Wednesday, 1 January 2014

Judge Clarkson/Green....the suicide Judge

I think this deserves a reprint given a wee whisper in my ear that cancer and karma have descended upon her.

Good morning judge green, now known as judge clarkson.
I met you at a familycaught hearing at 10 am on 6th October 1992. I had applied for this hearing 10 months earlier, after my children were abducted from my settled care and then re-enrolled into schools in the mother’s area. Although I applied to the familycaught in good faith, you used every available delaying tactic, so that it could be said that the children were now in the mother’s settled care. Essentially, you manufactured evidence, to support the child abducting mother.
As I walked into the hearing, I had known for 9 months that the hearing would be a charade, could only be a charade, just a dishonest window dressing amateur theatre. The fact that you had left the children in her care and delayed access to a hearing for 11 months, made it clear that your decision about whether to return the children after abduction, had actually been taken when the familycaught received the papers, that is before the evidence had been heard.
The only information that your decision was based on – was that the abductor was the mother.

When I asked you, for my children’s relationship with me to be protected from child abduction, you said “I am not here for men, I am here to protect women and children”. Her decision approved the abduction and set it’s consequences into concrete. Further, it encouraged the children’s mother to do the same again, two and a half years later. Her approach did not seem to me to be an act of integrity.
Your statement “I am not here for men, I am here to protect women and children”, told me that you didn’t see any value in honesty between parents, or in protecting children from mother-abductors.
I couldn’t understand how a judge couldn’t place any value on honesty between parents. To bring up a child competently and with discipline, honesty is necessary to stop the children playing off the parents against each other. This is just as necessary between separated parents, as still married parents. Honesty between parents allows them to negotiate to make the best life for their children, by efficiently utilizing their resources. Dishonesty wastes resources, thus impoverishing what the parents can offer their children. Dishonesty between parents doesn’t develop children who can be emotionally competent as an adult, sustaining an intimate relationship.
How could a judge not value honesty?
How could a judge reward dishonesty?
It is only through honesty between parents, that parents can work together to provide consistent, effective and appropriate discipline for their children.
It is only through honesty between parents, that parents can work together constructively and productively, to bring up their children and give them the best.
Through your knowledge of “family law”, you appear to know nothing about real world parenting, discipline of children or family budgeting. “Family law” may exist as a legal academic subject, but it has less than no value in contributing to the parenting of children in the real world. “Family law” is simply irrelevant and destructive, in it’s impacts onto real world parenting.
“Family law” only has value to legal workers, for extending disputes and increasing legal workers extortionate charges to the families of children.
Your statement, “I am not here for men, I am here to protect women and children”, also told me that you have repudiated your judicial oath.
The judicial oath is given in the Oaths and Declarations Act, available on and it says:
I, dale green, swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors, according to law, in the office of District Caught Judge; and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of New Zealand, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.
Your statement, “I am not here for men, I am here to protect women and children”, also told me that you have repudiated your judicial oath.
I do appreciate your honesty, by saying this to my face, in your secret caught.
By repudiating your judicial oath, you have chosen to revert from judge green, to plain dale green. In the same way that you placed my children and I outside of the protection of statute law, you have acted outside the law and placed yourself outside the statutory immunity protection for judges, while acting judicially.
You have taken the responsibility for your actions onto your own shoulders. You tried to make me out as an outlaw, a person outside the protection of Parliament’s laws. You stand outside the legislation and you have also made yourself into an outlaw.
When questions of responsibility for the consequences of judgements arise, judges have found no personal responsibility on the part of the judge, when acting judicially, that is – within the law. However, dale green, when acting outside of your judicial oath, outside of Parliament’s legislation, then you must carry the responsibility PERSONALLY.
After 2 hours of hearing, with only 10 minutes devoted to parenting skills and resources, you then scoffed at your own conclusions about parenting skills and awarded ongoing custody to the mother-abductor.
You followed “judge made law”, not the legislation set down by Parliament, for all citizens and judges to follow. These previous judgements that you followed, are not available to citizens, as they are unpublished judgements. They are seen only by legal workers practicing in familycaught and judges. The judgements published by the legal publishers show only the judgements which comply with legislation. How is it, that there are two sets of laws, one available to citizens and one available only to judges and legal workers in familycaught for use in secret trials?
