Sign this US petition demanding paternity testing
Although a US petition, changes in international law and approaches will be influential towards changes in NZ. It’s interesting that it’s being done by ‘Women Against Paternity Fraud’. Although it’s hard to avoid feeling suspicious of any women’s group these days, their motivation appears to be social responsibility and it’s important that men’s groups go all out to support any women’s group that is seeing sense, showing support for gender fairness and/or showing understanding concerning men’s issues.
Sign the petition here.
This article shows what we are up against.
Desires to prosecute men who want to find out if they are the father
Deliberate efforts to downplay the rate of offending.
Using the potential harm to the child to stop paternity testing.
Justifying taking child support even from men proven not to be the father
http://purplemotes.net/2012/11/18/men-discussion-paternity-testing/
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 18th August 2015 @ 10:28 am
This page has interesting info.
It quotes 10% to 30% for the paternity fraud rate.
Test failure rate at 28.2%. I have heard the NZ figure is 40%, but trying to find the source of that data.
Both a long way of the feminist propaganda of around 1%. Incidentally, established to be completely mathematically irrational, and fraudulent.
Shows how corrupt the legal profession is on this issue.
http://www.mensdefense.org/STM_Book/PaternityFraud.htm
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 18th August 2015 @ 10:55 am
“I asked her,” Conn says, “‘Why did you have this man sign the birth certificate if you knew there was a question of paternity?’ She told me, ‘I talked to my mother, and she said if I didn’t know who the father was, just pick whoever seemed like they would be the best provider and put it on him.’ That’s coming from a 16-year-old girl.”
Paternity fraud is a sex crime!
Its an epidemic.
http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/father-figures/Content?oid=3123277
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 18th August 2015 @ 11:17 am
From a WIKI page
‘A 2008 study in the United Kingdom found that fathers were wrongly identified in 0.2% (1 in 500) of the cases processed by the Child Support Agency. Of that 0.2%, those resolved with DNA testing between 2004 and 2008 showed that between 10 and 19% of mothers had deliberately named the wrong father; none of the women were prosecuted.’
This is how these CS criminals falsify data in an attempt to mislead the public about the facts of paternity fraud. NZ IRD politicians are just as guilty as they quote the same lies, in hiding their financial crimes from the community.
For a 1 in 500 figure to be the result. At 10% failure rate, means only 10/500 do the DNA test. They falsely presume and present as a fact that the other 490 were all non-fraud cases. In fact using the 4% figure that many of the feminist self-justification pages use, which means UK CS knowingly admit to having 20 men in every 500 that pay for a child that is not theirs. Yet only 1 in 20 of those is ever discovered.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 18th August 2015 @ 11:50 am
Another method used by these man hating sex offenders is to deliberately misrepresent figures.
They say ‘using the 4% figure’ that only 1 in 25 men will be subjected to this sex crime. This is a blatant misrepresentation of reality, IE fraud by those justifying fraud.
The average male has 2 children ‘same as females’. This means that 1 in 12.5 males will be a victim of this sex crime, based on their ideology. False!
The person who is the father is also a victim. 1 in 12.5 will be falsely be named as the father, and 1 in 12.5 males will have their rights to be involved in their child’s life removed by this fraud.
That’s 1 in 6.25 males will be victims, based on the generously low, feminist, dreamed up figures.
This is of course only the start of this sex crime.
These figures ignore the enormous numbers of females who don’t even name a father, and the long list of crimes that females commit in that regard.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 18th August 2015 @ 1:37 pm
‘The figures show that of the 64,343 babies born last year, 4343 did not name the father on the birth certificate.’ From the ministry of statistics.
So that’s 6.75% of NZ children that are excluded from having the father being allowed to participate in their lives.
From #5 with 1 in 6.25 which is 16%.
Adding this up gives the figure of 22.75% of males are the victim of this sex crime. But there is more.
If 4% of birth certificates are false, and 6.75% of the time no father is entered on the birth certificate then every person has a 10.75% chance of being the child victim of the offending themselves.
22.75% as the male victim plus 10.75% as the child victim equals 33.5%
This is appalling.
Even taking into account the generous 4% figure, this still results in this fact.
1 in 3 males are a victim of this sex crime.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 21st August 2015 @ 2:10 pm
Using the 10% figure for the rate at which females lie about who the father is on birth certificates, the statistics are the following.
10% that you are not the father. Doubled for 2 children is 20%
10% that you are the father but not named. Doubled for 2 children is 20%.
10% that your own birth certificate is a lie.
6.75% that no father is named on your own birth certificate.
That’s 56.75% of males are a victim of this sex crime.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 21st August 2015 @ 2:18 pm
OPPs I made a mistake, sorry guys.
In #7 I forgot to include that a male has a 6.75% chance of being a father of a child but no father is named on the birth certificate.
So 56.75% plus 6.75% equals 63.5%
That’s (rounded) 2 out of 3 males are a victim of this sex crime.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 21st August 2015 @ 2:54 pm
Dj ward, @6
So there was exactly 64 thousand babies born last year that named a father on the birth certificate ?
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 21st August 2015 @ 4:25 pm
Sorry I meant exactly 60000 ?
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 21st August 2015 @ 4:32 pm
64343 – 4343 = exactly 60 k fathers.
Is there a quota ? It seems kinda – round ?
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 21st August 2015 @ 4:50 pm
Thanks ‘Voices back from the bush’ for your questions
I have found it very difficult to find any data on this issue that allows us to accurately quantify the rates at which this sex offending occurs in NZ
I have found this reference that is from 2009 and relates to 2008 figures.
Quote from the article below
‘The figures show that of the 64,343 babies born last year, 4343 did not name the father on the birth certificate.’
Note this was from the Ministry of Statistics. I noticed that exact 60,000 number myself. The official 2008 birth numbers are 64340 (Min Statistics), I can’t find any info as to where they got the 4343 figure from.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/1749665/Jump-in-NZs-teen-pregnancy-rate
The entity responsible for the info is the Ministry for Internal Affairs. Who say this in regard to birth certificates. Prosecution guide.
e) In relation to prosecutions under the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995:
(i) To ensure the integrity of the official record of information relating to births, deaths, marriages, civil unions, name changes, adoptions, and sexual assignments and reassignments in New Zealand;
(ii) To deter fraudulent activity in relation to New Zealand birth, death, marriage, civil union and name change certificates and other identity documents; and
This is of course a corrupt statement as it indicates to the public that they consider the ‘integrity of the official record’ to be important. The truth is that they conspire with other government entities to achieve the opposite.
I cannot find on Min Internal Affairs, IRD, MSD, Min statistics, Min Police, or Min Justice any information as to what the not naming of father’s rate is, and there is definitely no information as to the falsification rate. There is however endless information on all versions of mothers.
The person who provided the figure must have got it from somewhere.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 24th August 2015 @ 2:08 pm
Thanks DJ Ward for your reply.
I had a look around myself and seemed to find a range of various stats which made me curious as to why there would be any differences in statistics.
I asked the opinion of a friend of mine that works for msd, she told me that there was a larger amount of unregistered children than most people realise and some account for this and some don’t.
Of course I realise that regardless of what the actual stats are – the point you have made is interesting that males have a high chance of being the victim of incorrect birth certificates both when they are born and when they are or are said to be father.
I asked about the statistics because admittedly I’m confused about the math calculations in some instances and would like to have a better understanding of it.
For example if someone scatters tacks on a footbridge and it’s said that because of the amount of tacks that someone has 20% chance of getting a tack in thier shoe by crossing.
Does this mean that if the bridge is crossed five times there is 100% chance of getting a tacked shoe?
Often the way statistics are interpreted can seemingly give a false reading even though the maths is correct.
I’m trying to understand this better as certainty and probability can both be presumed in some cases.
Statistics (calculated) for unreported instances are not only more confusing but “totally “beyond my sphere of understanding, I lament.
Comment by Voices back from the bush. — Mon 24th August 2015 @ 2:39 pm
The Ministry of Internal Affairs is the entity responsible for the figures. They will without doubt, be able to provide absolutely accurate figures as to the number of birth certificates without the name of a father on it.
They don’t, because suppression of the information, and the truth, is how this organised criminal group helps the other government offenders get away with their crimes.
They should also be able to tell us exactly how many males have had their name removed from a birth certificate. This requires an application for this to take place.
I find this interesting because it exposes the sexual bigotry of Internal Affairs, and the law itself.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11322109
Quote from article.
“Accurate and timely birth registration is a right of every child born in New Zealand. A child is entitled to know who his parents are,” Mr Montgomery said.
Note that the offending is of a mother falsely named, not a father. Accuracy is a blunt term for, we don’t care, name any male, it will be OK, its accurate enough as we don’t actually care about males. Falsely name a mother and we will see you in court. The proof is in the fact that despite large numbers of men proving false details are put on birth certificates, no prosecutions have taken place when the falsely named person is male.
And this quote.
“The maximum penalty for such offending is five years’ imprisonment.”
That’s interesting because the law states that the maximum penalty is $1000. For falsely naming the father. Falsely name the mother and it qualifies as a completely different offence.
No surprise.
Sexual bigotry is normalised in NZ Law, and in its administration.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 24th August 2015 @ 3:52 pm
#13 Voices back from the bush
In your tacks in the shoe argument.
It will be true that a person can walk the bridge and not be tacked.
I.e. if a person is not tacked on the first walk then they still face 4 chances of 20%, IE 80%. So as an individual its possible to not be tacked at all.
But it is also true that the person who was tacked on the first walk also has 4 chances of 20%, IE 80% of being tacked again.
The average person will be tacked once. There is a 1 in 3125 chance you will be tacked on all 5 occasions. There is a 1 in 3 chance that you will not be tacked.
If the birth certificate failure rate is 10% and their is 60000 births then 6000 will have a false name of a father on it. 6000 fathers must also exist in the same fixed population of males, who are the real fathers, IE also 10%.
The only thing that I can think of that shifts those statistics is the ratio of males to females. Due to the large number of males who disappear from society, it should result in very slightly, higher male victim rates.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 24th August 2015 @ 4:23 pm
What other crimes does the crown commit in regard to birth certificates?
Female Incest resulting in childbirth is a crime the crown conspires to commit!
This is an example of offending that will be detected, with further offending prevented when paternity testing, eventually becomes compulsory.
It would not be possible for the mother to get away with this crime under circumstances where the crown takes DNA from the new-born baby, then subjects it to a paternity search due to her not naming the father, or the wrong father being named. This is due to the testers being able to see the Chromosome and gene marker copies that occur with incest. Also using family search to find the father, using available data bases, would highlight her own family as the father’s family. Alarm bells should be well and truly ringing by this point.
How common is this?
‘Research showed offending could be as high as 25 per cent. But overall conviction rates for women were only three to four per cent.’ This is from overseas, as far as I’m aware the NZ female paedophile conviction rate is very small in comparison. IE research shows that 25% of paedophiles are female. Commensurate with NZ figures that 30% of imprisoned young male sex offenders were sexually abused by their own mothers. IE Incest.
http://www.news.com.au/national/incest-mum-betty-colt-jailed-for-attempted-kidnapping-of-her-children/story-fncynjr2-1227110636104#itm=newscomau%7Cnews%7Cnca-news-plmnt-trending%7C1%7Csection-news-national-rushhour%7Cstory%7CRUSH%20HOUR%3A%20The%20stories%20you%20need%20to%20know%20today&itmt=1440021375548#itm=newscomau%7Cnews%7Cright-now-in-%7C2%7CBetty%20Colt%2C%20'incest%20mum'%20to%20be%20sentenced%20today.%7Cstory%7CRUSH%20HOUR%3A%20The%20stories%20you%20need%20to%20know%20today&itmt=1440021375549
Result.
The crown conspires to commit the crime of Incest in the community.
The principle offenders are the Ministry of Internal Affairs (administrator), the Ministry of Police (ignores complaints), Ministry of Justice (ignores evidence), and MSD (ignores complaints, evidence, and hate men).
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 25th August 2015 @ 4:17 pm
What other crimes does the crown commit in regard to birth certificates?
Quote from article in #12
‘There were 7639 New Zealand teenagers who had children last year. The figure is up 410 on 2007.
Of those new parents, there were 39 mothers and 11 fathers who were aged under 15. The number of parents in that age bracket was down from 52 and 15 respectively in 2007
New Zealand Family Planning Association chief executive Jackie Edmond said it was unclear why today’s numbers were so skewed towards more young mothers than fathers.
Statistics New Zealand analyst Anne Howard said the figures showed women tended to take older men as partners; this was also reflected in marriage statistics. However, Ms Edmond said it was also possible the skew was also because young mothers were not putting the names of the fathers on the birth certificates. ‘
So the crown has identified an issue with birth certificates, but does nothing to address the problem.
How many fathers ‘conceived the child under 16’ are there where the ‘young mother’ does not put the name of the father on the birth certificate?
There is 4343 no father birth certificates. Each year.
There is between 2400 and 6000 birth certificates where the mother has lied about who the father is.
Who said only ‘young females’ had sex with young males. After all it does happen, EG a mature adult female teacher has recently been caught having sex with a male student. If she got pregnant to him would she name the father, or would she lie to protect herself from being held to account?
How many females who have the intent of getting pregnant so they can get on the benefit or just because they want to be a mother, have sex with a vulnerable under 16 male, and don’t name him on the birth certificate?
How many females are in relationships where the partner, despite attempts, is not getting her pregnant, so the female finds a vulnerable under 16 male to get pregnant to, trapping the partner in the relationship with a falsified legal document ‘the birth certificate’?
Yes the crown knows the offending takes place.
The crown conspires in this regard to have sexual relations with persons under 16.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 27th August 2015 @ 10:14 am
The Crimes Act 1961
66 Parties to offences
(1) Every one is a party to and guilty of an offence who-
(a) actually commits the offence; or
(b) does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence; or
(c) abets any person in the commission of the offence; or
(d) incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit the offence.
(2) Where 2 or more persons form a common intention to prosecute any unlawful purpose, and to assist each other therein, each of them is a party to every offence committed by any one of them in the prosecution of the common purpose if the commission of that offence was known to be a probable consequence of the prosecution of the common purpose.
So in the #3 example, is the mother guilty?
Otherwise because of, falsifying legal documents, incest, and sex with under 16 males, etc, I cannot see how the Ministry of Internal Affairs is not guilty of committing these crimes themselves because of section 66. For example they know the offending is taking place, and how the offenders use the birth certificate to directly commit crimes, or to hide crimes that they have already committed, but take no steps to prevent the use of the birth certificate to commit the offending and evade being held to account. How is 1 (b) not relevant? After all even when females are caught they are not prosecuted ‘omit an act’, or initiate investigations in an attempt to find out why the female lied. How is 1 (c) not relevant, after all they have a, we believe you, no matter what policy to the creation of the documents.
As for the customer. The child. The defenceless new-born. There rights to be protected from harm, is completely ignored. So much for the best interests of the child crap that the government uses as an excuse for there actions. Guess this proves they are experts at lying.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 27th August 2015 @ 2:50 pm
Private Prosecution of Police for Exceeding Powers of Warrant
Prosecution Quality versus Corruption and Incompetence
I suggest that there is a lot of value in well judged private prosecutions. I am not saying that it is easy or low cost.
NZ’s first prosecution of a policeman for perjury was, I believe, a private prosecution. After it had succeeded, it was taken over by NZ Police and they paid the costs of the private prosecution that had already succeeded in District Court.
The NZ Government doesn’t like prosecuting itself, or its personal friends and benefactors eg Peter Whittle the smoking coalmine magnate!
So it is up to the public to carry out the socially important prosecutions, to protect liberty and democracy from the rich.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 28th August 2015 @ 10:55 am
The crimes act 1961
71 Accessory after the fact
(1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing any person to have been a party to the offence, receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him or her, in order to enable him or her to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.
So what exactly do NZ legal professionals do when a paternity test fails?
There is no doubt in my mind that the ‘to avoid arrest or conviction’ is normal practice for NZ lawyers in regard to birth certificate fraud. They lawyer for the female will also do the ‘comforts’ the offender, saying to her ‘you poor thing, give me a cuddle’. All along ‘assists’, in trying to stop the paternity test, the lawyer also does the ‘actively suppresses any evidence’ part, to ‘avoid arrest or conviction’. Not that they arrest or prosecute, because they in effect Conspire to Defeat Justice.
So what does the Ministry of Internal Affairs do when they receive evidence that a paternity test has failed?
They know the offence has taken place, inherently. For a start they do the ‘tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence’, as they decide that putting a false statement on a legal document ‘birth certificate’ is acceptable. IE all children have a biological father, but they remove the falsely named father and then proceed to blatantly lie on the new certificate, they put no name for the father, IE tampering because the information is false. Also ‘to avoid arrest or conviction’ occurs 100% of the time.
So what do the Ministry of Police do when a male ‘in a DV call out’ makes the reply to the officer when asked for his side of the story and the reply is, ‘she told me that my child is not mine’?
They ‘comfort’ the offender with comments like ‘don’t worry we never investigate female sex crimes’, or ‘it’s a civil matter’. They then ‘assist’ the offender by giving a Police Safety Order to the victim. The Police ‘actively suppresses any evidence’ by not doing DNA testing to identify if an offence has occurred, which they would do in any male sex offending case. This enables her to ‘avoid arrest or conviction’.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 28th August 2015 @ 2:04 pm
I believe you are quite correct DJ Ward. A private prosecution may bring those aiders and abettors to justice. However, who has the money and nausea tolerance to do it?
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 29th August 2015 @ 3:28 pm
I have myself made a compliant to the police in regard to the government’s role in birth certificate fraud. My compliant specifically looked at the role of the Minister of Justice, Minister of Police, Commissioner of Police, and Chief Justice of the Family Court. These individuals are primary offenders, although there are many others.
You can only imagine how the compliant was treated, by the police.
I felt violated, and based on where the interview ended, had real reason to have fears for my own safety.
So having the authorities act with integrity is just not going to happen.
The suggestion that there be a private prosecution is a good one. However there is issues with that.
Who do you prosecute?
Prosecuting just one person would be cheaper and more viable as a result, but it would in itself be discriminatory, as there is many offenders.
Prosecuting all the main offenders would be a nightmare, costs would be gigantic, and delaying tactics would reduce progress to a standstill. Also procuring the services of a Lawyer qualified for the job would be very restrictive. The Lawyer would require experience in prosecuting using not only NZ Law, but laws relevant to the International Criminal Court. NZ simply does not have those lawyers available to hire, and if one could be found it would be at a premium. It would cost millions.
Also the government has written laws to protect officials from prosecution, so it is possible that the case would not be allowed to even get to a court room.
Want to prosecute a police officer? Do not pass go, go to the police compliant authority first. Good luck with that option.
Want to prosecute a Judge? Do not pass go, go to the Judicial Complaints Office first. Good luck with that option.
Want to make a compliant about another Crown entity? Go to the Ombudsman first. Good luck with that option.
Just make a compliant to the human rights commission? Good luck with that option. Just like all the other options, they hate men.
There is another option that I have tried, and have been banned from doing again.
Acting with contempt for the law.
IE being a defendant.
It’s free, if well planned, because you don’t need lawyer. Watching the reaction as they realise the defendant is producing evidence to put the prosecutor in prison, the panicked look on their faces is fantastic.
Anyway, I’m far from finished with this page.
There is many more crimes being committed by the crown and its puppets to document.
Patience virtuous and good men.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 31st August 2015 @ 10:42 am
DJ Ward,
I’ve been following your posts and I stand in admiration of your tenacity.
I have only been investigating these injustices for 18 months or so as I was previously ignorant due to lacking tech and awareness. (And experience with cops and courts).
I have a question for you and other stalwarts devoted to bringing awareness of NZ government injustices, the more senior in our ranks:
In the past 18 months or so since around the time of the Glenn report. There has been a constant attack on the rights to justice of unconvicted males.
All presumption of innocence is consistently removed seemingly more everyday , the courts new “shake up” based on flawed statistics is only going to make things worse for any male accused by a female.
My question is – are these current proposals such as “burden of proof” “on the spot protection orders” “special new secret courts ” DV redefined”. – are they going to put more innocent men in prisons more than any time in nz history? If you were to graph the reduction in men’s rights on a time scale- are we seeing a particular spike like never before ?
Comment by Voices back from the bush. — Mon 31st August 2015 @ 12:22 pm
I assume when the Ministry of Internal Affairs quotes 5 years in prison for birth certificate crimes, that this is the law that they refer to.
The Crimes Act 1961
110 False oaths
Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, being required or authorised by law to make any statement on oath or affirmation, thereupon makes a statement that would amount to perjury if made in a judicial proceeding.
But this is of course ignored by the Ministry, except where the name of the mother is false, or the child never existed in the first place.
Use a false oath, where the victims are males, I.e. the falsely named father, or the not named father, and it’s OK.
Pity for the child.
It must be OK in NZ for women to commit a crime against a child that carries 5 years in prison.
Hundreds of thousands have.
Resulting in a 0% prosecution rate.
That’s a performance measure that can only get better.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 1st September 2015 @ 1:46 pm
The get out of gaol free card used by women and the other principle offender (the crown) is the use of the term ‘Claim of Right’. Although the definition is not 100% relevant, due to it referencing property.
Ignorance of the law is never an excuse but a genuine mistake as to a set of facts can be an excuse.
claim of right, in relation to any act, means a belief at the time of the act in a proprietary or possessory right in property in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed, although that belief may be based on ignorance or mistake of fact or of any matter of law other than the enactment against which the offence is alleged to have been committed
The Crimes Act 1961
239 Demanding with intent to steal, etc
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, without claim of right, by force or with any threat, compels any person to execute, make, accept, endorse, alter, or destroy any document capable of conferring a pecuniary advantage with intent to obtain any benefit.
So let’s look at how relevant this law is to the actions of the offender (the mother)
What then is ‘without claim of right’?
Ignorance? Not possible as the female is aware that if a male sticks his penis in her vagina, and ejaculates, that this can result in pregnancy. If she becomes pregnant then there is no possible ‘ignorance’ that the person she had an affair with is not, or could not be the father, just because she also had sex with her partner.
Mistake of fact? Not possible as taking a guess as to whom of the 2 or more males she had sex with, is the father, cannot be a mistake. It is a guess, and knowingly done, with the knowledge that it could be false, and no effort is made to find out the truth. Picking the father based on who will provide best for her is not a mistake.
‘by force or any threat’. The force can be a cultural or moral one. ‘you are just trying to get out of your responsibilities’, ‘what kind of man are you if you refuse to take responsibility for your child’. The ‘force’ can be imposed by defamation of character. It is also ‘forced’ on the victim due to the process being one where the false oath of the female is arbitrarily imposed on the victim. The victim is ‘forced to accept, and endorse’ the document.
‘any threat’ includes a long list of possible behaviours. EG if you don’t ‘accept’ that you are the father then I will do everything possible to prevent you having a relationship with your child. These include moving, and making allegations that deny access to the child. Even Judges are on record saying things like ‘your decision to have a paternity test shows me you don’t want anything to do with your child’, all of which are meant to prevent the male wanting the test, by implied threat.
‘capable of conferring a pecuniary advantage with intent to obtain any benefit’. The Birth Certificate is ‘capable’ of removing enormous wealth from the victim. It includes keeping the relationship going as long as possible so that matrimonial property law is relevant. Child Support, or the general garnishing of wages that, ‘live with the mother and child’, fathers inherently experience.
How is a female who says ‘I demand you sign this, you are the father’ when he is not the father, not committing this crime?
PS that Party to the Offending law is getting a bit scary for those who commit that crime. 14 years is a long time.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 1st September 2015 @ 3:40 pm
The Crimes Act 1961
240 Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception
(1) Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,-
(a) obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or
(b) in incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or
(c) induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or
(d) causes loss to any other person.
(2) In this section, deception means-
(a) a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and-
(i) knows that it is false in a material particular; or
(ii) is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or
(b) an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or
(c) a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.
This is one of the main offences that the crown and women commit in regard to birth certificate fraud.
(2)a is inherent to a female who lies on a birth certificate.
“False representation”, an example being “I’m loyal my love”, followed by “you can trust me, I love you”.
“Whether oral”, obviously the conversation with the falsely named father, revolves around statements intended to deceive this victim. This is supported by other comments to family and friends with the same intent, IE to deceive.
“Documentary”, obviously the birth certificate is a document, its purpose is not only to deceive the victim, but to gain power and control over the victim.
“knows that it is false” and “reckless as to whether it is false”, any mother who puts false details on a birth certificate is undeniably aware that the information is false, or at the very least, knows that it is equally likely to be false as she knowingly had sex with others, and the child is as likely to be theirs. In many cases it will be more likely. EG were a female has repeatedly tried to get pregnant but has not, who then sleeps with another man, and magically becomes pregnant. To not inform the other parties to the document, that it could be false, means the female is acting with the intent to deceive.
“an omission to disclose a material particular”, this is always the case with the female not saying “it could also be the other man, who I slept with”.
“Stratagem”, this leads on to basic feminist ideology. It is a strategy of feminist to commit this act of sexual offending for their own personal financial gain. It includes restricting as much information being made public as possible. A strategy could be to get pregnant by any means, then blame it on another male with greater financial prospects, IE the target, male sex abuse victim.
1(c)” make, accept, endorse”. This is what the offender does when she hands over her filled in birth certificate document, to the Ministry of Justice, or the Ministry of Internal affairs.
1(d) The other person includes the child, who losses the relationship with the true father, and the true father who losses the relationship with the child.
1(a) “control over”, includes situations where the mother has not named a father, the female gains complete control over the life of the child. This may not be the case if the female did name the father as the court may decide that the best interests of the child would be for the father to be the principle caregiver. This would obstruct the intent of the deception as it removes access to financial reward for her sex offending in the form of the DPB. It also includes situations where the pregnancy results in the falsely named father entering into a live in relationship, and even marriage as a result of the deception.
The largest financial crime in the country revolves around this crime. The collection of child support, by deception from falsely named fathers.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 2nd September 2015 @ 10:12 am
Hi DJ
I’m totally with where you’re going here as paternity fraud is such common occurance
I dont have the legal knowledge but can anyone else help with the antiquated laws of NZ that if you are married or have separated in 10 months or less then you are automatically deemed the father unless mummy says different?
From what I have read Mums can name a husband as the father on a birth cert legally even if she knows this is false and there is nothing you can do about it without her consent.
Everything I have looked at appears to predate modern DNA testing and always seems to skirt around the issue of doing a simple DNA test because the mere suggestion of a paternity test is such an affront to the virtue and honesty of a mother which we can’t have.
Suerly in todays age we should have moved on from establishing paternity just on one persons word.
as the Judge said every child has a right to know their biological parents so its the childs right not mum or dads.
Mits
Comment by Mits — Wed 2nd September 2015 @ 6:18 pm
Yes I agree also DJ Ward and Mits,
I bet this guy does too.
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/grandad-falsely-accused-of-rape-and-incest/story-e6frg6nf-1225923048670
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Wed 2nd September 2015 @ 6:30 pm
#27 Mits
Status of Children Act 1969
5 Presumptions as to parenthood
(1) A child born to a woman during her marriage, or within 10 months after the marriage has been dissolved by death or otherwise, shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be presumed to be the child of its mother and her husband, or former husband, as the case may be.
(2) Every question of fact that arises in applying subsection (1) shall be decided on a balance of probabilities.
This is interesting and helps to explain how the crown manipulates evidence to subject males to acts of sexual bigotry in an arbitrary manner.
How?
The words ‘on a balance of probabilities’.
This means if its 50% plus then that’s the answer to go with. Of course, even having concrete evidence that your partner has had sex with another man during the conception period, does not count. This is because it does not establish ‘plus 50%’ that he is the father. Therefore the principle of (1) shall apply. Whatever evidence you have means ‘absence of evidence’ as it fails to pass 50% that you are not the father. It would be interesting how that is dealt with were a male provides evidence that the mother has slept with 3 males, because that reduces your chance to 33%, which is not within the balance of probabilities.
More interesting for making paternity testing compulsory is another argument.
‘Every question of fact that arises in applying subsection (1)’
Here is a question of fact.
It is 100% certain that large numbers of females lie during the process of making birth certificates. There is no ‘absence of evidence’ that this is true, because it’s an established fact. It is not only more than on the balance of probabilities that this is true, it is beyond reasonable doubt. That’s the standard required for prosecutions, please refer to other entries on this page referencing crimes if you’re a crown entity.
Therefore the child cannot be ‘presumed’ to be the husband’s.
All ‘not paternity tested’ birth certificates are invalid as a result.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 3rd September 2015 @ 4:01 pm
For #20, the “What do the police do, in regard to police safety orders”.
The Domestic Violence Act 1995
124S Police employees, etc, protected from proceedings.
No action or proceedings may be brought against the Crown or any constable in respect of any thing done, or omitted to be done, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Part, where the Crown or the constable acted in good faith and with reasonable care.
