View RSS Feed

Justice111

Court of appeal consider fraud committed by two barristers' and high ranking police

Rate this Entry
On the 12 September 2016 Court of Appeal Justices were met with undeniable evidence (NOT CHALLENGED) and oral submissions that two barristers and a high ranking police officer had been obtaining fraudulent favorable judgement

The three justices have reserved their decision.

When the judgement is delivered, it will be posted on this forum.

Submit "Court of appeal consider fraud committed by two barristers' and high ranking police" to Digg Submit "Court of appeal consider fraud committed by two barristers' and high ranking police" to del.icio.us Submit "Court of appeal consider fraud committed by two barristers' and high ranking police" to StumbleUpon Submit "Court of appeal consider fraud committed by two barristers' and high ranking police" to Google

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
    Justice111: It will in all probability be pointless to post the decision. As the 'decision' will not record the correct issue properly put to the Court of Appeal nor the facts. The Judges will rule on an issue not put to them and on facts that are irrelevant [assuming they will bury your application].

    I note the CoA on 12 September only dealt with "Miscellaneous Motion List Day". Why was your issue dealt with under a 'Miscellaneous Motion'?
  2. Yoda's Avatar
    Guideline for Judicial Conduct

    https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/busin...March-2013.pdf

    As things are in the Judiciary of New Zealand, I hope that the people of New Zealand will stand up and demand some fundamental changes in how things are operated in the Courts.

    I believe that New Zealand will change, as more people are aware of what is going on in our Courts.

    Justice must be done, and the rule of law must be observed, especially, in the court of law and legal profession which is supposed to uphold and safeguard it.
    Updated 14-09-2016 at 10:36 AM by Yoda
  3. Justice111's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich"
    Justice111: It will in all probability be pointless to post the decision. As the 'decision' will not record the correct issue properly put to the Court of Appeal nor the facts. The Judges will rule on an issue not put to them and on facts that are irrelevant [assuming they will bury your application].

    I note the CoA on 12 September only dealt with "Miscellaneous Motion List Day". Why was your issue dealt with under a 'Miscellaneous Motion'?

    Two applications were before the COA and thereafter set down (via MM List) to be heard. The first application requested extension of time in reliance of 43(3) of the Rules; and the second application (in reliance of 5(1) of the COA Rules) requesting Counsel be disbarred for assisting clients (a barrister and police officer) to deliberately suppress a substantial number of vital evidential material whilst unlawfully claiming the documents had been discovered.
  4. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice111
    ... The first application requested extension of time in reliance of 43(3) of the Rules; and the second application (in reliance of 5(1) of the COA Rules) ...
    Justice111: The normal practice of the Judges of the COA (when they what to ignore a fundamental legal issue of public importance) is to rule that the application itself has no merit (irrespective of the clear merits) and then rule that they therefore refuse to grant an extension of time under R. 43(3).

    By ruling that way, they know that that stops the ability of the Applicant to appeal to the Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court always rules it does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions on extension of time (irrespective of the criminality of the Judges of the COA in making their decision).

    Or to put "irrespective of the criminality" in a legally correct way - that the judges of the COA by their gross error were “acted without jurisdiction”(1), which is an issue appealable to the Supreme Court - except the Supreme Court will always refuse to acknowledge that that was the legal issue properly put to them and they will rule on something that was not put to them to get rid of their problem.

    (1) Richardson J’s decision relied on by the Supreme Court at [163] in A-G v Chapman SC 120/2009 [2011] NZSC 110
    Updated 14-09-2016 at 12:30 PM by John "Brockovich"
  5. Yoda's Avatar
    International oversight on the Judiciary and legal profession

    What we need, I believe, is some type of oversight on the Judiciary and legal profession from various angles to balance biases and interests.

    Biases and special interests seem quite strong when the power is concentrated in a few, which happens in a small nation, such as New Zealand.

    But this phenomenon can be observed in some small states of the United States, if there is no effective oversight from federal courts.

    Probably, it can be observed in some European states, if the oversight of European Court of Human Rights is limited.

    From my own personal experiences, I believe that the Judiciary requires (1) transparency (to detect and prevent corruption), (2) accessibility (to make sure justice be done), and (3) accountability (to hold those who are involved in corruption accountable to their actions).

    At this point, I believe that New Zealand has not achieved any of the elements that I mentioned above.

    It appears that the collective interests of judges, court staff, and judges are so strong that it takes enormous political will to tackle the legal establishment which sits on the people of New Zealand, without any real legitimacy nor accountability.

    I believe that this is one of the major issues, which have been extensively discussed in New Zealand.

    I write this open letter to the public of New Zealand and international community, since my case has been highlighted by some people in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

    I am ready and prepared if anyone asks me questions on this matter.

    Yours sincerely

    Tatsuhiko Koyama, BA, Juris Doctor, PGDipHealSc, MHealSc
    Enrolled Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand
    Email: tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com
    Updated 14-09-2016 at 09:18 PM by Yoda
  6. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich"
    Justice111: It will in all probability be pointless to post the decision. As the 'decision' will not record the correct issue properly put to the Court of Appeal nor the facts. The Judges will rule on an issue not put to them and on facts that are irrelevant [assuming they will bury your application]....
    I suggest to you both that: A complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner would also be pointless. In a classic decision today, showing the Commissioner covering up judicial corruption, the Commissioner ruled that Justice Duffy's ruling that "There is absolutely no merit or any foundation to the allegations at all" is not a conduct issue as a Judge "does not have to give reasons for reasons".

    That would be true if Justice Duffy had correctly recorded what the allegations were and recorded and ruled on the facts presented, but she did not. She merely made a one paragraph ruling (as above).

    The complaint to the Commissioner was that the Judge deliberately did not write a transparent decision to avoid having three people in the justice system, who she knew, face criminal charges.
  7. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C.
    ... In a classic decision today, showing the Commissioner covering up judicial corruption, the Commissioner ruled that Justice Duffy's ruling that "There is absolutely no merit or any foundation to the allegations at all" is not a conduct issue as a Judge "does not have to give reasons for reasons"....
    Q. C. - what is terrifying to the NZ Public is that Justice Duffy is rated No 2 (out of 62 Justices) on Kiwifirst's rating of NZ Justices, that is she is rated as the 2nd best.

    If she can rule in such a despicable and dishonest way, how would you expect Justices number 15 or 30 or 62 to rule on any controversial (to the judiciary or Crown) matter!

    OR: Could someone ask Kiwifirst if there is a misprint, that is that they left out a "6" in front of the "2"?
  8. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich"
    Q. C. - what is terrifying to the NZ Public is that Justice Duffy is rated No 2 (out of 62 Justices) on Kiwifirst's rating of NZ Justices, that is she is rated as the 2nd best.

    If she can rule in such a despicable and dishonest way, how would you expect Justices number 15 or 30 or 62 to rule on any controversial (to the judiciary or Crown) matter!....
    What is even more "terrifying" is that the new Governor-General's husband is the former Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Sir David.

    That places the Governor-General in an absolute conflict of interest on any application for a criminal pardon under the 'Prerogative of Mercy' pursuant to s. 406 of the Crimes Act 1961; where the 'new evidence' to warrant a pardon is the corrupt acts of Judges in the criminal appeal courts in upholding the original conviction and where the former Judicial Conduct Commissioner, on a complaint, found no misconduct by those Judges.

    If that situation arises, which is a distinct possibility given the widespread misconduct of both our Judges and the former Commissioner, that will test the integrity of the Governor-General and her advisors.

    Why on earth she was appointed, given her husband is the former Commissioner, is a separate question.
    Updated 18-09-2016 at 11:41 AM by Q. C.
  9. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C.
    What is even more "terrifying" is that the new Governor-General's husband is the former Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Sir David.

    That places the Governor-General in an absolute conflict of interest ...

    Why on earth she was appointed, given her husband is the former Commissioner, is a separate question.
    Q. C. : I assume the new Governor-General, Dame Reddy, was appointed knowing she will act corruptly when faced with that situation.
    Updated 19-09-2016 at 09:16 PM by John "Brockovich"
  10. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich"
    Q. C. : I assume the new Governor-General, Dame Reddy, was appointed knowing she will act corruptly when faced with that situation.
    "Brockovich": Yes you are correct. Governor-General, Dame Reddy, is expected to be corrupt when needed. Why would she be appointed otherwise.
  11. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C.
    "Brockovich": Yes you are correct. Governor-General, Dame Reddy, is expected to be corrupt when needed. Why would she be appointed otherwise.
    Sorry I forgot: There is propensity evidence that Dame Reddy will act corruptly (as Governor-General) when needed, as she was a high profile lawyer and also 'knighted'. What better credentials.
  12. FairHearing's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich"
    Q. C. - what is terrifying to the NZ Public is that Justice Duffy is rated No 2 (out of 62 Justices) on Kiwifirst's rating of NZ Justices, that is she is rated as the 2nd best.
    Another quote:

    Further in her judgement, Duffy J completely evades the issues of bias and denial of natural justice in the District Court (she fails to even mention the terms “bias” and “natural justice”, despite that my statement of claim, notices of appeal, and submissions were peppered with them); completely omits and ignores my procedural objections (inter alia, as to admissibility of evidence); falsely states that I did not challenge [the other party]’s evidence; treats as uncontradicted [the other party]’s evidence which was in truth very strongly contradicted; attributes to me admissions which I did not make; misstates the evidence; completely omits and ignores absolutely all the uncontroverted facts, the arguments and the case law I relied upon in my opposition to the restraining order (the judge fails to even cite the very “lawful purpose” on which my defence was based); otherwise misrepresents my legal position by omissions and misrepresentations, and thus evades various issues of controversy between the parties.
  13. FairHearing's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C.
    the Commissioner ruled that Justice Duffy's ruling that "There is absolutely no merit or any foundation to the allegations at all" is not a conduct issue as a Judge "does not have to give reasons for reasons". That would be true if Justice Duffy had correctly recorded what the allegations were and recorded and ruled on the facts presented, but she did not. She merely made a one paragraph ruling (as above).
    It seems that decision by Duffy wasn't published, was it?

    As Duffy hypocritically wrote in ZHANG v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION and ANOR HC AK CIV-2012-404-004097 [17 April 2013]
    [24] The importance of a decision-maker giving reasons was recognised in Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd [2000] 3 NZLR 546. The Court of Appeal identified three bases supporting this principle. The first was that “without reasons, it may not be possible to understand why judicial authority has been used in a particular way”: see [79]. The second basis why decision-makers exercising judicial authority must give reasons was because “failure to do so means that the lawfulness of what is done cannot be assessed by a court exercising supervisory jurisdiction”...
    [25] The third main basis for giving reasons was that they “provide a discipline for the Judge which is the best protection against wrong or arbitrary decisions and inconsistent delivery of justice”: see [82].
  14. Yoda's Avatar
    New Zealand does have some major problems in the Judiciary.
    At least, this is something that most people in New Zealand can agree.


    Grand corruption

    Grand corruption is defined as corruption occurring at the highest levels of government in a way that requires significant subversion of the political, legal and economic systems. Such corruption is commonly found in countries with authoritarian or dictatorial governments but also in those without adequate policing of corruption.

    The government system in many countries is divided into the legislative, executive and judiciary branches in an attempt to provide independent services that are less subject to grand corruption due to their independence from one another.

    Systemic corruption

    Systemic corruption (or endemic corruption) is corruption which is primarily due to the weaknesses of an organization or process. It can be contrasted with individual officials or agents who act corruptly within the system.

    Factors which encourage systemic corruption include conflicting incentives, discretionary powers; monopolistic powers; lack of transparency; low pay; and a culture of impunity.

    Specific acts of corruption include "bribery, extortion, and embezzlement" in a system where "corruption becomes the rule rather than the exception.

    Scholars distinguish between centralized and decentralized systemic corruption, depending on which level of state or government corruption takes place; in countries such as the Post-Soviet states both types occur.

    Some scholars argue that there is a negative duty of western governments to protect against systematic corruption of underdeveloped governments.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

    INTERNATIONAL OVERSIGHT ON THE JUDICIARY AND LEGAL PROFESSION

    What we need, I believe, is some type of oversight on the Judiciary and legal profession from various angles to balance biases and interests.

    Biases and special interests seem quite strong when the power is concentrated in a few, which happens in a small nation, such as New Zealand.

    But this phenomenon can be observed in some small states of the United States, if there is no effective oversight from federal courts.

    Probably, it can be observed in some European states, if the oversight of European Court of Human Rights is limited.

    From my own personal experiences, I believe that the Judiciary requires (1) transparency (to detect and prevent corruption), (2) accessibility (to make sure justice be done), and (3) accountability (to hold those who are involved in corruption accountable to their actions).

    At this point, I believe that New Zealand has not achieved any of the elements that I mentioned above.

    It appears that the collective interests of judges, court staff, and judges are so strong that it takes enormous political will to tackle the legal establishment which sits on the people of New Zealand, without any real legitimacy nor accountability.

    I believe that this is one of the major issues, which have been extensively discussed in New Zealand.

    I write this open letter to the public of New Zealand and international community, since my case has been highlighted by some people in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

    I am ready and prepared if anyone asks me questions on this matter.

    Yours sincerely

    Tatsuhiko Koyama, BA, Juris Doctor, PGDipHealSc, MHealSc
    Enrolled Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand
    Email: tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com
    Updated 28-09-2016 at 09:53 AM by Yoda
  15. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing
    It seems that decision by Duffy wasn't published, was it?

    As Duffy hypocritically wrote in ZHANG v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION and ANOR HC AK CIV-2012-404-004097 [17 April 2013]
    FairHearing: You are correct, Duffy J's decision wasn't published.

    However, in her swill of dealing with her corrupt decisions, on other litigants, she forgot to tell the Registrar to withhold publishing her decision on Recall. It is published.

    The argument on Recall being [quoting you in your response to "Brockovich" - as it is the same issue] that she "completely omits and ignores absolutely all the uncontroverted facts, the arguments and the case law... misrepresents my legal position by omissions and misrepresentations, and thus evades various issues..."

    There is, of course, no point in reading the Recall judgment of Justice Duffy because it does the same thing as above. Obviously, and logically, when a judge is corrupt (such as Justice Duffy) in an original judgment they must continue to be corrupt in the subsequent Recall judgment. Which Justice Duffy does.

    Justice Duffy (as do all the Judges), of course, knows that the JCC does not consider reasons need to be given in a judgment relating to the presented facts and what was properly and legitimately put to a Court.

    That is why NZ Judges can, when they think it necessary, act corruptly in their Courts with absolute immunity. That position particularly applies to the Appeal Courts Judges.
  16. Yoda's Avatar
    Appalling...
  17. Justice111's Avatar
    UPDATING MATTERS SINCE LAST POST DATED 14 SEPT 2016:

    Court of Appeal, on 05 October 2016 via minutes, accepted evidence (a substantial number of bank statements) had not been discovered by clients of Barrister Peter Wright.

    The 05 October 2016 COA minutes requested the applicants to explain why the contents of the undisclosed bank statements were relevant to their claim.

    The appellants, given their application requested the COA to disbar Counsel Wright for assisting his clients in the unlawful suppression of evidence answered the 05 October 2016 COA minutes via 10 October 2016 memorandum which recorded the following.

    As anyone will appreciate, the parties names are not included in the following copy of the applicants' memo filed into the COA on 10 October 2016 given COA judgment/s is/are pending.

    1. On the 12 September 2016 (in an oral hearing) Randerson, Wild and French JJ heard the applicants’ submissions in support of two applications filed, and which sought, the Court to deliver an order disbarring Counsel Peter Wright from acting for clients xxxx (barrister) and xxxx (Police Officer); with the applicants’ further request to the Court to lay charges against Counsel Wright for his historical and ongoing conduct to assist his clients (xxx and xxx) in the unlawful and fraudulent suppression of a substantial number of material evidential documents (Mr xxxx’s bank statements).

    2. On the 05 October 2016 French J issued minutes requesting the applicants’ to precisely explain the relevance of the contents of the unlawfully supressed bank statements.

    3. In response to the Court, the applicants require a justice to give a cogent explanation as to the reason for this request.

    4. The Court knows, or ought to know, the contents of the unlawfully suppressed bank statements are completely irrelevant to the serious issues raised in the applicants’ applications currently before the Court for consideration.

    5. As the Court (via Randerson, Wild and French JJ) are aware of, or ought to be, the applicants applications are solely focused on requesting the Court to FINALLY address (after the Court’s ongoing unexplained avoidance to date to do so) the historical and ongoing unlawful and fraudulent conduct of Counsel Wright to assist his clients xxx and xxx to suppress evidence (a substantial number of client xxx’s bank statements).

    6. In the oral hearing before Randerson, Wild and French JJ on the 12 September 2016, justices saw Ms Copper (Counsel Wright’s Counsel) offer up NO defence (either materially or orally) to challenge the applicants’ applications’; the affidavits and undeniable evidential documents annexed to those affidavits; and the applicants’ submissions supporting the applicants’ applications.

    7. In the interim, while the applicants await a response from the Court in reply to the applicants’ request recorded in paragraph [3] of this memorandum, the applicants offer up the following, though the applicants’ believe the following details they provide the Court below are completely irrelevant to the issues the Court has been requested to address (and deliver judgment thereafter) in regards to the applicants’ applications which are solely focused on the Court addressing the unlawful conduct (deliberate historical and ongoing suppression of evidence) by an officer of the Court (Peter Wright) and his clients.

    8. The applicants’ say that their family trust issued cheques (of a significant value) to Counsel Wright’s client xxxx while client xxx was in the 6 and a half year (from mid 2002 to late 2008) de-facto relationship with the first applicant.

    9. As the Court would appreciate and be aware of, bank statements of account holders that issue cheques to another only record cheque numbers and the amounts withdrawn. The bank statement of the party that issues the cheques does not record the recipients of those cheques.

    10. The relevance of the contents of the unlawfully suppressed bank statements of Counsel Wright’s client (xxxx), though this relevance is absolutely unconnected with the issues the Court has been asked to address via the applicants’ current applications, is that the unlawfully suppressed bank statements will confirm Counsel Wright’s client xxxx received significant credits, via cheques, from the applicants’ family trust during the 6 and a half year de-facto relationship between Counsel Wright’s client xxx and the first applicant.

    11. This Court is STONGLY reminded (AS IT WAS in the 12 September 2016 oral hearing) that issues between the applicants’ and Counsel Wright’s clients (xxx and xxxx) involves a financial loss to the applicants’ of, at the very least, 2.5 million. This being contrary to the misconceived figure of $33,000 recorded at paragraph [14] in the 2014 judgment of Harrison, Wild and French JJ.

    Judgment number concealed in this post

    12. This Court is also respectfully reminded that the same aforementioned 2014 judgment of Harrison, Wild and French JJ records, at paragraph [17] the fraudulent claims of Counsel Wright, on behalf of his clients, that “Mr xxx’s bank statements had been discovered in the Family Court for the purposes of relationship property litigation between Ms xxx and xxxx”.

    13. To that end, the applicants’ believe there is NO lawful remedy available to the Court to excuse Counsel Wright’s unlawful and fraudulent historical and ongoing conduct to assist his clients (a barrister and police officer) to suppress evidence (of a vital nature) to avail Counsel Wright’s clients to obtain favourable judgments which foully (under the Court’s nose) have procured Counsel Wright and his clients’ unlawful and fraudulent pecuniary gain.

    14. Though it may be harsh, the applicants’ voice their significant concerns that this Court, after the 12 September 2016 oral hearing, has not taken any steps to deliver an stern order demanding Counsel Wright compel his client xxxx to immediately discover the unlawfully suppressed bank statements. The applicants’ believe by judiciary members holding back delivering such an order is conduct on the precipice of the Court assisting Counsel Wright and his clients (barrister and police officer) in the deliberate unlawful and fraudulent suppression of evidence.

    15. Given the absolute serious nature of the issues raised in the applicants’ applications, heard (via oral hearing) by justices Randerson, Wild and French JJ on the 12 September 2016, and given Counsel Wright (via barrister Ms Copper) has offered up NO DEFENCE against the applicants applications (either materially or orally prior to, and during the 12 September 2016 hearing), the applicants’ respectfully anticipate an expeditious judgment (in the applicants’ favour) to be delivered by this Court given the matter is extremely serious, that being the criminal historical and STILL ongoing conduct by an officer of the Court and his clients (barrister and police officer).
    Updated 18-10-2016 at 07:58 PM by Justice111