- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
So as part of addressing the failings of the FC I did inform PFCJ Ryan that he is racist along with Von Dadelszen, Boshier and Callinicos. Ive been researching contempt of Court in readiness for them should they get their knickers in a further knot, and was just wondering if anyone has used a term in a formal letter to a Judge or in Court documents that may have constituted an act of contempt of Court??!!
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.
This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.
Contact me for rates
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
Hi Mopardad
Try these links
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/jdo/Search.jsp (In search box type “Contempt of Court”
also
https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=contempt+of+New+Zealand+Court
Comment by Andy — Tue 3rd January 2017 @ 10:24 pm
Yes send all of your correspondence to:
Campbell, Du Plesee Allen
But why would you call the principal NZ Family Cout Judge That?
I don’t get it?
Can you absolutely demonstrate this?
It’s a pretty big call.
The truth is good but you must be able to show it.
I have never heard of this, I have experienced the process and believe that the NZ Family Court Reputation is well justified but I have never suspected or have I heard of the allegation you make.
Comment by SimongrantSimonSimon — Wed 4th January 2017 @ 3:59 am
This explains some of it:
Prime Minister of New Zealand Rt Hon John Key
8 May 2014
Prime Minister,
I formally request that you in your formal capacity as the current Prime Minister of New Zealand and the leader of the National Party, at the nearest opportunity, present yourself to my Whanau and I, members of my Hapu, Iwi and persons from within our community, to explain the reasons as to why your National led Family Court “FC”:
– refuses to acknowledge myself and my Tamahine as victims of Domestic Violence “DV” at the hands of my former White European partner, the mother of the child
– refuses to recognize said former partner as a DV offender who has, in order to maximize the emotional torture and harm she can inflict upon us, committed criminal acts such as,
– making false statements to the NZ Police
– perjury
– obtained by deceit
– perverted the course of Justice
with said acts being committed in two previous FC proceedings
– refuses to afford the actual victims of DV in these cases protection from DV, protection that we are afforded by current legislation
– refuses to show any concern for the significant emotional harm and torture that has been inflicted upon tamariki and their respective matua by said former partner
– refuses to act in the best interest and welfare of the youngest member of our whanau
– refuses to acknowledge the white mothers history of DV offending
– refuses to acknowledge the vast credible evidence that shows the white mothers sworn facts placed before the FC which resulted in her being awarded orders in her favor to be purely false and misleading
– refuses to provide any clarification for its unlawful actions
– refuses to provide further court time to address the issues herein
– is still judging applicants not upon lawful facts or the best interests and welfare of children but purely upon skin colour and ethnical origins
with all evidence clearly indicating that the John Key/National led FC has used race based hate and skin colour as the sole determining factor in its rulings in regards to myself and my Tamahine, with the facts clearly indicating the use of race based hate and skin colour as the determining factors in its rulings, facts such as:
– the FC previously, without hesitation, investigating an allegation of perjury made against a male Maori and issuing a warning for perjury that could see charges laid against the offending party
– former FC Principal Judge Boshier stating in correspondence in regards to perjury “it is wholly a matter for the Police and the criminal jurisdiction. The Family Court has no ability to either initiate or rule in relation to criminal acts.” yet then clearly he, along with FC Judge “FCJ” Callinicos have investigated said Maori male and issued said warning
– two vastly different orders for contact for 2 tamariki from the same dysfunctional family unit being issued by former White European FCJ Von Dadelszen which clearly demonstrates that as far as the FC is concerned Maori tamariki are worth significantly less than white children and will be treated as such with no allowance for our Tamaiti to see us at Christmas or for her birthday yet such beneficial and necessary allowances afforded to her white brother 18 months her senior
Your attention to this is needed IMMEDIATELY as these are issues of National Significance which I believe will prevent Aotearoa from being in a position to move forward as a united people as clearly the John Key/National led government is using race hate to enforce a separatist society within Aotearoa.
Regards
Comment by mopardad — Wed 4th January 2017 @ 4:50 am
2 vastly different orders for 2 children and their fathers in almost identical situations yet the white child is given an order for contact that could be expected yet we were given the exact same order for contact as awarded to convicted child abuser and killer Tania Witika, therefore we can rightfully determine that the FC considers Maori children to be worth less than white children and as such will not be afforded the same rights and opportunities as afforded to white children.
…….
The white european child being afforded the following privileges for contact and or rights with his white European father, whom has been accused of DV including aggressive and or abusive behavior, stalking, intimidating, harassing and the sexual molestation of his own child:
– Shared care contact with his father and his fathers family until school age
– an allowance for contact at christmas since birth
– an allowance for contact on the childs birthday since birth
– an allowance for four overnight contact visits per fortnight since school age reached
– an allowance for other contact during the week
– an allowance for contact by phone
– an allowance for the fathers involvement in the childs schooling
– an allowance for the fathers involvement in the childs sporting interests
– an allowance for shared care during school holidays
– an allowance for week long contact where the child and father can holiday where desired
with the part maori child being afforded the following privileges for contact and or rights with myself, her part Maori father, having been accused of DV including aggressive and or abusive behavior, stalking, intimidating, harassing and psychological abuse which saw a protection order issued:
– no contact with her Matua Tane and his whanau from the age of 2 months 17 days until the age of 3 years 9 months, contact which continued for 7 months until October 2010 when the order for contact was abandoned by all with the FC refusing to allow further court time to address significant unresolved care, protection and criminal issues relevant to the aforementioned proceedings
– an allowance for contact on the childs 4th birthday only
– an allowance for 1 overnight contact visit per fortnight until the order would lapse due to the child becoming an adult or dying
– an allowance for 1 evening meal on a Thursday
– no allowance for contact at christmas since birth
– no allowance for contact by phone
– no allowance for the fathers involvement in the childs schooling
– no allowance for the fathers involvement in the childs sporting interests
– no allowance for shared care during school holidays
– no allowance for week long contact where the child and father can holiday where desired
– no allowance for an increase in contact time as the Matua Tane – Tamaahine bond flourished and strengthened as it did, with my Tamaahine wanting more contact with myself/our whanau
– no attempt by the FC to have contact reinstated
– no attempt by the mother to reinstate contact
with the FC ruling said order for contact will remain in place with no allowance for review until said child turns 18 or dies.
Comment by mopardad — Wed 4th January 2017 @ 4:57 am
Which races do you feel Von Dadelszen is biased against? Von Dadelszen has presided over our cases, and I do not admire his judgements. I see him as a prejudiced biased individual – but racist? I think other cases which could undermine your arguement do exist, and I believe ours might be one of them.
Comment by Jerry — Wed 4th January 2017 @ 6:36 am
He was clearly biased towards my ex, in 10 years I myself or the Police or CYFS cannot find one shred of evidence that would give her 260 odd sworn facts any credibility whatsoever, so the question remains why did he show so much favour towards my ex and the white child and and his father? 9 months before he gave her a Int Pro Order she tried getting one against the father of the white child with the FC refusing to award one stating there were insufficient grounds and then she makes almost identical claims regarding myself and is award her IPO. When combined with the different parenting orders it is clear he has acted in favour of the mother and also afforded the white child more rights and opportunities with his white father, given the lack of evidence to demonstrate risk of harm or DV on my part it can only be racial discrimination.
The fact remains the FC must be consistent, there are vast differences of treatment here that can only come down to the ethnical origins of the parties.
Comment by mopardad — Wed 4th January 2017 @ 7:12 am
I cannot dispute that VD seems a very consistently biased person. But I cannot define it as racist. When he presided, I was found against in every application. He was consistent in finding against me. But eventually another judge presided and the evidence was finally examined. I was granted compensation. While VD presided, there was no hope, but I still cannot define it as racist. Who knows what goes on in his mind? I agree that it seems unguided by evidence or wisdom, or the best interests of the children.
Comment by Jerry — Wed 4th January 2017 @ 4:53 pm
in the 2 cases he ruled over regarding 2 children from the same disfunctional family unit, what other reason would he have for providing the 2 vastly different orders for contact? In this instance I believe he based his opinions on his hate for Maori, the Crown cant justify his actions, he can now sit back knowing he doesnt have to answer but he should realise that soon someone will have to speak on his behalf and attempt to justify his Human Rights offences….
Comment by mopardad — Wed 4th January 2017 @ 8:37 pm
I have always found Judge Callinicos sensible, fair, helpful and enlightened.
Cautious yes but he gets the results in the end.
Comment by Allan — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 4:41 am
Well thats my sixpence worth. The last thing I would want to do is defend VD in any way. The thread is about “Contempt of court” which I believe is a rather difficult proposition to prove to an evidential standard. As for contempt of court, I think few on this forum lack contempt for the family court – me included
Comment by Jerry — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 7:01 am
Callinicos is the replacement circuit judge for Von Dickwad, he ruled over an application for an interim parenting order made by a male Maori and awarded in his favour, it was then alleged in affidavits that said male had committed perjury, so Callinicos reviewed his decision and issued a warning for perjury to both parties, Boshier then reviewed it and re-enforced the warning, I have made it known in court documents that my former partner, a white european female, committed an act of perjury by making a false statement to the Police and then committed a further act of perjury by relying on the false statement in court as evidence to support her applications before the Court. A further act of perjury was committed as the applicant changed her evidence so much so that it would appear that there were two completely different fake incidents that occurred at the same time, that in itself is illogical and scientifically and factually impossible, that being said, Callinicos Boshier Von Dickwad and Ryan have all refused to acknowledge that a white european female may have committed perjury and refuse to investigate. So someone tell where is the fairness in that? Where is the legislation that allows FCJ’s to actively investigate perjury committed by a Maori and to ignore perjury committed by white folk?
Comment by mopardad — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 7:13 am
Perjury occurs everyday in Family Court. Other than Kay Skelton no one I have ever heard of has been held to account.
Skelton got away with it for 6 years before her trail of lies, distortion and hatred for the father of her child began to get some traction. That was after a 93 day long abduction of the child to frustrate Dads applications. New Zealand’s finest coppers could not find the grandfather or 6 year old despite the Headley and Skelton family being all in on the plot.
Comment by Allan — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 7:43 am
Skelton sentenced to 2 years 8 months (likely to serve about 10-11 months) for a blatant calculated and ongoing perjury to Family Court.
The wheels of injustice turn ever so slowly.
Comment by Allan — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 7:52 am
yes and its committed mostly by females. The question still remains, where are the reasonable grounds for Callinicos to issue a warning of perjury against against a Maori but to then to ignore perjury committed by a white european female? There is none, hence why I believe I am justified in labelling him/them as racist.
