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

Human Factors involved in working as a judge

Filed under: Gender Politics,Law & Courts — MurrayBacon @ 9:50 pm Tue 28th June 2016

(This theme arose from incisive comments made by MoMA, in the post about Child Neglect Bomb in the Brain. I thought that this issue is one of the critical issues that would need to be addressed, if the familycaught$ was to be successfully functional and serve NZers.)

MurrayBacon says:
Wed 15th June 2016 at 11:46 am (Edit)
Brutalisation in familycaught$

About 12 years ago I was sailing across Cook Straight. I was chatting to the lady next to me… Somehow in conversation it came up that she had been a social worker for CYFs.

She told me about how her work as liaison with familycaught$ led to hearing many stories of violence, some believable and some not. She enjoyed the work, trying to resolve family issues. But she found that after a few years she would slip into treating her husband harshly, competitively and at times even cruelly. She would vow to snap out of it. She felt that she could stop it and could, for a few months.
Wider topic – psychological trauma

What scared her was that when she noticed that she had started again, she would realise that she had actually been behaving like that for some time, days, a few weeks, perhaps even over a month. Her husband hadn’t complained as such, but he was responding by retreating into his shell, away from her. She did not want him to see her in that way and considered that her job was threatening her marriage.

She looked around for other jobs, but nothing she could find came near to matching her existing pay. After nearly two years of this and seeing the problem only getting slowly worse, she decided that her marriage was worth far more than the last few dollars of salary. She cut her pay expectations and soon had a different job.

Her other comment intrigued me. Along the way, she had noticed that in the informal times at familycaught$, the judges especially spoke of fathers mainly in deprecating terms, even nonhuman. She felt it was quite unbalanced and surprising in that many were men themselves. The sames was less true for lawyers, who in the main were younger.

On thinking back to what she said, I recalled one of the judges commenting in a newspaper article that hearing stories of violence didn’t affect judges’ judgement. He confidently asserted that they are “professionals” and are immune to being affected by what they hear.

I am not a counsellor. But I am aware that most counsellors have regular debriefing sessions, to help protect them from being damaged by vicarious trauma. Perhaps the judge felt that they had the sensitivity of a lump of concrete? I am guessing that a judge’s cortisol response to vicarious trauma is just as delicate as a counsellor’s. But the judges lacked the knowledge of how to protect themselves from vicarious traumatisation and the wisdom or self awareness. Macho gone far wrong, male or female.

This might go some way towards explaining how judges can make comments about fathers should be more involved in children’s lives, but in secret caughtroom$ be doing everything they can to be the barrier.

New Scientist – Is Evil a Disease?

Ministry of Men’s Affairs says:
Thu 16th June 2016 at 10:07 am (Edit)
Murray (#122): Interesting comment. It’s probably true that the lack of supportive debriefing for judges about nasty stuff results in pent-up emotions that become redirected towards others who don’t deserve this. Unfortunately for men this is compounded by natural and/or social bias towards protecting females, such that nasty stuff when done or said by men towards women elicits much stronger disgust than when done by women towards men, and men’s expressed suffering about their treatment at the hands of women does not elicit as much empathy as the vice-versa. This results in mental associations for judges (and lawyers, police etc) between their anger/disgust feelings and the male persona in proportions considerably greater than would reflect the reality of what they were exposed to.

Further compounding this is the fact that judges, lawyers, police, social workers etc are exposed heavily to feminist, male-bashing propaganda through training, seminars and organizational relationships. Family Court Principal Judge Boshier frequently swanned around feminist conferences and hosted feminist groups to address his judges but refused totally to allow men’s groups a voice. This form of indoctrination encourages and increases the tendency to transfer all disgust and anger on to men generally and to transfer all empathy and concern on to women generally.

A related issue is workers’ own ego defence. Men, due to ‘protector’ genetic inheritance and social role expectations, are more likely than women to express their anger and to direct aggressive counter-attacks towards others who threaten their family, interests and personal status. A man is more likely to tell the social worker to “fuck off and mind your own business”, more likely to tell the Lawyer for Child to “stop brainwashing and misrepresenting my children you asshole”, and more likely to show his disgust towards the judge who sanitizes everything the female litigant did wrong and exaggerates everything he did wrong. Few people, unless they specifically work on their reactions and develop necessary skills through competent guidance and support, are able to maintain objective consideration of the evidence, issues and children’s interests that is not distorted by their (counter-transference) reactions towards the male who threatens their status like that. Again, the tendency to be protective towards females means that such indignant, ego-defensive reactions are less strong when females speak or behave disrespectfully towards the officials. This phenomenon results commonly in sexist injustice, for example, in vendettas by CYF social workers against individual male ‘clients’ who offended them.
I (mcb) recall about 2006 seeing judge Rhys Harrison become angry, when a self representing father implied he was corrupt. For a couple of minutes judge Harrison appeared to be becoming more and more angry in a narcissistic rage. I was just becoming extremely concerned for the father, when judge Harrison snapped out of it and the hearing continued normally and properly. In essence, there was no particular problem caused, but it did show to me how easily human factors could run completely off the rails. This is why having a working and effective complaints system is so important, rather than a non-working illusion as at present.
MoMA referred to feminist training of judges: Feminist Training for legal worker$

It has all been a bit too serious so far, so a bit of lighter amusement by bloodsport:


  1. While I am in no way defending them, Judges are in fact Human like you or I. Some are Alcoholics, some are druggies, some are abusive to their families, and some believe their position places them above the law. As an example, I met one Judge years ago that had not had a sober day on the Bench for over 20 years. He could not remember one day of those 20 odd years. God only knows what his decisions were like. Another I knew of had testicular cancer. Needless to say that had a tremendous impact on mood and decisions.

    The problem with those Judges and the plethora of others is that like Police, they cover for one another and rationalize behavior of their fellow Judges. How many times have you heard one Judge refer to another as “an experienced Judge”. That’s code, in my world, for a cover-up and rationalization for a prior decision in the absence of an objective look at the facts before them.

    In my view the whole Judicial system is broken beyond repair. (as in he Police, WINZ, Probation, and CYF systems along with many others.) Even if the dysfunctional Judges are dealt with we still have a broken system that does not work. On that note I remember having to remove a 30 year professional from their job as they were grossly incompetent, and that was common knowledge known to everyone around him, but nobody took action for 30 years until I came along. A fine example of a cover-up of a fellow “professional” in combination with a cronyism element. Because of our small population and rampant nepotism and cronyism those 30 year incompetents only ever get promoted and are never ever dealt with appropriately.

    My thoughts for what they are worth.

    Comment by Dan Johnston — Wed 29th June 2016 @ 7:23 am

  2. Dear Dan, thank you very much.

    This is why having a working and effective complaints system is so important, rather than a non-working illusion as at present.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 29th June 2016 @ 9:30 am

  3. #2 Not really Murray ….. “The (Judicial Conduct) Commissioner does not make ‘merit determinations on judicial misconduct’, as the plaintiff was wont to suggest. Rather, as (Crown counsel) put it, he operates as a clearing house for complaints.” – Justice Stephen Kos

    Comment by golfa — Wed 29th June 2016 @ 11:17 am

  4. #3 oops, I mean I concur Murray.

    Comment by golfa — Wed 29th June 2016 @ 11:19 am

  5. The Health and Disability Commissioner as established by Ron Patterson provides an excellent example of professional discipline. Of course the medical profession’s self managed discipline was removed after the medical profession had some degree of difficulty with performing this task themselves. (I was a very small part of that problem, as a layperson on panels.) There were fully justified complaints that determinations took too long and less justified complaints that the panels were not independent of the medical profession.

    Real Estate Agents – not the best of examples.
    Engineers – seem to negotiate most complaints to consumer satisfaction, avoiding legal process.
    Teachers – reasonably well working system, despite downward Government pressures on teachers wages.
    Psychologists – reasonably well working self managed system.
    Police Complaints – reasonably well working system, though its claims to be independent of police are generally thought to be sadly deluded.
    Legal workers complaints – have a laugh!

    So there are many good examples of competent and working complaints systems, both in NZ and overseas, for other professions and for judges too. One good example of a working judicial complaints system is the USA federal complaints system. State systems are generally not as well viewed.

    So NZ judges stand out both in refusing to have independent and competent review, or even admit this might be necessary. In my opinion, that puts them into mental hospital territory.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 29th June 2016 @ 2:11 pm

  6. Correction: Psychologists – reasonably well working self managed system except where familycaught$ involved.

    There is an old saying that you can judge the integrity of a group of people, by how they treat their weakest, poorest, sickest or most marginalised members.

    This article highlights how senior legal workers (I just cannot call them a profession) treat their juniour members, in particular their juniour women. Women may be the majority, but they are still seriously marginalised.

    I guess seniour legal workers treat their member better than that. (Sick joke.)

    Even sharks and real estate agents treat their young more equitably than that.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 18th July 2016 @ 9:40 pm

  7. Similar principle seems work on whole nations too – see The Guardian UK

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 18th July 2016 @ 10:12 pm

  8. @1 you twice mentioned the word “cronyism” in summarizing judicial behavior. I agree, the lawyers seem to be particularly compliant as well. Imagine if they had to pass drug and sobriety tests. You’d think someone had hit the firealarm.