This is of course the get out of gaol free card for the crown and the police. No matter how badly the police behave, they just need to plead ignorance and there bigotry is OK. Generally speaking the crown should be held to account for its actions pertaining to police safety orders. Good faith is not just walking over to the male and saying your guilty, here is you police safety order. Especially in situations (38%) that the female is deemed to have been violent. Reasonable care means that at least some effort is made to establish the truth, not who here has a penis, your guilty.
In the example of #20 the male has made mention of a issue where the police do not act with good faith, and do not act with reasonable care. It is impossible for the crown and the police to say that they do. Good faith requires the comment of the male to be taken seriously, after all it is a crime involving sex, and they are obligated to take those allegations seriously. They do the complete opposite, they act with contempt, and subject the victim to defamatory statements, and denigrate his position. There is of course no reasonable care, as it is an undeniable fact that they make no effort to address the offending, in fact they conspire to assist the offender.
They issue a police safety order in these circumstances knowingly with the intent of assisting the offender to commit crimes, and inherently violate the human rights of the victim.
Why?
Probably due to the large numbers of female police officers who have had sex and got pregnant with her co-worker. Then goes home and blames the pregnancy on her partner.
Statistically there are so many, that there is no way they would want paternity testing to be compulsory. They would loose or expose to many female staff as being dishonest, and far to many male police officers who are the real fathers, are just not man enough to handle the thought of their own wives finding out what they have been up to.
No “good faith” again.
No “reasonable care” again.
Just self interest.
And corruption, normalised and protected within the police.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 4th September 2015 @ 5:05 pm
This is an example of how compulsory paternity testing can identify females committing benefit fraud.
Obviously this example is way out of the ordinary. Actual incest babies will be far more common than false claims of incest babies.
It raises some interesting questions.
Firstly, there is the issue that she claimed from the beginning that the children’s were her brothers. So why then if the government accepted her birth certificate claim, did they not immediately place her under arrest and charge her with incest. It is a crime. She does not seem to have made any claim that the sex was forced on her, so the fictitious sex must be consensual, therefore she is guilty of the crime. It should have been investigated from day one, but due to the crowns sexual bigotry in regards to female sex offenders, nothing was done.
Obviously an at birth compulsory paternity test would have identified her offending from the beginning.
So how do we measure the financial reward for the test?
Assume the test is from a profit making private service provider, so around $250 a child. Note: this is much larger than the cost of inclusion/exclusion DNA paternity tests, which cost as little as $30 for farmers doing herd tests.
$115,000 / $250 equals 460.
So if they can find 1 in 460 females committing benefit fraud to the same scale then compulsory paternity testing pays for itself.
In NZ the government identifies benefit fraud at high rates. Last year 927 people were prosecuted. That in itself is only a proportion of fraud that they have identified. The average NZ benefit fraud is around $20000.
$20000 / $250 equals 80
So if they can find 1 in 80 females committing benefit fraud to the same scale then compulsory paternity testing pays for itself.
The not naming the father rate is 1/15. Large amounts of benefit fraud involves females doing this to assist them in the fraud, and it is also very common for the male to be extorted to support her under the table.
I myself know a few females who have not named the father. Without exception they all know the father, all have lived off the benefit, and all use the child to extort extra resources, and other behaviours, from the father.
When the new boyfriend arrives to financially rescue her, the real father is quickly pushed out of the child’s life to make way, for the next victim.
The falsely naming the father rate is 1/25 to 1/10. This version of this female sex crime has few pathways for benefit fraud. Well I think so. I’ll think about it for a while to see what I can find. Ahh! Found some.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/welfare-fraud-nhu-nguyen-40-pleads-guilty-to-defrauding-the-government-of-more-than-115000/story-fni6uo1m-1227508528096#itm=newscomau%7Chome%7Cnca-homepage-masthead-feature%7C4%7Cheading%7Chomepage%7Chomepage&itmt=1441164730135
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 7th September 2015 @ 4:20 pm
@31 They really don’t like to report these crimes of females I’ve noticed.
Even in this case of ripping off $115k over many years the woman only faces two charges of fraud and one of dishonesty.
The articles author is compelled to just mention brief aspects of the story and describe details of two other less serious cases of male fraud so readers don’t get the wrong idea about who we are expected to consider criminals in our society.
In most cases where a man is accused the press photo depicts him standing in the dock whereas women are featured supported by a friend as if she herself is a vitim.
Apparently sentencing will continue later this month…I doubt that pussy pass will make the headlines.
Comment by voices back from the bush — Mon 7th September 2015 @ 6:12 pm
An example of the systematic committing of benefit fraud as a result of falsely naming a father on a birth certificate.
If you name the father you get the full DPB.
If you don’t name the father then you get a discount penalty of $28 per week.
For a sample of 10,000 females with 2 children on the DPB, who have named a father.
10000 times 2 is 20000 children.
Using 4% fraud rate.
20,000 times 4% equals 800 child victims.
$28 times 52 weeks equals $1456.
800 times $1456 equals $1,164,800.
Funding testing.
Using $250 per test.
$1,164,800 divided by $250 equals 4659 paternity tests.
So if all children were paternity tested then the cost of this version of benefit fraud alone recovers around 23% of the cost of paternity testing.
At the 10% fraud rate.
20,000 times 10% equals 2000 child victims.
2000 times $1456 equals $2,912,000.
$2,912,000 divided by $250 equals 11648 paternity tests.
Recovers 58% of the cost of paternity testing.
Note: This calculation is based on the female sex offender only receiving 1 year of the DPB. If the average female gets the DPB for 2 Years then the stolen money doubles, and the recovery of paternity testing costs, percentage doubles as well.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 8th September 2015 @ 11:38 am
Estimating the amount of money stolen from the male victim of this female sexual offending.
Assume 60,000 babies born each year.
Assume 4% birth certificate fraud rate.
Assume cost to raise child is $250,000 and the father pays half.
60,000 times 4% equals 2400 child victims.
2400 times $125,000 equals $300,000,000
That’s $300 million per year.
Using the 10% fraud rate.
6000 times $125,000 equals $750 million per year.
That means that the current government at the end of its 9 years of being in power is responsible for assisting in the committing of between $2.7 billion, and $6.75 billion, of fraud.
And that’s only the beginning.
What about the stolen time that falsely named father gives to the child victim.
IE time that the male gives to the female in assisting her in raising another man’s child.
Let’s say the male gives the child 1 hour of their time every day.
Let’s say they were to be paid for this time at minimum wage, say $15 an hour.
$15 times 365 days times 18 years: equals $98,550. Or around $100,000.
That’s $240 million a year, to $600 million a year.
That means that the current government at the end of its 9 years of being in power is responsible for assisting in forcing males to contribute between $2.16 billion, and $5.4 billion, of stolen time.
And that’s at a rate of only 1 hour a day.
Birth Certificate crimes, collectively make up the largest financial crimes in history.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 8th September 2015 @ 3:53 pm
Almost two thousand years bc, the law was the code of Hammurabi – an ancient king.
He had inscribed 282 laws onto a huge tablet.
The first three of those laws referred to false accusations and prescribed harsh punishment for them.
Today we rarely have any punishment for false accusations.
Probably because the most prolific offenders are our prosecutors and law makers.
Comment by Voices back from the bush. — Tue 8th September 2015 @ 4:30 pm
Here is an example of how compulsory paternity testing can help identify crimes.
Obviously in this example of sexually bigoted reporting by the media, the victim is female. The husband essentially forgotten in the article.
Amazing how a female takes home a baby that is not theirs and it creates an international story.
Yet at 2400 to 6000 male cases of this every year in NZ, the media is silent.
That’s 6.5 to 16.5 males who are victims of this crime every day in NZ.
Clearly to NZ media subjecting children to this crime is OK.
As for prosecutors.
Clearly cases only need investigating if an adult female is the victim.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/doctor-arrested-in-el-salvador-accused-of-masterminding-kidnapping-of-newborn-baby/story-fnet08xa-1227517629651
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 10th September 2015 @ 1:43 pm
Here is an example of female sex offending.
‘she told him she was carrying his child.’
Now there is some power and control.
‘She was given a two-year suspended sentence, meaning she walked free from court.’
Well I’m sure all the males that get prison sentences as standard for doing the same thing are happy with that.
Where is the pedophile label?
‘Berriman’s two-year-old daughter was calling him dad’
Well I would be concerned with ‘who really is the father of this child’
Did the police do DNA tests to find out? Bet they have not.
Did she have her child taken from her?
Did she get the no contact with people under 16?
Was she put on a sex offender’s register?
Was she required to attend a sex offender’s course?
‘After the boy’s mother found out about the relationship, Berriman had hit him, screamed and shouted.’
So let’s get this into perspective.
She committed the crime of assault against a child. Because the child has informed others of the sex offending.
Intimidating witnesses anybody.
Screamed and shouted. This means psychological violence. Threatening behavior.
And the new term coercive control.
Now let’s take a guess. No charges for that.
Sorry, as we know, when a female is violent, it’s the man’s fault.
So charging her would be unjust.
Look at the feminist perspective in the title.
‘Seduced’
For males it’s called ‘grooming’. Another crime.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/72551809/teenager-had-sex-50-times-with-teaching-assistant
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 30th September 2015 @ 1:08 pm
DJ I’m not sure what the copyright deal is here..
would you mind me copying your comments from the post above to share in another forum?
Comment by voices back from the bush — Wed 30th September 2015 @ 1:58 pm
My comments are free to use.
I am not here for the money.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 30th September 2015 @ 2:18 pm
DJ Ward (#37): Incredible. At least some of the newspaper coverage shown mentioned the word ‘grooming’. The article mentioned that this teacher had left her job at the school but made no mention of her being deregistered as a teacher.
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 30th September 2015 @ 8:30 pm
#37 comparison
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/72598784/nelson-teacher-aide-jailed-for-sexually-grooming-girl-at-school
Yes sexual bigotry is normalised in the legal profession. Or is it the law itself?
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 1:04 pm
DJ Ward (#41): So a male teacher aide is given a 16 month jail sentence for communicating affectionately with, meeting, kissing, hugging and holding the hand of a 14yo pupil.
Teacher aides are not teachers and do not have the extensive training that teachers get regarding professional ethics and boundaries.
However, it is claimed that this teacher aide was warned about his inappropriate behaviour around this pupil but he persisted and simply attempted to do so more secretly. The fact that the girl was mildly intellectually delayed did make his behaviour much worse than it would otherwise have been. He probably deserved some law enforcement attention but 16 months’ prison seems excessive. You can be sure that a female teacher aide who behaved in exactly the same ways with a 14yo boy would not have been imprisoned and would probably not even have been prosecuted, perhaps not even losing her job.
The offence of ‘grooming’ was always part of the general erosion of justice around sexual crimes because it punishes on the basis of assumed intention of otherwise harmless behaviour. A maximum 7 years imprisonment for such heinous crime seems stiff and that will be due entirely to the fact that it will be mainly men who are expected to be prosecuted for this. Compassion, restraint and fairness in law are now generally reserved for women. Further, it appears that the ‘grooming’ offence was invented in part to relieve the crown of the need to prove an actual sexual offence. The teacher aide in the present case could have been prosecuted for indecent assault for the alleged kissing in particular, but that would have required a jury to be convinced that the alleged kissing actually happened. Much easier to produce a few spied-on text messages and emails and convince a jury these implied an intention.
In practice those so far convicted of ‘grooming’ mainly appear to have behaved in ways that were unequivocably intended to lead to sexual offending. The present case of the teacher aide shows a move away from unequivocability because there was no obviously sexual talk in his communications. Even when he spent the night in a double bed with the girl there appeared to be no clear sexual acts from him, so that actually provides evidence against any prior sexual intent. Was the ‘grooming’ offence designed to prevent emotionally close friendship between adult males and young persons?
