Sunday, November 30, 2008

Judge speaks up on Family Court criticisms

Judge speaks up on Family Court criticisms

By Chris Barton

Graeme MacCormick retired as Family Court judge in December after serving 15 years on the bench. Here are his views on men's groups' protests.

Will judges be intimidated by the men's groups' protests?

I do not perceive the judges of the court will be in the least influenced in their decision-making by any protest outside their homes. They have a job to do on behalf of the community. The children whose lives are affected are the children of their birth parents and also children of the community.

What often seems to get overlooked in criticisms of the Family Court is that the originating problems brought to it are not of the court's making. There are frequently power and control issues between the birth parents or between them and subsequent caregivers.

Many in the men's groups vent a lot of anger. What's behind this?

Anger is a natural emotion which shows other people our boundaries. It is precisely where our boundaries lie and the way we deal with our anger that counts. Anger that is not properly dealt with too often leads to physical outbursts and assaults and is, quite frequently, a feature of the more difficult Family Court cases.

Where I think men - as a broad generalisation - find themselves disadvantaged is when women have been the primary caregivers before separation and men have been the primary providers.

When the relationship breaks down and the woman tries to hold on to her role to the substantial exclusion of her former husband or partner, then the father is left with resort to the Family Court, which is not always resourced to be able to respond as quickly as the father - or indeed the court - would like. Nor might the outcome be exactly what either partner wants, depending on the circumstances and the perceived welfare and best interests - and views - of the child or children. Those are the determining factors with the law as it stands.

The protesters want equal parenting as the default position of the court in decisions about the care of children. What's your view of that?
I question whether they are going about that in the right way. They need to convince a majority of members of parliament of the need for a law change and that it will be best for children. Men's groups would need good research to back their position.

In the meantime, the judges of the court will try to apply the law, as it stands. It seems to me there is little point in attacking judges as a body for doing that.

I doubt that you are likely to achieve change by targeting the wrong people. Good, positive time with both birth parents, subject to issues of physical and emotional safety, is clearly the ideal. In an increasing number of cases that is equal time.

But sometimes extreme, ongoing conflict between birth parents, both locked in a battle over their children that they become ever more determined to win, makes this impossible to achieve.

Sometimes children have had so much conflict in their lives, without being able to see an end to it, that very occasionally and as a last resort a choice may need to be made for care by one birth parent to the exclusion of the other, hopefully temporary.

Men's groups say the court grants protection orders against men too easily.

There have also been complaints, on behalf of women, that "without notice" applications for protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act were not being granted readily enough and that too many were being placed "on notice", with significant physical risk to women and children. This demonstrates the difficulty of satisfying everybody. When temporary protection orders are made without notice, in perceived situations of a threat to safety, and when children are involved, the court is increasingly scheduling a review of the temporary order within one or two weeks.

Men's groups also complain about mothers making false testimony to the court.

For "false testimony" one can often substitute "a different perspective or perception". If there is genuinely false testimony before the court and it is not acknowledged or corrected and it is material provided with intent to deceive the court, this can clearly ground a prosecution for perjury. On occasion, the Family Court will refer a matter of perceived perjury to the police for consideration of prosecution. Anything in the nature of deliberately false evidence or misleading testimony will almost inevitably be counter-productive to the position of the person on whose behalf it is provided.

The protesters say they are targeting lawyers because they lie to the court. Why would they make such claims?

This probably refers to the lawyer for the children, with whom dissatisfied litigants of both genders will frequently take issue. Their job is to represent the child or children independently of the parents or caregivers.

Their client is the child. But they are not meant to give evidence to the court - as opposed to making submissions based on the evidence.

It is, however, normal for the lawyer for the child to advise a child's views and the child's instructions, if the child is able to provide them. That may not be exactly what the child has said to his or her parents.

What do you think of the men's groups' tactics?

Men's groups can frequently be helpful in providing a "McKenzie friend" or support person for a father acting on his own behalf. Likewise they fulfil a useful purpose in keeping before the public the importance of birth parents to children.

But Family Court judges are well aware of this and need no reminding. Men's groups need to be carefully focused if they are not to be counter-productive.

I suspect that the protests may, in their targeting, say more about the protesters than about the operation of the court. If their intention is to embarrass, harass or intimidate might not similar traits and tactics have been factors in the breakdown of their marriage or relationship?

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Review -Alec Baldwin's New Book on Fathers and Child Custody

Baldwin's main point is that the time (let alone expense) it takes to legally secure the right to see your child destroys a father's relationship with his children almost as thoroughly as the manipulations of a hostile ex-spouse.

read more | digg story

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Vengeful mothers leave good fathers powerless to see children,

In New Zealand how many vengeful and vindictive maternal family members ever get charged after telling lies to authorities claiming malicious false allegations of sexual child abuse and domestic violence? A maternal family can alienate and poison the children against a non custodial father without any legal consequences.What about perjury,contempt of court, wasting police time??? etc..etc... A bewildered heartbroken father is confronted by the insidious Parental Alienation Syndrome and a vicious gender bias judiciary! It hurts big time,just look at the tragic male suicide and child abuse statistics.

Step One in the 12 Step programme for suffering respondent clients of the Kangaroo Court; I am powerless to do anything about the lies and deception in the De Family Court ! The comments expressed by the UK Judge in the article below reiterates my point.The law is a sick feminist joke! Judge Boshier likes it that way, because the fractured family business is a big money spinner for many parasitic and unscrupulous so called professionals, who are nothing more than lying scum!

A senior judge spoke out against child access law yesterday, saying that the courts were powerless to help decent fathers to see their children if vengeful mothers stood in the way.

read more | digg story

Monday, November 24, 2008

Legal Abuse Syndrome

Answer "yes" to just one of the following questions and you will know why I wrote this book for you:

* Does being called to court strike fear in your heart?
* Are you struggling in the court system now?
* Have you been to court in the past and come away wounded?
* Is precious time and money needed for your profession being consumed just to protect you from the legal monster?
* Do you worry about someone you supervise or care about due to their involvement with the legal system?

Do you answer "yes" because the legal monster has eaten the heart out of trust, truth and justice? Has the loss of these social staples left you without inspiration?

In a recent survey of people like you who have been to court:

Average amount paid in legal fees was $127,900; The largest was $500,000 and the lowest was $6,000.

Average number of court appearances including appeals was 48.

The average case lasted eight years. The longest case is now going on 18 years, the shortest case was two years. Most were not satisfactorily completed. After great effort an expense, money ran out, lawyers would not take the case, and justice was not achieved. Regardless of cost, there was no closure for people using our justice system.

For you who have never been to court , the legal monster crouches in shadows. Fear of litigation costs millions of dollars each year in wasted time and money. Surgeons spend more time doing paperwork than surgery just to ensure that they meticulously minimize liability. Your doctor's malpractice premium gets passed on to you in higher fees. Drugs go undeveloped or are prolonged while pharmaceutical companies take extra steps to prevent litigation. School personnel avoid confronting disciplinary issues for fear of being sued by angry parents. Every dollar you spend is inflated to cover costs of litigation avoidance aka risk management. The innocent settle suits that deserve to be heard because the legal monster crowds out justice.

Who or what is this menace? It is the result of the abusive nature of our legal system and absence of consistent checks and balances. Therefore, warning about liability is the theme of this generation. Most of you don't easily trust institutions or each other. Fear of being vulnerable to exploitation or assault may prevent you from a new venture or idea. The very thought of being wiped out by litigation quells creativity and forces tension in all relationships. We live in times of prenuptial agreements and fine print asking us to give up rights before a conflict arising. This book will reach out to you and reintroduce the human side of justice seeking. Truth, trust, and access to justice are staples of a sound society. They must not be allowed to be chewed up and swallowed by the legal monster. This book will guide you.

If you are left damaged from a bad court experience, one thing is for sure. You do not deserve to live with the horror that there is nothing you can do about improving changes for a fair justice system. For you, this book will bring together research from the most active and brilliant legal critics. A complete list of readings and resources will guide you toward personal healing, reconnecting with others, risking judicious trust, and planning positive action. It is critical that you do not withdraw into isolation. You are needed. Your knowledge, expertise, and decency can make the difference.

NOTE: To participate in the on-going documentation of Legal Abuse Syndrome, and to share your case overview with Ms. Huffer for research purposes, please e-mail REDRESS2@redressinc .org , and note "Study Participant" in the subject line.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

John Murtari of Lyons, New York, Practicing Civil Disobedience

Inspired by Martin Luther King and Gandhi, John Murtari of Lyons, New York is practicing civil disobedience by personal sacrifice while incarcerated in the Wayne County jail.

read more | digg story

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Father's Rights Group in Sweden upset by gender hatred

About the Halton Women´s Place Ad

Dear Sirs and Madam!

My name is Ulf Andersson, and I´m the founder of and spokesman for PappaRättsGruppen, The Father´s Rights Group in Sweden

It saddens my heart and sickens my stomach, that men are so hated and that media is swallowing the hatred towards men without the accurate statistics on domestic violence.

Now, you might wonder why a Swede of all the people in the world sends you an E-mail.

First of all:let it be known that the father´s rights movement and the men´s rights movement are global movements.

Second: I for one am very active in father´s rights issues.

Most of the organized fathers and men in the movement are very peaceful and would never lay a hand on a child or a woman.

Your hatred towards men/fathers have been translated into Swedish and can be found under the following link

Be advised that this E-mail will be forwarded to father´s rights activist and men´s rights activist around the globe.

Kind regards from

Ulf Andersson, father´s rights activist since 2001
Founder of and spokesman for PappaRättsGruppen,
The Father´s Rights Group in Sweden

Friday, November 21, 2008

Why would parents give up hope for their kids?

Right now in the state of Nebraska, the governor is literally begging people not to bring their teenage children there to dump them, so that the state then has to care for them. But it's happening. It's happening a lot.

read more | digg story

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Judge throws out rape charges - 20 Nov 2008 - NZ Herald: New Zealand National news

Judge throws out rape charges - 20 Nov 2008 - NZ Herald: New Zealand National news

Posted using ShareThis

UK - Family Law Review

New Report Calls for Legal Changes to Strengthen Marriage and Combat Family Breakdown. If only such a report was on the table in New Zealand. Come on kiwis, surely our damaged children are the priority too address the dysfunctional Family Unit, and the absurd law that demonizes fathers from the Family equation? Kids need Dads Too! Children are our future Judge Boshier!

UK - The Centre for Social Justice – Amended 1640, 17 November 2008


A radical overhaul of family law aimed at strengthening marriage and reducing family breakdown is signalled today by a new report from the think-tank set up by the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith.

Among the proposals under consideration are making pre-nuptial agreements legally binding, official backing for marriage preparation classes, reviewing divorce procedures and changes aimed at creating greater consistency in financial settlements on divorce. It says that the legally questionable status of pre-nuptial agreements at present may deter couples from marrying, especially the wealthy.

The creation of family relationship centres, along the lines of the Australian system, to smooth the path for separating or divorcing couples and their children is also floated in the report from the Centre for Social Justice. New rights for grandparents to remain in contact with children after a parental divorce and better access to children for absent fathers are also foreshadowed.

But the report is sceptical of measures to give cohabiting couples legal rights similar to those of married couples, suggesting such a step would fuel family breakdown.

The report, The Family Law Review of the Centre for Social Justice, is an interim study, and the proposals trailed will be finalised in a second report to be published in the spring of next year.

Mr Duncan Smith said that the report was timely given public concern over the Baby P case and others such as Karen Matthews, who has seven children by five different fathers. He said that such cases were “shining the spotlight” on the chaotic nature of family life in the poorest parts of Britain, which has virtually the highest level of family breakdown in Europe.