    Comment by voices back from the bush — Thu 21st July 2016 @ 4:39 am

  9. Questions over UK police officer Rebekah Sutcliffe who bared her breast during a drunken rant

    By Barbara Davies 5:17 PM Saturday Dec 3, 2016 Daily Mail

    The article below covers criticism of the lady police officer. Such criticisms take very little effort to put together and help the writer to feel good about themself. This is called scapegoating. It carries an implication that the “problem” has been solved and everyone can again be confident that the police are ok.
    But is this really true?
    Does it matter if it isn’t true?

    My guess is that in this case police, are still full of problems.
    It does matter to women police officers, as it affects the quality of their employment environment within the police force. Through this quality, it impacts on policewomen’s quality of life.
    It also affects the quality of work that the policewomen are able or allowed to do.
    Through these, it affects police performance in society, especially towards women. (In a sense, maybe affects police impacts on LGBT people too, as they may be treated as “women”, by ignorant or homophobic men police officers.)

    Questions over UK police officer Rebekah Sutcliffe who bared her breast during a drunken rant
    By Barbara Davies
    5:17 PM Saturday Dec 3, 2016
    United Kingdom

    On paper, at the very least, the ideals behind this year’s Senior Women In Policing Conference seemed highly laudable indeed.
    Aimed at celebrating the achievements of Britain’s highest-ranking female police officers and enhancing their “profile and perception” among the public, the three-day event organised by Greater Manchester Police was hosted by BBC presenter Steph McGovern and featured a charity fashion show, a disco and, rather unfortunately given what followed, copious amounts of alcohol.
    Among the inspirational women who spoke at the Manchester Hilton was the force’s most senior female officer, Assistant Chief Constable Rebekah Sutcliffe, who reflected on mutual support, co-operation and the importance of female colleagues working together.
    But just hours after making that uplifting speech – and having consumed several glasses of wine – thrice-married mother-of-three Ms Sutcliffe launched a vicious and very public verbal attack on a female colleague that made a mockery of the SWIP conference last May.
    Rounding on Superintendent Sarah Jackson for having a breast enhancement operation, she told her she would never again be taken seriously because of her cosmetic surgery and would be judged solely “on the size of your t**s”.
    To make her point, a drunk Ms Sutcliffe, 47, dramatically pulled down the front of her dress and bared her own left breast to Supt Jackson, 45, one of the conference organisers.
    “Look at these. Look at these,” Ms Sutcliffe told her. “These are the breasts of someone who has had three children. They are ugly, but I don’t feel the need to pump myself full of silicone to get self-esteem.” Delivering a final bitter coup de mort, she added: “Sarah, it does not matter how hard you work now because you will always just be known as the girl who had the t** job.”
    Fast forward six months and the whole tawdry incident has received nationwide coverage in an eye-wateringly detailed disciplinary hearing which has resulted in Ms Sutcliffe – seen here in exclusive photographs taken at another party – being found guilty of gross misconduct, and the reputation of Greater Manchester’s women police officers greatly reduced.
    At the end of a two-day hearing, the panel which ruled on Ms Sutcliffe’s case has recommended that she keep her job despite being brought “to the very precipice of dismissal’.
    The three-strong panel, headed by Sir Tom Winsor, even questioned why the officer, who was responsible for counter terrorism and serious crime, drank so much given that she was meant to be on duty from 8 am the following day.
    – Daily Mail
    By Barbara Davies
    My suggestion is that Assistant Chief Constable Rebekah Sutcliffe had heard years and years of men police officers discussing women’s bodies, including women police officer’s bodies, in ways that she was very uncomfortable about. Not only was she extremely uncomfortable about these discussions, she obviously felt that she had to listen in silence and make no comment back. Shoe couldn’t complain to the low lifes that were talking, she couldn’t complain to her police management superiors. She had no avenue to express her feelings, but had to “man up” and try to defuse these feelings totally on her own.
    Uninhibit her with CH3CHOOH, with which she had been self medicating to dull the chronic nagging pain and the explosive energy was released in her social breakdown.
    Although the situation may be analysed as an individual’s failure, it possibly can be analysed at as a management failure. This opportunity was steadfastly ignored by the Greater Manchester Police management, who did not want to address their own failure to provide a mental health safe environment for their police lady staff.
    For all of the verbal shit going around, this same environment is probably equally unsafe in mental health terms for many of the men staff. They were probably under similar levels of pressure to take this verbal abuse silently too. Off course sometimes women may discuss men in these ways, within earshot of men…..
    How is listening to abuse dangerous or unsafe?
    It wasn’t even directed at this person listening silently. Or was it?
    Many abusers know well the power of overhearing abuse and use this aspect of its instrumental and manipulative power.
    The Wikipedia article on homophobia has a section on Internalized homophobia, which is often fuelled by overhearing abuse more than receiving direct abuse.
    In the case of Greater Manchester Police Assistant Chief Constable Rebekah Sutcliffe, the dynamic was Gynophobia, an abnormal fear of women, a type of specific social phobia. But the Gynophobia article in Wikipedia doesn’t go into much detail. That is why I quoted from the Homophobia article in Wikipedia, for Internalised …phobia.
    Rebekah Sutcliffe was just repeating out loud the abuses that she had heard over many years. Maybe some of the punishment should be directed at the unsavoury speakers of those original words and at the management that allowed those conversations to be repeated through many years.
    They took no action when it mattered. It was their job to manage effectively and safely.
    Internalized homophobia
    Internalized homophobia refers to negative stereotypes, beliefs, stigma, and prejudice about homosexuality and LGBT people that a person with same-sex attraction turns inward on themselves, whether or not they identify as LGBT.[52][53][54] The degree to which someone is affected by these ideas depends on how much and which ideas they have consciously and subconsciously internalized.[55] These negative beliefs can be mitigated with education, life experience and therapy,[54][56] especially with gay-friendly psychotherapy/analysis.[57] Internalized homophobia also applies to conscious or unconscious behaviors which a person feels the need to promote or conform to cultural expectations of heteronormativity or heterosexism.[52] This can include extreme repression and denial coupled with forced outward displays of heteronormative behavior for the purpose of appearing or attempting to feel “normal” or “accepted.”[52] Expressions of internalized homophobia can also be subtle. Some less overt behaviors may include making assumptions about the gender of a person’s romantic partner, or about gender roles.[52] Some researchers also apply this label to LGBT people who support “compromise” policies, such as those that find civil unions acceptable in place of same-sex marriage.[58]

    Some studies have shown that people who are homophobic are more likely to have repressed homosexual desires.[59] In 1996, a controlled study of 64 heterosexual men (half said they were homophobic by experience, with self-reported orientation) at the University of Georgia found that men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia)[60] were considerably more likely to experience more erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images than non-homophobic men.[61] Another study in 2012 arrived at similar results when researchers found that students who came from “the most rigid anti-gay homes” were most likely to reveal repressed homosexual attraction.[62] The researchers said that this explained why some religious leaders who denounce homosexuality are later revealed to have secret homosexual relations.[62] They noted that “these people are at war with themselves and are turning this internal conflict outward.”[62] A 2016 eye-tracking study showed that heterosexual men with high negative impulse reactions toward homosexuals gazed for longer periods at homosexual imagery than other heterosexual men.[63]

    Researcher Iain R. Williamson, in his 1998 paper “Internalized Homophobia and Health Issues Affecting Lesbians and Gay Men” finds the term homophobia to be “highly problematic” but for reasons of continuity and consistency with the majority of other publications on the issue retains its use rather than using more accurate but obscure terminology.[54] The phrase internalized sexual stigma is sometimes used in place to represent internalized homophobia.[61] An internalized stigma arises when a person believes negative stereotypes about themselves, regardless of where the stereotypes come from. It can also refer to many stereotypes beyond sexuality and gender roles. Internalized homophobia can cause discomfort with and disapproval of one’s own sexual orientation. Ego-dystonic sexual orientation or egodystonic homophobia, for instance, is a condition characterized by having a sexual orientation or an attraction that is at odds with one’s idealized self-image, causing anxiety and a desire to change one’s orientation or become more comfortable with one’s sexual orientation. Such a situation may cause extreme repression of homosexual desires.[60] In other cases, a conscious internal struggle may occur for some time, often pitting deeply held religious or social beliefs against strong sexual and emotional desires. This discordance can cause clinical depression, and a higher rate of suicide among LGBT youth (up to 30 percent of non-heterosexual youth attempt suicide) has been attributed to this phenomenon.[55] Psychotherapy, such as gay affirmative psychotherapy, and participation in a sexual-minority affirming group can help resolve the internal conflicts, such as between religious beliefs and sexual identity.[61] Even informal therapies that address understanding and accepting of non-heterosexual orientations can prove effective.[55] Many diagnostic “Internalized Homophobia Scales” can be used to measure a person’s discomfort with their sexuality and some can be used by people regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Critics of the scales note that they presume a discomfort with non-heterosexuality which in itself enforces heternormativity.[60]
    So, hearing abuse without working through the internal issues, can result in internalised phobias. These may cause a wide range of improper reactions, which are dangerous to self and may also harm others.
    Thus, judge’s failure to address hearing about abuse, may result in wrongful and damaging behaviours to others.
    This is unprofessional behaviour!
    I am sure that this isn’t news to anyone.
    Special thanks to MoMa for identifying this psychological dynamic above.
    PS: The breasts displayed for comparison with the breasts under discussion, were not ugly at all. This was clear from the amount of careful observation by others present, when observation was not necessary for work purposes.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 6th December 2016 @ 11:03 am

  10. This course may give some insight into why judge’s crimes are never prosecuted, leading no doubt to a justified feeling of complete impunity?
    This course may give some insight into how this delinquent situation is allowed to continue?
    The Psychology of Criminal Justice
    Learn how behavioural science can improve our criminal justice system.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 28th February 2018 @ 6:26 pm

  11. How the legal profession has excused and minimised the Russell McVeagh scandal

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 1st March 2018 @ 8:34 am

  12. #11 Murray
    Wow who would have thought a person involved in running or presenting seminars and probably paid a small fortune for doing so would see a single case as representing an epidemic. We’re was the discussion about the right of people to initiate relationships. While she’s making money, let’s not discuss that. Where’s her discussion and criticism of young females making moves on men. Then there’s the who’s the person conducting the review. Guess she wants to audit the person for suitability to her view on the issue which is “full, final and fair”. I’m not sure how full and fair work in the same comment, by who’s perspective, and I’m pretty certain that final will never happen to any male that gets in the crosshairs of these feminists. They’ll regurgitate this in seminars for decades, endlessly naming and shaming any man they can. Women are now more than half of lawyers and this ratio with steadily trend to total domination by women. She however won’t be happy until men are eliminated by any method possible. Why listen to young women? Has she ever listened to a young man?
    Men, and women can both suffer from the mythical subconscious bias.
    She however doesn’t hide the fact she suffers from conscious bias.
    Diagnoses…..Hates men, secretly wants women to rule the world.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 1st March 2018 @ 10:37 pm

  13. #12
    I am with Linda with a few modifications.

    To fix that the profession needs to be honest with itself. It needs to listen to young people (women) and it needs to do more (much more) to ensure those new in the profession (women) are not subjected to harassment, unwanted touching or assault. If they are, then the profession needs to call out the perpetrators without delay, even the so-called good guys.

    This scandal is far more than a case study of one rouge neanderthal. DJ I think your analysis of Linda’s opinion piece is weak and naive. Yes we do need to fix matters. I can remember in the early 80s some partners who were sozzled by 3pm yet their large liquor bill was a practice expense. The very dominating cabinet in one semi-retired partners office (the bar) was opened anytime after 11am and stayed that way till the cleaners tidied up late in the evening. Rumor had it said partner ran some great clothing optional parties at his home when he was younger.

    This abuse of the young (both genders) and overlooking of the unacceptable needs to stop. Like University inititation rituals some things have had their day and need burial.

    I welcome the presence of women in the legal profession and their role as partners and senior counsel help younger male lawyers be better fathers and husbands. The days of 60-80 hour weeks and evening hours at the office being loaded up as an initiation ritual have needed to end and make the profession better for all.

    Comment by Old Timer — Fri 2nd March 2018 @ 10:37 am

  14. As I read Linda’s article, I couldn’t help but read it as How the legal profession has excused and minimised the familycaught$ scandal.
    All the same issues of “no working accountability system” apply.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 2nd March 2018 @ 4:48 pm

  15. Many different groups in our society suffer from the bullying syndrome, when there is no accountability.
    Just another example, among many tens and hundreds of thousands:
    Lookup Youtube and search for Brent Matches Then select the video about family court.
    (Sorry that I cannot put in the direct link, but rejects my comment submission as spam.)

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 2nd March 2018 @ 4:51 pm

  16. The Spinoff is an ideologically biased distributor of feminist propaganda, like most news and opinion media in NZ but more extreme. Linda Clark’s piece is such propaganda, poorly argued and full of holes.

    Firstly, as is typical of this campaign of mass hysteria about sexual harassment, no clear description is provided about what the alleged sexual harassment actually entailed. Further, no clear definition is given of sexual harassment or the criteria that need to be met to define something as sexual harassment. Clark simply wants readers to accept that because some women years later claim it was harassment then it was. The femaleists want sexual harassment to be defined as any behaviour from a male that a woman at some stage decides she didn’t want, rather than have to bother with any annoying details such as a reasonable definition of harassment.

    Secondly, Linda Clark and her feminist brigade want it both ways for women: to be treated as fully competent, equal adults while at the same time to be treated as children who are so vulnerable to male invitations that they shouldn’t be held in any way responsible for their decisions or behaviour. The law students involved in the Russell McVeagh ‘scandal’ were all graduate law students looking at employment. That means they were at least moderately intelligent, 20-something-year-old women. They were very likely to have had boyfriends and attended parties and nightclubs where they participated in alcohol and/or other substance use, flirtation and sexual activity. They were very likely to be aware of feminist ideology, feminist rules and various assertiveness skills to enforce such rules. They were quite capable of saying “No thanks, I won’t have another drink” and “No thanks, I’m not interested in this behaviour and please don’t touch me again”. Instead, they drank more and participated in sexual activities and decided years later that they were somehow victims.

    Thirdly, the ‘power imbalance’ argument is mostly spurious. If these adult women went along with sexual activity in order to protect or advance their careers then such prostitution was their choice. If they went along with sexual activity because they felt star-struck towards towards the wealthy law-firm partners, whose responsibility was that? If they participated in sexual activity because it was fun at the time, then that’s how it was. Later regrets or reinterpretation through a feminist lens about what one chose to participate in does not make it abuse and does not make the other party responsible for the participation.

    Fourthly, Ms Clark thoroughly approved of Feminist Radio NZ’s Kathyn Ryan for almost begging someone, anyone, to make a formal complaint to the Law Society about the Russell McVeagh cases. Ms Clark then bemoaned the fact that nobody made such a complaint. It’s also the case that no complaint was made to police about the alleged non-consensual touching that was claimed to be part of the sexual harassment. Ms Clark attributes the lack of formal complaints variously to ‘unconscious bias’, misguided loyalty and fear of being ‘the girl who complained’. But perhaps more important reasons included awareness that the complaint would not stand up to close scrutiny, or awareness that the now ‘harassed’ women actually bore some responsibility for their drinking and sexual participation.

    Fifth, Ms Clark claims that “the legal profession has struggled to provide the leadership these young women deserve”. What does that mean? And why do young women deserve any particular type of leadership?

    Finally, this ill-defined sexual harassment issue is seen as a huge scandal for the legal profession while truly scandalous child abuse perpetrated by lawyers every day in Family Court is blithely ignored.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 6th March 2018 @ 12:18 am

  17. Very well put MOMA.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 6th March 2018 @ 8:23 pm

  18. Crazy women… do we deal with them?

    In my case the psychologist identified the harm the mother was causing to the child by way of alienation ….and there were concerns for the mothers mental health.

    Both these concerns for the mother were suppressed from the court by lawyer for child…..

    By protecting mental mothers, crazy women…. Allowing them to harm kids, commit crimes….The legal profession has manifested and supported the created conflict for its own personal financial gain.

    Fathers are powerless to deal,with this concern…..if fathers do react to the provocation of nutters, they are trapped by a system waiting to control them for profit.

    Is this more about the mental health of mothers, than an issue of feminism?

    The only ones who can sort these nutters out are other sane women……

    Jordan Peterson.

    Video on this issue and it’s slow destruction of the masculine.

    Comment by Hornet — Wed 7th March 2018 @ 9:42 am

  19. Update on high court Hague case in nz.

    As you know I have been in contact with the father,,primarily because I was lied to by the mother, who has gas lighted the child, committed crimes and deliberately cast the father in a bad light to justify her actions.

    Effectively the case is exactly what I went through in the secretive nz family courts.

    My wife, child and I all swore affidavits on oath and presented these to the fathers lawyer in his support.
    Our trinity of truth evidence directly contradicted the lies being told by the mother.

    The fathers lawyer in NZ refused to talk to us, despite me leaving phone messages with her, and emailing her and the father demanding she talk to us and use our evidence.

    The lawyer emailed me just days before the case and demanded i not send affidavits of truth to the high court.

    We now watch and see what eventuates.

    The father is preparing to post the entire case on line for all to see what is happening in NZ ….where there is a clear bias towards fathers and a direct refusal to allow truth to hit the courts.

    The father has filed a complaint against the nz psychologist who gave evidence since she refused to interview with or speak with the father……this would be illegal in his Country.

    Watch this space…..when I have the web site link I will post it here…….

    Lawyers in NZ have been caught red handed perverting the course of justice as they protect the mother by suppressing evidence which supports the father.

    We have numerous breaches of human rights taking place in NZ by our police and govt agencies, and a deliberately underfunded human rights commission that can not do its job for the people.

    In defence of the judges in family courts…..if lawyers are withholding evidence the judges are not seeing the truth in front of them.

    Comment by Hornet — Wed 7th March 2018 @ 9:59 am

  20. Reading the comments, on a post from 2016 shows a pattern of discussion where nothing gets solved.

    Everyone holds on to their opinions as an emotional security blanket. We are all swift to point the forefinger and lay blame at the feet of others.

    But it appears most people involved engage ONLY after they have been wounded by the system.

    For some, this wound is festering and controls their ability to think clearly and whilst for some others, whom have used the opportunity to grow, we can see that the problem is not at the feet of the lawyers or the judges, alone.

