Where our justice system breaks down -the weakest link

In November 2014 Her Honour, Justice Helen Winkelmann, Chief High Court Judge gave an address at the New Zealand law foundation and Otago women’s lawyers society Ethel-Benjamin-Address-2014-Justice-Helen-Winkelmann.In this she traversed several topics  including “The trend to increasing numbers of unrepresented litigants”

Her honour ,refers to  No Justice Without lawyers — The Myth of an Inquisitorial Solution. from which she quotes

Since lay persons are not familiar with the substantive law and court procedure, they
have difficulty to prepare adequately and to comply with rules and court orders, with
the result that the court is forced to devote disproportionate time and effort to cases
involving [them].

This is a primary concern  as the  process for representation has evolved over  centuries, it is complex and not user friendly . There are rules within rules and lawyers know how to use them to their  advantage . But what comes out of the  speech more than anything  else is that the court relies upon the legal representation

There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal
representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead
the court in matters of fact or law. This duty of counsel enables the system to function
efficiently and maintains its integrity. It frees the Judge from having to conduct his or her
own inquiries to independently check the veracity of what they are told by counsel. For
counsel this duty flows from the fact that counsel are officers of the court. It is also a
manifestation of the obligation on all lawyers to uphold the rule of law, an obligation now
given statutory recognition in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.

When analysed in this way, it becomes clear that representation for a party is central to the
Judge performing the Judge’s task.

This may be all good and well   and this would  work if lawyers   acted in accordance with the law  and especially section 4 of the lawyers and Conveyancers Act 

4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers
  • Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:

    • (a) the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:

    • (b) the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:

    • (c) the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:

    • (d) the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.

Where all this unhinges  is that  there is an assumption that lawyers   comply with  the law .

When lawyers use the law  as a weapon of destruction instead of a weapon of peace   then  the opponent is placed at a  distinct disadvantage .

Purely by the definition  given above and the assumptions of the court in  the  honesty and integrity of a lawyer place  a lay litigant at  a disadvantage. Because a lawyer simply making a statement  to the  court in an un sworn unsubstantiated manner  carries with it the  assumption that what he says is true  and he would not be saying it unless it is true.

Lawyers know   that they  can tell lies   and get away with it because their  law society is also their disciplinarian

The  conflicting roles of he law society  and lack of independence from its members  ensure that  lawyers can divert an investigation into their  conduct by  making wide sweeping claims  agaisnt  their accuser.

The standards which are enforced by the law society are not those set  out in law  but the  standards which they feel comfortable with.  Make the standards too rigid and your members will not be able to win their court actions with the  tricks they have  master over the years.

There is a back up system  though the LCRO  , this   is  set up and funded by the law society , because they fund it there are very few LCRO officers  and  lawyers have  learned that if they pay the $50 and appeal to the LCRO then the system effectively bogs down .

We are compiling a series of books which show the tricks and deceptions which lawyers use to win  court cases. each of these place  lay litigants at a disadvantage and each proves that  some lawyers have  very little or no regard for the law and that there is  almost no accountability  for them so they can get away with it .

we need to  separate the  functions of the  law society so that they do not  have both the

66 Representative functions
  • The representative functions of the New Zealand Law Society are to represent its members and to serve their interests.

and the regulatory  role.

65 Regulatory functions
  • The regulatory functions of the New Zealand Law Society are—

    • (a) to control and regulate the practice in New Zealand by barristers and by barristers and solicitors of the profession of the law:

    • (b) to uphold the fundamental obligations imposed on lawyers who provide regulated services in New Zealand:

    • (c) to monitor and enforce the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of lawyers:

    • (d) to monitor and enforce, throughout the period specified in any order made under section 390, the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of conveyancers:

    • (e) to assist and promote, for the purpose of upholding the rule of law and facilitating the administration of justice in New Zealand, the reform of the law.

It is the Ministry of Justice which administers the act,  but we do not believe that there is  any one  actually monitoring  the  manner in which the law society   administers it  obligations to the public or that of its members .

We would like  any one   who has   suffered at the hands of  any  cheating lying lawyer  to  contact us   so  that we  can include your evidence  in our research  so that other  too may learn


Lawyers Dirty tricks- a Lay litigants experience

fight over childThe following is a subscriber  story   describing her experience as a lay litigant in the Family courts .

All is fair in love and war.  That, I have discovered, is simply not true! 

 “Emotional abuse” is the number one dirty tactic the lawyers for the applicants used against me.  Here is a definition of Psychological abuse, also referred to as emotional abuse or mental abuse, is a form of abuse characterised by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Such abuse is often associated with situations of power imbalance, such as abusive relationships, bullying, and abuse in the workplace.  

 The power imbalance is an obvious one in my case.  Two lawyers, having full knowledge of the law and two applicants, against me (having been a legal secretary, the full extent of my knowledge of the law).  Four against one is never going to be a “fair” battle.  The lawyers pulled out all their dirty tricks against me, which I will into shortly.  The lawyers, under the applicants instructions, played one dirty trick after another, against a mother of five in order to get what they wanted.  Full access and control over my son, who they do not know.  For ten months I did not sleep at night, my heart beat irregularly and fast, I was grumpy (probably due to lack of sleep) and I shied away from contact with people because I no longer trusted anybody involved (except my friends and family).  All of which are signs of severe stress. 

Bullying!  I have never experienced bullying, in such a degree, as to the extent I have been bullied by the applicants and their lawyers through the Auckland Family Court.  What they did to me was shear mean and completely unnecessary.  In the end, it was seen by Whangarei Family Court, and it did not hold the lawyers or the applicants in good steed with the Family Court.  However Auckland Family Court condoned the bullying behaviour (by allowing the proceedings to continue on the basis of a false “affidavit of service” and also by allowing substituted service for much of the  future documentation.  I was deemed guilty by Auckland Family court, while trying to prove myself innocent!  I was not listened to by the lawyers for the applicants, the (old) lawyer for the child or the Court.

 “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”  It is a verse I have held on to, during four applications which were filed against me in the Family (LOL) Court, by the parents of  a deceased male (who never sought contact with my son) and on whose death the applicants immediately sought contact with my son.  You will need something to keep believe in, representing yourself in family Court.

The complete file ended up being approximately 15cm in thickness.  At the allocated court hearing on 2 July 2013, the Judge held up the file and reading between the lines, he meant “enough”.  Counsel for the applicants were all prepared for their case, they had sent me a copy of their “bundle of documents”(about 2 inches thick) to refer to at the Court hearing, which I received on the very morning of the hearing.  No time for preparation for me – and that is all part of one of the plan and just one of the lawyer’s dirty tricks.  Dirty Trick number two.  Always serve the self represented respondent at the very very last minute in order to create maximum stress and leave her no time to respond!  I suppose that makes me an “ent”.

 Dirty trick number three was, in fact, a crime – PERJURY!  At 4.55pm on 4 February 2013, I received, by email, the first false “affidavit of service” of Michael Downey.  Registrar’s List was set down for the following day, 5 February 2013.  The “affidavit of service” stated I had been served by Michael Downey at 1.45pm on Monday 4 January 2013 (the 4th was in fact a Friday), only I had proof I was not at the address the document non server swore he had served me.  The applicants lawyer sent me an email later that day that read “we have checked with Translegal Services New Zealand and they have advised us that their agent definitely served you on Friday, 4 January 2013”!  It was, a very dirty trick, waiting to the very last 5 minutes but the dirty trick of perjury was unconscionable!  At that time it was possible the applicant’s lawyers did not know of the perjury (giving them the benefit of the doubt).

 Dirty trick number, I’ve lost count now.  Counsel filed the document by email in the last possible five minutes, but it was so flawed it was rejected by the Court.  However this gave them a door to sneak in.  Judge ordered “file a satisfactory “affidavit of service” or send the documents by way of “registered post”.  So there you go… proceedings commenced on a false “affidavit of service”.  It is completely acceptable to the Auckland Family court.

 Next dirty trick.  Over one month later, I receive, by email, the next false “affidavit of service”.  This time, Downey has changed the date and time of service to 7.45am on 3 January 2013.  There is a footer at the bottom of the first “affidavit of service” which shows the documents have been prepared by Counsel for the applicants.  It is the format they use for saving documents.  Both the “affidavits of service” were not the usual format of Translegal Services New Zealand (which is the format of the the very first affidavit for the first lot of applications which were filed against me), and is quite different from the format of the documents prepared by counsel for the applicants.  In a nutshell, counsel for the applicants had prepared the false “affidavits of service”.  Not only that, they have used the completely altered “affidavit of service” as proof of service, knowing very well that it had been changed and with the knowledge that I had filed two sworn affidavits that I was not at Ruawai on either date, purchase receipts, bank statements and an affidavit of my friend who I was staying with.  I was away, with my five children on both days – Downey swore he served me!

 The Judge later noted in his directions that he did not believe the documents had been served by way of the “service affidavits”of Michael Downey.  He did however, believe I had been served by way of registered post, of which the postie had signed, my name on the docket in receipt of the documents.  Forgery or fraud, by all accounts, another crime to add to the growing list of crimes undertaken during the proceedings against me.  I have forwarded evidence of this to the Court.  

 …this next dirty trick, I can hardly fathom.  The applicants and their lawyers just get meaner and meaner.  The applicant’s lawyers and I had an email conversation, as follows :

 “Dear John, I will agree to unblock you from my email if you promise not to serve any more false affidavits on me… I will trial this unblock for 1 month.  However if I feel that you are using my email to harass me, I will re-instate the block.”

 John’s reply “… thank you for your various correspondence.  Unfortunately any affidavit provided by my clients is very likely to be considered by you to be false.  Therefore we will continue to correspond with you by post.”

 My reply “Thank you for your email of today’s date.  If you are unable to send affidavits which are not false, then, I too, consider it is best that you send documents by post.  It is not so shocking for me this way.”

 Quite clearly, it is agreed between the applicant’s lawyers and I, that he will correspond by post.  However, one week before the hearing, on trying to find my twitter password in my email trash, I came across a bunch of documents and correspondence, sent to me by the lawyers for the applicants.  All is fair in love and war?  No, I don’t think so.  The word of the lawyer means nothing!  I sent this conversation to the Court by way of memorandum and advised them that if I had not replied to the correspondence or documentation of the lawyers, it was because I had been tricked!  This was in anticipation of the next dirty trick, where they would advise the Court, “the respondent has not replied to our correspondence or documentation”.  This is a dirty trick they had used previously, in order to trash me before the Court.  They also sent a blog to the Court, which they presumed was mine!  Watch out for that!   Lawyers could retrieve any blog from the internet and use it against you.

Beware!  Being a lay litigant/self represented/litigant in person is definitely not for the faint hearted!  I was threatened with having to pay the applicant’s legal bills, I was completely trashed before the Court by the applicants through their lawyers, I was deemed a liar.  I didn’t sleep properly for ten months (when served with the false affidavits I did not sleep a wink), my children suffered, and what for?  Justice.

One more trick I found the lawyers used.  They would always let me know, via documentation, that yet another application had been filed with the Court, and in this way, they could say “the respondent knows of the applications against her.”, and this is how they achieved substituted service time after time.  If one knows of an application against them, they may attempt to avoid service in which case I was found guilty before I was proven innocent.

 Justice prevailed in the end, with the outcome that the applicants got exactly half of what I initially offered them by way of contact.  I do not believe I would have achieved the same outcome in the Auckland Family court.  My saving grace, came with encouragement by Grace to have the proceedings transferred to Whangarei.   Having a new lawyer for the child appointed was a “God send”also.  Having a lawyer for the child, who does act in the child’s best interests, is indeed a blessing.  Having a lawyer for the child (the old one) who is nothing but an extra lawyer for the applicants was really hard going!

 The applicant’s final application to appoint themselves as additional guardians of my child, did not go down well before the Court.  It was seen as inappropriate, which of course, my family, friends and I knew very well.  What type of people try to appoint themselves as guardians of someone else’s child, who they do not even know or know anything about.  Anything is possible through dirty, bully tactics, if persistent.  You need to be just as persistent in fighting back against the bully!

 Taking on lawyers, as a lay litigant, definitely requires serious consideration.  If I had employed the services of a lawyer, I would now have no house!  Hopefully, my experience has provided you with some insight into the tricks you will be up against.  I have only mentioned here the lawyers tricks, the applicants tricks, I am sure would surpass even these.  Dirty tricks and all – I feel I have bitter/sweet victory!

I do not think all lawyers are like this, I cannot comment though, this is the only experience I have had, and I can say I definitely would not like to repeat it.  My experience is, that court, is the way ghastly people attempt to get their way.  Although, not always what they want or how they want it.  Sometimes it can be taken too far.

 After the hearing, I asked the female applicant (not very politely), if she “intended filing any further applications against me.”  She said “no”, we’ll see about that, the applicants think that lying and fabricating evidence is the new “telling the truth”…

Your rights in civil justice – Ethics and WAR

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.


Document service- a major concern

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 http://justnz.wordpress.com/

Case Study – Abducting a child from his family using the Family Court

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   http://justnz.wordpress.com/