Courts are busy and serious places, and judges are busy people
Courts are busy and serious places, and judges are busy people
Man rebuked for claiming to be ‘fictional entity’ in court
2:11 PM Wednesday Jul 1, 2015
A man who fell off a moped and said his identity was a fiction created by the State has been rebuked for trying to be “funny” in an unusual court judgement.
Malcolm France fell off his moped in Auckland and refused to give his name and address to police, who later found out he had no licence and was banned from driving.
Following a lengthy court battle, in which he appeared in court claiming to be someone else who was acting on his behalf, France was rebuked by judges who were unimpressed by his “frivolous behaviour”, and described it as a “mischievous attempt to avoid or overturn a conviction”, in a Court of Appeal decision released today.
Following the moped incident, France was charged with driving while forbidden and failing to provide information. He was convicted, fined and ordered to pay court costs in October 2013.
The Court of Appeal said France had filed an affidavit, apparently claiming he was Malcolm Freeman, possessing “a right of attorney, someone to represent Mr France”.
It’s understood France supported the Freeman-on-the-Land movement. Such a ‘Freeman’ can be someone in a common law jurisdiction who refused to give consent to be governed and said no statutory obligations applied to them, according to one Freeman’s website.
France was declined a re-hearing in the District Court and filed a notice of appeal in the High Court.
“Mr France appeared in support of both appeals, but claiming he was Malcolm-Daniel, the man acting for Mr France,” the Court of Appeal said.
“He contended Mr France was a fictional entity, created by the state. He claimed Mr France was neither driving nor travelling on the moped (he called it the ‘travelling apparatus’) involved in the incident on 29 June 2013.”
Justice Brendan Brown dismissed France’s first appeal.
“He was unable to detect, in the nonsensical argument Mr France had put to him on appeal, any question of law of sufficient general or public importance to warrant a second appeal,” the Court of Appeal said.
The Court of Appeal said France offered an incomprehensible explanation for the delay. It said France appeared to be drawing a distinction between himself and the affiant (affidavit-maker) who was referred to as “Malcolm Daniel AR”.
“…This matter was appealed not by Mr France but by the Affiant, — the living man — in the form of leave of court/writ of error to be taken to a common law court,” France told the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal judges were unimpressed.
“The courts are vexed by the occasional person who pretends not to be who he — or she — is. Some of these people may have a genuine identity crisis, but more usually they are engaged in a mischievous attempt to avoid or overturn a conviction. These people may think they are funny or clever, but they are not,” the court said in a newly-released judgement.
“Courts are busy and serious places, and judges are busy people. This sort of frivolous behaviour is not wanted in courts.”
France could not immediately be reached for comment.
I have often warned men that caught$ only harm people who take them seriously ie expect them to do their job.
It is good to see a citizen showing them up for all they really are!
The men who have a sensible ride through caught experiences, have protected their existence, many years prior to being dragged through the caught$.
I was amused by the claim that “judges” are busy people.
I have so often seen “judges” extend hearings, by wasting time themselves and many times. failing to manage legal workers wasting time in front of them.
I guess this is to put unethical pressure onto the Government, to appoint more “judges” and by so doing, to manipulate the supply and demand for legal workers, for their joint advantage.
I have seen “judges” ignore what looked to me to be an open and shut case of illegal legal worker’s aid fraud, thus taking personal advantage themselves, of the open Government chequebook within their reach.
Anyway, even if they aren’t much social use as judges, at least they are giving citizens a little entertainment.
The Right Hon. Benjamin Moreland Easton certainly showed up the legal “system” for what it is. WCC claimed that he had cost them more than $350,000 of ratepayer’s money.
I would have said that their lack of managing their legal worker’s cost $350,000. This might have been more than Ben had ever earned in his lifetime? Such casual squandering of ratepayer’s money, leaves open the question, were the council officer’s responsible for managing legal costs receiving backhanders from the benefited legal workers?
WCC gives a good example of why it is wise to learn the skills, to manage your legal worker costs. If you might ever be forced to deal with the causht$, then this is a skill well worth learning, dammit.
We should put stupid people on pills, to stop them breeding. Could we start with legal workers and “judges”?
