We hear this word so much these days that the interpretation becomes blurred. For instance :-

fervour: intensity of feeling or expression

Violence in this interpretation is a positive emotion. In order to stop someone injuring property or someone else do you commit an act of violence??

Can readers please supply this post with the legal interpretation as used by the family court. I am writing a script based on this subject and became surprised at my own inability to define it clearly. Below is what a couple of dictionaries define it as.

Your own succinct interpretation would be appreciated. I would also like both genders to respond. Thank you.

—

Violence refers to acts of aggression and abuse which causes or intends to cause criminal injury or harm to persons, and (to a lesser extent) animals and property.1 The term “violence” also connotes an aggressive tendency to act out destructive behaviours.

—
violence n

1. physical force: the use of physical force to injure somebody or damage something
– threats of violence

2. illegal force: the illegal use of unjustified force, or the effect created by the threat of this
– robbery with violence

3. destructive force: extreme, destructive, or uncontrollable force, especially of natural events
– the violence of the storm

4. fervour: intensity of feeling or expression
– the violence of her response to our suggestion
do violence to something to violate, harm, or damage something

Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

We raised issues around this case under the posting unprofessionalism. It is not unusual for men in New Zealand who speak out about Family Court Injustice to suffer some form of reprisal from government agencies, and not unusual for the child support agency to be the weapon. Not surprising that the CSA has launched an investigation into not only his affairs, but also those of his partner. This is not the first time Mike has suffered intimidation from individuals abusing their positions of authority. It is something like many other men, I am familiar with, and something that must be endured, and risen above if we are to create any change.

Referring to my comments about Mike’s case (unprofessionalism). At that time I considered the nature of the behaviour to be in the realms of criminal offending, and I advised the office of the Police Commissioner. There was no investigation; however I would not have expected one because I had been previously advised by the officer in charge of the Auckland CIB, that the Police would not undertake investigations into the Family Court.

This raises an interesting situation here. Mike is banned from the family court, and this is not because of his behaviour, but because a Judge and a barrister could not live with their own behaviour. This situation is creating for him child support arrears, and the undue attention of the CSA. Is the CSA going to use the same court to extract that money from Mike — That would be one for the media to watch wouldn’t it. Perhaps they will wait for changes in the child support legislation, allowing the Commissioner of the IRD to act on his own initiative instead of going to court. There’s regime building legislation for you.

While Officers of the New Zealand Family Court have immunity from criminal prosecution, and the Commissioner of the IRD can recover money carte blanch then men in this country need to fear for their wellbeing. Like many other men Mike has to consider his options here. Pay up and shut up, speak up about the injustice, or just pack his bags, forget this place exists, and find a country with a little more sanity.

And some people say protesting outside private residences is going too far. That sounds a bit touchy feely to me. I know, you would rather lie down roll over and die like a dog.

Having spoken to some of the protesters who have been on the recent crusade against the family court I am surprised to hear about the nature of the behaviour of some of the New Zealand Family Court Staff. They have come out of their homes using unseemly language, behaving in an aggressive and threatening manner toward protesters. They have used abusive gestures, and on two occasions I have heard of so far, resorted to physical violence, assaulting protesters. One can only ask was there a point at which these persons felt violence was justified, or were they simply unable to control their anger.

A response to Simon Maude appointed apologist for the lawyers, Peter Boshier chief spin doctor of the Family Court and other defenders of this Industry of Misery.

It’s Good Friday at 9:30 pm and the boys are watching a Star Wars video in the bedroom, while ”falling asleep“. In fact they are talking, but that’s kids.

Early tomorrow morning John and Peter will be on the PS2. Its not like this every weekend; it’s a special weekend – ten year old Peter is staying over with eight year old John. School holidays and these two Jedi Knights are great mates. John’s dad and mum separated just before he was born. Peter’s mum and dad can’t live under the same roof. This is the situation of hundreds of thousands of Kiwi Kids and their parents.

They are still talking away; when John falls asleep Peter is waking him up. Trying not to laugh, I proclaim: “… if I hear any more noise out of the Jedi, there will be no PS2 in the morning!” I manage to maintain a straight face.

The speed with which Peter and John have grown has led me to the conclusion that childhood is a very precious time for kids. Childhood is short; they deserve to have a great childhood. I am firmly convinced that the best outcome for children is achieved when parents put their own issues aside and focus on what is best for their children. If mum and dad can’t, for whatever reason, live under the same roof it does not change the fact that they are mum and dad.

In essence the problems with Child Support and Family Law will be solved by entrenching in New Zealand law: Equal parental rights and responsibilities and every Child’s right to be parented by both parents.

The current system is conflict based produing a winner and a loser. This does not serve the best interest of children; to suggest so is a failure to acknowledge the fundamental flaws in a conflict based Family law and Child Support System.

Real change that has its focus on the best outcome for kids is when mum and dad equally parent the children. This occurs as a norm in where mum and dad live under the same roof, both parents working together to equally parent a child, the child being parented by both parents.

The Jedi are still on their adventures saving the galaxy, a little quieter now. Be asleep soon I hope. Tomorrow’s the day of the birthday party; it’s going to be fun.

Extremes are dangerous things; they lead to the likes of fascism and war. Many have portrayed the struggle for equal parental rights as a battle between the genders. Please be clear this is not a gender defined issue, this is an issue about equal parental rights and responsibilities and every Child’s right to be parented by both parents.

The time has come when a long festering rebellion is growing. On the steps of Parliament in 2004 I was privileged to meet a young woman who had come to support the call of Men’s Convoy 2004 “Men on the Move for Child Support Reform”.

Anna asked what she could do to help, and I listened to her story.

Anna remembered a loving father who was taken from a young girl’s life. She had not seen her father for over a decade. He was reduced to a child support payment! This young woman could not understand why the Family Court evicted her father from her life. Anna loved dad!

This young woman is a member of the shattered generation produced by the archaic, adversarial English system of Family Law and the draconian application of a “one size fits all” Child Tax. (AKA Child Support)

If, as the spin-doctors have instructed successive Ministers to maintain, there is nothing wrong with the Child Support Act, why are paying fathers, receiving fathers, paying mothers, receiving mothers, Men’s groups, Women’s groups, Economists and Lawyers all calling for a review of the Act?

Peter and John are asleep at long last. The Jedi are resting before the birthday party tomorrow. It will be such fun. Mum’s arriving at 7:00am and then off to breakfast at McDonalds with the family. Their light sabres are off and they are sound asleep; no doubt dreaming of saving the galaxy.

Any Family Law System must be judged on the outcome it enables for families. Putting families into conflict is the norm of Family law in this country; it’s the whole basis of the system. This approach fails because children have parents evicted from there lives by Family Law.. One party becomes the custodial parent and the other party the non-custodial parent; one parent’s right to equally parent their children is severed by the stroke of a Judge’s pen.

This is wrong; it does not produce the best outcome for children.

For those who wish to spin doctor the merits of Family and Child Support law it would be good to remember: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then it’s not a seagull.

Too many politicians, lawyers, bureaucrats and other vested interests have the seagull outlook, while parents see the dead duck. Those parents have had enough and a revolution is on the way.

In Auckland, Tauranga, Hamilton and Wellington the Fathers Coalition has been protesting outside Family Court lawyer’s homes. I all too well understand the frustration and pain these parents feel at the dismal failure of politicians to deliver real reform and remove the industry of misery produced by their impotency and cowardice. The reality is that consultation and Select Committees are a rubber stamp.A tick in the we have consulted box. Nothing has been done to correct the fundamental failings of Family and Child Support law in New Zealand. It’s not my type of protest, but I do empathise with the protestors.

The sound of sleeping children is music to a parent’s ears! The voices at 6am might not be such a pleasant symphony.

The State continues to ignore the plight of parents and children in favour of revenue collection and supporting institutions and organisations that have a culture of parental minimisation — Family Law and the Courts evict a parent and IRD assess a child tax. Kids lose a parent; parents lose a child and get billed for the privilege.

It is time to for politicians to accept that the Family and Child Support laws are failing our kids. No longer are parents prepared to accept a legally sanctioned policy of parental minimisation. This minimisation often leads to parental alienation. Simon Maude,appointed apologist for Lawyers, his lawyer mates the Family Law and Child Tax industry workers do not advocate for the best interest of children; they are paid professionals making a bloody good living in this Industry of Misery.

Too long has the current system been allowed to carry on! Parents are fed up with what is being inflicted upon our children. We will force political change. We will achieve Equal parental rights and responsibilities and every Child’s right to be parented by both parents entrenched in New Zealand law.

Parents for Children is about to begin a campaign. It will be an escalating campaign aiming to year after year increase the cost of collection of child support. It has been designed to be an attack on the IRD dogma of “voluntary compliance”. It will be an ongoing campaign that will continue until real reform has been won. The sleeping giant is awakening.

I tuck in the Jedi Knights, turn off the TV and smile.

Scrap_The_CSA

Maude says….

