View RSS Feed

Justice111

NZ Office of judicial conduct commissioner dismisses 100% of complaints

Rate this Entry
Over an 11 year period (from when the office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner first commenced operating on 01 August 2005) up to 2016, the office of the JJC received 2331 complaints against New Zealand Judge.

100% of the complaints have been dismissed.

Anyone wishing to do further research regarding the aforementioned can go to the website address for the JJC's office www.jcc.govt.nz

The above website has a link to take you to the annual reports filed each year by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner regarding the handling of complaints filed.

Don't forget, as per the last blog, there is a current complaint before the Commissioner filed against three Court of Appeal justices and three Supreme Court justice for forming a criminal alliance to hide evidence so fraudulent judgments of the Court are kept safe. If you wish to obtain a copy of the complaint simply email nzjustice111@gmail.com

Submit "NZ Office of judicial conduct commissioner dismisses 100% of complaints" to Digg Submit "NZ Office of judicial conduct commissioner dismisses 100% of complaints" to del.icio.us Submit "NZ Office of judicial conduct commissioner dismisses 100% of complaints" to StumbleUpon Submit "NZ Office of judicial conduct commissioner dismisses 100% of complaints" to Google

Updated 24-05-2017 at 01:52 AM by Justice111

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

Comments

  1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
    Justice111: You just do not understand, a 100% dismissal rate was expected of the JCC.

    As while the JCC Act was designed to give the Public and Parliament the impression that Judges would be held to account for misconduct, incompetence or judicial corruption, the Commissions have always acted in the way expected of them.

    That is, Commissioners were expected to take an interpretation of the Act which will always result in a dismissal (when necessary) and the further expectation was that that erroneous interpretation would be sanctioned by all Judges under Judicial Review of the Commissioners decision. Which is what has happened in all valid cases.

    The Minister of Justice, Attorney-General and virtually all Judges are happy with that informal arrangement.

    Sorry, all other New Zealanders.
  2. FairHearing's Avatar
    In his decision of 17 February 2017 on the complaint that alleged incompetence, failure to act with due diligence, improper threats, and otherwise abuse of her position on the part of D F Clarkson, Alan Ritchie the JCC wrote:

    6. It is implicit in [the complainant's lawyer]'s letter that he is inviting me to conclude on your [complainant's] behalf that the Judge may have been wrong:
    - in relying on section 251 (1) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006;
    - in suggesting that there could be any consequences in terms of contempt;
    - in writing to [the lawyer] instead of directly to you if he had nothing to do with your emails to the Tribunal.

    7. I am not drawn to form any such conclusion. In the particular circumstances of this complaint, I do not believe it matters whether Judge Clarkson was correct. Your emails amounted to extreme behaviour to which the Judge responded in a forceful way aimed at protecting individual Disciplinary Tribunal members from serious harassment.
    In other words, per the JCC, it does not matter that a judge is incompetent, lacks due diligence and acts illegally, at least when the judge protects their own.

    Justice111: in your case, the Supreme Court judges protected themselves and/or judges of lower courts. From the JCC's standpoint, your allegations are no more than serious harassment. Per him, the judges are entitled to respond to such harassment in a "forceful" and illegal manner.

    I suggest that you ask the JCC to recuse from determining your complaint, on the grounds that he is corrupt or incapacitated. Your request won't affect the outcome, of course.
    Updated 24-05-2017 at 08:39 PM by FairHearing
  3. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich"
    Justice111: You just do not understand, a 100% dismissal rate was expected of the JCC.

    As while the JCC Act was designed to give the Public and Parliament the impression that Judges would be held to account for misconduct, incompetence or judicial corruption, the Commissions have always acted in the way expected of them.

    ...Sorry, all other New Zealanders.
    Justice111: "Brockovich" is spot on.

    The Commission now has a problem with a current complaint in that:

    - 4 separate District Court Judges, after they had reviewed all the evidence, and on seven separate occasions, authorised 20 odd summonses on Deputy Solicitor-Generals Mander, Gwyn and Finlay, Solicitor-General Collins and Crown Prosecutor Douch to face criminal charges. The final charges being for acting in a criminal group for the purpose of perverting justice.

    - The same Solicitor-Generals, using their statutory powers, made a series of decision to stay each others criminal prosecutions, even though (in the last prosecutions) they were named co-defendants under the charges they stayed.

    - High Court Justices Andrews and Priestley, at Judicial Review of those decisions by the above Civil Servants of Crown Law, found the criminal charges were without foundation, and on appeal CoA Judges Randerson, Stevens, White, Glazebrook, Wild and White upheld those two judges decisions.

    - High Court Justices Cooper and Toogood and CoA Justice Harrison then found the 20 odd criminal charges, and obtaining of summonses from the District Court Judges, against the Solicitor-General and his deputies and a Crown Prosecutor were vexatious acts and without foundation.

    - The Commission, on conduct complaints against all those High Court and CoA Judges, found no wrongdoing.

    The Commission, based on the above, has a complaint against the District Court Judges which alleges:

    The above Justices decisions, which you or your predecessor saw no wrongdoing in, ruled, based on the same evidence before the District Court Judges complained about, that the charges and therefore summonses were without foundation.

    The District Court Judges complained about in this letter continually found otherwise, therefore must be:

    a) Grossly incompetent; or
    b) Vexatious judges for authorising such summonses without good reason; or
    c) Willing to authorise summonses willy-nilly; or
    d) Correct (therefore not complained about), if the Justices and your Office were dishonest on the topic.
    Updated 03-06-2017 at 03:10 PM by Q. C.
  4. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C.
    ...The Commission now has a problem with a current complaint in that:

    ...The District Court Judges complained about in this letter continually found otherwise [in contradiction to Judges of the High Court and CoA and the Commissioner himself], therefore must be:

    a) Grossly incompetent; or
    b) Vexatious judges for authorising such summonses without good reason; or
    c) Willing to authorise summonses willy-nilly; or
    ....
    Oops. I forgot; the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Alan Ritchie, like his predecessor is corrupt when dealing with well founded complaints against New Zealand Judges. He dismissed this complaint on 9 June 2017 with:

    I must dismiss a complaint which asks me to challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of a judicial decision. That is the effect of section 8(2) and 16(1)(f) of the Act.
    …there is no question but that the sections apply. Your complaint is dismissed accordingly.

    I also regard your complaint as vexatious…”

    Haven't the High Court, CoA and the Commissioner, in their multiple decisions, already concluded the District Court Judges were incorrect in their judicial decisions!!!!
    Updated 10-06-2017 at 03:43 PM by Q. C.
  5. Q. C.'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C.
    Oops. I forgot; the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Alan Ritchie, like his predecessor is corrupt when dealing with well founded complaints against New Zealand Judges. He dismissed this complaint on 9 June 2017 with:

    I must dismiss a complaint which asks me to challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of a judicial decision. That is the effect of section 8(2) and 16(1)(f) of the Act.
    …there is no question but that the sections apply. Your complaint is dismissed accordingly.

    I also regard your complaint as vexatious…”

    Haven't the High Court, CoA and the Commissioner, in their multiple decisions, already concluded the District Court Judges were incorrect in their judicial decisions!!!!
    Up-date: A complaint has been filed with the Serious Fraud Office against Alan Ritchie, alleging corruption by him as Commissioner on this matter.
  6. Justice111's Avatar
    May I just say one thing, these comments in relation to my initial post do not serve any purpose to bring those to justice we want. All I read is each attacking the other to get a one upmanship regarding law.

    This attacking of each other plays right into the hands of the people you wish make accountable because while you are fighting with each other, the attention is taken off the very people you wish to make accountable.
    Updated 22-07-2017 at 04:40 AM by Justice111
  7. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C.
    Up-date: A complaint has been filed with the Serious Fraud Office against Alan Ritchie, alleging corruption by him as Commissioner on this matter.
    Q.C.: Its looks like the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Alan Ritchie's, corrupt activity of protecting Judges has finally caught up with him.

    From what you have posted he has absolutely 'snookered himself' into proving his own corruption (guilt).

    But his corruption will only be exposed if the SFO director, Julie Read, decides not to be corrupt. The pressure will be on her to toe the line and earn her pay (i.e. get ride of the complaint by acting corruptly). But she's an Aussie, and worst a Lawyer, so expect the worst.

    If Julie hasn't kicked it for touch yet it is promising. Don't the SFO have a 30 day response deadline?

    ******** INVESTAGATATIVE JOURNALISTS - WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU! **********
    Updated 28-07-2017 at 07:08 PM by John "Brockovich"
  8. FairHearing's Avatar
    Julie of course can't be bothered with individual complaints. My educated guess is, the complaint will be dealt with as follows:


    From: SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE [mailto:sfo@sfo.govt.nz]
    Sent: [Date]
    To: [The complainant]
    Subject: SFO reference [Insert reference]

    Dear [Complainant],

    Complaint to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) reference [Insert reference]

    Thank you for your complaint to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) received [Insert date].

    The SFO is a highly specialised government agency enabled by the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990 to facilitate the detection of serious and complex fraud, bribery and corruption.

    Part 1 of the Act provides that the SFO may take action where the Director has reason to suspect that an investigation into the affairs of any person may disclose a serious or complex fraud. This is an objective test and requires some evidence to support the allegations being made.
    In considering whether a matter involves a serious or complex fraud the Director may, among other things, have regard to:
    • The suspected nature of the fraud
    • The suspected scale of the fraud
    • The legal, factual and evidential complexity of the matter
    • Any relevant public interest considerations.
    Your complaint and the information you have provided has been considered. It is our view that we have no basis to suspect that an investigation may disclose a serious or complex fraud. In first instance your complaint should be directed to the office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner http://www.jcc.govt.nz/

    While we will not be investigating your complaint we thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

    Yours sincerely

    Rob Vaudrey [or some other corrupt clerk at SFO]
    Senior Intelligence Analyst