Shame and Blame – Keith Edwin BECKER: Barrister (of sorts) Levin.
He came on the scene as a Barrister all thunder and lightning. Operated from one of the local pubs (The Oxford Hotel) then tried to get any other lawyer to rent a room to him – tried several, but without paying and bouncing cheques – not a good look for a lawyer!!
Tried to do Family Law – got kicked out of court by several Family Court Judges, so gave that away!!
Now doing Duty Solicitor anywhere and everywhere!! From New Plymouth to Porirua and any where who will take his name and put him on their roster. Only problem is he double books himself and then has to give his clients to anyone who will take them! Bugger the clients, it’s the money he gets from Legal Services that’s important.
He operates his ‘chambers’ from his car, the same car he parks on the wrong side of the road outside his house in York Street – one of his partner’s son lives in the garage!! Not a good look for a lawyer once again, not being able to house his family!
Next thing – he is paranoid about people watching him and his house! He walks the neighborhood all dressed up in a hoody and thinks he is being sneaky watching people who MAY be watching his house….HEY, this is the same guy, who had a serious violent criminal give his home address as his bail address at one stage last year, and then absconded bail by doing a runner! Also he has all sorts of Protection Orders against his and his partners family, as they really know what he is up to and threatened to expose him! He has used his knowledge of the court materials to threatened his family and say there was a court case which he lost!!
He thinks he can charm other Lawyers female staff – or any female for that matter!! His sexual references are SICK!! Borderline on sexual abuse.
To top it all off, his car was stolen the other day – was it stolen? Or was it reprocessed as we were told, and the damage that was done, was by him in temper, when the Repo. Men came and got the car. He kicked in and bashed the headlight and side panel and grabbed the keys and made such a performance broke the ignition!! Yet again…not a good look for a Lawyer.
Oh by the way, the Local Law Society doesn’t seem to care about his behavior, WHY? All the local circuit judges have no respect for him, he is the laughing stock of the Levin Court Staff and one day he may even dress, act and speak like a Professional. After all, if a man who wear his lunch on his clothes, has no office,(or "chambers" being a barrister) is OK by their books.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
LAWGATE GALLERY OF SHAME #4. LISA GRAY - Lawyer for Child
Lawyer for Child Lisa Gray
Hi I am shocked that in this day and age a Counsel for Child (CfC) can have a huge bias, display it openly in court, lie to other counsel... …and the court ignores it! Today we are talking about Barrister Lisa Gray of Ponsonby. Here is a lawyer who has shown distinct and unreasonable favouritism in several cases previously or presently before the court. This bias is always in favour of the mother, and in several cases I have reviewed recently, in circumstances where the child/ren’s best interests are served elsewhere. I have had the unfortunate job of reviewing one file recently where this bias towards the mother has led to the children being in obvious grave risk with their mother, yet Ms Gray's statements are always to the detriment of the father. I recant; The matter started with the mother abducting the children to an overseas location in 2005. A Hague Convention application ensues funded both by the State purse and the father. There has never been any recorded history of a problem in this family. The mother's initial counsel informs the Hague Court that is convened that his client 'has no defence under the Hague Convention'. The mother and her mother (the child/ren’s maternal grandmother) lawyer shop until they locate a lawyer willing to put forward an unsupported defence of spousal abuse (several changes of representing counsel are evident on the O/S file). The Hague Court eventually finds that the mother is being less than truthful, and that her case cannot be upheld for lack of supporting evidence. This result from their review of testimony and sworn statements from people who have known, or lived in the same premises as the couple, stating that they have never seen anything at all that could even remotely substantiate the mother’s claims. The children were returned to NZ and as a result, to the father. This is where Ms Gray becomes involved. Ms Gray then attends the father’s house and it appears attacks him on several fronts. Even though the O/S judges have delivered that the mothers claims cannot be relied upon, and the children were ordered back to NZ and the custody of the father, Ms Gray decides that it is her job to take the father to task on his 'abuse' of the mother and several other matters. From the court records of the first two appearances of this family it is clear that Ms Gray was constantly striving to undermine the position of the father. When the mother is openly deceitful on several matters during one hearing, Ms Gray is seen to support the lies that the mother puts forward. From what I can tell, these lies persisted until recently when the father exposed several of them in a self-authored affidavit. Statements made by the father and his counsel at the time show that Ms Gray was open in her bias in favour of the mother. On the day of the hearing above Ms Gray spent more than an hour in an interview room in preparation with the mother and her counsel, yet spent less than 3 minutes with the father and his counsel the same morning. I am told her billings to the Court simply record 1.5 hours of pre-hearing preparation ‘with the parents’. The Court’s often remain blind to such occurrences. After an incident where Ms Gray was overheard by others to be offensive to the father after he greeted her as he was leaving and she was entering a retail establishment, a complaint was placed before the court and a report to the Law Society requesting urgent review of her position in the matter. It is apparent from the court file that they simply informed Ms Gray of the father and co-counsels complaints, then effectively acted as if the complaints did not exist. No further reference exists in the court file to show any review, due diligence or conference to discuss the complaints. As I read the file I see many incidents, indeed into the tens, where the children have been in harms way whilst in the care of the mother. The file more recently shows that the father, in desperation for the safety of his children, wrote to Ms Gray and asked her to either come see his children or at least review these incidents with a view to assisting the father to at least affect some sort of resolution with the court to expedite the conduct of the case. He response was that she did not support the father, or his case, she pays little mind to the suffering of the children throughout the incidents of repeated negligence and possible abuse at the hands of the mother, and as I read it, speaks volumes for her bias in favour of the mother. During the conduct of this case, the father's employer raised a PCA complaint on his behalf after it became apparent that the mother and maternal grandmother had tried to use the police to 'get back' at the father. One officer made the father her personal target, and as fast as charges are dismissed against him by her superiors, she raises either the same or new charges against him after successive contact with the mother/Grandmother. Ms Gray's name and telephone number have allegedly come up on paperwork held by the police at the time with respect of the initial charge, and review of one of her strange accusations against the father at his house when the child/ren were returned gives me cause to believe that there may be a causal link evident in fact. CYFS recently became involved and a social worker was appointed to the child/ren who admits knowing Ms Gray on a personable basis. It is interesting that other CYFS staff keep promising to get the appointed SW to contact the father and the SW does not. It is also interesting that Ms Gray attempted to inform other counsel that the father had told them 'not to contact the CfC'. Review of the phone logs from CYFS does not support this claim. The CYFS worker has only called the father once, several days after the initial involvement, to tell him that: She had spent 30 minutes at the mother’s house after one boy was discovered with a broken arm and hernia resulting from an injury in her care. In that 30 mins she had 'seen the mother kiss the little boy, and that this alone meant she was a good mother'. She also said that after 'speaking to the CfC she had decided that the children were with their mother and that even in the face of all the injuries they were sustaining, this was always the safest place for them'. She has not reviewed the children since, and in the last 2 months the children have sustained yet more serious injuries whilst in the mother’s care, one resulting in surgical intervention under general anaesthetic for one child and another resulting in one of the other children having a partially amputated toe. This father should have his kids. There is no doubt of this in my mind. I am appalled to read a file like this. I note that one counsel acting for the father previously recorded in writing that in a telephone conversation with Ms Gray he told her that ' when a lawyer for child shows such obvious and distinct favouritism in a case, that is the time he or she should gracefully withdraw from the matter.'
