PDA

View Full Version : Judicial conduct checking mechanism?



FairHearing
10-02-2016, 05:50 PM
In this post (https://newzealandjustice.com/showthread.php?118-Koyama-v-New-Zealand-Law-Society-Violation-of-some-constitutional-principles&p=6603&viewfull=1#post6603), Q.C. wrote:


There is no "lack of checking mechanisms", as we have the Judicial Conduct Commissioner...Act 2004

However, s 8(2) of the Act says:


It is not a function of the Commissioner to challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of any instruction, direction, order, judgment, or other decision given or made by a Judge in relation to any legal proceedings.

In fact, the above section seems to be the most common pretext for dismissal of complaints.

Let's say that we have a decision of the Supreme Court were the judges knowingly (or in the best case, recklessly or due to their mental incapacity) made false statements. When that was squarely put to those judges in a subsequent recusal application, the judges refused to recuse, saying in their judgment that the recusal application was meritless. Of course, the judges entirely omitted the allegations.

It would seem to me that such conduct (firstly, making false statements, and then effectively whitewashing that) indicates the lack of integrity. It would therefore make a good complaint to JCC. However, pursuant to s 8(2), JCC has no jurisdiction to consider it.

So what "checking mechanism" would be in that case?

Q. C.
10-02-2016, 07:30 PM
In this post (https://newzealandjustice.com/showthread.php?118-Koyama-v-New-Zealand-Law-Society-Violation-of-some-constitutional-principles&p=6603&viewfull=1#post6603), Q.C. wrote:



However, s 8(2) of the Act says:



In fact, the above section seems to be the most common pretext for dismissal of complaints.

Let's say that we have a decision of the Supreme Court were the judges knowingly (or in the best case, recklessly or due to their mental incapacity) made false statements. When that was squarely put to those judges in a subsequent recusal application, the judges refused to recuse, saying in their judgment that the recusal application was meritless. Of course, the judges entirely omitted the allegations.

It would seem to me that such conduct (firstly, making false statements, and then effectively whitewashing that) indicates the lack of integrity. It would therefore make a good complaint to JCC. However, pursuant to s 8(2), JCC has no jurisdiction to consider it.

So what "checking mechanism" would be in that case?

FairHearing: If we had a JCC with integrity the "checking mechanism" is the JCC's right under the Act to determine if a Judge’s approach to, and conclusions upon, the issues before him are so wholly divorced from sense and logic, and if so, that gives rise to an issue of incompetence, amounting to incapacity.

Such resulting incapacity, if confirmed, is an issue of conduct, which falls within the JCC's function.

So your example would be covered by that ability of a JCC to deal with apparent incompetence. But as the previous Commissioner and the current Commissioner have no integrity, anything useful in the Act is irrelevant. Incompetence and/or corrupt decisions have immunity from the JCC.

Q. C.
11-02-2016, 11:38 AM
FairHearing: If we had a JCC with integrity the "checking mechanism" is the JCC's right under the Act to determine if a Judge’s approach to, and conclusions upon, the issues before him are so wholly divorced from sense and logic, and if so, that gives rise to an issue of incompetence, amounting to incapacity.

Such resulting incapacity, if confirmed, is an issue of conduct, which falls within the JCC's function.

So your example would be covered by that ability of a JCC to deal with apparent incompetence. But as the previous Commissioner and the current Commissioner have no integrity, anything useful in the Act is irrelevant. Incompetence and/or corrupt decisions have immunity from the JCC.

FairHearing: On this topic I refer you to A-G v Chapman SC120/2009 [2011] NZSC 110, where Richardson J’s decision at [163] states:

“…the nature and degree of the wrongful conduct may take the acts of the Judge outside jurisdiction. The proper exercise of judicial responsibility requires that the Judge act with integrity and competence…In extreme circumstances the Judge’s conduct may be so egregiously overstep the mark as to take the resulting decision beyond any colour of authority. While purporting to act in a judicial capacity a Judge who acts in bad faith or is grossly careless or indifferent to the performance of responsibilities can properly be characterized as acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction."

But, does our Supreme Court practice what it preaches?

FairHearing
11-02-2016, 07:30 PM
Let's say I'm a JCC of absolute integrity. I have a complaint that alleges prima facie false statements made in a judgment. I checked the judgment and I can see that the judge knowingly made false statements. But I can also see myself writing as follows:



19. However, section 8(2) of the Act places an important limit on my jurisdiction. It expressly provides that it is not a function of the Commissioner to: "challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of any instruction, direction, order, judgment, or other decision given or made by a Judge in relation to any legal proceedings".
20. Section 8(2) is in broad terms. It applies to decisions on the substantive merits of proceedings before a Court. It includes interlocutory rulings as well as final judgments. It also covers any other direction, instruction, order or decision by a Judge of a procedural or administrative nature relating to the proceedings in question.
21. The provision does not allow me, as Commissioner, to question whether a decision is justified or the correctness of the Judge's reasoning. It also means that I cannot question the factual or legal accuracy of a decision or any part of a decision.
22. In summary, my jurisdiction to consider complaints about a Judge's conduct does not enable me to question the legality and correctness of judicial decisions.
...
25. ...However, in order to consider whether [the complainant's] complaints are or might be justified, I would need to examine the judgments of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and assess whether or not the judgments were incorrect in the ways alleged by [the complainant]. Again, because of section 8(2) of the Act, that is something that I cannot do.


The above is an excerpt from a recent decision of Mr Alan Ritchie, the new JCC. I cannot say, based on the above decision alone, that Mr Ritchie lacks integrity. Based on the plain wording of the Act, it seems to me that the JCC indeed doesn't have the jurisdiction. Of course, on a judicial review, the High Court could find that the Parliament didn't mean exactly that, and in some cases JCC could examine a judicial decision, but in my view, such a finding would be overstretch. At least, it's debatable. Anyway, there have been judicial reviews, and the High Court said that the wording of the Act has the same meaning it conveys at the first glance: judicial decisions are out of bounds.

My point is, there is no proper checking mechanisms. I think that the JCC and the Human Rights Tribunal Acts are deliberately worded in a way to relieve NZ judges from any accountability in relation to their decisions. JCC can investigate judges scratching cars, masturbating in public and so on. But JCC cannot do anything when the judges orders, for example, the sun not to rise tomorrow because the sun has maliciously burnt crops at the Chief Justice's farm. That's New Zealand law as it stands.

Q. C.
11-02-2016, 08:38 PM
Let's say I'm a JCC of absolute integrity. I have a complaint that alleges prima facie false statements made in a judgment. I checked the judgment and I can see that the judge knowingly made false statements. But I can also see myself writing as follows:...

My point is, there is no proper checking mechanisms. I think that the JCC and the Human Rights Tribunal Acts are deliberately worded in a way to relieve NZ judges from any accountability in relation to their decisions. JCC can investigate judges scratching cars, masturbating in public and so on. But JCC cannot do anything when the judges orders, for example, the sun not to rise tomorrow because the sun has maliciously burnt crops at the Chief Justice's farm. That's New Zealand law as it stands.

FairHearing: The issue you refer to is a 'conduct' issue, which a JCC with integrity knows he can investigate and rule on.

I quote from the former JCC's letter of 11 June 2013:

“If it became apparent to me that a Judge’s approach to and conclusion upon the issues was wholly divorced from sense and logic, then that could conceivably give rise to a claim of incompetence, amounting to incapacity. And that maybe seen as an issue of conduct.”

If it is an issue of corruption a JCC with integrity can investigate and rule on it. I quote from the current JCC's Office's email of 4 August 2015:

"The Commissioner's view is that if a Judge were knowingly to break the law, then that may, depending on the circumstances, lead to the Commissioner taking action in respect of that Judge under the Act."

But we have systemic corruption so no laws have any influence on those corrupt decision makers, for example the JCC's.