It’s quite understandable how anyone, whose only experience of courts is the Family Court, would think all courts are a joke, where you make up what ever bullshit suits the occasion, and get away with it.
You might say the Family Court (a bunch of incompetent prats from the home of the lazy and incompetent – lacking sufficient integrity to pulse the veins of a fungus gnat) has set a precedent for the way courts should be interpreted.
Down under – interestingly heres a comparison – I worked in the police for 11 years, when we had a very high reputation and when were held in high regard by NZ society …… that all changed when they merged traffic and turned the Service into a CORPORATION intent on collecting PROFIT……
My point is this – CRIMINAL COURTS in my direct Experience – were FAIR and JUST and Open to PUBLIC Scrutiny……..by comparison the FAMILY COURT is totally Corrupted – that is my opinion after my direct experience and by being able to compare experiences in BOTH courts…..
its interesting as I look back – when my partner and I arrested a person who was wanted for questioning my INTERPOL for Child Abuse – a FAMILY COURT Judge was inserted to oversee the case – a CRIMINAL CASE that even my police prosecutors felt was ODD…….the FAMILY COURRT JUDGE threw the case out – not based on any law – and then refused to issue a written judgement until AFTER the Appeal period had elapsed – even my Police Prosecutors were disgusted and very upset – WHY?? Because our arrest and the case was SOUND – and he should have been convicted….so why was he given a leave pass???????
So even though I have seen 10 years of corruption in the Family courts trying to get JUSTICE for me and my child – I also have direct evidence where even the family court appointees where used in CRIMINAL court to get someone off……..
That was one of the few times I saw INJUSTICE in the CRIMINAL COURTS………
Many men have commented on how their experience with judges in the family court, has been a waste of time. Criminal courts deal with defined yes/no questions. The family court deals with imaginary scenarios that may or may not have happened, they even base their decisions on trying to predict the future. Like witch doctors.
Femily caught is a circus and the snout up on the bench is just a clown. The ring master is more likely to be the caught registrar.
Admittedly they are very highly paid clowns but then the costs of going to their circus is very high as well.
Downunder,hornet and Dj
Still here and totally agree
1.The Courts are terrible waste of time for alienated Fathers,
2.They deliberately make you wait sometimes months.
3 Then the first real nobodies employed by the CYF, nobodies some without having their own children” that was weird” but apparently doesnt factor into their ability as capable parental advice.
4 So the CYF can be concerned and talk about the TIME lapse.
5 Doesnt matter that it was forced by the law through the Courts because it NOW exists
6.The CYF will then push for a slow re connection between you and the children but get this,
Under their supervision and at their leisure. Not a “Parent” and at their leisure..Roll on booking hours.So your dealing with someone that has no idea about the effects of missing a Child because they dont have any.
That kind of arrogance is appalling and dangerous for your children.
They know when and where as well as what time prior to your visit to court. Believe it
Welcome to many failed attempts to see your Kids
7. 34 mediation conferences not attended by the EXs or the Children….over many many months that quickly became years.
8. I got to know the Exs lawyer better than my Ex….
9. If the Courts and Law dont listen to the police we are screwed. regarding Hornets post
This is so bad because my case was well over 20 odd years ago and its still happening…
I feel so sorry for anyone “Fathers or Mothers” that are treated with such arrogant contempt.
and I believe this TIME period is the cause of people suffering without hope that does the most damage the cause of going off the rails or leading to Death.
Ive yet to here of any accountablity…
Its glossed over with “what a shame”, “we did our best”, They were “unwell” not once have I heard they were acknowledged as the victim because of the system….not once.
KEEP THE FAITH…
Comment from the Right Hon. Benjamin Moreland Easton, link
“No it isn’t. If Mr Easton wants to be paid for his advocacy then he should stand for Parliament or the Council and get elected. But he can’t declare himself a public representative and demand we fund him. Also thousands of us manage to hold down paid employment and do advocacy and community activities.”
Unless you advocate for women, then the taxpayer will fund you.
Bigotry exists because people are too stupid, or indoctrinated to notice.
