I read the following voting strategy recently on an American forum (full text here):

“…you take out a target (offending legislator) in the next election by financially backing his opponent. Legislators are like sheep. Their behavior is flock-like and is governed by fear. They are virtually all in it for the status — if you can call it that — and are usually achieving more status and even income than they are worth (esp. at the state level). Ergo, they respond to negative incentives — i.e., fear of loss. That is fear of loss of their cushy, silly little job. So as I have advised before, all you need to do is cause the highly-visible de-electing of an anti-father legislator, and make it clear to all the other sheep that this is why it happened. The flock with come to you.”

Nominations anyone?

Women face sexist backlash

By PATRICK CREWDSON – The Dominion Post
Women may have claimed some top jobs but worsening domestic violence and a sexist backlash show they still face discrimination, a New Zealand delegation will tell the United Nations.

Please take the oppurtunity to send feedback to Stuff and The Dompost on this article

Regards

Scrap

There always has to be hickups when holding a meeting but one would not expect such a big muck up from the newspaper. Damn it, Stephen owes me. He rushed through our write up on the meeting and put the wrong place for the meeting.

Instead of GLen Eden Community House he put Glen Eden Community Centre. Now people are upset because an event is happening in their centre and people will turn up for it.

So should I write and complain to the local paper as to what a bad boy Stephen is?

Highly unlikely, because it wasn’t his fault. It was mine. I didn’t know that we have a centre and a house.

This is so depressing that it is funny. I guess now I should find out where Glen Eden Community Centre is and put signage up on Friday Night.

I know little of the Vince Siemer case, but went to the High Court out of curiosity and the possibility that something was not right. If this case is indicative of the operation of our High Court we have a serious problem. The deliberate obstruction of self representation is an oppression of our freedom. In the same manner the refusal of legal agents to represent a position or defend a client allows prejudicial determinations that defeat the very essence of a justice system.

There were many disturbing features in what I saw, but one aspect that took my interest. It was a reference in Justice Potters Judgement to Eichelbaum’s precedent:

“It is justice itself that is flouted by contempt of court”

His precedent is an error, perhaps that of an honest man, to assume that any other Judge would be of equal integrity. He might have concluded that the administration of justice is flouted by contempt of court.

Justice is a virtue but it does not stand alone. The more isolated it becomes from surrounding virtue the greater it distances itself from what is right. Justice defeats itself when it stands alone. It is wrong to suggest that justice is flouted by contempt of court when that jurisdiction exists in the public interest to ensure court orders are obeyed. That is the administration of justice.

When Mr Siemer received what I understand is the harshest sentence yet given in New Zealand for contempt of court, I was left asking myself was justice alone in New Zealand on Friday the 13th July 2007.

From: [email protected]
Subject: 7-13-07: URGENT- I need Florida paternity fraud victims for another TV news story …
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:15:54 -0700

URGENT – FL paternity fraud victims needed for TV news story before Thu. July 19, 2007 . IMMEDIATE NEWS ALERT – NEED SOUTH FLORIDA PATERNITY FRAUD victims for another big TV story on the paternity fraud victims. Are you a paternity fraud victim in Southwest Florida, especially in Ft. Myers, Naples, LaBelle or Punta Gorda?
We have a short deadline to get FL victims to a TV executive producer for a special feature by July 19, 2007.This is another media opportunity from PaternityFraud.com / Carnell Smith. Be a part of the solution, tell a friend!
CALL TO ACTION: The new FL law contains a way to get a legal DNA test by court order. So, do you want to fight back or complain?
Send me your name, phone number and type of Florida case (marital or non-marital) to [email protected] . Please put “FL-PFV for TV” (means Florida paternity fraud victim) on the email subject line. Tell others about this story, get their information to me immediately. Thanks, Carnell Smith aka “Man4Justice”

www.PaternityFRAUD.com

I know this is not for NZ but it is motivating to know that someone found a way around or should I say a way in!

I was listening to Jim Mora’s program on National Radio on Friday afternoon, where he featured guest speakers Michelle Boag, Lianne Dalziel and a third woman whose name I don’t recollect.

Dalziel was rather warm about news that had come to her attention recently: apparently women appointed to run large companies statistically show poorer performance in terms of delivering value to shareholders. A more recent ‘study’ (I immediately switch to high-alert mode when I hear this term) suggested the reason for this was due to the fact that companies in peril were more likely to hire a woman to head the company than a man, ie women CEOs were getting served hospital passes.

Rather than consider such an assertion with the scepticism that it merits, Dalziel leapt on it with the enthusiasm of the desperate. She seriously suggested that directors imperil their companies so that when collapse occurs, they can resort to the defense “Well what do you expect? It was run by a woman.” The 3rd woman on the show was even more vehement in faulting men’s complicity in women’s failure in business. She went further to say that it was always businessmen, not businesswomen, who responded to business collapse by withholding payment to creditors while hiding their own considerable assets, thereby demonstrating their inability to understand the suffering they inflict on others (shades of the fabled wealthy deadbeat dad here?).

The ease with which these women accepted this nonsense surprised me .Not because open misandry is unusual, but because a woman of such high office would resort to it on such a public forum with no real thought of the consequences. I would suggest that she’s used to the company of people who talk in this way, without challenging each other and safe in the knowledge that there will be no real public response. Did it not occur to them that no-one is ever forced to accept a position as CEO? That perhaps women eagerly compete for the leadership role of a company in trouble because for the last 30 years they have been told girls can do anything and men are incompetent? That the consequences of failure are not visited upon women with the same harshness as it is with men? That a man would never expect a panel of other men to explain away his failure on National Radio – one of whom is a cabinet minister?

Don’t these women realise that in rushing to the aid of others simply because they are women, and readily accepting anything that makes them feel better about themselves, it is they, not we men, who reinforce the image of women not being equally capable?

And to answer the ridiculous assertion that it is only men who suffer from a lack of ethics in business, I read today of the prohibition order against Robyn Case (no connection). I leave you to decide if we men have no female company in the realm of deceit, chicanery, denial and unrepentance.

This was an interesting tale on another MRA site that i couldn’t resist.

Once again I will share my story of what happens in the Ventura county jail system:

Once arrested you are given a 8 day top (I served 9 and droped community service). During this time the male will be on suicide watch for the first 2-3. Day 4 they will take the male to a line to fill out forms for the public pretender. The line ends at a TV screen with a judges face on the other side. The male by this time is worn out and knows all he has to do to go home is take the plea-bargain. In total shame most bow down to the mighty judge behind the TV and go home after processing out for the next 2-3 days. The other option is stay in jail and risk 6mo-year jail, lose youh home, job, car ect. The sentence is:

DV classes 52 weeks $30 a pop miss 2 and go to jail exit and entrance fee of $30 = 1620
Fine of about $1450 payable in payments along with probation maintance fees (forget how much this is). 3 years formal probation. If a child was present when you were arrested then parenting classes are issued (I dont know the costs). Comunity service is normaly Cal-Trans 40 hours.

Now you have to remember that it’s not a communist country and your rights have been shot to hell. No, it’s a democracy that swears it will uphold the law as long as your a female ofcourse and only then…

whatmenthinkofwomen

So you might be thinking to yourself that you are lucky New Zealand isn’t this bad. But you are wrong.

Men’s suicide is an issue that New Zealand has and you are under suicide watch in instances. What you don’t know is how unclean these cells are and how the blood of the last victims are on the mattress you sleep on and the walls you stare at and you don’t know how you can walk out of there with life threatening diseases.

Also you have to remember that accusations for Domestic Violence towards a female is the same for here and now you have to realise that if a child is present you will be attending father classes at a place like Man Alive. As well as classes for anger management.

We have yet to have the judges on TV screens but the way things are going with the amount of cases in the Justice court system we will be looking at the same as what other countries do. They are looking at judges sitting at their desk and judging cases from forms lawyers send them. It won’t be long until men are convicted from a TV screen.

But notice how the male in this story pleads guilty so he can go home. Is that justice?

The previous post The Wrath of IRDrequires an update.

First the good news. After years of parental alienation and tens of thousands of dollars in court costs this Dad is finally beginning to rebuild the relationship with his children. The message here is never give up.

The Dad has secured legal representation and while he bears up well this action by IRD is placing a severe strain on his personal life.

Background

This case is going to see an attack made,with the full force of Crown Law and the IRD, on the the long established principle that a departure order cannot be retrospective.

In plain English : If you are subject to an administrative review you are part of the departure order process. Departure order is the legal term for the mechanism used by an administrative review to create a variation to the formula assessment.In most cases the order is upward and you are required to pay more Child Support.

The departure order cannot (except in very limited circumstances) be retrospective. This means that IRD cannot reopen and vary assessments from previous years. If IRD could, via a departure order, open up previous years to reassessment then any custodial or liable parent could suddenly find themselves reassessed for any year they paid or received child support(TAX).

The likely effect of retrospective departure orders on anyone who is or who has been a paying or a receiving parent

I want this to be very clear.

The law on administrative reviews has changed. Before only a liable or custodial parent could initiate an administrative review. The law that Peter Dunne, Minister Responsible for Child Support and United Future Leader, pushed through Parliament gave IRD the power to initiate administrative reviews. To quote IRD

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue may decide to review an assessment if an investigation into a paying parent’s financial affairs shows that their assessment doesn’t accurately reflect their ability to provide financial support to their children. This is called a Commissioner review.

If you are a liable parent it opens you up to having a child support income plucked out of the air.General accounting principles do not apply when creating Child Support Income.

Some examples of where this may be applied for an upward departure order
*You are self employed
*You have an investment property
*You have an employer who matches your contribution to Kiwi Saver or a superannuation scheme.
*You receive tax credits form the Kiwi Saver
*Any situation where IRD believes that formula assessment does not reelect your perceived ability to pay.
*You are father of a child that you have no knowledge of you child until IRD demand child support(Tax).

If IRD are successful in achieving their goal of retrospective departure orders and this is then combined with their ability to seek a departure order will cause many parents extreme financial and personal hardship.

If IRD, with all the resources of the Crown backing, them are successful in achieving their goal of retrospective departure order then it allows any liable or custodial parent license play havoc with a parents life. A custodial or liable parents financial position will be extremely insecure if they cannot rely upon the protection of previous years child support assessments being correct and unalterable.

Yes its a two edged sword as TR V The Commissioner of Inland Revenue shows but it is my view that retrospective departure orders will only be allowed to be upward and the chances of liable parent “recovering overpayment of child support” via a downward departure would be slim.

It will be open season on reopening previous years assessments to collect more revenue if IRD’s challenge is successful.

The Case Law and IRD Administration
There are two published and one unpublished decision from the High Court that deal with the question of retrospective departure orders.Two cases clearly come out against retrospective departures one allows retrospective departure in very limited circumstances.

IRD have for a number of years not issued retrospective departures via administrative review.Their view of the law has been that retrospective departure orders should not be granted.

There has been a direction to change this position and they see their best chance at collecting an increased amount of Child Support (TAX).

What Next ?

The hearing of this case is likely to occur in Wellington at the High Court. I will keep you posted on planned activity as soon as the date is confirmed.

Please note that the issue here is should retrospective departure orders be allowed and what the effect will be on parents if they cannot be guaranteed that previous years child support (TAX) assessments are correct and reliable.

Regards

Scrap

We all know what the reaction would be if there was ever a story published that suggested letting a husband have his way….

From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4120795a19716.html

Key to marital happiness? Let the wife have her way

“YES DEAR: Men might still dominate most workplaces but a study has proven what many happy couples know – the wife runs the roost at home and the husband is happy to let her.”

Men might still dominate most workplaces but a study has proven what many happy couples know – the wife runs the roost at home and the husband is happy to let her.

A team of researchers from Iowa State University studied 72 couples and found that the wife’s view on how to solve problems within the marriage or the home took precedence over the husband’s opinion and he was happy to accept that.

“The women were communicating more powerful messages and men were responding to those messages by agreeing or giving in,” Associate Professor of Psychology David Vogel, one of the leaders of the study, said in a statement.

The study was conducted by questioning the 72 couples who had on average been married for seven years with all the couples in the sample relatively happy in their marriages.

Each spouse was asked to independently complete a questionnaire on relationship satisfaction and an assessment of overall decision-making ability in the relationship.

Each spouse was also asked to identify a problem in their relationship then brought together to discuss the problem topics for 10 minutes with their discussions videotaped after the researchers left the room.

The researchers later reviewed and coded the videotapes of couples’ interactions using a rating system that calculates demand and withdraw behaviors – avoidance, discussion, blame, pressure for change, and withdraws.

Vogel said that wives didn’t just talk more than their husbands in discussions, but drew favorable responses from their husbands to what they said.

“The study at least suggests that the marriage is a place where women can exert some power,” said Vogel.

“Whether or not it’s because of changing societal roles, we don’t know. But they are, at least, taking responsibility and power in these relationships.”

The following is a link to website ‘Stand Your Ground’ which maintains a global black-list of all companies that practice misandric (anti-male) advertising:

http://www.standyourground.com/boyc.php

The reasoning for taking this issue seriously is straight-forward.

Women don’t take any kind of disrespect – they fight and complain if there’s even a hint of it in television.

On the other hand, men are trained to take crap from women from the day they’re born, and generally don’t fight back.

The net result is that TV stations carefully vet anything they show for ‘misogynistic’ (anti-female) content, but don’t show the same scrutiny for misandric content.

TV stations routinely show men as stupid, violent (especially if they’re black), expendable, sexist, sex motivated, ‘reverting to form’ whenever a sexual attack opportunity arises, dangerous to children and the majority perpetrators of domestic violence. ‘News’ broadcasts routinely parade men as criminals, and women as victims.
This carefully filtered TV image of men is actually creating a climate of hatred towards them, and is a significant factor in the hostility men face when dealing with the law and government.

TV (and other media) rely on advertising revenue to survive, and will respond far more quickly to a single high-revenue client than they will to thousands of letters of protest from viewers.

Visit ‘Stand Your Ground’ and get acquainted with the companies listed there, and why.

Let these companies know that you won’t buy their products, and why.

By John X. Smith, World Fathers Union News Service

May 31, 2007, Los Angeles (USA)—The California Supreme Court today reversed the lower courts’ dismissal of a lawsuit against the Century Supper Club for charging men higher entrance fees. The plaintiffs, Marc Angelucci, Edgar Pacas, Elton Campbell, and Jeff Kent, are all members of the US advocacy group National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), except for Mr Pacas, who is described as a college history professor and supporter. Mr Angelucci is president of the Los Angeles Chapter of NCFM.

Today’s Supreme Court decision reverses a rejection of the plaintiffs’ first appeal by the California Court of Appeals. That rejection was based on a legal theory which the Supreme Court found flawed and then quashed in a lengthy and detailed analysis. The facts of the case were, according to the decision, not in dispute: Mssrs Angelucci, Pacas, Campbell, and Kent went to the Century Supper Club on several occasions and were charged higher fees to enter than were women on those same occasions. A press advisory issued by NCFM-LA stated that the issue of men (but not women) being subjected to body-searches by the club was part of the original complaint, but this issue was not specifically addressed in today’s ruling.

According to Mr Angelucci, the decision ‘makes it clear that a person who is discriminated against in California by a business establishment based on race or gender is not required to specifically demand to be treated equally in order to have a claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The decision recognizes that the lower courts’ position [that he was required to make such a demand] would have led to absurd results, because many people who are discriminated against by a business do not even know it until later, or have nobody to make the “demand for equal treatment” to, or do not want the humiliation and stigma that comes with such a demand.’

‘This is a victory for gender equality, especially in light of the growing number of hotels that are excluding men from entire floors and lounges, and other businesses excluding men in other ways,’ Mr Angelucci continued. He also said, ‘I want to personally thank attorney Al Rava of the San Diego chapter of NCFM for so skillfully and professionally handling this appeal.’

The Supreme Court returned the case to the Court of Appeals ‘for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.’ The complete text of the decision is available on the court’s official website at the following URL: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S136154.DOC

Govt ensures 850 sex abuse victims left in the cold

Below is Judy Turner’s newsletter (all quoted)

Last week a very significant piece of legislation passed its Third Reading, and United Future supported its passage. The Bill was an amendment to the Social Security Act and made some major changes to the principles under-pinning our benefit system.

The Bill introduces a work-focus, stating that “Work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being”, and creates within the Act three clear sets of expectations for those in receipt of a benefit.

The first targets those on the unemployment benefit and allows for pre-benefit activities before payment is made and requires more pro-active case-management focused on finding suitable employment as soon as is possible.

The second set of expectations applies to those on the Domestic Purposes and Sickness benefits and possibly some disability beneficiaries. For these people it is acknowledged that paid employment is not appropriate in the short-term, but is a realistic goal for the future. These people are required to begin to plan for that eventuality, and will be actively case managed to develop plans and to take up training opportunities in readiness for the future when that is appropriate.

The third set of expectations apply to those on the Disability benefit where there is no intention of having unfair work requirements, but where there is now an expectation on case managers to make sure that they facilitate opportunities for these people to participate as fully as is practicable in appropriate community activities, so that they are not isolated.

Critics of the Bill refer to the fact that people who undertake crucial unpaid work, like child-rearing or caring for dependent elderly relatives, remain unrecognised and under-valued. While I think they raise an interesting point, I don’t think that the benefit system is the best mechanism available to us to address this.

United Future believes that the tax system could better recognise the contribution of a parent at home through Income Splitting. If you want to find out more about that policy do visit our website www.unitedfuture.org.nz.

QUOTE:
“In order that people may be happy in their work, these three things are needed: They must be fit for it. They must not do too much of it. And they must have a sense of success in it”
John Ruskin, English Writer (1819 — 1900)

A year has passed since the males took to the streets and started protesting outside lawyers homes and once again we will see the same thing happen in Napier/Hastings this coming July but outside the Family Courthouse. July is the month for male’s awareness and it is a big deal to all those who stand for male’s rights.

In preperation for West Auckland I had the chance to speak to WINZ workers who told me they were glad to meet me and that they are so happy to have people stand up. They see the unfairness everyday. Also I had the chance to speak to a Dutchman who has been working in the community for 20 years and has received an International award for his community work. He works today for the CAB giving food from the City Mission. He says he sees the hardship of men all the time. He has spent many, many years reporting to politicians who never heard a word he said. Now the politicians ask to spend time with him but he tells them to take a hike because he doesn’t believe they care for the people.

Anyhow, the response for this month has been greater than the support for Wayne Pruden’s walk to Wellington.

But back to WINZ staff. They are sick of all the Asian and the Iraqi women that are here because the word internationally is, “Go to New Zealand for they will look after you.” Do you know that 2 out of 4 women on benefits now are not NZ citizens? The are immigrants under Helen Clarke’s greed for votes. Infact these women are the worst, they say, as they demand to be looked after. This reminds me of when I first started Auckland Single Parent’s trust. I was approached from the Single mother’s Immigrant Trust to organise childcare for these women. That is what they want, I was told. You can only imagine my thoughts but i did say, “I doubt it. I am not here to look after their children.” And the response I got from this agency that offer the immigrants support is that they can’t get them to leave the home they are provided with even with the housing corp support. Why? Because the immigrants say they were promised everything. And they want everything handed on a platter. Aunty Helen promised them and they want what they heard they would receive.

Infact WINZ workers told me that they have clients who are New Zealanders and live in the Housing Corp streets where they are the only European or Maori. They say they are upset because they have NZ clients who have been waiting for years and these immigrants who just demand from WINZ get handed housing corp homes withing 3-6 months. This is not suprising when you know that the Women’s refuges and Housing complexes for women in dire strait need of housing have a waiting list from overseas clients waiting to get here.

Aunty Helen doesn’t give a toss about New Zealanders. All she cares about is the vote to make her feminist agenda come true. She sure will go down in the history books but when all this comes out, I wonder if she will go down in history as one who brought the world together or one who destroyed it? But in her mind she thinks she is a global heroine no matter how devious she was to be to get it nor how many lives she has to destroy in the meantime.

She is very ILL ladies and gentlemen.

This is for people who cannot understand why they are getting poorer. They think they voted for the social justice government of New Zealand. That’s those who rob from the rich and steel from the poor. Now read that again — I didn’t say rob from the rich and give to the poor. The NZ Justice Department has been turned into the biggest collection agency in NZ. Government uses (and it is usury) this department to indebt and deceitfully tax those already living in abject poverty. Operations like the speed campaign create massive fines and debt, which is then inflated with penalties which has left thousands of people living in the confines of protected income. This idea of protected income sounds like the noble steed of righteous government — We will never take more than 60% of your net income. This threshold operates in the same fashion tax bracket creep does. An increase in low wage incomes deflates the value of the previous 60% and increases the government’s value of recovery. Child support operates in the same fashion. Once anyone reaches the threshold of protected income they have no option but to gradually descend into increasing poverty. I saw a recent figure of 3 billion quoted for the effect of tax bracket creep in the last 12 month period, and I haven’t worked it out but I wager you a pound to a pinch of snuff that more money was stolen from the poor through the deterioration of the 60% threshold than was robbed from the rich through bracket creep. Beyond this, (as you have published Scrap) Kiwisaver will effectively reduce the 60% threshold to at least 56%. This is a very insidious form of bracket creep as it moves to financial slavery by child support. (child support is number one on the list of state induced debts in collection order)

There is this false presumption floating around that this Government is good because it redistributes wealth, takes from the rich and gives to the poor. In this context the nature of gullibility is such that the rich think their money is going to the poor and the poor don’t realize they are having more taken from them than they are getting given.

The land of nzers (New Zealanders) or the land of snzers (snoozers).

There has been much noise around the introduction of Kiwi Saver and little information. Like Bevan I have for some time been concerned about how Kiwi Saver will be treated by IRD if you are a “liable” parent.

I emailed Peter Dunne, Minister Responsible for Child Support and United Future leader, with some questions that I thought every “liable” parent should know the answer to before considering Kiwi Saver

Dear Mr Dunne,

I write to you as Minister Responsible for Child Support to seek clarification
as to how Kiwi Saver contributions will be treated when Child Support “liability” is calculated by Inland revenue.

Please provide plain English answers to the following questions.

1) If a “liable Parent” is in deemed to “owe a child support debt” will Inland Revenue be able to access a Kiwi Saver Account and debit the account to recover the alleged debt ?

1a) If so what criteria will be used before compulsory removal of account funds ?

2) Is their any legal mechanism in place to prevent the Government and/or employer contributions being taken into account by when creating a “child support income” for the purposes of a departure order application ?

Yours faithfully

James Nicolle

Peter Dunne has responded.

Due to the importance of this information for liable parents who are considering Kiwi Saver I am publishing Peter’s Response. Parents subjected to Child Support (TAX) assessments need to read this if they are contemplating Kiwi Saver:

Reply on Kiwi Saver & Child Support by Peter Dunne [314 KB pdf]

Regards

Scrap

For those who want to ring the number is 06 8783013
To get an idea of what will be happening you can look at teh following web site
http://www.noellepapillon.com/NZFC/hastingscourtdemo.html
http://www.noellepapillon.com/NZFC/napiercourtdemo.html
See you there!!!

Not much different from what happens here

A lawyer was jailed yesterday for refusing to pay child support to his former wife, despite her pleas that he should not be given a custodial sentence……..

Cox, who represented himself, told Southampton Magistrates’ Court: “I have been referred to as an absent father, but that’s not what I am. I’m a father who well knows the obligation to his children and I discharge that obligation. I feed all of my children, I clothe them, I house them — that’s what I spend my money on. The Child Support Agency gives me no assistance for that and requires me to spend the money twice.

“I say that makes it oppressive, unjust and discriminatory in its action. In this case you have two established families living in equilibrium.

“My ex-wife lives a mile away from me and the children pass easily between the two households. They spend half of the time with me and half of the time with their mother.

How many New Zealand parents and children here are penalized because of a failing child support (TAX) system? About 700,000!

Read the article here and notice the similarities between NZ and UK.

Regards

Scrap

It is now time for me to announce Dates and times for the events coming up in Hawkes Bay
There will be a protest outside the Napier Family court on thursday 26/7/2007 from 12noon to 1pm. There will be another one outside the Hastings family court on Friday 27/7/2007. Then the Republican party will have their Hawkes Bay launch on the Saturday and Sunday 28 and 29 July, again a meeting in Napier and Hastings, but I will let them anounce thier times and venues themselves.
I am keen for as much support as possible. We have TV1 lined up to come (though whether they actually come is a bit of a lottery). I am confident we will have at least 15 people protesting and I have hopes that it may be as many as 30.
This will be a strictly legal but hard hitting protest. Anyone is welcome to come along and support us and if you want to say something on the megaphone then please talk to me about it. All reasonable contributions are welcome, we just need to take care that we stay within the law.
It is best to contact me via comments on this post, or I will be posting a phone number in the next day or two.
For those people outside of Hawkes Bay who wish to come we can probably arrange low cost or no cost accomodation. We welcome anyone who wishes to join in, including grandparents, kids, partners etc, although we do call ourselves the fathers coalition, we do welcome women, mothers, girlfriends etc.
See you at the protest!!!!

The Press
June 23 2007

Extract :

“Yet Briggs remarks that the “vitriol” of the attack surprised her. She says some of the letter writers continue to make “outrageous claims” on men’s advocacy websites, and that Ross Francis emailed her university bosses accusing her of making false claims about her research and credentials.

She portrays her critics as a handful of Ellis supporters, and their challenge as a “vendetta”. In almost half a century of professional life, she says, she has never encountered anything like it. “What they’re trying to do is keep me out of New Zealand.”

Why? “Because they don’t want child-protection education in schools. What other explanation is there for it?””

http://tinyurl.com/2ywfrt

One of the major barriers to achieving presumptive shared care is a fair and reasonable child support system to support the presumption.

There is no doubt that the current Child Support Act 1991 was designed at a time when shared parenting was a “rarity” and the assumption was one custodial parent and one liable parent was the norm.

Talking to a number of people it is obvious that very few people actually understand how the variation of the child support (TAX) for shared care actually works.

So how does the Act cater for shared care?
– By adjusting the living allowance, the percentage applied or both.
– Here is a summary and some examples.

Remember the formula is (a-b) x c = Child Support (TAX) payable

Where:
a=gross (before tax) income
b=living allowance
c = the child support (TAX) percentage

Where parents share care (40% of the nights, 146 night a year) shared care exists. Under this situation both parents can claim child tax as both parents are effectively custodial parents.

Many parents have disputes over this and IRD ignore court orders as having little relevance.

A parent may have a Family Court ordered parenting agreement that states care is shared 50/50 and IRD will not act on that alone as they maintain they want to “know what the real situation”.

It is also possible to have less than 40% of the nights but have “substantially equal shared care”. The same formula application would apply.

How much does the Percentage Change?

Let’s look at a family where one parent is in receipt of the DPB and the other with an assessable income in a range from 30-80K and has shared care of a single child and has not re-partnered.

Note: Figures are generated using IRD 150 and are for the tax year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. Living allowance is $24,919.

So what’s that produce? Many would argue a blatantly unfair result.

Remember the entire Child support collected will go to “recovering the DPB” and no money will pass directly to either parent for care of the child.

The DPB recipient will stand to loose $730 for sharing care with the other parent.

Note, if the other parent is not receiving a benefit they can choose not to collect any money from the DPB recipient. This of course increases their payment by $730 per annum as no offset occurs.

Note how the more the working parent earns the greater the contribution required.

The formula serves well to recover a benifit but actually discourages shared care, the best outcome for children, by :
-Costing the DPB a significant ammount of their income
-Attempting to equalise income between households (effectively spousal maintenance)

Have a look at the figures above and for a 50/50 share of care and answer this question : How on earth is the result fair or reasonable.

I will publish more examples of how shared care works and the anomalies if requested.

Regards

Scrap

N.B. Comments on this thread will be moderated and any off topic will be deleted.

Copyright James Nicolle 2007

From Stuff….(link)

I don’t believe I have just read this; please just let NZ drop off the bottom of the planet — save us the embarrassment.

“In recent time we had a recruit (NZ Police Recruit) being taught by a consultant, literally, how to write letters of the alphabet by drawing within bubble letters in the same style as a five-year-old.”

With comment from the girl’s brigade (Annette King, Lyn Provost, Greg O’Connor)

During a domestic argument, you head-butt your partner in the face; breaking their nose and spraying the children with blood.

You would expect the police follow their mandatory arrest policy, lock you up overnight, take out a domestic protection order, and charge you with assault. You might be seen to jail, or depending where you live, a Living Without Violence programme run by men if you are lucky, or one run by feminists if you’re not.

You only see your children at supervised access for the next year or so, at the end of which time it is obvious to everyone that custody should go to the primary caregiver ie: mum. You spend the next decade or so as an indentured servant to IRD Child Support, perhaps seeing your kids a few days a month. Right guys?

Well no, not if you’re a woman…

Alternative video download link

Video excerpt from Police 10-7, broadcast on NZ TV2 on 22nd May 2007.

To be fair to two of my local policeman, they acted pretty compassionately and used their discretion quite sensibly in my opinion. (more…)

Police today released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act which comes into force this Friday. They have had a difficult time figuring out how they will enforce this law because “Non Consequential” is vague as well as other definition of words.

this is the law

New Section 59
(more…)

Palmerston North Family Court Lawyer Penny Clothier throws in the towel.

Family Lawyer throws in the towel

Well worth a listen

Regards

Scrap