Easton's Defence
(March 6, 2007)
On January 31st 2001, I wrote to a range of people including those in
direct New Zealand authority and advised them that I would stand up
against their bullying, I had been in a marriage for ten years
bearing two children.We had separated. On investigation of the
Family Court system it was blatantly clear that there was an extreme
discrimination against men as implemented in acceptable bias against
the functions of fatherhood.
On March 6 2001, I attended a mediation conference before Judge
O'Donovan. I was ushered into the conference room by a court officer
and immediately followed into that small room be my former wife's
lawyer Shona de Luen. Shona sat across from me and edited with a
highlighter pen what I could see was a letter of complaint to the
court I had sent to the court copying to her. Her presence was
unreasonable and her conduct unprofessional.
I was not in the room to argue with either Ms de Luen or my former
wife I had no such cause. I was in the room ready and prepared to
argue with the judge and inform him that he had no rights to practice
in the removal of any association with my children, that by so acting
he was abusing them. In the ensuing discussion I spoke only to the
judge. I advocated for equal shared parenting as the logical remedy
for necessity under extreme societal pressures of gender inequity for
women's demands of equality. The judge concluded the hearing.
I was informed the next day that I was a violent man and needed to
take violent prevention training. Not attached to that information as
was supposed was a document granting custody of my children to my
former wife without any provisions for contact with my children
assured or recognized as necessary. I rejected the legitimacy of
those papers today as I rejected them then. I became a criminal to
fight their impropriety and a deadbeat bad to challenge the
incompetence and arrogance of those who could implement such cruel
and violent conditions over a loving father. My children and I have
had approximately 30 hours contact, for today's anniversary, in a six-
year period. I am lost in their childhood.
I am a trained and respected Early Childhood Educator. There was no
violence against my children alleged, nor was any violence alleged to
have occurred against my former wife. The allegations laid were
innuendo for an over dramatic indulgence in self, with which I was
familiar. The lawyer knew this. I did not need to tell anyone: It was
obvious. The judge agreed that there was violence by me and issued a
temporary protection orders giving me 48 hours to respond. I refused
to respond. I should not have needed to respond. I was guilty of no
crime. More care should have been taken of my children and of me and
of our relationship.
In subsequent court appearances under criminal proceedings for my
challenge against such a cruel as vindictive system my former wife
has given evidence under oath that there was no violence against
either her or the children. She perjured herself on two occasions.
Yet she "still" demands that I can only see my children under
supervised access. There has never been a need for me to see my
children under supervised access conditions. The presiding judge
instructed the jury not to think of this as violence but more to
consider my behaviour for asking such questions as the logical
definition of domestic violence. He had interferred in my questioning
stopping those questions that asked "what was the violence?"
Over the years I have complained in the courts, both family and
criminal for those in power to recognise that this extreme and
prevalent neglect of children is discriminatory against men and
biased against fathers. They blatantly refuse to accept this as rich
in its event. I complain to politicians that this practice and
behaviour is violence against the children as discriminatory against
men and biased against fathers and still they refuse, powerful and
authoritative in their rejection. And the children take the damage of
such an arrogance.
I allege it would cost them too much to recognise that their
practices and protocols protecting women from a removal in domestic
responsibilities of human function should better be considered: for
its condition of domestic violence's exploitation. I allege that
their practice and protocols would be better effective if angled at
prevention instead of a further recognition in their power of craft
in changing the world -for "women's equality" to their own sense of
self importance, governorship and glorious historical power.
And it continues.
On Sunday, March 25th I with as many supporters as I can gather will
rally outside former Principal Family Court Judge Patrick Mahoney
residence and protest. We will have loudhailers and distribute
leaflets. We will have banners. During the years of my children's and
my oppression an unknown number of thousands of fathers and their
children suffered and remain as sufferers for the same kinds of
condition. Some have killed themselves as others have murdered. They
have had no champion, only their pain on which to rely and survive.
From New Zealand this period was under Judge Mahoney's watch. He will
know of me and he will know of my case. With me will be others who
know of Judge Mahoney and his rulings and behaviour when practicing
as the Principal Family Court Judge. His right from oath to act
without "fear or favour" will be compromised. The State cannot
protect him from vigilante like protests and gatherings. This is the
same where the State has not protected fathers and their children
from an abuse in processes and practice.
I do not need to organize this protest. Practices and protocols can
be put into place to protect my children from their on going neglect.
Practices and protocols can be put in place to compensate against the
failure of the State to honour their obligation to protect the
associations between son and daughter with mother and father.
Meetings that involve internal authorities and public scrutiny are
required and if put into place will be respected. Practices must
change. Open policies to remove the discrimination against men and
bias against fathers will need to be set into place. Such are
reasonable requests against an as proved unreasonable authority.
Protesters should gather outside the Karori Post Office at 9.30am.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton.
|