In a genuine common-law country, all judgements are sent to the legal publishers and they are free to decide which of these set new precedents and will be published. judge mahony discussed this when he met with Parliament’s Social Services Subcommittee, on 16th May 2001. Principal Family Court Judge Patrick Mahony appeared before the Social Services Select Committee. He was heavily criticised in the media for insisting the press be excluded.
The full Mahony document is available at:
Here is an extract from the transcript of his memorandum:
“I have accepted your invitation to meet with you to provide information and answer questions as far as I am able against an acceptance that the Courts and the Judiciary are independent of Parliament and its processes. So I have not come in any sense as being answerable to Parliament or the Committee, but in the hope that through sharing information I can be helpful.
Public confidence in the Courts is just as important as it is for the law making process through
Parliament. It is in that context that I have been concerned at recent criticism of the Family Court aired in the media insofar as it has been ill informed, exaggerated and couched in terms calculated to destroy the Court’s credibility, particularly when it has been directed at the personal and professional integrity of the Judges.
The Family Proceedings Act placed an obligation on legal advisers to ensure that clients were aware of the counselling services available and an obligation on the Family Court to promote conciliation.
(b) It should have specialist Judges who are legally trained and qualified by personality, experience, and interest to decide matters and direct overall activities of a Family Court.
(e) Strict adversary rules should be relaxed, as assured the more traditional forms of dress and address so that, when cases have to be resolved in Court, the hearing can be conducted in an atmosphere of relative informality. The aim of the Court should be to help resolve problems with the co-operation of the parties, wherever that is possible, and with a minimum of disruption in all cases.
All Judgments are sent to the legal publishers through my office. They have the editorial freedom to choose cases for reporting in the two series of Family Law Reports published in New Zealand.
Unreported Judgments are also available through the legal publishers and are frequently referred to in the Family Court manuals published by both Butterworths and Brookers. They are unavailable to legal academics and the Universities who teach family law and are free to scrutinise and comment on Judgments of the Court.”
“unavailable” presumably was a transcription error and should read available.
Although judge mahony claimed that all judgements are supplied to legal publishers and are available to legal academics, this simply is quite untrue. After I had received a reference to a case, in a published appeal K v C appeal against removal of child without notice Priestly 21FRNZ686, I searched for the original judgement, that had been appealed against. I asked a Professor of Law if he had the original judgement and he replied that he frequently has difficulty in obtaining familycaught judgements.
It is interesting to read judge mahony’s submission, as I believe that there is not a single page which is completely truthful and not misleading.
So judge green, where does your judgement fit into the issue of whether NZ is a genuine common law or bound by precedent country. I asked both Butterworths and Brookers, the two legal publishers operating in NZ, whether they held copies of the judgement that you issued in the hearing of 6th October 1992. I asked under the Privacy Act, so that they are required to answer truthfully. Both said that they did not hold this judgement.
So, when you know that you are acting outside of Parliament’s legislation, then you don’t supply the judgement to the legal publishers, as this would enable the public to see whether you were acting outside of the law.
The Interpretation Act defines how courts should analyse the meanings of a statute, if this is not already completely obvious and unambiguous. It is required that words shall have their common english useage, unless the term has a well known legal definition.
How to Understand an Act of Parliament 7TH EDITION by D. J. GIFFORD
Words used in an Act of Parliament (if they are not defined in the Act) are to be read as having the meaning which they had in ordinary speech (or, if they are technical words, then as having their technical meaning) at the time when the Act was passed:
When we look at the “legal definition” of “best interests of the child”, should this have the meaning taken by familycaught legal workers, or the meaning accepted by competent and successful parents?
The “legal definition” is based on a legal analysis of the family, an analysis no more sophisticated than who was born with male genitals and who was born with female genitals. This should easily result in treating like cases in a like way!, but is this sufficient to meet the term “best interests of the child”, as it is understood by successful and competent parents?
Clearly this “legal definition” of “best interests of the child” fails to include issues such as each of the parent’s skills, resources for parenting, support from family and friends and all of the cultural issues as well.
Although the “legal definition” is accepted by legal workers and familycaught judges, it is not seen as sufficient to do justice to “the best interests of the child”, by any competent and successful parent.
