PDA

View Full Version : Public interest in forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts?



FairHearing
08-03-2016, 04:50 PM
I've come across Koyama v NZLS [2016] NZHC 323 (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkb2N1bWVudHNrb3lhbWF8Z3g6 NDg5YTk0MGRmMTNjNmVlMQ) of 1 March 2016 by Osborne AJ, and it looks to me like a typical arbitrary judgment of a typical incompetent and/or corrupt judge of NZHC.

The applicant claimed public interest. Osborne said that he had not found "any genuine public interest" in "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand". He based his arbitrary conclusion on that the applicant is a judgment debtor against whom various courts made unfavourable decisions.

In other words, if the applicant had been a judgment creditor (i.e., had money to spend on the litigation) or if the applicant had been favoured by other judges, then Osborne would have considered deciding for the applicant, in line with other judges. Osborne thus not only took into account entirely irrelevant considerations, but wasn't independent (from other judges).

I'd say that Osborne is rather corrupt than incompetent, as I fail to see how proper administration of justice cannot be of genuine public interest to a judge who has integrity.

Q. C.
08-03-2016, 06:45 PM
I've come across Koyama v NZLS of 1 March 2016 by Osborne AJ, and it looks to me like a typical arbitrary judgment of a typical incompetent and/or corrupt judge of NZHC.

The applicant claimed public interest. Osborne said that he had not found "any genuine public interest" in "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand". He based his arbitrary conclusion on that the applicant is a judgment debtor against whom various courts made unfavourable decisions.

...I'd say that Osborne is rather corrupt than incompetent, as I fail to see how proper administration of justice cannot be of genuine public interest to a judge who has integrity.

FairHearing: Please do not lower yourself to the level of logic applied by YODA.

The basis of the Judge's decision is that the Judgments claimed by YODA to be forgeries are on the public record. The allegations of perjury and extortion extend from that unfounded allegation of forgery.

All the judgments posted by YODA are signed by the judges concerned and are therefore not forgeries. They are also, to any rational person, logical and reasonable decisions so why would anyone sign them as if they were the judge who wrote them.

There cannot be any genuine public interest in a 'perception' that something is of public interest. Simply - as YODA is completely wrong in his allegations, to any fair minded person knowing all the facts, there is no genuine public interest.

The judge is 100% correct.

Q. C.
08-03-2016, 07:04 PM
Does anyone agree (other than YODA) that the judgments YODA posted had forged signatures of the various judges on them?

Does anyone agree with me that YODA is wrong? or

Have you all just given up?

golfa
08-03-2016, 09:05 PM
All I know is that it's as boring as batshit.

FairHearing
08-03-2016, 10:54 PM
First of all, I do not believe in Yoda's signature forgery theory, as I am pretty sure the judges commit fraud themselves, putting their genuine signatures under their fraudulent judgments.

However, whether Koyama is right or wrong on the merits is completely irrelevant to the topic. What you advocate for, Q.C., is the extra-legal approach called palm tree justice, routinely employed by corrupt NZ judges. It's a common mistake to use the same approach trying to nail judicial corruption. Any legal error such as this one (judging the merits without due process) will be picked up, emphasised and used by the corrupt judges to destroy the case against them. As to Yoda, it's hard to ask for reasonableness from a self-represented litigant whose life is being destroyed and who is clearly being oppressed by judicial fraudsters.

I will illustrate the above with a simple issue from Osborne's judgment.


Osborne had Koyama's application to review the Registrar's refusal to dispense with security.
Koyama's ground was that his allegations of "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand" are of public interest. The latter is a valid ground to apply for dispensation of security. So far so good.
Whether Koyama's will make out his forgery allegations at the substantive hearing are irrelevant, for the purposes of this specific judgment. Generally, the strength of the proposed appeal does matter, but Osborne has not considered the strength given that he hadn't let Koyama past the "public interest" threshold.
So it is entirely improper to say, in relation to Osborne's judgment, that Osborne was right to screw Koyama because the latter's substantive case is bullshit. We cannot possibly judge the merits from Osborne's judgment because it's not (and cannot possibly and lawfully be) on the merits. All the material Yoda has posted here is not admissible evidence, so let's leave it. Even if Koyama's case is utter nonsense, he has the right to a fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. And he was denied this right by Osborne, just as, I am pretty sure, by every other judge in his case (I haven't looked at any other Koayma's judgment, except the SC judgment mentioned below; my opinion is based on my extensive knowledge of the NZ justice system).
Now, Osborne said that he didn't find any public interest in Koyama's matter. Well, that's definitely bullshit. "Forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand" are, without doubt, of public interest. Osborne has effectively found that judicial corruption is of no interest to the public. I reiterate that no competent judge who has integrity would have found that.
If Osborne had been a competent, independent and impartial judge, he would have found that "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand" is definitely a matter of public importance and of public interest and that Koyama's allegations pass this test, because he alleges exactly that.
Having found the above, the Osborne would have to consider the strength of the appeal (tenability) - i.e., was there any substance in Koyama's allegations. Koyama might well have failed that test, but at least the judgment would appear fair in this respect.
Instead, is support of his effective finding that "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand" are of no public interest, Osborne put forward completely irrelevant considerations which breach numerous legal principles, including those related to natural justice and including s 50 of the Evidence Act 2006.


Of course, I had to simplify the above, and there's much more bullshit in Osborne's judgement. For example, Osborne has referred to some unidentified judgment where SC denied leave because Koyama had "not raised any tenable legal questions in his submissions, let alone any of special or public importance". Osborne didn't say his reference to SC was to imply that Koyama's present application was untenable. It appears Osborne purported to give reasons for his "lack of public interest". Either way, Osborne's reference to SC was entirely irrelevant and improper, for numerous reasons. To name a few,

(a) Osborne put forward arguments in support of NZLS's case, acting as NZLS advocate, whereas NZLS hadn't appeared (Why? And why the judge hasn't ordered to put NZLS on notice?). Most likely, Koyama has learnt of Osborne's arguments only from the judgment, i.e. - he had no opportunity to reply. Unscrupulous Osborne rolls out the arguments he invented himself, but doesn't say whether Koyama had anything to say in reply.

(b) The SC's criterion for leave is public IMPORTANCE. Osborne was adjudicating public INTEREST. Can everyone see the difference? The criteria for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and those for dispensation of security in the High Court are quite different, presumably. Koyama may not have made out public importance in SC, but that's irrelevant to the issue that was before Osborne.

(c) Osborne said: "It involves an abuse of the process of this Court that the debtor seeks to raise again an argument as to the public interest of the matters he wishes to pursue." While unscrupulous Osborne has advanced arguments on the part of NZLS, he failed to advance arguments on the part of Koyama. Osborne should have known that a refusal of leave to appeal is a decision which is not on the merits and thus is not res judicata. It cannot be an issue estoppel, either, as the issues were different. See also s 50 of the Evidence Act. As such, Koyama's application could not be an abuse of process based merely on the SC decision, as Osborne stated.

On a side note, it seems that Osborne referred to [2014] NZSC 144, which is a typical obscure judgment given by Arnold and two fraudsters, McGrath and Young (this is my honest opinion based on the facts outlined here (https://www.fairhearing.info/complaints/)). I do not believe a single word said by those supreme liars in their judgment.

Finally, I'd say that Osborne's statement mentioned in (c) is a misrepresentation, if not a plain lie. Nowhere [2014] NZSC 144 says that Koyama pursued "an argument as to the public interest". The SC judgment only says that there was nothing tenable turning on "special or public IMPORTANCE". Also, I am curious whether Koyama's submissions before Osborne mentioned Arnold, McGrath and Young in the context of judicial misconduct. If yes, then Osborne's judgment is plain fraud.

wtfbbq69
08-03-2016, 10:57 PM
I've come across Koyama v NZLS [2016] NZHC 323 (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkb2N1bWVudHNrb3lhbWF8Z3g6 NDg5YTk0MGRmMTNjNmVlMQ) of 1 March 2016 by Osborne AJ, and it looks to me like a typical arbitrary judgment of a typical incompetent and/or corrupt judge of NZHC.

The applicant claimed public interest. Osborne said that he had not found "any genuine public interest" in "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand". He based his arbitrary conclusion on that the applicant is a judgment debtor against whom various courts made unfavourable decisions.

In other words, if the applicant had been a judgment creditor (i.e., had money to spend on the litigation) or if the applicant had been favoured by other judges, then Osborne would have considered deciding for the applicant, in line with other judges. Osborne thus not only took into account entirely irrelevant considerations, but wasn't independent (from other judges).

I'd say that Osborne is rather corrupt than incompetent, as I fail to see how proper administration of justice cannot be of genuine public interest to a judge who has integrity.

Accusing the entire world of forgery and corruption is not a defence to an application for bankruptcy.

Despite this, Yoda would have been better to request fee waiver on the basis of insufficient funds to pay, instead of public interest.

Oh wait, he wouldn't do that because he is a COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON.

And by association, anyone who supports his cause is extremely likely to be labelled as such as well. Be careful out there.

FairHearing
09-03-2016, 12:12 AM
Accusing the entire world of forgery and corruption is not a defence to an application for bankruptcy.

It is. A judgment obtained by fraud is invalid and not enforceable. Besides, I don't think he's accusing the whole world.


Despite this, Yoda would have been better to request fee waiver on the basis of insufficient funds to pay, instead of public interest.

He may be able to pay. I agree with Koyama that paying NZ court fees is the same as financing judicial corruption in New Zealand, which is against the anti-corruption public policy. Even if Koyama was impecunious, it was unlikely to help him. More precisely, nothing in NZ can help him, as the motto of NZ courts is "let injustice be done though the heaven falls".

I'd say he's smart in the sense that he doesn't want to pay even if he can. I'd do the same. It'd be not just a waste of money, but encouragement of judicial corruption.


And by association, anyone who supports his cause is extremely likely to be labelled as such as well. Be careful out there.

That's exactly the problem. If you are not associated with the old boys, you are screwed. In other words, screw justice if I don't like your cause. What makes one think that their cause is more noble than Koyama's? Based on Osborne's judgment, Koyama was saying the right things, his words just fell on deaf and/or corrupt ears. BTW, I don't know what Koyama's cause is, and don't really care.

Q. C.
09-03-2016, 06:56 AM
...More precisely, nothing in NZ can help him [YODA]...

Rubbish. There are a range of medications that can assist YODA's mental problem.


.... BTW, I don't know what Koyama's cause is, and don't really care.

There is no "cause" in what YODA is doing, other than to believe one should misinterpret most decisions, simply not understanding things, not listening to reason and always ignore the facts.

FairHearing - What you should care about is that YODA is an idiot and utterly wrong in what he alleges, and by doing what he is doing just helps those who are corrupt by allowing them to say "they are all nutters - just look at what YODA is saying and claiming".

wtfbbq69
09-03-2016, 07:45 AM
Well fairhearing, I didn't want to have to engage the use of my tar-brush but I'm afraid I now have to tar you with the same brush as Yoda.

Maybe if you lunatics focused on the substantive issues of your respective grievances (and even, if need be, accept that fact that you argued/are arguing a baseless case) instead of these farcical allegations of corruption/forgery/whatever then you would get some success.

As an example, how far had Yoda got with his insurance claim with Southern Response? Why?

FairHearing
09-03-2016, 08:40 AM
This thread is about one particular judgment of Osborne. I don't know what Yoda claimed with SR and I don't care. It's entirely irrelevant to this thread. I don't care what Yoda posted elsewhere, as it's entirely irrelevant to Osborne's judgment, either. Osborne's judgement is supposed to, and does speak for itself and on its own.

"wtfbbq69", either you don't understand what a fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal is, or you are a troll acting precisely as the unscrupulous judges in question.

In the former case, you seem to naively believe that Osborne was right to deny Koyama a fair hearing because Koyama's substantive claims in your or Osborne's views were meritless. What makes you think that your own case had any merit and the abuse you suffered from some other Osborne wasn't "just"?

If you haven't been abused by the system, then to be interested in this forum you must be a part of the system. You are either some ignorant lawyer on your own, or one who works for the system, such as Attorney-General, Glazebrook, Young, Harrison, Cooper, Andrews, Woodhouse, Osborne and so forth and so on, or some clerk.

The third possibility, that you are a curious member of the happily unaware public, seems quite unlikely to me.

Would you answer two simple questions:

(1) Are "forgery, perjury and extortion, [allegedly] committed in the NZ courts" matters of genuine public interest?

(2) If yes, would a competent, independent and impartial judge have found the opposite?

Please don't mention Yoda. These abstract questions have nothing to do with him, unless you suggest that the answers depend on who's asking.

Q. C.
09-03-2016, 08:55 AM
...Would you answer two simple questions:

(1) Are "forgery, perjury and extortion, [allegedly] committed in the NZ courts" matters of genuine public interest?

(2) If yes, would a competent, independent and impartial judge have found the opposite?...

I will answer your questions:

If "forgery, perjury and extortion, [allegedly] committed in the NZ courts" had a scintilla of evidence in support of the allegation it would be a matter of genuine public interest. However, that requires irrefutable evidence of those acts, not just an allegation.

Any competent, independent and impartial judge, on seeing there was no evidence whatsoever of such allegations that would warrant genuine public interest, would rule there was no genuine public interest.

wtfbbq69
09-03-2016, 09:01 AM
Hi fairhearing,

I would love to engage with your impotent attempt at cross examination but it seems needless.

Cases are decided on their facts and the relevant law

The very first line of your first post on this thread says "I've come across Koyama V NZLS of 1 March 2016 by Osborne AJ...", the whole basis of the thread is Yoda's facts and the application of the law to those facts.

I am beginning to wonder if you have some role in Yoda's very unintelligent management of his litigation and legal situation.

Are you the "jail lawyer" filling his head with these idiotic ideas? Seems very likely, given your tendency to promote systematic corruption as an answer and a defence to every legal problem imaginable.

Perhaps it's time you change tact, whatever you (and your apprentice Yoda) are doing clearly doesn't have any basis or merit in reality :)

Q. C.
09-03-2016, 09:32 AM
FairHearing: You support what YODA is doing regarding alleged forged signatures of various judges, yet neither of your answered 'Dixpat's' question of 2 March 2016 of:

"You [YODA] have made a big play on the fact that in your opinion various signatures have been forged. I assume that you believe they have been forged because they look different

I attach a file where I have cut two of your signatures from various documents you have posted on this forum.

Which of your signatures was forged?"

FairHearing
09-03-2016, 10:15 AM
I will answer your questions:

If "forgery, perjury and extortion, [allegedly] committed in the NZ courts" had a scintilla of evidence in support of the allegation it would be a matter of genuine public interest. However, that requires irrefutable evidence of those acts, not just an allegation.

Any competent, independent and impartial judge, on seeing there was no evidence whatsoever of such allegations that would warrant genuine public interest, would rule there was no genuine public interest.

Let's agree to disagree. As I pointed out in my comment #5 (https://newzealandjustice.com/showthread.php?1851-Public-interest-in-forgery-perjury-and-extortion-committed-in-the-courts&p=10267&viewfull=1#post10267) above, and what you have ignored, a proper legal analysis of the case before Osborne required answers to two questions, (1) whether what was alleged was a matter of public interest, and if yes, (2) whether what was alleged was supported by some evidence.

Osborne answered question #1 as NO. Accordingly, he didn't bother to answer #2. To prove I am wrong, please point to the place in Osborne's judgment where he makes findings on Koyama's evidence or tenability in general.

You seem to have answered question #1, which was my original question, as YES. You seem to have disagreed with Osborne. Then you answered question #2 which I didn't ask and Osborne didn't bother to answer. Then you jumped back to question #1 and answered it as NO. Do you agree that question #1 is a pure question of law, which does not depend on the facts of any particular case? Do you agree that question #2 is a question of fact?

To give you an example, "Pollution of Earth atmosphere" - is it a matter of public interest or not? I guess you'd answer yes. I then say that my cause is that wtfbbq69 pollutes Earth atmosphere. You'd then probably say I put forward no tenable evidence, so "Pollution of Earth atmosphere" isn't a matter of public interest. You'd thus contradict yourself.

In another example, "Pollution of a private pool" - is it a matter of public interest or not?
I guess you'd answer no. Then you wouldn't have to consider my evidence, however bulletproof it is, as it's simply irrelevant.



FairHearing: You support what YODA is doing regarding alleged forged signature of various judge, yet neither of your answered 'Dixpat's' question of 2 March 2016 of

Q.C., you act as an unscrupulous NZ judge and attribute to me exactly opposite to what I have said on the record. If you look at my comment #5 (https://newzealandjustice.com/showthread.php?1851-Public-interest-in-forgery-perjury-and-extortion-committed-in-the-courts&p=10267&viewfull=1#post10267) above, you will read, "First of all, I do not believe in Yoda's signature forgery theory, as I am pretty sure the judges commit fraud themselves, putting their genuine signatures under their fraudulent judgments."

For completeness, Dixpat didn't asked me, I didn't have to answer, not to mention I wasn't aware of the question. Anyway, if it's not trolling but a reasonable discussion about Osborne's judgment, then the question of which of Yoda's two signatures was forged is irrelevant. I don't give a damn.

FairHearing
09-03-2016, 10:21 AM
The very first line of your first post on this thread says "I've come across Koyama V NZLS of 1 March 2016 by Osborne AJ...", the whole basis of the thread is Yoda's facts and the application of the law to those facts.

You act as the judges in question, actively misrepresenting my legal position. Please point to one single fact in my comments in this thread which is "Yoda's", and one single argument in my comments which is based on that fact.

Q. C.
09-03-2016, 11:07 AM
... Please point to one single fact in my comments in this thread which is "Yoda's", and one single argument in my comments which is based on that fact.

YODA's fact: The judge and you refer to YODA's filing an Application that claimed as 'a fact' that Court decisions were forged. Your argument is that the judge did not consider that that allegation of fact (in the Application) to be of genuine public interest, when you consider the very nature of the allegation should be of public interest. Thus, the Judge breached the rule of law.

However, the Judge clearly considered and dealt with the application and its claims. As he ruled the Judgments YODA referred to are on the public record, meaning it is inconceivable that they could be forgeries and by that there cannot be any genuine public interest in what is claimed.

If that considered decision is in error then that is a matter of appeal. However no one in the right mind would consider it an error in fact or law.

I suggest you put your mine to genuine corrupt acts by the judiciary which are more than abundant enough. Don't waste time on this one, as there was simply no need whatsoever for any of the judges to act corruptly when dealing with YODA's case, there was nothing to hid.

FairHearing
18-03-2016, 11:20 AM
I am for justice for everyone. There is no justice or its appearance when the due process is not followed. As I showed in my comments above, Osborne has


Unconditionally answered NO to a simple question of law, whether "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand" are matters of public interest. I don't think an honest judge would have done it.
Failed to assess the factual basis of Koyama's claim in terms of tenability whatsoever. This is obvious from that the judge cited NO alleged primary facts. "Forgery, perjury..." are not facts, but allegations presumably based on primary facts (eg, "two different signatures"). Speaking abstractly, two different signatures of the same judge may reasonably indicate forgery, depending on the difference and other alleged circumstances (which is a matter for trial).
Advanced arguments for NZLS to which Koyama clearly had not been given chance to reply.
Made other numerous errors of law, such as improperly referring to other judgments.



However, the Judge clearly considered and dealt with the application and its claims. As he ruled the Judgments YODA referred to are on the public record, meaning it is inconceivable that they could be forgeries and by that there cannot be any genuine public interest in what is claimed.

This is precisely how corrupt COA would dismiss a potential appeal of Osborne's judgment, and how they judge on a routine basis. They'd completely ignore the grounds (1)-(4) above and give a superfluous, conclusory, arbitrary and prejudicial judgment consisting, effectively, of 1-2 lines of text. If I was a NZ appellate judge, I could easily dismiss absolutely any appeal with a rubber stamp saying "the Judge of the court below has clearly considered and dealt with the application and its claims. It is inconceivable that the matters were as the applicant had alleged, and there cannot be any genuine public interest in what was claimed." Of course, I would entirely omit the primary facts and the relevant law.

To give a different example, the Privy Council in Taito (http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZPC/2002/4.html) has afforded justice to those convicted in "rape and abduction", "receiving stolen goods, interfering with a motor vehicle and theft from a vehicle", "rape and assault", "aggravated robbery", "murder" and so on. As far as I understand, YODA's fault is nowhere near that.

Again, I don't care whether Koyama can possibly make his allegations based on his primary facts. R v Civil Service Appeal Board [1991] 4 All ER 310, 319:


…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.

I don't care whether Osborne's decision was right or wrong, but I'm concerned that it was clearly unlawful. My understanding is that "forgery, perjury and extortion" ultimately bear on "Brockovich"'s case. Osborne's judgment would adversely affect Brockovich if the latter wanted to seek to dispense with filing fees or security on the grounds of public interest. Clearly, if Brockovich had seek dispensation, Osborne's judgment, with cosmetic changes, could easily be used to dismiss Brockovich's, or anyone else's for that matter, application.

John "Brockovich"
18-03-2016, 12:29 PM
I am for justice for everyone. There is no justice or its appearance when the due process is not followed. As I showed in my comments above, Osborne has...

...I don't care whether Osborne's decision was right or wrong, but I'm concerned that it was clearly unlawful...

Without arguing your points: My point is that you should not fight corrupt acts by judges where there is no merit in the allegation being made by YODA in the substantive matter. The Judges need not be corrupt when dealing with YODA's claims to dismiss them, however they find it hard not to be corrupt because they are so used to acting in that manner or in this case Osborne was just too lazy to deal with a stupid matter raised by YODA so reverted to a quick tactic.


My understanding is that "forgery, perjury and extortion" ultimately bear on "Brockovich"'s case. Osborne's judgment would adversely affect Brockovich if the latter wanted to seek to dispense with filing fees or security on the grounds of public interest. Clearly, if Brockovich had seek dispensation, Osborne's judgment, with cosmetic changes, could easily be used to dismiss Brockovich's, or anyone else's for that matter, application....

No it does not apply to "Brockovich", as it is a criminal matter, so attracts no filing fees.

With respect to "forgery, perjury and extortion" that is not claimed in "Brockovich". What is claimed is "criminal contempt" by a Crown Prosecutor and covering that criminal conduct up by judicial corruption by Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison.

The difference in the merits of that claim and those of YODA's is that "Brockovich's" claim is supported by two affidavits authorised by the A-G and sworn by Ms. Lee of Crown Law and Mr. Douch a Crown Prosecutor.

So to fight corruption from that prospective is a better way to involve the public, when it is decided to involve them.

FairHearing
18-03-2016, 01:12 PM
you should not fight corrupt acts by judges where there is no merit in the allegation being made...
The Judges... find it hard not to be corrupt because they are so used to acting in that manner or in this case Osborne was just too lazy...

Absolutely agree.

But the funny thing is, it doesn't matter either way. When the allegations are without merit, they are dismissed in a lawful (rarely) or unlawful (routinely) way. When the allegations are bulletproof, they are still dismissed in an unlawful way.

It's like with Nazi (that's how Orlov labelled them, didn't he?) - First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for YODA, and I did not speak out— Because I was not YODA. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Q. C.
19-03-2016, 07:52 AM
Absolutely agree...

It's like with Nazi ...

It is not fair to compare corrupt judges to Nazi. The Nazi were evil, so did not need to be corrupt to achieve their aims (they used the gun). The judges who are corrupt don't need to be evil to achieve their aims (they use their statutory position).

I agree it is fair to say that the Nazi existed because the public, the media, and politicians would not speak out because of their fear of the Nazi's evil.

So if corrupt judges in NZ don't need to be evil, why do NZ politicians, who know of our judges corruption, not speak out and act to protect us?

FairHearing
19-03-2016, 09:56 AM
Does it mean that the only difference between German Nazi and NZ Nazi is that the latter don't seem to use gas chambers yet? Though it's hard to be sure, as the mass media are under their control.


So if corrupt judges in NZ don't need to be evil, why do NZ politicians, who know of our judges corruption, not speak out and act to protect us?

Shall we discuss this in a separate thread?