Also read the JCC's report to Parliament. He states he has received complaints about judges being corrupt in their decisions, but, on investigation, he could not find any evidence whatsoever of such conduct.

Clearly the JCC Act gives the powers necessary to consider judgments against an issue of conduct, and the JCC knows that. That is not challenging the decision, that is dealing with inappropriate conduct, which is a JCC's function.

Remember; a corrupt decision or a decision from an incompetent Judge cannot be a judicial decision. By its nature it must be a 'nullity' in the eyes of the law. So s.8 of the JCC Act is avoidable in that circumstance, by virtue of the JCC finding corruption or incompetence.

FairHearing
11-02-2016, 09:26 PM
Remember; a corrupt decision or a decision from an incompetent Judge cannot be a judicial decision.

I agree with you. But based on the plain wording of the Act, the JCC cannot question a decision, so he cannot rule that the decision is not "judicial".


I quote from the former JCC's letter of 11 June 2013: “If it became apparent to me that a Judge’s approach to and conclusion upon the issues was wholly divorced from sense and logic, then that could conceivably give rise to a claim of incompetence, amounting to incapacity. And that maybe seen as an issue of conduct.”

The above is merely the JCC's opinion. It's not the law. I'm curious, what was the conclusion on the judicial review of the above?

As I pointed out in my previous post, the Act can be legitimately construed either way, with the first-choice meaning is that it excludes all judicial decisions absolutely. When convenient, the JCC can consider the correctness of a judicial decision. When necessary, the JCC can apply the literal meaning and say he has no jurisdiction. One wouldn't know as to the JCC's integrity unless they compare three decisions (after all, the JCC can change his understanding of the law - I'd expect, once). In any case, whatever the JCC decides, the HC on a judicial review can turn it whatever way they want. To my knowledge, the current law is the literal meaning.

So, as the hypothetical JCC of absolute integrity, I personally think that the Act allows me to question judicial decisions when the judge's conduct is in issue. But the HC case law says that I cannot. So I have to follow what the HC says, because it's the court's role to interpret the law. And I honestly think the HC was legally entitled to rule that way (whether it was ethical is a different, and for all practical purposes irrelevant, question).

Of course, I agree with you that the law has no meaning when it's applied by those who lacks integrity. But my narrow point is that the JCC Act is flawed, which allows judicial decisions to be absolutely, and lawfully, excluded from its jurisdiction. The JCC's integrity is a different issue.

Q. C.
12-02-2016, 06:50 AM
... So I have to follow what the HC says, because it's the court's role to interpret the law. And I honestly think the HC was legally entitled to rule that way (whether it was ethical is a different, and for all practical purposes irrelevant, question)....

FairHearing: Before I comment - What HC case are you referring to?

FairHearing
12-02-2016, 11:58 PM
FairHearing: Before I comment - What HC case are you referring to?

For example, [2013] NZHC 1655 (https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/67/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/3b5e1185-5347-4df4-be8b-beb3db0bb727/3b5e1185-5347-4df4-be8b-beb3db0bb727.pdf) at [8]-[12] in particular, [2013] NZHC 1853 (https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/83/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/12e58ce3-55ab-4a17-921d-76e3ac46b3b0/12e58ce3-55ab-4a17-921d-76e3ac46b3b0.pdf) and others - search judicial decisions online (https://forms.justice.govt.nz/jdo/Search.jsp) for the exact phrase "function of the Commissioner to challenge".

I didn't analyse the judgments in detail, only skimmed them, but their direction seems to be clear.

Q. C.
13-02-2016, 06:38 AM
For example, [2013] NZHC 1655 (https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/67/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/3b5e1185-5347-4df4-be8b-beb3db0bb727/3b5e1185-5347-4df4-be8b-beb3db0bb727.pdf) at [8]-[12] in particular, [2013] NZHC 1853 (https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/83/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/12e58ce3-55ab-4a17-921d-76e3ac46b3b0/12e58ce3-55ab-4a17-921d-76e3ac46b3b0.pdf) and others - search judicial decisions online (https://forms.justice.govt.nz/jdo/Search.jsp) for the exact phrase "function of the Commissioner to challenge".

I didn't analyse the judgments in detail, only skimmed them, but their direction seems to be clear.

From reading the judgments it would appear, if they record the facts and issues correctly, that all is in order. However, the issues raised in these proceedings appear to be about systemic judicial and JCC corruption, therefore the accuracy and honestly within the judgments maybe an issue. Systemic judicial corruption usually has that outcome of; you cannot believe the decision.

What is more likely is that the complaints to the JCC were not about "conduct", but about the individual judges getting it wrong in their decision by not recording the correct facts or issues. Generally speaking most complaints are incorrectly worded so that they challenge the judicial decision rather than challenging the "conduct". Thus giving the JCC direct access to s. 8(2) to escape.

Those two types of complaints are completely different.

With a 'conduct' complaint about, say, judicial corruption or gross incompetence the JCC cannot use s. 8(2). What he does is completely different. He decides that the complaint has provided "no real or persuasive evidence" in support of the allegation [which will be totally incorrect, if that type of conduct did occur] and dismisses the complaint under s. 16(1)(d) as "the complaint is frivolous or not in good faith" .

On Judicial Review of the JCC's decision none of those arguments, or the actual facts, showing the irrefutable facts are completely opposite to the original judicial decision (thus the conduct of corruption or gross incompetence occurred), will be recorded in the Judicial Review judgment. Thus the JCC will successfully have the Judicial Review struck out.

That is simply a fact on how systemic judicial and executive corruption works and how it is maintained.

What is pleasing about that 'conduct complaint' process is that they (the judges and JCC) all have to blatantly lie in their decisions, so they can then hid behind legislation. Rather than under the other complain type, where they can directly hid behind legislation, that is s.8.

Game, set and match you plebs of New Zealand, say the judges, A-G and JCC

FairHearing
13-02-2016, 04:37 PM
What is pleasing about that 'conduct complaint' process is that they (the judges and JCC) all have to blatantly lie in their decisions, so they can then hid behind legislation. Rather than under the other complain type, where they can directly hid behind legislation, that is s.8.

I agree with all what you said in your previous post, except of the above quote. In my view, s8 helps to create the impression of legitimacy in both cases. E.g., one recent complaint said: "I do not seek to challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of any judicial decision. My complaint is solely focused on the Judges’ misconduct described above, irrespective of whether the Supreme Court was correct in refusing to hear the proposed appeal." In his decision, the JCC wrote: "[The complainant] submitted that the subject matter of his complaints raised questions of judicial integrity and reputation that did not involve a challenge to the legality or correctness of any judicial decision... ...However, in order to consider whether [the complainant's] complaints are or might be justified, I would need to examine the judgments of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and assess whether or not the judgments were incorrect in the ways alleged by [the complainant]. Again, because of section 8(2) of the Act, that is something that I cannot do".

So I can say in my complaint that I challenge the conduct, not the decision. But the JCC will say either (a) he will have to examine the correctness of the decision to make a finding as to [mis]conduct, or (b) if he finds that the judge has misconducted himself, this will inevitably, albeit indirectly, raise a question as to the legality of the judge's decision (just as you said in your post); therefore, s8 applies.

On a subsequent judicial review, I can say that as long as the JCC does not make express findings as to the legality or correctness of the decision itself (e.g., "the judgment wrongly states that..." as opposed to "in his judgment, the judge knowingly made a false statement that..."), then he is in compliance with s8. I will say that the consequences of the judicial misconduct, such as the potential illegality of the judgment, are of no concern to the JCC and do not fall under s8. But the judge in my judicial review will say I am wrong. He will say Parliament's intention was to prevent the JCC from interfering with judgments in any way, including indirectly. Of course, it will be expressed in a more politically correct way, but to that effect.

What can be done is, once the JCC found he has no jurisdiction, the complaint can be forwarded to the head of the appropriate court (say, to the Chief Justice). Once the latter fails to take an appropriate action, a second complaint can be filed, now about CJ, to the effect that CJ has improperly dealt with the first complaint. Clearly, s8 would not apply. Of course, the outcome will then depend on the JCC's integrity. Now they will have to blatantly lie to dismiss it. Not a big deal.

Q. C.
15-02-2016, 12:01 PM
... My complaint is solely focused on the Judges’ misconduct described above, irrespective of whether the Supreme Court was correct in refusing to hear the proposed appeal." In his decision, the JCC wrote: "[The complainant] submitted that the subject matter of his complaints raised questions of judicial integrity and reputation that did not involve a challenge to the legality or correctness of any judicial decision... ...However, in order to consider whether [the complainant's] complaints are or might be justified, I would need to examine the judgments of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and assess whether or not the judgments were incorrect in the ways alleged by [the complainant]. Again, because of section 8(2) of the Act, that is something that I cannot do"....

If your complaint was dealt with by the current Commissioner, I quote below the full text of emails to and from the JCC's Office"

"Mr. Duffy

I am totally confused by the Commissioner's decision, and attach my original complaint letters for reference. [The complaint was about gross incompetence or alternatively corruption]

Using the Commissioner's logic - if a judge records in a judicial decision that they are going to break the law, or break the law by the decisions contents itself, that breaking of the law is not something the Commissioner can consider under the Act, as the allege criminal act is part of a judicial decision.

Please confirm my understanding is correct of the Commissioner's logic, so I need not bother him with future complaints.

Reply was:

Dear Sir

The Commissioner has asked me to respond to your email, sent yesterday, as follows:

The Commissioner's view is that if a Judge were knowingly to break the law, then that may, depending on the circumstances, lead to the Commissioner taking action in respect of that Judge under the Act.

However, the Commissioner considers that your stated "understanding of [his] logic", as you have set it out, breaks down, as he takes the view that the Judges whom you have complained about have not, in any sense, broken the law.


The above requires the Commissioner to consider the judicial decision against the facts to reach that conclusion - that there was no law breaking by the judges [which was in itself incorrect - they did break the law - being corrupt is a law breaking exercise].

The only other way to determine if the judge is corrupt or not is for the JCC to get into the judges mind - which I understand is impossible. So logically we are left with the common sense approach under the Act - compare the judicial decision against what an honest judge with integrity would have decided judicially about the facts - that is a hypothetical legitimate decision. Parliament could not have been more logical in its intent in passing the Act

If it is the same Commissioner maybe you should ask him to explain his inconsistency in 'policy' on how he interprets the Act.

FairHearing
15-02-2016, 08:37 PM
The Commissioner's view is that if a Judge were knowingly to break the law, then that may, depending on the circumstances, lead to the Commissioner taking action in respect of that Judge under the Act.

As far as I can apply the above to the complaint mentioned in my post, the JCC wasn't able to reach any view on that complaint as it required him, purportedly, to examine correctness of the decision, which he "couldn't do". In practical terms, that outcome is marginally better than a blatant lie to the effect that there was nothing suggesting corruption on the alleged facts of the complaint (what seems to have been said in your case). Frankly, I can understand the JCC. Given the facts alleged and the number and the names of the judges involved, any person in his shoes would be extremely reluctant to stick his head out, for his own safety's sake.


[The JCC] takes the view that the Judges whom you have complained about have not, in any sense, broken the law

As far as I understand, the JCC effectively said that he examined your complaint and found that "the Judges have not in any sense broken the law". In other words, the JCC said that regardless of his policy your complaint was bound to fail. I cannot really comment on this (apart from that s8 doesn't seem to apply to your case) as I don't know what was alleged and what was decided.

Are you saying that the JCC went ahead and examined the correctness of a judicial decision in your case, i.e. compared what you alleged with what the decision said?

Q. C.
15-02-2016, 09:25 PM
...Are you saying that the JCC went ahead and examined the correctness of a judicial decision in your case, i.e. compared what you alleged with what the decision said?

Yes, how else could the JCC conclude that I provided "no real or persuasive evidence" that the judge was corrupt in writing such a falsified judicial decision.

The allegation being that the Judge falsified his decision on material facts to achieve an outcome. A simple comparison of the material facts against the decision saying what those facts were - [they were the exact opposites]. Apparently that is not "real or persuasive evidence" of a corrupt act of the Judge under the Act, according to the JCC.

FairHearing
15-02-2016, 11:24 PM
I assume the "material facts" weren't disputed by the other party, were they? Did the facts relate to the merits of the case or to the procedure? Did you appeal? Was it in HC, COA, SC?

In one of my cases, the HC judge cherry-picked one argument out of a number of arguments contained in a costs memorandum, dismissed it, and wrote in the judgement that "no other arguments were advanced". Was it something similar in your case?

Q. C.
16-02-2016, 09:27 AM
I assume the "material facts" weren't disputed by the other party, were they? Did the facts relate to the merits of the case or to the procedure? Did you appeal? Was it in HC, COA, SC?...

The “material facts” are two affidavits filed by the Crown’s Councils: in brief:

1. The Plaintiff (the Crown) claimed a document was in an earlier High Court proceedings evidence file and that that document was considered by the CoA and SC, therefore the High Court should find for the Plaintiff in the new proceedings.
2. The Defendant (me) claimed there was no such document in the earlier High Court evidence file and the CoA and SC did not address that matter, therefore the High Court should find in the Defendant’s favour.
3. Pre hearing the Defendant ask for discovery of the Document and matters relating to it.
4. The High Court ordered discovery on the Plaintiff (the Crown) - to file affidavits producing the document or its copy; and if not in their possession to explain its whereabouts (as the Court and Plaintiff accepted the Document was not in the original High Court’s evidence file).
5. The Plaintiff’s former Councils file two affidavits as discovery in support of their case and the discovery order. Neither affidavit attached any documents as discovery and between them advised the Court in the affidavits that they had never possessed the document (or its copy) and never filed it into the original High Court proceedings [which was their responsibility].

6. The High Court ruled in the Plaintiff,s favour - on the basis that one of the discovery affidavits attached two bundles of documents in response to the discovery order and in support of the Plaintiffs case and that other affidavit explained the whereabouts of the document in the original High Court file, thus the CoA and SC had also considered the document.
7. The CoA blocked the appeal on the basis there was no merit in the allegation that the High Court recorded incorrect facts about the two discovery affidavits contents.
8. Because of the carful wording in the CoA decision, it was open to the SC to decide it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, which is what it ruled.

The “material facts” (the Crown affidavits) do not reconcile with the judicial decisions of the Judges.

Therefore the JCC had to decide whether the Judges of the High Court and CoA were:
1. Grossly incompetent; or
2. Corrupt, by what the decision achieved for others.

He decided I had provided “no real and persuasive evidence” of the allegations made against the Judges, even though the JCC had the judicial decisions and the two Crown discovery affidavits.

FairHearing
16-02-2016, 10:18 AM
As far as I got it,

1) In compliance with a HC discovery order, Plaintiff filed two affidavits which had no any exhibits attached. The HC falsely claimed that the affidavits had two bundles attached as exhibits.

2) The Court and Plaintiff accepted (how?) the Document was not in the original High Court’s evidence file. Also, Plaintiff in their affidavits stated "they had never possessed the Document (or its copy) and never filed it into the original High Court proceedings". The HC falsely (?) said that "[one] affidavit explained the whereabouts of the document in the original High Court file" (I presume you are saying this was supposed to mean that the Document had been in the original High Court’s evidence file, unless under "the whereabouts" the HC meant "the lack of").

Is my understanding correct?

Q. C.
16-02-2016, 10:51 AM
...1) In compliance with a HC discovery order, Plaintiff filed two affidavits which had no any exhibits attached. The HC falsely claimed that the affidavits had two bundles attached as exhibits.

2) The Court and Plaintiff accepted (how?) the Document was not in the original High Court’s evidence file. Also, Plaintiff in their affidavits stated "they had never possessed the Document (or its copy) and never filed it into the original High Court proceedings". The HC falsely (?) said that "[one] affidavit explained the whereabouts of the document in the original High Court file" (I presume you are saying this was supposed to mean that the Document had been in the original High Court’s evidence file, unless under "the whereabouts" the HC meant "the lack of").

Is my understanding correct?

Almost:

In relation to your reference 1: The HC falsely claimed that one affidavit attached two bundles as exhibits and that the other affidavit [again without exhibits] simply referred to the whereabouts of the document in the original HC file.

In relation to your 2: How was it accepted that the document was missing? In open Court, at the discovery hearing, the Plaintiff's Counsel accepted that the Plaintiff's previous Counsel in another earlier and separate hearing (an Injunction hearing) had agreed the document was "missing" from the file [as recorded in that judgment] and that was accepted by that Court. Counsel at the discovery hearing agreed discovery was in order as he accepted the document was still missing: and

"the whereabouts"? The affidavit stated that he did not tender the document to the original HC [which was his responsibility at that original hearing]. The HC's "whereabouts" could only be interpreted from the affidavit that it was not tendered and not in evidence, which is not what the judicial decision found, it found the opposite based on what the Court recorded as to what those affidavits discovered and swore 'the falsification' - the document was always in evidence and therefore considered in the original HC proceeding.

FairHearing
16-02-2016, 12:30 PM
What you described seems typical NZ "justice" to me. But since we are talking about the JCC, how did he address your claim #1? Have you expressly claimed that the judge knowingly or recklessly made a false statement regarding bundles?

Q. C.
16-02-2016, 04:08 PM
... But since we are talking about the JCC, how did he address your claim #1? Have you expressly claimed that the judge knowingly or recklessly made a false statement regarding bundles?

The complaint to the JCC was about breach of judicial oath, claiming:

"The breach of Oath is evident by their perversion of the cause of justice in the following manner in their decision... The common thread in all the below paragraphs, is that in each case rather than recording the facts, they perverted justice and by lack of transparency the reader of their opinion, by deliberately recording material false facts and omitting material facts:

At [12] they stated for the readers, and justice, perversion that the...1st Crown... affidavit attached two bound volumes of documents in response to Justice Lang’s discovery order...

...Nothing could be more remote from the truth. As the affidavit...Attached no documents, let alone two bound volumes....it Swore at its paragraph 5 that they never... have “ever had such a document in its possession”. Swore at its paragraph 6 they...neither “hold, nor has ever held, a copy of the Document.

The Judges knew they could not record the truth, as it would conflict with their desired decision at [87], where they ruled that the Document went into evidence [from the Crown].


5 or 6 further material false facts or omissions in the judicial decision were quoted to the JCC and compared to the actual documentary facts (all third party produced documentary facts were provided to the JCC).

The JCC addressed the complaint by ruling that the High Courts own produced documents and the affidavits of the Crown Counsels, that conflict with the judicial decision, are not "real and persuasive evidence" in support of the allegation against the judges.

FairHearing
16-02-2016, 06:13 PM
The JCC addressed the complaint by ruling that the High Courts own produced documents and the affidavits of the Crown Counsels, that conflict with the judicial decision, are not "real and persuasive evidence" in support of the allegation against the judges.

Hmm... It appears that the JCC was "not open to persuasion" (i.e., was actually biased). I am curious what kind of evidence he considers "real" and what his criteria of "persuasiveness" are. They sound like entirely subjective terms.

Q. C.
16-02-2016, 07:57 PM
... I am curious what kind of evidence he considers "real" and what his criteria of "persuasiveness" are...

I have no idea. I know the affidavits are documents, as were the judges judicial decisions, which all therefore qualify as being "real". They are 'evidence' because they were presented to the JCC as such. They were persuasive to anyone with integrity, as the "real" affidavits contents totally conflicted with the judges "real" judicial decisions on what were the contents of those affidavits.

So the JCC's criteria for "persuasiveness" must be limited to when he has no choice but to accept the evidence as real and persuasive (because of unfortunate and already existing public exposure of judicial corruption or conflicts of interests). Which to date has only occurred in the Justice Wilson case.

FairHearing for your information I quote below from the JCC's letter of 11 June 2013, which shows the JCC can consider judicial decisions when dealing with a complaint on a judge's conduct.

"In the course of considering these complaints I have considered the material provided by you and also each of the decisions, Minutes and directions associated with these complaints. I have not considered those decisions, Minutes or directions in order to consider the legality or correctness of them (for that is beyond my jurisdiction) but rather to determine if your complaint as to the Judges' conduct has any validity."

Dixpat
17-02-2016, 07:56 AM
It is a pleasure reading a worthwhile discussion on the forum instead of the normal postings by a misguided member

Question: Are the JCC's decisions subject to Judicial review if the complaint chose to do so?

If they were I guess it would be problematical whether that would be worthwhile given the reason for the initial complaint!

Q. C.
17-02-2016, 09:10 AM
....Question: Are the JCC's decisions subject to Judicial review if the complaint chose to do so?

If they were I guess it would be problematical whether that would be worthwhile given the reason for the initial complaint!

Yes - JCC's decisions are reviewable. On Judicial Review you are asking another Judge whether the JCC made an error in not appointing a panel to investigate removing a fellow judge or some other lesser reprimand.

Given that NZ has systemic corruption within the judiciary it is unlikely an honest judge would break ranks. So a strike out ruling on the Judicial Review is inevitable.

In one recent Judicial Review proceeding the Judge, who was complained about to the JCC and which the JCC made a decision on, refused to recuse himself from considering the Judicial Review on why the JCC had not sanction him in some way (and of course that Judge squashed the Judicial Review).

That is 'ruling in your own cause'. A conduct that is unacceptable under the rule of law and has been so for about 300 to 400 years.

However, such conduct is totally acceptable within the NZ judiciary, to the A-G, and in the eyes of the JCC, as long as the general Public plebs and Media plebs don't know about it.

FairHearing
17-02-2016, 11:44 AM
it is unlikely an honest judge would break ranks

Which means it's unlikely there's a single honest judge left in the High Court and above.

Q. C.
20-02-2016, 06:26 AM
Which means it's unlikely there's a single honest judge left in the High Court and above.

I wonder what Transparency International NZ, the Media, the Public and Parliament would think if they knew a District Court Judge is currently considering whether or not to issue a summons on the Registrar of the Supreme Court to face a charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The alleged purpose of that alleged criminal act by the Registrar being to ensure the Supreme Court Justices would never have the April 2013 filed application before them that would require the Supreme Court to consider whether there was judicial corruption on the part of Justices Cooper, Toogood and Harrison and complicit corruption and criminal contempt by others with statutory authority within our justice system.

The Registrar’s alleged criminal plan eventually failed, as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s 'forced' intervention in December 2015 ensured the Justices of the Supreme Court asked the Registrar for that application filed in April 2013, which is now before them.

The outcome from both Courts should be interesting.

To prove you proposition FairHearing - Will the District Court (a lower Court) Judge be honest and the Supreme Court Justices dishonest!!!

John "Brockovich"
25-02-2016, 12:03 PM
I wonder what Transparency International NZ, the Media, the Public and Parliament would think if they knew a District Court Judge is currently considering whether or not to issue a summons on the Registrar of the Supreme Court to face a charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice.

...The outcome from both Courts should be interesting.

To prove you proposition FairHearing - Will the District Court (a lower Court) Judge be honest and the Supreme Court Justices dishonest!!!

Q. C. and FairHearing: The District Court Judge was honest. By Direction Minute of 23 February 2016 (received today) the Judge stated the Charging Document against the Registrar of the Supreme Court "appears to comply with ss 16 and 17 of the Criminal Procedures Act 2011."

The Judge has directed that the Informant file formal statements and any exhibits referred to in the formal statements so as he, the Judge, can decide whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a summons being issued for the Registrar to appear to face the criminal charge.

Stage 2 will be simple - the exhibit evidence in support of the charge.

FairHearing
25-02-2016, 05:00 PM
I think I've met an honest DC judge. However, while I am not fluent with the criminal procedure, I'd think it's relatively easy to be honest at interlocutory stages. E.g., a judge can allow a charge to proceed with the view that it will be dismissed in substance later, or that A-G will permanently stay the criminal proceedings against judges in the interests of justice.

John "Brockovich"
25-02-2016, 07:37 PM
I think I've met an honest DC judge. However, while I am not fluent with the criminal procedure, I'd think it's relatively easy to be honest at interlocutory stages. E.g., a judge can allow a charge to proceed with the view that it will be dismissed in substance later, or that A-G will permanently stay the criminal proceedings against judges in the interests of justice.

You are generally correct on the issue of later stay of proceedings, but that off course requires a criminal act on the part of the A-G to use his statutory powers corruptly (which he would have no hesitation in doing).

However, this prosecution is not against a Judge, but the Registrar of the Supreme Court. Where the damning Exhibit evidence against the Registrar is a letter from the Supreme Court Judge to the Commissioner.

We will have to wait and see.

John "Brockovich"
27-02-2016, 09:35 AM
...However, this prosecution is not against a Judge, but the Registrar of the Supreme Court. Where the damning Exhibit evidence against the Registrar is a letter from the Supreme Court Judge to the Commissioner...

Of more importance, or serious concern, to the public, is that on complaint about the Supreme Court delay to the:

1. Minister of Justice, she stated in her letter of 26 November 2014 "I have been advised that these applications were placed before the Court in a timely manner and that they were dealt with judiciously." She refused to check her 'advice' when evidence from the Supreme Court, provided to her, recorded that the Applications had yet to be considered by the Judges of the Supreme Court (at that stage they were 2 years 1 month old). She therefore did nothing about the Registrar's conduct complaint.

2. High Courts Manager, of the Ministry of Justice, that the only possible reason for the SC delay must be the miss-conduct of the Registrar in not giving the Applications to the Judges and lying to me that he had. The Manager, Ms. Tesoriero, responded by letter of 7 July 2015 with "your applications were duly placed before judicial officers by the Registrar, and decisions by the judiciary were delivered after due consideration". She also refused to correct her letter and properly deal with the complaint about the Registrar, when provided evidence from the SC that her response was totally incorrect.

3. Ombudsman, about the Minister of Justice refusing to provide under an OIR the name of the advisor who incorrectly advised her the applications were handled in "a timely manner" and "dealt with judiciously" and what that advice was. The Ombudsman by letter of 9 December 2015 determined the Minister was right to refuse the advisors name (under harassment) and the request for a copy of the incorrect advice (as frivolous).

4. Ombudsman, about the Manager of Higher Courts not properly dealing with a complaint made to her about the conduct of the SC Registrar. The Ombudsman by letter of 29 October 2015 refused to investigate, stating "I do not have jurisdiction to investigate your concerns about the conduct of court proceedings..." That clearly incorrect interpretation of the complaint is still being reconsidered by the Ombudsman.


So we are left with a situation where the Minister of Justice letter of 26 November 2014 make her look like an 'idiot' Minister and the conduct of staff under her Ministry unchecked by her and the Ombudsman as to their misconduct, bad advice and gross incompetence.

All resulting in the absolute need for the private criminal prosecution of the Supreme Court Registrar for perverting the Supreme Court (by not providing the 2012 and 2013 Applications to the Judges) - to bring the matter to the Public's attention.

This fight has got to be better than sex!

John "Brockovich"
05-03-2016, 11:47 AM
...All resulting in the absolute need for the private criminal prosecution of the Supreme Court Registrar for perverting the Supreme Court (by not providing the 2012 and 2013 Applications to the Judges) - to bring the matter to the Public's attention....

The evidence in support of the criminal charge against the SC Registrar was provided to the Court on 3 March 2016, as per the Judges directions. The following request accompanied that documentation:

"I ask you and the Judge to deal with them on an urgent basis, as if the evidence I have provided is sufficient and admissible to provide a prima facie case to the jury, and that jury accepts that evidence, then the Registrar will be found guilty of his criminal acts as Registrar of the Supreme Court of NZ.

Given that possible scenario, the fact that those alleged criminal acts were committed over a prolonged period of time and in all probability are not an isolated incident; then the other Supreme Court litigants (that is, attempting to be litigants) and the Public would also expect urgency. As on authorisation of the summons that would stop the ongoing damage of the Registrar not presenting legitimately filed documents to the Court.

Please confirm you are treating the matter with urgency and that you have conveyed my request to the Judge."

FairHearing
06-03-2016, 05:26 PM
SC Registrar is just a tip of the iceberg. It is likely that Supreme Court Justices know about it, making sure that they be prevented from dealing with this problem.

I agree with what Yoda said. The Registrar is, of course, just a pawn. The SC will have no difficulty to dismiss anything that might expose judicial corruption. Most likely, the Registrar or the judges simply forgot about the recall application, or it was inadvertently misplaced in the system which operates "arbitrarily... contrary to fundamental conceptions of fairness and justice".


FairHearing for your information I quote below from the JCC's letter of 11 June 2013, which shows the JCC can consider judicial decisions when dealing with a complaint on a judge's conduct.
"In the course of considering these complaints I have considered the material provided by you and also each of the decisions, Minutes and directions associated with these complaints. I have not considered those decisions, Minutes or directions in order to consider the legality or correctness of them (for that is beyond my jurisdiction) but rather to determine if your complaint as to the Judges' conduct has any validity."

The above is from the previous commissioner, Sir Gascoigne. What happened with these April 2015 complaints (https://www.fairhearing.info/complaints/), they were initially considered by Gascoigne, and he asked Harrison to reply. If Gascoigne was of a view that the complaints were beyond his jurisdiction, he wouldn't bother Harrison. Then Gascoigne was replaced by Alan Ritchie. The latter dismissed the complaints straight away for lack of jurisdiction. This gives some indication of who the new JCC is.

Note that the JCC is no more than a "clearing house", as per one of HC decisions. If the JCC is of a view that a complaint should be acted upon, he must forward the complaint to a head of the bench, A-G etc. At the same time, nothing in the JCC Act prevents a complaint to be submitted directly to a head of the bench or the A-G in case if the JCC lacks jurisdiction. Of course, the integrity of the heads and the A-G are a separate issue.


If it is the same Commissioner maybe you should ask him to explain his inconsistency in 'policy' on how he interprets the Act.

The complainant has chosen to forward the complaint to the Chief Justice. It seems logical to me. The JCC thinks he's limited by the statute. That's fine. The Chief Justice isn't limited by the statute, and she is in a position to determine the complaint in substance, isn't she?

Q. C.
06-03-2016, 06:50 PM
.... Most likely, the Registrar or the judges simply forgot about the recall application, or it was inadvertently misplaced in the system which operates "arbitrarily... contrary to fundamental conceptions of fairness and justice".

No. As from what I understand 20 odd Memorandums and Interlocutory Applications were filed over the subsequent years under that Recall APPLICATION. A number seeking urgency.



.... they were initially considered by Gascoigne, and he asked Harrison to reply. If Gascoigne was of a view that the complaints were beyond his jurisdiction, he wouldn't bother Harrison...

No. The JCC did not ask Harrison to reply.


.... The complainant has chosen to forward the complaint to the Chief Justice... That's fine. The Chief Justice isn't limited by the statute, and she is in a position to determine the complaint in substance, isn't she?

Yes and No. The Chief Justice has authority, but allows herself to be limited by her gate keeper, Kieron McCarron, so she can claim "plausible deniability". McCarron does not 'Officially' forward her complaints, he rejects them himself.

FairHearing
06-03-2016, 07:16 PM
No. The JCC did not ask Harrison to reply.

To make sure we are on the same page, I was referring to the April 2015 complaints mentioned here (https://www.fairhearing.info/complaints/). Gascoigne did ask Harrison to reply, see Harrison's response there. Gascoigne then resigned without determining the complaint. Ritchie took over and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.


McCarron does not 'Officially' forward her complaints, he rejects them himself

True, which doesn't speak in favour of the Chief Justice who isn't aware of what's going on in her own office.

Q. C.
07-03-2016, 08:45 AM
To make sure we are on the same page, I was referring to the April 2015 complaints mentioned...

Sorry. We were not on the same page, however dealing with the same corrupt Judge, Harrison.


True, which doesn't speak in favour of the Chief Justice who isn't aware of what's going on in her own office.

She is "unofficially aware", so is aware. However being 'unofficially aware' is how officially she can always claim "plausible deniability".

That's how statutory official officers work in a systemically corrupt system.

FairHearing
07-03-2016, 05:33 PM
Speaking about the Chief Justice gatekeeper, Kieron McCarron, the guy seems to have been around for quite a while, misrepresenting and deflecting complaints to CJ on a routine basis. There is a number of links out there similar to this one (http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz/?page=news&article=news-txt). The complainant repeatedly tried to get through McCarron, of course, unsuccessfully:


I refer to Mr McCarron’s letter of 14 April and his advice on your behalf that it is improper for you to question the conduct of legal proceedings except by judicial process. I have written that the issue is not the conduct of legal proceedings but the corrupt or incompetent conduct of three judges of the Court of Appeal and of three Crown Prosecutors who plainly, continually and deliberately misled a trial for murder. To impress upon you the gravity of the matter I have styled the prosecutors and Appeal Judges as “prima facie liars and conspirators against justice”. But regardlesss of the clarity of my purpose you again misinterpret it.


Dear Mr Hunter
I refer to your letter dated 26 April [2008]. Nothing further can be added to the responses you have already received on the concerns you have.
Kieron McCarron, Judicial Administrator to the Chief Justice.

I guess CJ has given her "Chief Advisor Legal and Policy" Kieron McCarron the story Before the Law (http://www.kafka-online.info/before-the-law.html) by Kafka as the standard operations manual.

FairHearing
08-03-2016, 08:51 AM
The Chief Justice has authority, but allows herself to be limited by her gate keeper, Kieron McCarron, so she can claim [I]"plausible deniability"

"Plausible deniability" is applicable to politicians and public officials, not to judges, let alone to the the country's top judge. According to UN Office on Drugs and Crime's Commentary On the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (https://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/publications_unodc_commentary-e.pdf) -


A judge should always, not only in the discharge of official duties, act honourably and in a manner befitting the judicial office; be free from fraud, deceit and falsehood; and be good and virtuous in behaviour and in character. There are no degrees of integrity as so defined. Integrity is absolute. In the judiciary, integrity is more than a virtue; it is a necessity… Because appearance is as important as reality in the performance of judicial functions, a judge must be beyond suspicion. The judge must not only be honest, but also appear to be so. A judge has the duty not only to render a fair and impartial decision, but also to render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the judge’s integrity…

Sian Elias cannot possibly claim that she is "plausible honest" or has "plausible integrity". She is either honest or not. And she must be beyond suspicion, as opposed to politics where corruption is a normal state of affairs. As of now, it cannot be said that Sian Elias is "free from fraud, deceit and falsehood", because she seems to have been deliberately evading complaints about her fellow judges-fraudsters for almost a decade. She cannot be a judge for this reason alone. She must be told so every time before and after she signs a judgment in the SC.

In theory, Elias then can come forward and say: wait, I am an honest judge, it's just that evil Kieron McCarron who has been dismissing all the complaints without authority and my knowledge, and that it's just those evil Glazebrook, Young and O'Regan who have been assigning themselves to and fraudulently dismissing applications while I looked the other way. The problem is, would it dispel any reasonable doubts as to Elias's integrity? No. A fair-minded person would always doubt whether she told the truth. On the other hand, does the country need the Chief Justice who cannot fulfil her duties, whether because she has surrounded herself with plainly incompetent or corrupt personnel, or for any other reason?

John "Brockovich"
08-03-2016, 09:02 AM
Speaking about the Chief Justice gatekeeper, Kieron McCarron, the guy seems to have been around for quite a while, misrepresenting and deflecting complaints to CJ on a routine basis. There is a number of links out there similar to The complainant repeatedly tried to get through McCarron, of course, unsuccessfully:....

For the Official Record:

1. The Chief Justice was advised by email of 18 July 2015 that a complaint had been made about the conduct of the SC Registrar not presenting Applications filed legitimately into the SC, one example give of an Application being 1,003 days old. A copy of the formal complain letter was provided of the Chief Justice.

2. A follow-up email of 23 July 2015 was sent to the Chief Justice's email address and Kieron McCarron's email address. No responses to anything, not even an acknowledgment of receipt.

3. On 21 December 2015 the Chief Justice was sent a "Notice of Proposed Private Criminal Prosecution of the SC Registrar" and a copy of the letter sent to the SC Registrar setting out the criminal charge that would be filed against him if he did not provide plausible evidence that the current incriminating evidence against him was incorrect. The Chief Justice was asked to intervene in the interest of public confidence in the Court.

4. On 22 December 2015 the Chief Justice and Kieron McCarron's were updated by email. The email advised the Judicial Conduct Commissioner's letter of 22 December 2015 had exonerated the Justices of the SC from any allegation that they were incapacitated by the conduct of not dealing with Applications that were 2 years 11 months and 2 years 8 months old; the Commissioner placing the blame directly on the Registrar.

No responses have been received from the Chief Justice or Kieron McCarron.

The only change that has happened is that the Registrar is on extended leave, and

A District Court Judge has sanctioned the wording on the Private Prosecution criminal Charging Document as the initial step in the process to authorise the summons on the Registrar to face the charge.

John "Brockovich"
10-03-2016, 08:05 PM
...A District Court Judge has sanctioned the wording on the Private Prosecution criminal Charging Document as the initial step in the process to authorise the summons on the Registrar to face the charge.

The District Court Judge is considering a request for urgency:

1. In assessing the evidence in support of the criminal charge against the Supreme Court Registrar for wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice in that Court; and

2. If there is sufficient evidence that may result in a jury finding guilt; on what date the SC Registrar should be summons to face that charge.

The need for urgency is blatantly obvious. We can't have a SC Registrar in control the SC administrative processes, when it is alleged he acts in that criminal manner in that role.

John "Brockovich"
20-04-2016, 10:28 AM
FairHearing: Is the alleged misconduct of the Supreme Court Judges, as below, similar misconduct to that in your post of yesterday?

"16 March 2016
Judicial Conduct Commissioner
WELLINGTON

Dear Sir
Complaint against Justices Elias, Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O’Regan:

By your letter of 22 December 2015 (at paragraph 2 and 3) you confirmed you had, in effect, intervened in the lack of progress on my Recall Application of 8 April 2013 to the Supreme Court.

The result of your intervention was that you confirmed the Application had, the week before, been present to the Judges. Albeit 2 years 8 months late.

You correctly place the reason for the delay squarely with the Registrar.

My complaint against the above judges is:
a) They are too grossly incompetent to be judges, as they have ruled on the contents of a Recall Application that was clearly not what was filed by me.

b) They made no attempt to verify what they were considering. That is, they did not check with me to see if the Registrar over that time in which he had withheld the Recall Application (which is a criminal offence, if true) had substituted a document that would fail and be an abuse of process in the Courts eyes.

c) Evidence of that substitute document can be seen in the attached 15 March 2016 SC decision, which at [3] regurgitates a series of unrelated Recall Applications and concludes the one that is before them dated 8 April 2013 is, along with others, “an abuse of process and are dismissed”

d) Clearly the Registrar not only withheld the original 8 April 2013 Recall Application from the Court (which dealt with a criminal contempt issue not being addressed), but when caught out hiding the Recall Application from the Judges, which sought to address that criminal issue, the Registrar then substituted the contents of the Recall Application with some gobbledygook contents to ensure the issue was never address.

e) The Justices should have been alert to the Registrar’s criminal intent, and verified everything, including what he had not given to them.


You have a copy of the 8 April 2013 Recall Application in your files, so can see the 15 March 2016 judgment has no relevance whatsoever to the contents of that application.

As you clearly understand, if there is no substitution of material contents by the Registrar then the justices have:

a) “conspired to pervert the course of justice” in their Court; or worst

b) “Corruptly used information acquired by them in their official capacity to obtain, directly or indirectly, an advantage or pecuniary advantage for others, including, at least, David Randel Gascoigne, Christopher Francis Finlayson, Mark Leslie Cooper, Christopher Holden Toogood, Rhys Harrison and Ross Douch [Crown Prosecutor]”.

Yet you maintain you should not, and cannot, counsel these justices to “enhance public confidence in, and to protect the impartiality and integrity of, the judicial system”.

Again, I request urgency in your decision on what to do.

Yours sincerely
John

FairHearing
20-04-2016, 08:28 PM
FairHearing: Is the alleged misconduct of the Supreme Court Judges, as below, similar misconduct to that in your post of yesterday?

John, I think everyone who had contact with the NZ justice system knows, and it has been known for decades, the system is entirely and hopelessly corrupt. It stays so because of Clark's and Key's governments' policy to cover up that corruption at all costs, and because the limited population allows a small group of fraudsters to tightly control the whole country. Mr Alan Ritchie is Finlayson's guy (or whoever's behind Finlayson), just as nearly every single judge in COA and SC, who were appointed there during Key's reign. You may want to check the parliamentary debates (http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/51HansD_20150702_00000020/appointments-%E2%80%94-judicial-conduct-commissioner-and-deputy) on Ritchie's appointment. The speeches by different political parties were clearly orchestrated by Finlayson, based on their nearly identical content (why'd every single politician need to emphasize that JCC is not to challenge judicial decisions, to emphasize that specific section 8(2) of 36 other sections of the Act?). Also, JCC is not just a part of the corrupt system, he's pretty much nobody who cannot do anything even if he wanted. I am not saying a complaint to JCC shouldn't be lodged. I just think it'd be more useful to complain to UNHRC.

Now what you described in your complaint, in my view, is ordinary judicial fraud, "business as usual". To answer your question, yes, it's the same fraud. Same fraud, different angle. Depending on how smart particular fraudsters are, they either blatantly lie or engage in a bit more sophisticated misrepresentations. What I particularly like about the complaint of 11-Jan-2016 (http://www.fairhearing.info/complaints/), it shows that Glazebrook, Young and McGrath blatantly lied when they falsified the cover page of the judgment as if a party appeared while it had not. It's a very isolated incident (among numerous others) which doesn't require lengthy and complex explanations. It doesn't require going into details. However, it's blatant criminal conspiracy on the part of the top judges. The result is that what they decided in relation to other issues or in other proceedings doesn't matter. Those judges are liars and fraudsters. All their judgments in any proceeding are invalid for this reason alone. The fact that they misrepresented the recusal application when the issue of falsification was put to them shows their mens rea (guilty mind); this also implicated O'Regan.

You may also want to check this fresh document (http://www.fairhearing.info/wp-content/uploads/CA461-160418-a-MemoFraud.pdf). I particularly like Elias's statements quoted there as to the widespread dissatisfaction with the justice system.

I hope I answered your question.

On a side note, I am interested in Toogood's fraudulent affairs. Do you have a document that succinctly describes what he's done?

John "Brockovich"
20-04-2016, 09:20 PM
....On a side note, I am interested in Toogood's fraudulent affairs. Do you have a document that succinctly describes what he's done?

Thanks.

I do have documents that succinctly describe, and prove, Toogood's criminal acts as a Judge. However, as his alleged criminal conduct is before the criminal courts I prefer not to post them on this site (just yet). So I have sent you a "visitors message".

FairHearing
22-04-2016, 01:21 AM
It definitely does make sense, in theory. But since we are in Zimbabwe, there are four practical problems:

(1) Where is that honest and brave HC judge who can honestly judicially review with all the natural justice? Does His/Her Honour exist at all?

(2) How can that honest judge possibly get assigned to that judicial review? Remember, His/Her Honour is only one (if at all) in entire Zimbabwe. How the cases are assigned in HC are unknown. Judges are supposedly assigned randomly. But based on the COA examples, corrupt judges (Harrison, Wild etc) simply assign themselves to the cases they have fraudulent interests in. So His/Her Honour won't get the case, especially in the circumstances where the Chief High Court Judge (Venning) lacks integrity (he covers up fraud - see the complaint about Heath (www.fairhearing.info/complaints/)). Incidentally, one of such JCC reviews was conducted by Toogood (https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/4b/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/74175138-5fbf-4ecc-a605-7a0ca3eedae5/74175138-5fbf-4ecc-a605-7a0ca3eedae5.pdf), the guy who apparently has criminal proceedings pending against him for some judicial misconduct.

(3) Let's assume His/Her Honour got assigned to the judicial review and wrote an honest and just decision to the effect that the JCC had committed some procedural impropriety (e.g., misinterpreted s 8(2)). Note the Judge cannot decide for the JCC since it's a judicial review. Now the matter goes to the entirely corrupt Court of Appeal, and His/Her Honour's judgment gets thrown out on the ground that "the Parliament's intention was clearly such and such".

(4) Even if COA wants to play cat and mouse and upholds His/Her Honour's judgment, it gets thrown out in the totally corrupt SC.

The process can vary. The matter can be referred back to JCC at steps (3) and (4). Nothing prevents JCC to say that he reconsidered the case in light of the court findings and still found nothing that warranted a further action. Even if JCC decides otherwise, he can only forward the complaint to the corrupt head of the bench or whatever the process is as per the Act. There's plenty of further steps where the complaint can be buried.

It would be much simpler if there was one honest and brave journalist in one honest and brave major newspaper. They'd print an article on the subject, and the Supreme Court judges in question would most likely happily retire earlier than they'd otherwise prefer to. Of course, there's a chance of the journalist going to jail and the Zimbabwean newspaper getting shut down.

FairHearing
22-04-2016, 05:44 PM
FairHearing: Is the alleged misconduct of the Supreme Court Judges, as below, similar misconduct to that in your post of yesterday?

I've perused [2016] NZSC 25 (https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/john-kenneth-slavich-v-the-queen-1/at_download/fileDecision). It entirely omits all the facts, all the arguments, and all the law the applicant apparently relied upon. It entirely omits any other arguments and any other law. It entirely omits any other facts, except as follows. The jugdment only recites largely irrelevant (*) procedural history and contains two arbitrary, conclusory and superficial findings: "They [the applications] are an abuse of process and are dismissed... [The applicant's] complaints about the judgment of 10 February 2016 do not engage with the reasons why the Court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals". (*) The procedural history per se are not "reasons".

As a member of the public, I am unable, given the above omissions, to come to my own conclusions as to the applicant's recall application. The judgment "doesn't speak for itself". It contains no reasons whatsoever. It's entirely obscure. I cannot scrutinize the judgment as per the principles of open justice and as per the UN anti-corruption guidelines. According to the United Nations (http://www.un.org/zh/issues/anti-corruption/pdfs/resource_guide.pdf), judgments that entirely omit relevant facts and law allow unscrupulous judges to "hide decisions that are contrary to law".

I note that the judgment is given by the full court, including Elias and O'Regan. I refer to Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. Submission on behalf of the judiciary (http://www.kiwisfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/McGrath-JESC-subs-pecuniary-interests-bill.pdf), which on the face of it was expressly approved by Elias and O'Regan (the latter was COA President as of the date of the document). In those submissions, Elias and O'Regan effectively said (or expressly endorsed, which is pretty much the same for the present purposes):


the judicial process is a high visibility process: hearings are conducted in public and judges must give reasons for their decisions, which will be subject to appeal. These features of the judicial process impose an important discipline on judges and provide an effective protection against arbitrary or biased decisions

I therefore conclude that Elias and O'Regan are hypocrites. They say one thing and do something entirely opposite. As hypocrites, they lack integrity. As it was noted by the United Nations, "There are no degrees of integrity as so defined. Integrity is absolute. In the judiciary, integrity is more than a virtue; it is a necessity". Lacking integrity, Elias and O'Regan cannot be judges, let alone of the nation's highest court.

The above arguments "do not engage" with a "challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of any instruction, direction, order, judgment, or other decision given or made by a Judge in relation to any legal proceedings". We have a simple case: in Parliament, they said one thing ("reasons are given"). In Supreme Court, they did an exactly opposite thing (they failed to give reasons). Even if one assumes that [2016] NZSC 25 is perfectly correct in any aspect (including that the meaningful reasons didn't have to be provided), then it appears that Elias and O'Regan misled Parliament.

In terms of what constitutes reasons, I refer to Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd [2000] NZCA 175 (which list the reasons for giving reasons, including open justice etc): "the board should have given outline reasons sufficient to show to what they were directing their mind and thereby indirectly showing not whether their decision was right or wrong, which is a matter solely for them, but whether their decision was lawful. Any other conclusion would reduce the board to the status of a free‐wheeling palm tree." In this case, SC reduced itself to the status of such a tree.

Also, if the applicant did raise the issue of the lack of reasons before the same judges, and they failed to address the issue, and failed to give reasons again, then it's clear evidence of malicious conduct, deliberate failure to give reasons.

John, you may want to post a follow-up to your complaint with the above considerations in the alternative to what you originally put forward, if it makes sense to you. I think it's perfectly fine to say that you received feedback from an anonymous member of the public regarding your case, and that you believe it may assist JCC in determination of your complaint. I hereby grant you my permission to use my comments verbatim or edited as you deem fit, whether with reference to the author or without.

FairHearing
22-04-2016, 06:11 PM
See also Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson and Gault JJ in [2009] NZSC 59 (https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/30/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/3aa73e1a-c499-4489-9cc9-c40ce73ad8cc/3aa73e1a-c499-4489-9cc9-c40ce73ad8cc.pdf)


It would an extraordinary step to suppress the reasons for judgment of a
court, particularly this Court which is not subject to correction on further appeal.
Any fair and accurate report of the Court’s reasons will have to make it clear that the
material was not considered to be relevant and was not considered to be reliable.
The courts operate in public and must justify the decisions they reach in reasons
available to all. That is essential to confidence in the system of justice. As the Court
of Appeal said in the case of Lewis v Wilson and Horton Limited1
:
The principle of open justice serves a wider purpose than the interests
represented in the particular case. It is critical to the maintenance of public
confidence in the system of justice. Without reasons, it may not be possible
to understand why judicial authority has been used in a particular way. The
public is excluded from decision making in the Courts. Judicial
accountability, which is maintained primarily through the requirement that
justice be administered in public, is undermined

Truly, Elias is the Chief Hypocrite of New Zealand.

Insofar as this case is concerned, given the entire omission of the appellant's legal position, it's entirely unclear what exactly the Court had found to be "abuse of process", so it's not possible to understand why the judicial authority to dismiss the application was used in that way (for example, for prospective applicants to avoid similar mistakes in the future).

FairHearing
22-04-2016, 07:34 PM
JCC would also benefit from seeing the definition of a hypocrite:

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite): "hypocrite: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs"

Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hypocrite): "hypocrite: A hypocritical person: 'the story tells of respectable Ben who turns out to be a cheat and a hypocrite'; hypocritical: Behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case; synonyms: sanctimonious, pious, pietistic, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, superior, insincere, specious, feigned, pretended, hollow, false; deceitful, deceptive, dishonest, untruthful, lying, dissembling, duplicitous, two-faced, Janus-faced, double-dealing, untrustworthy"

FairHearing
22-04-2016, 07:54 PM
I must wonder whether Elias CJ actually wrote the decision in question. Is it possible that the decision was written by the lawyer(s) on the opposite side? Then, chances are that this decision will be followed by a costs decision to pay the fees for the lawyer(s) who wrote the fake, forged, decision of the Supreme Court.

Re: Elias: It is very possible, I cannot entirely exclude she might not even be aware of her "decisions", but it does not matter. I would very much like to see Elias advancing that argument in her defence. She won't, as it's pretty much the same as admitting her incapacity, implying fraud upon the court on the part of others, and putting into questions every single decision that bears her name.

Re: Lawyers: It's a separate topic. Your particular example of lawyers for the opposite side writing a judgment and Elias signing it bears on a different issue: the lack of the judicial independence, when there's no evidence of the judge using his/her own disinterested mind. In practice, there is no evidence of the lawyers for the other side involved in any way, let alone them writing the judgement, so this argument should not be advanced. Moreover, that particular judgment names only the applicant as counsel. In theory, you can argue a denial of natural justice when a judge copies-and-pastes the opposing party's submissions (of course, not in NZ as there's no such thing as natural justice here).

What's important here is that Elias endorsed, or appears to have endorsed the judgments. So it's all her own words, no matter who actually wrote them.

FairHearing
23-04-2016, 04:03 PM
What are the chances that such decisions are not actually written by the judges whose names appearing the decision? A registrar or deputy registrar can do that.

As far as I understand it, your legal position is that there are honest judges who are unaware that some other people, like lawyers or the registrars, write numerous bogus judgments and forge the judges' signatures. Well, I guess it's a valid case if you have some strong evidence. I cannot think of anything less than an affidavit of the judge whose signature was forged. If you have such an affidavit, or if you can summon that judge to give evidence for you, then I think you have a strong case. Otherwise, I see two problems: (1) the people who could forge the previous judgments of DC-HC-COA-SC can forge new judgments, which makes your litigation meaningless - you will always have a judgment forged against you; (2) the judge whose signature you alleged to have been forged can come forward and say that it was his judgment and his signature, with the result being your entire case collapsing in an instant.

FairHearing
23-04-2016, 06:31 PM
After all, we have to trust people to do good things, and most people support the idea of justice and doing good. I just can't accept nor believe that all judges are bad or dishonest. For that matter, it is not likely that all the court staff are bad or dishonest. I have met some decent lawyers in New Zealand; so not all lawyers are bad.

In the past, people believed that all swans are white, until they discovered black ones. In my view, you are mixing your personal beliefs and legal matter. In courts, it doesn't matter what you think or what you believe in. The fact that there are some decent lawyers in NZ is absolutely irrelevant to your case. An honest lawyer can do nothing with a corrupt judge. In fact, a lawyer is less protected than a self-represented litigant, because the latter cannot be struck off the roll on a judge's whim. That's why NZ judges don't like self-represented litigants - the latter won't fear to allege judicial misconduct as much as a lawyer would fear.

The fact that there might be some honest judges somewhere is also absolutely irrelevant. At least, I wouldn't count on that. Not in New Zealand.


At the end of the day, people of New Zealand will what is right and just. I have no doubt.

Of course they will, but again, it has no relevance to legal proceedings.


Needless to say, if a judge does something illegal or dishonest in the Court, such a judge can be removed from the bench. What are the chances that any judge wants to risk his reputation and position?

That's a common and fatal mistake, the belief that a NZ judge won't blatantly forge the evidence and deliberately decide against the law because their reputation of an "honest judge" would suffer. Firstly, they have no such reputation at all in the first place (there may be an unfounded belief in those members of the public who were misled/brainwashed by the NZ Government and who had no experience with the NZ justice system). Secondly, the judges risk nothing as they can get away with fraud not only without any adverse consequences, but potentially with some material benefits to them and with the moral satisfaction that those who attempted to resist or complain are completely destroyed (bankrupted, struck off, in a jail).