Article: Chief Justice against sending activist to jail

Judicial corruption in NZ affects a lot of people, not "a few" or them. Otherwise, Madame Sian Elias wouldn't have mentioned in her speech "widespread dissatisfaction with the court system" and "a message of alienation and discomfort which is felt by big business as well as by 'ordinary New Zealanders'”.

Of course, MPs, mainstream media and many other people are aware of the corruption. It's just a few that actively complain. The others cannot afford or have no guts to do it, as it is suicidal, at least financially.

Quote:

---

on many matters they are honest and apply the law and are not "corrupt" in the finincial sense of accepting bribes

---

Corruption doesn't mean only accepting bribes. Corrupt judges cannot possibly choose to be "honest" or "apply the law", for a simple reason. The same Bangalore quote continues as follows: "Integrity is absolute. In the judiciary, integrity is more than a virtue; it is a necessity". A judge who lacks the necessary qualities cannot possibly be seen by an informed fair-minded lay observer as one who would apply the law impartially. On the other hand, the law says that upholding the principles of natural justice is "basic to our system" and "far transcends the significance of any particular case".

Speaking about bribes, corruption in many cases means exactly taking a bribe for what should be done by a public official anyway pursuant to his/her duties. A judge can take a bribe for being "honest" and "applying the law". So when you say that in many cases NZ judiciary appear to be "honest" or "applying the law", it doesn't mean they weren't bribed. It may mean that bribery is widespread. Also, who determined that a judge was "honest" or "applied the law" in any particular case? The public can only see what is put in the judgment, and we now how NZ judges write their judgments.

Put simply, many of those who now complain might have been better off by paying a bribe to the judge at the time. Then the judges in their cases would have been "honest" and "applied the law". Of course, I am advocating not bribes but prosecution of corrupt judges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FairHearing

... Of course, I am advocating not bribes but prosecution of corrupt judges.

---

Who is going to prosecute, as a prosecution of a Judge for corruption in NZ requires the prior consent of the Attorney-General and Parliament?

I asked for consent from the A-G to prosecute Justice Toogood and Cooper for corruption in complicity with him (the A-G) and he refused on the simple basis that he, the A-G, did not agree with me that the Judges acted corruptly for his benefit. He therefore did not seek a resolution from Parliament to consent to their criminal prosecution. A blatent conflict of interest by the A-G.

I later filed criminal prosecutions against Justice Cooper and Toogood for preverting the course of justice (on the same matter), which did not require the A-G's consent.

A District Court Judge directed the Registrar to not accept those prosecution charges on the basis that no evidence whatsoever was filed in support of the charges, even though a prosecutor cannot file supporting evidence until a Judge directs that prosecutor to file such evidence (no Judge gave such a direction).

In NZ you simply cannot get a Judge or Crown Executive Officer before a jury to enable that jury to consider evidence in support of a charge of corruption or any other crime committed in their official capacity.

Nor can you in NZ get an investigating authority, such as the Police or SFO, to investigate a Judge's or Crown Executive's corruption or other crime in their official capacity.

By any measure that is also corruption, but the mainstream Media and our MP's believe NZ is one of the least corrupt country in the world. An absolute truth, to the uninformed, if coruption is not investigated nor prosecutions filed for such criminal acts: Which is the case in NZ.

I mentioned prosecution out of abundance of caution, to make it clear I'm against bribery. Totally agree with your views on the prospects of prosecution in NZ, with one exception:

Quote:

---

but the mainstream Media and our MP's believe NZ is one of the least corrupt country in the world

---

I don't think they believe in that. I'd say they know what's going on but choose not to do the right thing, for various reasons.

Q. C. I guess your meeting with the site's Administrators was fruitless as yoda is still posting the same shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Q. C.

I asked for consent from the A-G to prosecute Justice Toogood and Cooper for corruption in complicity with him (the A-G)

---

Q.C., from the top of my head, A-G's consent is only required for s 100 (Judicial corruption/bribery) but not for s 116 (Conspiring to defeat justice). Not that it practically matters, of course, given that A-G would stay any prosecution. But why did you choose, apparently, s 100 vs. 116? Did you have evidence of actual bribery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FairHearing

Q.C., from the top of my head, A-G's consent is only required for s 100 (Judicial corruption/bribery) but not for s 116 (Conspiring to defeat justice). Not that it practically matters, of course, given that A-G would stay any prosecution. But why did you choose, apparently, s 100 vs. 116? Did you have evidence of actual bribery?

---

FairHearing: I charged under s.105A not s. 100, and then later under s. 116. The request for consent relating to the s. 105A charge was as follows:

"I seek consent from you [the A-G] pursuant to s. 106 of the Crimes Act 1961 to charge you and others under s. 105A of that Act and request that you seek a resolution of the House to enable you to prosecute judges named below under s. 105A for complicity in yours and others alleged corruption. The details are:.."

So the evidence was of corruption by the Judges and the A-G and others (not bribery).

The evidence supported the charges against Justices Toogood and Cooper, alleging each "corruptly used information acquired by him in his official capacity to obtain, directly or indirectly, an advantage or pecuniary advantage for others, including..."

The evidence supported the charge against the A-G that he "corruptly used information acquired by him in his official capacity to obtain, directly or indirectly, an advantage or pecuniary advantage for others, including Cameron Leslie Mander, Cheryl Raewyn Gwyn, Mark Leslie Cooper, Christopher Holden Toogood."

The problem was the evidence would have been accepted by a jury and the jury would have found them all guilty, and the A-G knew that, so the A-G would not give his consent nor advise Cabinet and the PM that he had a conflict of interests.

Isn't it interesting how systemic Judicial and Crown Executive corruption works unabated in New Zealand!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Q. C.

....The problem was the evidence would have been accepted by a jury and the jury would have found them all guilty, and the A-G knew that, so the A-G would not give his consent nor advise Cabinet and the PM that he had a conflict of interests.

Isn't it interesting how systemic Judicial and Crown Executive corruption works unabated in New Zealand!

---

"Unabated" as Transparency International interviews the very people who wish to conceal NZ's systemic Judicial and Crown Executive corruption (if those people are aware of the corruption); Transparency International therefore ranking New Zealand as one of the least corrupt counties in the world (based on the lie from those people or from the ignorance of the other interviewees).

If only a mainstream Media's investigative Reporter would question what has been told to Transparency International compared to the reality in New Zealand. [Such investigation to hopefully exclude YODA's personal claims - as his personal claims only prove "nutters" exist.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Q. C.

corruptly used information acquired by him

---

Interesting... Anyway, this proves Chris Finlayson is a reasonable person. No criminal in his right mind would consent to being prosecuted for his crimes. A-G and Crown Law in general are lucky in this respect as they enjoy absolute effective immunity from prosecution, just as the judiciary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FairHearing

Interesting... A-G and Crown Law in general are lucky in this respect as they enjoy absolute effective immunity from prosecution, just as the judiciary.

---

Hitler and the Nazi had similar absolute immunity from prosecution, although they used a different method to protect themselves from the rule of law. But they were dealt with in a different way.

Seems it was a waste of our WW2 servicemen and servicewomen lives to fight for our freedom from evil, as evil (to a much much lesser consequence) has been rekindled by our A-G (Finlayson) and a number of the Judiciary.