13 Comments »

1. 

   hornet says:
   Wed 25th September 2013 at 10:02 am (Edit)
   Pedro, send me a contact email – I too – have had a guts full of a secretive industry, which protects itself from any accountability.

   When the human rights commission and the Ombudsmans office – send you letters telling you they are NOT ALLOWED to investigate govt departments for breaches of human rights, civil liberties and process being conducted outside the requirements of the Right to Natural Justice then we have a MASSIVE problem here in NZ with our judicial process.

   I have ten years of history – discrimination at every turn by the family court, multiple breaches of rights, abuse of process by the system – you name it”¦”¦what they are doing to NZ parents is totally INDEFENSIBLE – it just needs a collective PRIVATE prosecution action seeking damages – and do I have damages”¦”¦lost opportunities, invasion of privacy, unreasonable search and seizure, theft of property”¦”¦”¦.for this current national govt – to be promoting their WE ARE THERE FOR FAMILY – makes a complete mockery of what is actually happening through out the system in the real world – they have NOT ADDRESSED any fixes to PARENTAL ALIENATION, they have not made people accountable who make false accusations and destroy a parents credibility and reputation, there is NO accountability during Child Support reviews – decisions are designed to be unfair, biased and abusive as a matter of course, forcing good parents back into the court system to extract yet more of their hard earned dollars -NO PARENT has the TIME OR MONEY to challenge the system, and thats why they are getting away with this – its a sham and it needs exposing.

   This FAMILY COURT / CHILD SUPPORT INDUSTRY – has become BIG BUSINESS for all involved – stroking parents and abusing kids along the way is BEST PRACTICE”¦”¦..

   Count me in – I too have been investigating options”¦..and have already spoken to a few good human rights lawyers as to the best way to approach this – it needs to become political and there needs to be a cost for the harm – before anyone is actually forced to deal with the real issues and make some genuine changes for improvement”¦”¦”¦

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 25th September 2013 @ 11:11 am

2. 

   golfa says:
   Wed 25th September 2013 at 10:46 am (Edit)
   #1 and #2. Equity Law. Evgeny Orlof and Frank Deliu.

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 25th September 2013 @ 11:11 am

3. 

   Dear Pedro and Hornet, although Pedro seeks a lawyer, I suggest that most people who have paid lawyers have bankrupted themselves before getting anywhere.

   The people who have succeeded, have done the legwork themselves, thus they are not so cost limited as when paying a lawyer.

   Chris Jones paid legal workers in familycaught$ and he never really got anywhere while he was generously feeding them. He only started to get traction when the issues blew out in public and familycaught$ were completely unable to hide what was going on. Two good lessons there, both worth learning.

   Suing is one option, but private prosecution is another path which is worth considering. Especially where complaints are against professionals, such as psychologists, then professional practice complaints may be useful and effective. Against legal workers, complaints don’t get much traction unless you privately prosecute or sue. Try the menz google search at the top right of this page and you will pick up several old postings on this website. Also do a similar search on NZ Herald website and I am sure you will pick up quite a few useful articles.

   Cheers, MurrayBacon.

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 25th September 2013 @ 11:19 am

4. 

   Well played Golfa. A hole in one!

   Comment by Pedro — Thu 26th September 2013 @ 2:16 am

5. 

   I have been told that John Slavich will be in Auckland District Caught, privately prosecuting some judge, on Monday. Caughtroom 11. For those interested in pirate prosecutions, John has a lot of experience, that would be valuable to those intending to follow.

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 28th September 2013 @ 7:30 pm

6. 

   Dotcom ordered to attended [private prosecution] hearing in case against Banks

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 28th September 2013 @ 7:34 pm

7. 

   Has anyone given section 9 of the Bill of rights act a go – disproportional punishments – that the fines imposed by NZ child support constitute a disproportional punishment.

   Comment by al — Mon 24th February 2014 @ 1:51 pm

8. 

   We did lobby pretty intensively that Child Support penalty rates should be aligned with other tax rates but were unsuccessful. Largely SCRAP and myself.
   We also sought to have the revised penalty regime in the new Child Support Bill continue on schedule despite the other changes but again we were unsuccessful.

   Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 24th February 2014 @ 7:16 pm

9. 

