Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Access to Justice Revealed

  1. #1

    Access to Justice Revealed

    Vince Siemer, legal agitator, web publisher and an occasional contributor to the forum is currently awaiting a High Court judgment which is expected to bar him from filing court proceedings without leave of a judge.

    The case is one of an increasing number the Attorney General has recently lodged in the courts to prevent 'vexatious litigants' access. The three day trial was early last month in Wellington. The decision of Ron Young and Brendan Brown JJ has been reserved. Mr Siemer was defended by human rights barrister Dr Tony Ellis.

    Although he has been the subject of over 100 adverse High Court judgments in the last nine years, the Attorney General struggled to bring his claim against Siemer to trial for more than two years. During this process the Attorney-General consented to two directions from the Court to amend his pleadings, after initially pleading cases Siemer had defended were vexatious.

    Little has been reported of the proceedings against Siemer in the press despite a history which included three appeals being heard by the New Zealand Supreme Court and countless others being refused.

    In an unusual move, Mr Siemer has launched a website www.vexatiousme.co.nz on which he has linked all the filings in the Attorney-General's case against him. He claims this was necessary for the public, and particularly the legal community, to look behind the judgments which often claimed he was incapable of formulating a proper claim.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by courtwatcher View Post
    ...[from www.vexatiousme.co.nz] "...The problem is few people have a clue what NZ judges are doing in their public role because so much of what occurs is suppressed. Public views are formed based upon public judgments which have no correlation with the law and facts in a given case."...
    Your Defence, in part, relies on s. 50 and s. 130 of the Evidence Act. Your lawyers closing submission quotes s. 50 with:
    "Civil judgment as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings
    (1) Evidence of a judgment or a finding of fact in a civil proceeding is not admissible in a criminal proceeding or another civil proceeding to prove the existence of a fact that was in issue in the proceeding in which the judgment was given."


    If in your civil proceedings Judges have not recorded the facts or recorded false facts to enable them to make judgments against you, which is a breach of their duty and criminal under ss. 117(e) and 105A of the Crimes Act; Do you expect Justices Brown and Ron Young to record that you rely on ss. 50 and 130 as a defence and that they will consider that defence against the existing actual facts (not the mere finding of facts that were being challenged)?
    Last edited by Q. C.; 07-04-2014 at 12:49 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •