numerous occasions, all this crap will be changed in USA and UK not in lil ol backward NZ
Comment by Martin Swash — Wed 14th May 2008 @ 2:36 am
Boycott is definetely good.As for the protection orders I was told at my first discharge application(after 7 years) 5 of them outside the country with no contact.I was told that I should wait at least 10 years.Also that the onus was on me to show that there had been a substantial change from the time at which the order was made.When I said that there was no reason for the original order the judge said said there was no chance of change then so the order would remain indefinetely.There is no chance of relitigating the original decision and whether it was murder or a simple unwanted phone call which sparked the original order is irrelevant.
Comment by whanga — Wed 14th May 2008 @ 3:41 am
#6 above – Dave the familycaught doesn’t need confidence of the public. They can issue orders, whether people have confidence in their skills or confidence in their stupidity at “solving” family disputes.
Many ex couples go through a familycaught stage, they fight in familycaught, until they eventually wake up that the “legal bills” are destroying (or have destroyed) what was built up during the relationship and they then negotiate outside of familycaught.
Reasonably often, this is Ok to good quality negotiation.
Too often, but in the minority, it is where one party walks away ans leaves the PAS mother to it. This clearly does happen too often.
The familycaught “judges” and legal workers are often completely unaware of the final outcome. They probably couldn’t care less, as long as their bills were paid. When the family’s money has been exhausted and the fighting has cooled down, then they really have no further interest (excuse the pun!).
Please don’t think that the familycaught needs public confidence. All they need is the ability to sell other people’s houses and they can carry on very happily, exploiting those too weak to defend themselves against this style of legal extorion.
A Public Commission of Enquiry, that required them to justify every single bill they had made and would guarantee repayment of unwarranted and unjustified bills would make them sit up and take notice. They will not agree to this easily, as Wayne Pruden found out, with his petition. The subject is not dead, but it certainly could do with some public support.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 14th May 2008 @ 8:46 am
Instead of boycotting the Family Court, what about getting as many as possible to apply to transfer thier preceedings to the High Court on the basis that they have no confidence in the FC (un-answered complaints, bias, predetermined outcomes, ignored court order breaches, etc). If all applications were filed on the same day nation wide and the media tipped off, the result would be similar to a boycott, but totally reasonable, totally legal and won’t negatively affect care and contact with your children.
I applied for a transfer twice, and both times the FC and mother’s lawyer acted fast to stop it, and both times I was offered more time with my son (an extra day, then an extra night per week!) if I withdrew my application. Clearly the FC don’t like thier applications transfered away from thier jurisdiction. On an individual case it might appear like reciprocal blackmail, but a large number of transfer applications at the same time would cause the Judiciary serious concern.
Comment by xsryder — Wed 14th May 2008 @ 8:51 am
To continue….
The applications would be ‘without notice’ so the other party wouldn’t be involved initially, and everyone who was going to apply for a transfer of preceedings could use the same basic application (email or post it around and insert your own name, case number etc).
For the best impact, all applications should be filed on the same day.
Comment by xsryder — Wed 14th May 2008 @ 9:03 am
There is obviously a consensus here that the dispute resolution process through tax payer funded courts does not deliver justice or value for money. The justice system has been hijacked by the lawyers. There is no reason why any professional body should be allowed to take control of this important function. Why do think there is no penalty for joining a party in legal action, even if that party has no complicity? Why are legal costs not awarded? Why is there a ‘joint and several liability’ rule that makes parties with only the smallest involvement pick up the tab for everyone else? Why are litigants with no chance (in terms of their claims being totally unfair), frequently rewarded. Why is someone given half of another persons assets that they have never worked for when they need some ‘space’, rather than sharing only what was achieved after the marriage. The reason is that the lawyers and the lawyer-judges don’t want to damage their business or discourage people from coming through the court lottery process, without which they would have no business. The adversarial process is not only great business for the lawyers and lawyer-judges, it provides no certainty and rewards litigants who have a rigid, adversarial approach; typically those with entrenced personality disorders. The lawyers and the lawyers-judges are imposing their business into peoples lives to the extent that people no longer take personal responsibility for their misfortunes. Instead, whenever anything goes wrong they ask, ‘Who can I blame for this?’. Getting back to marital disputes, it is high time that elected representatives got active in this very important arena.
Comment by jerry — Wed 14th May 2008 @ 9:13 am
I believe xsryder is on the right track.The same thing can be done with Child Support matters.Anyone unhappy with and Admin Review can apply to the Family Caught.Then on to the High Caught.Lets make some waves out there!!
Be careful with geting pinged for costs when trying to get a protection order discharged.I have had costs of up to $2500 awarded against me twice when making discharge applications in vain attempts to see my kids.I quote “The wrongs and rights of the original order are irrelevant.This woman says she is scared of you and who am I to say she is not.Your perception of whether or not she should be scared is also irrelevant.Her perception of matters is all that is important here.The law is there to afford her and her children protection.You have produced nothing to prove the situation has substantially changed since the original order was made.You will pay costs to the respondent in the sum of $2500”.
Comment by whanga — Wed 14th May 2008 @ 12:32 pm
yeah whanga, i even heard of a woman filing for a protection order coz she seen a mouse in her house, claimed she was scared of mice, what next…. protection orders against spider’s i suppose…
Comment by bull en a china shop — Wed 14th May 2008 @ 2:26 pm
I would like to help as protection orders are killing me fast!
Comment by dad4justice — Wed 14th May 2008 @ 6:55 pm
Comment #11 Xsryder. It sounds like you are on to something here can we get a page on this site on how too do this, form etc. It is much better than what I was going to suggests by way of making our own miltary regrime and over powering government like the French and the Fijian’s love to do.
Comment by paul — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 6:25 pm
Hi Paul,
email me offline ([email protected]) and I’ll reply with a copy of a trasfer proceedings application (and that goes to anyone else).
However, your idea about a military regime is also a good, and surprisingly popular idea.
To be serious, in the last 12 months I have heard a number of rational and even elderly people with no connection to our cause say that, if Labour gets in again, they wouldn’t be surprised if there was some kind of armed uprising before the following election. I can’t imagine that our positions will be any better under a National led government, but I’d rather be led by a party that plays monopolloy, than a party that plays girlopolly. Also, there is no doubt that Labour must be defeated if we have any chance of saving the traditional family from going the same way as the moa, dodo and $1.50 a litre fuel!
Comment by xsryder — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 11:30 pm
My favorite hobby lately is ringing up 111 and ordering a protection order of course with chips and a possible up size. It pisses them off but they give out so many protection orders it just like ordering a pizza. So I think instead of the boycott just ring the cops ups (cellphone only) and order a protection order with chips. Keep the wankers so busy and it really fucks them off. Cops like to be in controll and when thet are not then they get grumpy. And I love an angry cop it looks so good. ESP when they sent you off to an anger mangement course.. demanded by the womans refuge. Oh Bumber cop dude ! fuck off !
Comment by paul — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 11:50 pm
Ok guys ring up 111 and ask for a protection order, they will ask you over who, just say everyone, they will ask you for an address give them PO BOX 56 518 Dominion Rd Mt Eden. Send me a letter at the same and I will give you protection order against everyone. Sorted !!! isn’t the law so good.
cheers Paul
Comment by paul — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 12:00 am
Hi xsryder. Why vote for National who have no policies aimed at protecting family units, much less men’s or fathers’ welfare? Vote for a party that unashamedly pushes such policies. Under MMP, That’s the best way of giving the message to the big parties.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Whanga, thanks for presenting your own case history. It highlights something many people don’t realise. Protection Order legislation does not require any evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on the part of the respondent. An order can be granted, and as in your case maintained indefinitely, purely on the basis of a woman’s claim to feel frightened of the respondent. The idea that male respondents might effectively fight protection orders with good evidence is a hoax, as long as the woman applicant’s lawyer has ensured she includes a claim to “feel frightened”.
The Family Court is at total liberty to decide on whatever grounds it chooses to believe or not to believe anything they hear, and they will almost always believe a woman who claims she feels frightened. However, when a man makes the same claim the Family Court will almost always choose to disbelieve him. After all, the aims of the DVA were to provide women with unbridled power over children and total choice to get rid of fathers without losing those men’s financial contribution to their lifestyles. The Courts by and large operate the legislation as intended.
On a more general note, I have found the Family Court will often choose to believe everything a woman says even if some of what she has claimed has been proven to be dishonest (those particular lies will then be ignored rather than believed). Meanwhile the same Court will reject the veracity of almost everything the man says even though none of his evidence has ever been shown to be incorrect.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 1:01 pm
By the way, I would not advise either a boycott or phoning 111. A boycott would matter little to the Family Court who would simply dispose of all matters conveniently by ruling in favour of the female applicants. Phoning 111 to make a political point is irresponsible towards those who need urgent help, is likely to lead to criminal charges such as misusing a telephone, and could even lead to a conviction for more serious offences such as manslaughter.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Hans you are a worry !!! 24 hours a day 7 days a week how many life treatening emergencies do you think happen ? and do really belive that 111 only has one telephone to answer the calls ? The police send out taxi’s to calls if they think their fish and chips will get cold !!
We have to fight protection orders by getting protection orders, every man should have a protection order against the rest of the population. It is the only way that we can show how pointless they are.
A protection order is only a legal method to allow the police to fuck you with out having to deal with things within the normal legal protocol. Once you have a protection order on you, your arse is theirs.
So we need a protection order register on this site, every one on joining should take out a protection order on the rest of the population. Protection orders can be taken out in many ways, such as emotional fear, abusive language, and basically any reason to cause stress, or fear.
I say get them now, while they are hot, upsize them if you can, they don’t cause overweight problems, and you can get as many as you like. I used to collect stickers and coins as a kid, but now I collect protection orders. Hey and you can swap them with your friends, sell them on trade me if you like. Protection orders they are the new trend. Get them now from your local court.
Ps I believe that auckland caught has a special on at the moment, yes buy one now and get one free. Two protection orders for the price of one !! order now and also get a free set of steak knifes, a free tape of the best of “nagging woman” limited edition ! and a self closing toilet seat ( just watch out for the nadds boys ).
So get in there a get those protection orders, free legal aid is also available ( application required )
Comment by paul — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 2:53 pm
You are right Paul.Last time I visited the Auckland Cop Shop I was taken to an interview room with a TV.There was a cop already in there .Had his pants round his ankles.Jacking off to a porn vid!!Thats how busy they are at Auckland Central.The sergeant who took me in there did not even reprimand him.Just told him to get out.
One time 4 years ago I flew to Napier to see my kids I got a rental car.Cops were waiting for me at airport and followed me all around for about an hour.Little old me.Never touched or threatened anyone in my life.No convictions.Just a stupid Protection Order obtained 8 years previously through lies.I wound the bastards up by continually driving near my ex’s house though never on her street as apparently that is a no no.
The cops are busy.Yeah right
Comment by whanga — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Yes, unfortunately if the Courts know that applications are vexatious, part of a political stunt, they will dismiss them. For that matter, the chances of a man getting a protection order are not so great, because the Courts have free reign in believing or disbelieving any party, and they just happen to believe women much more often than men. Even when the woman has been shown through evidence to have fibbed and the man has not. Just like the police, the Family Court is quite likely to decide that men are strong and so they can’t be frightened of the woman.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Hi Whanga,
Could you please confirm that what you observed at the Auckland police station actually happened (police officer watching porn etc). If this actually occured, did you make a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA)?.
Comment by xsryder — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 11:01 am
Of course it happened.Why would I say it if it didn’t?As for the PCA have you ever heard of them actually doing anything?I have made complaints to them about things 100 times as serious as this only to have them ignored.
The Police in NZ are a joke and getting worse
Comment by whanga — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 1:49 pm
I was in the cells at otatahuhu one night and the seargent was telling someone to open his arse wider, all i heard was open wider, wider… i don’t know if it was a search or if he was fucking one of the new recruits, definitely poofter mate…
Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 4:44 pm
There were 94 petitions for a 5
year protection order in Summit
County, Ohio this past April (2008)
Approaching 1,000 every year
google “cpclerk”
A percentage of every Marriage Licence fee
and every divorce filing fee goes to the
poor Battered Women Shelter, last I checked
a few years ago. Its amazing how the Bride
magazines keep any readership.
Just a bloke away from his kids 7 years now.
– Rath Ernot
Comment by Rath Ernot — Wed 18th June 2008 @ 3:18 pm
I see merit in both the application to transfer to the high court and in applying for a protection order.
Perhaps we should encourage men that are involved in custody disputes to apply for protection orders for themselves and on behalf of their children. They could state that they fear for the safety of themselves and their kids because of the frequent irrational and sometimes violent behaviour of their exes.
Of course I realise that this will fail as women in NZ are never violent. But it would be nice to think that the courts will have to investigate the possibility that just maybe domestic violence isn’t solely the practice of men. And perhaps some of these nutbars will have to seek help for their anger issues.
Comment by Grant Waghorn — Sun 7th September 2008 @ 10:26 am
I meet the most arogant determental person in my life yes it is the inner city group for men … John Binsted.. the most arguementitive of all his home number is 09 2328600 give him a call he will make you angry even if you have never been angry this guy will do it.. He loves winding people up. He has had a bad life, but now he makes money out of it. So if you want to be angry give this guy a ring. He is a total C*@T, He thinks he is god, you will have to sit thru 12 hours of his bullshit, he will put you down and try to control you, it law so he can, if you get a protection order and live in central Auckland you are going to have to listen to his bullshit… and he goes on and on.. ring him up and tell him to fuck off !!! he is so annoying. and of course he has a mail order wife, no one else could deal with him !!
Comment by paul — Wed 1st October 2008 @ 7:41 pm