MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Holocaust in Hollow Court or How the Nelson Family Court and Nelson Law Society cover up crimes committed by their own.

Filed under: General — MAX @ 2:54 pm Wed 26th May 2010

Part 2

When I first applied for contact a Counsel for Child (CfC) was appointed and straight away his first report was so biased that I had to put a complaint to the Court about it.

CfC realized I was new to the FC game and among other things he first tried to tell me that I shouldn’t apply for guardianship, it wasn’t important, I should just concentrate on contact.

On another day he tried to tell me that I could only have one Mediation Conference (I ended up having 3) and then we would have to go to a Hearing and file affidavits…. (Scare tactic, other party having lawyer, not me).

Then on another occasion I heard him talk to the other party and her lawyer in Court behind a partition wall and the other party complaining about me wanting more contact and CfC saying:

‘…. he would see what he could do….’(now it started clicking…).

A few month later he invited the other party to come along for an inspection of my property…(other party trying to hassle me with whatever she could…I told them all to get stuffed) when the Court Order said nothing about her being part of it/coming along…and he admitted that in a Hearing when he cross examined me and I ask him questions back and caught him out…and the Judge wasn’t happy about him usurping the court…

On another day CfC came into the Court room before the Judge had turned up and approached the other party and excitedly ask her ‘if she knew what had just happened to ‘JIM’ (name changed) on a sailing trip (Storm…)’ and when the other party and her lawyer embarrassedly tried to ignore his question I finally realized what might have been going on all that time:

A little research and investigation, because CfC use to live and work in a small town close to my home, and talking to a few locals and it turned out that ‘JIM’ , who he had talked about to the other party, was CfC’s long term ‘Fishing buddy’ and ‘JIM’ was also a long term friend (since child hood) of the other party (and known to my daughter as ‘Uncle JIM’).

So when I wrote yet another complaint to the Court telling them that CFC’s have had a serious conflict of interest for over 3 years (!) and that this was the reason for 3 years of biased treatment (plus trying to pervert the course of justice, usurping the court etc., etc.) the response from CfC and the Court made me realize the truth of corruption in the FC.

The reply from CfC to the Court was:

“While I strongly dispute the allegations made by Mr…, given his continual negative and antagonistic attitude towards me, it is probably counter-productive to continue in my role as counsel for …Would you please place this letter before His Honour and ask that I be removed…”

Have a guess what the Judge said:

“We will investigate these serious allegations… -NO.

“If these allegations are proven to be true CfC will face the appropriate consequences…-NO

“If these allegations are proven to be true we will retry the case as 3 years of serious conflict of interest of CfC has not given the child in question a fair representation in court… -NO, NO, NO.

The Judge said: “In the circumstances and at lawyer for Childs request Mr….appointment is terminated.

Please advise the parties that Mr..(CfC) has sought to withdraw and that has been granted.

Respond to Mr..(Me) as above enclosing a copy of Mr..(CfC) letter and indicate that I consider this an end to the matter.”

Talk about putting the reputation of the Court before the welfare of the child and the Judge sweeping a serious crime committed in Court under the carpet and not even to talk about giving the child in question a fair and just Hearing.

So Cfc ‘sought to withdraw’ but in actual fact ‘he was sacked’ by the Court because of his (repeated and way too obvious) interference with the Court procedure (usurping the Court…) and the Court realizing that he really did have a serious conflict of interest…. and supporting that conclusion is that he also lost his job with the law firm he was working for and was out again on his own.

But if they had told me and admitted to the truth then that would/could have impacted very negatively on the FC’s reputation so they covered it up/swept it under the carpet…nice and simple…especially since they have a lot of experience in that matter.

I kept on asking for an investigation… —NO, NO, NO!!!

I even considered getting a lawyer to take more action but no local lawyer was keen to take another local lawyer ‘to Court’ and ‘against’ the Court. (Of course I am not finished yet with them…)

And talking about ‘putting insult on top of injury’: I was to hear from 3 Judges, 2.CfC, writer etc., for the next 5 years that I was famous for having a ‘negative and antagonistic attitude’ (because CfC had used that as his excuse to ‘withdraw’).

Since CfC wasn’t working for the Court anymore I now complained about him as a lawyer to the Law Society (LS).

Those days (2005/6) the local Nelson Law Society (now: National LS) processed the complaint and because they all ‘know each other’ and/or ‘protect each other’ more ‘cover up’ was of course the logical result.

But interestingly CfC admitted now to the LS that “he WAS  friends with ‘JIM’” (to the Court he said “…I strongly dispute the allegations…”(eg..being friends with ‘JIM’ )) but he said “he didn’t know that ‘JIM’ and the other party were also friends” despite both having been friends with ‘JIM’ for years and years.

Anyway this meant that CfC now admitted that he had clearly lied to the FC in his response to my complaint.

One short extract from the response from the Nelson Law Society explains a lot about their style of ‘cover up’ operation, I quote:

“The practitioner did not comment on the allegations that he discussed ‘Jim’s’ sailing with the mother and her solicitor prior to a Judicial Conference. The discussion must have occurred openly. The committee does not find anything objectable in such a conversation, if it did take place.” —unquote.