Comment by mopardad — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 8:00 am
#14 mopardad. I believe that you’d have more success if you claimed sexism. It would be far easier to prove by viewing the respective judge’s decisions. Decisions in favour of Mother vs decisions in favour of Father.
Comment by golfa — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 11:14 am
golfa when combined with the orders for contact there is a clear pattern and that pattern can only be racism, i cant claim sexism in terms of the contact orders, if I tackle them claiming racism, sexism, economic prejudice or and social standing prejudice then its going to come across even less favourable
Comment by mopardad — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 12:03 pm
My opinion is that anti-male sexism is rife. There will be much more evidence to support that position. But also in the discussion about perjury, do not ignore NGO’s, CYFs, police, religous outreach schemes which depend upon the Government teet.
Comment by Jerry — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 12:35 pm
Jerry the main issue here is the two vastly different orders for contact for 2 kids from the same disfunctional family unit whose 2 fathers are the same in respect to lack of DV or violence or sexual or drug or gang or firearm offences etc etc yet there were 2 vastly different orders for contact, that cannot be gender based discrimination as then we would have got the same treatment, either his significant order for contact or our minimal order for contact, it should be noted that it is the same order given to convicted child abuser and killer Tania Witika yet I aint a convicted child abuser or killer so why did we get the same order for contact as her and not the same as the white european father? It can only be a race based difference
Comment by mopardad — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 3:05 pm
Mopardad I suggest that you first need to understand that precedent/accountability/fairness/comparison are not in any way concepts understood in FC. They will hide behind “the facts of the case” which means the specifics as they choose to interpret them.
I fear you are seeking what they cannot offer which is predictability. FC is a lottery, how the dice falls, just what are the issues of the day that are given weight are not easily understood (in my fairly lengthy experience).
If you set it up as a fight on one issue of race they will slide the weighting towards some other issue. As you are attempting to set this issue up you are guaranteed to fail.
This forum is not a safe or sensible place to be discussing strategy especially as you have given info that makes your case so identifiable.
Comment by Allan — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 6:21 pm
My business in FRONT of the FC is finished, the only remaining business i have WITH the FC is shoving my foot up its arse, I seek nothing from the FC except a demonstration of reasonable grounds, im fully aware that the members of the Judiciary will not get into this argument as they will hang themselves figuratively speaking, by the end of the year the crown will have demonstrated its FC had reasonable grounds for its actions or it will have simply continued to ignore the unlawful actions of its racist judges, either way it will be held accountable.
My strategy is this, im coming for them, simple.
Comment by mopardad — Thu 5th January 2017 @ 7:22 pm
C4c perverting the course of justice seems no problem.
Getting a judge to break the law to cover is arse seems no problem.
Recommending a change over venue run by a fraudster and drug dealer (convicted) is no problem for this court appointed official
With the initial PH from Porirua.
When the dead body was hanging in my children’s house (mummy) PH continues to shine the seat of his pants.
Briefing the lying trout psycologist froe her evidenc was no problem.
Make a cock up,
Cover it up at all costs
Discredit the father if necessary
Place evidence before the court which the father won’t see.
This is out NZ Family Court Process.
This process is there for;
Lawyers
Judges
Court coordinators (women) to feel a little power.
It is a Scam
The best interests of the children they say.
Measure it by the outcomes for the children as a result of Directions I say. We say.
This process is a Scam.
Look at the with out notice applications -85 percent of applications. The law Society is doing a review to find out why this increase.
Yes folks “A REVIEW” from the Law Society, reviewing its own members again.
Will it say Our MEMBERS ARE OFTEN PARISITES focused on legall aid and fees hence this increase.
Just enforce your own rules we say.
This is about independent accountability for lawyers, judges, Psycologists and get rid of the gender biased court coordinators.
It hasn’t happened for over three decades so will it happen tomorrow?
Be aware the law society review is likely to say:
Removing legal aid was bad
It should be reinstated
The application increase with out notice is due to er, um:
Complexity for mummy
Her not feeling safe
Or some such please reinstate legal aid for parisites crap.
The government must hold the line and say NO WAY PARISITES
Comment by Simon grant — Sat 7th January 2017 @ 11:29 am
#21 Simon grant. I believe “without notice” applications have the fee waived. And that’s why there are so many of them. I might be wrong but I was told that by a Lawyer friend.
Comment by golfa — Sat 7th January 2017 @ 8:08 pm
There are clear rules for Lawyers in terms of the without notice application.
The Law Society complaints committee do not enforce the rules for their members.
Without notice applications attract legal aid – this we know.
Why don’t the good old Standards Committie of the self Governing Bunch enforce the rules on their buddies regarding the miss use of the Without Notice Application Do we think?
Remember you can escalate any complaint to the LCRO after the Law Society dismisses your complaint re the miss use of the Without Notice Application but the LCRO is behind in processing complaints escalated to them by three years. We say Lawyers critiquing complaints about their buddies is like the police hearing complaints about policemen.
Is there anything wrong with this picture do we think?
Judge Winleman has made an address to the law Society members re The Widening Gap (Law Society Web Site)
Comment by simom grant — Sat 7th January 2017 @ 11:40 pm
The Police Complaints Authority delegates most complaints back to the coppers to investigate their own and to placate the complainants.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 9th January 2017 @ 12:02 pm
Thank you Allan,
Who trusts and respects the police? That question is not about do we need them and respect that we must have them. That question relates to how they behave and what the public perceives they have become.
