Letter to National Party regarding deadbeat dads.

National Spokeswomen on Family.

Dear Mrs Judith Collins

"Inland Revenue was letting "deadbeat dads" leave New Zealand without making arrangements to pay child support debts even when informed about flight details, National's Judith Collins said today."

Why not address the serious issues that cause these men to abandon their parental responsibilities?Why not look at the triggers that make fathers flee the country.Clearly you would like to criminalize fatherhood as your offensive rhetoric indicates.More ambulance at the bottom of the cliff ideologies. National have no contingency plans to address the widespread problems of kiwi fatherlessness, the lack of male role models and low self esteem issues for our young males trapped in a feminist school system.Boys leave school with their heads down these days as the politicians blame all societies problems on fathers deserting the ship.

I am continuing to contact my fellow activist, men and women, who believe you are helping to perpetrate one of the greatest civil rights abuses ever in New Zealand. Numbers and severity of abuse, including fulfilling all the components of the definitions of slavery, argue this point very well. Your unfair "deadbeat dad" stereotype is both disgusting and bloody offensive !I suggest you to lay off and tackle some real issues that impact on child poverty and child abuse,that would be far more beneficial too kiwi society rather than your constant put downs of fatherhood.

During the past decades the media and politicians often present fathers as bumbling idiots , marriage as warfare and women as sex objects, while heroes were old fashioned and most male characters could only resolve conflict through violence.

For years men have been bombarded from every side, and the beating took its toll, just have a glance at recent suicide statistics if you care, which I doubt, as politicians live in a privileged utopian bubble alienated from reality. Why don't you try and address the constant struggles that confront the ever increasingly poor masses of kiwi peasants, who are expected to live on peanuts from the corrupt administration. Surely you must realize poverty and child abuse go hand in hand.

What did these men do to justify the debtor's prisons, confiscation of property, money, future earnings, micro-managing where they work, for whom they work, how many jobs they work, etc.... if the divorce were "NO-FAULT"? And, who canceled the International Human Right legislation and the Bill of Rights when there was no national crisis in families until the courts and legislatures artificially created one? You know the answer to that question Judith, because you were employed in the De Family Court gravy train which is nothing more than a cess pool of lies and corruption ! You were once part of the adversarial court of injustice, so I expect your deadbeat dad mentality was learned at law school preached by another feminist leaning Professor of piffle.You are the typical De Family Court lawyer, that is , you have graduated in textbook gender bias genocide while cruising the judicial gravy train. Everybody knows the De Family Court is a sick joke for fathers.They should have the hooded hangman stationed outside every De Family Courthouse in New Zealand.No wonder honest lawyers stay well away from the evil court .Shame on the sinister and sick Kangaroo Court of destruction.

Child support should first be questioned as to lawfulness of taking children from an innocent parent and second as to who is the least stable parent ending a marriage for self-aggrandizement at the great cost to the children. Child poverty, abuse, sexual molestation, major psychological problems, teen pregnancy, promiscuity, drug addictions, perversions,infanticide, etc. all skyrocket when the children are taken from the father. Even 'bad dads' raise better and healthier citizens than single mothers.Responsible and caring dads set boundaries. So we pay women to destroy our children. That is really smart. Why don't you do a reality show called "Kiwi Babies for Profit" or "Aunty Helen's Welfare Whores" to document the major reality of meal ticket mummies (real deadbeats) who want others to pay for their sluttish behaviour. If a man has several children by several women, he is a considered a sub-human villain deadbeat. So why is it a stretch to label irresponsibly birthing women similarly. The public is beginning to ask the same questions as they see more good men destroyed than truly bad men punished.

Violent offenders have more rights than a divorced father who loves his children and has not changed jobs but is starving and behind on child support.For example, incarcerated prisoners, real serious offenders like homicidal maniacs get paid huge amounts of compensation for hurt feelings, while badly done over fathers in the wretched Family Court get nothing but a kick in the guts ! Injustice hurts big time Mrs Collins. You should have a yarn to any of my FOUR CHILDREN if you don't believe me!