So, what are the consequences for the children when a familycaught judge goes off the rails, outside of the legislation set down by Parliament? The mother of my two children felt free to break familycaught Orders for access, hundreds of times through the following 12 years. I never applied to the familycaught for assistance at enforcing these Orders, as it was clear from dale green’s behaviour, that the orders and the familycaught could not be taken seriously.
I lost all remaining trust of familycaught judges and for all aspects of this Mickey Mouse caught. You saw me as an outlaw dale green, living outside the protection of the laws passed by Parliament. I see you dale green, as an outlaw, you choose to work outside the law.
The Guardianship Act gives both parents the right to take part in decisions affecting their children. You turned your back on this legislation. Following on from you, judge M D robinson also approved the next abduction from my care. By removing from me the ability to take part in decisions protecting my children, you acted to prevent me from being able to protect my children from their abductor mother.
The stresses of this lawless lifestyle and lack of parental discipline, led to my older son leaving school, without even passing 3rd form exams. So what, a lifetime loss of almost a hundred thousand dollars doesn’t even register to a familycaught judge, you just couldn’t care less!
I was slapped across the face by your statement, “I am not here for men, I am here to protect women and children”. I realised that the “Alice in Wonderland” stories I had heard about the familycaught were true and that in practice I was going to be prevented from taking any part in the decisions relating to my children’s upbringing. This being to the point that you, dale green, saw fit to prefer the parenting of a child-abductor mother, over that of an honest father.
I had a suicidal streak throughout my childhood. Your expression of me as an outlaw, pressed these buttons again. I pulled myself away from these suicidal thoughts as quickly as I could, through the following 18 months. I tried to not look back. I dismissed it as my own troubled reaction.
I have an interest in suicide, as I know how many separating men (and probably women too) harbour suicidal thoughts, for some time during the separating process. Some of the triggers are “insensitive” comments made by family court legal workers, both judges and lawyers. I know that most people don’t act on these thoughts, as they have later discussed them with me.
I know that a large proportion of male suicides, are in the year or two after separation, so that the connection between men discussing suicide triggers pressed by familycaught workers and the significant number of suicides in the short period after separation is not just a coincidence.
I looked up NZ’s suicide statistics. It is terrible, when any person takes a long term solution, for a short term problem. Since the introduction of the familycaught, men in the age range 20 to 45 have been committing suicide at about x4 the rate in the previous 25 year period. Most of this increase occurred in the first 5 years after the familycaught opened for trade, since judges gained the freedom to operate under protection of secrecy. This is an increase in suicide deaths from about 2000 in 25 years from 1955 to 1980 to nearly 9000 from 1980 to 2005.
Keeping suicide in perspective, the average GP is involved with a suicide every 18 months, they are not particularly common. They have a similar incidence to road fatalities, actually a little lower. Road deaths are probably over-reported, as suicides are probably under-reported. Fortunately therefore, most of us do not have immediate family personal experience of completed suicide. This low incidence leads many in the public to not take this subject seriously, until it strikes very close to home. Then it is too late.
Much of this increase might be due to increased work stress and financial pressure to support families. This period has had it’s ups and downs, but generally there has been steadily increasing wealth. Through this 50 year period, there has been peacetime and substantial development in psychiatric treatments and medicines. These should have led to a significant reduction in suicides triggered by psychiatric conditions.
Careful analysis of road deaths, has led to safer roads and safer cars. Better emergency access to hospital treatment has also reduced deaths and the impacts of injuries. Improved driver testing, has also led to a reduction in road deaths. Between these two 25 year periods, there has been a reduction in road deaths of about 5000 people.
Why then, has suicide in 20 to 45 year old men increased by x4, through this period, especially through a period without major war? Most of the increase in the suicide rate occurred through the first five years that the secret familycaught first traded.
Was my personal experience of dale green and familycaught usual or unusual?
If it was typical, then dale green’s repudiation of her judicial oath and favouring of mother-abductors and similar activities by some other judges, may be resulting in many men and some women too, deciding to escape from NZ through suicide.
If she has behaved similarly with other men and perhaps one of them did decide to follow through on his suicidal impulses, then it is probable that Judge Green is a manslaughterer, quite possibly many times over. Gallons and gallons and gallons of blood may have been callously spilt, by her trying to prove her feminist credentials.
If my treatment was “normal”, then we could expect that similar treatment would be foreseeably likely to tip a significant number of the 5,000 men who are dragged through the familycaught each year, to consider and complete suicide. Even if only say 0.5% of separating men did complete suicide, then we would be seeing 25 additional suicides per year, which is in line with recorded suicides.
At 25 additional suicides per year, then since the familycaught started trading, at 500 suicides total, there would be an average of 4 suicides for each judge. Some judges may not have triggered any suicides. More dismal judges may be responsible for far higher than 4 suicides.
Now that I have looked back on my own experience in the familycaught, I see that even if I avoided the final solution, about 15 men each year may be falling into the man-traps set by these judges, acting outside of legislation passed by Parliament.
I am not saying that all familycaught judges behave in these ways. Probably, some judges deliver suicidal triggers much more than others. I am not accusing them of doing it consciously, deliberately and murderously. I believe that killing people in a foreseeable way is still culpable manslaughter, even when hiding behind the british tradition of judges not taking responsibility for their decisions. To the extent that these judicial behaviours foreseeably deliver suicide triggers, then there is personal responsibility.
This raises the issue of the appointment of people with legal, but not judicial training, as judges. In choosing to accept the risk of appointing lay judges, we wear the additional suicides, triggered by these under-skilled judges.
I know that judges are taught to NOT personally take responsibility for their decisions. In the days of hanging, a mistake could amount to “legal” cold blooded murder. Who would want to face the responsibility for their own error or mistake, extinguishing an innocent human life?
If I assault my friend, who unknown to me has a weak blood vessel in his brain and he dies, then I will be required to wear the responsibility. There is a rule in common law, that “you take your victim as you find him”. In a similar way, in my opinion, when a judge says to a man (Judge Green to me on 6th October 1992), after this hearing and as its consequences for my children and I unfolded, I gave serious consideration to killing myself. I did not want to be associated with bringing up my children, through the type of relationships being imposed by the Family Court. I had decided to have children, to offer them the best parenting I could.
I cannot stand silently by, while this careless carnage goes on. Parliament never envisaged that these judges would act so far outside of the legislation, at such an unnecessary bloody cost to our community.
Judges acting judicially, are not held accountable for the consequences of their judgements. However, this protection does not apply when they act illegally, outside of statute law, as in your case dale green. Your responsibility is personal. As the consequences are not reversible, you wear this blood all over your hands, blood that can never be washed off. Over 20 litres of blood.
Listeners, if you have a family member, friend or work colleague who has killed them-self, please find out whether the familycaught judges may have played an active role in their decision to destroy their life. If so, was their decision affected by any illegal aspects of how they were treated by these acting judges? If so, who is the culpable judge?
It is necessary to look very closely at the file and all papers in it. Just looking at the judgements does not give a complete or honest understanding of what has really happened through the familycaught process. Usually blackmail and threats are verbal or implied. These legal workers are really cowards, of the lowest order. They never stand up to carry responsibility for their actions.
Please do not shrink away from this cold dark task. I am not asking you to face these bloody demons, for the pleasure of facing off with death, but to protect our still alive sons, daughters, family and friends. Lets find out who are the worst death-dealing judges, so that we can replace them by judges who are willing to carry out their job, legally and with family competence.
I invite people to communicate their good and less good experiences with dale green, the acting judge. What conclusion can be drawn from a wider sample of her practice as a judge?
Someone could suggest that only weak men, with severe psychiatric problems, would complete suicide. I suggest that these people are already showing in the suicide rate prior to 1980, the trading start of the familycaught. Many of our most creative artists, writers, scientists and teachers have fought some of their life with mental illness issues. Notwithstanding this, they have contributed greatly to the cultural life of our nation – probably more so than any legal worker in NZ.
Here I am only discussing the additional suicides. If I punch and knock to the ground my opponent and he dies, due to weak blood vessels in the brain, then I am required to carry full responsibility. I take my victim as I find him.
If a doctor takes a life through careless application of his craft, the courts are very willing to place the responsibility onto his shoulders.
I am only asking that our society place the same burden, the same duty of care onto our responsibility ducking judges.
Lets stop the unnecessary bloodletting. Lets respect all members of our community.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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