Hi I am shocked that in this day and age a Counsel for Child (CfC) can have a huge bias, display it openly in court, lie to other counsel... …and the court ignores it! Today we are talking about Barrister Lisa Gray of Ponsonby. Here is a lawyer who has shown distinct and unreasonable favouritism in several cases previously or presently before the court. This bias is always in favour of the mother, and in several cases I have reviewed recently, in circumstances where the child/ren’s best interests are served elsewhere. I have had the unfortunate job of reviewing one file recently where this bias towards the mother has led to the children being in obvious grave risk with their mother, yet Ms Gray's statements are always to the detriment of the father. I recant; The matter started with the mother abducting the children to an overseas location in 2005. A Hague Convention application ensues funded both by the State purse and the father. There has never been any recorded history of a problem in this family. The mother's initial counsel informs the Hague Court that is convened that his client 'has no defence under the Hague Convention'. The mother and her mother (the child/ren’s maternal grandmother) lawyer shop until they locate a lawyer willing to put forward an unsupported defence of spousal abuse (several changes of representing counsel are evident on the O/S file). The Hague Court eventually finds that the mother is being less than truthful, and that her case cannot be upheld for lack of supporting evidence. This result from their review of testimony and sworn statements from people who have known, or lived in the same premises as the couple, stating that they have never seen anything at all that could even remotely substantiate the mother’s claims. The children were returned to NZ and as a result, to the father. This is where Ms Gray becomes involved. Ms Gray then attends the father’s house and it appears attacks him on several fronts. Even though the O/S judges have delivered that the mothers claims cannot be relied upon, and the children were ordered back to NZ and the custody of the father, Ms Gray decides that it is her job to take the father to task on his 'abuse' of the mother and several other matters. From the court records of the first two appearances of this family it is clear that Ms Gray was constantly striving to undermine the position of the father. When the mother is openly deceitful on several matters during one hearing, Ms Gray is seen to support the lies that the mother puts forward. From what I can tell, these lies persisted until recently when the father exposed several of them in a self-authored affidavit. Statements made by the father and his counsel at the time show that Ms Gray was open in her bias in favour of the mother. On the day of the hearing above Ms Gray spent more than an hour in an interview room in preparation with the mother and her counsel, yet spent less than 3 minutes with the father and his counsel the same morning. I am told her billings to the Court simply record 1.5 hours of pre-hearing preparation ‘with the parents’. The Court’s often remain blind to such occurrences. After an incident where Ms Gray was overheard by others to be offensive to the father after he greeted her as he was leaving and she was entering a retail establishment, a complaint was placed before the court and a report to the Law Society requesting urgent review of her position in the matter. It is apparent from the court file that they simply informed Ms Gray of the father and co-counsels complaints, then effectively acted as if the complaints did not exist. No further reference exists in the court file to show any review, due diligence or conference to discuss the complaints. As I read the file I see many incidents, indeed into the tens, where the children have been in harms way whilst in the care of the mother. The file more recently shows that the father, in desperation for the safety of his children, wrote to Ms Gray and asked her to either come see his children or at least review these incidents with a view to assisting the father to at least affect some sort of resolution with the court to expedite the conduct of the case. He response was that she did not support the father, or his case, she pays little mind to the suffering of the children throughout the incidents of repeated negligence and possible abuse at the hands of the mother, and as I read it, speaks volumes for her bias in favour of the mother. During the conduct of this case, the father's employer raised a PCA complaint on his behalf after it became apparent that the mother and maternal grandmother had tried to use the police to 'get back' at the father. One officer made the father her personal target, and as fast as charges are dismissed against him by her superiors, she raises either the same or new charges against him after successive contact with the mother/Grandmother. Ms Gray's name and telephone number have allegedly come up on paperwork held by the police at the time with respect of the initial charge, and review of one of her strange accusations against the father at his house when the child/ren were returned gives me cause to believe that there may be a causal link evident in fact. CYFS recently became involved and a social worker was appointed to the child/ren who admits knowing Ms Gray on a personable basis. It is interesting that other CYFS staff keep promising to get the appointed SW to contact the father and the SW does not. It is also interesting that Ms Gray attempted to inform other counsel that the father had told them 'not to contact the CfC'. Review of the phone logs from CYFS does not support this claim. The CYFS worker has only called the father once, several days after the initial involvement, to tell him that: She had spent 30 minutes at the mother’s house after one boy was discovered with a broken arm and hernia resulting from an injury in her care. In that 30 mins she had 'seen the mother kiss the little boy, and that this alone meant she was a good mother'. She also said that after 'speaking to the CfC she had decided that the children were with their mother and that even in the face of all the injuries they were sustaining, this was always the safest place for them'. She has not reviewed the children since, and in the last 2 months the children have sustained yet more serious injuries whilst in the mother’s care, one resulting in surgical intervention under general anaesthetic for one child and another resulting in one of the other children having a partially amputated toe. This father should have his kids. There is no doubt of this in my mind. I am appalled to read a file like this. I note that one counsel acting for the father previously recorded in writing that in a telephone conversation with Ms Gray he told her that ' when a lawyer for child shows such obvious and distinct favouritism in a case, that is the time he or she should gracefully withdraw from the matter.'