Every time some faithless and foolish mother files for 'no-fault' divorce expecting money, power, and control over her husband enforced at the point of a gun, we are all supposed to automatically assume that he must be at fault so he must pay. We do this even when the woman claims a "NO-FAULT" DIVORCE.

If, as a businessman, the law stated that anyone I contract with can bail at anytime with "no fault" on my behalf, but can still receive all the benefits of the contract from me, this is fraud. If you believe this is fair, then I have a million-dollar contract I would like for you to sign with me so I can bail and still collect.

If I were fully informed of that fact of a unilateral cancellation with full compensation clause in your favour only I would not do business. Would you? Or would you expect that criminal fraud that attempts such behaviour to go to jail for committing her fraud. Why do we reward marital fraud.

The courts and legislators claim their draconian laws and enforcement is for "the best interest of the child". Yet women are the greatest abuses of children in our country, frequently not by mere 'margins' but by 'multipliers' when compared to biological fathers. Our courts and legislators remove protective and nurturing fathers and turn them into wallets much likes the Nazis turned Jews into lampshades.

No-Fault divorce should also mean no child-support and no child custody for the person filing this statement of intent to defraud. Why should we let our most unstable and fraudulent parents have the children and all the power to abuse that entails.

What would a politician like yourself, a former De Family Court gravy train lawyer leech care about fathers overwhelmed by unlawful gender discrimination by ALL Government agencies that callously claim to act in the "child's best interests." How hard are these dads to be pushed ? New Zealand suicide statistics give the answer.Keep driving dads away Judith and scratch your head when the traditional New Zealand FAMILY, that is, MUM & DAD & the CHILDREN is all but obliterated.

Kiwi family breakdown is the new age meal ticket for a huge fractured family industry.Other things may change us kiwi's but we start and end with FAMILY.
No wonder the absentee father is the curse of the day. Thanks for adding to the problem Judith !

Dad4justice, a dad forever, even when beat –dead !

" Its better to be defeated on principle than to win on lies." -Arthur Calwell

Book review Absolute Power.

Well I must applaud Ian Wishart for his book Absolute Power. I’ve had my suspicions and severe concerns about things within Helengradland. It came as no surprise whatsoever that the book is full of skullduggery from consummate liars that belong to a disgraceful Labour Government. Such a shameful state of affairs.

I knew things were bad when Helen Clark called the inhabitants of the good old West Coast “feral inbreds”. I can always remember my young daughters coming from the tiny West Coast School asking me why the Prime Minister was calling them nasty names. Rightly so the whole community went berserk, as nobody could understand why Clark said that? Didn’t the Labour Party originate in Blackball!

After reading this book I understand what powers that have been at work behind closed doors, the undercurrents that have been pushing a huge ism snake, the social policy engineers, a socialist –nanny state – politically correct monster. This monster taints the atmosphere of the Beehive, where lie after lie is processed by the numerous unscrupulous dirt bags in Aunty Helen’s propaganda rank and file army. Pass the dirty emails girls.Please wimp, ask no questions silly Monkey.

As a fathers right activist I have been on the receiving end of a vindictive and ruthless radical feminist regime since 2001. This book highlights the major scud missile trademark of Helen Clark, that is, her ability to crush anybody that dares to speak out against her. She has at her fingertips a huge bureaucratic machine that can shred anybody. Heather Simpson is the front gunner on the Liarbour ship, which is jammed packed with a motley crew of cunning, conniving, backstabbing communists.

She has hand picked a sisterhood judiciary that is only too willing to provide her ample scope and ammunition so her feminist ideologues and agendas can taint due process and fairness. There’s an incredible lust for power within Klark's regime and the spin doctor machine works 24/7. These welcome to the Radical Feminist Machine robots always stay out of the limelight, however this doesn’t undermine their ability in providing a safe haven for political malfeasance. Quickly girls rush through the legislation. Add to more grey area chaotic law at the stroke of midnight. Clever girls, what darling, didn’t you think that people wouldn’t understand your dirt Miss Clark?
Don’t take us all for fools you political cretins of little dignified substance. You are, after all, elected to represent the best interests of the people? Yeah right, joke of the century!

