MENZ ISSUES

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

Perjury is acceptable in the Family Court. – The children are the victims.

Filed under: General — Lukenz @ 6:46 am Thu 18th November 2021

This is not a commercial video with all the gleam a newsroom presenter adds to a short 60 second story.
It is unscripted.

Just 2 men who want to tell other men why you can’t get involved in a live-in relationship with a woman anymore.
Yes, it is from the US, but there is virtually no difference in NZ.

Perjury is not only acceptable in the family court, it is engineered, encouraged and endorsed because there is no penalty. Only vast rewards and near endless sums of money and or someone else’s land, home and all the items in that home.

The children remain the victims in their wellbeing, relationships with their dad and financial future.

The men are victims, and that’s a major compoenent of your four to one male suicide rate.

State-sponsored human rights abuse. The New Zealand Government knows it. The New Zealand Government hides it. But the money is just too good to give up.

The Australian Government closed their family court for this very reason. The New Zealand Government, now running low on credit, is holding on.

3 Responses to “Perjury is acceptable in the Family Court. – The children are the victims.”

  1. ErasingDad says:

    The extent to which lies and false allegations are accepted in the Family court and related government organizations beggars belief. In my experience, IRD Child support assessors do not hold the non-liable parent to account for providing false financial information. Court judges accept at face value the financial position of the applicant for spousal maintenance claims. As per the youtube video it doesn’t matter if you provide proof of the lies or that allegation are false, the system works on outcomes of respondents being guilty. There is no place for truth and there certainly is no justice in the family court.

  2. DJ Ward says:

    If they allow perjury.
    The perjury becoming normal.
    Then they become easy targets.
    You must understand your enemy.

    Collect your evidence.
    Will an event take place, that they will lie about.
    Let them lie, as they cannot help themselves.
    You can then expose them.

    Mostly, the victim unaware, without evidence.
    The event will take place,
    And they will lie.
    The victim helpless.

    What then of those that support that perjury.
    Propaganda, creates beliefs.
    And propaganda, is everywhere.
    Even the innocent add, laced with it.

    Do we not all lie, about something.
    Our beliefs, betraying our honesty.
    An eternal contradiction.
    The truth teller, impossible.

    What then of the judge, also the perjurer.
    Can you not understand, what they believe.
    Getting them to inherently lie.
    The trap set.

  3. DJ Ward says:

    This case is interesting.
    As it questions prosecution behaviour.
    And what is truthful.
    Defence of others, and oneself.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/300457474/kyle-rittenhouses-lawyers-ask-judge-to-declare-mistrial-over-video

    At the time police had actually stoped, stopping rioting.
    Buildings, business, livelihoods ruined.
    If government is letting it get destroyed.
    Does the owner have the right of self defence.
    Is helping them, against the law.
    Wasn’t that the problem, lawlessness.

    He has a very good self defence argument.
    Especially in the second and third shooting.
    The video, intimate, factual.

    They argue the he said, she said case.
    In the first shooting.
    Not captured in video, well enough, to be certain.
    One setting shows no gun.
    A played with image, shows one.
    The doctored image, shown to the jury.
    As there proof.

    The first mistrial claim is for ruled out evidence.
    Pretrial arguments disallowed it, as being from events much after.
    Ruled not relevant, of attitude, not facts of events.
    The prosecution, mentioning the evidence, in argument.
    Intentionally exposing the jury.
    The judge showed controlled anger, when they did it.

    They did not lie, but poisoned the truth.
    The he said, she said, argument biased.
    Who is convinced, is not good Justice.
    If not based on certain things.
    If found guilty, an appeal would be on strong ground.

Leave a Reply

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