Such drift towards less clearly intentioned behaviour may be taking us to a situation where any attempt by a male to communicate in a friendly way with a young person, and eventually any woman, will be liable to be treated as criminal behaviour. A slave in 19th century America may well have been legally punished for daring to attempt to commuicate uninvited with a white gentrified person.
For example, look at this case reported in the news last week. Soon after receiving ‘stranger danger’ training at school, an 8yo boy began riding his bicycle to and from school. After a few days he arrived home with claims that while he was riding home a man tried to lure him into a car with the promise of ice-cream. The boy’s father was reported to say “You don’t like to think that that sort of thing goes on in your community, but parents in particular have got to be vigilant. It sort of hits home that these guys are out there, and you can’t instill in kids enough that these things happen.” Police are looking for the man and say children should be able to be ‘without fear of being approached by strangers’. Read that police comment again and consider what it means.
There seemed quite a high possibility that the child made up all or much of the incident given both the recent ‘stranger danger’ training and the likely fear his parents had instilled in him to encourage safe riding on his bicycle. It seemed strange that some man in a car would have tried to communicate with the boy while he was riding his bicycle. Perhaps instead the boy had disobeyed his parents’ instruction to ride straight home and, worried that he might be questioned about being home a bit later than expected, made up the story. Perhaps the boy had fallen off or had stopped and looked as though he was lost or upset, and the man simply tried to offer assistance, perhaps suggesting that he could drive the boy and his bicycle home.
But never mind all that. A man tried to communicate with a child so he must have been evil. The child becomes ‘terrified’ even though nothing bad at all happened to him. When a man tries to communicate in a friendly way with a woman unknown to him he is now liable to be treated as harassing her or worse. We are increasingly developing a witch-hunt mentality that is creating a suspicious, unsociable society in which all men are bogeymen. Will this benefit us?
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 2nd October 2015 @ 10:25 am
Another example for paternity testing to be compulsory at birth.
She gets pregnant virtually immediately into the relationship.
No suprise that he was somewhat wealthy.
Bought a house for the new happy family.
Why the hell aren’t mongrel women prosecuted for doing this to men.
Why are our politicians complicit to this sex crime.
It’s just abhorrent.
Got a friend who just experienced something similar.
Raised child with mother to 6 years old.
Split up.
Has 6 year old child to a useless living in caravan drugged up mother.
Social welfare removed child from her and gave to dad.
Child has dads last name.
Social welfare turned up a month later and took child.
Mother had not put him on birth certificate as the father.
Child returned to mother.
He’s doing a DNA test trough the courts.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/babies/dads-dna-nightmare-shes-not-my-daughter-now-i-have-to-say-goodbye/news-story/038c2bdc2acc416c39e93e0f4f0843e0
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 12th February 2017 @ 10:18 pm
Yes, thanks DJ Ward @43: I posted this link earlier here but it won’t hurt to highlight this appalling case representing the patronizing and denigrating attitude the Australian ‘child welfare’ feminists practise towards fathers.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 12th February 2017 @ 11:12 pm
Here we go again.
Feminist lies and excuses for this all to commen sex crime.
She says.
“Misattributed paternity is more common than you might think.”
Then this.
“The New Zealand Law Commission has looked into this issue and concluded the rate of misattributed paternity is around 1.8 per cent of the population. This figure was based on advice from New Zealand fertility specialist Dr Richard Fisher and studies undertaken overseas.”
Firstly I went looking for the Law Commisions work and can’t find it.
Guess they are too embarrassed at how much their have bullshited.
The research would be from blood test days.
The real figure is about 10%
That’s more common than she thinks, she thinks is true by more than 500%.
But who better to help downplay female sex offending than the Law Commision.
“While the UK case is one of clear deceit, mothers may not be deliberately set out to deceive the men involved – they may just guess who the father is, but, unfortunately, sometimes they get it wrong.”
Wrong and misleading. The U.K. Case is fraud of a different document. She is not being prosecuted for paternity fraud. Secondly if the mother knows it’s possibly another mans child but ignores that fact, that’s not an accident. That’s a decision based on, I hope I don’t get caught. Unfortunately?
“They often say they thought they were doing the best thing for their child by choosing the guy who was more financially stable and able to pay child support”
Dishonest use of a legal document fo personnel financial gain.
“No statistics are kept on the number of men who apply for refunds as their child support file is deleted after the refund has been made.”
Quick destroy the evidence.
Just in case a official information request is made.
Finally just to top off the dishonesty about dishonesty there’s this.
“There are no reported fraud cases like this in New Zealand, but in the UK, misattributed paternity is more common than you might think.”
We had the case of the women swapping DNA samples. Can’t remember name (Skelton?)
Also NZ has the worlds highest paternity test failure rate in the world.
She didn’t mention those figures.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/93634977/sex-lies-and-a-baby-when-dads-discover-they-arent-the-father-after-all
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 14th June 2017 @ 10:57 am
I would have thought that the deletion of IRD records would be illegal under the law that came in a few years ago – can’t remember the legislation – I thought such records should be kept indefinitely?
Comment by martin — Wed 14th June 2017 @ 10:57 pm
#4 Martin I have managed to get correspondence sent by mail, they really don’t like it. IRD want you to use the messaging in their “irfile” system but it is vulnerable to exactly the sort of bs that you mention – ie they hold all the correspondence on THEIR site and can delete whatever they want whenever they want. At a bare minimum you need to print out every piece of correspondence from the site and store it for future reference if you are using this system. No doubt cost and convenience (for them, mainly) are the big factors but the ability to control the data and the lack of a real letter or detailed email (evidence) must be pretty handy for them too.
Comment by Doug — Thu 15th June 2017 @ 7:02 am
Before they had this wonderful system (and they do exactly as you say, manipulate your file for their own purposes) they were issuing letters without IRD reference numbers, yet they swear and declare all their correspondence is numbered.
Then, they may consider student loans and child support as administration of crown debt rather than revenue collection.
If you are getting letters sent to you, make sure it has a little ird number, somewhere on the page.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 15th June 2017 @ 7:38 am