Corruption is a dirty word, but it isn’t programmed into Klark’s brain, as she is a walking humongous lie and the slimy red fungus Heather Simpson, operates the dirty laundry department, which gives the Supreme Leader more time with Tizard the Lizard, ooops sorry Judith. Pardon me dyke girls, lets all play smack, smack naughty boy Peter.

Everything about Clark is false, she a phoney and a mere sad arse vindictive lesbian who harbours a mean grudge. She has created the ultimate corrupt power base on a bedrock of coercion and trickery where she enjoys a total lack of transparency, absolutely no accountability and a socialist hairy fairy utopian euphoria existence. She radiates utter filth, while her deluded ego makes her think that people respect her insanity. The two faced imbeciles from the family destructive Labour Party enjoy pulling a corporate salary without having to ever experience any corporate responsibility. These slippery pollies are laughing at the foolish constituents while oblivious that they're the laughing stock of the Western World. To be successful in Clark’s regime, one must be a yes mama moron, have no morals and a totally absence conscience.


I am glad Ian mentioned Tom Lewis. He is the author the book Cover-Ups and Cop-Outs, which is a must read if anybody doubts the existence of widespread corruption within the police. Lewis was a thirty-year NZ Police veteran and he writes about corruption . Dirty cops are a worry for all kiwis, but it’s to be expected, as a corrupt Clark regime has lowered the goal posts effectively shutting any chance that society can enjoy an honourable police force with integrity and respect from the public. The Blue Brotherhood badge of dishonour is not respected in society anymore.Police lie to protect each other - fact. Police are unfortunately indoctrinated by political agendas set down by the feminazi’s that lurk in level 9 Beehive. Genuine police moral must be shattered. Tragically kiwi society is rapidly deteriorating into social chaos, sadly communities are being engulfed by violence and I can assure you that a walk in my home city on a Saturday night is a far more stressful affair nowadays. According to the latest Police statistics violent crime has increased by 43.6 percent since Labour has been in office, rising from 39,688 recorded cases in 1999 to 56,983 last year.
Ian mentions Rob Pope who swapped positions with Sandra Manderson as the Canterbury Police District Commander. Sandra was a good friend with Miss Clark. Pope wasn’t respected by many in Canterbury. It's a rotten barrel and I do wonder when the lid will finally come off, so the corrections needed to function properly can be finally be addressed. Dreams are free and injustice looks set to carry on running rampant!

We have a society blighted by inequality ONLY because we allow a self-appointed political and legal elite to undermine our seriously flawed democracy. Why does the kiwi media that promotes this flawed democracy and concentrate their time almost entirely on the limited group who get selected for political positions, also concentrate their venom on those at the bottom of the inequality ladder while allowing the massive disparities in wealth. Oh that’s right, Miss Clark said poverty in NZ is just “extrapolated from an anecdote” and the media stool pigeons never challenge her on anything as they’re gutless wind bags.

A good book Ian and keep up the good work, as we are not slaves to corruption. Power to the people and honest writers like yourself. I admire Ian for having the guts to put before the public of New Zealand what we ALL should know about the Labour Party.The antic’s of these lying freaks is beyond my comprehension and I find the whole Klark regime a cauldron of rorts, criminal behaviour and blatant corruption.

In a rotten Helen Clark society, elites are the source of the rot!

Who in their right mind can say they’re proud to be a kiwi?

How our tax dollars subsidize family breakup

Crucial to read: "...Diabolically, the very government programs advertised as addressing these social ills are the ones actually generating them. The result is a government perpetual-growth machine that will continue to expand until we have the courage stand up and unequivocally demand that it stop..." - Amen!