We all watched “doubt” the Scott Watson case.
Auther Allan Thomas.
Tenna Pora
What of the Police involved, any charged by their buddies?
I am surprised at the almost total distain people feel towards them and we are talking about grandmothers in their 70s too.
If you see a Policeman being assaulted – for example it is now an offense not to help. The public is expected to help. If you have had a few beers, felt a little tired perhaps, then you might not see anything.
It is highly likely that more and more people are going to be tired and will have drunk a few beers in certain circumstances.
We note that the police have shot and killed several people this year already.”Greg Nothing to See Here O’Connor” has retired but his replacement will be from the same cloth.
His Honor Judge Curthers will be assessing the shootings of 2016 and 2017 according to Riado live NZ yesterday.
Some people spoken to cant figure out how that might change the public perception, can this Judge be impartial?
If this is about public perception, public relations and public confidence why a Judge? People only need to go to sites like “Kiwisfirst” to see the judges ranking.
How about Dame Margaret Beazley again? She has the respect of many as being impartial.
How about a straight talking ordinary person who has a few brains and is given some authority? This will not be rocket science, Allan Harvey, Grant Dalton? We can all think of 10 people who could do this and not one of them a lawyer, Judge or policeman. Unless the judge finds serious fault many people will just yawn and say “oh there you go Spin, Whitewash, Feel Good Crap again”.
What do you do for an Encore people may say? Find that the Juducial Conduct Commissioners Office is impartial or the Law Society is actually impartial when considering complaints against its own members?
Even better, find that the NZ Family Court process is Impartial
Court Coordinators, although all women, are impartial when selecting a psychologist for a case.
C4C will not;
Pervert the course of justice.
Put evidence before the court which you don’t see, like web sites you go to or they say you go to.
Go into business with the mothers lawyer and share premises, resources, reception (as they do in Porirua)
There you go a couple of “reviews and the odd “enquiry” “nothing to see here yet again” and all will be well in Public Perception Land. Wrong!
We note the latest review from the NZ Law Society (yes it is reviewing Its own members again)is about the “use of the without notice application in the Family Court” and the massive increase since legal aid only applies to without notice applications now.
Do we need to hear from the Law Society as to why this is? A bloody budgie could figure it out. No offense is intended to Dr Allen Cooke who will do this research but Dr Cooke as a Lawyer you are batting from behind here and nothing short of an outcome which says: “the massive increase that is now 85% of all applications is due to Lawyers wanting Legal Aid and knowing that their own Standards Committee will say mumble, nothing to see here is the reason for the scam increase” will appease the public.
It is way past time for this lot to have their own self assessments.
Any party who advocates the following should receive our collective member vote.
No more lawyers assessing themselves
No more hand picked Juducial Conduct Commissioner
No more police assessing themselves
Get rid of the Family Court Scams
Don Brash is attempting a collective vote “Hobsons Choice”, they have their view. Lets put our weight behind his effort providing they broaden their mandate to resemble some of the issues raised, or hitch our collective wagon to another party.
Comment by simom grant — Tue 10th January 2017 @ 12:11 am
hobsons choice are a bunch of racists who dont want to acknowledge the existence of institutional racism, a better choice would be the Morgan party
Comment by mopardad — Tue 10th January 2017 @ 7:26 am
Mopardad;
I use Hobson’s Choice simply as an example of a “collective” that is all. I accept that there are policies which may not sit well with every one but what is important, right now, the big issues?
Is it the Police running amuck, eroding everyone’s rights and shooting people because they don’t like you? Look at Steven Wallace, the guy had a golf club breaking windows, pissed. Roll him down a couple of bottles of booze, back the police car away, let him smash a couple more windows then fall asleep, cuff him then.
Is it the Law Society taking the piss out of everyone, members scamming the public unchecked by their buddies? Perhaps it is the with out notice application so that in many cases they can get a feed at the expense of a child’s relationship with their father?
Many say it is.
Is it the accountability for our Judges? The people we must have faith in if we are to function as a society? Where is the Pecuniary Interest Bill? Was it quashed by the Judges Association because Judges themselves must be seen to be at “arms length” to political influence? Was it on tis basis that their association quashed a proposed law where by they would need to disclose their own personal and business interests to avoid the obvious potential for conflict of interest?
Seems like they, oh sorry, their association (not the judges because they must remain at arms length) wasn’t too keen on this, yet it is the norm in other countries. It seems like it was the “association” so that’s OK. Yeah right! What the fuck is that? Is that utter bullshit or what?
Is it the existence of the NZ Family Court processes and crap to decide basic access, poor mummies aggrieved at dad so let’s use the process? Who does it serve?
Mummy then Lawyers, Judges and the Police as the kid heads down the wrong track. Where the hell is their integrity?
How can these people do that to a child?
Come on Aimee Adams, get off your arse, get your hands dirty, do something about it, the buck stops with you!
Who is our Attorney General again? (Pardon the spelling Chris we are not all as clever as you)
Morpardad, I suggest that these are the issues to get behind, pick a party who is middle road, NZ First? Winston would be open to these issues they are huge for all of us and at least Winston can read the people a whole lot better than most.
