View RSS Feed

Justice111

Serious complaint filed against judges for criminally assisting to hide evidence

Rate this Entry
BIG NEWS

Today, a serious complaint has been filed into the Officer of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner against Court of Appeal justices Wild, French and Randerson and Supreme Court justices William Young, Glazebrook and Ellen France.

If you wish to obtain a copy of the complaint simply email your request to:

nzjustice111@gmail.com

The complaint brings the Commissioner's attention to the aforementioned justices forming a criminal alliance to ensure unlawfully suppressed evidence remains suppressed to protect fraudulent judgments of the Court from having to be set aside (criminal conduct by judiciary members).

The evidential material filed to support the complaint is damming against the justices.

If the complaint is dismissed by the Commissioner, or anyone authorized to order the dismissal, the matter will be heading off overseas to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Submit "Serious complaint filed against judges for criminally assisting to hide evidence" to Digg Submit "Serious complaint filed against judges for criminally assisting to hide evidence" to del.icio.us Submit "Serious complaint filed against judges for criminally assisting to hide evidence" to StumbleUpon Submit "Serious complaint filed against judges for criminally assisting to hide evidence" to Google

Updated 24-05-2017 at 12:46 AM by Justice111

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Judicial Conduct , Justice, Ministry of

Comments

  1. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Justice111: You may as well lodge the complaint to the UN now, as your allegation, of the Judges decision to act in a criminal alliance, is about a decision made in a 'judicial capacity' and in a 'judicial decision'.

    The Commissioner has ruled on numerous occasions that when Judges are accused of acting criminally in deciding a matter it is a decision in a 'judicial capacity' or a 'judicial decision' and he as Commissioner has no jurisdiction under the JCC Act to consider the validity of a decision by a Judge in their 'judicial capacity' or from a 'judicial decision', no matter what allegation is made or what irrefutable evidence is provided of the alleged criminal act.

    And that is why we still have criminals ruling as Supreme Court of NZ Judges.

    Good luck.
    Updated 05-05-2017 at 02:20 PM by Q. C.
  2. Justice111's Avatar
    Dear QC, possibly you are meaning the legal term "judicial discretion" when referring to judicial capacity and judicial decision.

    Judicial discretion being utilized to defeat the complaint has already been raised from paragraphs 87 - 88 of the complaint.

    You may wish to email nzjustice111@gmail.com to obtain a copy of the complaint.

    In the event the complaint is dismissed it becomes cogent evidence to support an application filed before the UNHRC.

    The complaint records, but is certainly not limited to the following:

    87. The complicit conduct of the justices named in this complaint cannot, by any means, be legally/lawfully explained or argued away by claims that Randerson, Wild, French, William Young, Glazebrook and Ellen France were lawfully/legally utilizing their judicial discretion when delivered their judgments against us.

    88. It would be utterly nonsensical Commissioner to even suggest that the New Zealand legal community as a whole, and the general public of New Zealand, would be accepting of judicial discretion being utilized to such an extent that it lends opportunity to a judge to ensure evidence, that has been deliberately and dishonestly suppressed, remains suppressed which conveniently, and consequently, saves judgments obtained by the fraudulent conduct (the deliberate and dishonest suppression of evidence) from having to be set aside.

    89. We respectfully draw your attention Commissioner to the damming findings, in 2000, against the State of New Zealand issued by the International United Nations Human Rights Committee which stated “There is no power in New Zealand law to discipline or reprimand a judge” and “The Special Rapporteur expresses surprise and concern over the fact that there is no procedure in New Zealand to discipline judges..”

    90 It seems reasonable Commissioner to assume your office commenced operating on the 01 August 2005 to resolve the aforementioned issues raised by the International Committee.

    Of course the complaint QC refers to judgments and well held principles of law to support the complaint.



    Kind regards.
    Updated 05-05-2017 at 09:22 PM by Justice111
  3. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice111
    Dear QC, possibly you are meaning the legal term "judicial discretion" when referring to judicial capacity and judicial decision.

