Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Have a say.

I really like the American constitution. I hope people with an interest in New Zealand made a submission!

The Constitutional Advisory Panel


Submissions with respect to proposed changes to New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.

This document is submitted by:

To The Constitutional Advisory Panel
1. These are my submissions with respect to changing New Zealand’s current constitutional arrangements.
2. I shall refer to both the United States and Swiss constitutions as models that New Zealand can look to as credible and highly effective examples of proper and excellent constitutional arrangements.
3. The United States of America first adopted its written constitution in 1787. It is considered “superior” to and trumps other laws. It is entrenched and subject to Judicial Review by their Supreme Court.
4. It is lamentable that more than 220 years later New Zealand still lacks even a proper written constitution. With all due response, an unwritten constitution is no constitution at all and can therefore be no proper accountability to it.
5. The Swiss operate a highly attractive version of “direct democracy” in which an interested population are frequently involved in the democratic processes via referenda.
6. The current model that operates in New Zealand known commonly as “The Crown” is an out-dated relic of the British Monarchy that contains a number of undemocratic and undesirable features.
7. I believe is of the utmost importance to get the fundamentals and the foundations of New Zealand proper, correct and according to the rule of law and according to the principles of democracy.
8. I submit that it is no coincidence that whereas the USA, with its proper constitutional arrangements, flourished into the most powerful and dominant country on the planet in the 20th century whereas New Zealand, with its non-existent constitutional “arrangements” has floundered. New Zealand has been unable to keep up with Australia in almost every respect. Consequently, New Zealand’s best and brightest have for many years voted with their feet, abandoned the nation they love, with so much going for it, and immigrated to Australia and other more successful countries.

The Crown and “Parliamentary Sovereignty”

9. New Zealand and the United Kingdom are the only remaining two countries in the world whose Parliament asserts the doctrine known as ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’.
10. Parliamentary Sovereignty’ provides Parliament with essentially unbridled power. This is fundamentally undemocratic and entirely unacceptable in a country that claims to be a modern democracy.
11. The other last remnant of “Parliamentary Sovereignty” is the source of this doctrine namely the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
12. However, unlike New Zealand, the UK Parliament’s powers are, to some degree, bridled by the existence of an Upper House known as the The House of Lords.
13. New Zealand did have an upper house until the early 1950’s until it was abolished by an [arguably unconstitutional] act of Parliament.
14. Furthermore, the UK Parliament is also now restrained by their participation in the European Union. In particular the UK Parliament may not make laws that are contrary to “The Treaty of the European Union”.
15. New Zealand‘s current constitutional arrangements are uniquely permissive of an entirely unrestrained Parliament who are currently at liberty to pass any law based upon a simple majority.
16. This could include laws that are retrospective, illegal, unfair or unreasonable or laws that set aside fundamental rights or laws that override the rights “affirmed” in The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).
17. Section 7 of NZBORA requires that the Solicitor General to provide a report to Parliament where any proposed law seeks to override the rights contained in NZBORA. This mechanism has proved to be entirely insufficient to prevent our “sovereign” Parliament from passing laws that impinge upon the rights of New Zealanders with multiple laws every year falling into that category.
“Unconstitutional” Laws in New Zealand
18. One example of an unconstitutional law that affects every New Zealander and passed by our “sovereign” Parliament is contained in s115 of The Land Transport Act 1998 which allows the NZ Police to stop any vehicle at any time without reasonable cause. This section would appear to conflict with our right to be “secure” against unreasonable search or seizure and our right not to be arbitrarily detained as provided for in sections 21 and 22 of NZBORA.
19. Another example would appear to be The Serious Fraud Office Act 1990. Section 9 requires suspects to answer questions. Section 27 explicitly provides that self- incrimination is no excuse for not answering questions. Section 45 makes it a criminal offence not to answer questions for which criminal conviction and imprisonment may follow. This would appear to conflict with s23(4) of NZBORA which provides:
Everyone who is—
(a) arrested; or
(b) detained under any enactment—
for any offence or suspected offence shall have the right to refrain from making any statement and to be informed of that right.
20. These are but two examples of apparently unconstitutional laws passed by New Zealand Parliaments to illustrate the point that this issue is not academic or theoretical in nature but should properly be of genuine concern to all New Zealanders whose rights are increasingly impinged by our unbridled Parliament.
21. The above examples are by no means a comprehensive list. The Solicitor General ought to be able to provide a list of Section 7 reports that have been prepared since 1990 when NZBORA was passed.
22. Several months ago I requested a copy of the s7 report with respect to s115 of The Land Transport Act 1998 by email from the current Solicitor General as I have been unable to locate such a list on the Internet. I have not received a response.
The United States of America Constitution as a model.
23. The United States Constitution is written, is superior law and is subject to Judicial Review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is empowered to strike down any legislation that conflicts with their written Constitution, which includes their Bill of Rights.
24. By contrast the unfettered powers of the New Zealand Government resulting in many undesirable laws may be at least partly responsible for the many New Zealand’s have preferred to live and work in other parts of the world.

