Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: Judicial conduct checking mechanism?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    SC Registrar is just a tip of the iceberg. It is likely that Supreme Court Justices know about it, making sure that they be prevented from dealing with this problem.
    I agree with what Yoda said. The Registrar is, of course, just a pawn. The SC will have no difficulty to dismiss anything that might expose judicial corruption. Most likely, the Registrar or the judges simply forgot about the recall application, or it was inadvertently misplaced in the system which operates "arbitrarily... contrary to fundamental conceptions of fairness and justice".

    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    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."
    The above is from the previous commissioner, Sir Gascoigne. What happened with these April 2015 complaints, they were initially considered by Gascoigne, and he asked Harrison to reply. If Gascoigne was of a view that the complaints were beyond his jurisdiction, he wouldn't bother Harrison. Then Gascoigne was replaced by Alan Ritchie. The latter dismissed the complaints straight away for lack of jurisdiction. This gives some indication of who the new JCC is.

    Note that the JCC is no more than a "clearing house", as per one of HC decisions. If the JCC is of a view that a complaint should be acted upon, he must forward the complaint to a head of the bench, A-G etc. At the same time, nothing in the JCC Act prevents a complaint to be submitted directly to a head of the bench or the A-G in case if the JCC lacks jurisdiction. Of course, the integrity of the heads and the A-G are a separate issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    If it is the same Commissioner maybe you should ask him to explain his inconsistency in 'policy' on how he interprets the Act.
    The complainant has chosen to forward the complaint to the Chief Justice. It seems logical to me. The JCC thinks he's limited by the statute. That's fine. The Chief Justice isn't limited by the statute, and she is in a position to determine the complaint in substance, isn't she?

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    .... Most likely, the Registrar or the judges simply forgot about the recall application, or it was inadvertently misplaced in the system which operates "arbitrarily... contrary to fundamental conceptions of fairness and justice".
    No. As from what I understand 20 odd Memorandums and Interlocutory Applications were filed over the subsequent years under that Recall APPLICATION. A number seeking urgency.


    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    .... they were initially considered by Gascoigne, and he asked Harrison to reply. If Gascoigne was of a view that the complaints were beyond his jurisdiction, he wouldn't bother Harrison...
    No. The JCC did not ask Harrison to reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    .... The complainant has chosen to forward the complaint to the Chief Justice... That's fine. The Chief Justice isn't limited by the statute, and she is in a position to determine the complaint in substance, isn't she?
    Yes and No. The Chief Justice has authority, but allows herself to be limited by her gate keeper, Kieron McCarron, so she can claim "plausible deniability". McCarron does not 'Officially' forward her complaints, he rejects them himself.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    No. The JCC did not ask Harrison to reply.
    To make sure we are on the same page, I was referring to the April 2015 complaints mentioned here. Gascoigne did ask Harrison to reply, see Harrison's response there. Gascoigne then resigned without determining the complaint. Ritchie took over and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    McCarron does not 'Officially' forward her complaints, he rejects them himself
    True, which doesn't speak in favour of the Chief Justice who isn't aware of what's going on in her own office.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 06-03-2016 at 07:19 PM.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    To make sure we are on the same page, I was referring to the April 2015 complaints mentioned...
    Sorry. We were not on the same page, however dealing with the same corrupt Judge, Harrison.

    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    True, which doesn't speak in favour of the Chief Justice who isn't aware of what's going on in her own office.
    She is "unofficially aware", so is aware. However being 'unofficially aware' is how officially she can always claim "plausible deniability".

    That's how statutory official officers work in a systemically corrupt system.

  5. #35
    Speaking about the Chief Justice gatekeeper, Kieron McCarron, the guy seems to have been around for quite a while, misrepresenting and deflecting complaints to CJ on a routine basis. There is a number of links out there similar to this one. The complainant repeatedly tried to get through McCarron, of course, unsuccessfully:

    I refer to Mr McCarron’s letter of 14 April and his advice on your behalf that it is improper for you to question the conduct of legal proceedings except by judicial process. I have written that the issue is not the conduct of legal proceedings but the corrupt or incompetent conduct of three judges of the Court of Appeal and of three Crown Prosecutors who plainly, continually and deliberately misled a trial for murder. To impress upon you the gravity of the matter I have styled the prosecutors and Appeal Judges as “prima facie liars and conspirators against justice”. But regardlesss of the clarity of my purpose you again misinterpret it.
    Dear Mr Hunter
    I refer to your letter dated 26 April [2008]. Nothing further can be added to the responses you have already received on the concerns you have.
    Kieron McCarron, Judicial Administrator to the Chief Justice.
    I guess CJ has given her "Chief Advisor Legal and Policy" Kieron McCarron the story Before the Law by Kafka as the standard operations manual.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 07-03-2016 at 05:40 PM.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    The Chief Justice has authority, but allows herself to be limited by her gate keeper, Kieron McCarron, so she can claim [I]"plausible deniability"
    "Plausible deniability" is applicable to politicians and public officials, not to judges, let alone to the the country's top judge. According to UN Office on Drugs and Crime's Commentary On the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct -

    A judge should always, not only in the discharge of official duties, act honourably and in a manner befitting the judicial office; be free from fraud, deceit and falsehood; and be good and virtuous in behaviour and in character. There are no degrees of integrity as so defined. Integrity is absolute. In the judiciary, integrity is more than a virtue; it is a necessity… Because appearance is as important as reality in the performance of judicial functions, a judge must be beyond suspicion. The judge must not only be honest, but also appear to be so. A judge has the duty not only to render a fair and impartial decision, but also to render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the judge’s integrity…
    Sian Elias cannot possibly claim that she is "plausible honest" or has "plausible integrity". She is either honest or not. And she must be beyond suspicion, as opposed to politics where corruption is a normal state of affairs. As of now, it cannot be said that Sian Elias is "free from fraud, deceit and falsehood", because she seems to have been deliberately evading complaints about her fellow judges-fraudsters for almost a decade. She cannot be a judge for this reason alone. She must be told so every time before and after she signs a judgment in the SC.

    In theory, Elias then can come forward and say: wait, I am an honest judge, it's just that evil Kieron McCarron who has been dismissing all the complaints without authority and my knowledge, and that it's just those evil Glazebrook, Young and O'Regan who have been assigning themselves to and fraudulently dismissing applications while I looked the other way. The problem is, would it dispel any reasonable doubts as to Elias's integrity? No. A fair-minded person would always doubt whether she told the truth. On the other hand, does the country need the Chief Justice who cannot fulfil her duties, whether because she has surrounded herself with plainly incompetent or corrupt personnel, or for any other reason?
    Last edited by FairHearing; 08-03-2016 at 08:57 AM.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Speaking about the Chief Justice gatekeeper, Kieron McCarron, the guy seems to have been around for quite a while, misrepresenting and deflecting complaints to CJ on a routine basis. There is a number of links out there similar to The complainant repeatedly tried to get through McCarron, of course, unsuccessfully:....
    For the Official Record:

    1. The Chief Justice was advised by email of 18 July 2015 that a complaint had been made about the conduct of the SC Registrar not presenting Applications filed legitimately into the SC, one example give of an Application being 1,003 days old. A copy of the formal complain letter was provided of the Chief Justice.

    2. A follow-up email of 23 July 2015 was sent to the Chief Justice's email address and Kieron McCarron's email address. No responses to anything, not even an acknowledgment of receipt.

    3. On 21 December 2015 the Chief Justice was sent a "Notice of Proposed Private Criminal Prosecution of the SC Registrar" and a copy of the letter sent to the SC Registrar setting out the criminal charge that would be filed against him if he did not provide plausible evidence that the current incriminating evidence against him was incorrect. The Chief Justice was asked to intervene in the interest of public confidence in the Court.

    4. On 22 December 2015 the Chief Justice and Kieron McCarron's were updated by email. The email advised the Judicial Conduct Commissioner's letter of 22 December 2015 had exonerated the Justices of the SC from any allegation that they were incapacitated by the conduct of not dealing with Applications that were 2 years 11 months and 2 years 8 months old; the Commissioner placing the blame directly on the Registrar.

    No responses have been received from the Chief Justice or Kieron McCarron.

    The only change that has happened is that the Registrar is on extended leave, and

    A District Court Judge has sanctioned the wording on the Private Prosecution criminal Charging Document as the initial step in the process to authorise the summons on the Registrar to face the charge.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 08-03-2016 at 09:18 AM.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    ...A District Court Judge has sanctioned the wording on the Private Prosecution criminal Charging Document as the initial step in the process to authorise the summons on the Registrar to face the charge.
    The District Court Judge is considering a request for urgency:

    1. In assessing the evidence in support of the criminal charge against the Supreme Court Registrar for wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice in that Court; and

    2. If there is sufficient evidence that may result in a jury finding guilt; on what date the SC Registrar should be summons to face that charge.

    The need for urgency is blatantly obvious. We can't have a SC Registrar in control the SC administrative processes, when it is alleged he acts in that criminal manner in that role.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 10-03-2016 at 08:08 PM.

  9. #39
    FairHearing: Is the alleged misconduct of the Supreme Court Judges, as below, similar misconduct to that in your post of yesterday?

