View RSS Feed

Justice111

High court judge on very thin ice

Rate this Entry
In the High Court of Auckland on Monday (11 April 2016) a memorandum was filed by two plaintiffs' putting Faire J ("the Court") on Notice that they, in a hearing on Monday (set to commence at 11.45) would be filing an oral application (in reliance of 1.7 of the High Court Rules) requesting Faire to disbar Barrister Peter Wright (of Shortland Chambers Auckland) from acting for his clients (Another Barrister and a High Ranking Police Officer).

Faire J has been well aware (since early 2015) that Barrister Wright has been ignoring (on the precipice of assisting) his clients' non compliance with discovery.

This non-compliance of discovery relates to a substantial amount of one of Peter Wright's client's financial records (bank statements) which have been, and continue to be, the main pivotal documents required, since 2009, to be discovered in a lengthy and ongoing litigation which has been, and continues to, request the Court to address what financial transpired between the plaintiffs' family trust and Peter Wright's client (the police officer) during a 6 and a half year period.

Below is part of the plaintiffs' memorandum that put Faire J ("the Court") on Notice.

2. The plaintiffs’, in reliance of r13.9 and r13.9.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (“The Rules”) request the Court to immediately disbar Counsel Peter Wright from acting for the defendants/respondents in ALL matters relating to CIV 2014-404-xxxx; and CIV 2014-404-xxxx/xx effective from, and including the 11 April 2016.

3. “The Rules” are not up to interpretation that would bring fourth the Court allowing itself to employ discretion.

4. The word “must” recorded in “The Rules” is fatal to any argument that would lend the Court having any discretion to permit Counsel from continuing to act for a client/s who refuses (via lengthy and ongoing conduct) to adhere to their discovery obligations owed to the Court via r8.7 of the High Court Rules.

5. As the Court is aware, Counsel Peter Wright (since early 2013) has continued to ignore (boarding on the precipice of assisting) his clients’ non-compliance with their discovery obligations which are unambiguously demanded via r8.7 of the High Court Rules.


6. The non-compliance of “The Rules” by any legal practitioner which favourably leads clients’ into an opportunity to breach r8.7 of the High Court Rules should be, and must be, judicially unaccepted by virtue of, but not limited to, s27 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 which guarantees the fundamental rights of ALL litigants.

7. Given the aforementioned, it is very apparent that the plaintiffs’ adjudication of/in bankruptcy, on 15 December 2015, has stemmed from a prior, and very serious and ongoing fundamental breach/s of both a legal practitioner’s obligations owed under “The Rules”; and two litigants’ (an officer of the Court and a high ranking Police Officer) obligations owed to the High Court under 8.7 of the High Court Rules.

8. The plaintiffs, in reliance, but not limited to, r1.7 of the High Court Rules, put the Court on “Notice” that they will be seeking an order from the High Court on the 11 April 2016 during the hearing before Faire J.

9. The aforementioned order sought (in reliance of scrupulousness) requests the Court to grant the immediate suspension of ALL enforcement of Faire J’s 15 December 2015 order of adjudication which was, and continues to be, governed by an ongoing fundamental breach by a legal practitioner regarding “The Rules” which has led the practitioner’ clients to follow suit and breach their own discovery obligations unambiguously demanded under r8.7 of the High Court Rules.



In Monday's hearing before Faire J, the oral application, in reliance of 1.7 of the High Court Rules was made. Faire J, despite knowing Barrister Wright had not removed himself as Counsel after his clients had refused to comply with their discovery obligations, rejected the plaintiffs' application with a quick answer "No".

It seems that Faire J is a willing participate to enable his fellow lower class legal colleagues to hide evidence.

Upon the hearing being adjourned for lunchtime break, the plaintiffs refused to return back to the Court room and left.

The plaintiffs reason for doing so was that they refused to go through one more hearing while a judge is ignoring a serious breach and defiance of the Conduct and Client Care Rules by a legal practitioner; and ignoring the actions of two litigants who are refusing to give over discovery of financial records. The plaintiffs believe this amounts to a judge assisting in fraud.

Just so happens that the Supreme Court (In Commissioner of IRD v Redcliffe) held, amongst other things that "the suppression of material evidence will be fraud".

There has been no judgment at present issued by Faire J regarding Monday's hearing.

Submit "High court judge on very thin ice" to Digg Submit "High court judge on very thin ice" to del.icio.us Submit "High court judge on very thin ice" to StumbleUpon Submit "High court judge on very thin ice" to Google

Updated 16-04-2016 at 12:00 AM by Justice111

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Judicial Conduct

Comments

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
  1. Yoda's Avatar
    Blank space
    Updated 27-05-2016 at 10:26 AM by Yoda
  2. Justice111's Avatar
    Yoda, I don't wish to be cruel but would you please cite case law, or court rules, or sections within enactments, or something of that kind within your comments made. It does you no justice to confine your opinion to a personal level.
    Updated 14-04-2016 at 12:42 AM by Justice111
  3. Yoda's Avatar
    Blank space
    Updated 27-05-2016 at 10:27 AM by Yoda
  4. Justice111's Avatar
    I know the High Court Rules Yoda. However I do commend you for your stance, and if there were more of you in NZ, or for that fact, around the World, the judiciary would be quite challenged.

    Let me tell you something Yoda, I don't know you but you speak the truth and I admire that .
  5. Yoda's Avatar
    Blank space
    Updated 27-05-2016 at 10:27 AM by Yoda
  6. FairHearing's Avatar
    >>Faire J is a willing participate to enable his fellow lower class legal colleagues to hide evidence

    Of course he is.

    >>The plaintiffs believe this amounts to a judge assisting in fraud.

    Of course it does. It's New Zealand. Welcome to Zimbabwe, as Mr Dotcom says. I have to disappoint you if you believe anyone is going to be surprised that some high court judge had committed fraud. Fraud is both what NZ "justice" system is based upon and what it produces. It'd be a surprise to find an honest judge there.

    You may want to check out this one. Incidentally, SC3/2015 mentioned there was an application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's judgement refusing a debarment application. The fraudulent conduct of the Supreme Court judges is described in the complaint of 11-Jan-16 here. So what you described in your post is routine fraudulent business of the high court. Faire is on solid ground there. Welcome to Zimbabwe.
    Updated 20-04-2016 at 02:09 AM by FairHearing
  7. Justice111's Avatar
    Lets get back to the issue regarding "High court judge on very thin ice" !!
  8. Yoda's Avatar
    Blank space
    Updated 27-05-2016 at 10:28 AM by Yoda
  9. Justice111's Avatar
    Here's two recent cases in NZ which disbarred a lawyer and their law firm from acting.

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/high-co...ge-kerr-164723

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/new...ectid=11357645
    Updated 22-04-2016 at 10:59 PM by Justice111
  10. Justice111's Avatar
    Some rules of the New Zealand Law Society are not up to interpretation. The word "MUST" in any rule of the NZLS is final and fatal to any lawyer, barrister, judge or the like suggesting they have a choice (discretion).

    People who are lawyers and barristers are appointed to be judges. It is as simple as that.

    I have read Yoda's earlier comment above. Yoda asks "The question to be asked is what should be done; how should be done"

    Yoda's question is simplistic, precise and correct. I have asked myself the same question over and over again throughout the years and a light bulb went off in my head when I read Yoda's question.

    Judges are just New Zealanders who have followed a career path which happens to be law.

    That said Faire J (John Anthony Faire) of the High Court is just a NZ'er who has been appointed into a career position where he can make decisions for or against other NZ'ers.

    Here comes the facts:

    John Faire J, since early 2015, has been, or should have been, absolutely aware that not only has Barrister Peter Wright's clients been, and continued to be, in breach of r8.7 of the High Court Rules http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...LM1818961.html Barrister Peter Wright himself has been, and continues to be, in direct defiance and breach of r13.9 and 13.9.1 of the Lawyers rules http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...LM1437946.html

    So what should be done?

    John Faire (High Court Judge) is the member of the NZ public. John obviously believes he can make the rules up as he goes along because his superior legal mates tell John he can.

    If there were any a strong case against a High Court judge is it now.

    In other words, law and rules v John Faire.

    Let me get back to everyone within the next couple of days. I'll post something I hope you will like and can share.
    Updated 22-04-2016 at 11:49 PM by Justice111
  11. Yoda's Avatar
    Blank space
    Updated 27-05-2016 at 10:28 AM by Yoda
  12. Justice111's Avatar
    The matter is already before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The respondents who have been hiding evidence (Barrister Christopher Lynch and the high ranking police officer) have to file submissions in the Supreme Court no later than 03 May 2016.
  13. Yoda's Avatar
    Blank space
    Updated 27-05-2016 at 10:28 AM by Yoda
  14. Yoda's Avatar
    Blank space
    Updated 27-05-2016 at 10:29 AM by Yoda
  15. Yoda's Avatar
    Blank space
    Updated 27-05-2016 at 10:29 AM by Yoda
  16. Yoda's Avatar
    Blank space
    Updated 27-05-2016 at 10:29 AM by Yoda
  17. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda
    From the website of Fair hearing...

    "Mr N’s new counsel, Dr Frank Deliu, comments "it is one thing for the Court of Appeal to disregard its organic law and Gazette procedures, but it is another entirely for the Supreme Court to just ignore the issue. It leaves a very bad impression and it could unfortunately be perceived as a whitewash....

    ...It does appear that at the level of the Supreme Court, it is likely that you need two lawyers, including one Queens Counsel, as part of the team of lawyers to represent.

    .... it is a good idea to have several supporting affidavits, which tell the Court that the issues are important to many people.
    YODA. Have you read what Dr. Frank Deliu and FairHearing have told us? Do you understand what they, and we, are saying?

    THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE THE ONE'S WHO IGNORE the issues properly put to them and the law. Having a team of Q.C.'s will make no difference, as those Q. C.'s would be to scared to openly protest about the Judges misconduct (privately is a different matter, but will not fix the problem).

    In the March 2015 year there were 20 odd Recall Applications to the Supreme Court - only one was from legal counsel. All were rejected.

    A Recall to a Court of the same Judges who deliberately ignore the issue and the law can never succeed. The Privy Council knew that, and effectively said so in its ruling.
  18. Yoda's Avatar
    Blank space
    Updated 27-05-2016 at 10:30 AM by Yoda
  19. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda
    Isn't it against the law?...
    The law is irrelevant to those who choose to ignore the law; when they think its in their best interests to do so. The Supreme Court Judges take that position.
  20. Yoda's Avatar
    Blank space
    Updated 27-05-2016 at 10:19 AM by Yoda
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast