• Introducing the New Zealand Justice Forum

    The New Zealand Justice Forum aims to pool the collective experiences of our citizens, lawyers, and academics in order to discuss the many defects that weaken the integrity of the legal system.
  • Vexatious Vince Siemer


    Legal news publisher Vince Siemer was last week declared a vexatious litigant by order of the Wellington High Court after Justices Brendon Brown and Ron Young concluded actions at the heart of his disputes were not vexatious but that he, at some point after filing them, pursued them vexatiously.

    The judges declared Parliament needs to enact legislation similar to Canada and Australia which judges can apply to litigants acting as Mr Siemer who, despite not instituting vexatious claims, had numerous judicial rulings declaring their actions vexatious.

    The problem, according to Mr Siemer, was he could never obtain a hearing. He says the Attorney General plaintiff had originally pleaded cases he was prevented from defending – indicating a systemic blindspot regarding corruption by judges who are all white and belong to the same clubs but which the government wrongly believes act independently. He claims his misfortune lied in pursuing a Queen’s Counsel, a connected accountant and the Solicitor General. None ever went to a hearing.

    The accountant, Michael Stiassny, won a million dollar defamation claim which Siemer was not allowed to defend. The Queen’s Counsel, Robert Fardell, twice offered Siemer $175,000 to settle but these offers were rejected.
    “Even at that point I had no idea of the depth of corruption or I would have accepted it”, Siemer said after being declared vexatious.

    Justices Young and Brown found Siemer’s action against Fardell was vexatious and barred him from any further action without approval of a High Court judge. The New Zealand Law Society was quick to endorse the High Court ruling. Mr Siemer is reported to be the subject of 101 adverse High Court judgments.

    Last year Siemer set up www.newzealandsupremecourt.co.nz to post filings and submissions which he contends adds perspective to the large number of short Supreme Court judgments dismissing applications to appeal to New Zealand’s highest court. The project has been on hold pending a judicial review of the Supreme Court Registrar’s refusal to allow Mr Siemer access on the ground a lack of legislation requiring access to Supreme Court records “does not allow” members of the public to access records. The judgment declaring him vexatious does not appear to prevent this judicial review which is currently awaiting a reserved decision of Justice Clifford, also of the Wellington court.

    Comments 20 Comments
    1. 1victim's Avatar
      1victim -
      Vexatious is defined as "harassing by means of malicious or trivial litigation".

      What is the term for the "blatant corruption" by NZ courts and judges who harass and abuse all of us on a daily basis ?
    1. flimflam's Avatar
      flimflam -
      No surprises here except that it has taken then court so long 101 adverse judgements. Surely this must be seen as a poor enditment for the justice process in itself and must at least point to the requirement for a major overhaul.
    1. Q. C.'s Avatar
      Q. C. -
      Quote Originally Posted by flimflam View Post
      No surprises here except that it has taken then court so long 101 adverse judgements. Surely this must be seen as a poor enditment for the justice process in itself and must at least point to the requirement for a major overhaul.
      Justice Minister Judith Collins has introduced the Judicature Modernisation Bill to Parliament to make it easier to stop those like Vince Siemer, who have exposed systemic corrupt conduct by some of our judges and crown executives and who were trying to have that dealt with by the Courts.

      Rather than the A-G having to prosecute and having two High Courts Judges to consider a vexatious litigant prosecutions (which they will automatically rule in favour of to cover-up judicial corruption) District Court Judges and High Court Judges can stop the exposure of corruption, and stop the Court dealing with it, at an earlier stage. So no more 101 "vexatious" proceedings.

      Quote from official comment on the Bill:
      "Ms Collins is overseeing the largest overhaul of law underpinning New Zealand’s courts. Her Judicature Modernisation Bill aims to improve the transparency of court and judicial processes and enhance New Zealanders’ trust and confidence in the justice system and includes ... increasing courts’ options to limit litigation by vexatious litigants"

      One day a Judge will break ranks and allow a corruption claim or charge against a Judge or justice executive to be heard and then record and rule on the true facts.

      Meanwhile we ordinary New Zealanders suffer, while we wait that outcome.
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
      Justice Minister Judith Collins has introduced the Judicature Modernisation Bill to Parliament to make it easier to stop those like Vince Siemer, who have exposed systemic corrupt conduct by some of our judges and crown executives and who were trying to have that dealt with by the Courts.

      Rather than the A-G having to prosecute and having two High Courts Judges to consider a vexatious litigant prosecutions (which they will automatically rule in favour of to cover-up judicial corruption) District Court Judges and High Court Judges can stop the exposure of corruption, and stop the Court dealing with it, at an earlier stage. So no more 101 "vexatious" proceedings.

      One day a Judge will break ranks and allow a corruption claim or charge against a Judge or justice executive to be heard and then record and rule on the true facts.
      I agree: As two District Court Judges broke ranks in 2010 and 2011 by authorising, on seven separate occasions, for a total of 33 summonses to be served on Crown Solicitors, Deputy Solicitor-Generals and the Solicitor-General for a range for charges from perverting the course of justice to acting in a criminal group for that purpose. Special footnote - those charged are all lawyers.

      The danger to the Minister of Justice and A-G [special footnote - both lawyers] is that District Court Judges appear to be the least corrupt, as they did the above. However, the High Court and Appeal Court Judges blocked the prosecutions, as the level of corruption appears to increase the higher you go up the judicial ladder.

      The Bill, if enacted, may bite both Ministers on the bum in their objective to conceal judicial and executive corruption from the public, Parliament and our international trading partners.
    1. Q. C.'s Avatar
      Q. C. -
      Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
      I agree: As two District Court Judges broke ranks in 2010 and 2011 by authorising, on seven separate occasions, for a total of 33 summonses to be served on Crown Solicitors, Deputy Solicitor-Generals and the Solicitor-General for a range for charges from perverting the course of justice to acting in a criminal group for that purpose. Special footnote - those charged are all lawyers.

      ....However, the High Court and Appeal Court Judges blocked the prosecutions...
      "Brockovich": In your posts earlier in the year, and last year, you stated those District Court Judges reviewed the 33 Charging Documents to ensure the evidence in support was admissible and reliable and that those Judges determined it was and that they also determined that a jury, if it accepted that evidence, could possibly convict all those who were being prosecuted.

      What evidence changed or become unreliable or what new evidence was available to the High Court and COA so those Judges would have a different opinion to the District Court Judges?
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
      ...What evidence changed or become unreliable or what new evidence was available to the High Court and COA so those Judges would have a different opinion to the District Court Judges?
      Q. C.: As the A-G knows, no evidence changed, no evidence became unreliable and no new evidence became available.

      The only thing that changed were the Judges. From honest ones in the District Court to corrupt ones in the higher Courts. Starting with higher Court Justices Potter, Andrews and Priestley.
    1. 1victim's Avatar
      1victim -
      Brockovich : Aren't you worried that the A-G will try to put you in jail for contempt of court for saying such bad things about judges ?
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by 1victim View Post
      Brockovich : Aren't you worried that the A-G will try to put you in jail for contempt of court for saying such bad things about judges ?
      No, because the absolute defence of ‘the truth’ is available to me. The A-G knows that, and if he had a go at me (for contempt of court for saying these bad things about Judges) he also knows a jury will have the truth to deliberate on and that the truth would be across the front page of the NZ Herald and item one on the six o’clock TV news.

      Judicial and executive corruption cannot stand that exposure, so the A-G will remain silent even though it is his official role to protect judges from, what the uninformed would see as, improper and unfair public criticism of Judges.
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
      "...the truth would be across the front page of the NZ Herald and item one on the six o’clock TV news."

      Has it happened?
      No, and it won't via the A-G. That is why I can say a Judge is corrupt and name them (but only if he or she is so), because I have absolute immunity from the A-G to do so.
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
      What happens, if you are arrested in imprisoned, and no local media dares to report?
      Who is going to help you in this repressive state of New Zealand?
      We are not down that low yet. Contempt of court requires a trial. The media only report what is of interest or what they think is of interest.

      A trial about calling a judge corrupt, and being held to account for doing so, will be of interest to the media on their assumption that it is not true that the judge is corrupt, they will be expecting to be report on a hanging so will be interested and report it.

      The A-G knows that and that is why it can never happen; a trial. So the A-G will do nothing in the knowledge it will eventually go away.

      Just like Judith Collins is doing - waiting it out.
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
      Did the local media report the imprisonment of Vince Siemer?
      His crime was to publish a decision of court, wasn't it?
      In many countries, court decisions are public record in the public domain. Why in New Zealand some court decisions are private?
      But I don't think any local media reported this matter.
      Yes I'm sure it was reported, but not in depth on the issue.

      However, the difference is Vince Siemer was guilty of the contempt and argued his rights to report on an illegal decision justified his actions.

      My situation is different the absolute defence of truth verses the absolute corruption of the judge or judges is a far more interesting topic. So will attract interest.
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
      Who makes the decision on your case?
      The decision to prosecute is made by the Solicitor-General on behalf of the A-G. The Crown prosecutes.

      A trial by jury would be requested, if refused a trial of the Judge(s) by the media will result.

      The absolute defence of truth has no other way of being heard in a Court. It is corruption verses the truth and which will prevail.

      The truth must be seen to be not true, and the only way to test the truth is to test the corruption.
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
      Judges will make bogus decisions which become official records in New Zealand.
      They may write in their decisions that you did not raise any issue or put any submission.
      Of course, they can make decisions without having any hearing or submission from you.
      As I said; the judges who are accused, under the absolute defence of the truth, of being corrupt are the ones on trial and on trial in the media. The media are the ones who will do the recording and the reporting.

      The trial Judge's decision becomes irrelevant, because the A-G would withdraw the proceedings, if indeed he ever dared to start them in the first place.

      The absolute defence of truth is conducted by the defence in the same way as a rape trial, as it is the rape of the truth by the Judges that is at issue.
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
      The media is part of the Crown in New Zealand. PR department of the Government hires their favoured journalists. If the media is doing their job, there is no need for this website.
      Do not associate lack of investigative journalism (therefore lack of reporting on critical issues) with cronyism.

      The media suffer from both, but the dominant one is lack of investigative journalism. Simply, investigative journalism does not pay the bills.

      You have to put it on a plate for them, just like any government does to manipulate them to a truth or to a lie. We will do that, but to a truth.

      Yes the media is not doing its job, but nor are the MP's. We will eventually find an MP who will.

      This websites value is that we all know what we are up against. Who knows one day a journalist may read it who realises he has everything on a plate.
    1. flimflam's Avatar
      flimflam -
      Judge Helen Winkleman did refuse a jury trial for the Urawhera people. Then applied a surpression order to make sure we weren't aware of our rights being removed. This seems to be the way they behave
    1. flimflam's Avatar
      flimflam -
      We talk of Judith Collins. Really - just look at her responses and behavior when she has been questioned recently. Does she project honesty, openness, an ability to listen and take on board what people are saying?

      Does she project highhanded arrogance, contempt of a view other than her own?

      Look at this dross with our two former justice ministers Jefferies and Doug - Sir Doug - paragons of justice, upholders of honesty, law, ethics.

      They have contributed to destroying people's lives and changing lives. People invested their money and faith, these guys promoted investment outcomes which were not true.

      Now Collins bullshitting on. Government response - send her on holiday.

      For Jefferies - this corrupt low life still things he didn't do anything wrong.

      Doug - well his contribution is still celebrated via his knighthood. We note that their sentences have been watered down recently.

      What is the message that these three and the judges who delt with Douggie and Jefferies send to the people of this country, to the world about the system that they are or have been in charge of?

      The Justice System of New Zealand that is. Who are you going to trust more ? These people or a street walker on K road. At least if the street walker takes your money they are not going to bill you for their time it took to take it.

      If a fish does go rotten from the head first perhaps our Justice system is more fish than anything else.
    1. flimflam's Avatar
      flimflam -
      Judge Helen Winkleman did refuse a jury trial for the Urawhera people. Then applied a surpression order to make sure we weren't aware of our rights being removed. This seems to be the way they behave
    1. Q. C.'s Avatar
      Q. C. -
      Quote Originally Posted by flimflam View Post
      We talk of Judith Collins...Does she project highhanded arrogance, contempt of a view other than her own?

      Look at this dross with our two former justice ministers Jefferies and Doug - Sir Doug - paragons of justice, upholders of honesty, law, ethics...The Justice System [the Judges] of New Zealand that is. Who are you going to trust more ? These people or a street walker on K road...
      The common thread of these corrupt, or morally corrupt, individuals is that the are all lawyers or former lawyers [Collins, Jefferies, Graham and Winkleman].

      While being a lawyer or former lawyer is not a prerequisite to being corrupt or morally corrupt , it is a prerequisite to getting away with it before the Courts (Courts which exclude a jury).
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by flimflam View Post
      Judge Helen Winkleman did refuse a jury trial for the Urawhera people. Then applied a surpression order to make sure we weren't aware of our rights being removed. This seems to be the way they behave
      The difference is they did not realise just how corrupt some Judges like Winkleman are. We will come to court "armed" to overcome any corruption and any attempt to not allow a jury trial.

      The defence of provocation will be the defence for being "armed". Armed being figuratively speaking.
    1. flimflam's Avatar
      flimflam -
      We are discussing this, people are reading and becoming more aware.

      What can the corrupt industry do about that?

      Do what they have always done - be ignorant and smug.

      People leave, don't set up business here, the propaganda machine tells us " it's because of higher wages accross the Tasman, it's because of better job opportunities".

      These may be true for some, for many it's because we are; over taxed, over regulated, have our rights constantly eroded Under urgency, have trials where a single judge determines that you are now no longer allowed a jury trial and that no one is allowed to discuss it and to do so would break the law.
  • Copyright

    The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 specifies certain circumstances where all or a substantial part of a copyright work may be used without the copyright owner's permission. A "fair dealing" with copyright material does not infringe copyright if it is for the following purposes: research or private study; criticism or review; or reporting current events. If you are a legal copyright holder, or a designated agent for such, and you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of "fair dealing," and legitimately infringes on your or your client's copyright, please contact the administrator of this site. NZJF contains both original material and material from external sources. Original material: Copyright NZJF. Material from external sources: Copyright the respective owners / authors.