Hi all,

Im after copies of the rulings that are mentioned on the “NZ Family Court Precedents (Case Law)” page if anyone has these, I am collecting evidence to take on the Crown and need evidence to show that the FC has been inconsistent.

Cheers folks.

Hi folks,
Divorce is inevitable and she is out for revenge. There is no case of domestic violence or infidelity or any form of abuse or deny access to fund, no reasons are given. I am the sole bread winner and been supporting and providing for the last 2 decades. we have 2 children 16 and 7 and assets worth over 1.0M.

I read the divorce kit provided by this wonderful website and quite frankly what I could be facing scared the hell out of me. She is after the money as she doesn’t work and her family are asking for money. She is making my life an epic hell at the moment.

If we divorce now I will end up paying the child care and spousal maintenance.

I contacted two male lawyers trying to get a legal advice and they both advised against initiating a divorce.

My main concern is the welfare of the children as the money is theirs. I was even thinking of putting some fund away or send it overseas to to cater for the children. Is that reliable to do or it might backfire on me?

We both are migrants here without any families in New Zealand, so we don’t have the option of living with family.

One thing to add: I have been very careful in my communication with her, avoiding her as much as possible also she is trying to provoke me. I never sweared or threatened her. I know she does voice record all of our conversations.
I also have a written evidence from her social media showing she is literally planning a war against me and waiting for the right moment to struck and leave the country. Will that be of use in the court?

What you guys can advice based on your experience.

Thanks and Regards,

Marion

OK here’s an ambiguous one thanks to the shit legislation. My child will be 18 in a few months and has yet to graduate from high school. She’s a very bright kid but unfortunately her mother has deliberately held her back and she would have graduated by now if it wasn’t for her mother’s own agenda’s. From what I have heard she will be doing her units by correspondence ONLY, and on a part time basis next year. The legislation says that for a child aged between 18 and 19 to receive child support he/she must be enrolled at AND attending a registered school. If I were to take that literally I would say that correspondence school isn’t something you attend because all papers are done from home and submitted electronically. My thinking is that this would mean the mother doesn’t have to worry about things such as driving her to and from school because she doesn’t have to leave the house and is old enough to stay home alone. That means that her mum can pretty much get on with doing anything she wants to do such as work (not that she’s going to do that because bludging is a much nicer lifestyle). Anyway, I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Personally I think that attending school means 8.45 am – 3.00 PM days, transport, cut lunches, school uniforms etc, NOT staying at home and doing everything electronically. Your thoughts??

Regards
Had_Enough

Currently helping a friend with a family court case.

Their ex lies and is breaking promises involving the child. Child is now of an age where they have worked the parent out. FC have never made the parent accountable and they are now accusing the good parent of parental alienation. Good parent has been trying to tell the other parent for a period of time that their behaviour is damaging the childs perception of them.

The way I see it is the FC creates parental alienation of bad parents because they don’t hold that parent accountable but the child eventually does and then they pull away from that parent.

Abusive partners especially might win in court by bullying the other party but they lose the respect of the child and eventually they lose the relationship. Everyones thoughts?

George

Here comes the festive season, and the NZ Herald is at it again with a new campaign of male-bashing under the heading of ‘family violence’. This week they published a video called ‘Family violence over the festive season: the facts’ but those ‘facts’ were unreferenced, misleading and unbalanced with strong femaleist bias. (more…)

Ex-Girlfriend threatens to kill rising rugby league star

Our Wellington screening of The Red Pill is going ahead tomorrow evening Thursday 8th December 6:30pm at Monterey Cinema 68-70 Queen Street, Upper Hutt.

We still have about 20 seats to fill the 59 seat theater. This is all paid so no cost to attend! Just click ‘going’ on the facebook event below, or email me at rightswithnotover(at)gmail.com to confirm your seat.

Meeting from 6pm to chat and get to know each other.

https://www.facebook.com/events/323988437987195/

Hi

I’m looking for advice as to the easiest and quickest way of getting Freedom of Information from NZ police, specifically pertaining to an investigation they done on me and my family. Currently am in Ireland. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Dessie e;mail ~ [email protected]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb0NOcWv4cE

What the media has attempted to do with Brian Tamaki’s sermon on natural disasters should concern people who support this site. Under the ‘Free Speech’ principle Tamaki has a right to give his opinion as much as anyone else. The fact that he bases his theory without empirical evidence is not the point. The fact that his audience think he is correct is also irrelevant. Free speech is the linchpin of our democracy and should be protected unless it can be specifically related to hate speech thereby inciting discrimination or violence, which his sermon did not do. The ignorance of the Press never ceases to amaze me. Tamaki was not speaking for Christians as he was reading from the ‘Old Testament’ which is the Jewish book. St Paul was emphatic that the Torah was not a part of Christianity. If the Press don’t like what Brian says and want to stop him reading from the Torah then perhaps they are anti-Semitic? Tsk! Tsk!