read more | digg story

Helen Klark's inner circle code speak

Feminist Code Speak

Men seeking equal treatment = “backlash”
Women seeking equal treatment = “feminism”
Discrimination against men = “equal opportunity”
Discrimination against women = “discrimination”
A woman with grievances = “victim”
A man with grievances = “angry”
Open discussion of gender issues = “misogyny”
Men looking for equal treatment in the courts = “abuse”
Consensual sex between a man and woman = “rape”
Heated discussion between a man and woman = “domestic violence”
Women receiving preferential treatment/privileges = “equality”
A numeric majority of the human species = “minority”
Any woman = “victim”
Any man = “oppressor”
Any child = “property”
A woman talking about hating men = “empowerment”
A man talking about hating women = “hate speech”
A sexually predatory woman dressed like a hooker = “liberation”
A man with any interest in sex = “rapist”
A woman who wants to be with her children = “mother”
A man who wants to be with his children = “abuser”
A woman who forces children under her care/authority into sex = “the
child was lucky”
A man who forces children under his care/authority into sex
= “pedophile”
A shelter providing emergency services to abused women = “women’s
shelter”
A shelter providing any services to abused men = “prison”
Female genital mutilation = “sexual repression”
Male genital mutilation = “acceptable custom that protects women from
HIV”
A man assaulting a women = “(domestic) violence”
A woman assaulting a man = “humor”
A man who beats his female partner = “batterer”
A woman who beats her male partner = “victim”
A disposable slave = “man”
A human being = “woman”
Hating women = “a crime”
Hating men = “‘a viable political act’”
Distorting or lying about reality = “feminist analysis”
Biology = “lies”
Reality = “discrimination”
Any power a man has = “patriarchy”
Any power a woman has = “empowerment”
Pornography pleasing to lesbians = “erotica”
Pornography pleasing to men = “exploitation and degradation of women”
Person who says feminists are wrong = “hate criminal”
Woman-firster and advocator of any measure against men = “feminist”
Patriarchy = “bad”
Matriarchy = “good”
Male leader = “backwards”
Female leader = “improvement”
Pro-lesbianism and female, anti-male = “feminist ideology”
Same standards, honest competition = “unfair”
Female sexuality = “nurturing”
Male sexuality = “objectifying”
Female virgin = “pure”
Male virgin = “pathetic”
Female modesty = “noble”
Male modesty = “creepy”
Pandering to male audiences = “sexism”
Pandering to female audiences = “fulfilling a niche”
Women standing up for themselves = “empowerment”
Men standing up for themselves = “chauvinism”
Woman proud of her appearance = “confident”
Man proud of his appearance = “vain”
Innate female advantages = “complementary”
Innate male advantages = “sexist”
Women’s space = “safe haven”
Men’s space = “patriarchal breeding ground”
Women discussing their issues = “theraputic”
Men discussing their issues = “whining”
Female intellect = “pioneering”
Male intellect = “masturbatory”
Man obeying a women = “respect”
Women obeying a man = “slavery”
Men being sexually critical = “shallow”
Women being sexually critical = “having standards”
Female rage = “indignation”
Male rage = “insecurity”
Male abuse of power = “direct consequence of patriarchy”
Female abuse of power = “indirect consequence of patriarchy”
Unemployed woman = “homemaker”
Unemployed man = “loser”
Female indulgence = “happiness”
Male indulgence = “selfishness”

http://antimisandry.com/blog.php?b=38

NZ Fathers Coalition reponse to Judge Boshier's proposed Family Court changes.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4492657a24035.html

Here is my response as a member of the New Zealand Fathers Coalition to the Dominion Post article relating to changes proposed by the Principal Family judge Peter Boshier, who is in favour of adopting a more formal and forcible approach to Family Court proceedings.

I am rather anxious that he advocates the need to jail parents who break the law during custody disputes, while at the same time he states;

"The court cannot guarantee to always get it right."

The court should have a moral obligation to get it right. Surely in the interests of natural justice it should be imperative that all clients of the family court be treated fairly and without bias?

The learned judge should be directing his considerable resources into addressing the paramount issue of the balanced administration of law, because injustice hurts no matter what legal jurisdiction it occurs in.

No wonder the family court is a breeding ground for false allegations and unhappy client's, who are best described as disgruntled male litigants and confused children.

It can hardly be described as a civil and a caring court. It seems as Peter Boshier is concerned about the image of the Family Court, which is hardly in the best interests of any children and decent fathers' unlucky enough to be caught in the adversarial world of Family Court litigation.

"To bring more formality to Family Court proceedings, judges would resume wearing robes, courts would be made bigger and lawyers would have to stand to address judges. In a speech to a public law seminar earlier yesterday, the judge said he also wanted better security in courtrooms, saying he "drew breath" every time someone opened a briefcase in court.

How this could be in the best interests too all the clients of family proceedings is beyond my comprehension, as obviously litigants in person are feared and discouraged, which is hardly fair principles in a court of justice. Common sense would indicate if any person with enough moral mettle and genuine compassion to put their side of the story across in a polite and dignified manner to a Family Court judge then surely they must be a parent with credibility and acceptable parenting standards? I would have thought that it clearly shows everybody that they are a responsible parent worthy of future access. It is so obvious that they only want to form loving bonds with their alienated children otherwise they wouldn't have bothered turning up for the hearing in the first place.

His comment about the brief case is ridiculous. This is just another slap in the face of disillusioned parents seeking fairness and natural justice in the Family Court. Many top criminal barristers tell fathers that they cannot help them in the bias and male unfriendly environment of the Family Court. It is a well-known accepted fact that the Family Court is guilty of unlawful gender discrimination. Any honest court worker and member of the legal fraternity with any integrity will tell you this is the case.

Here is an example;

When Family Court protection orders are served Without Notice, interim custody is automatically awarded to the mother who is termed the custodial parent, while the respondent or forced client in proceedings is usually the non-custodial father. The protection order clearly sets out the consequences of a breach of this order. Police automatically seize any firearms and tell the respondent to proceedings that he must forfeit the right to maintain a firearm license and any future control of weapons. Police tell him that he is not a fit and proper person. He is also told that he must attend a stop violence programme.He is in no doubts this is serious karma and he is only millimeters from a prison cell. Often he does not see his children for years as the counsellors, lawyers and psychologists have created a file number in a secretive gravy train system from which they make lots of money. Court appointed children lawyers and psychologists never bother to witness the interactions between a respondent and their children.These unscrupulous people supply fabricated and tainted opinion that is treated as gospel by Family Court judges.

When the forced client to Family Court proceedings gives notice as a respondent that they wish to defend the allegations and validity of the protection orders they are told they will get a hearing within 40 days, however more often the hearing is six or so months later. Meanwhile the distraught non-custodial parent, who is eager to challenge the often-malicious false allegations contained in Family Court affidavits can do nothing about his precarious position .The respondent is usually a bewildered dad. He feels sorrow and despair at the hopelessness of the situation. He has lost his sacred primal priority, his family. He usually suffers from psychological distress and anxiety, which is very detrimental to his over-all health. With the tragic increase of New Zealand men represented in suicide statistics I have no doubts figures would correlate with the number of fathers facing the insurmountable odds of trying to gain impossible access rights or custody of their abducted children in the Family Court.

" How hard are these men to be driven in the best interests of the child? Their suicides give the answer. So that's in the child best interests of their children!"

John Hirst author of the book called the Kangaroo Court.

While the estranged father constantly worries over his children's welfare he can be convicted in the District Court for a breach of the protection order for trying to contact them. Police view even sending a text message, a Christmas or Birthday card to his children as a criminal offence. He gets convicted in the District Court for trying to make contact with his children and then he faces the same judge a month later in the Family Court at a defence of protection order hearing. Is this in the best interests of the confused children, fairness and natural justice? Needless to say, the now familiar judge denies the respondent the right to submit court evidence that could easily clear him of all the domestic violence allegations. The protection orders are stamped as final and based on flimsy prima facie evidence that there had been psychological and emotional abuse. The father leaves the court in a dismal state. He is stressed, because he faces years with the daunting proposal to undergo supervised access to his children. Nobody from within the judicial system listens to him and he is fobbed of a scumbag father.

No support mechanisms are in place that can help this father, so he appeals the decision to grant the protection orders firstly to the police who respond;

" I appreciate the frustration you feel. However, there is nothing the police can do as matters currently stand. We investigate complaints of alleged offending not alleged false allegations made in context of proceedings in the Family Court for the advantage of one party over the other. That is one of the functions of the Family court; to sift truth from lies."

Desperate to commence meaningful access to his children the respondent then files an application to discharge the protection order in the Family Court, as instructed by police. After an emotionally exhaustive court hearing the same Family Court judge declines his version of events and the protection orders remain in place. This is a psychological blow and further adds to his over -all depression. He struggles to understand justice and the law when police had advised him the Family Court was the best place to sort out the truth of the matter.

Still extremely unhappy that he cannot put his side of the story to the court he approaches the High Court and is granted a hearing. He is the appellant and the New Zealand police are the respondents. The appeal is dismissed, however the High Court Justice writes;

" Furthermore, while I have every sympathy for the predicament in which the appellant finds himself, the essential thrust of the appeal is his contention that the original protection orders were invalidly made. With respect, that is something that must be determined on an appeal from the Family Court in relation to those protection orders, and not in these criminal proceedings."

This father's troublesome beef with the judicial system hinges on the words;

"The essential thrust of the appeal is his contention that the original protection orders were invalidly made."

Surely a High Court justice would not say that if he knew what skulduggery had gone on to justify the existence of the protection orders in the first place. Who is accountable for this mistake. How could a systematic failure and cumulative errors cause so much damage to a totally innocent father, his children and his family? Paternal is not a welcomed word within the doors of the Family Court.

Not out for the count yet, he pursues issues and makes an application for special leave to both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. He is told that the matters raised are serious and complex, however jurisdictional obstacles exist that do not allow him to being able to file appeal material in either court.
He faces up to the harsh reality that criminal proceedings that have resulted from the implementation of the protection orders built on spurious grounds will remain in place permanently and that they cannot be defended through our present court appeal system. Meanwhile the years slowly meander on in the Family Court. After several years as a forced client he feels sorrow and carries a resentment towards a gravy train of professionals feeding from all the miserable parental alienation and adversarial tactics for effect. On the other side of the coin the father has difficulty in finding any professional support available to address his concerns. Police, lawyers and judges continually confront him.

Disillusioned with the blatant gender bias and lack of balance of the system he approaches the Human Rights Commission and gets a hearing as the plaintiff that is finally adjudicated by the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT). The defendants are the New Zealand Family Court, police and Child Youth Family Service. He claims that he is a victim of unlawful male gender discrimination and after many memorandums filed by Crown Law it is determined that the matter be struck out in its entirety and the only matter remaining is the question of costs. The HRRT award substantial costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the Ministry of Justice.

So a male respondent is tarred with the domestic violent tag for eternity on the balance of probabilities of emotional and psychological abuse. He then tries to vindicate himself as the appellant and plaintiff through the appeal process which proves another total exercise in futility.He writes to all the politicians and gets fobbed off time and time again. His future job prospects and ability to travel overseas are obliterated, because he is stereotyped as a DV deadbeat dad totally unfit,not worthy of any favours or privileges from society. I mean to say, this dad has court protection orders around his neck, and is a danger to all children in New Zealand society even though the judicial system turn a blind eye to factual submissions presented by him that prove his innocence.

It doesn't matter that the protection orders were nothing more than a litany of lies.
It doesn't matter that the judicial system breached the Bill of Rights to achieve its desired persecution of this father.
It doesn't matter about the police and prisoner beatings !
It doesn't matter that this man has endured a round room prison cell and punitive psychiatry!
It doesn't matter that a District Court judge has said

" On some occasions criminal breaches of the protection orders do display, in his view, a degree of overreaction by police which has an adverse effect on this fathers health."

What makes the story so sad is that the affected children grow up with many problems because they have been brainwashed by a totally unfair and callous system. It is despicable that children are coached into thinking that dad is a bad parent when his only crime is his loved and sorely missed children.

Justice must always been seen to be done fairly and it should be a priority that the court gets it right and allows no scope for false allegations that can fester on for years making some people rich and others totally heartbroken.

The Family Court needs a radical rethink. It's totally out of step with judicial fairness and it has moral obligation to the children and fathers of New Zealand too get it right.

Peter Burns
New Zealand Fathers Coalition

Labour Mashup

Classic stuff.

F4J take the fight to the homes of judges

When will the de - family court stop mass producing disgruntled litigants, heartbroken dads and alienated sad children? The gravy train of deceit of the de - family court is the sad indictment for a so called civilized society.

read more | digg story