Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: Judicial conduct checking mechanism?

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ... I am curious what kind of evidence he considers "real" and what his criteria of "persuasiveness" are...
    I have no idea. I know the affidavits are documents, as were the judges judicial decisions, which all therefore qualify as being "real". They are 'evidence' because they were presented to the JCC as such. They were persuasive to anyone with integrity, as the "real" affidavits contents totally conflicted with the judges "real" judicial decisions on what were the contents of those affidavits.

    So the JCC's criteria for "persuasiveness" must be limited to when he has no choice but to accept the evidence as real and persuasive (because of unfortunate and already existing public exposure of judicial corruption or conflicts of interests). Which to date has only occurred in the Justice Wilson case.

    FairHearing for your information I quote below from the JCC's letter of 11 June 2013, which shows the JCC can consider judicial decisions when dealing with a complaint on a judge's conduct.

    "In the course of considering these complaints I have considered the material provided by you and also each of the decisions, Minutes and directions associated with these complaints. I have not considered those decisions, Minutes or directions in order to consider the legality or correctness of them (for that is beyond my jurisdiction) but rather to determine if your complaint as to the Judges' conduct has any validity."

  2. #22
    It is a pleasure reading a worthwhile discussion on the forum instead of the normal postings by a misguided member

    Question: Are the JCC's decisions subject to Judicial review if the complaint chose to do so?

    If they were I guess it would be problematical whether that would be worthwhile given the reason for the initial complaint!

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Dixpat View Post
    ....Question: Are the JCC's decisions subject to Judicial review if the complaint chose to do so?

    If they were I guess it would be problematical whether that would be worthwhile given the reason for the initial complaint!
    Yes - JCC's decisions are reviewable. On Judicial Review you are asking another Judge whether the JCC made an error in not appointing a panel to investigate removing a fellow judge or some other lesser reprimand.

    Given that NZ has systemic corruption within the judiciary it is unlikely an honest judge would break ranks. So a strike out ruling on the Judicial Review is inevitable.

    In one recent Judicial Review proceeding the Judge, who was complained about to the JCC and which the JCC made a decision on, refused to recuse himself from considering the Judicial Review on why the JCC had not sanction him in some way (and of course that Judge squashed the Judicial Review).

    That is 'ruling in your own cause'. A conduct that is unacceptable under the rule of law and has been so for about 300 to 400 years.

    However, such conduct is totally acceptable within the NZ judiciary, to the A-G, and in the eyes of the JCC, as long as the general Public plebs and Media plebs don't know about it.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    it is unlikely an honest judge would break ranks
    Which means it's unlikely there's a single honest judge left in the High Court and above.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Which means it's unlikely there's a single honest judge left in the High Court and above.
    I wonder what Transparency International NZ, the Media, the Public and Parliament would think if they knew a District Court Judge is currently considering whether or not to issue a summons on the Registrar of the Supreme Court to face a charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice.

    The alleged purpose of that alleged criminal act by the Registrar being to ensure the Supreme Court Justices would never have the April 2013 filed application before them that would require the Supreme Court to consider whether there was judicial corruption on the part of Justices Cooper, Toogood and Harrison and complicit corruption and criminal contempt by others with statutory authority within our justice system.

    The Registrar’s alleged criminal plan eventually failed, as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s 'forced' intervention in December 2015 ensured the Justices of the Supreme Court asked the Registrar for that application filed in April 2013, which is now before them.

    The outcome from both Courts should be interesting.

    To prove you proposition FairHearing - Will the District Court (a lower Court) Judge be honest and the Supreme Court Justices dishonest!!!
    Last edited by Q. C.; 20-02-2016 at 07:47 AM.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    I wonder what Transparency International NZ, the Media, the Public and Parliament would think if they knew a District Court Judge is currently considering whether or not to issue a summons on the Registrar of the Supreme Court to face a charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice.

    ...The outcome from both Courts should be interesting.

    To prove you proposition FairHearing - Will the District Court (a lower Court) Judge be honest and the Supreme Court Justices dishonest!!!
    Q. C. and FairHearing: The District Court Judge was honest. By Direction Minute of 23 February 2016 (received today) the Judge stated the Charging Document against the Registrar of the Supreme Court "appears to comply with ss 16 and 17 of the Criminal Procedures Act 2011."

    The Judge has directed that the Informant file formal statements and any exhibits referred to in the formal statements so as he, the Judge, can decide whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a summons being issued for the Registrar to appear to face the criminal charge.

    Stage 2 will be simple - the exhibit evidence in support of the charge.

