Guilty Until Proven Innocent Pronounced

Filed under: Domestic Violence,General — Lukenz @ 12:16 pm Mon 16th June 2014

Story here:

Glenn report released: Shift burden of proof

An insane concept – But there it is. The last step to get rid of the 800 year old Magna Carta. All are guilty until proven innocent. Might as well pass the sentence first.

68 comments

68 Comments »

might be time to start thinking about leaving the country soon, after the tracking of people with po orders on them and the already biased nz court, now this , what’s left ?
He has one good point at least, the entire NZ family court system is screwed.

Comment by Dominic da Silva — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 12:26 pm
And women are always the Victim!

Comment by Harold — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 12:27 pm
Im being dragged through the courts as we speak. Totally guilty until I pay an arm and a leg just to be heard in court. Dont even know how thats gna go.

Comment by innocent — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 12:34 pm
There is a similar archaic law in India….(GUility until proven innocent).
Thousands of men, their parents, sisters, brothers, brother in laws, sister in laws are languishing in jails…or are on bail as it the onus falls on them to prove that they are not guilty.

Comment by Kumar — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 1:11 pm
I would have thought they would have focused on what was causing the problem.

Comment by Lukenz — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 1:38 pm
Regardless of what the report says or even intends, one line from Cunliffe tells us all we need to know:

Labour leader David Cunliffe said the report painted an “unacceptable picture” of life for New Zealand women and children.

Comment by Downunder — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 2:37 pm
They want more money for white Fibbon.

Comment by Kumar — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 2:43 pm
Rather than rail against this, I see it it as a great filter.

Whoever supports it is basically calling for an overthrow of the last 800 years of thinking with regard to what justice is, and what makes it work.

I can’t think of an easier way of exposing them.

Comment by rc — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 3:58 pm
It’s older than that. Dates back to Biblical times. There are gems, See P151? Refuges for men, and changing the Family court to Inquisitorial. More focus on keeping a family together. The Full report and Howard Broads report on CYF complaints system is up on CYFSTALK.

Comment by Alastair — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 5:05 pm
It was inevitable.
That and a certain proclamation last week that it is worth considering slapping ankle bracelets on all guilty men (subject to a DPO).
Remember, an aggrieved woman can often secure a DPO against a man, without him even knowing.
First thing you’ll know about it is when the coppers turn up to slap it on you.
OMG, we’re all f*&(^%^*%$&^.

Comment by OMG You're (&*)^*( — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 5:05 pm
The People’s Report.

Comment by Downunder — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 6:48 pm
I have not commented for some time, but after reading the Glen report felt it was my duty.
I have done the DV shit had lies told about me in fem court, had my children’s family destroyed from
a nasty controlling b#$%^. This report is not about helping families or children its just another step in
the state controlling ever aspect of your life, using gut wrenching stories of abuse to justify there agender. Yes there are some bad eggs but from what I have seen in the last 5 years since my PO which I don’t have any more is a feminist beat up of men. I think something is bigger going on here and like
Vladimir Lenin said you need some convenient idiots, that’s the fem group to change to a new world order
and how did that pan out guys. Guilt to proven innocent wow here we go again. Same shit different century
wake up boys fascisim still lives. I don’t think the great New world the fem’s have planned is any thing like the elite have installed for all of us, dick heads.

Comment by Danny — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 8:31 pm
The People’s Report shows the fragmentation of men’s groups, who refuse to work together to achieve much.

The women got together, hissed and spat, but in the end a large group of them put out a “report” built of hearsay (bitching) and got good reporting in the news. Mothers, the group who injure and kill more children than men and neglect more children than men, have successfully presented themselves to media as the solution to “men as a problem”!

Funny how the report was all without evidence talk and no meaningful statistics about child abuse? They seem to want to do everything their way, without evidence at all.

Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 9:19 am
ex-judge bill Wilson’s call for without evidence prosecutions, is reminiscent of Sir Roy Davison’s Report 20 years ago. He wasn’t qualified to give the type of advice that he was giving (a fairly bad type of professional misconduct), he didn’t consider all options available and he didn’t gather all available and relevant evidence before reaching his conclusions.

Sir Peter Gluckman (a medical scientist) has been trying to get Governments to be more careful about using evidence, before making decisions.

It seems that the caughts are no longer the experts in weighing evidence. No wonder they get things so wrong, so often!
____________________________________________________________
My conclusions about Sir Ron Davison’s Bristoll Report:
Curiously, it appears from the meagre information available on the public record, that in fact what Alan Bristol did was a prescient warning of exactly how the DV Act would go so completely wrong. He was responding to an allegation that lacked any real evidence at all. Perhaps he over reacted, in a very human way, to the possible over reaction that he was warned the courts were likely to make. The legal concept of proportionality covers this dynamic. When disproportionate actions by caughts are known to occur, for example convictions based on no evidence, then citizens are encouraged and incentivised to take disproportionate actions, as Allan Bristol did.

If this hunch on limited evidence is correct, then Christine Bristol’s attempt to manipulate the caught$ for her perceived gain (ie total control of the children), triggered an unfortunate over reaction on the part of her husband, leading to deaths. Should she have been charged for these manslaughters?

Besides, any parent who sees themself as so important, that the children’s relationship with the other parent should be destroyed, is not a good and valuable sole parent. For Sir Ron to not see this, he showed himself to be a worthless fool, in my opinion. And hundreds of NZ familycaught$ judges have followed in his dangerous footsteps”¦..

Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 10:59 am
It looked to me that most of the toy throwing at the start of this process was from women determined to change it from a report on family violence to a report on violence against women. All I’ve heard about the report is the juicy bits that the papers have selected.
Has anyone read the report and can say how bad is it really?

Comment by Daniel — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 1:48 pm
Government rejects shifting the burden of proof:

Justice Minister Judith Collins said she was awaiting the report’s recommendations, which were due in October, but flatly ruled out looking into shifting the burden of proof.