    ...87. The complicit conduct of the justices named in this complaint cannot, by any means, be legally/lawfully explained or argued away by claims that Randerson, Wild, French, William Young, Glazebrook and Ellen France were lawfully/legally utilizing their judicial discretion when delivered their judgments against us...
    Justice111: As I see your point; are you saying to the JCC that NZ Supreme Court Judges cannot use their discretion to act, to put it mildly, corruptly as judges on an issue put to them?
  4. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C.
    Justice111: As I see your point; are you saying to the JCC that NZ Supreme Court Judges cannot use their discretion to act, to put it mildly, corruptly as judges on an issue put to them?
    Based on the NZ Supreme Court Justices pervious practices, which I and many others have full knowledge of, that is exactly what the Judges do on an issue they what to bury, so what Justice111 is alleging to the Commissioner is just a continuation of that despicable and illegal practice by NZ Judges.

    A NZ judicial practice which the Commissioner condones, under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004, by his decisions.
    Updated 07-05-2017 at 10:57 AM by John "Brockovich"
  5. Justice111's Avatar
    Good afternoon QC and John,

    Thought it prudent to carry on the conversation by saying the complaint focuses squarely on the justices conduct (in the face of undefeated evidential material) ignoring the deliberate suppression of evidence that has been used as an unlawful/illegal avenue to obtain judgments.

    The merits of the case relating to any decisions delivered by the justices complained about is not at issue as this would condemn the complaint due to the Commissioner not having any jurisdiction to decide upon the merits of a case that has been decided by a judge.

    For the complaint against Randerson, Wild, French, Glazebrook, William Young and France to be dismissed, the Commissioner would have to provide cogent grounds (under the pressure these grounds would have to be held by the UN) as to why judicial discretion is able to be utilized by a judge to the extent that the discretion consequently ensures deliberately suppressed evidence remains suppressed, which consequently saves judgments obtained by fraudulent conduct (dishonest and deliberate suppression of evidence).

    May I encourage you both to seek a copy of the complaint via nzjustice111@gmail.com

    It would be extremely helpful QC and John if after reading the complaint, you would be able to provide any reasons you see as to how the Commissioner would be able to legally/lawfully escape the justices from reprimand given any grounds by the Commissioner would be subject to the UN's very strict scrutiny.

    Kind regards
    Updated 08-05-2017 at 01:52 PM by Justice111
  6. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice111
    ...The merits of the case relating to any decisions delivered by the justices complained about is not at issue as this would condemn the complaint due to the Commissioner not having any jurisdiction to decide upon the merits of a case that has been decided by a judge...
    As a matter of interest: The current Commissioner conveniently forgets about Sir David's ruling of 11 June 2013 at paragraph 21 where he, as the then Commissioner, ruled that:

    “If it became apparent to me that a Judge's approach to and conclusions upon the issues was wholly divorced from sense and logic, then that could be conceivably give rise to a claim of incompetence, amounting to incapacity. And that may be seen as an issue of conduct” .

    Clearly Sir David, the previous Commissioner, considered the Act gave him jurisdiction to decide upon the merits of the case, to enable him to assess judicial incompetence or not. And with that type of issue in the complaint s. 8(2) of the JCC Act must be ignored by the Commissioner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice111
    ...May I encourage you both to seek a copy of the complaint via nzustice111@gmail.com...
    I emailed you yesterday and have not received a copy of the complaint as yet.
  7. Justice111's Avatar
    Good afternoon QC, sorry missed out the j in the email address so I will correct it. Email address again is nzjustice111@gmail.com
  8. FairHearing's Avatar
    It's so typical - a litigant focusing on their own matter and ignoring the others' experience. Justice111: your complaint is just one of dozens, if not hundreds, of similar complaints which have been brushed by the JCC, the Police, SFO - you name it - under the carpet.

    If there was any chance that the JCC, the UN or anybody would bring the criminal machinations of the NZ judiciary into light, the latter wouldn't have flouted the law so openly. The UN Human Rights Committee, as all UN institutions, including OHCHR, consists of people similar to Lowell Goddard, and is profoundly corrupt. I have evidence of the UN Human Rights Committee blatantly lying to cover up their own misconduct and that of NZ courts. But that won't surprise informed observers either - see, for example, THE UN'S DIRTY SECRET: THE UNTOLD STORY OF ANDERS KOMPASS AND PEACEKEEPER SEX ABUSE IN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC or Barbell accident kills former UN leader accused of corruption.

    You claim that the Supreme Court "justices" - Sirs, Dames, KNZMs, DNZMs, GNZMs, QCs etc - formed a "criminal alliance". What makes you think that Alan Ritchie the JCC is not one of the allies? What makes you think that the UN - composed of representatives of the State Parties - is any less corrupt than the States that form it?
    Updated 17-05-2017 at 01:06 PM by FairHearing
  9. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing
    It's so typical - a litigant focusing on their own matter and ignoring the others' experience. Justice111: your complaint is just one of dozens, if not hundreds, of similar complaints which have been brushed by the JCC, the Police, SFO - you name it - under the carpet.

    ...You claim that the Supreme Court "justices" - Sirs, Dames, KNZMs, DNZMs, GNZMs, QCs etc - formed a "criminal alliance". What makes you think that Alan Ritchie the JCC is not one of the allies?...
    All those rational people who have experienced, and can prove, the corruption of/or NZ Judges, Crown Law, the S-G, the Law Society, the JCC, the SFO, the Attorney-General etc in regard to their individual cases have never succeeded in exposing that corruption.

    That is because it is "systemic" corruption among those with authority to judge, investigate and advise the Public or Parliament of the corruption they should have found.

    Our MP's will not listen or investigate and the NZ media will not report on systemic corruption in the justice system (even if they dared to investigate it). So the Public and Parliament remain in blissful ignorance.

    So the only option available is to go to the Australian or UK media to expose that corruption.

    If anyone knows a good investigative reporter in the Australasian or UK media please let me know on my profile 'visitors massages'. I will have a go on a case of systemic corruption.

    Thanks
    Updated 18-05-2017 at 02:40 PM by Q. C.
  10. FairHearing's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C.
    If anyone knows a good investigative reporter in the Australasian or UK media please let me know on my profile 'visitors massages'. I will have a go on a case of systemic corruption.
    Thanks
    Goddard's IICSA scandal is a good indicator. AU media have been practically TOTALLY silent - even though the news were published all around the world. There must be a really good reason for this.

    As to UK, it's enough to compare what mainstream media published at the time when Goddard was appointed, and when she was kicked out back to NZ. Those were two well-orchestrated campaigns that clearly served someone's interests. The second campaign was only possible because Goddard had pissed off someone very important in the UK, so she was shown her place. Even then Goddard's NZ machinations had been carefully avoided by the UK media, even though the journalists knew about them.

    Sorry for the bad news.
  11. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing
    Goddard's IICSA scandal is a good indicator. AU media have been practically TOTALLY silent - even though the news were published all around the world. There must be a really good reason for this.

    ... Sorry for the bad news.
    FairHearing: So what you are effectively saying is what I have always been advised to do by someone who was authorised to absolutely eradicate corruption and tyranny: Put a bullet between their eyes.

    I have never acted on that advice, and unfortunately the corrupt Judges and officials know I would never act on that advice.

    P. S. That fully informed advise is from a New Zealand WW2 veteran, who had a licence from the government to shoot those who supported and defended corrupt tyrants.

    What a waste of all those NZ soldiers lives
  12. FairHearing's Avatar
    Q.C., I totally agree with you. As 2010 Robin Hood movie begins: "In times of tyranny and injustice, when law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history."
  13. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing
    Q.C., I totally agree with you. As 2010 Robin Hood movie begins: "In times of tyranny and injustice, when law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history."
    I think we have a slightly different situation, slightly in that the difference results in the same outcome; oppression of the people

    Different in that NZ have laws that do not oppress the people, but we have enforcers of the law who are corrupt in their application of that law. The Supreme Court justices being a good example.

    I think the more applicable quote in relation to NZ's system justice participants who are involved in the evil of systemic corruption is "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"

    Our politicians, media and others who could expose NZ's systemic corrupt in the justice system are the ones who "do nothing".

    Whether they are "good men" (and women) is a different problem.
    Updated 18-05-2017 at 08:20 PM by Q. C.
  14. Dixpat's Avatar
    @Justice111
    I believe you will find that Associate Faire has been called out of retirement and is currently sitting in Wellington & will be doing so until July/August.

    As I understand it extra Judges are required but will not be appointed until after the election
  15. Justice111's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Dixpat
    @Justice111
    I believe you will find that Associate Faire has been called out of retirement and is currently sitting in Wellington & will be doing so until July/August.

    As I understand it extra Judges are required but will not be appointed until after the election
    Good evening Dixpat.

    I will phone the JJC's office tomorrow to confirm whether or not Faire J, who was moved from an associate to a high justice around late 2014, is holding at present, a current judicial warrant. If so, he can be added into the complaint filed against the three COA judges and the SC judges.
    Updated 24-05-2017 at 12:41 AM by Justice111