Monday, 29 April 2013

Creeps on the Internet

Traffic is awful! So when it should only take 10  minutes to get your child to school but instead it takes 45 minutes because everyone wants to be on the same road as you, you have to fill in that time. There is only so much staring at other traffic you can do.
So I tend to scan youtube. youtube is the best time killer out there.
Currently I am hooked on Jenna Marbles. She is funny, she will contemplate things you would never have thought to think about yourself.
Jenna has a masters degree in Marketing (I think that's what it is) but she earns six figures doing these videos.
This is a fav.

I have internet stalkers, who don't  understand if you don't like it, don't read it. Seems simple but hey brains are a good thing and I wish everyone had one.

I plan on adding more to this as it does involve a story about a Judge but I have some other 'life stuff' to do and unlike my stalkers I can't be coming here EVERY HOUR!

Judge Laurence Ryan

I never thought I would ever say this, but bring back Peter Boshier. At least Boshier wasn't involved in the cover up of under aged sex....

If anyone was looking for a reason to leave New Zealand this would go a long way to helping you with that. Scroll down to the parents 'drop box' account and have a read. The first family court Judge involved was Judge Dale Clarkson (now retired) she caused a person to commit suicide.
Judge Laurence Ryan however, what he did and said would make you wonder if he should be around his grandchildren! Also, in the above article the reason there is no mention of a wife is because they are divorced.

It's interesting comparing overseas Judges to New Zealand Judges. Australian Judges are amazing to say the least. They have their role down to a fine art. They make New Zealand Judges look very third world and under-educated. I was sitting in a court case a while back in Australia. The Judge was so interested and relaxed in his role and what the case was about. He took his time, and asked all the right questions, he made observations that even I had missed and everyone in the court room was just cursing along.
The prosecutor was losing their case, but they seemed compliant and was even joking with the defendants lawyer! The defendant was at times just leaning on one leg (like what teenagers do) as him and the Judge had a good 'old chat' like they were mates! The Judge actually listened, was able to read (not many Judges in New Zealand read court files) and had a genuine interested in the people around him. And yet, he was from New Zealand! he was originally born in Hamilton and moved to Australia when he was five. So if anyone is thinking of attending law school and becoming a Judge, move to Aussie and do it! They are 10 times better over there! Plus they earn more money :)

Sunday, 21 April 2013

Judge Dominic Flatley....

Dominic Flatley is currently in a lot of trouble. The Ministry of Justice have given him a big telling off. Not only that but the Family Court Judiciary, (other Family Court Judges) are fuming at him.
If you hadn't noticed I had not made a post on this blog since August last year. That's because I basically retired from  Family Court advocacy. However, FLATLEY decided that he wanted me back in my previous role. The Family Court just can't seem to let me go!
Personally, I am flattered that the Family Court have missed me :)

Anyway, I am in catch up mode and will post my Flatley issue in the next day or two.

I will point out one thing. In the Crosbie post below I stated that Crosbie had suffered sever scrutiny like no other Judge has ever had. I take that back. Flately has officially passed Crosbie in that race.

Flatley has acted in the highest illegal manner I have ever seen by a Family Court Judge. The human Rights commissioner has been contacted and formal complaints have been made to the JCC. There's room for more, such as Amnesty International being informed and the United Nations.
He has absolutely no credibility in the court room now and has lost anything that remotely resembled a reputation, before I caught him out. This is the Family Court Judge who has brought the court into major disrepute.

Rebecca Holm...

it's just not her round is it....

Saturday, 20 April 2013

Opinion: Are some Family Court Lawyers thick, or simply negligent?

Over the last week or so, I have received a fair bit of media attention regarding bullying. The context of the recent debate has centred on anti-bullying campaigns in schools, however events of the last week have bought another aspect of this debate into sharp focus: the bullying behaviour of Family Court Lawyers upon families, under the vacuous guise of “best interest of the child”.
For the past 14 years, I have worked in a number of various Social Service roles (the last 10 in Private Practice as a Counsellor and Family Mediator) and I have had numerous dealings with Lawyers. I even count Lawyers among my own clients (along with accountants, chefs, high profile individuals, and just about any other profession one may care to name), so it would be fair to say that I am not “anti-lawyers”, or even anti-the legal profession.
However, in my experience, I have observed some Family Court Lawyers to be a sub-culture of the New Zealand legal profession, an almost feral breed of people who seem oblivious to the damage they can (and do) visit upon vulnerable families and children, via their own self-imposed ignorance and corporate and collegial arrogance.
I have at times wondered if some Family Court Lawyers were the post-prof Law graduates who were not quite sharp enough for Commercial Law, yet not quite brave enough for Criminal Law. Family Court Law seems to be an environment where accusation trumps evidence and ego trumps wisdom.
In my experience and observation over the last 10 years, some Court reports on children in particular are often half-baked documents composed by disinterested Counsel for Child, who can’t seem to be bothered conducting any sort of meaningful investigation that would qualify as “due diligence”. Any attempt to hold these legal-aid enabled  ”ticket clippers” to account results in them spitting like lacklustre cobras at anyone who tries to do so.
In the absence of due process, evidence, or any meaningful industry accountability, I have observed some Family Court Lawyers make absolutely preposterous claims about family members in the defence of their clients. It almost seems as if the truth is whatever some Family Court Lawyers interpret the truth to be, as opposed to being informed by what the truth actually is.
Long story short – in my observation and experience of what I term only loosely as their “profession”, some Family Court Lawyers seem to simply “make stuff up” as they go when they are representing clients, and the Family Court seems to let them do so.
One Family Court Lawyer in particular comprehensively illustrates a number of aspects of the above  synopsis, and is a Lawyer with which I have had recent personal experience,  North Shore Barrister Rebecca Holm.
Holm was recently appointed as Counsel for Child for a family that I have worked with for the past 18 months. Without going into any detail that may inadvertently identify the family, Holm had reportedly met on two occasions with the child in the family, and on the basis of these two meetings (and a reported one-off phone conversation with three other family members), wrote a report to the Family Court, and included a number of recommendations as to how the Court should proceed with this case.
Included in the report were a number of claims regarding my work with the family – a total of 6 claims in fact, every single one of them false. Prior to Holm filing the report to the Court, at no time did Holm think that it might be prudent to contact me to discuss any of the points she raised in the Report about my work with the family - she simply accepted what was nothing more than Hearsay from other parties, treated the Hearsay as fact, failed to check and / or validate any of this information with a core source of the information (me) and forwarded the report  to the Court.
On learning this somewhat puzzling fact, I made independent contact with Holm to give her an opportunity to procure a much fuller picture of the facts of the case at hand (a picture I had gleaned over 18 months), a picture Holm couldn’t possibly have had after 2 short meetings with the child, and to address some of the issues Holm had raised about my role with the family, information she hadn’t actually verified with me.
Holm responded with a dismissive one line email: “No, I do not have any interest in discussing your views of this case with you”.
After pausing to consider this rather rude and intemperate response to what I believed was an entirely legitimate approach by me to ensure that a full due diligence was conducted in the case, I emailed Holm about some pertinent issues of the case that she was clearly ignorant of, and I believed needed to not be ignorant of, if Holm was to meaningfully carry out her role in the best interests of the child. I acknowledged to Holm that she did not want to discuss the issues with me, and assumed that I would hear no more from her.
However, I then received this email in reply:
I do not wish to receive correspondence from you.  Your communication is unwanted.  Further communication will be deemed spam and harassment.  Your address has been added to my blocked addresses.  If your communication is directed by (Client) they should be made aware of the court’s ability to make parties pay for lawyer for the child’s costs.
Rebecca Holm was clearly agitated in her response to me - as one perhaps would be if they had discovered that the report that they had written to the Family Court was deficient in a number of key areas, deficiencies that could have been quickly addressed by one simple phone call to a person who had an intimate and detailed knowledge of the case – namely me. Already in clear breach of the Privacy Act (failing to ascertain the veracity of acclaimed information about another party), Holm then defaulted into the “bully” role so commonly recognised within the adversarial legal system, simply because another professional more qualified than Holm in working with families in crisis was daring to question her efforts (or lack of) to secure all of the relevant information about the family, and to then act in the actual best interests of the child. Holm not only threatened and attempted to bully me (never a smart move), but she also threatened and attempted to bully my client, who had precisely no idea that I had made contact with Holm in my own capacity.
What happened next though beggared belief. In her failed attempt to compose a threatening email response to me, Rebecca Holm had copied her response to me to another Lawyer who was acting for the Applicant to the case (my client is the Respondent), and included my confidential correspondence to Holm in her forward to the Applicants Lawyer as well. Such an act (according to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner) is a serious breach of Confidentiality, both mine and my clients, and another breach of the Privacy Act. As a third party lay-person to the case who will be assisting my client as a “McKenzie Friend” in Court, I am entitled to have any and all correspondence to Holm treated as confidential under “Litigation Privilege” and it would appear that Holm is ignorant of this fact.
After responding to Holm and affirming for her that I was unable to be intimidated by any bully (legal or otherwise) I am now in the process of  filing a formal complaint against Rebecca Holm, Barrister, of the North Shore with the Auckland District Law Society and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Holm insists that she has done nothing wrong – that will now be for the complaints process to determine.
However, despite my personal dispute with Holm, there is actually a bigger issue here.
Some Law School GRADUATED Holm, and the Family Court seems to have enough (albeit apparently misplaced) faith in Holm to appoint her as Counsel for Child, when it is clear that Holm is in no way (in my opinion at least) up to the job.
The “due process” Holm has followed in this case (in my opinion) could be regarded by some as being negligent, lazy, incompetent, arrogant, ignorant, and wrong, and which in no way acts in the “best interests of the child”, who is her Family Court-appointed client. There is perhaps a small mercy in the fact that Holm is a Barrister sole.
Sadly, around 48,00 Applications per year are heard in the Family Court in New Zealand – would it be too much for families to ask that those charged with the responsibility of legally representing our most vulnerable citizens apply some depth and a ”thoroughness” to their work, as opposed to going “once over lightly”?
When the familial, physical, emotional, and mental well-being of our children and their families are at risk, one would hope that the answer to this question would be “absolutely not”.
What families and vulnerable children don’t need is bullies with Law Degrees who erroneously believe that they can act with hubristic impunity, simply because they are Officers of the Family Court.
Steve Taylor,
24-7 Ltd
Ph: (021) 259-2506
NB: In the above opinion piece, I have had cause to consider the potential ramifications of naming the Lawyer in the case, and I have contrasted this consideration with my role as an advocate for the family in my role as a Counsellor and Family Mediator. In the balance between these two poles, I have chosen to side with the family. Sunlight has, is, and will always be the best disinfectant.
Hopefully, Rebecca Holm will by now be  aware that her inappropriate bullying actions as Counsel for Child have legitimate consequences and that while many people may simply let Family Court Lawyers such as Holm abuse their authority and attempt to roll right over the top of them, I and the families I assist are not those people.
Holm would now do well to inform her colleagues of this discovery, and they would do well to heed her caution.
UPDATE 13/4/11:
I received an email today from a Mr Steven Dromgool who is the ex-husband of the aforementioned Ms Rebecca Holm.
It seems that Mr Dromgool is very upset about the above opinion piece, which is his unqualified right to be so.
Mr Dromgool has made  3 demands of me in his email, alongside 3 threats if I do not comply with his demands: I have tabulated each of these for ease of comprehension, alongside my responses to Mr Dromgool:
Demand # 1: Delete the content off my blog.
Threat # 1: Mr Dromgool will file a complaint with my Professional Association.
My Response: Professional Associations for Counsellors are voluntary organisations to join, not compulsory. I resigned from both of my Professional Associations at the beginning of this year after many years of membership, owing to what I came to consider as their utter irrelevancy to my Practice. Professional Associations will not consider complaints about Counsellors who are not members of their respective Associations. I will not be deleting the content from my Blog. Strike 1.
Demand # 2: Publish an apology to Ms Rebecca Holm.
Threat # 2: Mr Dromgool will contact one of my clients and tell on me!?
My Response: My clients READ MY BLOG. I will not be publishing an apology to Ms Holm. Strike 2.
Demand # 3: Discuss the above Opinion piece with my Clinical Supervisor.
Threat # 3: Mr Dromgool will contact my Supervisor and tell them about the blog post.
My Response: (Sigh……..). My Clinical Supervisor READS MY BLOG. I am sure that my Clinical Supervisor and I will indeed address my rationale, reasoning, motivation, and decision to write the Opinion Piece in my next Supervision session, and I would be happy to publish the feedback I receive from my Clinical Supervisor, subject to their consent. Mr Dromgool will not be discussing anything with my Supervisor without my consent.  Strike 3 and out.
At the risk of mutual tedium: threatening or attempting to bully me, or my clients, is never, ever a smart move (please see above).
Update 22/11/11:
Oh but this is just hilarious. Lawyer for Child Rebecca Holm, and opposing Council to my client, lawyer Leanne Kenny, were resolute and so utterly convinced that I was evil incarnate for daring to suggest that they both might have their position on this case completely and utterly wrong. Remember that, despite an opportunity provided by me to do so, Rebecca Holm refused to contact me on this case, after it became apparent that she had made no less than 6 significant errors in her Lawyer for Child report to the Family Court. No, instead, Holm and Kenny charged ahead, so supremely confident to the point of hubris, that they were acting “in the best interests of the child”, by allowing the teenager to live with his father and partner.
Turns out that not all is well in “Daddyland”. The father has lost complete control of his teenage son, to the point that holes are being punched in walls by the son, and the fathers partner has threatened to call CYF rather than have the son in the house.
Gets better: the father and partner who both Holm and Kenny advocated for dumped the teenager at his grandparents house for a week, as they couldn’t control him in their house.  Now, neither the partner or the father are talking to the teenager. Way to go Holm and Kenny – another win for the Family Court. Honestly, these two may as well have monkeys throw darts at potential outcomes on the walls of their respective legal practices, for all of the good they have done in this case. In the words of “The Simpsons Nelson Muntz “Har har!”
Update 6/12/11:
This story is becoming the gift that just keeps on giving. The latest? The father, who dragged my client through the Family Court in order to secure primary care, is now pleading with the mother for “a break” from the role of being the primary carer! I don’t believe a “break” was included as a condition in the Parenting Order (yet another oversight by Leanne Kenny and Rebecca Holm), and even if there was, the “father of the year” in this application wouldn’t have permitted one at the time of the application. Yes, it’s official – I really do enjoy being right!
Update 11/12/11:
The father has just kicked the young person out of his home, and, tail between his legs, the Father has now filed a Notification with Child, Youth, and Family relating to his inability to cope with the care of his child. The Father has dumped the child back at the child’s mother, and is now seeking relief from the Parenting Order requirements that he, Leane Kenny, and Rebecca Holm advocated so hard for in the Family Court. When told by his teenage offspring that the Father was “an arsehole”, the Father reportedly replied ‘Yes, yes I am an arsehole, a big arsehole”. Never a truer word spoken in this case.
Update 14/12/11:
And the epic fail of the Lawyers in this case is now complete: the father has just advised in writing that he is relinquishing his fulltime care. Best interests of the child? Robust legal process? Due diligence? Competent representation? No, no, no, and no. I am now going to send this story to the Ministry of Justice Family Court Review, and my media database.

This isn't the post I had coming. I just thought everyone might enjoy some light reading!
But isn't it wonderful when the lawyers in the Family Court get it so WRONG! This is an every day event in the Family Court. ohh and Stuart Peggs is feeling all alone, let me help you with that. Helen, Matthew and Dargma???? (seriously) Polson are children of a Child for Counsel David Polson and wife Lauris.

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

Finally Rachael Stamford/Forde has a lawyer!!!!!!

Thank goodness, the case was really starting to get boring. Now for some real legal fun.

Rachael's lawyer is Lauren Nicole Pegg, her husband is Stuart Philip Pegg (I will save their address for later). Rachael could not have picked a better lawyer as I already have case files on this lawyer.
And I know a lot about her family.

Anyway back to lawyers.....

I truly love lawyers. Apparently they have a high suicide rate. But I have never looked into that claim. It would not surprise me given lawyers are really nothing more than 'professional liars' and at some point their conscience has to get the better of them. Also there is a special place in hell for lawyers. I think its the spot that burns the hottest :)

I also love their 'legal' claims, like 'its not my job to verify client information'. That's how they get away with lying in court. Really, to bring the court back to its main purpose would be to hold lawyers accountable when their clients lie in court. But that's never going to long as lawyers live.
And there would be a lot of lawyers in jail on perjury charges, they would out do all criminal sectors in fact.

I hate self -litigates. Rachael is a perfect example why. They never file paper work to the legal requirements (Type setting, space setting etc). Rachael's court documents were more like a 'letter' to the courts. Plus for some strange reason she put in a police officers email address. Sorry Rachael but no court/Judge is going to email a police officer...I mean really! what a way to make an ass of yourself in court. BUT I did email the police officer (got hold of her picture and picture of her husband and kid too) as well as the Police commissioner for an 'explanation'. I am still waiting for a response. But hey God loves a trier.

Back to the Peggs.......So  this is how lawyers operate. Rachael walks in with a big sob story...a number of lies (which will bite the Peggs in the bum, buts that's a later post). Lauren sits there nods her head and tells Rachael what Rachael wants to hear. Why? Because Lauren sees big dollar signs flash before her eyes. Money and getting paid is all lawyers care about. Lawyers don't care about their clients, or what their behaviour does to people. They are soul-less, spineless (Because I have had a number run a mile when they have learned I was on a case) and heart-less.

Here's what people don't realise about their lawyers. They are good losers. Lawyers lose 50% of the time. And lawyers know this, they know ANYTHING can happen in a court. I love it when lawyers sit there and tell their clients they have a case and then lose the case in court. The clients walk away very bewildered and ask their lawyers 'What happened?' Then the lawyer says 'Well that's the way it goes'? 'Now pay me'.  I would have thought Rachael would have learnt this with Maree McDonald and her attempt to get to Australia and lost. But hey God loves a trier and Rachael NEVER learns.

So Peggs will be feeding Rachael and feeding her well. News flash Peggs. I have had it all. All that you are filing and thoughts going through your head with regards to me, have already been done by past lawyers only to fail.  Feel free to threaten, abuse and file whatever you like with regards to me. Its been done and dusted and it will be the perfect way for you and Rachael to learn a hard lesson. They have even tried to shut me down and failed! Both you and your client or going to get a shock.

So, a message to Peggs (she has been coming here). I don't serve documents on lawyers. You will need to ask the courts every day if anything has been filed and to get a copy from them. Yes you can complaint to the courts. They will not tell me off or do anything, because I have been doing it that way 10 years and they are use to it. No Judge has ever told me off and the ones that tried got ignored and they have not pursued the matter.

There are documents filing next week with regards to a warrant against your client that you will want as well as other court proceedings. The High Court has also been 'moved'.

I look forward to working with you.....oooooops who am I kidding...I mean telling New Zealand about you and your family. Don't worry Peggs in about 6 months time you are going to wish Rachael had never walked into your the time I have finished 123 Larnach Road Dunedin is going to be on the market!