25. There is no equivalent provision to s115 in American law. In the United States the Police cannot stop citizens driving along the road without “probable cause”. Any attempt to pass such a law would fail because it is in conflict with their 4th amendment which provides in strong and definite language:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
26. If an American parliament (congress) were to succeed in passing such a law then the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review such a law and would be obliged to strike it down.
27. The same applies to the draconian provisions referred to above in The Serious Fraud Act 1990. These appear to be in conflict with the United States fifth amendment which provides:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
28. The powers of judicial review of laws by the Supreme Court is not a novelty or unique to the USA. Canada and Germany are but two other significant examples where their Supreme Court also has such powers.
29. The American constitution is entrenched so Parliament is not at liberty to change it by simple majority. The procedure required for making amendments to their constitution is described below.
In the first step, the proposed Amendment must be supported by two-thirds in
Congress, both House and Senate. The second step requires a three-fourths
majority of the states ratifying the amendment. Congress determines whether the state legislatures or special state conventions ratify the amendment1
30. It is therefore submitted that the constitutional arrangements of the United States are a worthy role model. In particular, this includes:
a. A written constitution which includes a Bill of Rights;
b. The constitution must be entrenched;
c. The constitution must be superior to other laws;
d. The Supreme Court must have jurisdiction to review laws and if they are found to be inconsistent with the constitution, these must be struck out.
31. It is submitted that these arrangements would serve as a reasonable and effective constraint upon Parliament which would prevent the passing of laws which may be convenient for the purposes of government but which are repugnant to reasonable citizens and which may be repugnant to fundamental principles democracy and indeed repugnant to the rule of law.
The Swiss model – An example of “Direct Democracy”
32. Binding referendums are a central and key feature of the Swiss constitution. In effect, they operate to prevent the government from passing unpopular laws and / or amendments to constitutions.
33 .Binding referendums can be initiated by citizens with relative ease and are routinely conducted many times a year. For example, in 1992 fifteen referenda were held which included, significantly, rejecting the joining of Switzerland to the European Union. For this reason Switzerland is still not a member of the EU.
34. The government does not have a right of veto over citizen initiated referendums which is simply a legal procedure regulated by their constitution.
35. Were such arrangements in place in New Zealand it would seem unlikely that unpopular legislation such as the “anti-smacking” legislation would have survived the inevitable citizens initiated referendum that would have followed.
36. Consider the implications of this one law: How many reasonable New Zealanders may consider that the custody of their children is in jeopardy if they were brought before the
Courts for smacking their children and this became a relevant consideration in deciding to immigrate to Australia or elsewhere.
Constitutional arrangements with respect to the Judiciary
37. Having been involved with litigation against the Crown it has become apparent to me that the current constitutional arrangements with respect to the Judiciary are insufficient for justice to be seen to be done.
38. The fundamental problem that arises when a citizen attempts to bring litigation against the Crown is that the Crown gets to be a judge in its own cause.
39. The separation of the three branches of government is supposed to mitigate against this apparent problem under the guise of “Judicial independence”.
40. However, consider that:
the Solicitor General is a member of Parliament appointed by the Prime Minister and serves in the Cabinet;
the members of Cabinet share collective responsibility for their decisions;
The Prime Minister and the other ministers of Cabinet have ministerial responsibilities for various Crown Agencies that may be defendants in litigation brought by citizens.
t is the Solicitor General who has overall responsibility of The Crown Law Office;
it is usually the Crown Law Office that usually represents Crown agencies as Defendants in civil proceedings.
41. Consider also that:
it is the Solicitor General who appoints (and promotes) judges,
42. This means that those who have overall and joint responsibility for Crown Agencies (the cabinet) are in a position to appoint and promote judges who make decisions that are agreeable to them as Defendants.
43. Even without this apparent problem of appointments we would still have the problem that Judges who are paid by and are part of the Crown would still sit in judgment over litigation involving the Crown, which is at least an apparent conflict of interest and at worst an actual conflict of interest.

