ACT wants family and youth courts opened up

August 25th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Party leader Dr Jamie Whyte said the party wants to see Youth Court and open to public scrutiny.

Dr Whyte said in a policy announcement today that there should be a right to access Youth Court and Family Court records.

Media should be able to report on cases through the Youth Court and Family Court in a similar way they can report on District Court proceedings, he said.

“The Act Party is campaigning to end secret courts” Dr Whyte said.

“There is no way of analysing and understanding what is going on in the family court.

“There are disturbing stories that evidence in Family Court cases is unreliable.”

Dr Whyte said the “secrecy” of the Youth Court was the biggest problem in the youth justice system.

“It is a wholly unjustified violation of the principle of open justice.”

The party supported names and identifying details of parties remaining suppressed, Dr Whyte said.

As I understand it the default mode for these courts is not to be public, but media can apply for access. ACT seem to be saying they would reverse the default setting so that access is the norm.

So long as names are suppressed, I favour all courts having a default setting of being open to the media.

Tags: ,

48 Responses to “ACT wants family and youth courts opened up”

  1. Inthisdress (280 comments) says:

    Another miniscule effort from a party obsessed with tinkering with ‘inflammatory’ subjects.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. box345 (50 comments) says:

    Fits in with, and an essential part of, ACT’s flagships “one law for all”, and “three strikes for burglary”.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    It’s less than a month until the election, and THIS is today’s play for my vote?

    This is his best shot? His magnum opus? His coup de grace?

    I try to be an Act supporter, because I really want there to be a classical liberal angel on National’s shoulder.. but FFS :-(

    Why is the ACT leader not talking up substantial policy like education vouchers 24/7?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. rg (214 comments) says:

    In the same speech he talked about how Labour wanted to change the burden of proof in rape cases and that National had already changed the burden of proof when acting against parents it suspected were abusing their children but could not prove it. An admirable cause but when a govt has to trample over important human rights because it is not clever enough to solve a problem it is showing its age and tiredness.

    These rights were hard fought for and too easily lost by expedient govts. Look at the data, child snatching agencies get it wrong all the time.
    Nothing miniscule about this and how much is the tired National Light Party up to in bribes now? Another $200m the other day.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Padriv Ustoev (69 comments) says:

    If we had public wipping, as a form of punishment for many of teh smaller offences, we would not need so many courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. lolitasbrother (702 comments) says:

    Once you get inside a family Court , all sorts of untested allegations can be made.
    Sometimes these allegations can be life ruining
    Thats why we pay judges to examine things and make the best call possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. rg (214 comments) says:

    RRM he has talked about and given speeches on and published policy on exactly what you want, education vouchers. A good classic liberal should be interetsed in high level principles too. Get with it RRM. National has flanked so far left, is there any right wing element to them anymore?
    Why don’t you send some money to the ACT Party and a request he re announces his education policy. Talk is cheap, get your wallet out, then you might have some cred.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Inthisdress (280 comments) says:

    I think we should have ‘public wipping’ for spelling errors, Padriv.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Get with it RRM.

    Talk is cheap…

    So’s your mum.

    :neutral: weirdo.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    We need open courts but protection for victims if they request it. We also need protection for your depending on the age and of offense. There should be open court in the family court generally. One example would be if both parties request it. Another would be if their are allegations of sexual nature particularly if alleged victim is a child.

    I have a much bigger problem with the secrecy in the criminal courts where the offender is high profile and/or has the right connections. In many cases the offender is a lawyer. Justice must not just be done but be seen to be done.

    If a judge knows the accused in a criminal case or one party in a civil case the judge should be obliged to state exactly how much contact there was and the accused or other party can request another judge. At present a judge is under not such requirement.

    Judges are meant to be wise as well as learned. If they are wise they would realize in New Zealand in 2014 word gets around very quickly when they give favorable treatment to people because of their occupation or they actually know them or maybe their parents.

    There have been far too many of these cases lately.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    Thank you RG, ‘You took some of the words right out of my mouth’, which sounds similiar to a meatloaf song. 99.9% of the time that the woman goes to family court she ends up with the house, the children, and the man has nothing but alimony to pay. According to the blogger ‘Dad4Justice’ this is what happened to him, he lost absolutely everything.

    And how do we know who is telling the truth. If their is no records kept isn’t this the perfect opportunity for people to bribe the judge. And why do I believe Dad4Justice, because I understand this case:

    freedom-school.com/reading-material/van-koten-v-van-koten.pdf

    In that case, the courts said that the wife must take something from the divorce. When two people become married someone will look after the child, and someone will pay for the child. So if their is a divorce, the person who’s paying for the child will continue to do so. Now do you understand why, the family court wants things secret. Now do you understand why the White Ribbon Society has been talking about men as heartless violent people. If people were to ever find out about Van Koten V Van Koten, people would set up trusts to protect their wealth.

    I’d set up a trust for my brother, my brother would set-up a trust for me, and what’s in the trust can’t be touched.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. backster (2,174 comments) says:

    I agree with this policy. Naming offenders is the biggest deterrent and suppression the biggest aide to re-offending.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    Thank backster. I wonder who the moron is who gave me the down tick – probably an aspiring judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    In regards to my previous post. This is the link:

    http://freedom-school.com/reading-material/van-koten-v-van-koten.pdf

    Well it wasn’t me, I’ve only given people positive ticks in this post.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    @ chuck gave you a tick in support to make up for the down tick

    secrecy is what the courts thrive on. it allows all sorts of under handed tactics to be put into play.

    speak to any one who has had dealings with the family court and you will see that there is no justice. just lots of rich lawyers.

    It was interesting to see that robin Williams suicide was attributed to matrimonial splits , I just wish we had statistics as to how many people who go through our “justice system” get so depressed that they kill themselves.

    the system is used to asset strip people and it is dirty tactics which win every time.

    we need lawyers to be peace makers resolve differences between the parties and not use the court as a way to give a person a thorough work over.

    Lawyers need to be held accountable to the rule of law.

    Grace Haden Anticorruption.co.nz Independent candidate for Epsom.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Best way to reform the Family Court?

    Exercise its powers to punish for perjury and contempt.

    Make an example of the few worst cases and watch the number of cases that get settled out of court rocket, leaving more time and resources to deal with those that are genuinely complex, and not just made that way by a web of blatant lies… which usually escalates in a tit-for-tat manner, emanating from both parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    Grace Haden, absolutely agree with you. If people sort their issues out, they avoid court. If a divorced couple are able to work out an alimony plan, before they go to court which is fair, it reduces legal costs. In America its common for both people to lose everything in legal costs.

    Now as I was saying if people get things sorted outside of court and don’t use lawyers or judges, thats less money for the judges and lawyers. So lawyers and judges want cases to continue on and on, as they’ll get more money. What I’m saying is that lawyers and judges want to make money, and sometimes you have to not care about people to make more money.

    I have a friend who’s going through the family court system, and is wanting to make an offer to take care of his children till they’re 19, as part of the divorce settlement. He’s getting nowhere. So he’s now appealed it to the high court. He’s got a change in a lawyer, who thinks offering to take care of the children till they’re 19 as partial settlement is fair enough. And their advice is the high court looks at facts, whereas the family court doesn’t. He’s appealing it on the grounds that his trusts are making it complicated.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    “Lawyers need to be held accountable to the rule of law.”

    Thanks Grace. Judges also need to be held accountable. I recently got a favourable ruling from the NZLS. Unfortunately, it comes a bit late. The matter could have been easily settled years ago before the other party, a former lawyer was had a chance to hide and spend what he owed me.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    could not agree more

    evidence plays no part in our court proceedings and neither does truth.

    manipulating the rules, paper work and using dirty tactics like having parallel court proceedings agaisnt a person are all part of the play.

    Dont forget that Judges are lawyers it is interesting to read stuff by retires judges in the US who say that the trend is for the judges to keep lawyers in $$$$

    when there is no accountability to the truth there can be no justice.

    reasonable people dont take issues to court it is only when one party is greedy or one party refuses to negotiate that it goes there and only lawyers win.

    Although I attend a group called silent injustice I always point out that this is not a women’s issue and it is not a mens issue. it is a lawyers tipping fuel on the fire or unreasonable person issue

    If people have an incentive to be truthful ..e.g. penalty for perjury enforced prison ALWAYS investigated then we will see a dramatic drop in court issues.

    At present you dont need to prove anything to win all you need is a lawyer who can manipulate the rule book, knows the judge and the $$$ to fund it. that ladies and gents is the legal system our minister who promotes milk abroad is so proud of.

    given you another tick to make up for the idiot who did not agree..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    Another possibility is to keep things to an emergency, as welfare used to be like that. In the 1970s the DPB was created, and when it was created, it was going to be funded by the taxpayer. Now before this came about, when you paid income tax, at least some of the income tax you paid went into your social security account. When you needed assistance they would fork out the money that you had put into your social security account. So when you said I need money, this reduced the amount you had for retirement.

    So while we were on this system, their was no welfare abuse. But once we created a universal welfare system, people started to abuse it. If we had stayed on the old system, anybody getting the DPB, would have it eat up their retirement. So another possibility would be to have it that for every year someone is on the DPB, they have to wait an extra year for their retirement.

    This would mean, that yes the man has to pay alimony (to a lesser extent), and may lose his house. But for every year that the other person is on the DPB, it is affecting her retirement. If we were to do this, their would be no incentive to make things up, or to have lawyers or/and judges make bribes behind the scenes. And we would also be able to keep the retirement age at 65. Those getting it would be those who deserve it.

    Also the necessary alimony would be less. Alimony would at max be to pay for the children. The person staying at home would have their living costs paid by their future pension.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    I agree open the Family Court up to public scrutiny then the gravy train that thrive on false allegations can be exposed and eradicated. If anybody knows of a case of perjury sent to criminal jurisdiction from the civil Family Court then I would be interested to know? Women can lie at will without any consequences! A falsely accused dad has no show against such overwhelming unlawful gender discrimination.

    How can a man who is falsely accused face a judge in the district court where he is successful in getting charges withdrawn by police expect a fair hearing by the same judge in the Family Court two weeks later?

    The Family Court is a corrupt cess pit of dirty justice. Open it up so people can see the gender bias in full swing. The judges who administer this unfair system deserve to be jailed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. big bruv (13,928 comments) says:

    There is no reason at all that the public need to be made aware of what goes on in 99% of the cases that are heard before the family court. Despite what some say the family courts get it right most of the time.

    The primary (and IMHO the only) concern the court should have is for the kids, the fact that the parents have let things get as far as the family court only proves that in most cases the parents are more concerned about getting one over on their ex than they are about what is best for their kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    “the fact that the parents have let things get as far as the family court ”

    Just to clear up a fact, sometimes a vengeful and vindictive maternal family can lie to the family court and easily obtain without notice protection protection orders which can drag a totally innocent dad into proceedings as a respondent. This happens all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. big bruv (13,928 comments) says:

    D4J

    I find it very hard to believe that a “vengeful and vindictive maternal family” would make allegations without merit.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Oh yes they do and the New Zealand High Court (Justice Hansen) accepted 33 exhibits that prove the allegations made to obtain the protection orders were malicious and of a false nature. Fact number 2. The Family Court is a deceitful den of gender bias vipers.

    Beware the family court judge is still behind the bench.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. big bruv (13,928 comments) says:

    D4J

    So let’s get this clear (even allowing for your known ability to stretch the truth) are you claiming that the judge tossed out all six of the protection orders issued against you on the grounds that they were of a ‘Malicious and false nature”?

    If that was the case then surely this would have been news. I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe you. I suspect this is just another one of your lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    No lie bigot blouse. Everything was wiped. I have put up with your taunts of hate for nearly a decade now and I actually must thank you for making me more determined to extract justice from a bent system. Must thank you personally one day eh mate. No hard feelings eh creepy one.

    You can post the threatening emails I sent you anytime you like you lying snake.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. big bruv (13,928 comments) says:

    Nah, still don’t believe you D4J. You’ve cried “Wolf” one too many times.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    I don’t care what you believe you spineless lying c##t.

    Post those threatening emails I sent you coward. You are nothing more than a malicious blowhard of little substance. Just a nasty narcissistic pathological liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    ” that ladies and gents is the legal system our minister who promotes milk abroad is so proud of. ”

    Like many issues the issue of the integrity of judges has not been addressed by any party.

    I am sure you are aware of Judge Tony Christiansen who was accused of sexually assaulting the probation officer who was traveling with him to different District Courts. He tried to buy her silence an resigned. Margaret Wilson thought he deserved a second chance. Judith Collins disagreed.

    Former judge ‘worth a second chance’
    5:01 AM Wednesday Mar 3, 2004

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3552593

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    I have a friend who’s been getting nowhere with the family court. His wife was unfaithful to him, and yet she wants half of his wealth. He’s tried to make an offer, to pay alimony for the child till they’re 19 years old, the youngest child is 15. His lawyer put a block on his letter. When he asked her lawyers how much he owed if anything on each of the 5 trusts that he owns, his lawyer wanted to write how much do you want?

    He’s changed lawyers to a lawyer, that thinks making an offer to take of the children till their 19 is fair enough, with a little extra to live on on top of that. And his new lawyer has said the high court looks at facts. So therefore I believe dad4justice on what he says about the high court vs the family court.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. big bruv (13,928 comments) says:

    Meatloaf

    I am not doubting that there are injustices. What I doubt is the word of D4J. He has proven time and time again that he is very good at stretching the truth. I also don’t buy the fact that six retraining orders were all wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Meatloaf as you can see bigot blouse sits on his computer like a trap door spider waiting for any opportunity to bite me. It only took the creep 4 minutes to strike this time around. It’s most unwell and mentally deranged. Its’so full of hate it is delusional and totally irrational. Ask him to post threatening emails I allegedly sent him. Another distorted untruth from the malicious creep.

    Anyway back to the topic. Once I submitted evidence to the High Court which clearly showed the ruling of the Family Court to be wrong it left the system no option but to withdraw the orders. Anybody can access High Court rulings if they have half a brain ( that rules out bigot blouse ) so the validity of my claims can be verified.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    So big bruv, how bout we fix it? How bout we say, that if their is a split nobody wins. 99.9% of the time the woman ends up with the house, the children, and the man ends up paying the alimony. How bout we go back to the days that whenever you received assistance from the government you are only hurting your state pension. The more income tax you pay, the bigger the pension you receive. The more assistance you receive now the lower your pension is.

    Why can’t we have it that the marriage split hurts both people instead of just one person. If I were a lawyer or a judge, I would take advantage of this situation. Only when both people pay, will complaints be genuine, honest and real.

    So maybe D4J isn’t completely 100% honest, or maybe what he’s said is hard to believe. But at the same time, its an open grave for lawyers to steal. And in America, both husband and wife have everything taken in court costs. Its far from perfect, if it were anywhere near perfect, Act wouldn’t be making a noise about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    D4J, like I say I can definitely agree with you on the high court issue, as I have a friend who’s gone through this, and has a real lawyer, who’s advising going through the high court means you have it done properly. And what a relief, finally someone can the see the sense, in focusing on paying for the child till they are 19. They wanted $1,100,000 from him, even though he’s taken care of his children. So 4 years of paying for the child is much cheaper. She has a new husband that can support her through retirement, so this is why he’s going down that path.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Rowan (2,409 comments) says:

    D4J
    Agree re bigot blouse, however he seems to have an evil twin who calls itself “muggins”, look at her ramblings in the crewe thread which has now be turned into a Bain thread with the above mentioned loon displaying all the same sort of behaviour as got blouse has done above

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. stephieboy (3,163 comments) says:

    wowan,

    Tsk,tsk,tsk…. Get over yourself.!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Meatloaf – I advise many forced litigants who are innocent of any wrong doing dragged into the Family Court to lodge proceedings in the High Court asap, and forget any ruling made by the insidious Family Court. The problem is that Family Law clearly states the validity of allegations made do not have to tested by evidence as the corrupt court works on the theory of the balance of probabilities. How can you have balance in a Court saturated by unlawful gender discrimination. How can a Court not except evidence to prove it’s in the childrens’ best interests to have dad continue to be part of their lives.So many questions for the Kangaroo Court. The Family Court enjoys destroying bonds of love between a dad and his children. The Court is a vile snake pit of lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Rowan there are some very mentally unwell creeps on this blog. Bigot blouse has attacked my character for nearly a decade now, and that muggins must be his sad wife.

    Feel sorry for them just imagine how they are fuming now, look smoke coming outta their bat wing ears :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    Yes, that’s right, that’s exactly it. CYF slogan is our children are our greatest treasure. How can the government give working for families and public education. They don’t pay for it. They borrow for it. And when the child is 18, they pay it back with income tax. In a law dictionary, a child is a ward of the court. The family court only cares about the child’s potential.

    But the high court, is about things being real. Having facts, having evidence. The domain of the high court is different to the domain of the family court. Oh and the 2nd and 5th plank of the communist manifesto is a central bank and income tax. Central bank raise loans for the government, all paid back by income tax. And the third plank is an abolition of inheritances. Maybe we should call the family court, the communist manifesto court. I have no confidence in the family court.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. big bruv (13,928 comments) says:

    ” so the validity of my claims can be verified.”

