Up on Ration Shed – Egroup and BLOG – with thanks and encouragement to; Benjamin Easton – NZ – Wellington – Mt Cook – The Political Busker
For much, much more from FAMILY Orientated Authors GO:
§ BLOG – https://rationshed.wordpress.com
§ Yahoo – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationshed
Onward – Jim
|The following information is written to run concurrently with proceedings filed in the Palmerston North High Court against lax procedure within the New Zealand (at minimum) Family courts – likely furnished for underpaid and dependent, agenda trained or Court trained staff secured into monitoring and watchdog roles, excusing responsibilities of self regulation as effecting challenge free administration.Below is an uncorrected copy taken off menz.org.nz.
Reference in this post is also made to:
You have made two references, so far, which show in my view disparity with the principles you teach.
1. What do you mean by “Thai Boy”?
Julie has described her experience engaging an argument that she realised that she could not win. The fact of that argument is that the constitution of New Zealand (NZ) was abrogated on June 10 and June 11 2003. That rendered NZ effectively powerless against my argument as it was I who found the fault and took it to the House of Representative, the Court and the Human Rights Commission as the appropriate authorities to deal with the matter.
Additionally and in a submission I made to the Universal Periodic Review of New Zealand’s human rights performance of 10 November 2008, titled FATHERHOOD IS NOT A CONCEPT, I published this information – suggesting that a complaint on this matter was pending with the Police. The NZ Police are last to receive this information, where the charge to be laid would be treason. I do not see this prosecution as ready where there are other serious acts of abrogation of the constitution that need to be aligned so that the evidence is clear. Some of this you will find on kiwisfirst.com and there is a build up of other information on and offshore that is of significance to ensure, if not a prosecution, then a revolution.
Hereafter I need and primarily have to deal with this allegation against me of violence. There is no violence. There are no allegations of such. The allegations against me of emotional violence are fabricated and the fictions of that fabrication are not only self evident in the affidavit that stood against me but have also been proved to be perjured in two court proceedings. I state that Allan mistakes violence with the problem we state and is consumed in a condition that lacks challenge preferring the mollification of a condition that has damaged in perpetuity fatherhood. That is his choice – and I still respect him for the work he does – however, his is the burden of dragging a ship’s anchor in order to appear restrained.
Now I need to describe, what it is that Julie accurately suggests that others will wilfully exclude. That is that the demise of fatherhood is an active policy, discriminating against it protecting homosexuality to breed and overthrow heterosexuality – and with it must go due process. This is what Margaret Wilson of Tauranga did to protect homosexuality its authority. If due process was to survive the dominant male for his demand of rule and order would not tolerate threat against him.
This is the principle of my challenge and this is what is before you. I simply demand that due process will survive. In answer to Allan’s inquiry in respect of my successful – he excludes that I stood in parliament to warn the Speaker (the Right Honourable Jonathon Hunt) that under his watch, this challenge on due process was manifest. I was arrested and charged with trespass – three times as when I was released on bail I immediately returned to parliament demanding that the facts I brought to the attention of the Court were placed before the Court. All three charges were dismissed against me. The lawyer appointed to assist the Court later advised me that I was the only client she had ever represented (in part) who won when she did not have to do anything. So I take issue with these matters of convenience where the controversy is excused for the observers comfort to rely on an adjudicator’s decision where the adjudicator is clearly under challenge for the charge. I suggest that you read my last substantive post on the Easton v the Family Court and pay attention to what is written in the submission.
Here, I take exception with Murray’s post and draw the reader in general’s attention to the facts that this information is not new to Allan, Hans, Murray, Paul and many others – those who support me, such as Paul financially on occasions I have obviously and reasonably faltered and emotionally in respect of unconditional backing appreciate the extreme of what it is I am saying – and how I am the only one able (presently anyway) to carry the burden of unyielding challenge. This is where the challenges against me are tabled where others dislike the exclusion, so exempt me from rationality or logic, consideration or association.
However, if those who challenge me for what I am doing or how I am doing it wish to breath while considering the information before them you will see it is no autocracy like the Helen Clark era – and will see that I am no dictator either, with publications in place on how the power I will yield will be distributed back to the body of the public.
Finally, while this all unfolds – as it is obviously imminent given the political environment and now public awareness as I take the Capital in legal argument of loss of its authority, I ask readers to chill out and not to respond in the same way embedded by those who would criticise before considering the events; What will be returned to the public is justice. What will be returned to fatherhood is access to the courts at extreme but with social and considered representation at the outset. If you consider some of the changes that are already occurring then you might see that much is in place – yet what is missing for MW’s abrogation of the constitution is “due process”.