I am disappointed Collins has flatly ruled out shifting the burden of proof in the Family Court – it would be nice to see it put back where it is suppossed to be, so fathers weren’t routinely persecuted for existing.

Comment by Downunder — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 3:07 pm
ADVICE PLEASE
My understanding of the way things work is we effectively already have ‘guilty till proven innocent’ with DPO’s and PSO’s. The fact that a DPO can be issued without the recipient being told means a restraint is put in force which the recipient must get removed, without his innocence being tested before the DPO is issued. More so with a PSO, which can be issued on the spot without evidence of violence (the presumption that it might happen is sufficient), and there is no defense, the 5 day exclusion period must apply. The police person who issues the PSO is judge, jury and executioner, and guilt or innocence is not an issue.

The art of changing the way the system works is to not use the words in statute ‘guilty till proven innocent’ but to put in place a legal environment that effectively delivers it anyway. Similarly, the law does not state we have abortion on demand, but the way the system operates, we effectively do have abortion on demand; – the women has to simply go through a ritual of saying she will suffer mental damage if she wants an abortion.

So I see nothing new with this aspect of ‘guilty till proven innocent’ in the Glenn report. As far as I understand ‘guilty till proven innocent’ was slyly brought in years ago when it comes to the rights of fathers.

DOES ANYONE AGREE OR NOT PLEASE?

Foot note: Glenn has hired the same old crowd from inside the system to do his report, and all they have delivered is another radical feminist analysis. To me it reads much like all previous reports on DV from those in the ‘system’.

Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 3:23 pm
Downunder #16 says it spot on:

I am disappointed Collins has flatly ruled out shifting the burden of proof in the Family Court – it would be nice to see it put back where it is supposed to be, so fathers weren’t routinely persecuted for existing!!!!

Bruce, I agree that it is the behaviour of the caught that matters, not what legislation says. Legislation is just for academics in NZ and overseas to talk about, it has precious little impact in caught.

The start of the big turn up in men’s suicides was 1975/1976, supposedly before the familycaught$ even existed. I interpret that as the District Caught behaving like the familycaught$, ie giving men the benefit of guilty till proven innocent and all done without the need for evidence or legislation. Some people call that judicial activism, some just call it corruption or incompetence.

I don’t see anything new or even a new presentation of old ideas, it is all the same old propaganda, with a claim that we should do more with less or no evidence. As John Potter suggested, Own Glenn is wasting his money [by paying women to advise on protecting children from women].

Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 4:17 pm
@ 16. Downunder

This does not take away or diminish the matter that in their righteous blind might the members of the Glen enquiry counselled and supported “guilty before trial and conviction”.

Personally I think they have embarrassed themselves. Also notably for not finding out what causes family violence.

Comment by Lukenz — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 4:20 pm
I’ve read a little more than half of the report and have been taking notes as I go. My notes thus far:

Panel interviews were held throughout New Zealand in 16 locations. By the completion of the process, the Inquiry had heard from around 500 people, of which 113 were frontline workers and received 50 online submissions.
******************
The majority of people who had lived with child abuse and domestic violence were women (84%).
Similarly, 80% of the frontline workers who came forward were women,
******************
People told the Glenn Inquiry that:
“¢ child abuse affects both boys and girls, while domestic violence mostly affects women.
******************
It can rightly be argued that family violence would be more appropriate terminology. The Glenn Inquiry question was originally framed within the contexts of child abuse and domestic violence because of the predominately gendered nature of domestic violence. Therefore, the term ‘domestic violence’ was retained.
******************
Overwhelmingly, the Glenn Inquiry heard that it was men who were more likely to physically abuse their female partner though we did hear that some men are abused by their partners. And, there was also a perception that a bias in ‘the system’ exists against men.
******************
The Inquiry heard that sexual abuse happens to both females and males. Both girls and boys were victims of child sexual abuse, perpetrated mainly by their fathers, brothers, older sisters and cousins who themselves had histories of being victims of sexual abuse by foster parents, and other family members such as grandfathers, step-parents and uncles, and their fathers’ friends. In addition, some people reported being exposed as children to their fathers raping their mothers.
******************
Contrary to popular belief, the people who spoke to the Inquiry wanted to make it clear it happened in all socioeconomic, gender and ethnic groups. Child abuse and domestic violence was mostly inflicted by a male perpetrator, although the Glenn Inquiry heard that some perpetrators could also be women.
******************
Frontline Child Youth and Family workers also talked about the importance of continually looking for additional ways to support mothers.
******************
There was a general belief that agencies providing supports like income, housing, counselling, and education, should work together to become more helpful for women and children, particularly keeping them safe.

Despite the clear gender approaches reported in the Report, the authors have the gall to include:

There is a need for a fresh approach that moves beyond labels, theories and gendered approaches.

I was very suspicious of what appears to be collaborative evidence provided by a claimed victim of violence and a Women’s Refuge Worker’s testimony to the inquiry:

Women’s Refuge Worker:
There is nothing wrong with them standing up for themselves and saying ‘the reason I don’t leave is because every time I leave he finds me and drags me back and rapes me for three days straight‘.

Testimony of supposed victim of DV:
‘m not very tactful. I don’t wrap things up in cotton wool. And just being able to role model to them [people living with child abuse and domestic violence] that there is nothing wrong with telling someone, ‘The reason I don’t leave is because every time I leave he drags me back and rapes me for three days straight.’ It’s vital for people to actually know the reality of living in, what I call, intimate terrorism. The tactics

I’m resting my eyes for now but will continue to read and take notes later this evening.

Comment by soMENi — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 4:30 pm
The People’s Report is just a trivial distraction away from the main issues of child abuse.

Women cause children far and away the most harm, through emotional neglect, psychological abuse, physical abuse and homicide.

So, blame someone else, anyone else – men, the Government, familycaught$, cycles of the moon,……………

Have a few laughs and then get back on topic.

How can we best protect children from mothers, especially solo mothers?
Surely the first point, is to allow and require fathers to exercise their rights and duties of guardianship, as already provided for in NZ law!

Nuclear family may be ok for children, when mothers are motivated and skilful, but 20% aren’t in this group. In these cases, it is essential for the children’s welfare, that fathers play a much more significant role. Many fathers may find such requirements onerous, but….

Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 4:53 pm
Even calling Owen Glenn sponsored anti-male hate report ‘The People’s Report’ is proving that it is propaganda as it is anything but a random fair double blind study of domestic violence with an even representative of random men and women who have been through the family cought.

It is a waste of time leaving the country as it is the same all over the western world. -Slightly different reasonable-sounding laws all applied exactly the same – take dads away from children and break up families and create strife and thence more money for counsellors, psychologists, lawyers, judges and court staff, coroners, funeral dealers, cyf etc etc.

Comment by Phil Watts — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 5:32 pm
I saw on the NZ Ambulance reality show the other day some poor bloke got beaten nearly to death by his wife smashed him over the head with vase and cut his artery and he only just survived.

His punishment for his wife going crazy at him because he was home late:
The pigs put a Police Safety Order on him and told him to stay away from his home with only the clothes he was wearing) for 5 days!!

NZ Police and Judges are corrupt and are minions for the New World Order to de-power men.

this was on National TV and not a word of outcry from males or females alike.

Comment by Phil Watts — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 5:43 pm
… depower men, using their own power to do it!

Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 5:48 pm
Collins says it clearly

Quoting:

“Collins said it was important the burden of proof did not change.

“We already have available protection orders, which are available on a without-notice basis right now,” she said.

Or put another way, she is denying the need for specific legislation that says ‘guilty till proven innocent’ as the without-notice protection order system is the same thing.

It could not be clearer, Magna Carta went out the window years ago.

Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 5:56 pm
I believe that the burden of proof in criminal cases is often being manipulated down to barely balance of probabilities.

Several subtle forces, all pointing in the same direction, have this effect.

Reduced public tolerance of crime, well violent crime (white collar crime gets dealt with pretty leniently eg John Banks, Sir Douglas Graham for financial frauds).
Police dehumanise the defendant, by controlling available clothing eg orange boiler suits and by the way they interview the accused and present evidence about the accused.
Prosecutor dehumanises the defendant, remember prosecutor’s treatment of Rolf Harris on TV by making assumptions which were not identified as assumptions but presented as facts. How many men, at some time, haven’t look lasciviously at a 13 year old woman? (Maybe the prosecutor wasn’t very attractive at 13 years old, or it was just so long ago?)

Police and prosecution failure to honour discovery of evidence prior to the trial, particularly exculpatory evidence.

When there is a dearth of evidence, perhaps due to insufficient work on the case, or just laziness or poor skills of assigned police, then a manipulated balance of probabilities is likely to have a critical effect on outcomes. Without-evidence is dangerous territory.

Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 7:36 pm
Yes I agree the Manga Carta has become quite overlooked now days. Particularly when a man can be charged with a historical rape from 50 years ago and have his name in a paper or online forever, lose his family, friends, job and not even gone to trial. And with so many being judged not guilty. It’s a sham.

Interesting enough David Camron PM UK is pledging to teach all school children about the Magna Carta.

See here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-pledges-lessons-on-magna-carta-as-he-seeks-to-push-british-values-9538187.html

Comment by Lukenz — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 8:11 pm
Interesting – british caught$ are more expensive, slow, unwieldy paperwork, manipulated for legal worker’s advantages…. David Cameron should be teaching british children about NZ caught$….. not that I think NZ caught$ are much good.

Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 8:17 pm
I have a suggestion, we make a initial written proposal,
I say two point:
1, at family court, when the case be trail, if not both party (applicant and respondent)agree, must have a Jury. cann’t make dicision just by judge.
2, if one judge get complain, the complain be proved is correct. the judge must lost he/her job.
your people can add more suggests, the proposal hand in congress by union, if the proposal get 5000 signature, the congress must discuss it. if we let proposal pass, the result equal we overturn family court system, this system is too corruption. we must overturn it.

Comment by cyrus — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 9:07 pm
Well, the truth is that all protection orders, with or without notice, are based on the ‘guilty till proven innocent’ principle. Actually, there is no real process for determining guilt at all, no need to establish any wrongdoing to any level of proof, no need even for wrongdoing to be alleged, and ‘proof’ of innocence is essentially irrelevant because no matter how totally a respondent shows that the applicant’s allegations were false or impossible, the judge is allowed to make the protection order anyway. The respondent is then punished with serious losses; for many fathers, this punishment is worse than the temporary loss of liberty in a sentence for criminal offending.

The law requires the Family Court (i.e. the judge), in the case of any allegations of violence, to be satisfied that the accused will be safe, otherwise a protection order must be made. The Bristol clauses required the Court automatically to include any children in protection orders regardless of whether the allegations were relevant to those children. Removal of the Bristol clauses, while a significant step, simply means that children are not automatically required to be included, but judges can still do so and you can be sure they still will in large numbers.

For temporary protection orders, lawyers might try to justify their ‘guilty until proven safe’ approach by comparing this with release on bail for an accused before trial, which a Court can only order if satisfied the defendant will be safe until the trial. However, no such bullshit excuse can be offered for protection orders that are made permanent.

Whether or not the respondent gets a chance to speak up regarding the protection order (i.e. whether or not the order is with or without notice), the process is the same. Guilty unless the judge is satisfied innocent.

Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 9:44 pm
A couple of years back, I made a submission to Parliament to replace familycaught$ with outside contractors, paid by the litigants and chosen by the litigants. They would have knowledge about parenting, but no legal training.

If noone chooses one particular service providor, then they get more hungry and more hungry. If they don’t earn a reputation for good work, at a reasonable price, then they don’t get any work and die from starvation.