INVITATION
NZ - Invitation to your Bloggers to submit details to the **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition** Nominations for SHAME (BOTHERING)
LawGate --- CYFSWATCH
Go http://www.handsonequalparent.org.nz/41379/52897.html
Onward – Jim
www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz
LawGate --- CYFSWATCH
Go http://www.handsonequalparent.org.nz/41379/52897.html
Onward – Jim
www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz
Thursday, January 25, 2007
LAWGATE GALLERY OF SHAME #3. BRUCE ANDREWS. A wolf in sheep's clothing,
Many years ago I worked for the Salvation Army in Christchurch in 1984 – 85 and as a divorced solo parent I attended and was supportive member of the Salvation Army church in Stratford and then Kelvin Grove.
I remarried in 2002 and had the grace to be blessed later with the birth of a beautiful baby boy. Then when he was a year old and we were living in Feilding and attending St Johns when the bad floods hit. We struggled to cope and had some difficulty at this time with my then 13 year old daughter. CYFs became involved and removed firstly my 13 year old daughter and then my then 1`8month old boy. As stated in the finding of our hearing in the Family Court, CYFs had made no effort to support or assist our family in any way. No effort to try to work with us.
Bruce Andrews was assigned as Council for Child. A year after going into care my daughter ran away and returned home. I took her to see Bruce Andrews and she talked with him alone and informed him that the allegations she had made were lies and she was allowed to return home. But our baby boy remained in care and throughout this Bruce Andrews has appeared not to act in the children’s best interest but just backed up and supporting CYFs in all that they said.
It was a very complicated case in which I will not go into there but the main points were that as a young teenager, my husband had been sexually abused by his brother, who himself was abused by the Catholic Church Brothers at St John of God boarding school. Because no one, especially his parents believed him, my husband acted out and indecently assaulted 3 children. My husband was caught and sentenced to probation and counselling in the Juvenile (Youth) court. He got help from ACROSS and has never reoffended in 18 years. However Bruce Andrews saw fit to ignore all of the positives in the risk assessment and instead dwelt on the negatives.
I was told that I’m not an adequate protector for my son because I have suffered from depression in the past. I was criticised for not constantly holding up before my husband his sin. But I would consider that to be emotionally abusive as all this occurred before he became a Christian and has therefore been forgiven by god and put as far as the East is from the West. Who was I not to forgive, when God had?
We proved our son had never been abused or neglected by us in any way, but in spite of this we are heart broken now because we have lost permanent custody to CYFs.
Bruce Andrews recommended that our access be cut from 2 access visits per week of 1 ½ hours each visit to 4 access visits a year of 1 hour each visit. This is in spite of the fact that all of our access reports were shown to be a positive experience for our son.
My husband and I had put our hope in God, in the fact that as a Christian, especially one with in the Salvation Army, Bruce Andrews would see through the lies presented by the Enemy and acknowledge the truth. For a time, because of this evil, my husband and I lost our faith. I now have my faith back, but my husband is still struggling with his.
I am as Hannah in the Bible, in that I have given my son Joshua into God’s hands and fast for him once a week. It is all I can do. Unlike Hannah I cannot find comfort in further children. I am 43 years old and my husband wants no more children for CYFs to take. I also would fear having another child in this country, when our human rights have been so trampled.
Bruce Andrews greatly contributed to this and appears to us as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a destroyer of families. He has hurt deeply our family and our small boy who was a covenant child, a child promised to us by God when I was not supposed to be able to conceive any more. It would be better for Bruce Andrews if a mill stone had been placed around his neck and he was dropped into the deepest part of the ocean.
Our son who’s doctor is Martin Minnee and is a Christian, and also the Punket reports showed Joshua had never been abused or hurt by us in any way and indeed that in Dr Minnee’s words had ‘caring, concerned parents’ has appeared at all access visits with scrapes, bruising and a black eye. Bruce Andrews knows this!
I do not believe it benefits the Salvation Army to have this man in your ranks of uniformed ‘officers’ of the church. God’s vengeance is going to catch up with this destroyer of families as the word states that ‘nothing remains hidden’
As god’s children, my husband and I will be vindicated and our enemies will be brought down. If Bruce Andrews really is a Christian and Child of god he seriously needs to re assess his career, and stop being one when only in uniform. Currently, he changes his beliefs as often as he changes his clothes.
We had praised God on hearing one we knew to be Salvation Army was appointed Counsel for Child. We should have put on sack cloth and ashes instead.
A broken hearted mother
I remarried in 2002 and had the grace to be blessed later with the birth of a beautiful baby boy. Then when he was a year old and we were living in Feilding and attending St Johns when the bad floods hit. We struggled to cope and had some difficulty at this time with my then 13 year old daughter. CYFs became involved and removed firstly my 13 year old daughter and then my then 1`8month old boy. As stated in the finding of our hearing in the Family Court, CYFs had made no effort to support or assist our family in any way. No effort to try to work with us.
Bruce Andrews was assigned as Council for Child. A year after going into care my daughter ran away and returned home. I took her to see Bruce Andrews and she talked with him alone and informed him that the allegations she had made were lies and she was allowed to return home. But our baby boy remained in care and throughout this Bruce Andrews has appeared not to act in the children’s best interest but just backed up and supporting CYFs in all that they said.
It was a very complicated case in which I will not go into there but the main points were that as a young teenager, my husband had been sexually abused by his brother, who himself was abused by the Catholic Church Brothers at St John of God boarding school. Because no one, especially his parents believed him, my husband acted out and indecently assaulted 3 children. My husband was caught and sentenced to probation and counselling in the Juvenile (Youth) court. He got help from ACROSS and has never reoffended in 18 years. However Bruce Andrews saw fit to ignore all of the positives in the risk assessment and instead dwelt on the negatives.