Mr Duncan Smith said: "Today 25 per cent of children in this country live in single parent families and this trend is set to accelerate. These children are three to six times more likely to experience abuse. A recent US study found that children living with a non-biological adult are 50 times more likely to die from afflicted injuries than those living with their biological parents."

Despite its interim nature, the report gives a strong indication of the CSJ’s thinking and says that only changes that will reinforce marriage should be adopted. It restates the mounting body of evidence showing that marriage produces better outcomes for both adults and children.

The report says: “This review is working from an underlying assumption that marriage should be supported both in government policy and in the law and that, related to this, fatherlessness (or motherlessness), far more likely when relationships are informal, should be avoided…”

“Policy can and should be focused on stemming the tide of relationship breakdown. Promoting stability and commitment will thus guide all the work we do and the policies we recommend…”

“Marriage also acts as a stabiliser and a signal. Married couples are far less likely to break up than couples who live together without getting married. This is true even when allowance is made for the influence of such factors as income, age and education. The correlation between stability and marriage is strong and widely acknowledged amongst experts.”

The report links rising levels of family breakdown to the increase in cohabitation. This has risen from just over 10 per cent of men and women 20 years ago to 25 per cent now. This change explains much of the rise in births outside marriage – up from 25 per cent in 1988 to 44 per cent today.

It cites research showing that cohabiting couples with children are much less likely to go on and marry than childless cohabiting couples and that they are far more likely to break up. Only 35 per cent of children born into a cohabiting union will live with both parents throughout their childhood, compared with 70 per cent born to married couples.

The average length of a marriage that ends in divorce is 11.5 years compared with just two years for a live-in relationship.

The report casts doubt on a call from the Law Commission for cohabiting couples to be given a legal right to a financial settlement on separation.

“While doing much to address perceived injustices, these proposals are obviously not compatible with a long-term national policy aimed at improving family stability by encouraging marriage and discouraging markedly more unstable cohabitation.”

The report signals policy recommendations to come in the final report of the review group, which is chaired by Dr Samantha Callan, honorary research fellow at Edinburgh University. Areas to be covered include:

* The role of the law as a potentially stabilising factor in relationships and particularly marriage.

* The merits of proposals to make ‘pre-nuptial’ written agreements about the distribution of money and property legally binding, for those who wish to use them.

* The extent to which Government should seek to support people’s efforts to ‘pre-qualify’ themselves for entrance into marriage, and in particular, visit the effectiveness of relationship and marriage preparation classes and the possible role that churches and voluntary organizations could contribute to their provision.

* Financial distribution after divorce in terms of its potentially destabilizing effects and whether a ‘low cost of divorcing’, if it pertains in reality, has caused undesirable changes and removed significant incentives to work at a marriage.

Monday, November 17, 2008

MySpaceTV Videos: The eyes of my child by Tequila sunrise

I am the outcome of your lies, please find your love again and make me whole

read more | digg story

Sunday, November 16, 2008

An age of barbarism

Friday, 14th November 2008
Melanie Phillips

Twenty years ago, I started writing about the breakdown of the family, the systematic undermining of moral constraints and the ascendancy of ‘lifestyle choice’, a doctrine which forbade condemnation of any lifestyle as harmful. Non judgmentalism was now mandatory; the only judgment to be permitted henceforth was that judgment was discriminatory, and only disapproval was to be disapproved of. Stigma and shame were considered an affront to individual rights; disapproval of adultery or elective lone parenthood, for example, were dismissed as ‘Old Testament fundamentalism’.

During the past two decades, I warned repeatedly that the fragmentation of family life was in general a source of pain, damage and acute danger for children in particular but also the women in whose name modern feminists were promoting female independence from men; that mass fatherlessness was creating deserts of depravity and highly damaged children who were growing up to become highly damaged parents; that the collapse of social and moral controls was destroying the most fundamental values of civilised behaviour, with individuals raised in such emotional and moral chaos that they were incapable even of feeling the empathy with other people that is the very foundation of social relationships of the most basic kind; and that the welfare system was actually incentivising such wholesale destruction of individual lives and society itself.

Then as now, I was scorned and vilified by the ‘progressive ‘ intelligentsia. I had become reactionary, right-wing, ultra-right-wing, a harker-back to some mythical golden age of the fifties, a moraliser, an extremist, a bigot, a fascist, demented. Bien-pensant opinion spoke with one voice. Progressive politics meant the freedom to behave exactly as one wished in pursuit of instant gratification, and to destroy all external constraints, both formal and cultural, which got in the way. Anyone who, like me, spoke of the essential civilising force of stigma and shame in providing crucial informal constraints on the infliction of harm was demonised as a throwback to a cruel age of social ostracism. Government policy, egged on by activist judges who deliberately voided family law of ‘moral judgments’ on the basis that that there was no right or wrong in family life because it was always just too complicated to untangle, accordingly penalised marriage, rewarded adultery, further incentivised lone parenthood and systematically normalised irregular relationships.

Wickedly, to cover its tracks that same political/intellectual class stopped breaking down official information about household violence according to married/unmarried status so that it became impossible to show what previously official statistics had clearly demonstrated: that women and children are at vastly greater risk of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of unmarried and unrelated men passing through the household (a recent US study found, children living with a non-biological adult are 50 times more likely to die from afflicted injuries than those living with their biological parents). Indeed, we have now reached the point where official forms increasingly fail to use terms such as ‘mother and father’ or ‘parents’ in favour of the non-discriminatory euphemisms of informal ‘relationships’. Britain has simply written orderly, married, normative family life out of the script.