So why does the committee not find anything objectable about CfC not even commenting on those allegations, when it is clear that:

‘If CfC talked to the mother about ‘Jim’s’ sailing then it is logical that CfC knew that the mother knew ‘JIM’, and THAT HE  THEREFORE  ALSO KNEW THAT HE HAD A SERIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST, yet he carried on as CfC…

So logically the question needs to be asked: Is the LS so dumb/unprofessional/incompetent that they don’t realize what they are saying or do they think we are so dumb that we don’t realize what they are saying?

An investigation with the other party and her lawyer who were witnesses, plus ‘JIM’ all giving evidence under oath would be the approach to such a problem.

The Nelson LS did the ‘ approach’  instead…no surprises there.

So far for an insight into the operation of the Nelson Family Court and the Nelson Law Society.

More later…


  1. I am enjoying reading these posts and have similar stories. Maybe one day I will post them.

    Oh and guardianship isn’t important when you don’t have custody. Guardianship decisions I have made over the past decade = 0. How many should I have been a part of? Countless… every single one!

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 26th May 2010 @ 5:10 pm

  2. This needs to go public and names of lawyers and judges published.

    Comment by Dave — Wed 26th May 2010 @ 10:11 pm

  3. Well done Max for seeing off an inappropriate Lawyer for Child. It is a rare victory and not easily achieved. In my case LofC greeted the other party’s junior counsel like a long lost friend on the first day of the High Court appearance. Impartial….mmmmmm

    Comment by Gerry — Thu 27th May 2010 @ 12:20 am

  4. I wrote a letter to a L4C (same as CfC) politely suggesting to him:

    The last three times you interviewed child while in mothers care. I’m worried that the mother keeps the child at home to prepare the child for the interview. I kindly ask you to consider interviewing the child at while in my care [dates and times] or at least in a neutral place and by surprise.

    Instead of receiving some sort of response, a couple of weeks later I received a letter from the L4C that contained the “report” from his interview with the child. When I checked with the school it was confirmed that on the day of the interview, the child was on sick leave. The L4C failed to mention in his “report” that the child was interviewed while off school sick.

    When I raised these serious issues in court and said that I felt the L4C was biased and that I had absolutely no confidence in this L4C, the judge simply said:

    “[L4C], it is important that both parents have confidence in the L4C and since [father] has absolutely no confidence, I ask you to kindly consider to step down as L4C from this case. Whatever your decision is, this will not be seen by the court as an admission on your part of any wrongdoing!“.

    Comment by Pete — Thu 27th May 2010 @ 9:53 am

  5. So lets publish it with the names of the lawyers and judges, Dave.

    But lets consider the defamation law as well.
    You might know what happened to Nicky Hager (see ‘Pundit’) or Vince Siemer (see ‘kiwisfirst’).


    Any recommendation for a reporter, newspapers, websites etc…?

    BTW Gerry, i might have gotten rid of one corrupt CfC but the next one had ‘court initiated/sanctioned vengeance’ written all over him.

    Cheers all.

    Comment by Max — Thu 27th May 2010 @ 10:43 am

  6. When everyone understands that Lawyer for child is the second lawyer for the mother than everything will fall in place. They are the real Rasputin of the Court.

    Corruption is a generous qualifier for the Family Court.

    Comment by tren Christchurch — Thu 27th May 2010 @ 6:53 pm

  7. Please contact me. I have just finished publishing ‘Judge Jane Anne McMeeken in Full Briefs’ (search for it on Facebook Judge McMeeken in Full Briefs) A Family Court Judge from Nelson who I have publically accused of Child Abuse, and lying in court (have evidence so defamation law does not apply) I am willing to take on your story. I am sorry but these people should not be allowed to get away with what they do. You can name the lawyer and Judge involved, just not the kids.
    I am also experience at exposing Parental Alienation.

    Comment by Jadie — Fri 28th May 2010 @ 2:44 pm

  8. They should just change the name to “The Womens Court” and be done with it! That is how I am going to refer to it, from this day forward.

    Comment by Scott B — Sun 30th May 2010 @ 10:27 am

  9. Hi Jadie
    I am interested in your book. I appear to be fighting a losing battle with my ex taking my child away from me. Just after some support i guess.?

    Comment by shane — Sun 7th November 2010 @ 1:42 pm

  10. I can relate to all these posts. My experience with lawyer for child is very similar to alot of others’. The lawyers even worse. I’m not going to mess around though. If I do not get a satisfactory result after having to fight hard to get back into the family court (they tried to shut me down) I am not going to be bullied like I was during the first court case. Some lawyers have a case to answer to in the civil court. After reading some of these posts I’m not going to bother complaining to the court system. I will sue for damages in the civil court due to a medical condition I suffered as a result of the long-term stress.
    How do you work with the media?

    Comment by clenz — Sun 14th July 2013 @ 12:38 am

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.

Skip to toolbar