2, if one judge get complain, the complain be proved is correct. the judge must lost he/her job.

My proposal was that if a decision is overturned on appeal, the judge to pay all costs of the appeal. All in, pretty much as you suggested.

The MPs thought the idea too way out……

Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 9:46 pm
Murray #14. I’ve seen you mention this in another thread Murray and have often wondered exactly the same thing. Ok, in this case his ex accused him of a sexual assault without any firm evidence.

How would a man feel who lost any form of contact with his children (!), got kicked out of his home, lost half of his friends and maybe his job (who could focus on work while dealing with the other 3 catastrophes???) and all that simply because his wife wanted him gone and got a protection order under false pretences?

Isn’t this like loosing EVERYTHING? But once EVERYTHING is gone (particularly rational thinking), there is NOTHING left to loose.

How many men in exactly that mind space (over) reacted and took revenge? Has anybody bothered researching this topic?

Instead, the DV industry – which has miserably failed making having any impact to the statistics despite the ever increasing sums of money handed over to them – is just sidestepping these inconvenient questions by labelling such men as tormentors, abusers, control freaks, etc. and their ex and children as DV sufferers, victims and survivors?

I’m suggesting that protection orders INCREASE the risk of harm for the protected person. IOW, they achieve the exact opposite of what its name suggests. It is therefore not a tool to make victims of DV feel protected, it is just one of a whole arsenal of tools designed to beat men into submission. The society we live in is reflective of such feminist lynch mob tactics.

Now here is a thought: anybody around who is skilled with statistical analysis and designing questionnaires? Would be really awesome if men who have been served PO’s could be interviewed and their collective responses analysed and published. I’d be glad to help interviewing.

Comment by Pete — Tue 17th June 2014 @ 10:10 pm
Pete,
Please contact me and lets get moving… Has anyone researched this topic?

I haven’t been through the worst end of familycaught$, but I have laid down my own reactions.

It isn’t quite as simple as grabbing men and asking them. Most have fairly strenuously buried the worst of it as a method of managing their reactions. Asking these sorts of questions opens all of these issues up again, rather suddenly and may be quite traumatic. There is a small risk of tipping the balance into rational suicide, which isn’t the outcome that we are trying to create.

Perhaps best to start asking the questions of the already suicided, by going around the graveyards of NZ?

Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 18th June 2014 @ 8:46 am
Thanks Man X Norton #30, give me some pointers on where to study this beastly problem next.

As I have often said, men are paying the price of being politically ineffective.

I like the idea above for renaming the DPO. We could rename it the ‘provoke men to violence order’ PMVO. Anyone got a better name?

I am as keen as anyone to see women protected. I have 4 daughters, and I would not like to see a thug beat up any one of them. However, politically motivated marginalisation of men is not the best way to protect women. Owen Glenn is not the solution either, he has just made himself part of the problem.

Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Wed 18th June 2014 @ 11:35 am
Men need to explore this issue of guilty before proven innocence in a different way.
Apply the same standard to the actions of the crown.

For example the actions of the organised criminal group, the Ministry of Police and its members.
When they ask for your name. Reply I don’t have one.
Give it or i’ll prosecute you! will reply the police officer
I am required to tell the truth beyond resonable doubt!, I cannot!, you reply
Why not? will ask the police officer
Because the police conspire to falsify legal documents called birth certificates. They even catch the offenders when men attempt to defend themselves, by conducting paternity tests, and conspire to pervert and obstuct justice by not prosecuting the offenders when the tests fail. I do not know if my own birth certificate is a falsified document therefore you are forcing me to participate in the commiting of a crime! One involving sexual activity where the victim is a child. I cannot prove to you that my birth certificate is correct. I am destitute to the law. However you can arrest yourself.

PS When John Key was voting for the smacking law, staring down the camera saying its wrong to commit crimes against children, smilling at you. At the same time (literaly) he voted for the Birth Death and Relationship Registration Act 2008. He knowingly voted to commit and enable the crime of faslsification of legal documents (against newborm babies), enabling the dishonest use of legal documents and the precuring of personal financial gain (child support) from the alledged father, and Kidnapping by the denial of legaly entitled access to a child by the actual father by commiting the falsifing crime. Sleep well tonight John.

PS Judith Collins who also voted for this. Administered it as the Police Minister. Administered it as the Justice minister. Got up in parliament and criticised Mr Garret for his 1 birth certificate offence. Statistical analysis of this offending shows that she has offended against 50000 newborn babies since becoming the Minister of Police. The most defensless citizens in the country. Sleep well tonight Judith.

PS the police recieved a formal complaint on this matter on 20 Aug 2009 against Powers and Collins.
Suprise corrupt suprise. The offending is still happening.

Before anyone says the first part/method is rubbish. There’s a reason why I’m a banned defendant.

Any guesses

Bigotry IS NOT OK

Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 18th June 2014 @ 4:02 pm
@ so called supporters of the recommendations of this report… how would you feel if your father,brother, son or grandson or close friend is accused of false allegation of DV and they are presumed guilty until proved innocent ??

Comment by Kumar — Wed 18th June 2014 @ 4:08 pm
HiÃ¯Â¼Å’ murray,

you said:” familycaught$ with outside contractors, paid by the litigants and chosen by the litigants.”

what is that mean, do you mean family court staff was paid by contractors?

I really need know.

Regards

Comment by cyrus — Wed 18th June 2014 @ 5:09 pm
Dear cyrus,

if you want to read the full submission, click the button. At the top left of the page, is a further button DOC, press that and the document will download.

I was not intending that anyone presently employed by familycaught$, get jobs in the new replacement system. They don’t have satisfactory qualifications, to understand how to protect children’s development and protection interests.

People who wanted this work (approving parenting plans as taking satisfactory care of the children’s development and protection), would need to have suitable qualifications in child development.

They could then advertise their services and what they charge. Parents who want to change their parenting plan could choose any qualified approver, to approve their proposed plan and would have to pay them the agreed charge. (User pays)

Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 18th June 2014 @ 5:46 pm
DJ Ward (#35): A man does not have the right to obtain a paternity test if he disputes being the father. Men who have obtained such tests without mother’s permission and provided the results, showing them not to be the father, to the Family Court have had them ruled inadmissible. The Family Court has ignored them. Yet when the authorities want to put the boot in to a man they obtain paternity tests to their hearts’ content, as shown in this story.

Pointing this out in no way implies condoning the man’s offending. The issue is only that it’s a double standard that men can’t by right obtain tests to disprove paternity, and that those those who falsely accuse a man of paternity are not prosecuted for fraud and child abuse.

Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 18th June 2014 @ 11:13 pm
The paternity test issue is interesting to me, and interesting to solve.

Firstly the police (an organised criminal group) take DNA tests from male offenders under any circumstance. The purpose being to solve crimes.IE used when women are subject to a sexual offence, the police taking the DNA and subjecting it to its DNA database. They find the offender, and subject the offender to proceedings where the conviction is gained principaly on that DNA sample.
This is a service provided by the crown (covered by the Human Rights Act).

The only way to catch an offender in this group of female child sex offenders is for a DNA test to be conducted.
The police make no effort in providing this service for men. A blatant human rights violation.
The intent of the action is to examine male offending and to facilitate, therefore commit female offending.
Convictions of men where DNA tests are used are illegitimate as a result.

How to test it?
Find a male (prefably a teenage boy still at school) who wants a DNA test as they believe the child may not be thiers.
Take them to the police station with an assisting and note taking witness.
Make the compliant that the offence of faslifying a legal document (7 years in prison) is being commited, where he is being forced to be a participant in the offending. The motive being personal financial gain.
The police must investigate legitimate compliants of offending where the offending involves a sexual act and the victim is a child. (the victim is the newborn baby)
DNA is used in burglary, car theft, who left the poo on thier front step, male sexual offence, etc etc prosecutions. Therefore in common (exclusive) use for male offending.
The police will refuse to do the test. (we dont do paternity tests)
With the police officers identity in hand, remove yourself from thier presence.

Private prosecution time. Put the shoe on thier feet.

Charge the police officer with the offence of conspiring to falsify legal documents.
The motive is that as he knows this offending takes place. 1 in 10 newborn babies. That based on every female police officer having 2 children. That he knowingly acts to prevent this offending being examined due to the fact he is acting to protect the 400 female police officers presently employed by the police who will commit this offence. These police officers go home to thier boyfriends and say “high honey where pregnant, do the right thing marry me (forced marriage, IE RAPE, ask Judith Collins), financialy support me (dishonest use of legal documents)”. Accuse the police officer of not wanting to do paternity testing because the children of these female police officers are actually his (prove they are not officer). That he wont take responsibility for his own children but he will assist the crown in forcing this little boy (the volunteer teenage boy) to do it for him. That he is left destitute to the law as he has no income to support the legal representation required for justice. That actions occur to obstruct justice in that regard.

PS a common argument given to me as to why paternity testing is not compulsory is the cost. Recently a young male friend went through the process and it cost $2500, he is the father. He has only ever met his 3 year old once. Pays child support. Is psycologicaly devastated by it. Your trying to get out of your responsibilities you only care about yourself not the child.

Farmers do exactly the same DND paternity test on cows, sheep, pigs, etc etc
It is a goverment entity providing a service.
It costs $30 per test.

70000 newborn babies, $30 for the fathers DNA test plus $30 for the child DNA test equals $60. 70000 multiplied by $60 equals $4200000 catching 7000 offenders equals $600 to catch a child sex offender. Great investment. Value for money.

It also results in the largest, Knowingly commited financial crime in the nations history, the Ministry of Revenue (child support), knowingly taking falsified legal documents and dishonestly using them. NO effort to make shure they are correct.

Bigotry IS NOT OK

Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 19th June 2014 @ 9:19 am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11277335

A Whangarei school teacher in on trial this morning charged with assaulting her ex-husband’s pregnant partner.

Terynne Whitney Dunn, 28, has been charged with injuring with intent to injure and an alternative charge of assault with intent to injure.

The trial began at Whangarei District Court this morning before Judge Duncan Harvey and a jury of seven women and five men.

Dunn is alleged to have assaulted the pregnant woman at Kensington Park sports event on Friday 11 May 2012.

She had been granted interim name suppression but suppression lapsed today.

The trial is expected to last two days.

Comment by Kumar — Thu 19th June 2014 @ 4:03 pm
@ 41 Kumar.

Ok so under the Owen Glen recommendations she would be guilt as soon as she was charged.

In addition, I suppose she should have a protection order in place and have to go to anger management courses.

Also have to be locked up for the night and have to wear a tracking bracelet.

Comment by Lukenz — Thu 19th June 2014 @ 6:35 pm
HiÃ¯Â¼Å’murray, I got your article and will read it carefully. thank you.

Comment by cyrus — Thu 19th June 2014 @ 9:00 pm
Teacher turns up for day two of assault hearing with her passifier in hand.

As defence opens its case, judge rules that the defendant cannot give evidence whilst clinging to a boiled bunny.

Comment by Downunder — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 8:26 am
#44: Well even though she will almost certainly get a pussy pass compared with any man who assaulted a pregnant woman in an act of jealous rage, at least she’s not being given a Bunny Pass.

Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 9:29 am
Good point Man X Norton. You normally only get a bunny pass or a boiler permit when you assault your ex, wouldn’t look good if this was extended to pregnant partners or other people’s children.

Comment by Downunder — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 10:22 am
The Vulnerable Children Act was passed by our esteemed parliamentarians on Wednesday. Here we have yet another law following the principle of ‘guilty until proven innocent’. It now gives CYFS the right to remove babies and children from parents at will without any need to prove (or even to make a case) that the parents pose a risk to those children. It will be up to those parents to prove they are innocent of being, or likely to be, abusive or neglectful if they are to have any hope of seeing their children again. The state in its wisdom has again abandoned a fundamental principle of justice in the vain hope that giving its pimply-faced social workers more unbridled power will lead to a better society. Children will be sent into state institutions or given to a succession of paid strangers to be raised. This will be much better for the children than being cared for by their own parents, and they will grow up to be well adjusted, successful people. Yeah right!

Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 10:35 am
#41 I was curious to know how serious the assault was?
Teacher admits assault on pregnant woman NZ Herald
…..
A Whangarei teacher has admitted kicking her estranged husband’s pregnant partner in the face at a junior rugby match.

The violence erupted when the teacher, Terynne Whitney Mills-Barber Dunn, 28, was talking to her estranged husband Warren Dunn, and the pair was joined by Mr Dunn’s partner Rauwinia Wycliffe, who was 14 weeks pregnant.

Dunn had given birth to Mr Dunn’s child six weeks before the confrontation, which resulted in her arrest.
……….
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Very unpleasant, but not life threatening….like most common assaults.

Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 11:26 am
#43 cyrus, if you would care to give any suggestions or feedback, this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, MurrayBacon.

Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 11:31 am
#47 Point well made. The nanny state is at it again. I wonder in how many cases the father will be the unsuitable parent, but not the mother.

But let me pose this one. I was talking to foster parents, who have had several hundred new born children over the years. They say well over 50% of the new born children they get given by CYF are badly alcohol damaged or raging drug addicts. They described what it is like with the alcohol damaged children who in many cases will be retarded for life, and what it is like getting new born baby drug addicts to go cold turkey. Do you think the state should intervene here? I bet this new bill ignores this problem.

Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 11:41 am
@Murray 48 – Working on reconsiation. (I want my punching bag back.)

Comment by Downunder — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 1:08 pm
Bruce (#50): Yes, there will be situations in which the harm of ripping babies and children away from their parents will be less than the harm predicted if the children stay with the parents. However, such decisions should be made with great care, agents of the state should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their view of the parent(s) is accurate and that their predictions are likely to be correct, and the parent(s) concerned should have the right to defend themselves fully rather than starting on the back foot with a presumption of guilt.

Regarding children with alcohol foetal syndrome and to a lesser extent children of drug addicts, an important issue is that there is no law requiring a pregnant woman to protect the unborn foetus. This is not an opinion on abortion but relates to a foetus while it might yet be born. Feminist demands such as “my body, my choice” mean that governments have been afraid to address this issue. State intervention during pregnancy may be more justified to reduce the chance that the state is left with a disabled child to look after due to the mother’s behaviour. This would also increase the chance that the parent(s) will be in a fit state to look after the child after birth. Instead, the government has taken the easy, punitive option that will end up mainly being used for male-bashing.

Mothers will be bullied by social workers barely out of adolescence to cease contact with men the social workers don’t like, and children will be removed if those mothers don’t comply. That happens frequently now already, but at least those social police are required to justify their actions to some pathetic standard of proof before a Family Court judge. Now they won’t need to, just leaving responsibility to the (poor, uneducated, struggling) parents to mount legal action in order to prove the state’s actions were unwarranted.

Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 1:13 pm
“Joy joy” the lawyers and Family Court parasites say regarding the Vulnerable Children Act. “With recent changes to family law we were afraid that we might not be able to afford next year’s new BMW model; how embarrassing! But now our lawyer mates in parliament have provided us with a whole new market of complex and extended Family Court cases pursued by desperate, traumatized parents prepared to spend every cent they can beg steal or borrow in trying to overturn the state’s presumption of their guilt in order to get their children back.”

Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 1:21 pm
Murray (#48): Injuring with intent to injure is quite a serious offence. This woman is already getting pussy passes with her charges having been reduced and the judge making irrelevant comments about morality, clearly designed to excuse this violent offender’s jealous assaults.

It’s a bit surprising that the man wasn’t charged for assaulting this violent femme by trying to restrain her as she was assaulting the victim. Nevertheless, the judge seems intent on turning this into a trial of the man’s behaviour and morality. It’s all his fault, obviously.

Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 1:45 pm
#47 Dear Man X Norton, the NZ Herald article says:

(1) Its measures include changes to the law so that abusive or neglectful parents will have to prove they are safe if they wish to keep any further children they have. In the past, social agencies have had to to prove they were not fit parents to take a child from them.

(2) It also introduces greater screening of those who work with children for government and community agencies, and ban those with serious convictions from working closely with children.

Reading the Bill on the NZ Legislation website, I can see the second issue (2) covered in pages and pages of bureaucracy, but I cannot see anything changing removal of children from their parents, or is that in some other act? If I am right, then NZ Herald has got it wrong?

I certainly believe that the Government employs lots of people who lack the knowledge and common sense to be able to make decisions about the care of children. They need to address this personell problem, before they pass additional legislation, giving them any additional powers to remove children.

At present, they fail to accept responsibility for the welfare of children in their care. They fail to provide statistical reports, about the quality of the care that they provide, or about the condition of children in their care.

After abuse care of many thousands of children is a huge, difficult responsibility, that NZ Government cannot successfully manage. The only path to improvement, is to vet parents and not allow children to be cared for by parents who lack the parenting skills or resources.

By the time that child emotional neglect can be diagnosed, far, far too much damage has already been done. Babies cannot write letters of complaint about their care. We can only manage protection of children, by making far fewer problems in the first place. Even so, we do need to improve the training and wisdom of CYFs staff.
Typical stories about short term impact of without notice removal of children from parents:
The difficulty of righting wrongs in caught

#52 Yes, there will be situations in which the harm of ripping babies and children away from their parents will be less than the harm predicted if the children stay with the parents.

