Author Archive

There are few of us who are prepared to speak up. we are alone we are singled out and targeted  and things which are wrong stay the same.

When we go to meetings such as silent injustice we hear  so many  speak up   and  voice their concerns, concerns which are identical to ours .. so why do we do this in a private setting and not  out in  public?

If we all spoke up together our voices would be heard   this clip sums  it up so well.. in  this case it relates to a company   but it can just as easily relate to government departments   and regarding justice in our courts .

ethicsDo you know what your rights are  in Civil jurisdiction? well it would appear that you don’t have many

I claim that you have exactly three rights

1. Put up – when some one takes action against you  there is little that you can do to escape it ,  claims do not have to have any merit  and  there is no need for  evidence .  Once you are before the court the  current will take you  with it.

Like any rip  if you fight it  you will  tire out  because the rip is intended to take  you under .

Sometimes miracles occur in the form of  an  honest and  competent judge

2. Shut up – action is often taken  to silence those who  could speak up  about  wrong doing.. those who provide transparency as a Private Investigator  I find that    white collar criminals see me coming before I  even know what I am dealing with  and so I find myself in  court  facing a  harassment claim  or a defamation  claim  which   finds it way though the system because the  crims  have   tactical lawyers, , deep pockets  which ultimately provide tax write offs.

3. Pay up– Ultimately it’s all about the scorched earth policy with the costs against you ,   you are effectively powerless  to fight back  because  our justice system is based on nothing more  than  he who has the most money wins.

If a judgement has been brought against you based on lies, it is virtually impossible to turn the case around. In New Zealand we simply don’t prosecute perjury and there seems to be an acceptance in the court that everyone tells lies.

So if you respect the law and you don’t tell lies you may survive with your own conscience intact but your reputation will be mud  and you will be bankrupted. – This is the harsh reality of  civil justice NZ style.

The civil court  is routinely used to conceal criminal offending and corruption. It is also a great tool to severely beat someone up or commit a crime  which if done without a lawyer  would be a crime  but done with a lawyer  suddenly becomes acceptable.

We have a presumption that the court is being used only where genuine disputes need to be settled. This is not true. The civil court is a weapon of war and is used as such it is used to steal anything  from children to real estate  and to silence those who could expose corruption.

The structure and nature of the civil court and the huge penalties which can be imposed , these penalties often have far greater implications as the vexatiousness of the proceedings extend to using these penalties for bankruptcy and liquidation.

The bill of rights act   gives  criminals rights to justice, these rights are not  given to civil litigants.  In particular

section 25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure
  • Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:

    • (a) the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:

    • (b) the right to be tried without undue delay:

    • (c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:

    • (d) the right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt:

    • (e) the right to be present at the trial and to present a defence:

    • (f) the right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution:

    • (g) the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty:

    • (h) the right, if convicted of the offence, to appeal according to law to a higher court against the conviction or against the sentence or against both:

    • (i) the right, in the case of a child, to be dealt with in a manner that takes account of the child’s age.

The civil litigant  is not ” charged with an offence ”  the same is true of those who   incur an infringement , it therefore follows that the   rights afforded to a criminal  do not apply to  those who have not been charged.

There is presumption that civil proceedings are brought legitimately and that the statement of claim is factual. There is no requirement to resolve disputes prior to going to court and if you have money you can simply bring any charge for anything against any one.

I was taken to court by one such person   Terry Hay  I wrote about him in this post Disparity in crime.. who you know matters 

I have also  made a complaint to    Michael Heron and to  Chris Finlayson  with regards to the back door option of  buying justice

 The reality I that Lawyers who are supposed to be officers of the court are there to ensure that only   proper action is  brought,  but would you seriously expect a lawyer to tell their rich client  sorry mate cant represent you   on this  because you have no  valid claim.  The lawyer knows full well that there are  $$$ to be made    and so he places his client ahead of the rule of law  and  keeps his child in private school for a few more years.

The  lawyer represent  Hay ,Peter Spring  from Keegan Alexander  brought  his   ethics and those  of his  firm  to notice in 2010 when  he took legal action agaisnt me on trumped up charges.  What are the ethics of Keegan Alexander law firm?

I had to  be silenced as  Terry Hay   had created a  fictitious liquidator and  Director and  I discovered that  fact. Hay was eventually charged  but he paid   off the crown law office  , it appears that economy  is more important than justice.

Hay took me to court for  harassment when I had  never been near him , spoken to  him or investigated him  , Lynne PRYOR   the  woman  who fronted the business for  him  was  sentenced for fraud  and received a slap on the hand with a wet dish cloth   , she is currently still running  the  business for HAY  . the  new company is company called READY FRESH LIMITED  and or  SALAD FOODS LIMITED  her brother Graham PRYOR is down as the  director   but Lynne still runs it  for Terry Hay.  the shareholders are concealed  from  public view through   KEEGAN ALEXANDER TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED

No matter what you uncover about the lawyers action the Law society like an over protective mum of an only child be selectively blind to their deeds.  

The rules of civil procedure would work if lawyers worked as peacemakers and healers, instead many lawyers involved in civil litigation use it as a weapon of war and then employ the strategies of war which has historically been used in the battle field, the fight for victory in the civil court is not confined to the court it plays out in the community by discrediting the opposing party and doing as much collateral damage as possible. It is war in every sense of the word and war intent on winning at all costs.

I recommend that any one finding themselves in court familiarities themselves with Books on the subject  such as Sun Tzu’s   the art of war and   Robert Greene  33 strategies of  war.


civil courtGoing to Court without a Lawyer? Research Project on Self-Represented Litigants

If you are currently representing yourself in the Family, District or High Court in Auckland or Waikato you may be eligible to participate in a research project on self-representation in the New Zealand civil courts. Have your say on how the system could be improved to better serve the needs of self-represented litigants. For more information see

Self-represented litigants are  also called Lay litigants  and  in  some countries  pro se  litigants


The fine upstanding  gentlemen to the left is a document server .   He was not entirely  certain as to when  he served the mother of a child  whose  estranged grand parents  were seeking to take custody of  a 5 year old  child  .

Mr Downey presented Two affidavits to the court, neither of them was truthful  but none the less the mother  has been deemed to have been served and on top of this the judge has decided that she  has ” evaded service ”

Coincidentally the same   outfit Translegal services NZ Limited which employed Mr Downey  also employed Tony Parker  who  did not  serve Verisure investigations  and as a result  the company was put into liquidation.

Fortunately for Verisure ,  Tony Parker,  who now cannot  be found by police , was caught out  and the liquidation was reversed   . For the articles see

Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand    and    Translegal services NZ Limited another lesson in document service  and the latest response from the minister of courts

Minister of Courts defends our inept document service system

We look forward to hearing  from any one with similar experience.

for  the consequences of this lack of service see the blog here

This is  a further  subscriber   post

Infographic-paedophile-approachesOur family were subjected to a two-year court ordeal. Gagging orders, financed by YouthLaw, were brought against our family (mother, father and two sons) in the Family court.


 Our world was shattered when we discovered soon after our daughter turned 14, that she was victim of sexual crimes by a St John ambulance paedophile gang, on Auckland’s North Shore. Unfortunately NZ authorities determined that the sex between our child and the adult men was “love and romance”, and that we were not permitted to do anything to safeguard our child. Authorities told us that our underage child’s sexual exploits were none of our business.

 As soon as our daughter turned 16, she moved out of our home, and was financed by the State to live independently in the home of a school teacher (David and Madeleine Hayden). All contact with our child was cut off, and YouthLaw financed her to gag her parents and brothers in the courts.

 The court proceedings

 Gagging orders taken out against us in the North Shore Family court. There were no allegations of inappropriate parenting. The case was simply to shut us up so that the NZ public would not find out what had happened to our family. Our daughter commenced the gagging application against her parents and brothers, soon after her 16th birthday.

 At the initial court hearing, the opposing barrister Barry MacLean launched into a tirade of lies to discredit the girl’s mother. It comprised vicious vitriol – a 20-minute stream of baseless fabrications. At the end of his tirade, Justice Ryan called a recess for morning tea. When the court re-assembled after the recess, the court was surprised to see that barrister Barry MacLean had left the building with no intention of returning. Having told his lies, he simply left, abandoning the court proceedings. As the opposing barrister was not present, we and our lawyer were now not permitted to address the court. We were thus denied an opportunity to refute Barry MacLean’s tirade of lies besmirching the mother’s character. Rather than postponing the hearing or cancelling the hearing as would be required by the rule of law, Justice Ryan closed proceedings and retired to consider his verdict. We were gagged until a final hearing could occur – two years later.

 Our two sons were gagged “ex-parte” (without notice) by Justice Clarkson – our sons were not permitted to be present in court and were not permitted to offer any defence, or even know there was a secret legal case against them. These gagging orders are still in place today, 8 years later.

 The court kept us waiting for 2 years until they gave us a final hearing – a long time in the life of an alienated, sexually promiscuous teenager. At one point we were offered a deal – if we voluntarily accepted permanent gagging, they would return our daughter to us for three months. We refused. For the State to attempt to trade time with our beloved child in return for our silence about State atrocities, is the most heinous form of blackmail.

 The message from the Family court was loud and clear – they would go to any lengths to silence us and cover up State atrocities against our family, they demonstrated that they would not be constrained in these efforts by the law or the rule of law. We were threatened with immediate imprisonment by the courts. We were innocent yet terrified, and decided to flee NZ as soon as the court cases were cleared up.

 During the court hearings we were specifically barred from bringing witnesses for cross-examination, however the opposing side were permitted witnesses.

The court stretched out proceedings for two years before we could get a final hearing. During this period we were gagged as an interim measure. Technically, the final hearing had to occur before our child became an adult at 18. When this date loomed, the court discussed declaring our daughter to be a child until she turned 21, so that they could delay proceedings a further 3 years, and thus keep the interim gagging orders on us. The court showed complete willingness to contemplate twisting the law in these ways in order to silence us for longer.

 We provided considerable evidence to the court that our daughter had been and was being severely alienated from her family. Even though the judge agreed there was considerable parental alienation, he completely ignored it. We can only surmise that the NZ court views parental alienation as acceptable if it contributes to hiding information about State atrocities.

 In only 3 court appearances, 6 out of the 8 principles comprising the rule of law, as identified by Lord Tom Bingham, had been seriously violated. One could expect these standards of justice in countries such as Somalia or Zimbabwe. In our opinion, judges who deliberately disregard the rule of law are a greater danger to society than child sex paedophiles. The St John Ambulance men who had committed sexual crimes on our daughter had got off free, but in order to cover up their atrocities, the State came after the victim’s parents and brothers with frenzied gusto in order to bully us into silence.


 –       Even though we eventually won the gagging proceedings, and even though we defended ourselves most of the time, our legal bills still amounted to over $50,000.

 –       Our eldest son took his own life a few months after the gagging proceedings against him. He was the victim of incredible illegal bullying by the courts in order to frighten him into silence. Our surviving son is still gagged from the secret gagging case he was not permitted to defend.

 –       We fled the country as soon as we won the final court case. We were convinced that if we remained in NZ, the State would simply continue to harass us in the gagging courts and with threats of imprisonment for speaking out about State atrocities.

 –       We have had almost no contact with our daughter since she left home at 16 – this was 8 years ago. She has changed her name, refuses all communication with family, and refuses to even tell us where she lives. Whenever we call her phone she simply hangs up without saying even “hello”. She has shunned her whole family and extended family for 8 years now.

 –       Our experiences have featured on NZ TV (Close Up in 2012), in magazines (cover of Investigate), in newspaper articles, and on radio (6 hours discussion on NewsTalk ZB in 2012). In Nov 2012, a UK MP brought up our NZ experiences in a debate in the House of Commons in Westminster.

 –       The St John ambulance men who committed the sexual crimes against our child, were presented with a second Queen’s award by the NZ Governor General in Nov 2012. The judge who gagged us for two years has recently been promoted to Acting Chief Justice of the NZ Family court. The school teacher who harboured our school child for two years cutting her off from all contact with her family, is still a registered teacher in NZ. YouthLaw lawyer John Hancock who commenced the gagging proceedings against us, now works for the NZ Commissioner for Children.

 –       To date, no-one has been held to account. We remain as determined as ever to expose these atrocities against our family.

  More information

 A more detailed description of our ordeal can be downloaded from here:

 A website has been setup here:

 An infographic comparing approaches to paedophilia in Australia, the UK and New Zealand is here:


child abductionThe following is a story written by the mother of a five year old who is the  subject of court proceedings.  The  child   was last seen by the people who claim to be his  grand parents  when he was a few weeks old.   The  couples son ,  a criminal and a drug addict was killed in a car accident last year. The  applicants  having raised their own son to be a druggy and a criminal now wish to take this  happy healthy  child from his family so that they  can replace their  loss.   They  have lots of money, while the solo mum of  five  battles on her own  this proves that  anything is possible in NZ  Courts  this is the mothers story …

1 August 2012.  It was a normal day.  It must have been a Wednesday because my four (nearly five) year old was home and Wednesday was the only day he didn’t go to kindy.  I was doing normal mama things – baking a raspberry slice (very kiwi) for my other four children for when the came home from school. 

 There was a knock at my ranch-slider.  Standing there, was an overweight, sort of old guy.  He looked trustworthy enough (ha ha).  He said he had some documents for me.  I had to invite him in because the icing on my raspberry slice was just about to set.  He handed me the documents and gave me an acknowledgement slip to sign.  He said you don’t have to sign it if you don’t want to.  I said “no it is okay”.  He left the documents with me and my heart started pounding upon reading the content of the documentation.  It was an application for parenting order and about five affidavits in support from the applicants and their three daughters (I had only met the daughters on one occasion each, two of whom I had barely spoken too).  They had all types of interesting (not pleasant in nature) things to say about me though – even though I didn’t know them!

 The applicants are the parents of a person, (I call him a “person” because he definitely wasn’t a man) I had a very brief relationship with about five years prior.  It was all a bit disastrous and I won’t go into that.  In short, that person destroyed my marriage of 14 years, (it takes two – I know) which tore my family apart.  He was a violent convicted criminal and had drug addiction problems.  I have no excuse.

 The person hadn’t bothered to be around during my pregnancy or after (apart from about four short appearances).  His parents however, had tried to keep in touch – but they were doing my head and behaving in a manner which was very detrimental to my children and my family, so in a nutshell, I had to tell them I would deal with the “person” only.  He could not be bothered, so that was that!  My husband however, had been around (bless him) and continues to be around for his children, which includes my youngest child.

 In May 2012 the “person” killed himself on his motorbike.  In June his parents (the applicants) had the applications all under way with the Family (lol) Court.  It had been nearly five years, but upon their son’s death, they want instant contact.  Once a fortnight, then overnight and for half the school holidays!  Not much to ask from someone my child doesn’t even know, out of the blue.

 I filed a notice of defence and supporting affidavits by my people.  This was to try and undo some of the damage that the applicants had done because of their lies about me in order to discredit me.  This was not a nice way, in my opinion, to approach someone after five years, so that they could build a relationship with a “grandson”.  Impressing the Court?  I can’t for the life of me, figure out why they would attack, insult and lie about me, in order to build a future relationship.

 Subsequently, I did not agree to the contact.  I am the parent and I “thought” at that time it was my right, as a parent, to decide who my child could have contact with or who he couldn’t.  How wrong could I be?  Maybe the lawyer could have advised to send a nice letter …”things have been difficult in the past but maybe we could move forward in a positive way…”  It wouldn’t have hurt to try.  I suppose that is not really a way forward for a lawyer to make money though, is it?  Or maybe it is the controlling nature of the applicants.  Both probably.

 At this point I should mention that I wasn’t entirely certain that the “person” who died on his motorbike, was the father.  I was legally married at the time, and the timing was questionable.  Judge ruled however, that birth certificate dead guy was the father.  There was my answer, the law which states “the husband is presumed to be the father….” did not apply.  The applicants had the Judge’s ruling – and the proceedings would continue.  Well no! – the applicants want proof – that they are the “grandparents”.  They asked (not really asked but demanded) that I agree to DNA testing my son.  I denied.  Who are these people again?  Wealthy (I’m not sure how they are so wealthy) parents of a person I had a brief relationship with five years ago – that’s who, whose son was a drug addict, and also a violent convicted criminal!  

 The applicants apparently filed with the Family (LOL) Court,  an application for paternity order and an application placing my child under guardianship of the court (so that they could get their DNA tests carried out on my son), not very aggressive is it?

 The relevant documentation, which according to the District Court Rules, has to be served personally on me, was not!  Counsel for the applicants had a “document server” (joke) contracted to Translegal Services New Zealand Ltd, “serve the documents”.  There is just one problem with this – HE DIDN’T!!! 

 The first I knew of the supposed service was 4 February 2013, at 4.55pm, when counsel for the applicants sent me the “affidavit of service” by email.  The following day Registrar’s List was set down, only I had no idea because I had not been served.  I knew a thing or two about Court documents, having been a legal secretary previously.  The “affidavit of service” was a mess.  It was not signed, it was not dated in places, it had no legible name on it, it was not initialled, the document was sworn to be served on me on Monday the 4th of January 201? (only the 4th was actually a Friday – oops)   And with a Court hearing looming full steam ahead because I apparently, had not filed a notice of defence, dahh – because I had no knowledge of the documents at all (I had not been served), had to try and do something to slow this annihilation down.

 On 5 February 2013, after having not slept a wink (and having taken the day off work), I got out of bed (absolutely shattered and in complete disbelief) to go to the Police to report that Michael Downey had committed perjury (a crime under section 111 of the Crimes Act and punishable by three years imprisonment).  The Police advised me however, that they could do nothing until the document had been through Court and proven false! 

 I urgently filed an affidavit swearing I was not at my address when the document server swore to serving me, I was in Papamoa (some five hours drive from my address where he purported to have served me).  After the initial shock, and after I had filed my affidavit swearing I wasn’t home, I realised I had proof of my whereabouts, in the form of purchase receipts, bank statements and I also had my friend who I was staying with, swear an affidavit that I was with her and her family.  Sorted!  By this time, I trusted no-one.  I had another good friend of mine drive the two hour drive to Auckland to file my affidavits by hand.

 I thought the Court would accept my fool proof evidence that I was not home on the day at the time Michael Downey swore to serving me.  Counsel for the applicants, filed the affidavit with the Court on 4 February, by email only, and simultaneously served the same on the lawyer for the child and myself.  The lawyer acted on the “affidavit of service” and so did I by way of my affidavits.  Then the dirty trick.  Counsel for the applicants did not file the original document.  They now say it was because the document was “rejected” by the Court.  Only it was me who noted in my submissions of the errors in the document, which did I think, slow matters a little.

 No “affidavit of service” filed.  No proceedings!  No way – Judge orders that unless a satisfactory “affidavit of service” is filed (which of course it wasn’t) by 22 February, then the documents could be served by registered post before 22 February.  Which they were not.  Counsel for the applicants filed within the 54 page submissions to the Court a docket dated 22 February.  The only thing is I did not receive them.  The postie apparently signed for the registered post for me.  Yes the postie forged my signature on the docket, and when were the documents handed over?

 Judge also states in his directions “the mother now disputes having been served”… “the mother must understand that if the applicants are successful in their applications, she will be required to pay all or some of the applicant’s legal expenses.”

Am I stressed by now?  Immensely.  I don’t sleep, can’t eat and when I do eat it’s junk because I have no inclination or energy to cook.  I have to keep going to work and caring for five children and I am being utterly hounded by Counsel for the applicants.  I block them from my email – they find the loop-hole in that and continue to harass me.  I change my mailing address because I can’t bear to go to the letterbox any longer and be sent more documents full of lies.  Sigh….

 22 March.  This is the date that all Counsel’s replies are supposed to be in by.  22 March comes and goes.  28 March.  Email from Counsel for the applicants.  This time another “affidavit of service” of Michael Downey dated 18 March.  He has now changed his story completely.  He swears in his second affidavit that he had all his information wrong and that upon checking his records (even though I have an email from Counsel saying that they have checked with Translegal and they advise the document server definitely served you on 4 January 2013!) he realises the time and date of service was actually Thursday, 3 January at 7.45am.  He notes my mother’s car was at my address and it was not there earlier (it moved itself apparently).  My children and I were away and we were in my 7 seater diesel vehicle (not my mother’s car which moves itself apparently).  My family and I were away from 2 January to 6 January.  Returning to my address on the 7th of January.

 By now I have completely had enough of the lies and the stupid games the lawyers are playing.  I have written to the Minister of Justice, the Attorney-General, the Minister of Courts even the Prime Minister who acknowledges – yes I can be assured my concerns as to document service in New Zealand have been noted.  So armed with my letter from the Attorney-General which reads “if you  consider that a criminal offence has been committed, it is open to you to refer the matter to the Police.”  So that is what I do… and this time they listen.  I spend two hours with the Police reporting my complaint of perjury regarding Downey’s two false conflicting affidavits.  It is now being investigated, after having gone full circle.

 Court hearing 23 April.  Last day to file submissions 4pm, 18 April (Court slip says three working days prior to 23 April, so you have to work it out).  Submissions from Counsel for the applicants arrive at 3.47pm.  Contained in those submissions is notice of further applications, “due to my behaviour” – the applicants are applying to appoint themselves guardians!   Counsel are trying to slip this through the appointed Court hearing.  No service, no defence filed.  Apparently, Judge has given a direction that the service documents can be served by registered post.

 (the District Court Rules states the following:) 

 “Personal service of applications

ñ7.26.1 A main application and the documents required under the Act or under this Part to accompany the application must be served personally on every person who is required to be served with the application and those documents.”

 I have now come to the conclusion that the Family (LOL) Court, definitely does not consider me under the category of “every person” because quite clearly, they can serve me any way at all – I am not deserving to have documents served personally on me!!  I have even been told this by the Minister of Justice herself. 

 I am the Respondent – who would have no qualms at all about my son having association with the applicants who are of  such gentle nature – NOT.

 The registered post thing… the Judge considers I have evaded service because counsel are persuading the Court that the false affidavits are the truth.  I however, consider there is a slight difference between a “legal document server” lying about having served documentation (placing my child under guardianship of the Court) in two separate, conflicting affidavits and me avoiding service.  The sleazy document server committed a crime – and it seems he is allowed to – and should be protected at all costs.  Is non-service the secret weapon of choice, of lawyers?

Outcome?  Who knows – what next?  This pulverisation – designed to cause maximum stress and hardship, is what they call “justice”!

We will keep  you posted on the   progress


The journey to setting up Civil Justice has been an interesting one ,  and its path can only be seen by looking back through the events and the injustices  which  have come to our attention and  have  put the spotlight on the need for a proactive lobby and support group  for those  who  are in the civil courts.

As a former Police Prosecutor , I believed that our  law was  fair and just , but that was  many  years ago  before privatization and  before the time that New Zealand followed the example of he Unites States and became very litigious.

We now see the ” civil” jurisdiction  being used  for  any thing and every thing , it is  a tool of oppression a method of beating up  and stealing  from people in a manner which  if done without a lawyer would be at the very least robbery.

Robbery is defined as ” theft accompanied by violence or threats of violence, to any person or property, used to extort the property stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen.”

(2) Every one who commits robbery is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

Assault is defined in section 2 of the crimes act  as “assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning”

so often things are taken  from  people using the court after they have been a good old financial thrashing which has affected their health , in the end the item is  handed over purely on economic grounds  and  to take the  pressure off and the threats that this action could   cost you your house.

And so because of the  lack of  rights of the  civil litigant, the lack of evidence, low standard of proof and the propensity for perjury and using strategy to win we  frequently see instances which would be serious crimes act offences  being  implemented with  the sanction  and assistance of the court.

It has reached the stag where the civil jurisdiction is  used to pervert the course of justice , it  works  extremely well.

Any one who has been  taken to the civil court will soon discover that this court does not hold true to any of the expectations you have of justice  and winning simply depends on how well you are versed with  Sun Tzu  Art of War  and how dirty you are prepared to be. There is apparently no room for conscience or ethics in the  civil Court.

In short the civil jurisdiction is all about strategy and winning at all costs, it is about pitting  those with money agaisnt those  with assets  and forcing one  to surrender to the other.

It is  like gambling  you may have the best hand but if you  don’t have the money to see  the other parties  cards  then  you  lose.

You have no  rights  and no protection  and perjury is  accepted  because no one is held accountable to the truth  and  fabricated evidence is also  acceptable and has  almost become the norm.

The reality is that  our  court system operates on  an antiquated system based on medieval law, there is no accountability to the truth.

Currently the statistics  for perjury  reflect that it sis imply not enforced which means that  truth in our courts  is not a factor.

There are many strategies to winning  and your best chances are to have a lawyer  who owns a race horse with the Judge. Reputation is KING. Being a pleb does not  afford you any rights. Unfortunately most of us are Plebs.

Lawyers are not accountable to the law society  , which appears  to act as  an over protective mother protection them from the accusations that  the nasty clients make rather than making  the lawyers accountable to the rule of law. Experience has taught us that  the over protective mothers frequently  have the most vile children.

Judges  do not have an enforcible code of conduct  and to make a complaint agaisnt a judge  will only have one affect and that is  to  ensure that you remain in the court system for a very long time  and that you will never see justice.

Civil Law must be the greatest money making machine in history , it is being given an over haul  so now is our time to  act .

We are looking for members,  for support, for stories of injustice.

We are wanting to  help set up support groups  so that those with similar issues  can work together.  No one should go through the process alone .

We are wishing to help those in

  • Family court  on  custody matters, relationship property, protection issues and anything else
  • Disputes tribunal
  • Employment Relations Authority
  • District court Civil jurisdiction
  • High court   Insolvency Bankruptcy   and civil jurisdiction

The help we can provide  is  by dispelling the myths  about the court , making you aware  of the strategies which will   come up, puttin you in touch with others  who  have gone through  or going  through the same. the same.

Provide litigation  support   by assisting  with   the provision of case law ,  evidence   and   advice  on  how to instruct your lawyer and which lawyers to avoid.

Assist in making   complaints to the law society and monitoring  complaints .

We will not support any one  who is using the court in an unethical manner   or who  is not  entirely honest.

we hope to  develop into a charity and  have charitable funds available to assist those in need .

But in the end  this  is to be a community  where we all work together  and mutually expose the  unfairness of the justice  system  so that the corrupt  use of the  court can be eliminated.

will you be on board ?