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 “Ă„merican” 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.