44. The right to a jury trial in civil cases, as provided for in Defamation cases, would mitigate against this conflict of interest where the defendant is a Crown entity.
45. The practical difficulty to this obvious solution is that the jury pool is in heavy demand for criminal cases (arguably due to over policing). A practical solution would be to allow the civil litigant against the Crown the right of appeal to a jury. This would however be entirely unattractive to the Crown but entirely attractive to citizens who wish to hold Crown Agencies accountable for their actions.
46. In New Zealand Judges enjoy “judicial immunity”. In theory this immunity means Judges may be at liberty to make decisions without any threat of action against them potentially arising from a dissatisfied party.
47. Unfortunately, this also has the effect of making lower Court judges at liberty to make decisions that lack merit, detail, and contrary to established principles of law and in particular make findings of fact that are manifestly incorrect.
48. The appeals process is available in theory to remedy such flawed decisions but higher courts are increasingly reluctant to revisit erroneous findings of fact made by lower judges preferring instead to consider only important and new “points of law”.
49. In practice, lower Courts are making significant errors that the higher Courts are not able or willing to correct.
50. These constitutional flaws with respect to the judiciary result in a Justice system that, too often, is unpredictable and does not deliver justice and there is little that an unsuccessful litigant can do about it.
51.The consequences for such a person can be significant and may account for many of the New Zealanders who elected to live in another country.
52. It is submitted that juries ought to be available to consider the merits of an appeal application and to allow an appeal by jury if they consider it justified.
Constitutional Arrangement with respect to Oaths of Office
53.Democracy, by definition, is government of the people, by the people, for the people.
54.Certain people are required to take an “oath” or else they are unable to accept a position in the employment of the Crown. This includes:

Members of Parliament;
55.These oaths require allegiance to “the Crown” rather than “the people” and, it is submitted, is entirely inapposite to the principles of democracy.
56.Hone Hawawira was an example of a person elected by his people to the parliament and Parliament required him to make an oath swearing his allegiance to “the Crown” rather than his people.
57.The custom of the taking of oaths not only ought to be discontinued but any oaths already in place ought to be rescinded. It is submitted that this is entirely contrary to the principles of democracy.
58.It is submitted that in New Zealand culture oaths ought be not required to occupy positions within the Crown and if they were, such allegiance ought to be to the people of New Zealand and not to the Crown.
59.I am in favour of:
a. a written constitution;
b. the entrenchment of that constitution;
c. the constitution being superior law;
d. the Supreme Court being able to strike down unlawful, unfair, unreasonable or otherwise unconstitutional laws;
e. citizens initiated binding referenda
f. a much lower threshold for allowing referenda;
g. changes to how judicial appointments take place;
h. changes to the appeals process that allows applications for appeal to be heard by a jury and if justified a jury trials
I. the abolishment of oaths of “office” and in particular oaths that pledge allegiance to the “Crown”;
j. the renouncing of existing oaths of office.

60. I would be happy to provide further information if required or make an oral presentation if required.
61.I have not had the opportunity to fully consider the merits of the Waitangi Treaty being incorporated into a New Zealand constitution. However, if I were to have any further involvement in this matter I would like to reserve the right to also give this matter consideration.

Sunday, 28 July 2013

Oh Siobhan McNulty

Wow your not having a good time are you? Should I be surprised given your history?

People may not know this but Siobhan McNulty was second counsel to Peter Ellis.

Here's what Lynley Hood wrote about her in a City Possessed.

Pg 460

On March 1993, Harrison was granted legal aid for Siobhan McNulty to act as second counsel. McNulty had three years legal experience in New Zealand, and had worked in the prosecutions division of a child welfare authority in Britain.


Thursday, 25 July 2013

Ex's psychotic fit goes viral!

Hall of Shame- Roll Call

I have an hour to spear so I am going to write up a roll call. For a Hall of Shame.

This will include, Judges (of course), Lawyers, Court staff, Counsel for Child and a few others I can think of.


Wednesday, 24 July 2013


Ok, in response to the 'record your ex posts' emails I have been getting.

First- I am NOT a lawyer....your reading this and you miss the point that I don't like lawyers! Are you blind? There are only three lawyers in New Zealand I would/do communicate with- Tony Ellis, Grant Cameron and Steve Price.

This site is NOT legal advise! These are postings 'copied and pasted' from other peoples websites. Or from anything I have on my files written by others. Seriously? I do not have time to write a blog. I do all this when I am stuck in an airport listening to the lady 'please keep children off the escalator's'. What parents let their kids play on an escalator?

The UN post, is a 'copy and paste' from a Penny Bright email sent to me.' You can tell from the different sizes in lettering and the fonts.

New Zealanders' you have some very serious stalking issues!

NO you can not put a GPS tracker on your ex's car. It is illegal.
NO you can not put a recording device on your ex's internal or external property. It is illegal.

YES. I can confirm that you CAN tape record conversations that your involved in. I have been doing it for years and filing them in court.  Yes you can video in the manner described below. In the Emma Smith case a video recording was taken of the father. Admissible when in a public place, or your involved with the interaction. I have filed it before and about to do it again.

Just an extra. When your recording. Do NOT react to them. Just sit there and let them have their psychotic fit. Do not talk to them and do not respond. When talking on the phone to them. Just give short answers. Let them do all the talking in order to get as much as possible on tape. Same applies in counselling sessions. Let them do all the talking!

Sure, go ahead hack their emails. BUT you can not use it in court is illegal! (only if you get caught of course OR your the GCSB). Like the police will tell you. Any illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in court. Police know this because they do it more often than any other organisation. Ask DOT COM. Hacking emails only gives you a heads up on what's coming. However, I do not indorse hacking! Lawyers emails also reveal interesting subjects. I know this because one lawyer has my email address very confused with another persons. But hey who am I to complain?

Where do I get all the Judges home address?

Facebook. There is a group on Facebook with EVERY Judges address and phone number. There is also one for the Police and CYFS Social Workers. The Police one is owned by a policeman's ex girlfriend. Which is odd! Guess that break up went horridly wrong.


Tuesday, 23 July 2013

Are you my father?

I like how the mother ends with 'good story' to tell. I know that story. She lost- father and son have a happy time together.

Now, Judge John James Dashwood Strettell. My sources tell me your wife (Rosemary Irene) has left you? Is that true? Because if so.... sounds like you got a raw deal. She got the house on Rata street and the house in Queenstown. But your stuck in Redcliffs? What happened to 50/50? Well at least your four children are older and you wont have to go through the Family Court (unless there is a dog that needs to be in shared custody? If so might I recommend Southwick as your representation)


Sunday, 21 July 2013

More on video evidence

..Sorry I found more notes in my files on recording of your ex.

Notes On Audio and Video Taping

The use of video and audio recording is becoming a commonly used tool in divorce and custody conflicts. Videotape of a parent mistreating a child, or images of a parent or guardian driving while intoxicated can exert a strong influence on a judge or custody evaluator. Video evidence is compelling and difficult to refute; when used properly it can be a powerful and persuasive factor in how your case is decided.

When videotaping, discretion often produces the most useable evidence. If your spouse knows they are being taped they will be on their best behaviour and you will likely not get much of value. If, for example, you want to document your ex's behaviour during an exchange of your child, consider having a friend videotape the scene from a nearby vehicle. If your ex isn't aware that their actions are being recorded, he or she will be more likely to "act natural" and misbehave.

If you do not have access to a video camera, one alternative is to meet in a public place that is already under surveillance, such as a gas station or 'mini-mart'. Many gas stations, for example, have cameras that cover the pump area outside as well as the interior of the building. These cameras are in operation 24 hours a day and record everything that happens on the premises. A casual inspection will show which areas are covered by the cameras; you can then pick a spot that will be recorded and arrange to meet your ex there. If she misbehaves, it is a simple matter to request the tape though a subpoena. This is especially true if she commits some sort of assault or threatens you in any way during the exchange.

You must take care not to "bait" or provoke your ex, or do anything to precipitate an unpleasant scene. Be yourself, be polite, and don't start trouble. Judges often cast a sceptical eye on videotaped evidence, especially if the subject was unaware they were being recorded. If you cause a dispute, the videotape will probably be used against you, ultimately harming your case.

That said, videotape can make a world of difference when used properly. If your ex is polite and well-mannered in court, but is shown on tape cursing and picking a fight with you when exchanging the child, this can cause a judge or custody evaluator to think about your ex in a different light. In some instances, just showing the tape to the opposing attorney will motivate them to settle.



Geee Judith Collins

Three pages of comments, anti-fathers and anti-mothers. No wonder your tight lipped about the Emma Smith issues.

Who's pants are on fire?

I don't follow politics, so have no idea who Simon Bridges is? Going to have to go 'google' him now :/


The United Nations

New Zealand has had a number of complaints laid about its poor human rights with the UN over the years and it seems to be increasing ( I have been told there is currently Thirty complaints before the UN about New Zealand, but I can't seem to verify that).

The Family Court have had a ‘please explain’ slap on the hand by the UN over the way it dragged a case out over three years.

It was also reported on ‘stuff’ but I can’t find the link!

Convention on the rights of the child

Convention on civil and political rights (this covers freedom of speech, which is why websites like this and others linked from here can’t be interfered with by anyone- including government or courts).

There’s also the International Bill of Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

With all these laws and treaties covering human rights. You wonder just where the world went wrong?

Laying a complaint with the UN (The UN don’t use the word ‘complaint’ they call it a ‘communication’).

Under UN rules you can’t lay a complaint (communication) until you have exhausted every avenue in your country. That doesn’t mean getting all the way to the Supreme Court. But if the Court of Appeal refuses to allow you Leave to Appeal then that would be seen as ‘exhausting all avenues’.  (Unless you Appeal that to the Supreme Court and then it just gets all complicated!)

However the UN did take a look at the ‘terror raids’ in 2008.  And yet this case got ‘relief’ via the courts with a ruling of ‘unlawful’.

So, it is clear the UN are keeping an eye on New Zealand. may even have just cause to file a communication with the UN in relation to his home invasion! Again ruled 'unlawful' by a higher court.

So I say, file a communication with the UN. Why not? They keep them on file even if no action is taken. Which makes NZ look really third world.

There’s also another avenue you can take to highlight human rights violations with international communities. Via this branch of the UN……….

New Zealand’s next review date is January 2014. Submissions for this closed in June (sorry I should have said something sooner). Anyone can file a submission. About anything- corrupt Judges, Lawyers, Police, Government departments, fluoride in the water, EQC- whatever tickles your fancy. So if you want to get in for the next review contact:

Best regards,

Enkeleda Papa

Programme Manager

UPR Info                                                           
Rue de Varembé 3

 I have heard they are interested in New Zealand violating Free Speech and the surveillance issues of the GCSB.

Do you need a lawyer to lay a complaint? Yeah it's advisable because it is a complicated process (and long, up to three years). Tony Ellis  tends to be the go-to-guy for this. But you can use a lawyer in New York if you want. Just as long as they know the process.


Saturday, 20 July 2013


Daughter of Ashley Noel fulton

stop stalking me, geee is a restraining order not enough for you?

How NZ is seen by the rest of the world!

It's interesting how these people don't seem to realise that at some stage someone is going to start connecting the dots with who's in bed with who.

Friday, 19 July 2013

Three things that can not be long hidden; the sun, the moon and the truth

FYI: to my little reader with the ipad, who's been reading since April. Go and fix your security settings! your employer will not be happy with your laps in security on your emails.

It is mandatory. Its the Family Court. Everyone lies; lawyers lie, Judges lie, Registrars lie, other parents lie, you name it they all do it. Your case is what finances these peoples lifestyles. They are not going to risk their pockets, so neither should you risk yourself or your children.

1- You tape record every interaction with the other parent/partie. That is, record all phone calls, print out ever text and record all pick ups and drop offs of the children. EVEN if you think things are ok. Still do it as back up. Trust me, I have a very large collection that is now coming in very handy. Record all meetings with them. Its amazing what you pick up when you go back over them.

2- Record all interacts with lawyers; your lawyer, counsel for child, counsel to assist. Lawyers are professional liars. Again- my collect reveals some interesting ways lawyers work.

3- Record counselling sessions, either if you go to them on your own, or along with the other partie. One counsellor busted my client doing it once and she tried to claim they were confidential, my client wavered that confidentiality and strangely the counsellor didn't stop the recording. Again when you go back over them later they reveal some very interesting stuff.

4- Record Psychologist. Steve suggest telling the psychologist. I tell my clients don't bother.

5- You do not have to tell these people your recoding them. As a partie to the conversation your allowed to record them. If these people find out your recording them, tell them it is for your personal records in an accurate form.

What to use.

6- Most people now days use their cellphone or a dictaphone. About four years ago I switched from using a voice recording devise to a more sophisticated means of videoing. I have a button hole video recorder that has a mini micro SD card in it and a tiny camera. This looks like a normal button and no one would be any the wiser to what it was concealing.

Which reminds me of a really funny story about counsel for child Siobhon McNulty. McNulty had meet with a parent last year and was all nervous. McNulty kept saying to the parent...are you recording this?? I'm not comfortable with this being recorded....why are you touching your phone? I am not having this recorded.

Well sweetie, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you were being videoed during that meeting.

Another good reason for doing all this, is they make great party jokes when your comparing who has the most psychotic ex! One of my clients has a video recording of his ex coming up to his car and having a psychotic fit! not just in front of him but in front of two children as well. Its the best entertainment I have seen for a while, that's for sure.

There's also the fact that when the children turn 16 years old, the secrecy of the family court no longer applies. You can name the parents and show everyone all their dirty deeds they did during the court proceedings and how they lied and had psychotic tantrums! What's great is you kept accurate records of these dirty deeds and recordings don't lie. At this stage you can put them all on the internet or publish a book. Either way the truth always comes out.

Better still.........these recordings make great protest tools. If you decided the Judge (or lawyer or registrar or any other moron that's moving hell to keep you from your child) on your case is a bona fide idiot, then rock up to their house and play one of your recordings so their neighbours can have a turn at playing 'Judge'. There's a good chance their neighbours would do a better job too. Or do what I do, make 200 copies and send it to THEIR family members. After all when your in the Family Court, your all just one big happy family- not.

The Media also quietly enjoy them.

Use them through your court proceedings. The counselling recordings and other recordings could be challenged as there's this silly rule that counselling and mediation discussions can't be used in a following hearing. However, put it in. Especially if it confirms perjury. You can still use these in criminal proceedings (like the current case of the lawyer and her phone calls to her prison fling) if they show a perjury incident. And like I said above if the Judge is an idiot and ignores them, well you know what to do. And you still have the evidence to put on the internet once your child turns 16 years. Just remember these people are lying and abusing your children- show no mercy because they wont towards you.


Thursday, 18 July 2013

Hitler is alive and at.......

54 Hawthorne Lane, Kingseat Auckland. Under the name of Judge Maureen Jeanette Southwick.

Maureen is only a new Judge (reasonable new) and all ready she has aligned herself with similar traits of other Judges. She is lying in court, making up laws as she goes along, violating the Bill of Rights (already upheld in the supreme court so that's just a tad disrespectful towards a Higher Court especially coming from a QC), and abusing children.

She is a fellow of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. I have found lawyers that belong to this organisation are highly feminist!

She is also very confused over just what is written in the law. But the High Court will take care of it, and for Maureen, she may just find herself becoming rather a controversial Judge. I have more information on her family coming through so will up date as I get it. Basically I am going to publish all her immediate families members names and address.

Ok, So I said I would get stuck into 'old Hitler's' family here. But. SHE HAS NONE. Her Parents are dead. Her father was Laurie Southwick who was also a lawyer. She's a spinster. And I am still trying to figure out how she could be a counsel for child...when she has never had her own children?? How can you suddenly think you know everything about children, but not actually ever have any??
She was never that good at it either, when it came to children going by some of her reports I managed to get hold off.

Its official. This is New Zealand's 'loser' Judge. She is a nobody, she goes home at night and has a 'frozen dinner for one'. Gosh if I am wrong then please someone tell me! This is killing me.

For many years Maureen has included as part of her practice, the role of senior Counsel for Child in custody and guardianship disputes, and has represented New Zealand in making submissions in relation to the (UK) Lord Chancellor’s report “Making Contact Work”. Maureen is actively engaged as a Mediator and is a senior member of the Bar in New Zealand, having published a number of family law papers.

Lord Chancellor, IGNORED her submission! I am not kidding. Her 'submission' did not make the grade. You can 'google' the report and see for yourself. She did not get a mention. Only ONE New Zealand Judge did.

I am not surprised Lord Chancellor ignored her, this Judge is hated by women's refuge, she is anti-parents and wouldn't know one end of a child to another.

Here's and email I received about her:

I met a lawyer called Maureen Southwick. She was the
bitchiest woman that I have ever met in my life. I
believe that she was later made into DC judge. Sounds
like it is the same lady.
"Bitchy", ohhh well, she is going to be a whole lot more bitchy soon.
Menopause has not been kind to this one!

I will say. She is doing not to bad for herself. Her property is worth about 1.7 Million and she has no mortgage. So, goes to show the Family Court work has lined her pocket well. But then, she has not had any kids to spend it on. I wonder who 'gets' it all if she dies? Maybe she has cats?
Well. that's just I have to know. What's in her will?

Her email is

Saturday, 13 July 2013

What do these people have in common?

Judge Emma Smith

Siobhan McNulty, Christchurch Counsel for child
Partner, Peter Edward Lidgard, and
how is Ruby doing?

Also, Judge Edwin David Wylie and another Counsel for Child, Stephen Kirkiby................

Why this case of course:

Wednesday, 10 July 2013

Judge Ryan, now the Respondent.

Laurence Ryan has responded to the Clinical Psychologist letter of concern over the Family Court. I am going to write a response to this myself. It's going to be a goodie!


Tuesday, 9 July 2013

Same evidence- same players

Justin Thyme NZ©

c/- PO Box 218


11 April 2011.


House Of Representatives

Private Bag 18041

Wellington 6160


For the attention of:    Matthew Louwrens, Clerk of the Social Services Committee, 

Katrina Shanks, Chairperson, Social Services Committee.


Subject:           To Whom It May Concern, in support of Mr. Graeme Axford’s petition relating to CYFS ongoing ‘modus operandi’, and the identified need for an independent complaints authority empowered to hold CYFS Staff, Police and Judiciary accountable where there is evidence that lawful process as intended by parliamentary statute, has been abused, or applied recklessly, or used to excess.  



Dear Select Committee members,

I write further to Katrina Shanks’ letter dated 23 March 2011 to petitioner Graeme Axford of 94 Omoto Valley Road, Kaiata, Greymouth.

I am the author of “You Be The Judge©, Pirates or Not?” and advise that conditionally I neither have any objection to the book being submitted to the Social Services Committee in support of Mr Axford’s petition, nor do I object to the book being used as a reference to any events, happenings, or emotional trauma inflicted upon children and adults within a family unit, provided that any reference refers to the paragraph and page number of the book  in order to keep events and comments in context.

I do not authorise any text to be quoted on it’s own followed by the author’s name, as to do so will encourage text to be taken out of context resulting in mis-information.  


For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm the following:

1.         “You Be The Judge©, Pirates or Not?” is totally in line with, and is based on documented evidence which had been submitted to Family Court, District Court (Criminal Trial), High Court (Appeal Hearing), and High Court (Civil Suit). Same evidence, - same players.

2.         The Commissioner for Children of the day, Roger McClay was invited to view the evidence. The parents at the time believing that McClay’s fiduciary duty would enable common sense to prevail. Instead McClay clearly[1] used his influence to motivate Police to lay criminal charges without any balanced investigation wherein convictions would have left the children parentless. McClay’s dishonest character has since been corroborated by his being convicted of fraudulent deceit.


3.         Dr. Bryan Gilling, PhD., researcher at Victoria University studied 12 boxes of documents prior to the Civil Court Suit and presented his view of CYFS conduct in the document entitled “The Gilling Report.” That report was tabled in the High Court by Barrister Charles Hirschfeld without the consent of his clients. It is likewise made available to the Social Services Select Committee as evidence of the need for review of CYFS conduct, as it is an independent professional review based on Court-tabled documents. It is noteworthy that the concluding few pages of the Gilling Report have never been made available to the parents in the matter despite repeated requests for the same. It is reasonable to assume given the prevailing moods and comments at the time that the document concluded with support for CYFS to be sued. Given that business round table representatives and a senior member of the judiciary decide what Court cases are good for the country and what cases should not be permitted to succeed, and given the disclosures in para’s 7 & 8 below, it came as no surprise to discover that settlement offers under the NZ Bill of Rights had been capped by the invisible panel steering the nation’s destiny and so is limited to $6,000.00 (sufficient to cover basic fees of Counsel) and since that offer was not accepted by plaintiffs, it was also no surprise when Hirschfeld deliberately called no witnesses to corroborate the plaintiffs’ allegations, hence the failed civil suit. It is noteworthy that substantial legal aid was paid out to cover Hirschfeld and Gilling fees and that Hirschfeld went on to become Legal Aid’s biggest customer. Consequently an empowered

independent complaints authority will go a long way towards bringing transparency and a level

playing field to NZ’s justice and Family Court systems if the nation is to preserve at least some of it’s

independence for the benefit of incoming generations.



4.         Case Law was established in 2007 by way of judgment of 3 Court Of Appeal Judges in the case number CA358/07 [2007] NZCA 453. [This judgment outlines the standard of conduct to be expected from CYFS given current legislation.]


5.         Of assistance to the Social Services Select Committee is copy of a letter dated 17 September 2007 sent to The Secretary, The Law Commission. The letter is self explanatory and clearly shows that CYFS conduct since the days of Roger McClay in the year 2000 had deteriorated significantly by the year 2007.

6.         Numerous accounts of CYFS interventions in 2010, and 2011 and perusal of relevant documentation clearly show that CYFS and the Family Court are still not conducting themselves responsibly or within accepted ethics and there is a desperate need for an empowered independent complaints authority to be established.

7.         The first reported meeting of wealthy ‘elitists’ conspiring to control the planet, resolved in 1954 to conquer NZ by welfare, since the country did not lend itself to being conquered by warfare. That group has become known as the Bilderbergers. Many ‘Bilderbergers’ belong to the “Ämerican” Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which occupies the inner core of the United Nations established in 1945 having a hidden agenda of the ‘elite’ to control the planet. [Refer Chapters 5, 6, 12, of “Truth Can Set Us Free.”    ISBN 978-0-473-14496-8]

8.         Former CYFS CEO Peter Hughes does not deny that CYFS and the Family Court are in fact United Nations vessels acting on NZ soil under diplomatic privilege. Such an arrangement known only by those near the top of each related compartmentalised administrative pyramid offers an explanation why the NZ High Court keeps no records and falsifies it’s own statistics in relation to Appeals on grounds of Abuse of Process, against the Family Court.

9.         Item 7 above also offers an explanation why the Manager for Courts will not pay an account tendered by a lay advocate who was approved by Judge Riddell to represent a family at a week long Family Court hearing directed by the Court of Appeal in CA358/07 [2007] NZCA 453. [For the benefit of the Select Committee, there is a long standing tradition amongst members of the Law Society to discourage lay advocates from intervening in the oath which barristers now affirm “to firstly protect the integrity of the Court system, secondly to protect the integrity of opposing learned counsel, then thirdly consider the plight of their client.] Thus an empowered independent complaints authority would be a step in the right direction if elected representatives genuinely seek to have the justice system establish a level playing field.

Yours faithfully

Attached are electronic copies of;           

(i)           “You Be The Judge – Pirates or Not”

(ii)        “The Gilling Report.”

(iii)       CA358/07 [2007] NZCA 453.

(iv)       Letter to The Secretary of the Law Commission.

(v)        “Truth Can Set Us Free.”



[1] As evidenced by the prosecuting Officer and the assembled time line of hard evidence and documentation therein.

BREAKING NEWS.............

Ok I's not breaking news...I just knew that would get your attention :)

So, back to basics. I have about four-five Judges in mind to take a swipe at next...and I am not sure with whom I start on- Its a tuff life being a advocacy against a justice system! decisions.... decisions!

I am also considering the next lawyer.......or starting another blog just for them, because- after all- lawyers are a special breed all of their own and I do enjoy winding up the Law society.

So viewers vote- which Judge?

Geoffrey Ellis- Your meant to be retired my boy.

Maureen Southwick- umm you might want to stick to representing people fighting over dogs! not children. This one is about to get a very interesting lesson in free speech- outside her home. Love the Auckland boys :)

Joanna Maze- on hold, will let you know.

Neal??? hmm not sure yet- he could be a good one! He is on hold.

Michael Crosbie- again? really? we are going to go thought that again? god, even I am getting sick of that. Your sister is a journalist, learn the Bill of Rights. Do you need me to send you a copy?????

BUT I have a post coming about a GOOD Judge! who I think is in touch with reality and could be the Judge to restore public confidence (Partially that is).


Monday, 8 July 2013

NZ Family Court makes it to China's news!

wow, that explains my china viewers  :)

You need to play the whole thing to get to Steve in English.


Sunday, 7 July 2013

Pawns in a Game- The Family Court strike out again...

This is a rather shocking story and view discretion is advised!

My confidant.................

It is with a deep and heavy heart, I have been informed my 'confidant' has passed away.

God! I really don't know what to say.......For the first time in my life I am speechless.

Our relationship began over this book many years ago (2002):


Saturday, 6 July 2013

Principal Family Court Judge Ryan threatened my client!

wow, Laurence even your stupidity amazes me.