Forget racism, or put it on the back burner as these are the issues which will affect you, your children for generations to come and my children and the Greek family down the road and the Dutch family up the road. Irrespective of skin colour, we are all being stiffed by the same crap – pull together, its election year.
Comment by simom grant — Tue 10th January 2017 @ 9:24 am
I appreciate your views, however, it is racism that was behind the FC’s decisions in our proceedings so whilst it may not have been a problem in how your treated by the crown for us as Maori it is a problem thats costs us dearly
Comment by mopardad — Tue 10th January 2017 @ 10:08 am
That’s cool Mopardad I can assure you that if you fix the racism (as you say)then you will be fucked over by another means.
The other means have been described, fix the “other means” then what are they going to do?
Are they going to say this father is being worked over because he is Maori? No way!
Do they say this guy is being worked over because he is Maori now? Of course not. The judge works you over using one of the methods described, true?
Maybe he is working you over because you are Maori as you say but you are actually being worked over using one of the methods mentioned by Allen Harvey or myself.
I would say these are the issues to address but look, go hard regarding racism but in my experience it don’t matter what colour your skin is, its about if you have or have ever had a foreskin. The colour of it don’t matter.
Comment by simom grant — Tue 10th January 2017 @ 4:22 pm
in this instance it is about colour, im gonna hold the Crown and its FC accountable and that will have a flow on effect
Comment by mopardad — Tue 10th January 2017 @ 4:48 pm
I think allegations of racism are likely to have some impact where numerous, well-evidenced complaints about anti-male sexism have simply been ignored or denied in cursory manner. So go for it ‘mopardad’!
In your account I think the fact that it was a Maori male who was warned about perjury is the strongest argument for racism, given how rare it is for the FC to show any concern about perjury. Every case in which allegations are rejected and the requested ‘protection’ order isn’t granted is likely to involve perjury that was otherwise ignored.
I believe the warning about perjury, and indeed the other aspects of your case ‘mopardad’ were all likely to result more from sexism than racism. I have come across cases in which the male was warned by the judge for lying when there was no proof of this but simply because the male contradicted the female partner’s account, while that same male presented clear evidence proving the female partner had lied and this was acknowledged by the judge but disregarded, the judge still expressing confidence for no good reason in everything else the mother had claimed.
Nevertheless, I am sure that judges will show racism too. The truth will matter little in the end; just look at the ridiculous outcome of the stripper’s clearly false allegations against the Chiefs that are still treated as though they must be true. Hopefully, allegations of racism will wield politically correct power comparable to that for allegations of misogyny.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 10th January 2017 @ 8:46 pm
Oh sorry ‘mopardad’, I just noticed you wrote that the judge warned both parties about perjury. Were both parties Maori? If not, then your argument that the perjury warning was racist is weakened fatally.
On another note, ‘simon grant’, police shootings are probably justified in most cases. Steven Wallace would never have fallen asleep enabling him to be cuffed, and your account of his violence and dangerousness was seriously minimizing. He had driven away from his family home in a very drunk state after behaving violently at home, attacking the family shed with golf clubs that he then threw in the boot before driving off. His mother had phoned 111 but for whatever reason hung up before her call was answered. Irresponsible of her. Even Wallace’s driving presented a serious risk of homicide.
Wallace stopped his car outside the unmanned Waitara police station and smashed 55 windows there with a golf club or clubs. Wallace then drove again, witnesses estimating his speed as over 100 km per hour in a 50 km zone. He braked so roughly outside the Fire Station that a front tyre blew out. He then smashed 23 windows of the Fire Station before driving off again with a flat front tyre. He then smashed 26 windows of the local supermarket before driving off again on the wrong side of the road and almost colliding with another car whose driver took evasive action. At some stage he drove fast towards a cyclist who was able to avoid him but believed Wallace deliberately tried to run him over. He stopped again in town and smashed windows of various shops and buildings, leaving golf clubs at some sites. While there he smashed the window of a taxi with passengers that happened to drive past, and at some stage he also attacked a car full of youths. When a police car came to the scene Wallace attacked it and smashed the window directly in front of the female driver’s face. Two male police then armed themselves and approached Wallace on foot. One officer tried to talk Wallace down but he advanced upon them holding a golf club in one hand and an aluminium baseball bat in the other. Wallace hurled the golf club at one officer who ducked and was narrowly missed, and Wallace kept approaching that officer holding the baseball bat in a position ready to strike and verbally threatening to harm and to kill the officer. Both officers had warned Wallace that they were armed and the now targetted officer pointed a gun at Wallace and cocked it whilst repeatedly warning him. Wallace ignored this and increased his pace. The officer was backing off fast towards the shops. The officer fired a warning shot in the air but Wallace continued to advance towards him and continued to scream out intentions to kill the officer. The officer warned Wallace that he would shoot him if he came any closer but Wallace did not break his stride and closed the distance to be 10 metres from the officer. The officer later said he genuinely feared for his life. He fired three shots in a general direction towards Wallace one of which killed him.
Although there may be criticisms of minor details regarding police management of the situaiton, shooting Wallace was clearly a justified response in the circumstances and no other containment would have been sufficiently certain. If the police had not effectively stopped him when they did and Wallace had moved on to kill someone else, the police would be severely criticized and possibly disciplined. Besides, police are not paid to give up their lives to drunk, violent people. All reviews including that of the Coroner found the shooting to have been justified, and a jury quickly acquitted the constable in a trial brought about by Wallace’s family in private prosecution.
More interesting and relevant for MENZ Issues was that the female officer remained in the car while the two male officers dealt directly with the threat. Yes, her role was important in communicating with the command centre, but it seems typical that male officers put themselves in the front line to protect female officers who nevertheless demand equal pay and promotion. In this case the men’s greater size or strength was of little relevance because the situation could only safely be managed through distance weapons. So what was the justification for the gendered division of roles?
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 10th January 2017 @ 10:30 pm
Mopardad; Do go for it on the racism issue, take it to the press and every one else but at the end of the day – you are father, black, white or green Cash Contact is all they want from you, why? Because mummy said and because they want to perpetuate their own existence. Get rid of decent dads and the kid goes down the dunny, it can only be played for, it has been going on for over 30 years now and nothing has changed.
Read Court of Injustice (download PDF [61 KB]) By Lauren Quaintaince, a North and South feature in 2001, nothing has changed in 15 years, what does that tell us?
Good Luck Mopardad.
We note that Allen Langdon has taken his six year old daughter across shark infested waters rather than face the shark infested alternative. Keep well Allen and your precious daughter good luck to you both.
Comment by simongrant — Tue 10th January 2017 @ 10:33 pm
Man x Norton, thank your for your detailed account re Steven Wallace. Several issues were raised in my post.
Lack of Independent Accountability Re;
Police
Judges
Lawyers particularly around the misuse of the without notice application and in terms of behaviour of C4C.
Female court coordinators.
Psychologists
I see these as key issues
What is you view regarding these issues?
Comment by simongrant — Tue 10th January 2017 @ 10:44 pm
simongrant, I generally agree with you on the other matters. The subtle and not so subtle encouragement by lawyers for their female clients to commit perjury is astounding, the judiciary’s acceptance of this even more so, and the lawyer complaints system difficult to trust. I realize humbly though that I am no legal expert and those who consider complaints probably apply laws and legal principles soundly in many cases. FC judges though seem to have excessive power and ability to interpret the law to fit their bias, usually in line with gynocentric tendencies in our society with a sociobiological basis.
I’m sure not every lawyer promotes perjury and that some or many try to work hard and ethically, but the system lends itself to abuse. The recent ‘reforms’ of FC provided incentives for perjury by making it easier and free for people to progress cases if they include allegations of violence against the other party. That was ridiculous law making, probably based partly on naivety (“women wouldn’t lie about domestic violence”) and partly on a deliberate intention to provide women with ever more powerful and convenient weapons with which to gain dominance over men.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 10th January 2017 @ 11:10 pm
Man X Norton:
Thank you, looks like we have all experienced similar things. I see Accountability as the key issue.
For Judges
Lawyers
Psychologists
Mothers
Court coordinators (old trout for example have to much influence for a lowly rated administration job) these clowns are not the main event – outcomes for the children are.
Comment by simon Grat — Wed 11th January 2017 @ 7:50 pm
Im aware that there are decisions made based on the sex of the parties before the FC however, there were 2 cases running side by side in the FC regarding my x and DV allegations, the same Judge displayed 2 different attitudes in regards to the way the 2 different proceedings were handled by the FC, given that the 2 fathers involved were the same in regards to a lack of offending of any sort that would give the FC cause for concern then the 2 vastly different out comes for the fathers cannot be put down to sexism, if it was then we would have both had similar outcomes but that is not the case.
Comment by mopardad — Thu 12th January 2017 @ 9:53 am
the other point is Im aware of the fact that we are a cash cow for the crown and that we as fathers are simply a throw away bi-product of a relationship however, if I had the same contact that was given by the FC to the white european father then I wouldve been happy as could be expected with that outcome
Comment by mopardad — Thu 12th January 2017 @ 9:56 am
Letter between – Lawyer for Child – with this response from Mothers lawyer – and I quote…… “We (offenders lawyer ) refer to recent correspondence in this matter and specifically your ( Lawyer for Child ) proposal that the Psychologist should be asked to reduce her concerns about Mrs XXXX mental health to writing to be put before the Court.”………….
So lawyer for child has proposed to offenders lawyer – that Evidence from a neutral, court appointed independent Family Court Psychologist which identifies Serious harm to Child and identifies the cause – Parental Alienation – should be reduced – removed from her report. This is Evidence and Witness tampering.
The F.C Psychologist identified the cause of SEVERE HARM being caused to the child, PARENTAL ALIENATION and raised Concerns with the Mothers Mental health as a primary Cause of this HARM – and here we have the LAWYER FOR CHILD actively discussing with the Mothers lawyer – ways to have this Evidence removed from the Psychologists report – this is the same lawyer for child who also stated to me when I challenged him – that he was only there to Protect Process – not to protect his Client from HARM…….
This is not about the RACE of the parties, this is all about a Family court system that permits and allows HARM to be caused to CHILDREN – and PARENTS – encouraging CONFLICT and refusing to adhere to the most fundamental requirement to PROTECT the CHILD FROM HARM………..as mandated in UN Treaties and our own NZ legislation.
Section 113 Crimes Act – Fabricating Evidence, Section 116 Conspiring to Defeat the Course of Justice, Section 117 – Corrupting Witnesses.
I place this information here because one of the judges mentioned above was also involved in directly refusing to intervene and refused to perform his most basic and fundamental requirement – to PROTECT the child from this SEVERE HARM that was identified and presented before him.