I also wrote years ago about the institutionalised incompetence of social work, in the grip of a political correctness so extreme that it was wholly incapable of responding to situations on the facts that plainly presented themselves, with catastrophic results. From the death of Maria Colwell in 1973 inquiry after inquiry has been convened, made recommendations and been ignored as atrocity has followed atrocity on the social workers’ watch. Then as now the same excuses were made - that social workers were under-funded, under-resourced, under-trained, under pressure, damned if they did and damned if they didn’t, unsung heroes who should not be condemned just because, hey, from time to time a child was sadistically abused or tortured to death on their watch, it was all the fault of government penny-pinching, we’re all guilty, etc etc. Then as now I was vilified as a heartless social worker-basher, extreme right-wing lunatic etc etc.

And now we can all see the truly terrible results. This week we have been presented with the life, systematic torture and death of baby P, a case so harrowing that many of us can hardly bear to read the details and cannot do so without weeping.

We read that he died at the hands of his mother, her boyfriend and their lodger. We read that the mother expressed no remorse and boasted she will be free by Christmas. We read that she had another child while she was in jail.

We read that the Director of Children’s Services at Haringey council has refused to apologise and insisted that no-one was to blame, despite evidence that social workers ignored doctors and three employees had received written warnings.

We read that four government ministers were warned that Haringey council’s child protection service was out of control seven months before baby P’s death – by a council whistleblower who was sacked and gagged for issuing this warning and who is prevented by court injunction from giving evidence to the official inquiry into the baby P case.

We read commentators falling over themselves to express horror, shock, revulsion, incredulity, outrage. Where have they all been these past two decades? We read of political point-scoring and righteous indignation at the political point-scoring.

Of course the political point scoring is obscene. Of course the book should be thrown at Haringey council.

But we also read this week of another household in Manchester where a baby and his two year-old brother were stabbed to death by a mother suffering from mental illness.

And we read of Shannon Matthews’ mother and her boyfriend’s uncle, on trial for abducting that poor child and keeping her locked up in order to extract a reward for her safe return.

The truth is that it is all far, far too late. Britain has simply undone the fabric of civilised life. And the most bitter reproach of all must be for the people at whose door the ultimate responsibility for this catastrophic state of affairs must really be laid -- not the wretched politicians, not the council officials or Ofsted inspectors or other negligent or incompetent professionals, not even the sadists who actually killed baby P or who murder or maim countless other children, but the amoral and criminally self-regarding so-called ‘progressive’ intelligentsia, who have bullied, smeared, intimidated and manipulated Britain into a truly dark age of barbarism.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Dad loses son on more lies from a sick system!

CYF general manager of operations, Lorraine Williams, said: "While criminal charges may have been dropped, in this case, on the balance of probabilities, we still have concerns for the boy's safety and will continue to work with his family for a successful outcome.

In my case, the sinister Judge John Strettell said on the balance of probabilities I was an unfit father. I had a large amount of factual evidence to prove otherwise, however I was denied my right to defend myself in the Ashburton Courthouse December 17th 2001.I collapsed on the court room floor in shock when he wouldn't allow me to submit my evidence !!!!!!What about basic Human Rights your honour?He said that prima facie evidence showed there had been psychological and emotional abuse, which was enough to have the entire maternal family Court protected for seven miserable years. No real evidence is needed in the corrupt Court. Easy way to take a fathers children, so he becomes a heartbroken estranged dad.Take my arm, but don't take my kids you sick judge. CYFS and bent judges use the "balance of probabilities" too destroy family units, because it fits well with the Kangaroo Court gravy train of evil. Wake up kiwi's, can't you see what sick agendas are at work here? Children deserve better from cold and callous government agencies. No wonder troublesome children are on the increase, as CYFS and the corrupt Family Court are that dysfunctional they are dangerous. Our government agencies seem to be into the fractured family industry on a grand scale, the evidence being the increase in family breakdowns and world record child abuse statistics. Come on John Key show some guts and balance the scales for men? Yeah right, just another hen pecked eunuch far to scared to attack the miserable sods that claim to act in the child's best interests! Simon Power, justice spokesman is another deluded lawyer so nothing will change in the corrupt Court system. Build more prisons you thick kiwi ####'s, as your going to need them.What a sick, sad country for fathers and children !!!

Cindy Kiro the vicious feminazi Childrens Commissioner has twice tried to have me arrested for exposing and sending her case after case of trauma for children caused by the terrible Family Court. I am thankful for the common sense shown by police officer - Detective Senior Sergeant John Rae who did not adhere to the mental Childrens Commissioner crazy requests. Cindy Kiro is a not a fit and proper person and she should be in a psych ward so she can recover from her hatred of fathers.Anybody else notice that this gender bias bitch never says a word about female perpetrators of crime? The mother of a young toddler thought it funny to put her daughter in a clothes drier and hang it out on the clothes line. What do you say to that - you nasty Commissioner? No wonder society suffers when creeps like this remain in positions of power.

Katie Wylie and Nelson Mail - The Press
Saturday, 15 November 2008

A Christchurch man has lost custody of his young son despite his trial on assault charges being abandoned.

Rowan James Flynn, 53, was this week scheduled to stand trial in Nelson on five charges of assaulting his 12-year-old son, then aged 11.

He also faced one charge of assaulting a female and two charges of leaving a child under 14 without reasonable supervision.

Nelson District Court Judge Tony Zohrab discharged Flynn after the Crown offered no evidence on the assault charges.

Prosecutor Janine Bonifant said the decision did not mean the Crown believed the alleged offences had not taken place.

Flynn, an unemployed father-of-four now living in a caravan in Christchurch, was charged after his son called the police from the family's Nelson home.

He had allegedly hit his son about five times on the bottom with a wooden spoon after he was disobedient, and he said it was a "tiny issue" that blew up.

He said he had also "clipped" his son around the face but, as a Christian, believed the Bible condoned his disciplinary methods.

"I smacked him but I never assaulted him," he said. "When he was in a defiant mood there was just no dealing with him.

"I do very strongly believe in smacking children as a means of correction."

Yesterday, he learned that Child, Youth and Family (CYF) has interim custody of his son and that he may not contact the boy, who is now living with Flynn's sister in Nelson, without consent and supervision.

"It's absolutely disgusting. There was no need for it and it is just a clear and blatant abuse of (CYF's) powers," he said.

"Obviously, he doesn't like getting his bum smacked, but that's the whole point. I do not pose a threat to him at all."

CYF general manager of operations, Lorraine Williams, said: "While criminal charges may have been dropped, in this case, on the balance of probabilities, we still have concerns for the boy's safety and will continue to work with his family for a successful outcome."

Nelson police have defended their decision to prosecute Flynn as correct and in the public interest.

Family First New Zealand national director Bob McCoskrie said the withdrawal of the charges was proof that good parents trying to deal with unacceptable behaviour from their children were being dragged before the courts without evidence to back up the charges.

"This case adds to our growing list of parents who are either being convicted, charged or investigated for attempting to correct their children in the most appropriate and effective way," he said.

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said Flynn's methods of discipline were not justified.

"It doesn't wash, frankly. There is no justification for violence against children and people who think that there is basically need to learn some new techniques," she said.

"They need to learn that in fact violence begets violence and this is no way to treat children."

She released survey results yesterday that found 43 per cent of those surveyed who knew of the "anti-smacking" legislation giving children the same protection from assault as adults supported it. Twenty-eight per cent opposed it.

The survey is part of efforts to judge public opinion in the lead-up to a referendum next August on the 18-month-old law, which removed the defence of reasonable force for disciplining a child.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Why governments love feminism.

My comment on the matter;

In New Zealand statistics say that feminist stinking thinking is responsible for widespread gender discrimination. Fathers confronted by false allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse are easy targets for the powerful feminist influenced judiciary. Once in the system a father must cope with the loss of his children and overwhelming gender bias government agencies. Once a Family court file number is created your fatherhood days are all but over because the state steps in as big dada and the insidious lawyers and psychologists get rich on your misery. How can we have balanced children in a country where the Families Commission has a radical feminist as its head researcher? Yeah right! Gender equality is a delusion, because feminists have the power base to destroy innocent fathers. The children suffer, but that doesn’t worry these evil bitches!

The Sex Fairy

Sex Fairy
This is hilarious! I didn't change a word! I'm not messing with the Sex Fairy!

1. Sex is a beauty treatment. Scientific tests find that when women make love they produce amounts of the hormone estrogen, which makes hair shine and skin smooth.
2. Gentle, relaxed lovemaking reduces your chances of suffering dermatitis, skin rashes and blemishes. The sweat produced cleanses the pores and makes your skin glow.
3. Lovemaking can burn up those calories you piled on during that romantic dinner.
4. Sex is one of the safest sports you can take up. It stretches and tones up just about every muscle in the body. It's more enjoyable than swimming 20 laps, and you don't need special sneakers!
5. Sex is an instant cure for mild depression. It releases endorphins into the bloodstream, producing a sense of euphoria and leaving you with a feeling of well-being.
6. The more sex you have, the more you will be offered. The sexually active body gives off greater quantities of chemicals called pheromones. These subtle sex perfumes drive the opposite sex crazy!
===========! ==
7 ... Sex is the safest tranquilizer in the world. IT IS 10 TIMES MORE EFFECTIVE THAN VALIUM.
8. Kissing each day will keep the dentist away. Kissing encourages saliva to wash food from the teeth and lowers the level of the acid that causes decay, preventing plaque build-up.
9. Sex actually relieves headaches. A lovemaking session can release the tension that restricts blood vessels in the brain.
10. A lot of lovemaking can unblock a stuffy nose. Sex is a natural antihistamine. It can help combat asthma and hay fever.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Neocolonialism in feminazi New Zealand

As a victim of unlawful gender discrimination orchestrated by a corrupt judiciary I can assure any readers that radical feminists are father destructive demons taking orders from the pits of hell. Can anybody explain why a Court appointed barrister (Adrienne Edwards)for my children has NEVER witnessed the loving interactions and bonds of love displayed by my confused daughters towards their father? Can anybody explain why my mother was not allowed to give her estranged grand daughters birthday and Christmas presents? What did she do Judge Boshier? False allegations of domestic violence are the ammunition for the sinister gravy train Family Court, so it can string a case out for over seven years!!! Lawyers and psychologists get rich on your misery, while police visit every now and then to administer the bash! I wonder if Ashburton pigs travel up to Christchurch this Christmas so they can assault my female friend in front of her two terrified teenage daughters and trash my home with a bullshit search warrant generated by the ever so civil,but evil, De Family Court? Constable Mark Walter Dryland you're a low down scumbag coward.Senior Sergeant Arnold Kelly, you stink you corrupt pig. Do ANY of you readers know what it’s like to be a FORCED CLIENT in adversarial litigation through NO FAULT of your own? Try getting a job as a falsely accused violent dad. Where is my justice? Unemployed and broke and Christmas coming. Merry Christmas children. It is so unfair and SAD. How could this happen in a country that claims to be fair and just!!
Anyway my justified anger is simmering and I want justice.

Below is an interesting letter from another Peter highlighting the plight of men in Western societies.

(Open Letter to the Secretary of the United Nations Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (4th Committee)

Dear Mr. Zhang Saijin,

I have recently found evidence of the influence and spread of Western Lesbian Neocolonialism in the area of Domestic Violence policy.

