PDA

View Full Version : Seeking justice from fraudsters



FairHearing
25-02-2016, 05:36 PM
I can understand those inexperienced with the NZ justice system who pursue appeals in the hope that honest judges in appellate courts will listen to their arguments.

However, I cannot understand those who, after having being abused by the system, keep filing recall applications and new proceedings. They attempt to argue law before the fraudsters who abused their fundamental rights in the first place. It seems quite useless to me from both practical and legal standpoints. I cannot see a reason for that, except the irrational hope that the fraudsters will go against their fraudulent nature and decide in favour of the litigant. Moreover, seeking justice from known fraudsters may be construed as a waiver of the right to a fair hearing. Am I missing something?

John "Brockovich"
25-02-2016, 07:52 PM
I can understand those inexperienced with the NZ justice system who pursue appeals in the hope that honest judges in appellate courts will listen to their arguments.

However, I cannot understand those who, after having being abused by the system, keep filing recall applications and new proceedings. They attempt to argue law before the fraudsters who abused their fundamental rights in the first place. It seems quite useless to me from both practical and legal standpoints. I cannot see a reason for that, except the irrational hope that the fraudsters will go against their fraudulent nature and decide in favour of the litigant. Moreover, seeking justice from known fraudsters may be construed as a waiver of the right to a fair hearing. Am I missing something?

The only thing you are missing is that to file a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Commission requires that you exhaust all your legal remedies in your own country.

Recalls are made when the appellate Court does not address the material issue that was properly placed before them. The reason for the Recall Application is to spell out what the material issue was and that they did not deal with it. So the appellate Court cannot claim it did not understand the issue put to them. In others words, as you have identified, continue to force them to continue to lie in their decisions and not address the issue.

FairHearing
25-02-2016, 11:31 PM
The outcome of a recall application may help with a UNHRC complaint (as you described) or may complicate it. Regardless, I believe a recall application is not needed to exhaust domestic remedies. They are exhausted when SC denies leave to appeal. A failure to address a material issue properly put to the court is already a denial of natural justice for UNHRC purposes (being a failure to take into account material considerations, and/or irrationality), so a recall application is not needed.

The government cannot say in response to a UNHRC complaint that the court didn't understand the issue, because it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the judges were dumb, corrupt or both. Secondly, if the judges failed to understand what a reasonable and careful person would have understood in their shoes, then they were incompetent, which also breaches the UN covenant.

John "Brockovich"
26-02-2016, 09:36 AM
The outcome of a recall application may help with a UNHRC complaint (as you described) or may complicate it. Regardless, I believe a recall application is not needed to exhaust domestic remedies. They are exhausted when SC denies leave to appeal. A failure to address a material issue properly put to the court is already a denial of natural justice for UNHRC purposes (being a failure to take into account material considerations, and/or irrationality), so a recall application is not needed.

The government cannot say in response to a UNHRC complaint that the court didn't understand the issue, because it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the judges were dumb, corrupt or both. Secondly, if the judges failed to understand what a reasonable and careful person would have understood in their shoes, then they were incompetent, which also breaches the UN covenant.

Yes I agree with you.

However, the original Supreme Court Justices' [Sirs Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson] decision, was a decision by judges who are now retired. Their (unrecorded) decision was to not deal with the material matter properly put to them in a Leave Application (for a direct appeal from the High Court) - that is, the matter of the alleged criminal contempt (tampering with evidence) by Crown Prosecutors in the High Court.
,
They did not deal with this matter of public importance by a (recorded) ruling in dismissing leave of; the HC Judge did not make an error in dealing with that witnesses' evidence.

The Recall to the new Justices of the SC is on the basis that Blanchard, McGrath and Willson breached s, 16 of the SC Act, as they did not give reasons for refusing leave. The Recall in brief states:
1. The Judgment did not address the evidentially-supported appeal ground that the Crown Prosecutor tampered with material evidence in the High Court.

2. To comply with s. 16, on the Prosecutors fraud upon the HC evidence, legally required the Court to determine the HC Judge was not deceived by the conduct of the Crown Prosecutors - the Court failed to give that reason.

3. The pertinent legal issue was deception of evidence, not absence of error. Fraud relies on deception, not error.

4. The evidence before the SC was that the tampered with evidence was; its removal as the Counsel approved written evidence in the HC file by substitution of unapproved by Counsel and contrary written evidence (which the Crown Prosecutor had in fact written, as if it was the same witnesses' evidence). Which the HC Judge knew nothing about [the deception], so could not have made an error. And the original Leave to Appeal did not claim error by the Judge, just deception of the Judge.

As that Recall Application involved exposure of criminal contempt by Crown Prosecutors at the HC (and their later perjury in the CoA and SC), the Supreme Court Registrar never presented that April 2013 Recall Application to the Judges. He only did so when the JCC asked the Justices in December 2015 why they were so incapacitated that they could not deal with an application file 2 years 8 months earlier.

The Judges response is the basis of the Criminal Charges against the Supreme Court Registrar for "wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice" in the SC by not presenting the Recall Application until forced to.

Interesting, and that is the basis for waiting and not going to the UNHRC - the new judges have only just received the April 2013 Recall Application (in mid December 2015) and should be given a last chance.

Q. C.
26-02-2016, 07:34 PM
...As that Recall Application involved exposure of criminal contempt by Crown Prosecutors at the HC (and their later perjury in the CoA and SC), the Supreme Court Registrar never presented that April 2013 Recall Application to the Judges. He only did so when the JCC asked the Justices in December 2015 why they were so incapacitated that they could not deal with an application file 2 years 8 months earlier.

The Judges response is the basis of the Criminal Charges against the Supreme Court Registrar for "wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice" in the SC by not presenting the Recall Application until forced to.

Interesting, and that is the basis for waiting and not going to the UNHRC - the new judges have only just received the April 2013 Recall Application (in mid December 2015) and should be given a last chance.

Back to business.

So what you are saying is the SC Justices have "chopped off the head" of the Registrar and now you are asking them to "chop the heads off" of a couple of Crown prosecutors?

John "Brockovich"
27-02-2016, 08:23 AM
Back to business.

So what you are saying is the SC Justices have "chopped off the head" of the Registrar and now you are asking them to "chop the heads off" of a couple of Crown prosecutors?

Yes, and more.

FairHearing
27-02-2016, 11:54 AM
Yes, and more.

Back to the topic, let's assume that you, John "Brockovich", is the party who seeks justice from SC in relation to fraud on the Crown prosecutor's part. Let's further assume that you are aware [of the allegations] that two current SC judges have blatantly falsified an SC decision. When the issue of falsification was directly put to them, along with the allegations of fraud on their part, the two, along with a third judge, have blatantly ignored the allegations and stated in the judgment that their participation in the past proceeding is not a ground for recusal (of course, the allegations were entirely omitted). Let's assume you are aware of a complaint put before the Chief Justice concerning the falsification (JCC lacks jurisdiction). The Chief Justice has failed to even acknowledge the complaint despite repeated requests to do so. The long story short, three out of five SC judges lack integrity. One is entitled to assume, given the lack of response from the Chief Justice, that the latter either lacks integrity or incompetent as a chief justice.

Let's assume that the falsification allegations concern a SC judgment where the two judges, plus one who's retired, falsely stated that a respondent was represented by counsel and awarded costs to the respondent, while the respondent has not appeared in the proceeding at all (i.e., has not filed any document). The most likely reason of why the respondent hasn't appeared is that the SC has suddenly delivered its decision before the deadline it itself set for the respondent's submissions. In other words, the SC hasn't given a chance to the respondent to appear. So the judges effectively acted as advocate for the respondent. Their falsified judgment entirely omits the facts, the allegations, and the law.

Knowing all the above, would you feel comfortable seeking justice from SC in its current composition? Would you ask the prima facie fraudsters to decide your case? Would you ask them to recuse from deciding your case, based on what you have just become aware of? What else would you do? That's what I was trying to ask in my first post in this thread.

John "Brockovich"
27-02-2016, 12:21 PM
Back to the topic, let's assume...

Knowing all the above, would you feel comfortable seeking justice from SC in its current composition? Would you ask the prima facie fraudsters to decide your case? Would you ask them to recuse from deciding your case, based on what you have just become aware of? What else would you do? ....

There is no need to "assume". As NZ has, and fosters, systemic judicial and executive corruption (when those participants deem it necessary to be corrupt - see section 105A of the Crimes Act 1961 for this type of corruption). Nothing in what you said surprises me and is not materially different to my experience.

I am on record saying the only way to beat systemic judicial and executive corruption in a country (other than by revolution and alike) is to expose it to the Public.

We will eventually get to the Public.

FairHearing
27-02-2016, 01:50 PM
If a judge lacks integrity, for example, has lied in a judgment, "adjudicated" allegations of his/her own fraud by completely ignoring them, and so on, such a judge cannot possibly be considered impartial anymore.

According to the United Nations (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…

If, hypothetically, every appellant to the SC had filed a memo, in addition to their pending recall or leave application, to the effect that they request the named judges to recuse due to the apparent lack of integrity, and that they decline to participate in any hearing with those judges because any decision would be invalid due to apparent bias, then the Supreme Court would effectively become non-functional. Then there would be a better chance that the government would have to do something about it.

In practice, I guess the majority of appellants would be reluctant to do so due to their naive belief that the corrupt judges will take a pity on them and decide in their favour. So they would pursue their hopeless application.

John "Brockovich"
27-02-2016, 02:52 PM
If a judge lacks integrity...

If, hypothetically, every appellant to the SC had filed a memo, in addition to their pending recall or leave application, to the effect that they request the named judges to recuse due to the apparent lack of integrity...

What do you mean if a judge lacks integrity. Having judicial integrity within a systemically corrupt system is impossible, as is the application of the rule of law, so there is no if. The NZ judges who are not corrupt lack integrity because they refuse to speak up, or do something, about those they know are corrupt.

NZ judges (who are corrupt) refuse to Recuse themselves when they have a direct conflict of interest in the outcome of the case they are hearing, so the lesser apparent bias is an alien concept to them. There would never be a capitulation by the SC Justice to recusal requests, so Parliament would be none the wiser.

FairHearing; It would be better to quote the United Nations on characteristics of judicial systems that are subject to systemic judicial and executive corruption (the non bribe type).

I believe NZ would fit nicely into that grouping, as we rely on one person - the Judicial Conduct Commissioner who's decisions are not reviewable outside the systemically corrupt judiciary he is mandated to investigate and who is selected and put forward to that statutory position by the top executive within our corrupt system, the equally corrupt and powerful Attorney-General. Naturally the JCC will always be a LAWYER, to achieve the groups goal.

Anything one does within the system to expose the situation is doomed to failure.

FairHearing
27-02-2016, 04:15 PM
What do you mean if a judge lacks integrity. Having judicial integrity within a systemically corrupt system is impossible, as is the application of the rule of law, so there is no if. The NZ judges who are not corrupt lack integrity because they refuse to speak up, or do something, about those they know are corrupt.

We have to be precise to realistically hope to expose NZ corruption. I agree with the above statements because I know the system is corrupt. However, an average parry who wishes to raise the issue of integrity cannot make such claims. There is no way to realistically prove the system is corrupt unless you have proven that its components - judges - are corrupt. A claim that a particular judge is corrupt or lacks integrity (is there any difference between the two?) because the system is corrupt is legally (and rationally) hopeless. So if one wants to reasonably claim a judge is corrupt, they need to show evidence specifically in relation to that specific judge.

I don't think its feasible to make generic allegations of corruption at this stage. It's better to concentrate the efforts to show that individual judges of the highest NZ court are corrupt. Once corrupt SC judges are exposed, it'd be good time to speak about systemic corruption.

John "Brockovich"
27-02-2016, 04:45 PM
...So if one wants to reasonably claim a judge is corrupt, they need to show evidence specifically in relation to that specific judge....It's better to concentrate the efforts to show that individual judges of the highest NZ court are corrupt. Once corrupt SC judges are exposed, it'd be good time to speak about systemic corruption.

I assume you are talking about outside the system, as absolute irrefutable documentary evidence that a CoA judge has acted absolutely corruptly is irrelevant to the JCC in his investigation and decision. Based on an actual complaint and decision.

If such criminal conduct, and irrefutable documentary evidence of that conduct, of a CoA Judge is irrelevant to the JCC then the alleged criminal conduct of corruption by a Supreme Court Judge, and irrefutable documentary evidence of it, would be similarly irrelevant to the JCC and nothing will happen.

That's how systemic corruption works.

Is my assumption about what you said correct?

Q. C.
28-02-2016, 08:15 AM
...I don't think its feasible to make generic allegations of corruption at this stage. It's better to concentrate the efforts to show that individual judges... are corrupt...Once corrupt... judges are exposed, it'd be good time to speak about systemic corruption

From what "Brockovich" has posted in 2014 and 2015 he has exposed individually judges corruption on a specific matter. The specific matter being:

1. The tampering with evidence by Crown Prosecutors at a criminal Trial and their perjury before the CoA and Supreme Court on that issue:

2. The criminal prosecution of those Crown Prosecutors (for those acts) being criminally stayed by Deputy Solicitor-Generals, then those same Solicitor-Generals criminally staying each other criminal prosecutions where they were named co-defendants under the s. 98A of the Crimes Act charges: Where District Court judges had authorised summons on those Crown Prosecutors and Deputy Solicitor-Generals to face the charges.

At an injunction proceeding to force the Attorney-General, Solicitor-General and DSGs to stop criminally using their statutory powers to stay criminal prosecutions of the DSGs (in which each DSGs were named co-defendants under each others criminal charges) Justice Priestley falsify turned down the injunction application by ruling that documentary evidence existed, which did not exist*.

On Judicial Review of those DSGs decisions (which used their statutory powers to stay a criminal prosecution in which they are named co-defendants under each others charges) the Judicial Reviews were struck out by Justice Andrews who falsified her decision by creating documentary evidence in her decision, which did not exist*

At a preliminary hearing (in the above Judicial Reviews) on a interlocutory matter (the request to have Justice Heath testify as to what was before him at Trial) Justice Potter falsified her decision by ruling; as the documentary evidence existed (which did not exist*) before Justice Heath at the criminal Trial Justice Heath could not be called to testify.

On complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner that the above Judges had breached their judicial oaths by falsifying their decisions in that way the Commissioner ruled that there was no "real and persuasive evidence" of such conduct, even though what the judges had ruled as existing, did not exist before them or the Commissioer*.

On Judicial Review of the Commissioner's decision Justices Cooper and Toogood falsified their decision, to strike out the Judicial Review, by ruling the Affidavits filed in that Judicial Review proceeding (authorised by the A-G in response to a discovery order) attached the evidence which was claimed to have been tampered with, when the A-G affidavits swore they and the A-G had never possessed the documentary evidence* and had attached nothing to their affidavits as discovery.

At the Court of Appeal (seeking an appeal of Justices Cooper's and Toogood's decision), Justice Harrison, ruled there was no merit in the appeal, even though he had the A-G authorised affidavits before him which did not attach any documentary evidence*

On complaint to the Commissioner that all the above three above judges had breached their judicial oaths by falsifying their decision in that way the Commissioners ruled that there was no "real and persuasive evidence" of such conduct, even though the Commissioner had the A-G authorised affidavits and the judges decisions before him.

On Judicial Reviews of the Commissioners decisions, on the conduct of Justice Cooper, Toogood and Harrison, Justice Toogood refused to recue himself on a formal application to do so and refused to allow the Judicial Reviews to be progressed.

* the tampered with documentary evidence; tampered with by its removal from evidence by the Crown Prosecutors at the original criminal Trial.

Unfortunately for the Commissioner, the Attorney-General and Justices Cooper, Toogood and Harrison, while they were committing their corrupt acts, the Registrar of the Supreme Court had withheld the April 2013 Recall Application filed in the Supreme Court from the Judges of that Court on the same matter of the Crown Prosecutors tampering with documentary evidence at the original criminal trial and perjury by those Prosecutors before the CoA and Supreme Court. In December 2015 he finally presented that Recall Application to the SC Judges.

I think that about summarises what "Brockovich" has said and appears to be prima facie proof of systemic judicial and Crown Executive corruption on at lease one issue of public importance.

FairHearing
03-03-2016, 09:58 AM
From what "Brockovich" has posted in 2014 and 2015...

Is there a link to the actual JCC complaints and decisions so that one can see what was actually alleged and what was decided?

John "Brockovich"
03-03-2016, 11:18 AM
Is there a link to the actual JCC complaints and decisions so that one can see what was actually alleged and what was decided?

No, not at this stage, as there was a voluntary written commitment made to the Supreme Court (within the 2013 Recall Application matter) that details and evidence of the alleged corruption would not be published until that Court had dealt with the Recall Application and the 'Memorandum Seeking Relief from Egregious Conduct". On that judgement on the Recall and ruling on egregious conduct it is suggested to the Court that:

"this Court would be free, on making a ruling on the Recall Application, to send a copy of the ruling to the Serious Fraud Office suggesting an investigation be opened on the corruption involving the original trial Crown Prosecutor, later Crown Counsels, the Attorney-General and Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison"

The question at this stage for the District Court is;
Was the conduct of the SC Registrar a wilful attempt to pervert the course of justice in the Supreme Court by his not presenting the 2013 Recall Application to the Judges and only doing so in December 2015 (2 years 8 months after filing) and only when the Commissioner intervened?

If so, a summons must be authorised on the Registrar to face that charge that has been filed in the Wellington criminal court.

FairHearing
05-03-2016, 11:00 AM
No, not at this stage, as there was a voluntary written commitment made to the Supreme Court (within the 2013 Recall Application matter) that details and evidence of the alleged corruption would not be published until that Court had dealt with the Recall Application and the 'Memorandum Seeking Relief from Egregious Conduct".

Well, the liars and fraudsters from the Supreme Court (Glazebrook, Young and O'Regan) are now in a difficult position, as they have been asked to effectively judge their own case, again. I am not afraid of saying "liars" and "fraudsters", as it is my honest opinion based on the facts outlined in this complaint (https://www.fairhearing.info/complaints/). The complaint refers to SC118/2015, the details on which can be found here (https://www.fairhearing.info/proceedings/sc118/).

I note that Glazebrook, Young and O'Regan have been told in SC118/2015, practically in their faces, that they are liars and fraudsters. They have not contested it, only noted, effectively, that being a liar and a fraudster is not a sufficient ground for a judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court to recuse himself or herself.

The fourth SC judge, Elias, has failed to acknowledge the receipt of the complaint despite the requests for her to do so. This suggests that she either lacks integrity or is incompetent as the Chief Justice, as she cannot even organise work of her own office (in case if she had not been informed of the complaint).

The fifth SC judge, Arnold, is the same S-G who argued the "extra-legal approach" the Privy Council condemned in Taito. The skills he showed in the process apparently allowed him to make it to the SC.

The above makes me think that the current judges of the Supreme Court will not decide against themselves.

John "Brockovich"
05-03-2016, 11:39 AM
...The above makes me think that the current judges of the Supreme Court will not decide against themselves.

The current Judges of the SC are not asked to decide against themselves. They are asked to decide against what the former Justices of the SC (Justices Wilson, Blanchard and McGrath) decided.

These former Justices decided not to deal with an issue properly put to them (an unrecorded decision), but to deal with an issue that did not exist and ruled on that (as recorded in the adverse decision).

What the current SC Justices have been asked to do is to sacrifice the original trial Crown Prosecutor, later Crown Counsels, the Attorney-General and Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison to maintain some confidence by the Public in the justice system of NZ.

FairHearing
06-03-2016, 07:58 PM
My point is, Glazebrook, Young and O'Regan (who make up the majority of SC) routinely conduct themselves in a fraudulent manner, similar to what you described about Wilson, Blanchard, McGrath, Toogood and Harrison. To ask judges to adjudicate the fraudulent conduct similar to their own one is the same as to ask them to decide their own case. Their judgment won't be valid from its inception, whatever way they decide (of course, not that it matters as the law doesn't work in New Zealand).

Q. C.
07-03-2016, 08:49 AM
My point is, Glazebrook, Young and O'Regan (who make up the majority of SC) routinely conduct themselves in a fraudulent manner, similar to what you described about Wilson, Blanchard, McGrath, Toogood and Harrison. To ask judges to adjudicate the fraudulent conduct similar to their own one is the same as to ask them to decide their own case. Their judgment won't be valid from its inception, whatever way they decide (of course, not that it matters as the law doesn't work in New Zealand).

I think the reality of the situation is the only choice available to the SC Judges - chop off the heads of others to avoid the same fate.

FairHearing
07-03-2016, 02:14 PM
I think the reality of the situation is the only choice available to the SC Judges - chop off the heads of others to avoid the same fate.

This was put to them many times before. For example, "A refusal of leave would amount to, or would create the appearance of, a cover-up of if not fraud then actual bias. The reputation of this Court would be adversely affected, which is against the public interests and of significant public importance" (SC118/2015). "The consistent failures of the lower courts, including the Court of Appeal, to apply the statutes passed by the Parliament, inter alia s 50 of the Evidence Act 2006 and s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, create the appearance that the New Zealand justice system does not consider itself bound by the legislation. The refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the proposed appeal would bring the administration of justice in New Zealand in disrepute, proving the proverb piscis primum a capite foetet" (SC3/2015).

The SC Judges are too deep in their own fraud to hope they'd keep their heads if they let the scandal out. On the other hand, they have nothing to worry about as long as it's all quiet. NZ press won't publish the evidence of conspiracy. Neither will the overseas press, as they don't care what is happening they don't know where. Sorry for the realistic views. I hope I am wrong.

Q. C.
07-03-2016, 02:56 PM
)...The SC Judges are too deep in their own fraud to hope they'd keep their heads if they let the scandal out. On the other hand, they have nothing to worry about as long as it's all quiet...

We wait with bated breath on the Supreme Court, as the state of being all quiet will not exist and is known to them.

golfa
07-03-2016, 03:48 PM
"The consistent failures of the lower courts, including the Court of Appeal, to apply the statutes passed by the Parliament, inter alia s 50 of the Evidence Act 2006 and s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, create the appearance that the New Zealand justice system does not consider itself bound by the legislation. The refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the proposed appeal would bring the administration of justice in New Zealand in disrepute."

That is just beautiful !

FairHearing
18-03-2016, 10:30 AM
What the current SC Justices have been asked to do is to sacrifice the original trial Crown Prosecutor, later Crown Counsels, the Attorney-General and Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison to maintain some confidence by the Public in the justice system of NZ.

Am I correct in assuming that the current SC Justices have delivered their justice in [2016] NZSC 25?

John "Brockovich"
18-03-2016, 11:35 AM
Am I correct in assuming that the current SC Justices have delivered their justice in [2016] NZSC 25?

Yes. And the following complaint has already been made to the Commissioner:

"Dear Sir

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 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 criminal contempt issue not being addressed), but when caught out hiding the Recall Application from the Judges, which sought to address that criminal issue, he 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. Such as the related applications and memorandums.

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."

The Commissioner's response should be amusing.

FairHearing
18-03-2016, 01:03 PM
The Commissioner's response should be amusing.

...assuming the Commissioner is professionally competent and has integrity, otherwise it'll be boring, as usual.

Q. C.
19-03-2016, 07:29 AM
...assuming the Commissioner is professionally competent and has integrity, otherwise it'll be boring, as usual.

The JCC cannot afford to act with integrity: He would lose his job and, if acting with integrity, too many judges would be removed from the bench.