    The problem is with parliament and the drafting of the laws themselves. And then there is the human factor.

    Most people speak of justice and fairness and accountability.
    Those are ideals…

    However the laws are not fair nor just and nor the people making these laws or voting on them accountable to us in any way.

    They, half the time, do not even know what they are voting for and nor do they know what their vote means to their constituents and to the general population.

    Often they do not even read the draft proposal and instead trade votes and favours so that their own agendas or that of their parties get moved forward.

    The human factor is simply a matter of dynamics.

    Judges simply often have their hands tied. Law is already written and interpretation is narrow. Their job is to apply the law.

    Lawyers however are the criminal element, more so than any other party.

    I am not taking sides here but the most important aspect of the system we need to appreciate is that “THE LAW IS HERE TO BE USED TO YOUR ADVANTAGE!”

    This is how lawyers see it and they are a predatory breed that eats their young.

    Some lawyers who stand on ethical and moral grounds get chewed up.

    Whislt those that survive and thrive, sadly, are so deeply depraved, amoral, perverted and distraught by the fierce competitiveness of their field that to appoint any of those as a lawyer for child is in itself, a crime or perversion of justice.

    Because whatever side that senior counsel stands on, there the judge shall throw his or her dices. So fairness goes out the window.

    Talking of child best interest then becomes a game of ambush, censorship of evidence and overall makes the child the biggest loser of any family court battle.

    Without an appreciation of the justice system and the understanding that the courts are blind – blind – blind – blind blind – blind…..

    That they cannot see you nor hear you IF REPRESENTED (except in a very limited scenario) … we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes and hire ineffectual representatives whose first and overriding allegiance and duty is to the Courts in preserving the appearance of justice.

    I am beginning to think the biggest upset to the way things are is not a reactive stance. It is like fighting with a pig. We will get dirtier and the pig will love it.

    But rather a proactive educative stance. Raise consciousness about our identity as sovereign beings, and only go to the court as a last resort. Courts are for dead and fictional entities.

    This is being done today. And every where you look, if tuned up, the veils are lifting.

    And those whom know themselves and can stand for themselves will find that a judge is simply a public servant and that every member of the government is accountable to you and me individually and for every action that they commit against your person and or right.

    Comment by WrongGender — Thu 8th March 2018 @ 2:38 pm

  21. In regards to the McVeagh scandal though, it is common practice. And it is not limited to their own junior staff whom, often look at these partners with rose tinted glasses, leave their partners at home and partake in almost every insane depraved activity they are welcome into and commonly known as the work culture.

    High number of hours, high stress levels, huge incomes and insane amount of free alcohol to dissipate any guilt or bad feeling arising from their own duplicity, hypocrisy or simply general lack of moral standards.

    I have seen, known and heard of senior lawyers who use their “high position in society” to prostitute their selves or elicit sexual favours from women that claimed to be victims and whom raised in these lawyers the strawman of the Knight in shining armour who comes to the damsell in distress’ rescue.

    Same way women make claims of violence to the police to seek protection. But these lawyers feed off their need to protect the weaker sex and instead of protecting them from real harm or violence; they actually prey on them for sexual favors, validation and as pa predator whilst legal aid or the former partner is footing the bill.

    They “solve” her problem, shagg the living hell out of her (with her blessing) and thankfullness, destroy her family, give her the children, split the household assets and bat to give her back her “freedom.”

    But are these limited to the legal profession or are they just a game people play – “who wants to be the office whore?”

    Some women volunteer whilst others have standards and earn respect.

    Comment by WrongGender — Thu 8th March 2018 @ 6:11 pm

  22. TRUTH is their MORTAL ENEMY.

    To prevent the TRUTH from ever hitting the courts is paramount.

    As above WRONG GENDER 20 and 21 – has noted a few valuable points in so far as having no rights when we allow ourselves to be Re – presented by a lawyer = presented by the lawyer to the courts as a dead legal fiction, a corpse – a corporation. Deaf and dumb not living.

    This is the trick of the Phoenicians – phonetics – phone – the traders, traitors to humanity – when our ALL CAPS CORPORATE name is called – it most certainly sounds like our name but it is SPELLED most differently.

    You must always ask to read the CHARGES and see the written name before you confirm your identity.

    This explains HOW and WHY lawyers and judges keep a clear conscience as they allow children to be harmed – these parasites, these vampires sucking off human currency – treat all citizens as dead, dead legal fictions, intangible assets of the crown – common stock to be traded for value in the courts – banks of commerce, sucking our life blood from their created conflict.

    I was recently in the District court asking for an AFFIDAVIT to be witnessed by the Registrar on Sworn Oath.

    An Affidavit is a statement of FACTS and TRUTH Sworn on Oath.

