Judge Timothy Druce
Anyone here had any dealings with Judge Timothy Druce in Auckland ? He is managing someone case that i know.
Appreciated
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
50 Comments »
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.
Just Druce slapped 2 x without notice orders on me. Both got thrown out as soon as I had my day in court. He’s a crusty old idiot, often has judgements overturned in the high court.
Comment by JB — Sun 11th March 2018 @ 10:09 pm
You would only need to know that he was appointed to the position when Margaret Wilson was Attorney General to know he would be a problem.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 11th March 2018 @ 10:50 pm
A Margret Wilson appointment?
Say no more!
Is his honor a good judge?
Is his honor corrupt?
Does his honor believe decent fathers should be forced (
by the process) to leave their children.
Does his honor feel that fatherless children are better off?
Does his honor consider fathless children are likely to be involved in courts, with police, perhaps abused by the guy 50 times more likely to abuse them than their dad (mummies New boy friend) and that this is good for the children? His honor may consider that this outcome is better for those in the process. Lawyers, judges, police and mummies New boyfriend?
Comment by Bradley Petherick — Mon 12th March 2018 @ 7:07 am
@3 I don’t want to disagree with you on this Bradley, but it is the stuff we were talking about 20 years ago, before the days of UOF, and it did get a certain amount of media attention, and there is a public awareness of these statistics and issues.
What I do want to point out is that this is not the contemporary news that will raise public awareness, which is what I want to see coming up here from concerned men.
To give you an example, what I’m seeing with teenagers is a badge of honour system amongst youth.
Dad can’t do anything about it.
I got kicked out of Mum’s place.
I fooled the silly bitches at WINZ, got a $1,000.00 in my bank account, and blew it all online in a week.
And then WINZ gave me all these special allowances for kids and I’m getting more than the old man who is unemployed because he lost his job last week, because of cheap immigrant Labour.
So what’s next of the badge of honour list, score a cheap car and get the cops to chase me.
This is why we have get out there and get the news, ourselves, because Feminist media isn’t going to pitch their failings to the public.
Crusty old dick wackers in the Family Court are nothing new. When I first arrived there we had one’s that dribbled out one corner of their mouth and didn’t come back from lunch, because they needed their afternoon nap or got pissed at lunch time.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 12th March 2018 @ 8:49 am
#4 it is a good time to be pointing out Family Court failings – the Law Society says it wants to clean it’s act up, and Andrew Little was quick to say he would if they didn’t, but when it comes social consequences the news here is somewhat behind the eight ball. I use that expression remembering that being in a billiard salon under the age of 16 was against the law in my youth.
Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 12th March 2018 @ 9:31 am
It helps to understand the benefit of cooperation that existed with Union of Fathers.
We kept files on judges and identified patterns of behavior.
When biased or corrupt judges turned up in our court cases we would refuse to let those hear any cases we were involved with.
Apart from successfully writing these thugs out of our members cases, we also published an annual ranked list of bad judges based on the evidence we had from our members court cases.
Just another reason some people had an issue with us but of course it worked for us.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 12th March 2018 @ 1:45 pm
At JB
Hi JB . Can i contact you as i were slapped twice with PO from teh same woman . the first one was dismissed .Now I am waiting for the Court to set up a date for the second one .Thank you
Comment by GEORGE SIMONOVSKI — Mon 12th March 2018 @ 2:05 pm
#5 Evan
I think you have been misinformed about thier intention, or correctly just taking the piss.
The cleaning up thier act means the investigation into, the transformation into and the indoctrination of the legal profession into compiling to modern feminist philosophy in how males should behave towards females in the workplace and how workplaces should function. As if the profession isn’t gynocentric and misandrist already.
Let’s just say that along with actions regarding the Human Rights Commision that Little is serving his pay mistress well.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 12th March 2018 @ 9:24 pm
We all realize nothing has changed. So what are we going to do it? Keep writi g Here?
Comment by Bradley Petherick — Tue 13th March 2018 @ 8:03 am
Writing is important, for many reasons.
We should keep writing.
Change, as we have often seen, comes from cooperation and collective action.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 13th March 2018 @ 8:29 am
#8 right on the second count DJ, naturally I was having a Little joke.
As far as self regulation goes that was lost in 1987; the stock market bounced back but the Law Society crashed and burned.
Comment by Evan Myers — Tue 13th March 2018 @ 8:43 am
Hmmmm if same judge I had once… twice.. too many times….
Former psychologist turned judge?
Not bad as a judge. Sadly too comfortable on the fence.
Carries the strawman of the night in shining armor so women get to have their day in court.
Wants to believe women. But that is not what the courts are here for.
Likes a bit of sado masochism at the hand of senior lawyer for child who can’t seem to resist binding his hands with THE LAW ( as they present it to him).
His disadvantage of not knowing the law as thoroughly as senior counsels causes his decisions to be often sodomized over the bar at the high court.
That is why they call him a learned Judge, not wise nor seasoned nor astute.
To be fair though he does try.
But way too intellectual and probably been sheltered most of his life so kinda too idealistic to be realistic.
Comment by WrongGender — Tue 13th March 2018 @ 7:04 pm
#12
He’s expected to believe women – that bit where they write their own laws – so he’s a Feminist comformist, which is what you’d expect from a Wilson Era State pussy, and no doubt what prompted this post.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 14th March 2018 @ 10:17 am
Not quite down under… He is expected to identify facts and draw conclusions accordingly.
Comment by WrongGender — Wed 14th March 2018 @ 4:36 pm
To be fair to Judge T>H>Druce though.
Once he facts are known to him, he will do what is required (provided lawyer for child does not oppose it).
Or do as best as he can within the circumstances.
OVERALL HE STRIVES TO BE FAIR.
MOST PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE POWER LAWYER FOR CHILD HAVE.
AND i HAVE SEEN JUDGES, FOR FEAR OF AN APPEAL, HIDE BEHIND LAWYER FOR CHILD.
Comment by WrongGender — Wed 14th March 2018 @ 4:41 pm
The LW Society does not want to clean up anything at all.
The law society wants the status quo of being the self governing body of lawyers (members and mates)
That is it.
They will purport to investigate, enquire, purge etc. They will “beat the drum of honesty, wrongdoing and claptrap.
They will then say “See how great we are at representing the public when our members do wrong we must remain the self governing body for lawyers- our chums, mates and paymasters”.
They will then say “have confidence in the Law Society as the gate keeper of lawyers honesty, integrity, ethics.
What crap white wash is about to unfold.
What of the Russell Mcveay lawyers Sexual Abusers some will say, who are now judges?
Will this be the responsibility of the “white wash office of All white washers”. Yes, yes the (loud pompous drum roll please) THE JUDUCIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONERS OFFICE?
The “joke of the folks as this office is often called.
Many abusers will now be judge’s.
Comment by Bradley Petherick — Thu 15th March 2018 @ 7:35 am
Bradley Petherick @ 16: What abusers are you referring to concerning the Russell McVeagh law firm? Intelligent adult women well-versed in feminist ideology were offered alcohol; they chose to drink. Those women were invited to participate in sexual activity; they chose to do so. If any law was broken then it’s up to those who believe they were offended against to make complaints to police; nobody has.
The review of the law firm by Dame Margaret Bazley is significant not because of any in-house lawyers’ white wash but because it extends the gender war against men, in this case using irrational, vague and over-inclusive notions of ‘harassment’ and ‘assault’ and attempting to establish a new set of quasi-legal, femicentric rules with which to persecute men.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 15th March 2018 @ 8:11 am
I would like to think the path he was going down was if the ‘current abusers’ are being put under the spotlight the ‘former abusers’ would already be judges.
Comment by Evan Myers — Thu 15th March 2018 @ 8:39 am
#15 @wrong gender
That would be the biggest load of Feminist crap I’ve seen on this site for a while.
Judicial incompetence is acceptable because the political appointment is more important – so what if he’s a fucking try-hard – would that be accepted in the medical profession when you’re dealing with other people’s lives and social outcomes.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 15th March 2018 @ 11:26 am
@19 MASTER BERG
You appear to be very angry AND/or mentally constipated.
Here is the original post:
I simply gave an opinion based on my dealings with him (4 years).
And I cannot spot the feminist crap you are referring to in my posts.
By the way medical incompetence costs us many lives nationally and worldwide. Just because you do not know about it does it make it acceptable?
Comment by WrongGender — Thu 15th March 2018 @ 7:31 pm
@20
You can call me an angry shithead if it helps ease your pain but that’s not going to change my opinion of what you said.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 15th March 2018 @ 9:22 pm
@21 – I just cannot see what you have referred to re “feminist crap?”
Comment by WrongGender — Fri 16th March 2018 @ 1:45 pm
17. Articles re Russell McIver refer to senior lawyer’s. They are what 40 – 45 years old.
The inturn is what 20.
Oh yea it’s legal to get a 20 year old pissed and bang her.
The point is.
IT’S NOT A GOOD LOOK IF YOU ARE 45.
I am not a moral prude (far from it)
A 25 year old guy has some office romance with a 20 year old – so what!!
Come on, you make sure the girl is ok and get her a cab or get her home if you are 40 -45 a senior and she is young and pissed.
Comment by Bradley Petherick — Mon 19th March 2018 @ 1:26 am
#bradley.
The only question is the legal one.
Was she too pissed to consent.
If the answer is yes then what happened is wrong.
If the answer is no, then she had the funtioning mind to have informed consent.
We have no right to then say what occurred was wrong.
She new he was older.
She new he was senior to her.
She new she was drinking and new its consequences to behaviour.
She chose that whatever took place occured with the intent derived of that knowledge.
You have looked at the situation as a feminist does.
The perspective of the woman, as a victim.
The perspective of the man, as an offender.
You imply its wrong for a 45 year old man to have relations with a 20 year old woman.
Is it therefore wrong for a 20 year old female to have relations with a 45 year old man.
It is right for a 25 year old but wrong for a 45 year old.
At what age does the individual become a different individual.
At what age does the female qualify to knowingly consent to a morally defined individual.
Or does your rules that you pass judgement with not come with a definition for female moral standards.
Not a prude except descrimination agianst older males.
Forget all the rest of history,this is moral and biologically rational, to any modern human.
I can even figure this #metoo stuff out, or the intent of it.
The employement court has been handing out harsh fines for decades for sexual misconduct in the workplace.
Bradley, please read more. Your promoting persecution, and a witch hunt.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 19th March 2018 @ 7:23 pm
A student having finished year 13 at school is expected to be able to handle the work place.
A law graduate having done several years at university, worked part time, probably done an OE, may have been assisting lecturers at University with tutorials,
Is …
A) going to be way over 20
B) if they can’t manage life by then would never have graduated.
That’s buying into media bullshit and not real life.
Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 19th March 2018 @ 8:43 pm
DJ Ward @24: Well said.
Law graduates will probably be in their early 20s at the youngest. The age of consent in NZ is 16 so they have already had 5 years or more practice at being young adults and making decisions about sex. Are we to treat adult women as if they are children, protecting them from their own decisions in case they later regret them? We allow 18 year old women legally to marry, to die in wars as soldiers in our army, to drink themselves to alcoholism, to live in poverty due to gambling. Where is the outcry against the registry officers,military recruiters and bosses, pub, pokie bar and casino owners who don’t protect adult women from their own decisions? Then why don’t we think similarly about protecting young men, said to be less mature than women age for age?
The rhetoric in the news refers to “sexual misconduct”, sometimes with “sexual assault” and/or “sexual harassment” added. If there was sexual assault then a complaint to police can be made in good conscience. However, ‘misconduct’ and ‘harassment’ are highly subjective concepts the rules for which can be made up to suit anyone’s preference. Taking such allegations to scandal-hungry femicentric news media can only be malicious.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 19th March 2018 @ 8:44 pm
Quite right Evan Myers@25
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 19th March 2018 @ 8:47 pm
@Bradley
What feminist journalists do is write emotively, usually to create sympathy.
That’s actually fiction writing, not journalism, which is non-fiction.
One of the primary tenets of journalism is to write without creating conflict, or if they’re reporting on conflict, without inflaming the conflict.
When they want to step outside these parameters, then it needs to be labled opinion, which is acceptable media but not journalism.
Journalism is objective non-fiction, and you don’t see a lot of it in New Zealand.
If you want see the difference in action read articles by someone who places more value on their professionalism than some ideology, like Chris Bramwell, one of the parliamentary reporters or Kurt Bayer, a Christchurch based reporter. A lot of male journos are just as bad, if not worse, in the feminist endeavour to saturate the net.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 19th March 2018 @ 9:17 pm
Suit yourselves guys, I am 58 and dont go around banging pissed 20 year old women who are working for my firm who I have helped to get pissed.
I dont bang 20 year old hookers either no matter how legal it is.
You dudes might want to, I dont; I am not a prude or moral crusader. I accept that this is a legal age and consent and all that but if some old xxxx got my daughter pissed and fxxxxd her and she didnt feel good about it the next day then a stern talking to would be in order.
The bigger the lawyer the sterner the talk too.
There is a duty of care involved here in my view.
Comment by Brad — Tue 27th March 2018 @ 12:34 am
If I had to go through all this family court custody BS again, I would take a high risk strategy;
1. I’d get it established that the child(ren) had a very good bond with me. I would not respond or answer any other thing – except to say that I want to continue to be a hands on father raising our child.
2. I’d just let all the court and the ex and her lawyer and lawyer for the child and the court feminist – err I mean court psychologist and all the rest of them, shut me out of the child’s life as much as they like. I would not give any consent to any of it but I just let them raise all their barriers. In my case that would have been 2 hours a week on the side of a rugby field for 2 years until we got to court.
3. I would focus on getting to a full court hearing and more or less ignore everything else.
4. At the hearing I would lay it out simply as thus:
* most if not all of the allegations made against me are not true and I refute them all.
* The child had a good bond with me
* The court, the process, the mother and all involved have combined effectively to totally convince me that there is zero chance of me having a relationship with the child unless I am involved in raising the child at or approximately half of the time. Therefore the court’s decision is a simple one. Either prevent this child from having a father or allow the father to raise the child at or approximately half of the time.
I would express this regretfully and with some sympathy for the judge but simply inevitable as a consequence of careful consideration of everything that the mother had done and everything the court and all involved had done and said.
Half time or nothing at all for this child. Tell me now because if it’s to be nothing then I’d like to get the grieving process started.
Comment by Vman — Wed 27th June 2018 @ 8:51 pm
I have nothing but good things to say about Tim Druce.
He was a kind professional man in all his dealings. Was considerate to my family and treated everyone involved with care and respect. I have had Tim Druce in several Family court matters.
Just remember when dealing with any court issues, stress and anxiety are always at a heightened state and people react in all different manners.
I wish all who are suffering peace in their decisions.
To Tim Druce, I offer you a pat on your back for all those years ago you made a real difference in the lives of our family through you the care factor you showed all my family.
Comment by Leonie Jackson — Tue 19th March 2019 @ 5:48 pm
#31 Leonie, your opinion of Judge Druce would be a very different one if you first name was Leonard instead of Leonie.
Comment by golfa — Thu 21st March 2019 @ 12:08 pm
#32 FOR SOMEONE FIGHTING SEXISM
kinda interesting of a comment.
Just remember the Court is an act…
So whoever can act best breaks a leg.
Comment by JustCurious — Fri 22nd March 2019 @ 6:28 pm
#33 Who says I’m fighting sexism ? I’m just pointing it out.
Comment by golfa — Sat 23rd March 2019 @ 3:29 pm
Perhaps @34
Just Curious may think you’re MoMA in disguise?
Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 23rd March 2019 @ 3:54 pm
Probably, one of the worst judges in Auckland
Comment by Conflex — Sat 23rd March 2019 @ 5:02 pm
I need to talk to anyone that is dealing or had dealings with Judge Timothy Hindmarsh Druce than you please email me [email protected]
Comment by Melissa Stewart — Sat 3rd July 2021 @ 7:53 pm
I have had a shocking encounter this far with this Judge. I ask humbly if any have had a case heard by judge Druce, with Diane Ramsfield acting as ‘lawyer for child’? I am of the understanding that both are active Free Mason representatives, rather than Crown representatives. My children nor myself are getting a fair run at all.
Comment by Adam Zohs — Thu 11th August 2022 @ 8:16 am
#38 Put it this way … there weren’t protests outside his house for nothing. He’s just another f the Auckland central court’s anti father Judges.
Comment by golfa — Thu 11th August 2022 @ 1:35 pm
My son have been physically assaulted
by his father for taking the covid19 vaccine
This judge Druce who is partial, a stupid idiot, racist
Unfortunately order for my son to go back to the abusive father unsupervised and went totally against the lawyer for the child request.
Even worse decide that my son have
incognitive disfunction and there for his wishes would not be considered. It’s unbelievable for a country with a such high family violence and child abuse a judge allows for abuse to happen to a poor teenager.
Comment by Nuzia Scaranci — Fri 2nd December 2022 @ 12:09 am
My son have been physically assaulted
by his father for taking the covid19 vaccine
This judge Druce who is partial, a stupid idiot, racist
Unfortunately order for my son to go back to the abusive father unsupervised and went totally against the lawyer for the child request.
Even worse decide that my son have
incognitive disfunction which is no true and there for his wishes would not be considered. It’s unbelievable for a country with a such high family violence and child abuse a judge allows for abuse to happen to a poor teenager. I will take his decision to high court, Supreme Court, Brazilians Embassy to the public but I won’t that retarded judge poor Decision destroy my son’s life
Comment by Nuzia Scaranci — Fri 2nd December 2022 @ 12:14 am
It’s slightly dramatic, to use the word destroy.
Many have bad childhoods, but adult life is good.
What is physically assaulted, is it needing medical care.
Your claim can also be, restraining in an argument.
So I would ask, what would a judge do.
If the child needed care, I doubt any judge would give full contact.
But the abuse may be trivial, exaggerated as to harm.
No judge can avoid, making racist judgments.
Pakeha vs Maori, doesn’t have an arbitrary result.
Any judgement is racist, as only one wins the decision.
The person who lost, can automatically claim racism.
So the evidence then must be more, than a single case.
There is also no doubt there’s racism, as all humans have ego.
You used the words, poor teenager.
In no time, the teenager will be an adult.
And if bad things were done, they will remember them.
If more bad things are done, a teenager can say no.
They can testify, there version of events.
If his life is being destroyed, you have no choice.
All you can do, is be a parent when he is with you.
A child raised with two bad examples, may turn out bad.
A child with one good and one bad parent, who knows the outcome.
Nobody can deny the advantages, of two good parents.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 2nd December 2022 @ 11:17 am
Home of the lazy and the incompetent.
The Law Society couldn’t cope with the complaints they generated so they created their own incestuous little cabal and made themselves accountable to the judge.
So, fathers increasingly represented themselves.
So, they started altering transcripts and burning tapes.
They’re a bunch of phucktards that can’t even manage the pretence of professionalism.
There I said it for so you can at least cling to your dignified patience
Comment by Evan Myers — Fri 2nd December 2022 @ 12:57 pm
I have never seen a judge go against
a child lawyer recommendation and
against a 15 years old wishes.
That’s just disgusting.
So partial and went I asked if he could hold accountable if something go’s wrong he said no. Very easy to make bad decision
when there is no responsibility involved. Let see if high court do something about it and perhaps come back here to say says what is the outcome.
Comment by Nuzia/Marcus — Fri 2nd December 2022 @ 8:02 pm
Why can’t the problems be solved, without the courts.
What’s stoping us in arguments, from coming to agreement.
Many couples seperate, not needing the courts.
Many of them, with versions of shared care.
So agreement can happen, but you somehow need the courts.
How many thousands will this cost, in the high court.
Have you become prey, the lawyers taking your money.
Whatever little you hope to gain, may cost a fortune.
If it’s against the child’s wishes, to see the father.
Does the father, still have responsibilities like child support.
Or is that the issue, the more contact the less child support.
You want parenting rights, but think he has none.
Responsibility, without rights.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 3rd December 2022 @ 7:56 am
#43 Evan Myers
You make a point in your comment, about saying things.
Being blunt even derogatory, is occasionally necessary.
Situations exist, when someone has to do it.
The boardroom or parliament, amongst friends even here.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 3rd December 2022 @ 8:08 am
It’s a shame people worry about money,
I am worried about my son’s safety physically and psychologically.
I don’t care about child support which at the moment he is just playing with IRD asking them to do the review of the review. It’s very hard to keep an agreement with a child abuser, lier that very so often behave like a psychopath.
Comment by Nuzia Scaranci — Sat 3rd December 2022 @ 1:57 pm
I am not denying, your version of the problem.
There are males, who behave as you say.
Men can be, unhealthy towards others.
Using coercive control, or alienating behaviour.
So court cases against men, can be for good reason.
Money I’m guessing in those cases, is a secondary thing.
To me your sons age, is an important issue.
Because there thinking, is essentially adult like.
You can have safety plans, your son can use.
A phone for example, even safe or not safe words.
A third party like a therapist, that the can talk to them.
Maybe you cannot stop, the father seeing your son.
But to me there is consequences, to being a bad parent.
If he is abusive, one day the son will stop seeing the father.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 4th December 2022 @ 9:16 am
Can you believe that Judge Druce took that freedom of my son as on the parenting order my son should not have contact with the mother unless the father accept as he believe my son having contact with me while he is at the father house could interfer on father son bonding.
The father use that my son has incognitive disfunction without prove and the lawyer of the child asked to use section 133 which a psychological report and the judge denied.
If I was in a was in Brazil where it’s corrupt as F..ck I would say this judge had advantages to behave this way.
Comment by Nuzia Scaranci — Tue 6th December 2022 @ 9:51 pm
It shouldn’t be necessary, to argue about it.
Things are awfully petty, fighting over a phone.
There must be a reason, for the judges decision.
The only reason, is the controlling parent.
Wanting from the child, constant updates.
It’s inevitable to parenting, trusting the other parent.
When not with you, the child’s with them.
That happens, even in together families.
Why was he ok in the past, but not now.
If you were together, that was happening.
He was trustworthy to parent, then now not trustworthy.
Why now, is he the baddest man.
Good enough to father your kids, but not now.
The judge has decided, what you think is wrong.
If the father is to be examined, for competency.
Should you be tested, to exactly the same standard.
Your own S133 written about you, so it’s legally even.
You may have a report, but what does it prove.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 7th December 2022 @ 10:47 pm