Yes, but should we generalize? As they say, 98% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
#6 and #7 sum it up nicely. Joseph, special thanks for laying out your experiences. I have heard similar stories over a hundred times and my own experience too is similar. These stories do need to be told again and again, as this is the only way that the public can realise that these are not just the occasional bad situation where The System runs off the rails, but pretty much the norm of secret caught$ and CYFsalis.
My earlier comment on Ben:
Benjamin Easton representing people in caught.
It is important to judge on a fair basis, if we hope to make life in NZ better.
I find it hard to listen to judges complaining about self represented litigants, when I recall the many examples of judges wasting time, legal workers wasting time, legal workers (ie judges included) failing to remember relevant laws and proceeding incorrectly).
I am just as concerned about familycaught$ malpractice’s effects on women, as on men.
The impacts of their lack of relevant skills and unmitigated greed, impacts most onto children.
I have seen this over many years and my tolerance reduces year by year. The days of the good old Judges Trapski and Inglis seem to be many thousands of years ago and now totally lost in ancient history.
I have never seen Ben accused of misleading a customer, to extend legal action and increase charges. So, in my book, much better than most legal workers. Integrity?
I believe that Ben has Early Childhood Teacher qualifications, so it would appear that he has more relevant qualifications, than any judge I have ever seen? Not sure how relevant this might be to making a decision about employing him as a legal representative? In any case, food for thought.
Any responsible parent needs to judge for themselves, risks and likely value for money, before going to familycaught$ and/or before employing any legal representative. To get these decisions wrong, is to seriously disadvantage their own life and the children’s too (unless you are fabulously rich or have a really good double sided colour printer).
MurrayBacon – frothing at the mouth axe murderer.
“Courts are busy and serious places, and judges are busy people. This sort of frivolous behaviour is not wanted in courts.”
Having the right to have ones concerns about processes of, or law being imposed on oneself is not frivolous. This is how we weed out law and behaviours that are not legitimate or harmful. I can see the irrational basis of this particular man’s claim and why the judge has responded how he has. But to exclude by some association that any other argument pertaining to people’s names is not correct, is equally irrational. International law protects the judge Ã¢â‚¬Ëœwith conditions’ to enable the conducting of proceedings no matter how illegitimate their or the crowns behaviour is or has been. The judge cannot repeal law, and must support and protect it.
“The courts are vexed by the occasional person who pretends not to be who he – or she – is. Some of these people may have a genuine identity crisis, but more usually they are engaged in a mischievous attempt to avoid or overturn a conviction. These people may think they are funny or clever, but they are not,”
In regard to myself
Courtroom 1 Manukau, 20 Aug 2009. Funny? You had to ban me from ever going to court again, cowards. That’s not funny is it? Clever? I was just telling the truth, even a dumb person can do that. I guess I must be the exception to the comment Ã¢â‚¬Ëœmore usually’, due to, Ã¢â‚¬Ëœmischievous attempt to avoid or overturn a conviction’ did not apply to me.
Did the judge comment that this ‘persons name stuff’ is already a resolved issue? I won? Or the judiciary run away?
#5 Joseph says:
Using the search facity, at the top right of the menz page, gives the following links (might be slightly different each time you try it?):
Ireland to adopt “the best interest of the child” Dogma
Accountability that was never really intended to work !
Child Support Act – Accountability Between Parents
and many more links too.
Failure of accountability is the crux of the entire failure of the familycaught$. I think that is what Mits is saying above, too. In the absence of working accountability, it is up to citizens to apply accountability themselves, in the real world, by any means that works properly.
Try the search facility, it gives really good access to the material on the menz website.
MurrayBacon – frustrated axe murderer.
Let’s not get carried away promoting the reputation of Ben Easton. In the context of the men’s movement he showed himself to be untrustworthy and seriously lacking in integrity. His shenanigans rarely if ever achieved any gains for any of the causes he was involved in. However, it does seem that some Court decisions and processes sink to even lower levels of morality than his.
It’s moments like this we need rules!
I happily accept criticism for some slightly tongue in cheek comments.
Speaking for myself only, I would go much more dangerously insane, if there was no softening of unnecessarily harsh reality, with some levity.
Staying alive is sufficient justification for some inappropriate and black humour.
Nonetheless, my comparison of Ben’s performance to the various legal workers that I have observed in caught$, are serious comments, unfortunately. I cannot apologise for the actions of these malpractisors and thieves, as they are not under my control or responsibility. MoMA is correct about Ben.
Rule 1 is that there are no rules………
Alas, although the rules are generally constructive and wise, they are mired in useless verbiage, move as quickly as quicksand and honoured only in the breach.
I would like to have a good party, when the caught$ were back on track. I ain’t holding my breath. Good management with power to do the job, could do it in 4 hours.
In my experience the family court is so absurd, society would be a much better outcome in all respects (statistically) if they simply flipped a coin. I say this with all seriousness – which says a lot about the family court.
And presumably the coin wouldn’t charge crippling “legal bills”?
Timely decisions are worth far more to the family, than decisions delayed so the combatants can save to pay bigger “legal bills”.
Also, after the coin toss, you still have the coin – so there is NO cost at all, to make a better quality, more child protective decision!
Why deal with relationship vandals?
Murray you are rather naive.
Lawyers know the system is a lottery for men.
They listen and invite you to share a coin with them, they flip it and place it in their pocket. If you ask them the result they invite you to provide them with another coin and repeat the action.
It is only when your pocket is nearly or actually empty that they venture an opinion.
I have known some who call a temporary halt to the coin tossing game and need to take their bulging pockets down to the local BMW dealership (the Law Society must get a discount as they all drive them) but they soon return to continue playing the coin toss game.
Most honest opinion I ever heard was “the Family Court is a lottery”.
Thankfully my investment for this sage advice was about $40,000 only. Clearly I was a fast learner.
I gripe mainly on behalf of others. I spent about $300 on process servers and $800 on legal workers.
But I have spoken with several men and women who have spent between $50,000 and $500,000.
What struck me, was that I had the impression that I had better value, than they had – even ignoring the money spent.
Mainly, I suffered less damage by quickly working out that there was no workable child protective judgement skills, or integrity in familycaught$ and the main issue was to protect myself from them!
UNDERSTANDING SOCIETY: EARLY FINDINGS FROM THE FIRST WAVE OF THE UK’S HOUSEHOLD LONGITUDINAL STUDY
Sara Arber, University of Surrey
Richard Berthoud, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Cara Booker, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Mark L. Bryan, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Nick Buck, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Jon Burton, Institute for Social and Economic Research
John Ermisch, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Emanuele Ferragina, University of Oxford
Maria Iacovou, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Gundi Knies, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Heather Laurie, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Simonetta Longhi, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Peter Lynn, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Stephanie L. McFall, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Robert Meadows, University of Surrey
Birgitta Rabe, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Amanda Sacker, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Alexandra J. Skew, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Mark Taylor, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Mark Tomlinson, University of Oxford
S.C. Noah Uhrig, Institute for Social and Economic Research
Robert Walker, University of Oxford
Dieter Wolke, University of Warwick
Sorry, I haven’t been able to create a direct link. It is easily found by Google search.
This report brings out that children’s satisfaction is closely related to the quality of their relationships with their parents (and with the quality of relationship between the parents).
This old wisdom is clearly well protected by the NZ Care of Children Act passed by Parliament in 2004, but almost never put into action in NZ familycaught$. I believe that judge bashier played a part in drafting this act.
This is because putting protection of relationships into action would greatly reduce legal worker’s plunder, which is the paramount interest!
I realised from the beginning that there would be no point procuring the services of a lawyer. Plus I had no money and did not qualify for legal aid. My total bill was $0.00 plus travel and accommodation. I just did the best I could in reading the law etc. The result was that in court I called a spade a spade etc. Eventually I pushed the judge ‘not a family court judge, one given my case to deal with, and short on family court knowledge’ into a corner and he snapped. End result was I got to see my child again, and the judge banned himself from being in a courtroom with me again.
It’s cheap to say NO to bigotry.
I feel ashamed at how men and women are being screwed over financially by these family court parasites. I can see how lower intellect individuals could not do what I did. That they become forced into paying for a lawyer. It’s like our legal system is founded on the principles of blackmail, not justice. Even though I had some success, the experience was extremely psychologically damaging. I don’t recommend coming in contact with the family court for any reason. Unfortunately having children is one of the reasons for our existence, and major path to self-worth. Blackmail again!