The way it works is as follows:

Society, including lawyers and judges, is indoctrinated in the counter-scientific belief that Domestic Violence is basically a problem of men's behaviour towards women, whereas the scholarly evidence is overwhelmingly that that is not the case -- see References Examining
Assaults by Women on their Spouses or Male Partners: an Annotated Bibliography at ;

This occurs because Feminists, while talking about "Equality" out of one side of their mouths, are in fact only interested in issues such as Domestic

Violence to the extent that they can use them to portray women as victim of men's evildoing;

Convincing people and organisations such as the United Nations that women are victims of men's evildoing arouses powerful, irrational guilt-feelings in men, which lead them to give women special privileges over men;

At the same time, Feminists believe in the Power and Control (Duluth) model of Domestic Violence, according to which men like to control women, and use violence and intimidation for this purpose;

There is no evidence for this fictional model;

Feminists ignore men's point of view, and reject any other explanation for Domestic Violence;

The power and control of Feminism over the media, education system, legal system and police in Western countries means that men are not encouraged to report violence by their wives or female partners, and are often not taken seriously if they do;

This makes men powerless in the face of female power and control in the home, and the Feminists want to keep it that way;

This makes Non-Western immigrants a threat to Feminist power and control, because they may come from cultures where men actually have rights when in conflict with a woman;

For example, an Ethnic Persian programme on Stratos TV was interrupted at about 0845 Hours (New Zealand Time) on 29th October 2008 by a propaganda message on Domestic Violence (entitled "It's Not OK.). The propaganda message said, "It's not OK to use your culture as an excuse." It gave the sexist and stereotypical impression that men were only in danger of hitting women and women were only in danger of hitting children. I have never seen such a message during other programmes on Stratos TV. The Persian community was being deliberately targeted;

In addition, Feminists are actively trying to change the World so that all countries make men as powerless as they are in Western countries;

For example, on Televion One News at about 1800 Hours (New Zealand Time) on 26 October 2008, I saw a Lesbian-looking New Zealand policewoman in East Timor talking about Domestic Violence in that country;

She said that it was not surprising that Domestic Violence was rife, given the recent civil war there, and that men paid for their brides, which meant that they thought women should do what they were told;

Of course, no silly policewoman from New Zealand (who got her job because of unequal entry standards for male and female police officers) is competent to draw comparisons between civil war and Domestic Violence, and if men paying dowries for their brides means that they can tell them what to do, then women paying dowries for their bridegrooms must logically mean that they can tell their husbands what to do;

However, the major issue here is that she was implying that women should not do what their husbands told them to do, that men backed up their demands on their women by the use of force, and that this was the cause of Domestic Violence in East Timor;

In fact, Feminist Domestic Violence agencies almost certainly encourage women from Non-Western cultures to assert themselves against their husbands. This is likely to cause conflict. If the woman is violent, there is no culture in the World (Western or Non-Western) which encourages men to complain to the authorities, but if the man retaliates against female violence, the Feminist Domestic Violence agencies (who caused the problem in the first place) will leap to the defence of the woman and get the man arrested.

This is a form of Neocolonialism;

The anti-male ethos which informs Feminist Domestic Violence theory (fiction) is Lesbian in its hatred of men.

I urge you to take steps to protect Non-Western men from the lies and man-hatred of Western Lesbian Feminists.

Yours sincerely,

Zhu nin pingan!

Peter Zohrab
Acting President
New Zealand Equality Education Foundation

International Men's Day 3/4 of boys sexually
exploited by women
Gender & Domestic Violence Loose
morals cost $1b/year Court says men

have right to violence programs Judge says abortions


Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Madonna's 12 Insane Rules for Letting Guy Ritchie Visit Kids

After weeks apart, an emotional Guy Ritchie was reunited with his sons Rocco and David at a London airport this morning. The director's children were back on English soil after being whisked away to the US by Madonna, who is in the throes of her Sticky and Sweet tour. Scroll down to the bottom to see her 12 unreal conditions for allowing this.

read more | digg story

F4J Protestor/Activist Imprisoned in UK

UK Fathers 4 Justice activist Jolly Stanesby was today sentenced for two months in jail today for a rooftop protest at the home of UK Deputy Prime Minister Harriett Harman.

Fellow protestor Mark Harris was given a conditional discharge.

Members of the group, which had disbanded in September of this year, said they would be staging further protests on the Minister's roof and at the Prime Ministers home in Kirkaldy & Cowdenbeath within the week at protest at what they described as a 'politically conceived show trial.'

Said Mark Harris from court 'I am shocked that Mr Stanesby has been imprisoned and know that fellow campaigners will be taking his place on Miss Harman's roof within days if not hours. The court has made a serious error in committing him to prison and in doing so incited angry dads to take further direct action.'

'If the government messes with our right to family life, then they should be assured that this will also apply to them.'

Said retired F4J Founder Matt O'Connor, 'This was a politically motivated prosecution where protestors have been smeared as terrorists. The fact is that the Harmans conceived their departure from their property as a political response to our protest and stage managed a press conference to coincide with that departure.'

'That Harriet Harman can't go out for a walk in her constituency without a knife proof flack jacket demonstrates that her latent dislike and prejudice against fathers has manifested itself into a social evil that affects everyone.'

'Jolly Stanesby and Mark Harris enjoyed massive public support for their protest and performed a serious public duty in raising awareness about the consequences of mass fatherlessness and the hypocrisy of Ministers who have engaged in a perversion in the course of natural justice to deny a generation of children the right in law to see their fathers. No doubt direct action will flow from this decision.'

'The only person who should be in prison today is the Deputy Prime Minister.'

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

DNA -test all babies, says dads' group,25197,24634310-12377,00.html

November 11, 2008
Article from: Australian Associated Press

ALL babies should be DNA-tested at birth to ensure men are not wrongly named as a child's father, a men's rights group says.

Mothers are being made to pay back money to men they wrongly claim fathered their children under changes to child support laws, The Daily Telegraph reports.

Men's Rights Agency director Reg Price said a DNA test at birth would stop men being wrongly identified as the father of a child.

"We believe that it should be done at birth - they do a blood test now and it would be quite simple to do it at that time," he said on Fairfax radio.

"It is absolutely dreadful what is going on out there, and it is quite easy to fix with a test at birth."

Mr Price said current laws made it difficult and costly for men to get permission for a DNA test, with court action often necessary.

"The big problem is the cost involved," he said.

"If (a woman) says that is the case (that they are the father), then a man has to go to court to get permission (for the DNA test)."