   I’ve been in the family court process for about three years I agree that something along these lines needs to be done. The fact that the Family Court is allowed to destroy peoples lives, scar children permanently and not be held accountable is disgusting. I’ve only just stumbled across this site and think that if any action were to be taken more numbers than this site alone could generate alone would be needed. The Family Court needs to be exposed at a public level. We need people who are passionate enough about this to put in the ground work to drum up enough numbers to make a loud enough noise that our cause can not be ignored; get flyers out there to get as many on board as possible, arrange protest marches in main centres, alert the media so it’s broadcast. I’m sure there are hundreds if not thousands of men (and plenty of woman too) who are going through the system or who have been through the system that would get on board. We need to get this issue out there and take on the court as a collective.

   Comment by Adam — Sun 15th June 2014 @ 1:39 pm

10. 

    Crimes against humanity
    1.For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
    a.Murder;
    b.Extermination;
    c.Enslavement;
    d.Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    e.Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    f.Torture;
    g.Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    h.Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
    i.Enforced disappearance of persons;
    j.The crime of apartheid;
    k.Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
    ———————————

    The Care Of Children Act 2014

    17 Child’s father and mother usually joint guardians
    (1) The father and the mother of a child are guardians jointly of the child unless the child’s mother is the sole guardian of the child because of subsection (2) or subsection (3).

    (2) If a child is conceived on or after the commencement of this Act, the child’s mother is the sole guardian of the child if the mother was neither-

    (a) married to, or in a civil union with, the father of the child at any time during the period beginning with the conception of the child and ending with the birth of the child; nor

    (b) living with the father of the child as a de facto partner at any time during that period.

    ————————————————–

    So lets look at what this abhorent law says, and imposes on its victims.

    (1) If you are not in a living relationship with the mother from conception to birth, you as a man will have your rights as a parent removed from you.
    -If the father has his rights removed from him why does the mother not have her rights removed from her?
    -If the father, when he becomes aware of the pregnancy, asks to be in a live in relationship but the mother refuses, why is his rights removed but not hers?
    -If the mother neglects to inform the father of the pregnancy, thus removing opertunity to enter a live in relationship, why is his rights removed but not hers?
    -If the prenancy is due to the mother having sex with a father under the age of 16, meaning it is not possible for the father to enter into a live in relationship, why is his rights removed but not hers?

    (2) Crimes against humanity d.Deportation or forcible transfer of population.
    -The father is forcibly transfered from one population group (guardian) to anouther (dead beat dad), without commiting a crime to justify this taking place.
    -The father is forcibly transfered from one population group(guardian) to anouther(dead beat dad, when anouther person has commited a crime.
    -The father is forcibly transfered from one population group(guardian) to anouther(dead beat dad, even when he had no awareness of the event that would lead to this being imposed on him.

    (3) Crimes against humanity i.Enforced disappearance of persons
    -As a result of the law the father disapears from the childs life.

    (4) Crimes against humanity e.Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law
    -The mother who inherently is the custodial parent as a result of this law is profoundly less likely to revieve imprisonment for the same crime than the non custodial parent, the man.

    (5) Crimes against humanity g.Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity
    -This law supports and rewards females who commit the crime of unlawfull sexual conection, by lying about being on the pill, or having sex with a drunk/druged male.Eg the DPB
    -This law supports and rewards females who have sex with males under the age of consent.
    -This law can be used by the female to force a male into marriage.
    -This law supports and rewards females who force the pregnancy on the male were if they had a choice would not participate in the pregnancy.

    (6) Crimes against humanity c.Enslavement
    -This law forces men to pay child support to the mother, for a child that they are legislated from participating in the childs life.
    -This law forces men into forced marriages and relationships were as a result they are forced to financialy support the woman.

    (7) Crimes against humanity h.Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court
    -The law forces men to pay child support to the mother, and are subject to persecution by IRD as a result.
    -This law removes rights and subjects men to statements such as Dead Beat Dad.

    (8) Crimes against humanity k.Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
    _The Care Of Children Act 2014 section 17 is inherently this crime.

    Those responsible should be held to account.

    Is there any lawyers out there with the balls to uphold the law?

    Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 26th June 2015 @ 1:26 pm

11. 

    Sorry, The Care Of Children Act 2004

    A vile and unforgivable sex crime

    Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 26th June 2015 @ 1:29 pm

12. 

    I suggest that the crimes lie in how the “judges” work with the act, much more than the actual meanings of the clauses in the act? Sticks and stones will hurt my bones, but names can** never hurt me?

    **Perhaps should?

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 26th June 2015 @ 1:58 pm

13. 

    Thanks for that DJ Ward. This is in fact another sexist piece of legislation disadvantaging men on the basis of their gender.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 26th June 2015 @ 2:32 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