To take action against family lawyers at their homes will not effect changes to the system but will cause distress to their children and the children of the neighbourhood who, not surprisingly, find demonstrations outside their homes intimidating and frightening.

Simon Maude
Chair

One has to wonder exactly which planet Mr Maude lives on. It surely can’t be the Third Rock From The Sun.

If he did Mr Maude would never the mention the ‘distress’ caused to sundry children of sundry lawyers who have been subjected to protest.

He wouldn’t because Mr Maude would measure the distress caused to a few confused children of these lawyers with the vast distress of the children these lawyers daily destroy, and see the relative stress caused to a few lawyers children as facile in comparison.

It is the truly distressed children you and your ilk should be protecting, Mr Maude, not the cossetted, indulged offspring of the real destroyers in our society (aka, your feminazi members and the judges who indulge them).

Think of the 300,000 + children who are now fatherless, thanks to the man-hatred regime that so many of your members have created.

Think of the 1,000+ street kids on just Aucklands streets alone. Doing drugs, prostitution, and alcohol. Stealing to support themselves, and living in the cold.

Nearly every last one of them is a run-away from a social welfare home. And how did they get into such homes? Because your vile associates in this immense crime against children (aka CYFS) put them there.

Then think of the 10’s of thousands of childless fathers whom your members have helped to render childless.

Then consider the 10’s of thousands of these childless fathers who are weekly stripped of their income while the ex lives with her new beau, sucking the childless father dry. Having broken her contractural vows of marriage, slept with another behind her partner’s back, then accused the ex of vileness just to get the money out of him and him out of her life and that of his children.

These are the men who your members have helped lead to slaughter by aiding and abbetting the false-allegation game.

These so-called high-moral folk, your lawyer members, should not be subjected to protest, Mr Maude.

Oh no, Mr Maude, they should all be struck off.

You, Mr Maude, and so many of your ilk, are an affront to the name of justice.

Please supply your address, ASAP, so we can all let you taste the bitterness so many of us have had to swallow at the hands of your often deceitful, and extremely destructive ilk.

David.

In the Waikato Times: Fathers target judge’s home

An activist group that has demonstrated outside the Auckland homes of 20 legal professionals and others connected with Family Court decisions to deny fathers access to their children is bringing its protests to the Waikato.

About 15 members of the Fathers Coalition — an activist group set up two months ago — plan protests in Hamilton and Tauranga on Sunday.

This looks like it will be a great issue for the men’s movement to fight over, and for the media to focus on:

But their actions have been criticised by the Waikato Union of Fathers which also campaigns for shared parenting but advocates more co-operative tactics. A union spokesman, Rob Gardiner, said the demonstrators were “harassing and annoying” people.

“Those guys are professionals. We don’t necessarily agree with how they go about doing their jobs but their families are not part of this.

“It’s totally negative and it’s not going about it the right way. We have made too many steps forward in the last 12 to 18 months and we’re going to go backwards. We just can’t afford that.”

I’m personally not going to protest outside anyone’s home, but having heard from many of the fathers involved, I understand why they feel compelled to do so.

Some parents who aren’t allowed to see their children are prepared to do desperate acts, and it can only be expected that their numbers will increase as long as the Family Court avoids undergoing significant reform.

If the feminist inspired father-removal project continues in New Zealand, the Justice Department will just have to establish gated and guarded communities for Family Court Judges, staff, lawyers and psychologists.

Media release from the Family Law Section:

Simon Maude is the Chair of the Family Law Section of the New Zealand Law Society. He expresses concern about the recent picketing of family lawyers’ homes by members of a men’s group in the Auckland area, as follows.

Recently, the website of a group of men issued an invitation to its members to further demonstrations outside lawyers’ homes with these words: “It is expected that a reporter from the Herald, one from the Central Leader and possibly TV3 will attend so a good turn out would be good for our cause but never mind that it’s great fun and empowering to stick it to those cockroaches anyway.”

While this may appear to be harmless fun to some, the reality for the lawyers on the receiving end is that they have been subjected to insulting and abusive attacks, much of which has been amplified through a loudspeaker system to the annoyance of anyone in the immediate neighbourhood. These actions have not only upset the lawyers involved but also their children, who, in some cases, have been frightened and quite disturbed by the experience.

If the intention of these groups has been to embarrass and offend the lawyers, then to a certain extent they have been successful. If their intention has been to frighten the lawyers’ children, then they have probably also succeeded, but why and at what cost?

While the Family Law Section would not challenge the group’s right to demonstrate to seek changes in family law, the Section believes they have misdirected their energies by engaging in personal attacks on lawyers and their families.

It may be that there is a misunderstanding of the role of lawyers in the Family Court and in particular the role of lawyers appointed to represent children. The men demonstrating may have assumed that lawyers for the children have much greater power and influence than is in fact the case. The role of the lawyer acting for the child is largely to represent the child’s views to the Court.

The reality is that most lawyers representing children also act, at other times, for adult parties in proceedings involving children. As advocates they are required to do their best to represent the interests of all their clients, whether they are adults or children. Children’s lawyers do not make the decisions about the children, the Court does.

To take action against family lawyers at their homes will not effect changes to the system but will cause distress to their children and the children of the neighbourhood who, not surprisingly, find demonstrations outside their homes intimidating and frightening.

Simon Maude
Chair

This is directed at those that post and comment.

Well, you know me and more than most people I will meet. (Funnny how a blog site is different than a vocal conversation).

Anyhow, now I am being held accountable.

Thanks to Starrs comment, i have been e-mailed about things that are of value to womenz.org.nz, which i don’t mind for i am, and is my deed, for women as well as men.

Anyhow, you could say that the powers that be, have come after me. (Outside the womens movement) This is not an insult to men. But I have been and am how I am. (A woman)

I guess the new Parents Act and Guardianship Act is not new to most of you but is new to me. Well the Custodian Act is wiped, so I hear. You Men now have a better deal.

All I can say is well done. For all your work I can see the changes. But damn the female and male issues. Why can’t we be just people? This seriously is the time to speak up about your stories because I am being reminded about statistics . Please play the game, even if it is uncomfortable for if you don’t this will be overturned.

As Al asserts, bullying is best described as one person forcing their opinion on another, irrespective of the others’ rights to hold an alternate opinion.

And further, that all bullies ‘are’ intrinsically’ cowards.

No better example can been seen in the actions of the CYFSterhood.

Bereft of any tangible evidence in support, the CYFSterhood have ‘decided’ that I am a ‘future’ threat to my teenage child. Despite the fact my child is a wonderfully intelligent, well-rounded, extremely capable (young woman…sorry Al) :–)) the CYFSterhood have decided that on the day I do present my otherwise unknown threats that she will be incapable of either resisting or reporting me.

Apparently I’m a regular Lothario able to manipulate and persuade all who come under my gaze…….Jeez. I wish. I’d be rich, or a politician.:–))

So trenchant are they. So determined they are to enforce their will, that they have asserted they may remove my girl from her own mother, place her in a soulless foster home, deprive her of all she holds dear (in other words all those things which comprise her extraordinarily rich life) to ‘save’ her from me!

This is systemic violence at a level I simply cannot comprehend. This is bullying at the worst level, yet these vile witches are doing so with my tax money, and yours.

More amazingly, the child’s mother has withdrawn her opposition (and thus support for the CYFSterhood and that miserable bully, de Luen….supposedly my girl’s solicitor) and so now, they are readying to threaten the mother with removal of all her children because she is clearly incapable of ‘protecting’ her eldest daughter, my girl, from me…..

Don’t forget, this ‘me’ has nothing to answer for as regards historical abuse. I am being tested to answer for what I might do in the future!

But do you see the level of bullying here? The CYFSterhood threaten the mother with dire consequence unless she reestablishes her testimony; a testimony she has now, in writing, told these folk, was a fiction driven by anger.

They are doing so because they know their own case won’t hold water without the mother’s false allegations.

And so, to get at me they need; nay demand the mother to perpetuate her false allegations!

Is that bullying, or what?

Is this not an extreme form of systemic violence, perpetrated by female bullies?

But even more amazing is the reaction of the mothers’ own solicitor. He is clearly working in concert with the bullies because even he has asserted that the mother has no right to withdraw her opposition and, better yet, if she does, CYFS ‘might’ take all her kids.

And this in New Zealand! A supposedly free and democratic society where the rule of Law prevails.

I wonder if these vile people ever wonder if, by their own acts of destroying families that it is ‘they’ who are creating the bully-society?

But of course they don’t, because they are, to a fault, pathetic bullies themselves.

To the Protest roup.

It seems to me Corban Revell need to taste a protest.

Cheers
David.

Well the lids coming off

Why, can someone explain is so much emphasis put in to mens violence. Also why are there mens stopping violence groups, (although its really precious little), and why are agencies not into change or stopping violence groups for women?

Why have I been supporting freinds who are verbally abused and subject to psychological or motional abuse for not being in agreement in a negotioation with woman partners?

Why have I been supporting a freind whose wife cracked him with an object around the head so hard as to leave a blooded scad by an ear and on his cheek?

I have had enough….tell your stories!!!! Just do it. This needs to brought out into the publics eye.

Stuff Link:http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3656686a11,00.html

An appeal is about to be lodged against an Australian Federal Court decision overturning an extradition order for the two family court officers charged with crimes against children.

The women face 28 charges of abusing children during their time as a counsell for children in the family court around the turn of the century.

Survivors of the Family Court Abuse Trust were pleased authorities were pursuing the pair’s extradition. “The guys will be rapt to know there is going to be an appeal.”

You can’t change history, but on the day you always have a choice.

Here I am driving along listening to the news, and what do I get. Another overseas expert talking up the problem, and who is to blame; Did you guess this one, little boys. Domestic Violence is due to their emotional diet as toddlers. Distressed already! Dare I say it, “wipe your eyes and carry on”. I had to say that quietly, I don’t won’t to be labelled a domestic perp. Anyway, as far as interesting conversations go, I was talking recently to a young woman, late teens, about party life. She told me one of the worst things is young gay boys. They scream with a high pitched scream and slap each other, they are horrible to be around we call them bitches. Well, there’s something for the emotional dietician to chew on. Any way guys watch out for this preacher, I didn’t catch his name, but now you are not only a physical and sexual threat to your children, you are an emotional one too.

Given that we men can be accused of violence for merely swearing, why is it that so many of the ‘experts’ refuse to acknowledge the non-physical, but equally damaging violence in which so many women indulge.

When it comes to the application of manipulative, emotional violence, women lead the numbers by a country mile. But because the bruises are not readily observable, they are either ignored or refuted by authority.

In other words, what so many men do with their fists, so many women do with their tongues.

Is not false allegation, especially of sexual improprietry, one of the most violent acts on record? Unlike a punch on the nose, the results of such false allegations stick to the accused for life.

Is not having such false allegations promoted in court, resulting in an innocent male being separated from his innocent children, an act of intense violence?

Is not a woman falsely accusing a partner of violence and having the partner removed from his own home, and then having the new boyfriend confront the removed partner, incredibly violent?

Is not a woman informing a man’s employer, his sports club, his friends, etc, that she has a protection order against him, when such order is based on a fiction, an intensely violent act?

Is not a woman constantly denigrating her partner’s work, sexual, and other performance levels, intensely violent?

Is not a woman who constantly needles a man, putting down his friends, suggesting he might be having an affair when no basis for such a charge exists, intensely violent?

Is not a woman who has an affair with another man acting in an intensely destructive (therefore violent) manner?

Is not a woman who witholds reasonable sexual contact acting in an emotional destructive fashion?

And then, such woman threatens her partner with dire consequences (of the false-allegation variety) should he choose to find greener fields. Is she not acting in an appallingly violent manner?

And none of the above includes the many women who are also physically violent.

David.

From Gerald Nicolas (Translated from French to English) :

“I’m fine, tired, I lost lots of weight but I’m ok, my hunger strike is now over, because of heath complications, (I was on a very strict hunger strike no food, only 2 liters of water a day) after doctors visit to my tent. I lasted 9 days, in the cold, the rain, the wind, just in front of the court house. I receive satisfaction from the head Chief Justice, and all my revendications [claims] to help dads, in my Province Quebec are in the hands of the Justice Minister.
“I received support from fathers all over the world. I receive letters everyday of support from all of you and all theses words was my food during the cold and lonely night of hunger. I wish all of you the best, and like the doctor told, me, you have fight a great battle and achieving lots of visibility for all fathers across the country and the world, dying here will not serve your cause no more, you have to get well and continue the fight now standing up.
“I will now do just that, continue the struggle for fathers civil right, by standing and walking tall. I won a great battle with my sacrifice and help many people. Thanks to all of you and the fight is not over until victory is in our hands.

From Tecumsa (aboringal leaders who united all the tribes): You, strong brave, take this arrow and break it. It is easily broken by the brave. Now take these 7 arrows that represent all our tribes. Brave takes the 7 arrows but was unable to even bend the arrows, let alone break any.

Intrepid:
How should the tribes of fathers & men fight? Should we fight in isolation and not get involved with a Quebec man’s fight? Here some men worked together in a small way and we have a victory. The question is: What is stopping you from cooperating with other men worldwide in a meaningful way? Are there too many chiefs and not enough Indians? Hollywoood heroes do it all alone, but in life in takes cooperation, as any rugby player will tell you. Do you want to be the next Hollywood hero? Or do you want to get something done with the numbers to make it work?

The Campbell Live report on the Christchurch Health and Development Study findings that men and woman initiate domestic violence about equally missed an opportunity to inform New Zealanders about this important issue. Right from the opening sequence of photographs showing women with bruised arms and faces, followed by scenes from the recent Women’s Refuge fund-raising advertisements, the “spin” was obvious.

Campbell”s introduction:

“This year roughly 10,000 women and 7000 children will seek shelter in the Women’s Refuge — shelter from men.”

“In terms of violent domestic assaults, serious injury and sheer physical terror, the perpetrators are nearly always men and the victims are nearly always women and children.”

Campbell again, just before the reporter begins:

“Now lest we forget: men are bigger and stronger than woman and severe domestic violence is still overwhelmingly male to female. We ought to be stopping that.”

Campbell at the end:

“Let us remind ourselves that in terms of severe domestic violence men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and woman are overwhelmingly the victims.”

And finally, a long advertisement for a Women’s Refuge sister organisation!

“The organisation Preventing Violence in the Home exists to help you. Do call – this is the number… we’ll put it on our website.”

The second thing that annoyed me, was that Campbell seemed very keen to push the idea that female violence is a new phenomenon, which is not at all true and not what the study reports. For example:

” At low levels men and woman are now equally violent towards the partners. In other words, rather than the culture of domestic violence diminishing in this country, men seemed to be keeping it up and at low levels woman appear to be joining in.”

“We seem to be creating a whole new template – that’s what this research suggests.”

“Violence seems to be jumping the gender gap. Children are now growing up in households where BOTH parents are violent.”

The program did contain interviews with women who had been violent, and some comments from Professor David Ferguson, the study’s lead author. They also included an interview with my wife Felicity – who incidentally has not been police doctor for some years now, despite the programme’s claim.

Some believe female aggression and the role that can play in the home is too frequently ignored.

Police Doctor Felicity Goodyear-Smith has dealt with many men and women caught up in domestic disputes. She says failure to recognise women as initiators of conflict is a failure to address a very real problem.

“In fact what happens is that she doesn’t get help. Her out-of-control behaviour, her anger isn’t being helped by situation where all violence is defined as male violence against women.”

“We have a double standard in this country in that we have a law that says ‘man assaults women’, but there is no equivalent law of ‘woman assaults man'”

“In one case I know of a man who call the police and his wife had stabbed him in the arm with a knife. When police arrived he was the one who was arrested!”

See http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/walsh99.htm

I thought we might get some resolution today. But no. More process.

The judge could quite easily have stated, ‘Let’s get this mess to a substantive hearing.’ But no, he wanted more process.

But at least I got to see the vile lawyer for child (de Luen) squirm when it was announced my girl’s mother had pulled out. :–))

Don’t know why the mother pulled out, but that she has is mana from heaven. Maybe there’s a God after all. :–))

Jim.

I fully appreciate your position. But let me say again. I endorse the protest movement, and will soon be a part of it. But I also want to keep chucking straws on he came’s back.

Remember, there is a quiet but growing firestorm surrounding CYFS, and 300,000+ children cannot be wrong. Only CYFS an be wrong.

Cheers
David.

Project Spotlight, and similar initiatives, is exactly how we all need to progress.

If all we ever do is complain, yet provide no substantive information to support our complaints, then the system will simply ignore us.

We, also, need to get a Spotlight-like programme going. And that is exactly why I have been asking you all to submit your stories.

Do we have a researcher who has the time and initiative to begin an analyisis of NZ FC decisions?

Lastly. This afternoon, Debhorah Coddington stated, quite clearly, on the Larry Williams show, that the Family Court fell well short of any reasonable evidential test. And, that the FC should be disbanded and all FC matters should be handled by a regular Court.

Can someone get in contact with Ms Coddington to outline our plights. I would, but Ms Codds and I used to work for the same radio station and we have ‘history’ which has left a somewhat glacial divide between us.

Cheers
David

The World Fathers Union is currentlycompleting work on the first report in the newly launched‘Project SPOTLIGHT’.
Project SPOTLIGHT is a statistical research project which analyses the rulings record of family court judges with an anecdotal history of bias against fathers. Researchers then compare that individual judge’s record to the overall record of the court in which he works. The goal of the project is to identify and expose judges with a clear and evident bias against fathers, using their own record of rulings to convict them in the court of public opinion. In this way, it is hoped that justice ministers will be obliged to take notice, and that the judges themselves will feel the ‘chilling effect’ that comes with being spotlighted in the press. While it is unlikely a judge would be removed from the bench solely because of one such report, no judge under attack in the press is likely to hand his accusers additional ammunition to use against himself. The bottom line is that such publicity should serve to keep the judges honest in spite of themselves.

The background to the development of Project SPOTLIGHT is interesting. While researching custody decisions to find support for arguments in his own case, a coordinator with the World Fathers Union realised that there are actually very few ‘variations on a theme’ when it comes to custody battles. The same false accusations, legal manÅ“uvres, and psychological ‘branding’ of fathers comes around over and over again in case after case. “Several times, I felt like I was reading my own case with only minor differences,” said the coordinator, John T. Smith. “I then realised that since so many of the cases were based on similar facts, an actuarial or statistical analysis of several hundred cases from the same court would have a great deal of statistical significance. It wasn’t difficult to get from that realisation to the concept of placing some of these judges on the front page.”

As the first case, a notoriously anti-father judge of the Québec Superior Court was selected for investigation. Using publicly available decisions published on the internet, a small group of World Fathers Union research volunteers began reading and tabulating custody decisions last March, working through an initial search list of 200 cases for the entire court, and 74 for the judge under investigation. Once the tabulation has been completed, a report will be prepared and released to the press.

John T. Smith said he expects the work to be completed within a few more weeks. “It would go faster if we had more volunteer researchers able to read both French and English, but we don’t have them available right now. I’m hoping that with the major parts of the new website finally published we’ll see an increase in individual membership.”

The World Fathers Union does not charge dues or receive any funding. Fathers wishing to help can become members through the Union’s website, www.worldfathersunion.com/MEMBERSHIP.html

John F. Smith, webmaster
World Fathers Union

Testosterone has a bad reputation. Its public image is always linked to the idea of dumb aggression, to the caveman. But this is misleading.

Satoshi Kanazawa at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, studied the biographies of 280 scientists and plotted their intellectual achievements against their ages. He discovered something extremely revealing: the curves of age-achievement in scientists was not only repeated in jazz musicians, painters and authors, but mirrored the curves of age-criminal activity in criminals. Furthermore, both criminal activity and intellectual achievement seemed to drop off when the scientist or crock got married and started a family.

Check out this site as it will give you a first hand account from a female Ethan, a 24-year old Veterinary Medicine student. She is also an FTM transsexual — Ethan diaries her experiences during her transition to a man through the use of Testosterone treatment.

These are some of the mental changes that Ethan documents throughout her/his course of taking testosterone:

After 1 month: “I’ve found it much, much harder to be as patient as I’ve always been. Patience is something that is very important to me so I’ve found this difficult to deal with. I find I need to sometimes just stop and take a 10 second breather so I can continue being patient, which is a foreign feeling to me.”

After 2 months: “I don’t feel that I’ve gotten more aggressive, but I have noticed that it’s much more difficult for me to just let something go. Perhaps it’s an aggressive or impatient impulse, but it’s not like I have to catch it or else it would escalate. The impulse is there (for example, to talk before I think in an argument), but it’s not like I would start yelling or cursing if I wasn’t aware the impulse. It’s just been harder to let things go that in the past I would have just sucked up and gone on with my life. ”

After 3 months: “It’s been much harder to notice the little subtleties that I once noticed………….more

If your a male it might help to understand yourself a bit better and appreciate what make you different to the female from a chemical perspective.

Stuff Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3653301a11,00.html

Sword victim’s case thrown out.

Here is a story you could use as a parallel. Imagine this was a Rape case and the Judge let the “Alleged” offender walk free.

Note: There are moves afoot to change the trial proceedures in rape cases. Watch that space.

Hi all,

I hope the protest went well today.

I wish to create a data-base of terms and phrases the CYFSterhood have trotted out in the past.

Such phrases as ‘Codependent’, ‘passive-aggressive abuser’, ‘potentially violent,’ ‘socio-path’, ‘pornofile’, ‘alcohol dependent’, ‘alcohol abuser’, ‘feotal alcohol syndrome,’ ’emotional dependence syndrome,’ ‘can’t accept he’s a scum-sucking male syndrome’, and so on.

It would be useful if you could also include the context in which the CYFSterhood used the phrase(s) to damn you in Court. It would be doubly useful if you could include any (or the probable lack of…) any evidence substantiating the claims of the CYFSterhood.

The object of the exercise is to gather sufficient profiles which I will keep on firing at various in authority, and the media, till the last straw arrives to break the camel’s back.

And with each ‘firing’ I will be including my one simple request. Ergo, that the Family Court operates at a level of proof at least in accord with the Civil Court (about 80% of the tests used by the Criminal Court).

Thus an accusative spouse must have ‘an amount’ of proof before he/she can assert danger to a child in a way which will be acceptable to the Court, can not have a spouse removed from a home by Police until satisfactory proof is offered, and can have the FC indulge him/her with primary care-giver status until he/she has proven the other party is demonstrably unfit.

Our judicial system has worked well since the 13th Century and the institution of the Magna Carter. I see no reason why the FC should be free to operate outside the law of proof which has proven so effective for the previous 700 years.

Innocent till PROVEN guilty must be the test returned to the FC.

For these vile people to assert that it is better to hurt/destroy ten men and dozens of children, sundry grand-parents and care-givers, just in case the system misses one child who is actually in danger, is an affront to civilisation.

This is ducking-stool justice and simply must be stopped.

Only we can stop it. But we have to have the will and courage to be counted.

Please, send the data to [email protected]

Lastly, one correspondent asserted that ‘many’ ex-CFYS workers are ‘ex’ because of the vileness they witnessed.

Anyone got any ideas about how we can contact a few of these abviously decent folk and get them to state what they know about the CYFSterhood?

Cheers
David.

Prime Minister Helen Clark has been asked to intervene after an Australian court decided not to grant extradition for two Catholic clergymen to face charges of sexual abuse in New Zealand.

At the risk of poetic extravagance I have to ask Will Miss Clark, waste our capital?

Australian Justice Madgwick, said it would be “unjust or oppressive” to send the clergymen back to face trial given the differences between the two countries’ legal systems and the delay in bringing the allegations.

Ken Clearwater, manager of the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Trust, which has supported many of the alleged victims, has contacted Miss Clark to ask the Government to get involved, but a spokesman for Miss Clark told Christchurch’s Press newspaper Mr Clearwater’s submission had not yet been received.

While the New Zealand police are still to decide whether to appeal against the judge’s decision, the real test of credibility lies with Miss Clark.

The Australian Judiciary has treated us with the contempt we deserve, so we must look to the person whom through her own behaviour and political interference has brought the New Zealand justice system into disrepute.

If she crosses the Tasman on this one I can’t see her getting any more respect from their judiciary than she does from their airport staff.

We need to come to grips with the implications of the indictment issued against our country.

It effectively reduces us from a democracy to a regime.

????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????
Open letter to Osama Bin Laden

Are you aware Osama that 9/11 took out only a couple of thousand people? Should you wish to destroy the West may I suggest you come for a fact finding mission in God’s Own, New Zealand. Without the use of overt violence the feminist industry here has nearly managed to destroy family life as we once knew it. Three hundred thousand children suffer every day due to feminist terrorism. This unnecessary situation then infects the parents, grandparents and so on. You will find that the State here will give you assistance in your quest to destroy so long as you endevour to show that all is done to ensure gender and social equality. As with Marxism, the ends justify the means and I know this is how you operate. Feminist philosophy started in the USA but has been refined here in NZ.

At risk of offending you I have to say that it was not you that started terrorism of the modern era but Fattah back in Munich 1972. They lost the prestige and it was past over to you due to the USA redefining terrorism to suit their latest political aims.

Osama, unless you keep up with this new form of terrorism you will soon lose your mantle. Should you wish to take up my offer and perhaps immigrate here, may I suggest you first visit as a female and during your 3 month visitors visa shack up with some dumb ass guy, and get into an argument with him ( perhaps over why you wont let him shag you) Then ring the police ( don’t panic as once you speak with a high pitch plea and sob a bit they will kill for you) you don’t need to mutilate your self just say he has beaten you up and you will have permanent residency before you can say….Fuck me, Mohammad is this for real???

Your future will be bright here as wel. Due to Christianity failing to keep the nuclear family intact I predict Islam will dominate one day, even if it’s just to have Cat Stevens sing “Father & Son”

Yours in Mohammad

The only way of determining that sufficient straw has been loaded on to cause the camel’s back to break is when the camel’s back breaks.

Before that, one needs to maintain the determination to just keep on loading the straw. In other words, each protest, each letter to some authority, each phone-call of protest, every comment made to any third-party is, in its own way, just a bit more straw.

Sooner or later the camel’s back will break.:–))

More straw.

The Ombudsman has acknowledged receipt of several intensely poignant CYFSterhood-victim’s stories I have and has, as a result, undertaken to ask some searching questions of the head of The Evil Empire.

Cheers
David