    The registrar refused to witness my signature and my oath and demanded I complete a new Affidavit in the format the court required.

    Problem being, the Courts new form listed AFFIDAVIT in the HEADER – but asked that you sign as a DEPONENT – for a DEPOSITION…..

    AFFIAVITS and DEPOSITIONS are two very different legal documents. They cannot be a combination of the two.

    Just a heads up as to how the TRUTH is being Subverted and kept from the courts.

    The document I was asked to sign is a Fraud, and Fraud Vitiates everything – in other words, your Affidavit of TRUTH will not be considered if presented to the courts on a fraudulent document as a Deposition.

    One last point – you all have EQUITY in the courts, since you are the Security for your corporation.

    Any Debts demanded of you can be discharged using this Equity – you the living breathing human of flesh and blood are the Security asset for your Corporation – bonded – Common stock securitised by your Birth Certificate – the Bond identified by the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS PRINTED NAME on any LEGAL DOCUMENT.

    The Judge in any proceeding against your CORPORATION – your CAPITAL SPELLED NAME – is your Trustee, and you are the beneficiary of that trust.

    Demand your right to Subrogation – become the creditor and discharge all debts, and charges, and also claim all damages using the equity held in your corporations equity account.

    Also note that many judges have a Nz Limited Liability company listed in their own name – this is for that reason. They claim ownership of their name. Trademark and copyright your name. Then charge people for using it.

    You SUMMONS the DEAD – SPIRITS – a Summons is simply an offer to the dead legal fiction the Corpse – Corporation to come to court ( bank ) to settle a dispute and discharge any charges.

    If you decline the offer – they are DEAD in the WATER since there is NO CONTEST.

    Those in power know they are not permitted to harm another human – so if we CONSENT to being DEAD, by agreeing to be the ID, the Capital name, the Corpse – Corporation – they can harm us and do so without KARMA.

    Comment by hornet — Thu 8th March 2018 @ 10:40 pm

  23. That’s easy. If your birth certificate has not been paternity tested then is it valid when they ask is this your name? Or state your name. Or sign your name.

    Theirs a chance it’s not correct. Possibly the mummy/milkman scenario or even by her committing a sex crime etc.
    There’s a chance mummy not only knowingly or with reckless disregard put false detials on it but then went on to dishonesty use it for personal financial gian. Other crimes as well.
    Should you reply if it’s possible a crime has been committed in its creation. Or in its use.
    That the crown may then threaten imprisonment if you don’t provide your name.
    So the crown forces you to act, themselves knowing the document establishing your name may be fraudulent, then used to commit crime.
    Doing nothing to prevent the crime or detect the fraud, and protecting mummy’s dirty little secret and her when caught out.

    Can the crown knowingly force you into ignoring this fact therefor condoning the offence and gaining some form of legal cliam over you as a result. Even though you may in fact be a victim.

    Meanwhile the police use DNA as a way of establishing identity. Creating suspects in crime. Eliminating innocent parties. Doing family searches on Databases both public and created by themselves. For any crime, especially crimes committed buy men.

    Except one crime.
    Incedenly only women can offend.

    Is your birth certificate valid?
    Or is it just too insulting for men to be bothered to continue to use.
    When the crown requests your name.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 9th March 2018 @ 8:42 pm

  24. It is interesting to compare how thoroughly complaints about judges are investigated in NZ and other countries around the world.

    Read the following, in a spirit to be entertained. If you are a tax-payer or a person who appears in front of courts, taking this seriously could be harmful to your health.

    Rhys Harrison Heave Ho

    Some useful background, Evgeny Orlov made a complaint to the Law Society, about Judge Rhys Harrison. Judge Harrison then made a complaint about Mr. Orlov, which then led to the hearing to strike off Mr. Orlov. So it seems that Mr. Orlov was right all along! and the Law Society quite wrong.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 20th July 2018 @ 1:40 pm

  25. Daniel Goldhagen wrote the book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”. This book was provocative rather than broadly accepted by historians. Nonetheless, it has been very influential in understanding Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, by taking advantage of greed among the military, judges and lawyers and their lack of integrity. In part, Hitler used ambiguity to hide his objectives, until it was too late to oppose them.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it……
    Does Israel have a commitment to human rights and democracy?
    If anyone should understand what human rights are worth, it should be Israelis and Jews who have suffered when human rights were dishonoured? Ambiguity in new Israeli legislation, allows breaches of human rights of Israeli citizens.
    Are there judges? A Lacanian perspective.
    Although Jaques Lacan made use of ambiguity in understanding human culture and development, ambiguity in legislation or policy are recipes for social disaster.

    A sharp warning to New Zealand, about poorly designed and written social policies and legislation?

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 18th December 2018 @ 9:07 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar