CYFS Watch, drunk on their own percieved power.
CYFS Watch set out to expose the corruption, lies and incompetence of CYFS.
They hit a nerve, and the government had a massive spasm of knee-jerk reaction, completely failing to handle it in anything other than a putting out fire with petrol approach.
Many of us sat back and watched, because although we believed CYFS was and still is in need of a good dose of disinfecting sunlight, we were not comfortable with some of the methods the site was evidently going to employ. The language was extreme in some cases, and was - in my opinion - an outright defamation in at least one case.
However, once the government announced that taxpayer funded lawyers would be “working 24/7 until this site is shut down”, we pretty much all piled on. Anything the government hates that much, and wants to violate our right to free speech over, deserves attention.
However, a few weeks down the trail CYFS Watch authors are now drunk on their perceived power, and branching out into pretty much whatever they feel like.
Already they have had one item pulled by Google and squealed about it. However, it was clearly defamation. They called two people “murderers” which was in contradiction to a legal judgment. In this country we do not let the Prime Minister get away with that. Helen Clark was forced to withdraw an identical misstatement. However, the people at CYFS Watch don’t feel those rules apply to them, and they present it only as “suppression”, not accountability. I disagree.
CYFS Watch is now a champion of “Miss Alice”. Miss Alice, or Rob Moody as his birth certificate states, is guilty of contempt of court. He is also guilty of attempting - largely successfully - of bullshitting the public to get support for his equally guilty clients.
What has Rob Moody and his clients, buying cheapass second hand building materials, against the army’s advice for a bridge, got to do with CYFS you ask?
Not.a.fucking.thing
Now these faceless crusaders for justice and “accountability” have hosted an invitation to join a protest in support of Rob Moody. Why?
You tell me. First they want CYFS to be accountable and for the rules to be followed, now they flip flop, they want a pet cause to NOT be accountable and to try a case by media.
No. The following comment is published here as you’re unlikely to see it at CYFS Watch - although being now public makes it publishing there somewhat more likely. They censor as much as any government department themselves. They’re just not as open about it.
Rob Moody is guilty of contempt of court, and displaying a complete and utter contempt for our judicial system.
His efforts to circumvent the legal process are the same as the efforts of the department this site claims to be about holding to account.
The Berrymans are also guilty.
The documents showing this are also not publicly available, the difference being that the Army and OSH lawyers didn’t violate the courts rulings in an effort to gain public support.
Do the authors of this site want accountability, or simply to get the decisions they happen to support?
Rule of law or mob law?
You’re now telling people to support the illegal bypassing of the judicial system in areas that have nothing to do with CYFS.
Well, you just lost all linking from my site.
There’s a little saying about power corrupting. You just proved it.
February 17, 2007 at 12:20 pm
These idiots just pissed away massive public support.
What a waste.
February 17, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I’m not sure they have.
It seems most people can;t see any difference between whats legal and what they want.
To those of use who believe in rule of law whether it happens to suit us on a case by case basis however these people have lost the plot.
February 18, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Let’s see who censors what!
Rob Moodie was “found” guilty of Contempt of Court, by the very court he was allegedly in contempt of. (A violation of the principle that no judge should be the judge of his own case.) Of course they are going to find him guilty. It suits them to do so. If you understand how our “courts” work, you’ll realise that. But that doesn’t MEAN he’s guilty. Or that his “contemptuous” actions were unjustified. In fact, real people (hardly any left now) have a duty to expose lies, corruption and fraud. Especially where our courts have a great habit of “accidentally on purpose” making the Dead Wrong decision at the outset, because they know it is so damned hard to ever get it corrected later. Just look at the Peter Ellis saga, or the Arthur Allen Thomas one, or any of so many cases. A corrupt court system cannot be relied upon to find the truth, and that is certainly what we have in this country. If you don’t know that, you just don’t have enough experience of it.
As for the blanket statement that the Berryman’s are also guilty - maybe I don’t know the full story - but again, as I do understand, there’s no such thing as Black or White in that case either. The Berryman’s may not have been shiny white, but the Army certainly wasn’t either. If the materials were unsuitable, why did they build the damn thing anyway? And what proper precautions did they take to prevent the rot? Who is at fault if a pilot knowingly flies (and crashes) a plane he knows is not airworthy? The mechanic who didn’t get to fix it yet, or the pilot? Who is at fault when a bridge built of incorrect materials falls down? The purchaser, or the builder?
As for the CYFSwatch people spinning out of control… Of course. You try to remain cool, calm and collected, reasoned and rational when you’ve had your own children kidnapped by known child-abusers. See how cool, calm and rational you are then.
And see how sane and reasonable you are after three or four years of that same torture. Then you’ll be qualified to criticise them.
But I agree, the CYFSwatch people have missed the main point. CYFS are not the REAL problem.
Again, it comes back to our corrupt court system. In that case, the WORST courts in the country. The diabolical, Top Secret “Family” Courts. It is them that allow CYFS to be so atrocious, and them that condone and “enable” the incompetent CYFS staff, and them that protects and props up the whole rotten edifice.
February 18, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Alrighty lots of words, lets just pick a couple of highlights.
“maybe I don’t know the full story”. Are you aware that the Berrymans purchased the building materials and the Army only constructed the bridge?
Are you aware that those materials were second hand?
Are you aware that the Army advised them against the use of those materials and warned that the life of the bridge was limited and the bridge would require regular checking and maintainence?
Are you aware the bridge was judged dangerous a year prior to the accident?
Are you aware of what the contractual obligation the Army has to carry out checks and maintainence on someone elses private property?
Are you aware that Moody was in possession of this information which was suppressed in the same manner as the report he chose to make public?
Are you aware that the other parties involved did not make this information public because they would have been in contempt had they done so?
Now you’re claiming that the court system is completely rotten and its justifible to try and get a favorable result through illegal means.
I stand full square against this proposition and I beleive in the rule of law.
Having spent a considerable amount of my life in the Army I know what an investigation looks like. The entire system is geared around accantability and if you think that the Army likes to hide thengs then you’re very much mistaken.
I draw your attention to the recent case of the unimog accident which resulted in the death of a passenger.
The Army - prior to the case coming to court - implimented a system of seat belt enforcement and checking including having MP’s stop and check military vehicles. This had resulted in two officers being reprimanded.
The Army pleaded guilty to the charges and is taking responsibility for the rehabilitation of the injured party.
Hardly the black helicopter mind probe in the sky fantasy you’ve presented.
As I observed on another site. OSH and the army are not natural allies. The Army does things that OSH doesn’t like and is designed to stop the Army doing. The whole shooting things and blowing shit up just really scares the crap out of OSH. To claim complicity between these two organisations is beyond fantasy.
Both would like to see the other cease to exist.
One has the will but not the ability to finish the other while it in turn has more than the power but not the will to turn the first into a smudge.
Now you’re in the same position as CYSF Watch as far as I can see, you want CYFS to be accountable but you don’t want yourself or others the be so accountable in when its your turn.
And having been put through the ringer by the justice system for the last five years and having been screwed relentlesly as a result of both a fuck followed by an actual cover up by a government department I think we can assume you propsition that I don’t have context is also incorrect.
We either have rule of law or we don’t. We don’t get to pick and choose which occasion suits us and which doesn’t.
I choose rule of law.
Frankly I don’t regard family courts to be legitimate given how they operate. However I’m pretty sure the Berrymans bridge wasn’t legally a child so what does it have to do with Rob Moody attempting to by pass the law to get the result he wanted?
I put it to you Kingy that you lack information in relation to this case that I have giving me a more accurate perspective and you justification for going around the system is based on emotion resulting from a specific case, not the result of a rational principle.
February 19, 2007 at 7:45 am
Hi Murray,
Lot’s of words, alrighty! I don’t have time to respond properly right now, but to cover one point:
You agree that the Family Court is a crock (my words). The trouble is, I have experience with every level of court in NZ except (for now) the “Supreme” Court, and I can say that they are all crocks. They are (IMHO) almost universally: a fraud, a lie, a con and a gross disservice to New Zealand. It seems there are barely half a dozen judges left in this country who actually know what justice is, and who aren’t mere pawns of the secret neo-Nazi regime we are slowly but surely being overtaken by. The rest - well, I’d say Sack them All! (That would be kind.)
And the relationship between CYFSWatch and Rob Moodie? Moodie is exposing the scam that is our justice system, which as I have said is what keeps CYFS alive. If the Courts were doing anything remotely like what they are supposed to do in such cases - protecting the people from the excesses of petty bureaucrats - then CYFS would be a worthwhile organisation. But they’re not and it’s not. Both are virulent cancers on our society. And look at the results. Domestic Violence, shattered families, murders, general violent crime, etc are all growing like a cancer in NZ. One symptom of the cancerous injustice system we have.
February 19, 2007 at 4:44 pm
To continue…
I won’t answer all the questions here because it’s Off Thread for this discussion, and not relevant anyway, but I will say:
Thanks for informing us you’re ex-Army. You apparently had a good experience there, which reflects in your obvious loyalty to and defence of it.
However, as for: “Hardly the black helicopter mind probe in the sky fantasy you’ve presented.” Justify?
As you yourself have also been shafted by our “justice” system, you must have some appreciation of what it’s like to have the most precious things in your life senselessly attacked… by the very system that is purportedly there to protect those things. So why are you defending it?
Similarly: where do you get this from: “Now you’re in the same position as CYSF Watch as far as I can see, you want CYFS to be accountable but you don’t want yourself or others the be so accountable in when its your turn.”
Where do I imply that?
However, to get back to the point:
“Now you’re claiming that the court system is completely rotten …”
Not to split hairs, YES! But to say:
“and its justifible to try and get a favorable result through illegal means”
is, I submit, wildly incorrect. That’s NOT at all what I’m saying, or said, I think.
I’m not interested in partisanship. I’m not interested in getting, as you put it, “a favorable result”. I’m interested in seeing that our courts are honest, and just. At present, by and large, they are neither.
But in the end I think it comes down to this: What is legal, and what is illegal?
Just because a (corrupt) court says something is illegal, does that actually make it illegal? And ESPECIALLY if the black and white written law is interpreted by the majority to mean something else altogether? Who is right, and consequently, what is legal? We, the people, after all, employ the judges to do that job for us. But when they so blatantly, arrogantly and deliberately refuse to do what they are paid to do, sure, we the people have a right to expose them. Since, absurdly, under current law we can’t even sack them.
What ELSE can you do, when the arbitrators have become lawless, when there IS no real rule of law?
“I stand full square against this proposition and I beleive in the rule of law.”
Good for you, but what is your answer when it’s so obvious that our justice system is a complete crock? Go, cap in hand, to a judge and ask him to shape up, or quit? I say, you have, like so many of us, far too much faith in the system. Why do you think Moodie (a Doctorate of Law, I think) is making such a stand? Because he’s a fool?
“We either have rule of law or we don’t.”
Yes, well, it’s looking very much like we don’t. Now what? Is Moodie’s action part of an answer?
“Frankly I don’t regard family courts to be legitimate given how they operate.” Why stop there? The Family Courts are not that much worse than the High Courts, in reality. And the High Courts are damn quick to back up their crooked mates in the Family Courts.
Think about it! As you said, you’ve been shafted yourself. But just look around – see how many other people are getting shafted every day as well. Is that right? When is it time to do something about it, and what should be done? Bleat to the Government!? Of course not. The Government is behind this. It was the Government that got rid of the oversight provided by the Privy Council – for exactly this purpose. More Power. Unbridled Power. Let’s see if Labour doesn’t manipulate itself back into power next term… Even if a bit more retrospective legislation is needed later…
February 19, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Murray,
I left this out of the previous post.
You mentioned the conflict between the Army and OSH.
Here’s a thought for you: The Army is obviously a “male” organisation. It’s all about guns and weapons and destroying stuff.
What gender is OSH?
February 19, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Have posted your comment - we don’t do censorship. We have also replied to your post, hopefully correcting a few errors in your original post.
CYFSWATCH stand by a very solid maxim that should successfully innoculate any “unbridled power” delusions:
“You can acheive anything in this life you want to - as long as you don’t mind who gets the credit”.
Need evidence of this? Do you see us bitching at United Future for claiming a “victory” about getting to first base regards a CYFS Complaints Authority?Interesting it has taken UFNZ over 4 years of “lobbying” for no result until we showed up - 3 weeks later, Dyson is talking Complaints Authority.
February 19, 2007 at 11:37 pm
To CYFSwatch:
Huh!? I haven’t recently posted anything to CYFSwatch, so I think you’ve got me confused with someone else? Can you link (or point) to the post you are referring to, please?
As for a CYFS complaints authority… That will be just another re-run of the Families Commission rort. A complete waste of time and money, and in fact another anti-social bureaucracy. So I wouldn’t be mourning the fact that UF has claimed credit. The Families Commission was their idea too (or maybe it wasn’t actually!) but Helen’s mob tricked them (and all of us) out of that as a useful social entity.
What was the first thing they did? Conducted a “survey” so they could re-define what you and I understand the word Family to mean. Now, basically, it means a group of children and their feminist-approved “caregivers”. Which is just another lie, because most such “caregivers” are actually not givers at all. They are paid employees of the State (usually via CYFS), and so are actually “care mercenaries”, who generally don’t give a damn anyway. How else would Patrick Martin end up dead?
As I’ve said above, the problem lies with our “courts”. If they were working properly, CYFS would never get away with what it does. CYFS would soon learn that they have to meet certain standards, but there are none in the Family Courts. Instead, they are courts of injustice, as Robin Langwell so rightly named them a few years ago. Not that much has changed since then.
BTW, I don’t go much for your “solid maxim”. You can’t push a river, no matter who gets the credit! Let’s see you change CYFS into the wonderful, positive, helpful social agency it is supposed to be! I say it’s not possible, simply because the fundamental problem is a lack of human resource. What kind of people actually want to work for CYFS? They are not the cream of society, and as they say, you can’t make a silk purse…
February 20, 2007 at 7:38 am
Kingy that was CYFS Watch replying to my post.
You’re starting to hijack my site with long unprovoked responses.
Locals will tell your thats a bad idea. I have a short attention span.
February 20, 2007 at 9:03 am
Whatever! The censorship comment appears directed to me. But I won’t stay where I’m not welcome. See ya.
February 20, 2007 at 9:11 am
You want fries with that hissy fit?
February 20, 2007 at 11:57 am
Are there two “Murray’s”, or are don’t you recognise what you just wrote?
“You’re starting to hijack my site with long unprovoked responses.
Locals will tell your
[sic] thats a bad idea. I have a short attention span.”
“H” is for…