Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Right to justice. In reality its a myth mk 2

  1. #1

    Exclamation Right to justice. In reality its a myth mk 2

    Well the justice forum wished me a happy birthday so I though I might up date you all as to progress in my endeavour to get justice it still continues

    My latest endeavour is as follows a letter to the human rights commission

    Telecom/spark now view me as vexatious however they continue to corresponds via their lawyer

    Me personally I have always considered the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is who ultimately wins the war

    so I welcome your comments and will accept any help and suggestions however I am running out of options after all this time if this doesn't work I not sure of the next move perhaps a petition

    Legal Conundrum



    I have a legal conundrum I seek support and guidance on as it severely effects my human rights, legal rights, and right to justice.

    In 2009 Aug. 20 I was exited by Telecom (now Spark) on the basis of two customer complaints, one of the complaints was fraudulent

    Application via the privacy commission, solicited that the fact that no such complaint ever existed, therefore an act of fraud

    Resolution of this matter via the Employment Relations Authority was to no avail (refer to four statements of problem lodged with the ERA ) and their determinations.
    Employment law statues have no provision within them to address fraud.

    The then sitting minster of labour Kate Wilkinson instructed me that it was crime and a police matter, duly done, (Hamilton police station complaint number 1111299892.)
    They were supportive but came to the view that this as an employment issue ,a position I are unable to dislodge them from ,likewise with the police complaints authority.

    None of this was supported by any legal documents/ precedents as to why, it was just the unsupported view of the police officers involved.

    As stated above employment law statues have no provision within them to address fraud, simple logic dictates that it must be addressed via the criminal system.

    (Resolution of this conundrum would have a profound effect on employment law)

    So here I am, left with no recourse to resolve the crime against me, and my human and legal rights.
    .
    All substantive evidence of Telecoms misdeeds in this matter can be found in the statement of problems to the ERA and documentation forwarded to police.

    I seek a review of these matters , a legal statement supported by your office establishing, that it is not an employment issue but in fact a fraud issue and it must dealt with as such and request it be addressed.

    Section 27 of the Bill of Rights Act protects each person's right to natural justice, and the right to judicial review. All are subject to public law obligations and have to comply with due process obligations in employment legislation and the Bill of Rights Act
    kind regards
    THE MOST RELEVANT SOP NUMBER WOULD BE SOP 5315212
    Paul
    Last edited by silverfox; 03-05-2015 at 07:46 PM.

  2. #2
    one of my statement of problems solely addressed the issue of fraud it got thrown out on the basis there was no statue within employment law to address it

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by silverfox View Post
    one of my statement of problems solely addressed the issue of fraud it got thrown out on the basis there was no statue within employment law to address it
    Consider abuse of process under the ‘fraud exception’ in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Radcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd SC 8/2012 [9 November 2012] at [28] to [34] and in particular [32].

  4. #4
    I received help from the University of Waikato via a local MP the lecturer and his top student spent 12 hours on it ,but because I had signed away my rights by accepting the outcome of the meditation (obviously i had no substantiative proof of the deceit at that time ) The Employment Relations Authority pathway is no longer an option as once you have signed that's it
    Unfortunately you don't know what you don't know

    The only option i have is have them charged by the police .but they as per the letter above are taking the easy way out
    No government agency has been able to help me i lack the resources to take it to court am pining my hopes on getting some assistance from HRC,you would think it would be an easy question to answer

    THE MOST RELEVANT SOP NUMBER WOULD BE SOP 5315212 it will outline the whole sorry tale

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by silverfox View Post
    I received help from the University of Waikato via a local MP the lecturer and his top student spent 12 hours on it ,but because I had signed away my rights by accepting the outcome of the meditation (obviously i had no substantiative proof of the deceit at that time ) The Employment Relations Authority pathway is no longer an option as once you have signed that's it
    Unfortunately you don't know what you don't know

    The only option i have is have them charged by the police .but they as per the letter above are taking the easy way out
    No government agency has been able to help me i lack the resources to take it to court am pining my hopes on getting some assistance from HRC,you would think it would be an easy question to answer

    THE MOST RELEVANT SOP NUMBER WOULD BE SOP 5315212 it will outline the whole sorry tale
    Two matters:
    1. If your accepting of the mediation decision was a direct result of the fraud then the principle in Radcliffe should apply. A decision as a result of fraud in never at an end.
    2. If you have the absolute proof of the fraud (including ability to prove intent), consider a private prosecution. It only costs about $50.00 in filing fees and all you have to do is follow procedure.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 03-05-2015 at 10:57 PM.

  6. #6
    thank you will investigate one door closes another opens

  7. #7
    I sent it to my old unions lawyers

    their response

    They have said that you assessment is incorrect and that you are confusing common law with the statutory restrictions in the Employment Relations Act. The response is their original judgment does not alter the advice they first gave.

    which was
    could not do anything as this had been an employment relationship problem that was settled at mediation with MoBIE (old Labour Dept.) and that was signed off as full and final settlement.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by silverfox View Post
    I sent it to my old unions lawyers

    their response

    They have said that you assessment is incorrect and that you are confusing common law with the statutory restrictions in the Employment Relations Act. The response is their original judgment does not alter the advice they first gave.

    which was
    could not do anything as this had been an employment relationship problem that was settled at mediation with MoBIE (old Labour Dept.) and that was signed off as full and final settlement.
    What I was suggesting was that your decision to go to and accept mediation was a result of the fraud by the other party (I was saying that without knowing all the facts, so if wrong on the facts I agree with what they say).

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    2
    Hi QC,

    I have read with much interest your outlining of making a private prosecution charge. Can you possibly give some details of how this is done, I also was a victim of fraud. Who handles these applications?

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
  •