Monday, November 10, 2008

Push for jail terms for theft of DNA

Quote: A husband who suspects he is not the father of his children could be jailed for two years if he steals hair or saliva for DNA testing, under legal changes being proposed by the Rudd Government.

Once again, the State (aka Government) intrudes into family life and sets itself up as THE PARENT.

<http://www.theaustr 0,25197,24633241 -5013404, 00.html>

The Australian
11 November 2008

Push for jail terms for theft of DNA
By Leigh Dayton, Science writer

A husband who suspects he is not the father of his children could be jailed for two years if he steals hair or saliva for DNA testing, under legal changes being proposed by the Rudd Government.

Similarly, a private investigator would not be able to obtain a sample of someone's DNA for testing without their permission.

If adopted, the DNA theft laws would also make it illegal to conduct a genetic test on a sample obtained without consent and to disclose the results of any such test.

The proposed changes to the criminal code are contained in a discussion paper released by Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus yesterday.

However, Mr Debus, who has portfolio responsibility for criminal law within the Attorney-General' s Department, said: "The proposed new offences don't interfere with the use of DNA testing by the police or courts or lawful access to private paternity testing by parents and guardians."

The proposed laws would not cover overseas online genetic testing services such as 23andMe and deCODEme.

The Australian Law Reform Commission's David Weisbrot said multinational protocols and strategies - such as those adopted for child abuse and sex crimes - must be set up to handle DNA theft laws.

The discussion paper on DNA theft was based on recommendations of the ALRC's 2003 report Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia, which highlighted the need to tighten laws in response to advances in human genetic technology.

The recommendations were accepted in December 2005 by the Howard government, but not acted on. In 2004, the British Human Tissue Act was amended to make DNA theft a criminal offence. The UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in 2003 adopted the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data.

Professor Weisbrot said that, during the ALRC's public hearings, people were most concerned about the misuse of personal genetic information by insurers, employers, angry spouses and journalists tracking down "famous DNA".

At the time, there were stories about US president Bill Clinton who had his bodyguards collect a pint glass after he had drunk from it in a British pub," he said.

Professor Weisbrot noted that newspapers also reported a plot by "genetic trophy hunters" to acquire a sample of Prince Harry's DNA.

Central to the new discussion paper is the notion - detailed in the ALRC report - that non-consensual genetic testing can cause many types of harm, including physical harm if a person is assaulted in order to obtain a sample.

People can also be harmed emotionally if, for instance, their kinship or identity is questioned.

Men's Rights Agency co-director Sue Price said any decision to criminalise non-consensual genetic testing would be "well over the top".

"I had hoped that this had died a normal death, but it seemsthere are still people looking to prevent DNA testing," Ms Price said.

Liam Magill, who was awarded damages of $70,000 in 2001 after DNA paternity testing proved a family friend was the biological father of his two youngest children, agreed.

"The introduction of legislation that looked like this would be a total farce," he said.

Additional reporting: Matthew Clayfield

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Time 4 a laugh or two

If you yelled for 8 years, 7 months and 6 days you would have produced enough sound energy to heat one cup of coffee.
(Hardly seems worth it.)

If you farted consistently for 6 years and 9 months, enough gas is produced to create the energy of an atomic bomb.
(Now that's more like it!)

The human heart creates enough pressure when it pumps out to the body to squirt blood 30 feet.

A pig's orgasm lasts 30 minutes.
(In my next life, I want to be a pig.)

A cockroach will live nine days without its head before it starves to death. (Creepy.)
(I'm still not over the pig.)

Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories a hour.
(Don't try this at home; maybe at work)

The male praying mantis cannot copulate while its head is attached to its body. The female initiates sex by ripping the male's head off.
(Honey, I'm home. What the. ..?!)

The flea can jump 350 times its body length. It's like a human jumping the length of a football field. (30 minutes... Lucky pig! Can you imagine?)

The catfish has over 27,000 taste buds.
(What could be so tasty on the bottom of a pond?)

Some lions mate over 50 times a day.
(I still want to be a pig in my next life...quality over quantity)

Butterflies taste with their feet.
(Something I always wanted to know.)

The strongest muscle in the body is the tongue. (Hmmmmmm......)

Right-handed people live, on average, nine years longer than left-handed people.

(If you're ambidextrous, do you split the difference?)

Elephants are the only animals that cannot jump.
(Okay, so that would be a good thing)

A cat's urine glows under a black light.
(I wonder who was paid to figure that out?)

An ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain.
( I know some people like that.)

Starfish have no brains.
(I know some people like that too.)

Polar bears are left-handed.
(If they switch, they'll live a lot longer)

Humans and dolphins are the only species that have sex for pleasure.
(What about that pig??)

Now that you've smiled at least once, it's your turn to spread these crazy facts and send this to someone you want to bring a smile to, maybe even a chuckle.

In other words, send it to everyone ! (and God love that pig!)

Monday, November 3, 2008

Misandry USA style.

Dear dad4justice,

This time, Dallas hates men.

If you haven't heard about this week-old misandry, you can complain to the Dallas officials responsible for teaching little boys to hate themselves and their fathers, and little girls to hate all boys and men.

Joe Biden started all this with his unconstitutional VAWA.
Did YOU vote for VAWA Joe and his sidekick, GynObama?

Here's more news about the prevaricating GynObama:


he told the "SF Chronicle" he wants to bankrupt the coal biz:

His words are on audiotape! Listen to this socialist.

Remember: socialism and feminism are inextricably linked.

A vote for Obama/Biden is a vote against men and money.


MHR Enterprises
PO Box 33086
Los Gatos, CA 95031-3086

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Justice is a sick joke in New Zealand

Justice? Woman who lied and sent her partner to prison for 10 months gets away with 50 hours community service!If anybody knows what it is like to be celled up when you're innocent of any crime, then you can relate to how this bloke feels. I was sent to prison on false allegations of sexual abuse and domestic violence, but who cares in feminazi New Zealand with it's corrupt judiciary! Kiwi injustice hurts big time!