Feminists constantly make derogatory and defamatory statements against males and yet there is deafening silence. Why is that? Across the Universities in the USA (and coming here soon) there is a strong effort to shut down free speech due to female students becoming ‘triggered’ into ‘feeling unsafe’ by hearing something that their belief system finds repellant, particularly when that statement is based on fact with strong empirical evidence.
We need to stand up for free speech even when we disagree with its content but we also need to demand an equal platform to challenge any speech made that we believe has a false premise….Please do something positive and write to the Editor or Producer of any media outlet that gives speech a one sided platform. They will listen…..eventually.

An Auckland screening of THE RED PILL – for those of you on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/events/197989563987811/?active_tab=discussion

[Edit by JohnP] For those of us not on Facebook:

DATE AND TIME
Thur 15th December 2016
6:30 PM – 10:00 PM NZDT

LOCATION
Kelston Community Centre
126 Awaroa Road
Sunnyvale,
Auckland.

TICKETS
Book at Eventbrite

EXTENDED TRAILER

Not sure how much use this is to you weaklings who read menz.org.nz? Is this meeting going to hit any useful spots, or is it just more irrelevancy? I wonder what the value for money is?
(Sorry for my irreverency.)

Raising Fathers To Save Our Children!
(more…)

This Rubin Report video interviews Cassie Jaye the Writer Director of The documentary ‘The Red Pill’ named after the Reddit forum site This movie is a MUST SEE. It was banned in Melbourne and it will come under criticism here as well. After 10yrs as a feminist Cassie reveals that ‘feminism’ is an ideology and juxtaposes it with her religious upbringing which she managed to throw off. She mentions how this doco has not received the support of the mainstream media like her previous work. We need to give her our support and get everyone you know to go and view it.

If you are near Wellington and interested in seeing this important newly released feature documentary film exploring the Men’s Human Rights Movement, here is your opportunity! Join us Thursday December 8th (open to moving to a Sunday evening if more people prefer) for an inspiring evening at Lighthouse Cinema in Petone.

“When feminist filmmaker Cassie Jaye sets out to document the mysterious and polarizing world of the Men’s Rights Movement, she begins to question her own beliefs.

Jaye had only heard about the Men’s Rights Movement as being a misogynist hate-group aiming to turn back the clock on women’s rights, but when she spends a year filming the leaders and followers within the movement, she learns the various ways men are disadvantaged and discriminated against.”

The crowdfunder page to screen The Red Pill in Wellington has been accepted. Please give generously so Wellington region can get a boost in morale and solidarity to make this world a more compassionate place for boys and men – which will mean a more compassionate place for everyone!

Any donation of $28 or more is your ‘share’ to attend the screening in Petone (this had to get edited from the givealittle page because they can’t be seen to sell tickets), so please message me if December 8th 6:30 doesn’t suit you and you would prefer Sunday 11th.

https://givealittle.co.nz/project/theredpillwellingtonscreening#

In this clip Milo Yiannopoulos Refuses to be intimidated by the BBC and clearly states why Donald Trump is gaining support. His response to the interviewers questions exposes the bias in journalism practiced today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3K1pGN-O8I

Dear James Kirk

Regarding the interview this morning on Radio NZ’s Nine to Noon, we support the idea that that state provide housing for men thrown out of their homes through Police ‘Safety Orders’. However, many of those men need emotional, legal and practical support to deal with injustice towards them.

You and Ms Robinson failed to mention that many such men are ordered out of their homes only because they are males. The wording of the relevant Act allows police complete discretion over whom they give these Orders to, and many are based on police tendency to pick on the male in the hope of avoiding further call outs to the address regardless of who appeared to be the violent party or the most violent party. Police also tend to believe women’s false allegations even when the male is the only one with visible injuries and there is no sign of violence towards the woman. We agree with your emphasis on respect towards men who have been thrown out of their own homes but surely this includes acknowledging the true picture, that many of those men are the real victims of any family violence and/or the male-abusing system.

Of course, for those men and women who are the perpetrators of violence it’s important for them to be supported in changing their beliefs and behaviour. However, you made no mention of the need for violent women to change; why is this?

We are concerned that you and Ms Robinson would speak about family violence as though only men ever commit it and only women ever suffer from it. Ms Robinson made vague references to ‘the research’ but we would suggest the research base and objective statistics be represented honestly. For example, both of our world-renown longitudinal studies in Dunedin and Christchurch plus numerous international studies have shown clearly that women commit at least as many acts of violence towards their intimate partners as men do, but the men’s violence is, on average, more serious. Nevertheless, a significant albeit smaller proportion of serious violence is committed by women. For example, the most recent NZ family violence deaths statistics show that 24% of the intimate partner killers were women amd 27% of the victims of intimate partner homicides were men.

We hope that you become more honest about the area in which you both work. Condoning or colluding with sexist, anti-male laws, law enforcement and social attitudes is most unlikely to lead to more caring and responsible attitudes in either the men or women who would benefit from such change.

Yours faithfully

Ministry of Men’s Affairs (A community group because successive governments have neglected the voice and welfare of NZ men)

Paul Henry did an interview in a restaurant and at one point commented on a woman at a neighbouring table saying she had ‘the perfect titties’ and exchanging some further related thoughts with his female publicist. The feminist brigade have responded with outrage while white knights such as Brian Edwards have also waded in. Readers’ responses seemed about evenly divided. Many noted the hypocrisy of feminists who would criticize a male for ‘objectifying’ a woman but never mention that women also frequently comment on men’s physical attributes. It seems that if ‘objectifying’ comments are made with poetic, indirect or euphemistic language by men or if made by women using any language, that’s ok. Others have disputed the idea that most women might be expected to find admiring comments like that unwelcome. After all, attrractive women wield a great deal of power from their sexual appeal and can easily turn that into significant profit, so why would they object to men’s admiration of the physical appeal they work so hard to bolster?

We believe everyone has the right to state they are offended by Henry’s comments or anyone else’s comments, and to express their preferences regarding how others behave. However, demanding that others conform to your preferences is a step too far, while irrational, false and/or socially destructive responses deserve to be challenged. (more…)

Hi all,

1. My ex-wife’s lawyer made 3 applications for child maintenance payment.
2. She won all of them against my former lawyers, one of whom did not prepare saying he could get the hearing deferred which he couldn’t, and the other who failed to turn up to represent me for the 3rd application and so they won a massive extra amount of child maintenance.
3. The Court Ordered me to pay money ‘for the maintenance of the children’ while seeking no information about my ex-wife’s finances and support she receives from her boyfriend, one of the wealthiest business executives in the country, with whom she lives in luxury.
4. The amount the Court ordered me to pay was 42% of my salary for a 2 and 5 year old.
5. This has thrown me massively into debt so that I can only rent a bedroom in a homestay
6. The money I pay goes directly into my ex-wife’s lawyers bank account.
7. The lawyer and my ex-wife refuse to provide evidence of how the child maintenance is being spent.
8. My ex-wife has admitted in writing that the child maintenance money is needed to pay her lawyer.
9. Since my last lawyer quit in October of last year saying “You can’t beat this people” I have taken over representing my children in Court myself. Have not lost any of the 10+ conferences, hearings, trials and Court of Appeals that they have engineered.
10. In two recent enforcement hearings this month my ex-wife’s lawyer failed to move the Judge to enforce the payment order
11. Today I formerly accused my ex-wife’s lawyer of defrauding the Court to receive the money meant for my children.
12. My ex-wife’s lawyer went nuts in Court today and failed to get an immediate restraining order against me to prevent me from accusing her of fraud for claiming child maintenance payments for my children which she instead takes to pay herself
13. The Judge has set the hearing for 25.11.16.
14. Does anyone of any legal precedents where
a. lawyers have been sued for taking money ordered for child maintenance payments?
b. child maintenance payments have been reassessed in the light of evidence that the payments are not being used for the children?

Yours Faithfully,
Sharing is Caring

Radio NZ Article
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/316515/family-court-delays-at-tipping-point,-lawyers-say

Includes two interviews with father’s stories.

Rachel Stewart is yet another columnist that treats myths as facts. I am appalled by the abuse dished out to her by trolls but I am equally appalled by her using her position as a journalist to further unfairly denigrate the Chiefs rugby team in ‘For the Love of the Game‘ The Herald itself reported the truth in this matter. I find it stimulating reading when a journalist has a chip on their shoulder and they write with passion using facts to get their point across but Rachel uses ‘here say’ and innuendos to denigrate masculinity. That the NZ Herald editor let her article get printed with its inaccurate content leads me to believe that this is no longer a ‘news paper’ but a gossip magazine.
Rachael appears to have her own demons to deal with.

The only thing I wanted while growing up in Ireland was to be a Dad. Then in 1997 when my first born came along I thought ‘mission accomplished’, Oh boy , was I mistaken. The first time I held her I knew my life had changed dramatically in an instant, though I watched her kick inside her Mums womb and watched her settle as I sang in the final weeks , nothing had prepared me for the miracle that was now in my arms. (more…)

By way of contribution to the male side of gender issues, we have published our first few video clips on YouTube. They are about a major issue for men, suicide. We have commenced with increasing insight into the problem and providing helpful advice, and will soon progress to consider the scandalous political and media treatment of this matter.

Please spread links widely to this video series.

MoMA Suicide 1

https://youtu.be/eBKBYxVydQc

MoMA Suicide 2

https://youtu.be/qRrSwcImmQE

MoMA Suicide 3

https://youtu.be/tbRqhST8WPU

Woman fined €30,000 for bad-mouthing her ex in front of their kids. The feminists will probably attribute this to Italy still being in the dark ages in showing any respect at all towards men and fathers. The masculinists will probably see this as an initial gesture intended to justify future financial gouging of men believed to bad mouth their children’s mothers, in typical male power and control tactics. However, we like to think this ruling might be another indication of a tidal change building in gender politics.

Judge O’Dwyer spoke last month at the National Council of Women’s conference. In that speech she spoke about family violence. To me this is an extreme conflict of interest as she sits in the Family Court. Especially so when she expressed the erroneous view to the National Council of Women that “all” statistics and research show predominantly women and children as victims.

Today I have made a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. (more…)