Rather the evidence I now have before me – demonstrates an active plan by the family court and its officers – to remove this concern – this serious harm and its cause and cover it up……….leaving the Child to be HARMED – and those who were engaged in this have committing Serious Criminal Offences along the way.
It is my contention now having witnessed this for 14 years – that we have a system which is DELIBERATELY causing harm to children or at the least permitting this harm – because this Harm creates Victims and creates Children who grow up needing state dependence in the future, and or who will go on to commit crimes because they were not protected, not permitted to have the support of two parents in their lives – there is a wealth of evidence to show that kids raised with only ONE parent become VULNERABLE – a small number of sick psychopathic agents in the state want this – Vulnerable kids for Predators to prey on……….pedophiles and all manner of other sick individuals.
I have fought this because it is the duty of all parents to protect their children from harm – the concern we all have – is we have to now come to grips with the fact it is the very state we go to for help, that is permitting this harm and refusing to intervene and protect our children – now you can see why Tolley has refused to allow any independent investigation into harm caused to Children in State care………and you can now also draw comparisons to the high numbers of pedophiles who prey on Vulnerable children – being exposed in Western governments and power circles. Children Coming out of the NZ Family court system are Victims – vulnerable children who will be preyed on by Psychopaths – Bullies who prey on the most vulnerable of all – Children.
Hornet.
Comment by hornet — Thu 12th January 2017 @ 10:04 am
A book we all need to read…….which exposes the concern that lawyers for Child in NZ – were paid highly through the legal aid system = to ensure Dads ( and I am sure some mothers ) did not get to see their kids……my own direct experience is this is exactly the case, for I had two lawyers for child who directly prevented me from having additional time with my child – when there were absolutely no grounds to do so….and in the case I have mentioned above – one actively colluded to have evidence of harm to the Child – caused by parental alienation – removed from a witness statement of fact…………..a Crime….Witness Tampering by a state agent.
http://greghallett.com/pages/Are-You-My-Father-The-Family-Court.html
Comment by hornet — Thu 12th January 2017 @ 10:13 am
Hornet, did you ever meet Peter Harrison?
Comment by simon Grat — Sat 14th January 2017 @ 12:02 am
Simon, did you mean this Peter Harrison?
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/mi-nz/50SCJE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL11914_1_A317698/a9c0a2d6beb087f127323058483ecfa5e0abe9d8
No I have not spoken with any Peter Harrison.
I have just been through the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child = as Signed and ratified by NZ – I have noted in cross reference with my case and my many attempts – asking this system to protect my CHILD from HARM ……Identified harm that the Family Court of NZ were witness to directly and who refused to protect the child.
We in direct breach of the following Articles….
Article 1. Best interests of the Child is the PRIMARY Consideration. ( in the face of overwhelming evidence of harm being caused to the child – the Family Court did NOTHING to help prevent this in direct breach of the most fundamental requirement – to protect the child from harm.
Article 5. Childs Rights to the PARENTS – thats plural as in BOTH PARENTS RIGHTS must be protected. ( My Rights as the Father were NEVER upheld by the NZ Family Court system )
Article 9 – Ensure Child is NOT separated from HIS or HER parents against their WILL. ( My child wanted to see her Father – and was prevented at every level )
Article 16 Childs Rights to Privacy – Family Correspondence to be protected. ( In NZ Child Support condone Child actively Spying on one parent, and mother preventing Mail from being received by the Child )
Article 18 – Protect Childs Right that Both parents are required for the development of the Child.
Article 19 Govt are required to legislate to ensure the child is protected.
Article 27 Child has a right to a standard of living – ( we are breaching this on so many levels in NZ – poverty – homelessness – hunger )
Article 29 Child right to education of their choosing ( My daughter wants to attend a Public school where the kids are REAl – versus the mothers demands she attend a PRIVATE school against her WILL at high cost to me – ably supported by Child support against the recommendations of the Psychologists who noted this was HARMING the child – see Article 1 )
Article 32 Child to be protected from ECONOMIC Exploitation ( we all know the lawyers in the NZ Family court Circus are most certainly Exploiting Children for PROFIT )
Article 36 Govt required to protect child from Exploitation at all levels. ( we are NOT protecting our children in NZ )
Article 39 Govt required to help in the recovery from Psychological Abuse – ( my child destroyed by parental Alienation and we see NO help or protected from the NZ Justice system – NONE. Neither protecting or rehabilitating )
So when we have so many breaches of agreements – we have a massive problem as a nation of people – when our leaders are refusing to address these concerns…….perhaps we can then see why certain factions want to Run from the UN, and remove themselves from Treaties that bind them legally to protect citizens , their children and their human rights……..
Comment by hornet — Wed 18th January 2017 @ 2:47 pm
I did notice the we are perfect and solve everything.
Hire us early, make that mandatory too.
Yes I make shitloads of money, but I do it for the love of the children.
The minister knows nothing but I’m perfect and know all.
People who don’t hire lawyers like me are bad.
The children don’t know what’s going on.
If the children do they have been manipulated.
What’s the point of these guys then.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 18th January 2017 @ 5:37 pm
Hornet,
The Harrison I know;
Recommended an independent change over venue run by a convicted fraudster, drug dealer, some sort of pseudo church run by a shifty sort, I names him “the Andy Narayan of Kapiti”.
The children’s mother joined the cult/church two weeks into this independent change over, access got manipulated. The fraudster made it hard knowing that he would just tell Harrison, paint me in a bad light. I recorded all change overs, wrote to Harrison several times he ignored my request to change the venue. Ex psychiatric patients lived there, I was expected to leave two wee children there and leave. Harrison did nothing, the fraudster told me “I will make sure you don’t get access to those children”. Finally I stuck the recorder in his face, told him I had been recording him for 6 months. Things changed at the venue. Harrison was sickening.
He, by draft or dictation had the mothers DR right him a couple of letters. One “the children are stressed due to over night access with the father I recommend access be put on hold” Dr Ruth Brown Raumati Medical Centre Alan Harvey’s wife was a Dr there at the time. Harrison didn’t realise this.
There had been two overnight access visits with me and the GP had never seen me with the children. She was not qualified to make that assessment.
Two; I will not see these children when they are in the care of their father.
These letters were signed by Dr Ruth Brown, sent to Harrison who attached them to a submission to the court As I recall his submission was; look what simply arrived in the mail your honour.
His honour stopped overnight access. I say Harrison perverted the course of justice – outcomes for the children were detrimental as a result, The children’s best interest were not served.
Dr Ruth Brown sent me copies of the letters but unsigned. Therefore.
For shared care to ever apply a prerequisite was that the children had the same GP.
The unsigned copies could not be sent to the medical counsel to complain about DR Brown and should the signed copies which arrived to me via the court process be presented to the medical counsel as a complain Harrison would have cried contempt of court. That is how he got the participation from the GP.
I would get an update from thee GP re the children’s medical disposition every 6 months or so but the two letters were never part of the medical record = like they were forgotten. I put a little pressure on the DR a couple of years later in letter to her, I knew she would refer them to her old buddy Harrison. I called into the court about a week later to see if t here had ben any activity on the file (it had been closed for two years) sure enough Memorandum Seeking Clarification had just arrived to the court from Harrison. I was not allowed to see a copy until his honour Judge Ellis had dealt with it. I protested wrote to the registrar (on the file)After the directions I went to get a copy of the Memorandum, it was actually an application to be reappointed a C$C to become essentially the gatekeeper of the medical records. This was not granted at the time.
In dealing with this, knowing that I had not seen it, some would say that the judge acted illegally. The purpose was to cover Harrisons arse and the GP’s arse.
I used the privacy commissioners office to obtain all of the medical records, even the Dr Rruth Drown didn’t give them the full file, leaving out the letters which I knew existed. The Privacy commissioner said that I had received all of the records, no! Back you go please Dr Brown has taken these from the file when she gave it to the Privacy Commissioners office. Finally I received them as part of the medical record from DR Brown.
Harrison was the duty lawyer and briefed the psychologist prior to her evidence. This was a very bad look. This was predetermined outcome, the result, and extremely detrimental time for my son – for 18 months. I wrote, faxed asked Harrison to take a drive just 20 minutes to see for himself. Nothing not a dam thing.
When the dead body was hanging in the mothers garage for my children to walk in on Harrison once again did absolutely nothing, not a dam thing.
Yet he could shift himself to cover his arse very quickly.
His involvement prolonged the matter and made it worse for our children.
I say his first priority was to himself.
He appeared to put evidence before her honour Judge Odwyer which I was not privy to in Jan 2012. This seemed pretty standard stuff for him. (Her honour, I believe, is a FC Judge to have faith in she was clearly not a fan of his method’s. His honour Judge Mill didn’t appear to either.
In 2014 he formed some sort of business trist with the mothers council so we had Harrison Byrne for the mother and Harrison Byrne for the children. They were the two lawyers in that firm, common reception, printer, receptionist, foyer, fax. How’s that for ethics?
I think he was an ex cop so what’s next we may wonder?
They do seem to be shooting a lot of people these days.
Perhaps I end up with an Aurther Alan Thomas stich up?
My house has been entered, things removed, reported to police who of course do nothing.
When you consider that “Parliamentary Submission” its had to consider we are reading about the same person.
What an impessive Subission all things considered
Comment by simongrant — Thu 19th January 2017 @ 1:51 am
Von Dadelszen made a minute that he could no longer be the presiding Family Court Judge for my application.
This is because I sent a fax to Napier Court and let Von Dadelszen know that if he wanted me to appear in his three ring circus, I would have to hire a clown suit from: *can not remember costume hire shop name.
The result being that Von Dadelszen removed himself from any future court appearances where he would have to face me.
I ended up seeing Judge James O’Donovan and Judge Patrick Grace whom were flown into Napier c/o the New Zealand taxpayer and accommodated in the finest hotels no doubt.
The funny think is I didn’t even bother to dress up as a clown for my two court appearances in Napier.
That Von Dadelszen must be mighty scared of clowns or is just on one mighty power trip.
Comment by Colin Brown — Fri 20th January 2017 @ 10:01 am
Good to have his honour judge Grace preside I would have thought. If you are being jerked around, his honour doesn’t seem to get too impressed by the process being used to jerk people around regarding “Outcomes by Default Due To The Process Being Pissed About With To Determine Outcomes”. Seems to take a dim view of this. You could do a shit load worse, be positive about his Honour Judge Graace.
Comment by simon — Sat 21st January 2017 @ 2:24 am