Lies put me in jail

4:00AM Sunday Nov 02, 2008
Lies put me in jail

A woman who helped send her former partner to prison for 10 months after lying in court has escaped with 50 hours community service.

Marion Anne Carter, 61, was sentenced in Hamilton last week after earlier pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice.

Her lies under oath helped convict Robert "Bob" Sutton of two rapes, four assaults with a weapon and nine assaults on a number of people that saw him jailed in November 2005.

Sutton told the Herald on Sunday from his takeaway and dairy in Mourea, near Rotorua, yesterday he "wasn't very impressed" with her punishment.

"I don't wish jail on anybody but her. I was gutted by the fact that I did 10 months in jail for her lies, and she turns around and she gets 50 hours and that's it."

The allegations dated back to 1995 when Sutton was operating a hotel in the King Country town of Piopio.

He had maintained his innocence since the day he was arrested by two detectives but the truth only emerged when two witnesses came forward after national media coverage of his sentencing

One came forward with a letter written by Carter telling the complainants what to say on the witness stand, and the other remembered being there when Carter wrote the instructions.

"I was found guilty and on bail about to be sentenced... a woman picked up a paper and made the connection," Sutton said.

"What Anne had done, she'd written instructions out for the `witnesses' of what she wanted them to say at court, and she'd written it out for this woman."

A year later, the Court of Appeal quashed Sutton's convictions and ordered a new trial but police decided not to proceed.

Since then the father-of-four has been working on keeping the nightmares at bay.

He shared a prison cell with a murderer and made friends with gangsters, killers and rapists in the general prison population. The 58-year-old said he didn't hate his partner of 10 years but admitted he was "stupid" for leaving his wife of 15 years and their two children for a woman happy to arrange his demise.

After suffering sideway glances from locals, he believes he finally has his "life back on track".

With the support of his loyal customers, he is making back some of the $140,000 he forked out for solicitors and wages while he was in jail.

"I've put all my heart and soul back into the shop that I own. Now I'm in a good position, even though I paid out a lot of

But he will never forgive Carter.

CYFS too quick to take kids, says study

I have many examples of the barbaric behaviour shown by the appalling CYFS monsters. These CYFS creeps put the Nazi's to shame. What else would you expect when the Minister in charge of the department is a dyke and a raving alcoholic.
Good stuff Ruth Dyson, enjoy the blood on your hands bitch @!!

CYFS too quick to take kids, says study
5:00AM Thursday Dec 06, 2007
By Simon Collins

Former CYFS chief social worker Mike Doolan.

Former CYFS chief social worker Mike Doolan.

The Government's top social workers say a "culture of blame" over child abuse is driving social workers into taking children from their families to avoid any risk of being blamed if things go wrong.

Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) chief social worker, Dr Marie Connolly, and her predecessor Mike Doolan say "sensationalist" media coverage of high-profile child deaths is making social workers less willing to trust the families of the children referred to them.

The number of children and young people in CYFS care has risen by half this decade, from 3533 in 1999-2000 to 5191 at the end of last year, despite an actual decline in child deaths from 1.07 a year for every 100,000 children in the 1990s to 0.79 a year in the first five years of this decade.

In a new book on child homicide, Dr Connolly and Mr Doolan call for a move away from the "culture of blame" to what they call a "public health model of welfare" which targets the whole range of factors that lead people to harm children.

In a foreword, the director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection, Dorothy Scott, calls for specific moves to:

* Cut problem drinking by raising alcohol prices, restricting advertising and tightening parents' control of their children's drinking.

* Make sure health services reach all new mothers and catch post-natal depression.

* Work proactively with vulnerable men in custody disputes.

A detailed study of nine cases where CYFS was involved before children were killed found that three of the cases followed Family Court custody hearings.

In one case, a father killed his child just hours after the court ordered him to transfer custody to the mother.

In another case, a mother agreed to transfer custody to the father, but the father "reported significant management difficulties with the child" and killed her two weeks later.

Although all nine case studies involved families where the parents had split, the broader analysis of all 91 children killed in New Zealand between 1991 and 2000 found that more than half the children died at the hands of their biological parents - 30 per cent fathers and 24 per cent mothers.

Only 18 per cent were killed by step-parents and the other 28 per cent were killed by other relatives, acquaintances or strangers.

Almost two-thirds of the children killed were preschoolers and a quarter were under 1 - a fact the book attributes to "their physical vulnerability, their total dependence on adults, and their capacity to cry incessantly and drive an exhausted/enraged parent to act in ways that they normally would not".

Yet despite these cases, the book strongly endorses the current law that requires social workers to keep children within the extended family whenever possible. But in the book, Dr Connolly and Mr Doolan say that every high-profile child death review has led to tightening managerial controls over social workers which have made them less willing to risk leaving children with their families.


Boys 53 per cent
Girls 46 per cent
Unknown (unborn child) 1 per cent
0-1 year old 26 per cent
1-4 years old 37 per cent
5-10 years old 19 per cent
11-14 years old 18 per cent
Maori 52 per cent
Pakeha 39 per cent
Asian 4 per cent
Samoan 3 per cent
Unknown 2 per cent

Battered 47 per cent
Stabbed/knifed 20 per cent
Strangled/suffocated 19 per cent
Poisoned 5 per cent
Drowned 3 per cent
Shot 2 per cent
Neglected 2 per cent
Unknown 1 per cent

Men 66 per cent
Women 34 per cent
Biological fathers 30 per cent
Biological mothers 24 per cent
De facto step-parents 18 per cent
Other relatives 9 per cent
Neighbours/acquaintances 6 per cent
Non-family caregivers 2 per cent
Boarders 1 per cent
Strangers 6 per cent
Unknown 4 per cent

Source: Connolly & Doolan, Lives Cut Short.

* Lives Cut Short, by Marie Connolly and Mike Doolan, Dunmore Publishing for the Children's Commissioner, $24.95.