  7. #27
    I think I've met an honest DC judge. However, while I am not fluent with the criminal procedure, I'd think it's relatively easy to be honest at interlocutory stages. E.g., a judge can allow a charge to proceed with the view that it will be dismissed in substance later, or that A-G will permanently stay the criminal proceedings against judges in the interests of justice.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 25-02-2016 at 05:02 PM.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    I think I've met an honest DC judge. However, while I am not fluent with the criminal procedure, I'd think it's relatively easy to be honest at interlocutory stages. E.g., a judge can allow a charge to proceed with the view that it will be dismissed in substance later, or that A-G will permanently stay the criminal proceedings against judges in the interests of justice.
    You are generally correct on the issue of later stay of proceedings, but that off course requires a criminal act on the part of the A-G to use his statutory powers corruptly (which he would have no hesitation in doing).

    However, this prosecution is not against a Judge, but the Registrar of the Supreme Court. Where the damning Exhibit evidence against the Registrar is a letter from the Supreme Court Judge to the Commissioner.

    We will have to wait and see.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    ...However, this prosecution is not against a Judge, but the Registrar of the Supreme Court. Where the damning Exhibit evidence against the Registrar is a letter from the Supreme Court Judge to the Commissioner...
    Of more importance, or serious concern, to the public, is that on complaint about the Supreme Court delay to the:

    1. Minister of Justice, she stated in her letter of 26 November 2014 "I have been advised that these applications were placed before the Court in a timely manner and that they were dealt with judiciously." She refused to check her 'advice' when evidence from the Supreme Court, provided to her, recorded that the Applications had yet to be considered by the Judges of the Supreme Court (at that stage they were 2 years 1 month old). She therefore did nothing about the Registrar's conduct complaint.

    2. High Courts Manager, of the Ministry of Justice, that the only possible reason for the SC delay must be the miss-conduct of the Registrar in not giving the Applications to the Judges and lying to me that he had. The Manager, Ms. Tesoriero, responded by letter of 7 July 2015 with "your applications were duly placed before judicial officers by the Registrar, and decisions by the judiciary were delivered after due consideration". She also refused to correct her letter and properly deal with the complaint about the Registrar, when provided evidence from the SC that her response was totally incorrect.

    3. Ombudsman, about the Minister of Justice refusing to provide under an OIR the name of the advisor who incorrectly advised her the applications were handled in "a timely manner" and "dealt with judiciously" and what that advice was. The Ombudsman by letter of 9 December 2015 determined the Minister was right to refuse the advisors name (under harassment) and the request for a copy of the incorrect advice (as frivolous).

    4. Ombudsman, about the Manager of Higher Courts not properly dealing with a complaint made to her about the conduct of the SC Registrar. The Ombudsman by letter of 29 October 2015 refused to investigate, stating "I do not have jurisdiction to investigate your concerns about the conduct of court proceedings..." That clearly incorrect interpretation of the complaint is still being reconsidered by the Ombudsman.


    So we are left with a situation where the Minister of Justice letter of 26 November 2014 make her look like an 'idiot' Minister and the conduct of staff under her Ministry unchecked by her and the Ombudsman as to their misconduct, bad advice and gross incompetence.

    All resulting in the absolute need for the private criminal prosecution of the Supreme Court Registrar for perverting the Supreme Court (by not providing the 2012 and 2013 Applications to the Judges) - to bring the matter to the Public's attention.

    This fight has got to be better than sex!
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 27-02-2016 at 09:46 AM.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    ...All resulting in the absolute need for the private criminal prosecution of the Supreme Court Registrar for perverting the Supreme Court (by not providing the 2012 and 2013 Applications to the Judges) - to bring the matter to the Public's attention....
    The evidence in support of the criminal charge against the SC Registrar was provided to the Court on 3 March 2016, as per the Judges directions. The following request accompanied that documentation:

    "I ask you and the Judge to deal with them on an urgent basis, as if the evidence I have provided is sufficient and admissible to provide a prima facie case to the jury, and that jury accepts that evidence, then the Registrar will be found guilty of his criminal acts as Registrar of the Supreme Court of NZ.

    Given that possible scenario, the fact that those alleged criminal acts were committed over a prolonged period of time and in all probability are not an isolated incident; then the other Supreme Court litigants (that is, attempting to be litigants) and the Public would also expect urgency. As on authorisation of the summons that would stop the ongoing damage of the Registrar not presenting legitimately filed documents to the Court.

    Please confirm you are treating the matter with urgency and that you have conveyed my request to the Judge."

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
  •