    None of the other claims you have made can be verified so why would anybody believe you on this?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    “so the validity of my claims can be verifie”

    Crawl back into your spiders nest you unhinged creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    Because their’s a difference between contract law and common law. When you enter into a contract, if you don’t keep your bit of the bargain, you lose something. Husband means housebound in a law dictionary. It used to be that if their was a marriage split, the man didn’t have to give anything up. By changing the vow to husband and wife, instead of man and wife, the man is now bound to providing to his wife and children.

    So filing for divorce, hey wait a minute, your divided but someone needs to pay for the child, and someone needs to look after the child. Marriage licence, A licence in a law dictionary means permission by the state. After the great depression, marriage in a church got recorded into the marriage registry. My friend was told because of what he signed, that’s why he needs to pay up.

    Any lawyer who understands what a contract is can take advantage, its all in a law dictionary, and CYF slogan, “our children are our greatest treasure”, its all in what a working for families statement states, why public school is paid by the government and van koten v van koten for those who bothered to read it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. goldnkiwi (1,310 comments) says:

    Meatloaf (160 comments) says:

    August 25th, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    Do you think Judges get paid by the hour? Hardly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    What I can say, is that lawyers get paid more, if the case goes on and on and on. Now I’m not sure how judge gets paid, but the more times you appear before the court, the more you have to pay to the courts officers. So maybe the judge doesn’t have an incentive to make the case go on and on and on, but a lawyer does.

    The point is its in someone’s interests to keep law as complicated as possible.

    Also in the context of my comment, if people get themselves sorted outside of court that affects the courts earnings. If we had only half as many cases, we’d only need half as many judges.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Meatloaf – the Family Court counsel for child costs the taxpayer $180 an hour. Child psychologists also on the gravy train are about $200 an hour. Judges are paid a salary in excess of $250k.

    No wonder the Family Court says they act in the best interests of the child. The blood suckers should be thrown into the offal pit. They are callous and cruel leeches.They use children to make money.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    So they are paid by the hour after all. No wonder some people don’t like my idea of have it that those who collect the DPB, get less pension later on. If less people went to family court someone would lose money. Maybe some of these people on kiwiblog work for the family court. You know what, in 1890s, if a man and woman split, the children would go to the orphanage, and their was plenty of money available, because the taxpayer wasn’t paying for family court.

    So that’s why the family court donates to white ribbon, so that people think men are violent molesters, and it keeps this gravy train going. In civil law, the judge awards the person who is most believable, the white ribbon helps accomplish that.

    And it is believable, because a law dictionary defines a child as a ward of the court.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    You are on to Meatloaf. It is a very dangerous court for children and men.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Meatloaf (200 comments) says:

    Well Meatloaf has a song called ‘life is a lemon, and I want my money back’ -Bat out of Hell 2, “…and all the morons and all the stooges with their coins, their the ones who make the rules its not a game its just about…” In other words its already decided beforehand what will happen. That’s certainly true with family court. In fact Eustace Mullins says that lawyers are part of the same fraternity, and they talk amongst themselves in regards to what happens. With all these stories, Eustace Mullins and my favourite rock star were actually telling the truth.

    Anyhow ever since reading a law dictionary, I’ve just seen how the world works completely different to the way we think it does. Oh and I talked to Ian Wishart yesterday, he was selling a new book called ‘Winston’, I told him about this. He understood a few things about this. For him as far as he’s concerned the parents are sperm donors, and they work for the state. So although he wouldn’t have been familiar with the details. He understood the big picture, he understood the 3rd plank of the communist manifesto. He also understood about the UCC code.

    The UCC code is a part of our law system. And the majority of crimes are just simply not keeping the contract. For instance drivers licence. Licence means permission. Driver in a law dictionary is someone employed to drive people or cargo. So saying I want a drivers licence means you are fit to drive people and cargo safely. If you in any way don’t drive safely, you’ve broken your contract, and you will be fined.

    So I’ve been reading plenty of books about the UCC code and how it affects our statutory laws, and what people should be aware of before they sign. I bet you didn’t know what driver meant in a law dictionary.

    Thanks dad4justice, I’ve learnt quite a lot from you. The stuff I’ve been reading is very real. Some of the stuff I’ve read has made me fall off my chair. But basically when you sign a contract if you fail, you don’t get trial by jury. So if you violate the traffic laws you don’t get trial by jury, and their are a lot of other aspects of life contract law applies to.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote