PDA

View Full Version : Why you should ALWAYS tape record your lawyer !!!



1victim
16-08-2012, 12:27 AM
Lawyers are honest people, right ?
The law society have rules of conduct of which they hold their members to, right ?
The LCRO, on behalf of the New Zealand government, holds the law society accountable, right ?

You may have noticed the post on NZJ Forum on Tuesday 14.08.2012 regarding the delaying of the sentencing of Barrister, Anthony David Banbrook, as the CEO of the failed finance company, National Finance 2000. He pleaded Guilty to the crime of Documentation Fraud against his 2026 investors.
As part of his misrepresentation of these investors' money, Banbrook purchased property in Fiji.

You may also recall his well publicised and arrogant outburst at his previous court appearance as regards to the setting of his sentencing date. Standing outside the dock and overtalking his lawyer, he bellowed to the judge that he could not possibly be sentenced in August as he had a "pre - booked holiday in ..... Fiji .. !!!!"

Banbrook now has a new lawyer .....

And he is seeking a "completely different sentence" ..... (To his imprisoned co - Directors)

Sadly, I was also misrepresented by Anthony David Banbrook. On the 8th of December 2006, I made a formal complaint to the NZ Law Society (Garreth Heyns) that Banbrook had acted without an instructing solicitor. (Breach of NZLS rule 11.03 - could not represent in any court)
In response to my complaint, Tony Banbrook sent a letter to the law society dated the 31.01.2007 saying that he DID have an instructing solicitor. He supported this letter with an "affidavit" dated the 21.09.2006, in which he named his associate, John Robin Holmes as this person. On the facing page of this "affidavit" was emblazoned the business name of " Holmes Dangen & associates. "

I asked Mr Holmes via email as to Banbrook's statements. He replied in writing he was NOT the instructing solicitor.

I arranged a meeting with Mr Holmes at his office to discuss the matter further. I tape recorded the meeting.

Mr Holmes confirmed once again he was NOT the instructing solicitor and explained the reasons as to WHY he could not have been. He confirmed his emails to me. And he confirmed the Documentation Fraud committed by Banbrook, whilst stating there are no documents on the court file with his name on them ........

The tape recording was transcribed and many copies were downloaded to CD. A copy of both was sent to the Law Society in support of my complaint. The transcript was sworn as an affidavit.
In setting a new low, Garreth Heyns ASKED Tony Banbrook IF HE WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE RECORDING AND TRANSCRIPT ..... !!!!!

Banbrook did not respond .....

In keeping with their tradition of extreme corruption, the Law Society cleared Banbrook of any wrongdoing ... !!!

I lodged a complaint with the NZ government's office of the LCRO (Hanneke Bouchier), as to the findings of the Law Society. I sent them copies of the recording and affidavit of the transcript. After waiting for one and a half years, they have granted me a hearing. (30.08.2012)

BUT ....... the LCRO have stated to me in a letter dated the 6th of June 2012, that AFTER THIS HEARING, they MAY or MAY NOT, ask Anthony David Banbrook to answer whether he had an instructing solicitor .... !!!!! ( Yes - I have it in writing !!! )
Complaint lodged 8th of December 2006. It is now the 15th of August 2012 .......

As all on this NZJ Forum are only too aware, these are very sick, sick, depraved human beings of whom we are forced to engage with.

If I have done everything correctly, there will be some attachments with this letter. The Fraudulent "affidavit" of Anthony David Banbrook, and the complete transcript of the tape recording. Enjoy. (I will post the LCRO finding)

1victim.

Beachedas
16-08-2012, 11:10 PM
Sadly I'm not at all surprised by these revelations. I've had several complaints before the Wellington District Law Society concerning blatant breaches of the rules of conduct,such as solicitors charging for responding to complaints about them.

The lack of integrity in the New Zealand Law society appears to be the same malaise recently identified in the NZ Medical Council where an overly cosy relationship between the council & practitioners has been identified,

Recently, I started recording every interaction I've had with bureaucrats , including the Police. It would certainly help some of these cases if people started posting these deviants and their exploits on youtube. Another method I've found useful is the video phone, which allows you record the conversation with another witness present.

1victim
11-10-2012, 12:41 PM
National Finance fraudster, Anthony David Banbrook, has been cleared for the second time by Garreth Heyns of the New Zealand Law Society, of acting without an instructing solicitor.
(For the uneducated, a barrister CANNOT ACT for a client in the absence of an instructing solicitor)
The well publicised tape recording of John Robin Holmes, having been named by Banbrook as the instructing solicitor, was submitted with the sworn affidavit of the meeting, to Garreth Heyns as evidence to Banbrook's lie.
But the Law Society stands defiant !!

No action is to be taken against the fraudster.

And as to the hearing with the LCRO - they have stated by letter that we are NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY THE TAPE RECORDING AT OUR HEARING on the 29th of October.

Transparency is what they are all about !!

1victim
27-11-2012, 11:26 PM
Finally we will get our hearing with the corrupt LCRO. Thursday 29th November, 10am Auckland district courtroom 9.1.

The LCRO are playing out their corruption hand by continuing to pretend that the FACT that Tony Banbrook did Not have an instructing solicitor is not a serious Breach of law society rules. (11.03)

They won't put it in writing though !!!

Quote lawyer Paul Borich : "A barrister can't act for a client in the absence of an instructing solicitor".

The LCRO is still trying desperately to deny the John Holmes tape recording and even the sworn affidavit of the transcript !!

Despite being sent copies of both, they will not acknowledge them ! This tape recording is, of course, the winning of this entire corrupt case.
But the Government appointed LCRO will not let the Truth interfere with their corruption. They will clear the Convicted Criminal, Tony Banbrook, of any breaches of law society rules, no matter what ....

So despite his former business associate, John Holmes, branding him a Blatant Liar and confirming there is no way he could have been the instructing solicitor, and further confirming him guilty of Documentation Fraud, Perjury and Forgery, the corrupt LCRO will follow the law society and clear Banbrook of any breach.

Banbrook recently pleaded Guilty to the Crime of Documentation Fraud in his failed National Finance Company, in which he admitted making False Statements in misleading the 2026 investors. (victims)
Despite his pleading Guilty and being convicted, he has been granted a "Disputed Facts Hearing" in the high court in Auckland on the 10th of December, after which he will be cleared of his malpractice and his conviction will be overturned. (Smells a bit like Sir Douglas Graham ....)

So you plead Guilty, get convicted, and then get a special hearing to dispute the very evidence you pleaded Guilty to ..... ????
Tony Banbrook certainly does have "friends in high places". (I am either Nostradamus, or I know the NZ "justice system" too well)

I sincerely hope I have to come on to this forum and eat humble pie .....

I will post the corrupt findings of the Government appointed LCRO.

1victim

(Note : Should anyone like a copy of the John Holmes tape recording please send me a private message)

"Frank"
28-11-2012, 01:11 AM
1Victim, you certainly did the right thing by tape recording the discussion with the non-solicitor. Without those tapes you would not have got this far, and their cover-up would have been complete.

We also tape recorded a number of meetings, although not with our lawyer. I like your idea of putting the tapes online so anyone can listen to the evidence. I'd like to ask, does anyone know how do I get a cassette tape recording into a digital format?

I only wish that more New Zealanders were like you, and did something about corruption, instead of shrugging it off. Corruption of the nature you describe is now a massive problem in NZ. Accountability is non-existent in several areas of NZ society. Wherever there are bodies setup to ensure ethics/rules followed, or to oversee a group of practitioners, their sole purpose in NZ is to cover-up corrupt behaviour and to ensure unaccountability. Whether this be the Law Society, the NZ Association of Counsellors, the Judicial Complaints Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the CYF Complaint Authority - the prime purpose is always the same, to ensure no accountability and cover-up wrong doings. NZ is now littered with thousands and thousands of genuine, credible stories from individuals all saying the same thing.

1victim
19-12-2012, 06:17 PM
It has been brought to our attention that the ENTIRE CHAPTER (11 - The practice of barristers) listing the obligations of a lawyer to have an instructing solicitor has been REMOVED from the "Rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors".

It has been replaced by some new "code speak" dribble ....

And so law society rule 11.03 stating ..." a barrister sole must accept instructions from a solicitor and may not accept instructions direct from a lay client " , has been REMOVED !!

And rule 11.10 ..... " A barrister should keep his or her instructing solicitor reasonably informed of the progress of the brief " - REMOVED !!

Previously the law society withdrew their advert stating this from the Yellow Pages ....

So the John Holmes tape recording will probably be deemed invalid as to this "new rule" ....

In regards to our hearing with the LCRO, I will post the details on this forum over the next few weeks.
You will NOT be amazed at the "evidence" he put foward in trying to convince us that Mr Holmes WAS the instructing solicitor for the convicted fraudster, Tony Banbrook !!!


They're all about transparency .....

1victim

teeny
01-01-2013, 12:02 PM
Is this the "Tony Banbrook" who is involved with prostitution ?


I have close friends who lost thousands in his collapsed National Finance Company due to his false statements in his prospectus. Whilst I understand the corrupt Law Society and LCRO protecting these Criminals, why is it that lawyers always escape prosecution in serious fraud cases ?
This man should be in jail.

Teeny

corkscrew
07-01-2013, 03:02 PM
It has been brought to our attention that the ENTIRE CHAPTER (11 - The practice of barristers) listing the obligations of a lawyer to have an instructing solicitor has been REMOVED from the "Rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors".

It has been replaced by some new "code speak" dribble ....

And so law society rule 11.03 stating ..." a barrister sole must accept instructions from a solicitor and may not accept instructions direct from a lay client " , has been REMOVED !!

And rule 11.10 ..... " A barrister should keep his or her instructing solicitor reasonably informed of the progress of the brief " - REMOVED !!

Previously the law society withdrew their advert stating this from the Yellow Pages ....

So the John Holmes tape recording will probably be deemed invalid as to this "new rule" ....


I don't believe that this is correct. If you go to the Rules of Conduct and Client Care for Lawyers, the barristers' intervention rule is plainly still there (part 14 - "14.4 Subject to rules 14.6, 14.7, and 14.8, a barrister sole must not accept instructions to act for another person other than from a person who holds a practising certificate as a barrister and solicitor"). In fact the Law Society consulted extensively on the retention of the intervention rule in 2012 and decided that it would be retained for the time being.

Maybe your informant was confused by referring to the "Rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors" which have indeed been removed in their entirety.

admin
08-01-2013, 11:13 AM
I don't believe that this is correct. If you go to the Rules of Conduct and Client Care for Lawyers, the barristers' intervention rule is plainly still there (part 14 - "14.4 Subject to rules 14.6, 14.7, and 14.8, a barrister sole must not accept instructions to act for another person other than from a person who holds a practising certificate as a barrister and solicitor"). In fact the Law Society consulted extensively on the retention of the intervention rule in 2012 and decided that it would be retained for the time being.

Maybe your informant was confused by referring to the "Rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors" which have indeed been removed in their entirety.

The rule is clearly still there but a willingness to enforce it is not. I sat in on a High Court case in Wellington recently where a barrister was seeking to claim costs from a client whom she claimed had given her instructions to represent a trust, despite there being no written consent from either of the trustees(the matter is proceeding). In essence it is up to the discretion of the court to decide whether or not to allow the enforcement of what is in effect a "reverse brief" and I have been informed that there have been at least two NZ cases where his has been allowed.

Its not just the courts that seem to be lax in applying the rules, I know of several cases where solicitors have been allowed to avoid censure by the Law Society and charge an estate for resolving complaints against them (contrary to the rules) for taking enourmous fees by deduction without being required to account.

1victim
14-01-2013, 05:50 PM
This post is written as an open letter to the prime minister, John Key, and his Government appointed Legal Complaints Review Officer, Owen Vaughan,which has been sent to both parties. You are both invited to reply.

On the 8th of January 2013, the attached 10 Documents were sent to both the PM and the LCRO as PROOF that the Convicted Fraudster, TONY BANBROOK, had acted illegally in having NO instructing solicitor.
This evidence was put forward in support of the Tape Recorded Interview with lawyer, John Holmes dated 01.03.2011, and several emails and affidavits in support.

At Paul's "hearing" on the 29th of November 2012, a question was put to Owen Vaughan : " So, how's he represented me without an instructing solicitor ?

The LCRO's reply was : "I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO AWAY AND CONSIDER WHAT IS THE COMPELLING EVIDENCE. BEARING IN MIND, THAT THERE IS A STANDARD OF PROOF THAT HAS TO BE MET".

Quote Owen Vaughan 29.11.2012 : "There's obviously a conflict between what he's saying to the Standards Committee on the 8th March 2011"...

(Image 718) Letter dated 11th December 2012 signed by Robert Hesketh - Convenor of Auckland Standards Committe 1.
Quote Hesketh :" Mr Holmes is of the view ... in FACT they were NOT THE INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS".

In his desperation to exonerate the Convicted National Finance Fraudster, Owen Vaughan produced a 3 page FRAUDULENT document which was IN FACT written by Anthony David Banbrook. The LCRO claimed this document was an "affidavit" written by John Robin Holmes stating he WAS the instructing solicitor.

(Image 719) Mr Holmes's replys to this Fraudulent Document were Quote : " I HAVE NO PERSONAL RECOLLECTION OF THAT "AFFIDAVIT".

" THE STATEMENTS IN THE "AFFIDAVIT" ARE INCORRECT".

" IN SUMMARY, I AM SATISFIED THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONTENTS OF THE "AFFIDAVIT", WE WERE NEVER THE INSTRUCTING SOLICITOR ON ANY OF THE ACTIONS IN WHICH MR BANBROOK REPRESENTED YOU".

Quote Owen Vaughan 29.11.2012: " WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT AN AFFIDAVIT ?"

(Image 717) Crimes Act 1961 Section 114 Use of purported affidavit or declaration.
Everyone is liable to imprisonment for 3 years who -

(a) signs a writing that purports to be an affidavit ....
(b) USES or OFFERS FOR USE any writing purporting to be an affidavit that
he knows was not sworn or made .....

(Image 717) Crimes Act 1961 Section 257 Using FORGED DOCUMENTS
Everyone is liable to imprisonment for 10 years who knowing a document to be
forged - (b) USES or ACTS UPON THE DOCUMENT AS IF IT WERE GENUINE ...
(see also Sections 255/256/259)

And further "Compelling Evidence" in meeting Mr Vaughan's "Standards of Proof" which need to be met, is by way of the "Lawyers and Conveyancers Rule 35" : Conflicting Interests"

(Image 720) (1) A conveyancing practitioner MUST NOT ACT OR CONTINUE TO ACT IF THERE
IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST .....

Quote Robert Hesketh 11th December 2012 (Image 718) :"Mr Holmes states .. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THEM TO HAVE ACTED AS INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS ON THE MATTER".

(Image 719) Quote John Holmes 8th June 2011 : "I CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE AGREED TO ACT AS AN INSTRUCTING SOLICITOR .... THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INAPPROPRIATE, INVOLVING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ...

(Image 720) Rule 8 Obligations to keep records.
A conveyancing practitioner must ensure that WRITTEN RECORDS ARE KEPT ....

(Images 721 / 722 / 723) Email dated 11th July 2011 from John Holmes and accompanying DOCUMENTED PROOF OF HIS ACTING ON THE CONVEYANCING. Both documents are emblazoned with the names of JOHN HOLMES and his then employee, THADA ANNE ERASMUS. The documents are dated May and June2004 ....

Both the Prime Minister and the LCRO were sent these 10 attached documents via email and couriered to the LCRO on the 11th January 2013. Neither have acknowledged receiving them ......

And so to the Prime Minister, JOHN KEY, and your Government appointed LCRO, OWEN VAUGHAN -
(Both of you have acknowledged being in possession of the JOHN ROBIN HOLMES TAPE RECORDING dated 01.03.2011) .......

Have we met your "STANDARDS OF PROOF THAT NEED TO BE MET ?"
Have we given you "COMPELLING EVIDENCE ?"

Did John Holmes do the conveyancing and therefore COULD NOT REPRESENT ?

Or will you endorse your FRAUDULENT "AFFIDAVIT" written by the CONVICTED FRAUDSTER, TONY BANBROOK ?

Paul Currie
Robb Currie
Joyce Currie

(1 victim)

Footnote : Should anyone wish to get an audio copy and transcript of our complete "hearing" with the LCRO on the 29.11.2012 please send a private message.

1victim
19-02-2013, 02:08 PM
Holmes Dangen & Associates Ltd. Do you need a Fraudulent Affidavit drawn up ??? ... Talk to John Holmes .....

Continuing on from the previous post. The 3 page fraudulent "affidavit" allegedly sworn by John Holmes and used by Banbrook and Holmes's defence counsel - the law society standards committee and the LCRO - was put to Mr Holmes in 3 further tape recorded meetings.

Tony Banbrook's evidence to the standards committee and the LCRO is : "Mr Holmes was the instructing solicitor".
"I discussed it with Mr Currie and he agreed that Mr Holmes would be suitable".
"I spoke to Mr Holmes and, umm. he was".

Quote John Holmes : "That affidavit was prepared by Mr Tony Banbrook, a barrister".

Paragraph 7 of their "affidavit" states : "I cannot continue to act as solicitor on record".
Paragraph 9 states : "I seek leave to withdraw as solicitor on record".

And here are some of the Bell Ringers from John Holmes to our questions .....

What duties did you perform as an instructing solicitor ?
J.H. "NONE".

So you weren't actually the instructing solicitor ?
J.H. "Yes that's right. No payment, no files".

No duties performed as an instructing solicitor - how many times have you been an instructing solicitor and not performed one duty ?
J.H. "Oh a few other things, yep".

Confirming he's (Banbrook) banged your name on things without your knowledge before ?
J.H. "Correct".
"I've known him on occassions to bang our firm's name on stuff".
"I've got correspondence from a few other things from lawyers about cases I've never heard about".

And all these documents are fraudulent ?
J.H. "Hmmm".

What was his problem, you said he came to you with a problem ?
J.H. "Oh I suppose his problem was he wanted to get out or wasn't getting paid and he may have said to me I've used you as instructing solicitor and umm but I've got no file so umm ...

Yeah so you weren't the instructing solicitor ?
J.H. "Um he would have come to me and said, with the affidavit and said um I've got a problem - I need to get off this case you, I've nominated you as instructing solicitor would you mind signing an affidavit, swear an affidavit, so that I can ahh get out of it ?

Yeah but you were never the instructing solicitor, you were never signed up ?
J.H. "I never signed up anything with Paul".

Now this affidavit they're telling you you did - is this what they've done ? (Fraudulent affidavit produced)
J.H. "Yeah that's the same one - yeah that's it".

So that's what they've sent you ?
J.H. "Yes"
"I certainly don't recall signing the affidavit, I was astonished when I saw it actually".

Why would you sign it ?
J.H. "Well you may ask that and ahh you're right, in fact it was not a very good idea".
"I had nothing to do with the case at all actually, but I swore the affidavit so he could withdraw".
"He was seeking to withdraw wasn't he ? - not me - I had nothing to do with it".
"I'd have to explain why I've said I was, obviously a bit slack in you might say um signing something that at the
time was umm y'know simple enough and umm just to hopefully to get him off the hook and out of the case".

So he's (Banbrook) done a Fraudulent Document, and put your name on it, and you've gone and signed a Fraudulent Document ?
J.H. "Yeah".

Yeah, well that's, that's the problem John, you've put your name to false documents which lines you up ...
J.H. "Yes - that's right"

As an accomplice to him ?
J.H. "Hmmm".


So, are lawyers allowed to write false affidavits after the fact ?

We have requested a hearing with the standards committee and the LCRO to have all tape recordings played with Tony Banbrook and John Holmes present and await their reply.

Banbrook recently pled guilty to this very same crime in his failed National Finance Company and is about to have his conviction overturned. No doubt his "friends in high places" will clear him of this crime also ....


See attached 4 page sworn affidavit (a genuine one !) to our questions to Holmes.

1victim

teeny
24-02-2013, 10:59 AM
1 victim, you are to be commended on your "covert operations" in exposing these two criminals. I only wish I had done the same with my son's lawyer. Although it was just a traffic infringement, he told us there were no grounds for a case against him and it would not stand up in court, then in court he said precisely the opposite and supported the police.

And then he denied saying what he said to us. If only I had the presence of mind to have tape recorded him !
Mind you, as the corrupt Law Society and LCRO stop at nothing to exonerate their members, as is proven graphically in your case, it would do no good to complain anyway.

Teeny

1victim
28-02-2013, 10:58 PM
The Government employed LCRO, Owen Vaughan, is standing by his Fraudulent "Affidavit" in acting as the defence council for the two Criminals, Tony Banbrook and John Holmes, which he produced at the hearing on the 29th November 2012.

The rule states : "THE DUTY TO DISCOVER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IS A CONTINUING ONE UP TO AND INCLUDING THE TIME OF JUDGEMENT."

Owen Vaughan on the 22.01.2013 sent us an email stating : "If in future you send NEW and RELEVANT INFORMATION to FORM PART OF THIS REVIEW FILE, please indicate this and also quote the LCRO number that it relates to".......

As is documented in our previous posts, we have done precisely this, by way of our affidavits etc. All information has also been presented to the Prime Minister.

Our affidavits prove the crimes of Perjury, Forgery and Accounting Fraud against Banbrook and Holmes.

Today, we received the attached letter from the LCRO. (Image 814)

He now states : "Your emails of 14 January, 21,22,23 and 27 February (and copies of same) have been received in this office."

"..the LCRO is NOT ACCEPTING FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS MATTER."

"The content (Our affidavits of the tape recorded transcripts) of these emails WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE LCRO."

A formal request to play all four tape recordings with all parties present has previously been made, with no response ....

The Prime Minister has acknowledged receiving all of our submissions. We assume he endorses this corruption by his Government appointed LCRO. (Perhaps it is part of their contractual duties ?)

They have been requested to re-consider their decision .....

1victim

wepu67
09-03-2013, 06:11 PM
LCRO: I wrote to Jeff Orr, Deputy Secretary, Policy Group Ministry of Justice, I said the LCRO are above the law and any decision they make cannot be appealed to a Higher Court.....he wrote back "In your letter you suggest the decisions of the LCRO cannot be judicially reviewed. In some circumstances, the decisions of those who exercise statutory powers can be judicially reviewed. you may wish to discuss these with your lawyer", the lawyer I complained about is the partner of 'Lying" Lawyer guilty...Hutt News 8-10-2010, the Lawyer I engaged was mentioned in the item by Antonio Bradley, this lawyer was prohibited from practising in conveyancing matters, after he pleaded guilty of charges of incompetence.....he is one of the untouchables, I tried and I was shot down in flames by the law Society and the LCRO, when he said I wasn't his client, he had simply made and semantic error and when he wrote My Client (and my name) several times, he didn't mean to say that....???

1victim
13-03-2013, 12:51 AM
.... it's just that when he's not being all of these things, he is committing crimes of perjury, forgery and accounting fraud !!!

He was today (12.03.2013) kept out of jail by his "friends in high places", having pleaded Guilty to signing a false prospectus in misleading his 2026 victims of his failed finance company - National Finance. (See attached Image 837)

As all readers of this thread can clearly see with documented proof, Tony Banbrook is guilty of all of the above crimes in his misrepresentation of Paul.

Not only has he signed false documents - he has forged them with John Holmes's name on them ! And then lied about them !!

And yet his QC - Harry Waalkens, stressed Banbrook was : ".... an upstanding member of the legal community with "FANTASTIC" references !!! "

Well he must be, because the NZLS is allowing him to continue practising even with his conviction ...

And yesterday (11.03.2013) Banbrook had the audacity to send a letter to Garreth Heyns, of the NZLS, stating "It is crystal clear that at all material times John Holmes was my instructing solicitor "...... !!!
(See attached Image 838)

So if you are in need of a fine upstanding "senior litigation lawyer", then seek out 66 year old Anthony David Banbrook. You won't miss him - he'll be the one with $24.8 million bulging out of his pockets, and setting off security alarms with his brand new ankle bracelet !!!!

1victim

Fordperfect
14-03-2013, 12:31 AM
The judge has revealed his identity in an email to the minister of justice. He sat as a Family Court Judge in Invercargill, but resigned and caught a lot of people unaware I waited two hours for a hearing before court staff informed us of his resignation. Actually as a family court judge he was very astute. Trouble for him was he was travelling between Dunedin and Invercargill daily a round trip of about 450 km per day. very foolish that bit and leads to debt and resignation. His criminal defence work was ethical and competent but other areas of laws were not so hot. In his handling of the case thats lead to his being struck off I am aquainted with the complainant and the person is not one I would want to cross.

Fordperfect
14-03-2013, 12:36 AM
Oh another judge resigned after fiddling his expenses and his mentor who showed him how to fiddle them fought his case in court and won by claiming no criminal intent which is the first requirement for a successful prosecution the judge was shunted into a position where he would never meet the public again nor have to make rulings

1victim
31-03-2013, 09:18 PM
Legal Coverup Review Officer, OWEN W.J.VAUGHAN, has confirmed himself Guilty as an accessory to the Crime of FORGERY (Section 257 of the Crimes Act) in clearing the self confessed Fraudster, Tony Banbrook, of having acted ILLEGALLY, WITHOUT an instructing solicitor.

Although acknowledging having ALL of the attached sworn evidence in support, Vaughan has stated in his "Determination" dated 22.03.2013, that John Holmes WAS the instructing solicitor !!!!!!

Vaughan produced NO EVIDENCE to prove his lie .....

So despite the sworn evidence of four tape recordings, numerous emails, and the signed conveyancing documents as proof, OWEN VAUGHAN has stated, in his litany of lies that Quote :

"MR HOLMES DOES NOT DISPUTE THE AUTHENTICITY OF HIS AFFIDAVIT" !!!!!!!!



Lawyers and conveyancers act : Section 206 Proceedings of Legal Complaints Review Officer

(3) Subject to subsection (2) and to S.205,207,and 208, the Legal Complaints Review Officer must perform his or her duties and excercise his or her powers in a way THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.


And in a further brazen act of "We Can Do What We Bloody Well Like", Owen Vaughan has Threatened in his "determination", that himself, or the Fraudster Banbrook, will take legal action against Paul Currie if he exposes these Crimes committed by them !!!!!!!!


A request has been forwarded to both the minister of "justice" and the minister for courts as to the proceedure for having Vaughan's "decision" judicially reviewed ......

They're all about transparency - spelt C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N

1victim












Holmes Dangen & Associates Ltd. Do you need a Fraudulent Affidavit drawn up ??? ... Talk to John Holmes .....

Continuing on from the previous post. The 3 page fraudulent "affidavit" allegedly sworn by John Holmes and used by Banbrook and Holmes's defence counsel - the law society standards committee and the LCRO - was put to Mr Holmes in 3 further tape recorded meetings.

Tony Banbrook's evidence to the standards committee and the LCRO is : "Mr Holmes was the instructing solicitor".
"I discussed it with Mr Currie and he agreed that Mr Holmes would be suitable".
"I spoke to Mr Holmes and, umm. he was".

Quote John Holmes : "That affidavit was prepared by Mr Tony Banbrook, a barrister".

Paragraph 7 of their "affidavit" states : "I cannot continue to act as solicitor on record".
Paragraph 9 states : "I seek leave to withdraw as solicitor on record".

And here are some of the Bell Ringers from John Holmes to our questions .....

What duties did you perform as an instructing solicitor ?
J.H. "NONE".

So you weren't actually the instructing solicitor ?
J.H. "Yes that's right. No payment, no files".

No duties performed as an instructing solicitor - how many times have you been an instructing solicitor and not performed one duty ?
J.H. "Oh a few other things, yep".

Confirming he's (Banbrook) banged your name on things without your knowledge before ?
J.H. "Correct".
"I've known him on occassions to bang our firm's name on stuff".
"I've got correspondence from a few other things from lawyers about cases I've never heard about".

And all these documents are fraudulent ?
J.H. "Hmmm".

What was his problem, you said he came to you with a problem ?
J.H. "Oh I suppose his problem was he wanted to get out or wasn't getting paid and he may have said to me I've used you as instructing solicitor and umm but I've got no file so umm ...

Yeah so you weren't the instructing solicitor ?
J.H. "Um he would have come to me and said, with the affidavit and said um I've got a problem - I need to get off this case you, I've nominated you as instructing solicitor would you mind signing an affidavit, swear an affidavit, so that I can ahh get out of it ?

Yeah but you were never the instructing solicitor, you were never signed up ?
J.H. "I never signed up anything with Paul".

Now this affidavit they're telling you you did - is this what they've done ? (Fraudulent affidavit produced)
J.H. "Yeah that's the same one - yeah that's it".

So that's what they've sent you ?
J.H. "Yes"
"I certainly don't recall signing the affidavit, I was astonished when I saw it actually".

Why would you sign it ?
J.H. "Well you may ask that and ahh you're right, in fact it was not a very good idea".
"I had nothing to do with the case at all actually, but I swore the affidavit so he could withdraw".
"He was seeking to withdraw wasn't he ? - not me - I had nothing to do with it".
"I'd have to explain why I've said I was, obviously a bit slack in you might say um signing something that at the
time was umm y'know simple enough and umm just to hopefully to get him off the hook and out of the case".

So he's (Banbrook) done a Fraudulent Document, and put your name on it, and you've gone and signed a Fraudulent Document ?
J.H. "Yeah".

Yeah, well that's, that's the problem John, you've put your name to false documents which lines you up ...
J.H. "Yes - that's right"

As an accomplice to him ?
J.H. "Hmmm".


So, are lawyers allowed to write false affidavits after the fact ?

We have requested a hearing with the standards committee and the LCRO to have all tape recordings played with Tony Banbrook and John Holmes present and await their reply.

Banbrook recently pled guilty to this very same crime in his failed National Finance Company and is about to have his conviction overturned. No doubt his "friends in high places" will clear him of this crime also ....


See attached 4 page sworn affidavit (a genuine one !) to our questions to Holmes.

1victim

1victim
20-02-2014, 12:24 AM
Not even our small town courts are exempt from Judicial Corruption !!!

Three Criminal Charges were filed under the Criminal Procedure Act Section 26, Private Prosecution, at the Pukekohe District Court with Registrar Sue Kirk on the 27th November 2013 against the convicted fraudster, Anthony David BANBROOK.
The charges were Perjury, Forgery and False Accounting.

Documented evidence and a CD (including the sworn transcript) of the John Robin Holmes tape recording of the 01.03.2011 - which clearly proves all three charges - were submitted in support.

I had a half hour hearing with Judge Claire Ryan on the 12th December 2013, case number CRI-2014-057-000072.

She confirmed she had not listened to the John Holmes recording or read the transcript.

Judge Claire Ryan issued a "Directive" on that date, stating - Quote : "Mr Currie has appeared in front of me today. He has filed three Charging Documents in the Pukekohe District Court in late November 2013. It is now December 2013. Understandably Mr Currie wants some progress".

"The registrar brought me the file this morning. I am concerned that Mr Currie's documents do not languish somewhere, because as I have explained to him justice delayed is justice denied and we need to make progress with them".

"I have discussed the matter with Mr Currie. He seems to be on top of all the factual information. He has given me a large file. I have not had a chance to look at the full file. I am going to do that when I can because Mr Currie as a stakeholder in the justice system is owed that".

Well, what a humanitarian eh ? .....

Except .... for transparency, expedience and clarity, we have emailed and phoned Judge Ryan and her PA - Anne Molloy - a total of thirtyeight times to enquire, respectfully, if she has indeed honoured her pledge to read the evidence and listen to the John Holmes recording .....

To date, we have had thirtyeight non-replies !!!!

And further to Judge Ryan's "Directive" - she did not accept the Charging Documents for filing on the grounds that parts of them were "defective" !!! (See Helen Winkleman / Kim Dotcom COA judgement 19.02.2014 !!!)

A quick perusal of Ryan's google pages reveal glowing propaganda tributes to her, e.g. upon being admitted to the bench : "It's wonderful that I have been given the opportunity to serve the community".

"In dealing with a wide spectrum of people I was confronted with humanity - both my client's and my own"

"She is very loyal and uses her considerable talents well to the benefit of others".

To date in this case, Judge Claire Ryan has indeed used her "considerable talents" to benefit the convicted fraudster, Anthony David BANBROOK, by way of perverting justice.

The false affidavit of Tony BANBROOK is attached below in which he falsely named John Holmes as his instructing solicitor. It is our charge of forgery (section 256(1)(3)(4)) against him. And again I have attached the complete transcript of the meeting with John Robin Holmes which proves the forgery.

"Claire is a person of outstanding character, integrity and intelligence" - but will Claire honour her Judicial Oath and uphold the Law ???

We will re-lodge our charges with the court soon.

1victim

teeny
20-02-2014, 03:55 PM
no matter how indisputable your evidence is, corruption will always find a way to defeat the truth in a New Zealand court. judge Claire Ryan is a cancer survivor - and yet her cancerous judgements eat away at innocent people's lives on a daily basis.

1victim
21-07-2014, 10:26 PM
On the 15 July 2014, a hearing against the law society standards committee was held before LCRO DOROTHY THRESHER to dispute the law society decision in clearing barrister John Robin Holmes of signing a false affidavit and a false account.

Two months prior to this hearing the LCRO was given written confirmation that in accordance with their rule #32, 4 people would be in attendance. The names of these support people were supplied but no acknowledgement was forthcoming from the LCRO. Included in the 4 people was the complainant's 84 year old blind mother. Several more requests were made to confirm this hearing - all resulting in NO ANSWER .....

On Thursday 10th July, a further email was sent to MARK WAGER - case manager - to confirm the 4 support people, confirm the court room, and the time of the hearing. He was also phoned. NO REPLY was forthcoming .....

Upon arrival at the Auckland district court on the 15th, following a 60 kilometre journey, we arrived to find no hearing was listed in the courtroom we were told it was to be held in.

After 20 minutes of searching we were about to abandon our hearing, - which we had waited 2 and a 1/2 years for !! - when a woman advised us our courtroom had been changed !

Two of our party of four entered the courtroom to find the waiting John Holmes in there. Immediately, negotiations were opened with him in an attempt to resolve the issue. This was achieved ...... Holmes agreed to deem his fraudulent documents VOID AB INITIO, by way of an affidavit.

After delaying our hearing for 40 minutes, LCRO DOROTHY THRESHER finally arrived - the ANTICHRIST was amongst us !!!

Immediately, THRESHER set out to antagonise and abuse us. Despite the 4 support people being confirmed months prior, THRESHER claimed she had not been notified ....... she is a f@#*ing liar !!

As the coward she proved herself to be, she directed her vicious verbal assault towards the complainant's 84 year old blind mother and indignantly demanded she be removed from the hearing. Standing and holding his mother's white stick in the air, the complainant informed the ANTICHRIST that his mother would not be leaving.

Not to be outdone, THRESHER spat out that there were people in the court to "take care of her" ! She beckoned to the enormous security officer present, that he may escort her out of the room .....

After being told to "get off your high horse" several times, THRESHER finally realised what a fool she was making of herself and conceded ......

This was the beginning to our Legal Complaints Review hearing against the "standards committee" decision.

A formal complaint will be made as to THRESHER'S abusive conduct against a disabled senior citizen.

Fortunately we managed to tape record the entire fiasco. Anyone wishing to hear the performance of DOROTHY THRESHER may contact me privately via the facility available on this Forum.

In the interim, I have posted here two statements made by John Robin Holmes in regards to his signing a false affidavit in support of his friend, and convicted fraudster Anthony David Banbrook.

The complaint against Holmes was that he KNOWINGLY signed an affidavit which included UNTRUE STATEMENTS.

Caught out in our well publicised secret tape recordings, Holmes stated : "I had nothing to do with the case at all actually, but I swore the affidavit so he could withdraw" (Image 175)

And : "I'd have to explain why I've said I was, obviously a bit slack in you might say in um signing something that at the time was umm was y'know simple enough and umm just to hopefully to get him off the hook and out of the case ...." (Image 176)

Just as the Crimes Act s.110 False Oaths says ! Tui slogan here .........

1victim

1victim
12-08-2014, 03:18 PM
On the 16th May 2012, Criminal complaints of Perjury, Fraud and False Accounting were made to the Auckland CIB against ANTHONY DAVID BANBROOK. Detective DICK (Richard) GARTON was the investigating officer. (Case file 120326/8984)

On the 22nd May 2012, GARTON stated in a letter - : "ANTHONY DAVID BANBROOK provided a sworn affidavit dated the 29th May 2006 from John Robin Holmes stating he was the instructing solicitor, making me think there is no way in the world we would be successful with a prosecution".

On the 25th July 2014, John Robin Holmes swore an affidavit RETRACTING this "affidavit" on the grounds that it is UNTRUE ! (See attached Images 177/178/179) Quote Holmes : "BANBROOK wrote this affidavit without my knowledge or consent". "We were NOT the instructing solicitor". This leaves BANBROOK exposed as Guilty on all three Charges.

On the 5th August 2014, this RETRACTION was sent to police commissioner MIKE BUSH with a request the police re-visit this case.

What will they do ???

flimflam
03-10-2014, 12:39 AM
Always record Council for the children in a Family Court matter. Always record the hearing-any transcript that you receive will not be complete." court discussion " is a good one. Anything too contencious will be out of any court transcript and replaced with " court discussion" for denial or " I don't recall that " together with a court transcript which reads "court discussion. There are surprising capabilities in the family court.

Judges can and do stop any transcript recording, isolate and not record certain speakers. Labelling their say as " court discussion".

1victim
04-10-2014, 11:25 AM
Absolutely correct. I have been informed by someone doing a law degree that THERE IS NO LAW preventing us from tape recording these "hearings".
There IS a law that ; "If you are a party to a conversation / meeting you are entitled to record it".

I have done so many times and will continue to do so. Intimidation is what they rely on.