    "16 March 2016
    Judicial Conduct Commissioner
    WELLINGTON

    Dear Sir
    Complaint against Justices Elias, Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O’Regan:

    By your letter of 22 December 2015 (at paragraph 2 and 3) you confirmed you had, in effect, intervened in the lack of progress on my Recall Application of 8 April 2013 to the Supreme Court.

    The result of your intervention was that you confirmed the Application had, the week before, been present to the Judges. Albeit 2 years 8 months late.

    You correctly place the reason for the delay squarely with the Registrar.

    My complaint against the above judges is:
    a) They are too grossly incompetent to be judges, as they have ruled on the contents of a Recall Application that was clearly not what was filed by me.

    b) They made no attempt to verify what they were considering. That is, they did not check with me to see if the Registrar over that time in which he had withheld the Recall Application (which is a criminal offence, if true) had substituted a document that would fail and be an abuse of process in the Courts eyes.

    c) Evidence of that substitute document can be seen in the attached 15 March 2016 SC decision, which at [3] regurgitates a series of unrelated Recall Applications and concludes the one that is before them dated 8 April 2013 is, along with others, “an abuse of process and are dismissed”

    d) Clearly the Registrar not only withheld the original 8 April 2013 Recall Application from the Court (which dealt with a criminal contempt issue not being addressed), but when caught out hiding the Recall Application from the Judges, which sought to address that criminal issue, the Registrar then substituted the contents of the Recall Application with some gobbledygook contents to ensure the issue was never address.

    e) The Justices should have been alert to the Registrar’s criminal intent, and verified everything, including what he had not given to them.


    You have a copy of the 8 April 2013 Recall Application in your files, so can see the 15 March 2016 judgment has no relevance whatsoever to the contents of that application.

    As you clearly understand, if there is no substitution of material contents by the Registrar then the justices have:

    a) “conspired to pervert the course of justice” in their Court; or worst

    b) “Corruptly used information acquired by them in their official capacity to obtain, directly or indirectly, an advantage or pecuniary advantage for others, including, at least, David Randel Gascoigne, Christopher Francis Finlayson, Mark Leslie Cooper, Christopher Holden Toogood, Rhys Harrison and Ross Douch [Crown Prosecutor]”.

    Yet you maintain you should not, and cannot, counsel these justices to “enhance public confidence in, and to protect the impartiality and integrity of, the judicial system”.

    Again, I request urgency in your decision on what to do.

    Yours sincerely
    John
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 20-04-2016 at 10:42 AM.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    FairHearing: Is the alleged misconduct of the Supreme Court Judges, as below, similar misconduct to that in your post of yesterday?
    John, I think everyone who had contact with the NZ justice system knows, and it has been known for decades, the system is entirely and hopelessly corrupt. It stays so because of Clark's and Key's governments' policy to cover up that corruption at all costs, and because the limited population allows a small group of fraudsters to tightly control the whole country. Mr Alan Ritchie is Finlayson's guy (or whoever's behind Finlayson), just as nearly every single judge in COA and SC, who were appointed there during Key's reign. You may want to check the parliamentary debates on Ritchie's appointment. The speeches by different political parties were clearly orchestrated by Finlayson, based on their nearly identical content (why'd every single politician need to emphasize that JCC is not to challenge judicial decisions, to emphasize that specific section 8(2) of 36 other sections of the Act?). Also, JCC is not just a part of the corrupt system, he's pretty much nobody who cannot do anything even if he wanted. I am not saying a complaint to JCC shouldn't be lodged. I just think it'd be more useful to complain to UNHRC.

    Now what you described in your complaint, in my view, is ordinary judicial fraud, "business as usual". To answer your question, yes, it's the same fraud. Same fraud, different angle. Depending on how smart particular fraudsters are, they either blatantly lie or engage in a bit more sophisticated misrepresentations. What I particularly like about the complaint of 11-Jan-2016, it shows that Glazebrook, Young and McGrath blatantly lied when they falsified the cover page of the judgment as if a party appeared while it had not. It's a very isolated incident (among numerous others) which doesn't require lengthy and complex explanations. It doesn't require going into details. However, it's blatant criminal conspiracy on the part of the top judges. The result is that what they decided in relation to other issues or in other proceedings doesn't matter. Those judges are liars and fraudsters. All their judgments in any proceeding are invalid for this reason alone. The fact that they misrepresented the recusal application when the issue of falsification was put to them shows their mens rea (guilty mind); this also implicated O'Regan.

    You may also want to check this fresh document. I particularly like Elias's statements quoted there as to the widespread dissatisfaction with the justice system.

    I hope I answered your question.

    On a side note, I am interested in Toogood's fraudulent affairs. Do you have a document that succinctly describes what he's done?

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
  •