You have stated the sensible approach to making such a decision, minimising harm. However, CYFs workers and familycaught$ judges don’t make a realistic prediction based on what happens to children in CYFs care. They assume that children in CYFs care live happily ever after. Maybe this is why they refuse to report on outcomes for children in their care, so they don’t have to face the reality. By not making a fair comparison, they err on the side of removing more children than they can safely take care of….. They end up being a significant source of hazard and damage themselves, the very thing they are there to prevent!

This comparison is a bit like burden of proof, weighing both sides of the equation honestly, accurately, fairly. They get care of children decisions wrong, they get criminal guilt decisions wrong, seems that the only thing they are good at is billing for fees.

Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 20th June 2014 @ 8:42 pm
Story here.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10186566/Couple-on-run-face-sex-claim

Yet another avenue where a woman can accuse someone of a sexual assault in the media before the police have had the opportunity to question the person or even investigate. These types of allegations lead to automatic life long penalties for the accused.

No I am not protecting the guilty! Just make sure you get it right before to place such penalties on someone. For God sakes the media could cause a suicide! You would think the media should take some care and responsibility in their work.

Comment by Lukenz — Sun 22nd June 2014 @ 12:40 pm
Seems to me women is parroting or has read the guide lines set out by information readily available through various feminist/womans Refuge forums.

Comment by jefhrm — Sun 22nd June 2014 @ 9:41 pm
#56 Lukenz as stated.
“No I am not protecting the guilty! Just make sure you get it right before to place such penalties on someone. For God sakes the media could cause a suicide! You would think the media should take some care and responsibility in their work”

The media is complicite in the conducting a campain of Denigration against Men

They say that men can’t be loyal, cant keep it in their pants. Yet females under 25 are twice as likely to cheat on thier partners as men. Lifelong infidelity still shows women cheat on men more than men cheat on women, 48% vs 56%.
They wax lyrical about male sexual behavour yet stay silent about women coming home and telling thier loyal male partners thier pregant, marry me etc, when the child is not thiers. Men can’t commit that crime.
They denegrate men who are caught having sex with females under 16, yet stay silent on Judith Collins deciding that the age of consent for adult females having sex with male children should remain at 12 years old.
How else does the media remain silent on the Organised Criminal Group (Child Support) forcing male children (under 16) to pay child support to the rapist.
They stayed silent when in 1999 the Minister of Social Developement discovered by being misled by the nations midwives, come study these horrible teenage fathers (they were there at the birth but have vanished!), only to discover they are so hard to find (also in Owen Glenn Report), and of those they could find, 100% had experienced suicidle thoughts.
They stayed silent when 4 years later, this document (evidence of an Act of Extermination in Part) was discovered, hidden in a draw unpublished.
They stayed silent when 4 years later, the Chief Justice of the Family Court, and Human Rights Commisioner said nothing was wrong with how men were being treated by the family court. Yet the Apartheid clause of the Guardianship Act was doing it’s dirty work, its resulting slaughter judged OK!
They stayed silent when at the time (1999),when the Feminazi as a result of this research, vehemently attacked the Fight for Life campian who were trying to raise money to research male youth suicide. Obvouisly they already knew the reason and wanted the slaughter to continue, (stop this your teaching males to be violent, yet an act of Extermination in Part is OK?). Now (2014) a Galipoli scale slaughter of young male fathers is a dark media stain on our nations history.
They stayed silent when those responsible for the acts that cause the slaughter (politicians and lawyers) acted to protect themeselves by banning discusions on suicides, and reporting on the causes.
The media talks about huffing, quad bikes, forestry deaths, backing over children in the driveway, a few misread cervical screens, women/children killed in DV events. Tell the truth about teenage fathers and these things combined look trivial. But the media is silent. Prostate laying back, thinking of England, while the Feminazi shaft them too.
How else do we never hear about the most sexualy abused indentifyable group in society. Its one that the public has never heard of. Have you ever heard of a adult female being prosecuted for inducing the teenage fathers suicide. Probably because even the teenage fathers family didn’t know he was pregnant. Probably because the mother has told anouther man he’s the father, and thinks (wrongly) that having sex with a male under 16 is a crime, and doesn’t want to be caught. Did she turn up to tell the coroner?, just for the media to remain silent!. Guess the (corupt)coroner gets to put anouther males streched rope in the(family courts) already overfilled closet. It can’t be kept closed forever! it’s bursting at the seams!
Denegation of an idetifiable group can only take place with the complicite acts of the media, how else did the denegration of jews work in Germany. By Adolf talking to his mates in his office, or the media being his puppet. Denegration causes a lack of empathy and is its goal. It alows good people to do bad things and not notice them while they’re doing them.

The media is an Organised Criminal Group, just like our Politicians and Legal Profesionals, because they knowingly act to commit acts of denegration, alowing the Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and acts of Genocide that presently take place in NZ, to take place. Without I may add, with any chance they will be held to account for it, or report on it.

Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 23rd June 2014 @ 1:42 pm
Back to your original point Lukenz – the death of the Magna Carta.

Who would of thought that the great charter that would stop the rule of a despotic king, could be broken down and replaced by something equally evil from the House of the Bitch.

Comment by Downunder — Mon 23rd June 2014 @ 2:17 pm
#57 my ex did women’s studies at uni (wish I’d recognised the danger sign!) and she still parrots the tripe she was taught 30 years ago. So much for education teaching you how to think not what to think. Anyway teaching courses at uni no matter how subjective gives them an intellectual basis which may not be warranted.

Comment by Daniel — Mon 23rd June 2014 @ 2:37 pm
I’ve been through the femily caught system and found they have pre-empted this report be over 2 decades. Guilty until proven innocent was the norm with the added quirk that there was no process to find or prove anyone innocent. Accused of violence then I must be violent no, police reports, witnesses, evidence, no nothing at all except for the say so of the ex. And there it was, Guilty until proven guilty. The Justice Minister must be talking about district or High court when she flatly refused to look at shifting the burden of proof, as the femily caught shifted it ages ago
Mits

Comment by Mits — Mon 23rd June 2014 @ 2:52 pm
Corruption takes place when nobody is is allowed to watch it or report on it taking place.
Hence the reason our DV family court is the only closed court left on the planet, at least in contries that are civilised!

Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 23rd June 2014 @ 3:13 pm
@59 Downunder.
From all accounts King Johnny didn’t willingly sign off the Magna Carta. But as it turned out the principle decree has been the proudest cornerstone of English and western society.

It is clear from the posts men are not given that basic right. And it comes in many forms.

Loss of children without trial.

Loss of home without trial.

Publication of name suppression without trial.

Lose any chnace of a future without trial.

Prove you’re not guilty by selling your home to pay for a lawyer.

A major part of a sentence is having your name out there if you have committed a sex crime. So why is it all so hard for people to understand a reasonable process of making sure a man is guilty before he faces an instant worldwide and un-retractable publication of his name.

I would say it’s a harrowing and expensive experience for any man to face such charges even without his name in the media. But that is not enough for a scorned woman who may have an historical axe to swing or just wants to replace the child’s father with another man.

The Magna Carta is to stop automatic punishment or sentence with trial. But today that does not extend to men who are alleged to have committed or been charged with a sex crime.

And the more heinous the allegation, the more important to protected name suppression. Because the more heinous the crime the worse a trial by media would be.

We already have laws such as the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment. Part 2.9 of the Bill of rights act reprinted July 1 2013. They just don’t apply to men.

Comment by Lukenz — Mon 23rd June 2014 @ 7:51 pm
From all accounts King Johnny didn’t willingly sign off the Magna Carta. But as it turned out the principle decree has been the proudest cornerstone of English and western society.

That’s the way I see it too. He was presented with a political agreement that stopped the arbritrary rule of the monarchy, and formed the basis of modern democrachy in England.

After Labour released its list yesterday, you can see where feminism has gone – arbitrary politics, gender equalisation – off the political rails.

I can see them getting handed a big slap down by the electorate for this.

Comment by Downunder — Tue 24th June 2014 @ 8:20 am
#35

Justice works in mysterious ways Judith

Comment by The man in Absentia — Sat 30th August 2014 @ 8:46 pm
I was thinking about PSO stuff today.
In regard to an effect of its provable bigotry.

The identified victim, or co-victim, arbitrarily gets the PSO.
IE the male.

Children plus mother, plus male.
Equals males get the PSO.

So the female can take the PSO to her employer.
Getting paid time off.
The actual victim cannot.
In fact it is government policy to force employers to pay offenders for being domestically violent.
Obviously, by the statistics, in about equal numbers, female victims of violence, entitled to money.

So the police officer creates the bigoted PSO.
Knowing it can be used for, personal financial gain.
Inherently putting false details in a legal document.
A conspiracy to commit fraud.
Government policy, like an Organised Criminal Group.

………

The excuse will be that, nobody can look after the children if the mother is removed.
So condescending of males.
Who could look after the children, just as competently.

For the 5 days, paid by the employer, justly.
Until the PSO is finished, and then FC destroys the father.
Enough time, to sort things out, on behalf of the vexatious mother.

Remarkable isn’t it.
The never ending banning of men from relationships with there children with any sign of DV.
While its policy that violent mothers, near arbitrarily when PSOs are issued, are left, alone, with children as a policy.

The more I look at PSOs.
The more I see a provable.
Crime Against Humanity.

Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 3rd May 2021 @ 5:48 pm
#65

Yes it does.

I remember watching Judith gloat at the success of the new PSO law.
In Parliament.
100% of the first 100, against males.

Maybe not laughing, or smiling.
To much longer.
Got a warning, about a dirty trick.
Likely to be tried.

I am watching.

Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 3rd May 2021 @ 5:55 pm
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300291301/man-ran-away-from-abuse-at-home-only-to-be-raped-and-beaten-in-state-care

Due to the fact I have looked at many of men’s crimes, and women’s crimes. It is fair to say on some occasions, severe punishment is not unreasonable. Some crimes involving sex, and murder, I would struggle with objectively saying no to the death penalty. However the title of the post.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent Pronounced..

There is conflict to me in some cases.
Between the idea of every increasing punishment.
Rape, could be 3 strikes, your out as an example.
Essentially what we have in NZ.
And the more rare, brutal cases.
That I have the objectivity issue with.
Some of those I have conflict with.
As I’m certain Judges have the same conflict.

In some cases.
After the fair trial.
And processes of appeal.
Should some not be given the choice.
After we are absolutely certain of guilt.
And we cannot allow freedom again.
Of a humanely conducted death.

Nobody other than them act.
Or be human.
And torture them.
With solitude, for there own protection.
Shall the condemned not have freedom.

……………..

The problem I have with these historical cases, is time.
While the statements, of the accuser may have trustworthy merits.
What chance then the defendant.
What cameras, phone records, emails, GPS, witnesses, do they have.
Could they even remember the names of witnesses.
That despite the strong story.
Cannot with certainty not have shown innocence.
Some cases have many independent accusations.
So hard to ignore, even then, vindictiveness.

I don’t like historical prosecutions.
However good DNA evidence in some crimes as stated, previously.
Deserve justice.
Even then DNA alone should never be the only evidence.
For a valid conviction.
DNA can easily be falsified.
By vexatious people.

I have heard DNA is very reliable.
In detecting paternity fraud.
Obviously no severe, or death sentence crime.
Geez, the bad men, are few.
The bad women, are many.

Don’t worry ladies, I was chastising bad men.

Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 3rd May 2021 @ 8:02 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

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.

« Man charged with assaulting infant Improving Prison Life »

Masculinist Evolution New Zealand

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

Guilty Until Proven Innocent Pronounced

68 Comments »

Leave a comment

Tell the Truth About Domestic Violence

Browse by Category

Browse by Date

Adverts

Book by MENZ reader