PDA

View Full Version : No factual foundation for an argument of bias on the part of the Court of Appeal



FairHearing
16-04-2016, 02:46 PM
In [2016] NZSC 37 (https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/richard-john-creser-v-janine-michelle-creser-and-marion-creser-as-trustees-and-executors-of-the-estate-of-jesse-joy-creser-2016-nzsc-37/at_download/fileDecision), Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Arnold have found as follows:


Moreover, there is no factual foundation for an argument of bias or predetermination on the part of the Court of Appeal: the fact that the Court rejected Mr Creser’s application is not a sufficient factual foundation for such an allegation

Based on the past fraudulent conduct of Glazebrook, who is a known liar (https://www.fairhearing.info/complaints/), I suspect that Mr Creser in his application for leave to appeal had advanced more than the mere fact that "the Court [of Appeal] rejected Mr Creser’s application". If so, then the above judgment proves that Elias and Arnold are judicial fraudsters, too, as they sought to mislead the public as to the substance of the application they adjudicated.

I wonder if anyone has a copy of Mr Creser's application and can publish it, or perhaps provide it privately?

golfa
16-04-2016, 09:37 PM
It's in the first story on kiwisfirst.co.nz

FairHearing
17-04-2016, 02:03 PM
kiwisfirst refers to [2016] NZSC 34, there was no Elias there. Thanks anyway. I'll see if I can contact Mr Creser.

I want evidence of fraud on the part of Elias and Arnold specifically, and [2016] NZSC 37 is a perfect candidate. The quote in my original post is the rubber stamp they use on a routine basis to evade citation of the facts actually put forward in support of the allegations of bias.

FairHearing
26-05-2016, 12:41 PM
As I suspected, Sian Elias and Terence Arnold are fraudsters, just as (https://www.fairhearing.info/complaints/) William Young, Susan Glazebrook, Mark O'Regan and John McGraph. In other words, there is no honest judge in the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

[2016] NZSC 37, mentioned in comment #1 (https://newzealandjustice.com/showthread.php?1868-No-factual-foundation-for-an-argument-of-bias-on-the-part-of-the-Court-of-Appeal&p=10856&viewfull=1#post10856), creates the impression that the allegations of bias in the application for leave to appeal were based on the only fact that "the Court [of Appeal] rejected Mr Creser’s application". This amounts to fraud under Derry v Peek (cited in Shannon v Shannon [2005] NZCA 83): "fraud is a false statement made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, careless as to whether it be true or false", and Ames v Milward (1818) 129 ER 532 which held that common law fraud includes non-disclosure if the failure to disclose materially altered the impression given by the disclosed facts.

In truth, the application (https://www.fairhearing.info/wp-content/uploads/Creser-SC139-151218-a-Appeal.pdf) put forward several allegations of facts, such as the following ones (in paragraphs 4, 7-8) that were completely omitted, in a fraudulent manner, and ignored in the judgment of the Supreme Court:


That the Court of Appeal made statements to the effect that it could not find some evidence, while the evidence was placed by the Appellant before the Court;
That the Court of Appeal on two occasions accepted the bona fides of the Appellant’s appeal as valid;
That the Court of Appeal repeatedly found that it had no answer for the Appellant’s appeal;
That the Court of Appeal conclusion that it had the only answer for the Appellant’s appeal (to the latter's detriment) irrationally contradicts the court's own analysis.

Moreover, the judges cunningly omitted the Appellant's references to the right to natural justice “guaranteed” to every New Zealand citizen by s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Clearly, this also amounts to fraud upon the court as wilful disregard of the law.

It looks to me that both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were actually biased: they were not open to persuasion and would nail the Appellant regardless of the law, the facts, the evidence, precedents, the truth, or anything else.

In regard to the evidence the Court of Appeal could not find, I think they should have searched under the carpet.

The above also explains the abysmal state of the New Zealand justice system, as per the saying that a fish rots from the head down.

Q. C.
26-05-2016, 01:12 PM
As I suspected, Sian Elias and Terence Arnold are fraudsters, just as William Young, Susan Glazebrook, Mark O'Regan and John McGraph. In other words, there is no honest judge in the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

....The above also explains the abysmal state of the New Zealand justice system, as per the saying that a fish rots from the head down.

FairHearing: I would find it very hard to disagree with you. The "abysmal state" is obviously a systemic state of judicial corruption.

FairHearing
07-08-2016, 11:20 PM
The full text of the below letter can be found at https://www.fairhearing.info/judges/sian-elias/



Ms Sian Seerpoohi Elias
Judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand
By email: supremecourt@justice.govt.nz

Dear Ms Elias,

In 1999, you were sworn in as Chief Justice of New Zealand. In 2002, the Privy Council found in Taito v R that the nation’s highest court “operated arbitrarily. Certainly, it was contrary to fundamental conceptions of fairness and justice.” In 2004, the Law Commission report disclosed “widespread dissatisfaction with the court system” on the part of ordinary New Zealanders as well as big business. Ten years later, the official statistics on judicial conduct complaints demonstrate that an average New Zealand judge and an average judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand are complained about 9 and 121 (!) times more often, respectively, than an average judge of a comparable overseas jurisdiction. These are the results of your 17-year reign in the office.

Earlier this year, through your Chief Advisor Kieron McCarron, you have brushed under the carpet complaints about falsification of a party’s appearance by the Supreme Court and about unlawful assignments in the Court of Appeal. When your attention was drawn to your improper conduct in relation to the complaints, and to the glaring professional incompetence of Mr McCarron, you had “no additional response to make”.

You regularly deliver judgments amounting to fraud upon the court. For instance, in [2016] NZSC 37, you made a statement to the effect that the only fact put forward by the applicant in support of his allegations of bias was “the fact that the Court rejected [the applicant]’s application”. It was a material omission on your part, made maliciously or recklessly, and calculated to mislead the public as to the substance of the application that you adjudicated. In truth, the applicant had advanced other facts in support of his allegations, all of which you fraudulently omitted.

[...]

For the sake of the nation, retire immediately. It is abundantly clear now that no good will result to the New Zealand people from your prolonged service.

[...]

Q. C.
08-08-2016, 10:48 AM
The full text of the below letter can be found at https://www.fairhearing.info/judges/sian-elias/

FairHearing: The only additional matter I would have raised with Justice Elias was that;

- it is now obvious that your dissenting opinion in A-G v Chapman (SC120/2009) was a ruse to fool the Legal Profession, the Public and Parliament that you were an honest Judge who wished to enhance public confidence in, and to protect the impartiality and integrity of, the judicial system.

A ruse; As in reality your subsequent conduct as a Supreme Court Judge, and as Chief Justices, demonstrates you have no interest whatsoever in the rule of law and human rights when you choose to ignore those fundamentals of law, so your ruling in Chapman should be ignored, in that, in effect, your actions and conduct are in agreement with the majority in Chapman.

You are either as corrupt as your fellow Supreme Court Judges in that respect or are too weak to stand up to them and the Ministers/A-G who promote this abysmal situation. So you do not now rule in the way you so rightly portrayed you would rule in your decision in Chapman.

FairHearing
08-08-2016, 11:32 AM
Yeah, similar to the “bad cop good cop” game. Of course, in our case the "good" cop - Elias - is always a minority. It's very convenient for her, isn't it?

By the way, the bare majority (3 to 2) in A-G v Chapman included John McGrath and William Young JJ, the same judges who falsified a party's appearance in SC3/2015 and engaged in other fraudulent conduct (https://www.fairhearing.info/judges/john-mcgrath/).

FairHearing
12-08-2016, 12:06 AM
The page on Elias (ttps://www.fairhearing.info/judges/sian-elias/) was updated with the following:


At the beginning of her Chief Justice career, Ms Sian Elias said: "It’s important for the public to be comfortable in the courts, but you can’t become too engaged – it may compromise the judicial function, which is why judges don’t socialise with people they may have to deal with in court." Five years later, the Law Commission reported that its investigations disclose widespread dissatisfaction with the court system. It remarked on a “message of alienation and discomfort” which is felt by big business as well as by “ordinary New Zealanders”. We don’t know how Ms Elias understands the “judicial function”, but she hasn’t been “too engaged” with the public needs indeed.

It seems Elias was too "brilliant" and with a hidden agenda. Her mistake was she said too much on several occasions in her early days. She now sticks to "silence is golden". Her close friend Lowell Goddard has just ended up in disgrace (https://www.fairhearing.info/judges/lowell-goddard/). Elias is next?

BTW, unlike Elias, other NZ judges are not afraid to "socialise with people" (http://www.laudafinem.com/2016/02/23/in-new-zealand-the-law-is-often-an-ass-judge-chipolata-guilty-of-indecent-exposure/).