I was told that I’m not an adequate protector for my son because I have suffered from depression in the past. I was criticised for not constantly holding up before my husband his sin. But I would consider that to be emotionally abusive as all this occurred before he became a Christian and has therefore been forgiven by god and put as far as the East is from the West. Who was I not to forgive, when God had?
We proved our son had never been abused or neglected by us in any way, but in spite of this we are heart broken now because we have lost permanent custody to CYFs.
Bruce Andrews recommended that our access be cut from 2 access visits per week of 1 ½ hours each visit to 4 access visits a year of 1 hour each visit. This is in spite of the fact that all of our access reports were shown to be a positive experience for our son.
My husband and I had put our hope in God, in the fact that as a Christian, especially one with in the Salvation Army, Bruce Andrews would see through the lies presented by the Enemy and acknowledge the truth. For a time, because of this evil, my husband and I lost our faith. I now have my faith back, but my husband is still struggling with his.
I am as Hannah in the Bible, in that I have given my son Joshua into God’s hands and fast for him once a week. It is all I can do. Unlike Hannah I cannot find comfort in further children. I am 43 years old and my husband wants no more children for CYFs to take. I also would fear having another child in this country, when our human rights have been so trampled.
Bruce Andrews greatly contributed to this and appears to us as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a destroyer of families. He has hurt deeply our family and our small boy who was a covenant child, a child promised to us by God when I was not supposed to be able to conceive any more. It would be better for Bruce Andrews if a mill stone had been placed around his neck and he was dropped into the deepest part of the ocean.
Our son who’s doctor is Martin Minnee and is a Christian, and also the Punket reports showed Joshua had never been abused or hurt by us in any way and indeed that in Dr Minnee’s words had ‘caring, concerned parents’ has appeared at all access visits with scrapes, bruising and a black eye. Bruce Andrews knows this!
I do not believe it benefits the Salvation Army to have this man in your ranks of uniformed ‘officers’ of the church. God’s vengeance is going to catch up with this destroyer of families as the word states that ‘nothing remains hidden’
As god’s children, my husband and I will be vindicated and our enemies will be brought down. If Bruce Andrews really is a Christian and Child of god he seriously needs to re assess his career, and stop being one when only in uniform. Currently, he changes his beliefs as often as he changes his clothes.
We had praised God on hearing one we knew to be Salvation Army was appointed Counsel for Child. We should have put on sack cloth and ashes instead.
A broken hearted mother
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
LAWGATE GALLERY OF SHAME#2. MARY WILLIAMSON - Barrister
Mary Williamson, Barrister,
I wish to have the behaviours and procedures of Mary Williamson, Barrister, publicised for the following reasons.
A request was made to Mary Williamson for a photocopy of an airline ticket purchased by her client for my son, in breach of a Non-Removal Order. Copies of tickets for her client and her client’s daughter were sent eventually, but not my son’s. A further request was made and eventually I received a copy of my son’s airline ticket. I believe this was a delaying tactic because Mary Williamson knew I couldn’t seek further information on the first two tickets, only my son’s, which was not sent until almost two months later. The departure date was fast approaching, reducing my ability to oppose.
In 2004 I prepared affidavits myself, and left sworn copies at the Family Court. The next morning I took the only other copies of the sworn affidavits to my lawyer (Liz Jamieson, which I have also written to the Society about) and was surprised to find that she already knew about the affidavits. Jamieson told me that Mary Williamson had phoned her the previous afternoon and told her about the affidavits. I thought it was incredible that Mary Williamson was made privy to affidavits that had not been served on her. Mary Williamson lied weeks later by stating that she had only just been made aware of the affidavits. The truth is that both lawyers knew about the affidavits and the strength of them, and decided to shelve them until three weeks after a Judicial Conference where Custody was decided, instead of just access as I had asked.
I received an affidavit sworn on 27 July by Mary Williamson’s client. The relevant paragraph (26) states; “…my lawyer telephoned me to say that the legal services agency had also phoned to say that XXXX had advised them that I was claiming a benefit as well as working full time. He apparently requested that legal aid be withdrawn. This is also incorrect. Both these incidents amount to harassment and are having a wearing effect on me. I am concerned what he will do next”… I telephoned the Hamilton Office of the Legal Services Agency and spoke to the Regional Manager. She agreed that my name should not have been revealed, and my permission required before any of my information could be passed on to Mary Williamson. The Manager asked me to write directly to the Case Manager involved, and I also wrote a letter to Mary Williamson, asking her to confirm the telephone call. Two weeks later (on the same day) I received replies form Legal Services and Mary Williamson. Mary Williamson wrote “…I note however that matters raised as to confidentiality are an issue between you and the legal services agency”. Her letter included an affidavit of amendment from her client stating that paragraph 26 was “incorrect” and a “simple mistake”. Clearly, either Legal Services got caught out in a Breach of Confidentiality, or Mary Williamson lied to her client and got her to swear to those lies in an affidavit, lies that that only Mary Williamson could have fabricated. I understand that this is a criminal offence.
Since I made the decision to represent myself in the Family Court, Mary Williamson has ignored many letters that I have sent. I have made several requests regarding who was caring for my son when he received burns to his hand. He was staying with her client at the time, but her client lied about the injury and written requests have simply been ignored. I have also made several requests for a receipt for money given to her client. These requests have also been ignored.
Communication between Mary Williamson’s client and I have been very difficult, but it appears that while Mary Williamson and her client have no contact our communication improves immensely. Last year her client and I had excellent communication, sometimes talking for up to 10 minutes and even making agreements between ourselves. This was ended by a letter from Mary Williamson saying that I was not to talk to her client, as this was harassment. I believed at the time that our progressing communication was hugely important for our son, and was confused why a lawyer would both end it and suggest that the communication was harassment. Obviously, Mary Williamson stood to gain financially by severing our communication, although I would certainly hope that this was not the reason.
I have received several letters from Mary Williamson which other lawyers have described as “black-mail”. Mary Williamson states in letters that Holiday access and extra access around the overseas holiday was dependent on me withdrawing from court proceedings. This, after her client told the Judge that would allow extra access.
Mary Williamson sent a letter to Garth O’Brien who was my lawyer for a brief time. Since then I had been in court representing myself, and had corresponded with Mary Williamson directly on a number of occasions. However, Mary Williamson chose to send an extremely vital letter to Garth O’Brien instead of me. Garth O’Brien rang me and read from the letter. I do not know if he read the whole letter, and I was not told that the letter would not be sent to me. While Garth O’Brien read the letter, I repeatedly asked him a question about the first statement in the letter. He told me several times to “shut up and let me read”. If Mr O’Brien was my lawyer at the time, he should have forwarded the letter to me. If he was not my lawyer, he should have returned the letter to Mary Williamson. He did not tell me to write it down as he read, and indeed, the phone call ended as soon as the he finished reading. The importance of this was not understood until latter when I applied for access to my son. My application to enforce access was granted by a Judge, then rescinded the next day when Mary Williamson informed the courts that I had misled the courts by not including the letter. My argument was that I could not include the letter because neither Mary Williamson nor Garth O’Brien sent it to me, and I could not include any information in the letter because I heard very little of what Mr O’Brien read, and had no idea that the letter would be crucial to getting access with my son. I was not told that I should write as Mr O’Brien read the letter, and I was not told that I would not be receiving a copy of the letter. Mr O’Brien may also have some explaining to do, as it appears that both lawyers colluded to ensure that it looked like I was misleading the Courts and prevent me getting access with my son.
Last but certainly not least; when the police exercised a warrant to uplift my son on 22nd September 2004, the CIB detective and several of the attending police officers stated to my family members that I had “sworn at and abused the Judge”. My family was shocked by this because it is so out of character for me and they sought more information. The CIB detective and at least two officers told my family members that Mary Williamson had told them that I had sworn at the Judge and abused her. I was outraged by this, and wondered why a lawyer would make up such a story. While I was at the Family Court with a witness, I questioned the registrar who was present during the hearing. The Head Registrar was also present as a further witness. The registrar said that I had not sworn at or abused the Judge. I note also that Mary Williamson used Lex De Jong for court work. Lex De Jong, who is now a Family Court judge, stood several times in court and lied about my behaviour and character. Liars should not be allowed to judge others, especially when the lives of children are at stake. I have not ruled out litigation at this point, since the conduct of both Mary Williamson and Liz Jamieson has led to this extremely complex case, and caused me to lose my home and led to extreme financial pressure and stress.
I wish to have the behaviours and procedures of Mary Williamson, Barrister, publicised for the following reasons.
A request was made to Mary Williamson for a photocopy of an airline ticket purchased by her client for my son, in breach of a Non-Removal Order. Copies of tickets for her client and her client’s daughter were sent eventually, but not my son’s. A further request was made and eventually I received a copy of my son’s airline ticket. I believe this was a delaying tactic because Mary Williamson knew I couldn’t seek further information on the first two tickets, only my son’s, which was not sent until almost two months later. The departure date was fast approaching, reducing my ability to oppose.
In 2004 I prepared affidavits myself, and left sworn copies at the Family Court. The next morning I took the only other copies of the sworn affidavits to my lawyer (Liz Jamieson, which I have also written to the Society about) and was surprised to find that she already knew about the affidavits. Jamieson told me that Mary Williamson had phoned her the previous afternoon and told her about the affidavits. I thought it was incredible that Mary Williamson was made privy to affidavits that had not been served on her. Mary Williamson lied weeks later by stating that she had only just been made aware of the affidavits. The truth is that both lawyers knew about the affidavits and the strength of them, and decided to shelve them until three weeks after a Judicial Conference where Custody was decided, instead of just access as I had asked.
I received an affidavit sworn on 27 July by Mary Williamson’s client. The relevant paragraph (26) states; “…my lawyer telephoned me to say that the legal services agency had also phoned to say that XXXX had advised them that I was claiming a benefit as well as working full time. He apparently requested that legal aid be withdrawn. This is also incorrect. Both these incidents amount to harassment and are having a wearing effect on me. I am concerned what he will do next”… I telephoned the Hamilton Office of the Legal Services Agency and spoke to the Regional Manager. She agreed that my name should not have been revealed, and my permission required before any of my information could be passed on to Mary Williamson. The Manager asked me to write directly to the Case Manager involved, and I also wrote a letter to Mary Williamson, asking her to confirm the telephone call. Two weeks later (on the same day) I received replies form Legal Services and Mary Williamson. Mary Williamson wrote “…I note however that matters raised as to confidentiality are an issue between you and the legal services agency”. Her letter included an affidavit of amendment from her client stating that paragraph 26 was “incorrect” and a “simple mistake”. Clearly, either Legal Services got caught out in a Breach of Confidentiality, or Mary Williamson lied to her client and got her to swear to those lies in an affidavit, lies that that only Mary Williamson could have fabricated. I understand that this is a criminal offence.
Since I made the decision to represent myself in the Family Court, Mary Williamson has ignored many letters that I have sent. I have made several requests regarding who was caring for my son when he received burns to his hand. He was staying with her client at the time, but her client lied about the injury and written requests have simply been ignored. I have also made several requests for a receipt for money given to her client. These requests have also been ignored.
Communication between Mary Williamson’s client and I have been very difficult, but it appears that while Mary Williamson and her client have no contact our communication improves immensely. Last year her client and I had excellent communication, sometimes talking for up to 10 minutes and even making agreements between ourselves. This was ended by a letter from Mary Williamson saying that I was not to talk to her client, as this was harassment. I believed at the time that our progressing communication was hugely important for our son, and was confused why a lawyer would both end it and suggest that the communication was harassment. Obviously, Mary Williamson stood to gain financially by severing our communication, although I would certainly hope that this was not the reason.
I have received several letters from Mary Williamson which other lawyers have described as “black-mail”. Mary Williamson states in letters that Holiday access and extra access around the overseas holiday was dependent on me withdrawing from court proceedings. This, after her client told the Judge that would allow extra access.
Mary Williamson sent a letter to Garth O’Brien who was my lawyer for a brief time. Since then I had been in court representing myself, and had corresponded with Mary Williamson directly on a number of occasions. However, Mary Williamson chose to send an extremely vital letter to Garth O’Brien instead of me. Garth O’Brien rang me and read from the letter. I do not know if he read the whole letter, and I was not told that the letter would not be sent to me. While Garth O’Brien read the letter, I repeatedly asked him a question about the first statement in the letter. He told me several times to “shut up and let me read”. If Mr O’Brien was my lawyer at the time, he should have forwarded the letter to me. If he was not my lawyer, he should have returned the letter to Mary Williamson. He did not tell me to write it down as he read, and indeed, the phone call ended as soon as the he finished reading. The importance of this was not understood until latter when I applied for access to my son. My application to enforce access was granted by a Judge, then rescinded the next day when Mary Williamson informed the courts that I had misled the courts by not including the letter. My argument was that I could not include the letter because neither Mary Williamson nor Garth O’Brien sent it to me, and I could not include any information in the letter because I heard very little of what Mr O’Brien read, and had no idea that the letter would be crucial to getting access with my son. I was not told that I should write as Mr O’Brien read the letter, and I was not told that I would not be receiving a copy of the letter. Mr O’Brien may also have some explaining to do, as it appears that both lawyers colluded to ensure that it looked like I was misleading the Courts and prevent me getting access with my son.
Last but certainly not least; when the police exercised a warrant to uplift my son on 22nd September 2004, the CIB detective and several of the attending police officers stated to my family members that I had “sworn at and abused the Judge”. My family was shocked by this because it is so out of character for me and they sought more information. The CIB detective and at least two officers told my family members that Mary Williamson had told them that I had sworn at the Judge and abused her. I was outraged by this, and wondered why a lawyer would make up such a story. While I was at the Family Court with a witness, I questioned the registrar who was present during the hearing. The Head Registrar was also present as a further witness. The registrar said that I had not sworn at or abused the Judge. I note also that Mary Williamson used Lex De Jong for court work. Lex De Jong, who is now a Family Court judge, stood several times in court and lied about my behaviour and character. Liars should not be allowed to judge others, especially when the lives of children are at stake. I have not ruled out litigation at this point, since the conduct of both Mary Williamson and Liz Jamieson has led to this extremely complex case, and caused me to lose my home and led to extreme financial pressure and stress.
LAWGATE GALLERY OF SHAME #1. LIZ JAMIESON - Lawyer - Norris Ward McKinnon
Liz Jamieson
I wish to have publicised, the behaviours and procedures of my former legal representative, Liz Jamieson (Norris Ward McKinnon). Her behaviour, particularly with respect to her collaboration with and assistance to my x-partner’s barrister, Mary Williamson, has caused serious damage to my case, and was one of the prime reasons why the media became involved in my Family Court case in September 2004.
Below are details of some of the behaviours/actions which I believe were inappropriate at the least.
Liz Jamieson;
-Did not provide me with a copy of the other party’s first affidavit when she first received it. Approximately five weeks after I applied for interim custody I rang the courts and was told that my application was unsuccessful. I couldn’t understand how I could fail since the other party hadn’t responded. I went to Liz Jamieson’s office with a witness, and asked “how could I possibly fail if the mother didn’t respond?” Liz Jamieson said “she did respond, didn’t I send you a copy … I’ll get one now”. Liz Jamieson photocopied the affidavit for me, but did not give it to me complete, because the front cover and covering documents were missing. Since the affidavit was full of lies, and I was unable to respond, then the Courts were misled by Liz Jamieson’s actions.
-Would not follow my instructions which were to respond to the above affidavit.
Provided me with inappropriate/misleading advice; saying that I should not respond to the above affidavit. The affidavit was full of lies which she referred to as “pork pies” and told me this was commonplace in Family Court proceedings and to just ignore them.
Providing me with inappropriate/misleading advice. I asked Liz Jamieson about seeking a counsel for child, but she simply said “not necessary”. I have since been told that Counsel for Child should have been appointed from day one, since our child was a baby.
Not ensuring or encouraging the implementation of the interim access agreement made by both parties. Both parties met at the offices of Norris Ward McKinnon for a conference to sort out an access agreement. The agreement was forthcoming, and I believed that both parties showed good faith. However, the agreement was never implemented, and Liz Jamieson has never sent any written advice to either party which clearly set out the details of the agreement. It took many months to get access even close to what was in the agreement, yet the mother said in court that the agreement was implemented immediately. Liz Jamieson said nothing about this in court. I was required to make weekly telephone calls to find out what the access arrangements were, even though we had an agreement. Liz Jamieson was advantaged by not following up on the agreement, because these weekly telephone calls could be charged (and they were).
Did not show up for Court fixtures. The Principle Family Court Judge, Peter Boshier, recently sent me a Chronology of Events of my case, prepared in the Hamilton family Court. It showed that there were 2 (two) court dates set during the first months of separation, yet neither Liz Jamieson nor Mary Williamson showed on either date. This was the period of time during which I was forced to phone Jamieson weekly about access, and when I repeatedly asked her to have our access agreement enforced by a Judge.
Did not serve my affidavits (in support of my Custody Application etc) on the other party, after telling me that she would after reading them and attached a disclaimer stating she did not prepare them herself. I prepared the affidavits myself because she refused to, and it was import to my case that the courts were not misled about the true nature of our relationship break up and my primary role in our son’s care.
Did not inform me that the above affidavits had not been served prior to a hearing during which she knew that Custody would be dealt with.
Did not adequately prepare for the 24 May Judicial Conference. Without my affidavits being served, I was completely undefended and without any evidence to support my case. In court Liz Jamieson did not raise any points that I had discussed with her in relation to custody and access, and I was horrified to find out that custody was dealt with at all. I had asked Liz Jamieson to arrange a court conference so that our access agreement could be finally implemented and enforceable by the courts. Liz Jamieson did not inform me until less than 48 hours beforehand that custody would be dealt with instead of just access. The letter was posted on the Friday before the Monday morning conference. More seriously, since she knew that my affidavits had not been served on the other party, she put me (her own client) in a very difficult position in which I couldn’t possible be successful.
During the 24 May conference, I raised my hand and said to the Judge “I have some questions”. The Judge would not talk top me directly, and instead asked Liz Jamieson what I want to Know. I had written a list of questions, and told Liz Jamieson I was concerned about the word “Custody” being used by the Judge, since we were only meant to sort out access, and nothing relating to my role in our son’s care was even discussed. Liz Jamieson refused to raise my concerns, which led to us having an argument outside. The result was that the Judge ordered Shared Parenting, but not before reducing the contact between my son and I.
Did not follow my instructions. Immediately after the 24 May conference I asked Jamieson to go back into the Courts and explain to Judge that I was misled about the nature of the conference and that Custody was not supposed to be dealt with at all. Jamieson instead wrote to the Courts on 26 May stating that I had misunderstood the proceedings and that she and Mary Williamson would try to avoid having a defended hearing. I specifically said two days earlier that a defended hearing was now my only realistic chance of getting custody or at least equal share parenting.
Continued billing. Liz Jamieson has not been my representative since mid 2004. After a discussion outside the Family Court on 24 May 2004, I realised that having Liz Jamieson as my lawyer had seriously damaged any chance of my son returning to his home and primary caregiver. Since that day, her account has steadily increased. Often I was sent her new account a day or two before a hearing, knowing that while her account is still active, no other lawyer can be paid by Legal Services, and getting representation is nie on impossible.
Knew that the other party was planning an overseas holiday and did not inform me. The other party had agreed to a Non-Removal Order, and just weeks later purchased airline tickets without consultation with me. On Saturday 22 May 2004, during the weekend prior to the Monday 24 May Judicial Conference, I received a letter written by Mary Williamson to Liz Jamieson. The letter stated that her client wished to use the conference to discuss her holiday to Vietnam, which “I discussed with you some time ago”. Liz Jamieson knew that the mother had bought tickets and was planning to travel, but did not pass this important information on, and indeed kept it from me until a point when it was impossible to seek further advice or even discuss it with my own lawyer before the court appearance.
Showed a serious lack of respect for and interest in her own client. She would often argue in favour of Mary Williamson’s client, and meetings with her (even those where an appointment was made sometime in advance) were extremely brief, and often I had the feeling she was chasing me out the door. The same applied to telephone calls. No telephone call went longer than a few minutes, because she would become rude, and at least twice she hung up while I was still speaking. As stated earlier, the only positive and professional step made by Liz Jamieson was the Non-Removal Order, which the other party had agreed to anyway. To send a bill to Legal Services for withholding information from me and destroying my case is outrageous. Liz Jamieson’s actions have caused serious damage to my case, and although the amount and manner of her charges require investigation, it is her withholding of affidavits and information that is more serious.
As a footnote, I was able to get a draft copy of the Judges minutes of 24 May 2004. The Court Order was said to be a Consent Agreement. I was able to get a draft copy of the Judges minutes, which stated that there would be a review 6 months later, in time to organise Christmas holiday access. However, Liz Jamieson told me that Mary Williamson was “canvassing” the courts to make to court order final. I thought this was ridiculous because it was a consent agreement. However, before the court order even arrived I received an affidavit which stated that the order was “final until our son is 16”, and when the Court Order arrived, sure enough the review had been removed.
Parliament can not receive my submission for an enquiry into the Family Court because I have described this as “corruption”. If any one can describe this in any other legal term, please do so.
I have written to the Waikato Law Society about the actions of Liz Jamieson and Mary Williamson, but nothing was done. Perhaps that is because Liz Jamieson is the President of the Society. Go figure!
Awesome site!
I wish to have publicised, the behaviours and procedures of my former legal representative, Liz Jamieson (Norris Ward McKinnon). Her behaviour, particularly with respect to her collaboration with and assistance to my x-partner’s barrister, Mary Williamson, has caused serious damage to my case, and was one of the prime reasons why the media became involved in my Family Court case in September 2004.
Below are details of some of the behaviours/actions which I believe were inappropriate at the least.
Liz Jamieson;
-Did not provide me with a copy of the other party’s first affidavit when she first received it. Approximately five weeks after I applied for interim custody I rang the courts and was told that my application was unsuccessful. I couldn’t understand how I could fail since the other party hadn’t responded. I went to Liz Jamieson’s office with a witness, and asked “how could I possibly fail if the mother didn’t respond?” Liz Jamieson said “she did respond, didn’t I send you a copy … I’ll get one now”. Liz Jamieson photocopied the affidavit for me, but did not give it to me complete, because the front cover and covering documents were missing. Since the affidavit was full of lies, and I was unable to respond, then the Courts were misled by Liz Jamieson’s actions.
-Would not follow my instructions which were to respond to the above affidavit.
Provided me with inappropriate/misleading advice; saying that I should not respond to the above affidavit. The affidavit was full of lies which she referred to as “pork pies” and told me this was commonplace in Family Court proceedings and to just ignore them.
Providing me with inappropriate/misleading advice. I asked Liz Jamieson about seeking a counsel for child, but she simply said “not necessary”. I have since been told that Counsel for Child should have been appointed from day one, since our child was a baby.
Not ensuring or encouraging the implementation of the interim access agreement made by both parties. Both parties met at the offices of Norris Ward McKinnon for a conference to sort out an access agreement. The agreement was forthcoming, and I believed that both parties showed good faith. However, the agreement was never implemented, and Liz Jamieson has never sent any written advice to either party which clearly set out the details of the agreement. It took many months to get access even close to what was in the agreement, yet the mother said in court that the agreement was implemented immediately. Liz Jamieson said nothing about this in court. I was required to make weekly telephone calls to find out what the access arrangements were, even though we had an agreement. Liz Jamieson was advantaged by not following up on the agreement, because these weekly telephone calls could be charged (and they were).
Did not show up for Court fixtures. The Principle Family Court Judge, Peter Boshier, recently sent me a Chronology of Events of my case, prepared in the Hamilton family Court. It showed that there were 2 (two) court dates set during the first months of separation, yet neither Liz Jamieson nor Mary Williamson showed on either date. This was the period of time during which I was forced to phone Jamieson weekly about access, and when I repeatedly asked her to have our access agreement enforced by a Judge.
Did not serve my affidavits (in support of my Custody Application etc) on the other party, after telling me that she would after reading them and attached a disclaimer stating she did not prepare them herself. I prepared the affidavits myself because she refused to, and it was import to my case that the courts were not misled about the true nature of our relationship break up and my primary role in our son’s care.
Did not inform me that the above affidavits had not been served prior to a hearing during which she knew that Custody would be dealt with.
Did not adequately prepare for the 24 May Judicial Conference. Without my affidavits being served, I was completely undefended and without any evidence to support my case. In court Liz Jamieson did not raise any points that I had discussed with her in relation to custody and access, and I was horrified to find out that custody was dealt with at all. I had asked Liz Jamieson to arrange a court conference so that our access agreement could be finally implemented and enforceable by the courts. Liz Jamieson did not inform me until less than 48 hours beforehand that custody would be dealt with instead of just access. The letter was posted on the Friday before the Monday morning conference. More seriously, since she knew that my affidavits had not been served on the other party, she put me (her own client) in a very difficult position in which I couldn’t possible be successful.
During the 24 May conference, I raised my hand and said to the Judge “I have some questions”. The Judge would not talk top me directly, and instead asked Liz Jamieson what I want to Know. I had written a list of questions, and told Liz Jamieson I was concerned about the word “Custody” being used by the Judge, since we were only meant to sort out access, and nothing relating to my role in our son’s care was even discussed. Liz Jamieson refused to raise my concerns, which led to us having an argument outside. The result was that the Judge ordered Shared Parenting, but not before reducing the contact between my son and I.
Did not follow my instructions. Immediately after the 24 May conference I asked Jamieson to go back into the Courts and explain to Judge that I was misled about the nature of the conference and that Custody was not supposed to be dealt with at all. Jamieson instead wrote to the Courts on 26 May stating that I had misunderstood the proceedings and that she and Mary Williamson would try to avoid having a defended hearing. I specifically said two days earlier that a defended hearing was now my only realistic chance of getting custody or at least equal share parenting.
Continued billing. Liz Jamieson has not been my representative since mid 2004. After a discussion outside the Family Court on 24 May 2004, I realised that having Liz Jamieson as my lawyer had seriously damaged any chance of my son returning to his home and primary caregiver. Since that day, her account has steadily increased. Often I was sent her new account a day or two before a hearing, knowing that while her account is still active, no other lawyer can be paid by Legal Services, and getting representation is nie on impossible.
Knew that the other party was planning an overseas holiday and did not inform me. The other party had agreed to a Non-Removal Order, and just weeks later purchased airline tickets without consultation with me. On Saturday 22 May 2004, during the weekend prior to the Monday 24 May Judicial Conference, I received a letter written by Mary Williamson to Liz Jamieson. The letter stated that her client wished to use the conference to discuss her holiday to Vietnam, which “I discussed with you some time ago”. Liz Jamieson knew that the mother had bought tickets and was planning to travel, but did not pass this important information on, and indeed kept it from me until a point when it was impossible to seek further advice or even discuss it with my own lawyer before the court appearance.
Showed a serious lack of respect for and interest in her own client. She would often argue in favour of Mary Williamson’s client, and meetings with her (even those where an appointment was made sometime in advance) were extremely brief, and often I had the feeling she was chasing me out the door. The same applied to telephone calls. No telephone call went longer than a few minutes, because she would become rude, and at least twice she hung up while I was still speaking. As stated earlier, the only positive and professional step made by Liz Jamieson was the Non-Removal Order, which the other party had agreed to anyway. To send a bill to Legal Services for withholding information from me and destroying my case is outrageous. Liz Jamieson’s actions have caused serious damage to my case, and although the amount and manner of her charges require investigation, it is her withholding of affidavits and information that is more serious.
As a footnote, I was able to get a draft copy of the Judges minutes of 24 May 2004. The Court Order was said to be a Consent Agreement. I was able to get a draft copy of the Judges minutes, which stated that there would be a review 6 months later, in time to organise Christmas holiday access. However, Liz Jamieson told me that Mary Williamson was “canvassing” the courts to make to court order final. I thought this was ridiculous because it was a consent agreement. However, before the court order even arrived I received an affidavit which stated that the order was “final until our son is 16”, and when the Court Order arrived, sure enough the review had been removed.
Parliament can not receive my submission for an enquiry into the Family Court because I have described this as “corruption”. If any one can describe this in any other legal term, please do so.
I have written to the Waikato Law Society about the actions of Liz Jamieson and Mary Williamson, but nothing was done. Perhaps that is because Liz Jamieson is the President of the Society. Go figure!
Awesome site!
Lawyers work for themselves, not their clients.
Unfortunately in the confines of the Family Courts, this appears to be tragically true. We say tragically because in this adversarial arena so many children are denied their birthright, equal parenting. Opposing parties are actively encouraged by their lawyers to enter a war zone and embark upon bitter battles. So many lawyers engage in blatantly shady practices; so many lawyersuse all their cunning and tricks of the trade to protract proceedings designed to relieve their clients of any spare cash they might have.In the worst scenarios defeated and exhausted protagonists deprived of their children (family) jobs, homes, careers, their lives in utter ruins, contribute to the statistics of stress related diseases, heart problems, cancer etc., or even to the worrying suicide rate of males.We will say no more. You can take it from here, and name and shame those who deserve to be named and shamed.
by LAWGATE NEW ZEALAND
4:13:00 AM
by LAWGATE NEW ZEALAND
4:13:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
