Lets Get LOUD!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ps1oz3ynuw&feature=youtu.be

The Emperor's New Clothes

I am about to expose the most corrupt Judge that has ever walked the halls of a New Zealand Court house. This Judge surpasses all Judges currently sitting at the bench. I will also be uploading the very voice of this Judge and fully exposing just how corrupt and incompetent this Judge is.

What you will hear this Judge saying (and the way they acted) will leave you shocked, as it has already left the very small select few who have heard this Judge themselves.



 

Higher off we go....

So, Judge Mill is being dragged into the High Court, for a bit of a hand slapping. It's one thing to scandalise a Judge, bring them into disrepute, accuse them of being ignorant towards evidence, tell the public that  you can not what-so-ever have any confidence in District Court Judges; but it helps tremendously when a Higher Judge with more 'brain power' agrees. Judge Crosbie is also being dragged along for the ride.

I am going to put up all the court documents for this case once it gets under way.

The consensus in relation to the Family Court Father/Son case, is that it also needs to be put before the High Court.  No one has yet to disagree that the conduct of people in that court room was appalling (lawyers, Judges and even the court staff). There needs to be some professional standards set (especially after 32 years of the Family Court).

Cheif Family Judge Takes Revenge On Father in Closed Court

...no not Judge Ryan (yet)....but in 2001, this guy did.....

Christchurch Court alienates daughter from mother

http://nzfamilycourt.com/2013/08/28/the-more-involved-the-family-court-becomes-the-worse-the-outcome-for-all-concerned-a-mothers-story/#comments

This situation seems to be the norm for the Christchurch Family Court (second comment as well). Might be time to show New Zealand just what happens inside the Christchurch Family Court and the public can be the 'Judge'.

Stay tuned this time next week a second major debate (the first being the father/ son Dunedin case) with what Judges and lawyers are really doing behind closed doors.

 

Just in..........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333549/Top-judge-says-mothers-children-taken-away-dont-let-fathers-them.html

Reminiscing with the Law Society

A friend of mine got the Law Society into some very embarrassing trouble a few years back. It is still a good laugh even today!

Judge Jock explains.........Apparently this still has the Law Society spewing!

 

 



 

Speaking of 'lawtalk' I don't normally head over there. But thought something might have come up with all this 'Judge and Family Court' scandal going on in the media. At some point, there will be a lawyer who will want to be some sort of 'hero' about it all. But I spied this article instead  http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk/issue-824/getting-bogged-down-with-truth

 

Dear Dr, Chris Gallavin,

In response to your article on the 02 August 2013.......to be continued

 

 



Judge Ian Mill Strikes again....

Remember this Judge, http://newzealandjudges.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/the-district-court-has-new-village-idiot.html

Well, I have been buzzing around Wellington recently and this Judge just does not learn (Do any of them ever?).
I also learnt a whole lot more about this Judge during a get together with some other Family Court Advocates.

The JCC are also involved with him and I have found out he has had the JCC on his tail a few times now. He is one of the named Judges in the formal communication to the UN that's going through, so that can't be a good sign either.

IF you find Judge kill sitting on your case...RUN. Print this off and demand a Judge with some real brains and common sense.

Facts uncovered about Judge Mill.

- Not only was he responsible for the death of a child (by suicide), but he successfully inflicted the same fate on two fathers some years back.

-He also refused a women a protection order against an abusive partner. Three days after Judge Mill's refusal to protect this women. Her partner beat-her-up. She suffered a fractured eye socket, broken rib, dislocated shoulder and significant blows to other parts of her body.

-He is allergic to evidence. In the above case the women had filed medial notes of previous injuries from beatings. Judge Mill not only ignored them but never mentioned them in the Judgement (something he is famous for).

-He has been caught writing Judgements about 'things' (have no idea how to describe it?) that not only never happened but where never discussed in court. He has been caught lying in court (four times now and that's with a 'word for word' account from parties in court with him, for over the past four months. Statistically he lies in court once a month. Which is better than the average Police officer who is estimated to lie on average seven times through just one shift! taken from an ex-police officer interview).

-He does not make his own decisions in court. He has been caught contacting other Judges and asking them to tell him what to do? Seriously? I just about fell over when I saw that! In the Appeals court and Supreme court you have a 'panel' of Judges, but never at District Court level.

-His daughters are annoyed at him.

-There's a youtube video of him, which I will link later.

-He hates Human Rights and Civil Rights.

I have no idea what 'skills' Mill would even have to warrant him being a Judge. If anything his career as a lawyer is rather boring. He didn't do anything of significance. I can only assume that when he was employed as a Judge, the 'scrapping' of the bottom of the barrel was not an option. They had to go outside the barrel for him!

ohh and is it Judge Mill facing prosecution???

 

Justice Graham Panckhurst

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/9088585/Outcasts-win-High-Court-battle

Justice Panckhurst is a Judge, whom I have always admired. He has some common sense left, which is hard to find in any Judge.

Judge Jock arrives......

http://nzfamilycourt.com/2013/08/25/national-business-review-publishes-allegations-against-nz-judge-and-nz-law-society/

Judge Jock, a true pioneer. I have been a follower of Judge Jocks work for many  years now and rather enjoy is loose findings within the Judiciary.

Note his article in which he confirms the UN are indeed watching what is happening in New Zealand.

Currently, I would not want to be a Judge in New Zealand. Over the next six months. The New Zealand public are going to be seeing what really goes on within the Judiciary. Lock, stock and barrel!

Family Court Judge faces prosecution.

http://nzfamilycourt.com/2013/08/23/who-is-the-high-profile-family-court-judge-who-is-about-to-have-a-private-prascution-served-against-them/

What Judge had some visitors today?

 

FaThErS DaY

Father and Child Trust are pleased to invite you to…

our Fathers Day Picnic/BBQ Sunday 1st Sept, 2013, Noon – 4pm

at Ambury Farm Park, Mangere Bridge, Auckland…

Families welcome, low cost sausages, drinks, ice creams, coffee…

Father and Child Trust Auckland Ph 525 1690



Also.............

 

 



 

For Sale $$$$$

One child, for $40,000 from New Zealand CYFS. Caught on tape!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETOaDpjdFws

 

Judge Ryan writes back to me..

So when Judge Ryan responded to Craig Jackson, he got a few lines on one piece of paper. I received from Judge Ryan a page and a half! Classy!

I will admit, I did send him thirty-forty pages (about that). Not all written, some were of evidential purposes.

Ok, so Judge Ryan agreed with me on a couple of points. Such as inappropriate conduct of Judges (the role of the JJC), Judge-led Mediations. He 'noted' my criticism of Judge Flatley.

The fact I publish Judges address was also discussed between us- and I note his concerns.

We also had a discussion about' anti-father'. Judge Ryan feels there is no 'empirical' evidence that he is aware off, to support this proposition.

Did North and South not just publish it?
http://nzfamilycourt.com/2013/07/14/north-south-family-court-article-july-2013/

And did you not read my 'David Polson' post? I now have more evidence of his anti-father stance.

He goes on to say 'Finally, can I say that I have no problem at all with public scrutiny and commentary on the decisions of Family Court Judges (subject of course to non-identification of parties and children)'.

That's good, because as much as I don't want to be here myself. It looks as if I will be around for a while!

Last night I was on the phone to New Zealand's most 'notable' activist until 10.45pm. We discussed this and the basics is; we don't want to name the 'parties' it's the Lawyers, Judges and others involved that are the ones we take issue with. These are the 'adults' not working for the 'best interest of the child' or even families. Perhaps I didn't cover that? I have a new book coming out in October so I am making sure to note this.

Judge Ryan...As you say, this goes to the heart of a fair and transparent system of justice.

Yes, this is what I preach! My concern is why Judges can't see this? Judges leave a 'legacy', within a society. So is it a good legacy or bad one?

Judge Ryan goes on...'However, the commentary needs to be fair and balanced.'

I have no issue with that. There are 145 District Court Judges in New Zealand.
Out of this 145, I have ONE who is fair and honest.

Judge Russell who sits in Nelson. That's all I have got (I shrug my shoulders). Judge Russell is awesome. He kicks the butt of lawyers! He tells lawyers off when they get it wrong and he has a 'go' at them for their stupidity. You can't get a better Judge than one who sits there and says I don't care what your client thinks I am telling you! It's a shame he is disrespected by lawyers! Say's a lot for lawyers when they disrespect Judges in the court room.

His final paragraph is a 'a'ha', or his last sentence more specifically. Because it is a direction of just what Family Court Judges do themselves, which I will show and explain further later.

The Father/son case from this week. I can't say to much because it will spoil the media coverage of the case and I really want to get as many people as possible to watch it. Basically, the child was mentioned five times and the rest was irrelevant, but a very good example of the Family Court. You will see evidence and witness testimony not heard at the hearing (you will see why). But David Polson did rise to the challenge and even the camera man picked out errors! (In fact David Polson will be noted by New Zealand for his famous last words, in which the reporter went 'Did he just say what I think he said' as her mouth dropped to the floor). The mother has been caught out a few times and there is evidence contradicting her lawyer. We are just waiting on the Judgement to pick that part now and then I will post the day/time of the coverage.

Press Release

If your wanting to 'click' on the links in this release head too..
http://nzfamilycourt.com/2013/08/19/law-society-goes-after-lawyer-who-tried-to-protect-a-child-from-being-handed-over-to-a-paedophile/
and get the pdf file.

PRESS RELEASE – NZ HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER ATTACKED BY JUDICIARY AND LAW SOCIETY FOR TRYING TO PROTECT A CHILD FROM A PAEDOPHILE.



*.all attachments are hosted on the file-exchange server. Just click – slow download
You are cordially invited to one of New Zealand’s best show trials since David Bain.
On the 2nd September precisely at 10 am (don’t be late as seating is limited). The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal will be hearing the Law Society’s prosecution of Mr Evgeny Orlov, barrister, for making a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner (and to the Human Rights Tribunal) against Harrison J, (notice of hearing here).

The Law Society will argue that Mr Orlov is not a fit and proper person to practice law because, in effect, he ‘scandalised’ the high and impeccable reputation of the New Zealand judicial system and Harrison J by his complaint, (click here to see the charges).

You may have heard of Mr Orlov, a Human Rights lawyer that has regularly challenged the New Zealand government (via Child Youth and Family Services) in the High Court and Court of Appeal for the actions of CYFS in removing children from their families (sometimes at birth) without proper trials or procedures. He has also been outspoken against the anti-smacking bill which has criminalised normal child discipline practices (click here to see the CYFS succubus as an example of his work). Mr Orlov spent his entire New Zealand legal career attempting to protect New Zealander’s rights to family life and family in many cases pro bono.

In the case of Ley v Ministry of Social Development, Mr Orlov filed a judicial review (pro bono) against the decision of a Family Court judge (Judge Rogers) to remove five Maori children from their parents without a hearing and allowing these children to be placed in non-Maori homes.



Mr Orlov filed a claim against the Family Court for, amongst other things, breaching the Treaty of Waitangi rights of Maori to family and culture and breaching the right to justice.

Harrison J, who heard the case, was so appalled that Mr Orlov suggested that Maori people had been treated unequally that he not only sent Mr Orlov to the Law Society, but ordered costs against him personally as well for suggesting that the Maori people had been treated unequally by the New Zealand legal system. He said ‘all are equal before New Zealand law’.
The decision ordered costs against Mr Orlov although there was no application by anybody for costs and even though he was acting for free (click here for the costs decision).

Harrison J was, of course, correct. The Maori people have the same rights to family life as all New Zealanders because in New Zealand there actually is no right to family life at all. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, which heard Mr Orlov’s appeal against Harrison J’s decision, (click here for that decision).



So, ladies and gentlemen, it is outrageous that Mr Orlov would try to practice human rights law for free in New Zealand. Since we don’t have family rights we also cannot have human rights lawyers running around arguing for them, especially for free.
In another case, Reznikova v Copeland, Harrison J tried to imprison Mr Orlov for contempt for refusing to hand over a child to a paedophile. Harrison issued a habeas corpus order handing a child to a man who was a perpetrator of sexual abuse, had spent two years in a mental institution for shooting his wife with a cross bow and in circumstances when there was an ongoing judicial review with evidence before the Court that he was sexually abusing Mrs Reznikova’s children.

The child, who was handed over to the paedophile by Harrison J, was represented by his brother, Geoff Harrison. The history of Mr Copeland is set out in an article in Investigate magazine (click here for the article) and this was known to Harrison J at the time he handed the child over without even giving the mother an opportunity to be heard. The mother was imprisoned by Harrison J for trying to protect the child against the paedophile.



Again, Harrison J was of course, correct. In a later decision, Judge Somerville of Tauranga, whilst finding that Mr Copeland had committed sexual abuse, nevertheless later in a subsequent decision criticised Mr Orlov for calling him a paedophile in Court. After all, Mr Copeland 'loved' his children and had rights to see them and be with them. Indeed, psychologists appointed by the Family Court said that Mrs Reznikova had cognitive distortions because she was so opposed to a paedophile having contact with her child and was overly angry at CYFS for assisting Mr Copeland in such a noble endeavour.

But all the above is by way of background to the show trial.
This is unique in New Zealand and indeed colonial history because the attempt to remove a lawyer from practice for scandalising the court was forbidden in England as early as 1899 (click here for the McLeod case). The English Court said then:




"Contempt of Court may be committed by publication of scandalous matter respecting the Court after adjudication as well as pending a case before it. In England committals for such contempts have become obsolete: in small colonies consisting principally of coloured populations they may still be necessary in proper cases"
The English, unlike us colonials, have an obsession with free speech and rule of law and other rather unwieldy concepts that are definitely of a rather unsavoury European origin. We are much more progressive.
Because Mr Orlov has criticised the Family Court and the abuse of psychiatry in the New Zealand Family Court system (click here for ‘psycho-logic and the law’), we want to ensure he gets a fair trial so the presiding judge (the honourable Judge Clarkson) will be chairing the Tribunal because, of course, she is a Family Court Judge and also because her husband is a psychiatrist involved in the Family Court system. Judge Clarkson would understand Harrison J as she was involved in a case where three men were permitted to continue having underage sex with a fourteen year old girl and she gagged the parents and the brother, who later committed suicide (click here for that family’s story).



To ensure extra fairness, because Mr Orlov has been continuously suing the Law Society, we have ensured that he will be tried by a panel of senior Law Society members, including an ex vice president of the Canterbury Law Society.
Now, you will also hear during the show that Margaret Malcolm (who is now helping Judith Collins to cover up the Bain case) was also involved in the illegal attempt to prosecute Mr Orlov for attending a Law Society meeting and insisting he be heard, resulting in the police being called to remove him from the Law Society building (click here for a NZ Herald article setting this out).



Judith Collins, former Law Society president and now Minister of Justice, has been worried about ‘feral judges' deciding Bain’s compensation. This implies that in New Zealand our judiciary is principally tame.

During the show you will find that Harrison J is one of our most tame judges - he protects the New Zealand government from crazy human rights lawyers and in turn the Law Society protects him by prosecuting lawyers who make complaints, so it is a good relationship all round.
Another one of our tame judges was Mr Hesketh who was sadly removed by the Disciplinary Tribunal for fraud (click here for the order striking him off) but was soon reinstated as a Human Rights Commissioner and then a lawyer sitting on Mr Orlov’s Disciplinary Committee. It is, of course, comforting that a former judge with such personal experience in fraud would be appointed to judge a lawyer’s ethics; I mean how else could one profess such profound knowledge?

Mr Hesketh, as human rights commissioner, has recently shown a deep concern as to the privacy rights of paedophiles and is currently suing the Sensible Sentencing Trust for trying to protect the New Zealand public from serial paedophiles (click here for an article about this). That is surely fair enough given that there is no right to family in New Zealand but there is a right to be a paedophile in private. Indeed, Mr Hesketh would well argue that fraudsters and paedophiles, being an extra-private type of people, should not have that right disturbed. That is precisely why Time magazine has called New Zealand a "haven for paedophiles" (click here for information on this).

Now, Mr Orlov is being attacked for criticising our judiciary. Our judicial system and judiciary has recently been attacked by Mr Tony Molloy QC, who labelled the judiciary a "fraud on the New Zealand public". Whilst the New Zealand Law Society is prosecuting Mr Orlov for making such ‘scandalous’ statements the Law Society has recently issued a press release against the Fiji government for punishing academics who spoke out against Fijian judges. The New Zealand Law Society has stated that this is basically an interference with the freedom of speech (click here for the press release).



What is the difference you may ask? Well in New Zealand, domestic judges can do no wrong, so it is improper to criticise them, whereas foreign judges are susceptible to error.

You will also discover that the Law Society appointed Lapa Laubscher (a former eminent Q.C during the apartheid era and Botha’s personal lawyer) to act as professional standards director. Mr Laubscher, who knows all about keeping colonials in check, then secretly investigated Mr Orlov world-wide on Harrison J’s direction and met with judges who told him "not to get rid of Mr Orlov yet as he will prove useful as an independent voice". But now Mr Orlov is speaking too much and is no longer useful. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you will hear evidence directly from witnesses as to Mr Laubscher’s involvement and his background because of course, like Mr Hesketh, someone involved in a system that perpetrates crimes against humanity would be well suited to control New Zealand lawyers’ ethics.

You will be sad to know that directly as a result of Mr Orlov’s annoying complaints, Mr Laubscher "resigned" and is now helping migrant and coloured people access the New Zealand justice system as a duty solicitor. I am sure his clients will receive what they deserve quickly and efficiently.
You will hear all of this and much more during the show but without revealing the finale and just to give you a sneak preview, the New Zealand Law Society Disciplinary Tribunal will demonstrate a feat of true judicial magic, the likes of which can only be seen in the most far flung villages of Iran and Pakistan - they will decide the case with absolutely no evidence.

Yes, that is correct! The society has not filed one single statement nor called one witness and has refused to call Harrison J, so there is actually no evidence whatsoever to state that what Mr Orlov has said about Harrison J was untrue. Indeed, the Tribunal has refused Mr Orlov’s application to cross-examine Harrison J and for them to provide discovery (click here for that decision).

That did not stop the New Zealand justice in the Bain case though, did it? I mean, Mr Bain was found guilty without any evidence and so he should have been - whoever said that justice was about truth? That is far too draining on tax-payers money. Our great New Zealand Court of Appeal in Bain correctly and economically dispensed with all that human rights nonsense. Indeed, Bain’s pesky lawyer took every point in the Privy Council.

Well, we are glad Mr Orlov will not be able to do that. Indeed, the Court of Appeal has righty criticised Mr Orlov for taking every point and arguing that he is being prosecuted without evidence. Indeed our wonderful Court of Appeal has held that no evidence and no reasons are required to prosecute Mr Orlov and that everyone should just darned well get on with it.

The decision was made by a panel of our most illustrious judges, including Wild J, who only a year ago set aside the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s decision to empanel in the case of Wilson J. In that case, Wild J decided that there was insufficient evidence or reasons given for doing so.

What is the difference, you may well ask? Well, Mr Orlov is a lawyer who practices human rights, sometimes for free, and Wilson is an eminent judge who does not do anything for free except perhaps raise horses. Now, raising horses is a noble activity that can only be carried out by the rich and powerful and these types, of course, deserve the protection of the Courts. Harrison J was correct when he said that all people are equal before New Zealand’s judicial system, however he forgot to add that some are more equal than others.

Besides there are too many lawyers and too few judges, we need more judges and fewer lawyers since we do not have innocent people in our prisons. Indeed, we have done away with the concept of provocation so why can’t we do away with the concept of innocence. Like the right to family life, innocence is just another English anachronism. So to use Harrison’s wise words, all New Zealanders are equally guilty but some are guiltier than others.

After the show all those who attend are invited to an after show party to commemorate the professional lynching of Mr Orlov. . Drinks and food are complementary, but you need to RSVP as places are limited.

So please come appropriately dressed to the show trial. If possible, black tie for men and evening dress for ladies. Colonial justice, after all, demands appropriate attire.
Thank you,

E. Orlov

------------------
Equity Law Chambers | A. Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road | PO Box 8333 | Auckland | New Zeal

The Best Family Court Judgement ever!

Up loading now......But having teething issues so a quick run down until it loads!

Sorry it will not load for me, so if you want to read it you will have to do it here;
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/01/best_court_judgement_ever.html

I wish every Family Court Judge wrote Judgements like this…If you decide to read it, make sure you read his ‘footnotes’ (in italic) and yes this case is real and written by a Judge!

A few of his notable points……

…..the parties repeatedly have shown that they are immune to reason. Consequently, in my decision, I have tried ridicule as a last resort.

[1] Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.

[2] This is yet another case that reveals the ineffectiveness of Family Court in a

bitter custody/access dispute, where the parties require therapeutic intervention

rather than legal attention. Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a

mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring

treatment.

 

…parental-alienation conduct of Catherine (in respect of the parties daughter)…..

 

[8] Presiding over a family trial, with many issues, where the parties are self-represented

…. is a solitary and unfulfilling experience. What evidence was not brought forward

because the parties failed to appreciate its relevance? What evidence that was

introduced would have been recast under a skilful cross-examination? With whom

do I play devil’s advocate on questions of law?

 

[10] In the midst of this social stew perhaps it is not surprising that Larry and

Catherine are having problems, serious problems, regarding the custody of, and

access to, their children. The source of the difficulties is hatred: a hardened,

harmful, high-octane hatred. Larry and Catherine hate each other, as do Larry and

Sam. This hatred has raged unabated since the date of separation. Consequently,

the likelihood of an amicable resolution is laughable (hatred devours reason); and,

a satisfactory legal solution is impossible (hatred has no legal remedy).

 

2, At one point in the trial, I asked Catherine: .If you could push a button and make Larry disappear from the face of the earth, would you push it?. Her I-just-won-a-lottery smile implied the answer that I expected.

3, I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.

 

The Hell’s Angel’s get a mention…….

 

[18] Larry gave evidence that, less than one month later, Catherine, Tried to run me over with her van.

 

6. This is always a tell-tale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart.

 

[19] On November 21, 2006, Catherine demanded $400 from Larry or her brother was going to get the Hells Angels after me.

 

7 The courtroom energy level in a custody/access dispute spikes quickly when there is evidence that one of the parents has a Hells Angels branch in her family tree. Certainly, my posture improved. Catherine’s niece is engaged to a member of the Hells Angels. I take judicial notice of the fact that the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club is a criminal organization (and of the fact that the niece has made a poor choice).

 

Said Larry: .She threatened me with her brothers and Hells Angels again..

 

[21] On August 13, 2007, Catherine's niece (Donna), telephoned Larry and told

me I will get a bullet in my head if I don’t sign the adoption papers. She called

back later and told me I’m as good as dead.. She called a third time, to tell me her

father and uncles are coming to kill me..

 

[22] The next day, Catherine telephoned Larry and said that she wanted my

truck or her brother and the Hells Angels are coming to get it and me.

 

[23] On October 18, 2007, a nautical theme was added. According to Larry:

Donna Taylor, Catherine's sister-in-law, yelled out her window that I was going

to be floating in the canal dead.

 

[24] As can be seen, Catherine and her relatives are one-dimensional problem

solvers.

 

8. When one considers that the parties then had been separated for a mere four months and that Larry was exercising access, this is a remarkable request. What does it tell us about Catherine?

9. Donna is a devotee of the literary device known as, ‘repetition for emphasis’. I do not know whether Donna is the niece who is engaged to the Hells Angels member. If she is, they may be more compatible than I initially surmised.

 

[48] Catherine denied access entirely to Larry from some point in January of

2010 up to the commencement of the four-month hiatus in the trial (May-October

of 2010). This was a remarkably bold step on her part, taken without reasonable

excuse or explanation. Most litigants are on their best behaviour as their trial

approaches. Her conduct reflects the lack of respect she has for the legal system

and the utter disregard with which she treats Larry’s parental rights. She is a law

onto herself. She is also oblivious to her lack of objectivity in matters of access.

 

[50] During these enforced access visits, Taylor repeatedly said to Larry: ‘You're

not my father. Sam’s my father. You’re a loser.’ These are comments that Taylor

would have parroted from Catherine, I have no doubt. They are the result of

persistent, behind-the-scenes brainwashing by Catherine.

 

[70] On fourteen occasions, within eighteen months, the parties drew the police

into their petty disagreements . A sad commentary on their inability to get along

and a shocking abuse of the Niagara Regional Police Service. Although this

statistic probably sums up all that one needs to know about the parties, I will

elaborate for the doubters.

 

[71] Larry, who regularly drives by the residence of Sam and Catherine, often

shoots the finger at Sam and, on about three occasions, has yelled: ‘Jackass,

loser’.

 

20 A further testament to the hopelessness of the custody/access situation is that the parties and their common-law spouses are unable to jointly attend Brandon’s ball-hockey games without erupting into mutual conflict. This is very stressful for Brandon.

21 A finger is worth a thousand words and, therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words.

22 When the operator of a motor vehicle yells ‘jackass’ at a pedestrian, the jackassedness of the former has been proved, but, at that point, it is only an allegation as against the latter.

 

[73] On August 14, 2007, Larry sent three text messages to Catherine within a

space of four minutes, saying: ‘The game is just starting’. ‘Prepare yourself for a

long winding road’ ‘Busted! Always look in your rear view mirror’ and, ‘Blood

isn’t’ always thicker than water’. Two days later he texted: .Loser! Homewrecker!

 

23 In recent years, the evidence in family trials typically includes reams of text messages between the parties, helpfully laying bare their true characters. Assessing credibility is not nearly as difficult as it was before the use of emails and text messages became prolific. Parties are not shy about splattering their spleens throughout cyberspace.

24 These do not strike me as the statements of someone who is concerned about precipitating a Hells Angels house call.

 

I admonished the parties on a number of matters, one of which was the importance of not

 

denigrating the other in the presence of the children. Yet, in August of 2010 (in other words, during

 

the hiatus), Taylor was having an access visit with Larry when she received a text message from

 

Catherine that read: Is dickhead there?.

[80] At one point, the children told Larry that if they were to telephone, or talk to,

him they would 'to jail'. Catherine was behind this cruel misinformation.

 

25 I confess that I sometimes permit a lengthier hiatus than the schedule of the court might otherwise dictate, in order to afford the parties an opportunity to reflect on the trial experience, come to their senses and resolve their difficulties like mature adults. It is touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the bench.

26 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines 'dickhead' as a stupid person. That would not have been my first guess.

 

Larry passed Sam in the hallway outside the courtroom, You’re done.

 

29 It takes a special level of audacity to utter threats under the roof of the Court House.

 

[90] On another occasion in July of 2009, Larry said to Taylor: .'You put shit in this hand and shit in

 

this hand, smack it together, what do you get? Taylor.

 

30 I gather that this is Larry’s version of the Big Bang Theory.

 

[134] Finally, on this issue, I observe that Taylor calls Sam 'dad’. Where as Brandon refers to him as

 

 ‘Sam’. Neither Sam nor Catherine attempted to dissuade Taylor, calling the matter ‘her choice’. Yes,

 

the alienation indeed is complete.

 

[209] The parental alienation in this case reflects an intent by Catherine to destroy the relationship

 

between Taylor and Larry; it is shocking conduct. It also amounts to a hideous repudiation of the

 

relationship between Catherine and Larry as co-parents of Taylor. The harm here probably is

 

irreparable. Certainly, it is extremely serious at best.

 

[210] While Larry’s access-conduct has largely reflected nothing more than inept

parenting, Catherine’s parental-alienation behaviour has been evil. Is there a

remedy?

 

[211] Dollars cannot replace the father-daughter relationship that Catherine has

destroyed. However, in the circumstances of this case, justice has only a Hobson’s

choice. Catherine’s alienation of Taylor and Larry must be condemned and, an

effective method of expressing that condemnation, is by way of a reduction in spousal support.

 

[212] Accordingly, the spousal support to which Catherine would otherwise be

entitled shall be reduced to one dollar monthly.

 

[213] Despite the involvement of Niagara Family and Children’s Services, Ms.

Katz, Mr. Leduc and the court, the parties repeatedly have shown that they are

immune to reason. Consequently, in my decision, I have tried ridicule as a last

resort.

 

 

Responses from the Family Court users review.

Views on lawyers

I paid a lot of money yet still had no understanding of what strategy my lawyer was working from or to. They muddled along shuffling paper and writing to each other and not addressing my own or the children’s concerns.

My lawyer was extremely hard to get hold of and did not return my calls. I had never been through the family court process before and I had a lot of questions about the legal aspects many of which went unanswered. I provided my lawyer with vital information about my case which never made it before the judge. Information that may have resulted in a different outcome for myself and my three year old son.

Lawyer was helpful but the problem is the system or the other party.

Lawyers Skills and competencies

By making the right applications using the right sections and acts for me...

Could have used less adversarial approach, could have represented our family more realistically, could have done the work in more timely manner, could have short cut the process by going directly to the FC instead of adversarial lawyers battle which cost 15k for us and about the same for the other side of the family with still no outcomes that assisted the children involved. Nearly lost our home because of the costs incurred (large debt now) and still no resolution that represents what the children need 2yrs later.

My lawyer did not even mention there were alternatives to court proceedings. My lawyer could have been more helpful by insisting on more attention to s5(a) of the Care of Children Act 2004.

My lawyer did not give me all the facts regarding the options the Judges had available to them in their decisions. She told me there would only be one outcome - 50/50 of relationship property. This was not the case.

 

After the final parenting order

Ex-husband has not complied with the order for over a year now.

Order repeatedly breached without appropriate punishment, should have been contempt of court.

Most helpful court professional

No one to date has been helpful. Most have contributed to increased high parental conflict, especially the judges.

No one in the Family Court system – why else would the dispute go on for 8 years? The entire philosophy of the Family Court is wrong.

Lawyers

A corrupt lawyer whose only interest is to make false applications and live off the legal aid gravy train.

Lawyers who helped their clients to settle rather than just shuffle paper and maintain animosity.

Changes to the law and the court system

Care of children should be 50/50 by default when both parents shown as competent hence avoiding need for court.

A change to the law – it favours status quo and is hard to change, even if the status quo is no good for the children.

Child Orientation

A pre-court process that places accountability on the parents to act in the best interests of the children. If this is in place from the start, I believe that counselling and mediation have a better chance of success thus avoiding trauma for the children.

Need for greater transparency and accountability

The code of silence must be lifted. The family court system and those within it – from the bottom up – are protected by the code of silence which surrounds the system itself. The protection of children as a reason for this silence has allowed family court representatives to run amok with people’s lives and money, and the courts time and money.

There must be transparency and accountability: There is no system of accountability placed on the courts representatives, and certainly not one which allows vulnerable parties to expect any sort of honest investigation into such issues.

Lawyers should be made accountable as well as lawyers for the children - it appears to be a gravy train for them and it is unbelievable that they are able to charge the amounts that they do.

Need for consequences for lying and misleading the court

Consequences for applicants and lawyers who make without notice applications which are later found to have no merit or foundation, e.g. automatic award of costs unless exceptional circumstances. Recognise that some applicants use the court process to gain tactical advantage and harass respondents -- actions that outside the context of the court might be construed as psychological abuse particularly when there are small children involved.

Lawyers who mislead the court, lie or behave badly should be able to be punished quickly and harshly. Parents who lie to the court should be punished. Lawyers and parents who lie to Legal Aid should be punished. The lack of punishment encourages poor behaviour.

The [court] needs to be very effective with disciplinary action on parents that take matters into their own hands and continuously break parenting orders. They need to give the police the ability to act on those orders. As some parents are aware that the police cannot enforce a parenting order and that it is up to the other parent to go back to court and apply for a warrant to uplift.

System should be non-adversarial

Less adversarial lawyers. Their mandate should be mediation and not escalation.

…maybe the LAWYERS should go from this environment so it actually becomes about families and children as its focus, rather than a legal battle of wits between two law firms!

Replace lawyers with social workers, counsellors and mediators in the earliest stages following the lodging of applications in the family court. Social workers, counsellors and mediators are more apt, and hopefully more affordable, than lawyers, to sort out these issues properly. Family Court cases are not about property rights, they are about children's wellbeing. The involvement of lawyers as primary workers in these cases is not doing the best for our kids, and it’s hugely expensive.

Recognise that separated parents not being able to make decisions about parenting of children is not different from parents in intact families not being able to make similar decisions. It is an Interpersonal/Psychological/Communications problem NOT a legal one. By involving lawyers, judges, Family Court we make it one. There are many players then who have an investment in the problem, including a financial one.

Issues around lawyer for the child

Lawyers for children to be specialists, impartial and subject to appraisal.

The lawyer for child needs to be someone who has substantial training in child psychology and child development. Even better still, rather than or in addition to having a lawyer for child, there should be a social worker appointed to the children, who has an understanding of children's development and psychology, and who also takes the time to get to know the children, and understand what their situations really are like at home, and in the non-resident parent's home/social environment.

Lawyer for child should be removed and replaced with a social worker that has specialised qualifications in children.

Faster, more efficient process

It was such a long process. From time of separation it took two years to finally have arrangements in place through a court mediator. Very long and drawn out for children. Very hard to get hold of court coordinator - took 3 applications and a phone call from lawyer to even get the counsellor appointed.

The family court processes need to be dealt with straight away, the process takes too long and the children are damaged in the meantime.

The family court process is too slow and needs to be sped up.