Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 53

Thread: Judicial conduct checking mechanism?

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ....On a side note, I am interested in Toogood's fraudulent affairs. Do you have a document that succinctly describes what he's done?

    I do have documents that succinctly describe, and prove, Toogood's criminal acts as a Judge. However, as his alleged criminal conduct is before the criminal courts I prefer not to post them on this site (just yet). So I have sent you a "visitors message".

  2. #42
    It definitely does make sense, in theory. But since we are in Zimbabwe, there are four practical problems:

    (1) Where is that honest and brave HC judge who can honestly judicially review with all the natural justice? Does His/Her Honour exist at all?

    (2) How can that honest judge possibly get assigned to that judicial review? Remember, His/Her Honour is only one (if at all) in entire Zimbabwe. How the cases are assigned in HC are unknown. Judges are supposedly assigned randomly. But based on the COA examples, corrupt judges (Harrison, Wild etc) simply assign themselves to the cases they have fraudulent interests in. So His/Her Honour won't get the case, especially in the circumstances where the Chief High Court Judge (Venning) lacks integrity (he covers up fraud - see the complaint about Heath). Incidentally, one of such JCC reviews was conducted by Toogood, the guy who apparently has criminal proceedings pending against him for some judicial misconduct.

    (3) Let's assume His/Her Honour got assigned to the judicial review and wrote an honest and just decision to the effect that the JCC had committed some procedural impropriety (e.g., misinterpreted s 8(2)). Note the Judge cannot decide for the JCC since it's a judicial review. Now the matter goes to the entirely corrupt Court of Appeal, and His/Her Honour's judgment gets thrown out on the ground that "the Parliament's intention was clearly such and such".

    (4) Even if COA wants to play cat and mouse and upholds His/Her Honour's judgment, it gets thrown out in the totally corrupt SC.

    The process can vary. The matter can be referred back to JCC at steps (3) and (4). Nothing prevents JCC to say that he reconsidered the case in light of the court findings and still found nothing that warranted a further action. Even if JCC decides otherwise, he can only forward the complaint to the corrupt head of the bench or whatever the process is as per the Act. There's plenty of further steps where the complaint can be buried.

    It would be much simpler if there was one honest and brave journalist in one honest and brave major newspaper. They'd print an article on the subject, and the Supreme Court judges in question would most likely happily retire earlier than they'd otherwise prefer to. Of course, there's a chance of the journalist going to jail and the Zimbabwean newspaper getting shut down.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 22-04-2016 at 11:01 AM.

  3. #43
    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?
    I've perused [2016] NZSC 25. It entirely omits all the facts, all the arguments, and all the law the applicant apparently relied upon. It entirely omits any other arguments and any other law. It entirely omits any other facts, except as follows. The jugdment only recites largely irrelevant (*) procedural history and contains two arbitrary, conclusory and superficial findings: "They [the applications] are an abuse of process and are dismissed... [The applicant's] complaints about the judgment of 10 February 2016 do not engage with the reasons why the Court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals". (*) The procedural history per se are not "reasons".

    As a member of the public, I am unable, given the above omissions, to come to my own conclusions as to the applicant's recall application. The judgment "doesn't speak for itself". It contains no reasons whatsoever. It's entirely obscure. I cannot scrutinize the judgment as per the principles of open justice and as per the UN anti-corruption guidelines. According to the United Nations, judgments that entirely omit relevant facts and law allow unscrupulous judges to "hide decisions that are contrary to law".

    I note that the judgment is given by the full court, including Elias and O'Regan. I refer to Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. Submission on behalf of the judiciary, which on the face of it was expressly approved by Elias and O'Regan (the latter was COA President as of the date of the document). In those submissions, Elias and O'Regan effectively said (or expressly endorsed, which is pretty much the same for the present purposes):

    the judicial process is a high visibility process: hearings are conducted in public and judges must give reasons for their decisions, which will be subject to appeal. These features of the judicial process impose an important discipline on judges and provide an effective protection against arbitrary or biased decisions
    I therefore conclude that Elias and O'Regan are hypocrites. They say one thing and do something entirely opposite. As hypocrites, they lack integrity. As it was noted by the United Nations, "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". Lacking integrity, Elias and O'Regan cannot be judges, let alone of the nation's highest court.

    The above arguments "do not engage" with a "challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of any instruction, direction, order, judgment, or other decision given or made by a Judge in relation to any legal proceedings". We have a simple case: in Parliament, they said one thing ("reasons are given"). In Supreme Court, they did an exactly opposite thing (they failed to give reasons). Even if one assumes that [2016] NZSC 25 is perfectly correct in any aspect (including that the meaningful reasons didn't have to be provided), then it appears that Elias and O'Regan misled Parliament.

    In terms of what constitutes reasons, I refer to Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd [2000] NZCA 175 (which list the reasons for giving reasons, including open justice etc): "the board should have given outline reasons sufficient to show to what they were directing their mind and thereby indirectly showing not whether their decision was right or wrong, which is a matter solely for them, but whether their decision was lawful. Any other conclusion would reduce the board to the status of a free‐wheeling palm tree." In this case, SC reduced itself to the status of such a tree.

    Also, if the applicant did raise the issue of the lack of reasons before the same judges, and they failed to address the issue, and failed to give reasons again, then it's clear evidence of malicious conduct, deliberate failure to give reasons.

    John, you may want to post a follow-up to your complaint with the above considerations in the alternative to what you originally put forward, if it makes sense to you. I think it's perfectly fine to say that you received feedback from an anonymous member of the public regarding your case, and that you believe it may assist JCC in determination of your complaint. I hereby grant you my permission to use my comments verbatim or edited as you deem fit, whether with reference to the author or without.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 22-04-2016 at 06:42 PM.

  4. #44
    See also Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson and Gault JJ in [2009] NZSC 59

    It would an extraordinary step to suppress the reasons for judgment of a
    court, particularly this Court which is not subject to correction on further appeal.
    Any fair and accurate report of the Court’s reasons will have to make it clear that the
    material was not considered to be relevant and was not considered to be reliable.
    The courts operate in public and must justify the decisions they reach in reasons
    available to all. That is essential to confidence in the system of justice. As the Court
    of Appeal said in the case of Lewis v Wilson and Horton Limited1
    The principle of open justice serves a wider purpose than the interests
    represented in the particular case. It is critical to the maintenance of public
    confidence in the system of justice. Without reasons, it may not be possible
    to understand why judicial authority has been used in a particular way. The
    public is excluded from decision making in the Courts. Judicial
    accountability, which is maintained primarily through the requirement that
    justice be administered in public, is undermined
    Truly, Elias is the Chief Hypocrite of New Zealand.

    Insofar as this case is concerned, given the entire omission of the appellant's legal position, it's entirely unclear what exactly the Court had found to be "abuse of process", so it's not possible to understand why the judicial authority to dismiss the application was used in that way (for example, for prospective applicants to avoid similar mistakes in the future).
    Last edited by FairHearing; 22-04-2016 at 06:40 PM.

  5. #45
    JCC would also benefit from seeing the definition of a hypocrite:

    Merriam-Webster: "hypocrite: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs"

    Oxford Dictionaries: "hypocrite: A hypocritical person: 'the story tells of respectable Ben who turns out to be a cheat and a hypocrite'; hypocritical: Behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case; synonyms: sanctimonious, pious, pietistic, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, superior, insincere, specious, feigned, pretended, hollow, false; deceitful, deceptive, dishonest, untruthful, lying, dissembling, duplicitous, two-faced, Janus-faced, double-dealing, untrustworthy"

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    I must wonder whether Elias CJ actually wrote the decision in question. Is it possible that the decision was written by the lawyer(s) on the opposite side? Then, chances are that this decision will be followed by a costs decision to pay the fees for the lawyer(s) who wrote the fake, forged, decision of the Supreme Court.
    Re: Elias: It is very possible, I cannot entirely exclude she might not even be aware of her "decisions", but it does not matter. I would very much like to see Elias advancing that argument in her defence. She won't, as it's pretty much the same as admitting her incapacity, implying fraud upon the court on the part of others, and putting into questions every single decision that bears her name.

    Re: Lawyers: It's a separate topic. Your particular example of lawyers for the opposite side writing a judgment and Elias signing it bears on a different issue: the lack of the judicial independence, when there's no evidence of the judge using his/her own disinterested mind. In practice, there is no evidence of the lawyers for the other side involved in any way, let alone them writing the judgement, so this argument should not be advanced. Moreover, that particular judgment names only the applicant as counsel. In theory, you can argue a denial of natural justice when a judge copies-and-pastes the opposing party's submissions (of course, not in NZ as there's no such thing as natural justice here).

    What's important here is that Elias endorsed, or appears to have endorsed the judgments. So it's all her own words, no matter who actually wrote them.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    What are the chances that such decisions are not actually written by the judges whose names appearing the decision? A registrar or deputy registrar can do that.
    As far as I understand it, your legal position is that there are honest judges who are unaware that some other people, like lawyers or the registrars, write numerous bogus judgments and forge the judges' signatures. Well, I guess it's a valid case if you have some strong evidence. I cannot think of anything less than an affidavit of the judge whose signature was forged. If you have such an affidavit, or if you can summon that judge to give evidence for you, then I think you have a strong case. Otherwise, I see two problems: (1) the people who could forge the previous judgments of DC-HC-COA-SC can forge new judgments, which makes your litigation meaningless - you will always have a judgment forged against you; (2) the judge whose signature you alleged to have been forged can come forward and say that it was his judgment and his signature, with the result being your entire case collapsing in an instant.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    After all, we have to trust people to do good things, and most people support the idea of justice and doing good. I just can't accept nor believe that all judges are bad or dishonest. For that matter, it is not likely that all the court staff are bad or dishonest. I have met some decent lawyers in New Zealand; so not all lawyers are bad.
    In the past, people believed that all swans are white, until they discovered black ones. In my view, you are mixing your personal beliefs and legal matter. In courts, it doesn't matter what you think or what you believe in. The fact that there are some decent lawyers in NZ is absolutely irrelevant to your case. An honest lawyer can do nothing with a corrupt judge. In fact, a lawyer is less protected than a self-represented litigant, because the latter cannot be struck off the roll on a judge's whim. That's why NZ judges don't like self-represented litigants - the latter won't fear to allege judicial misconduct as much as a lawyer would fear.

    The fact that there might be some honest judges somewhere is also absolutely irrelevant. At least, I wouldn't count on that. Not in New Zealand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    At the end of the day, people of New Zealand will what is right and just. I have no doubt.
    Of course they will, but again, it has no relevance to legal proceedings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Needless to say, if a judge does something illegal or dishonest in the Court, such a judge can be removed from the bench. What are the chances that any judge wants to risk his reputation and position?
    That's a common and fatal mistake, the belief that a NZ judge won't blatantly forge the evidence and deliberately decide against the law because their reputation of an "honest judge" would suffer. Firstly, they have no such reputation at all in the first place (there may be an unfounded belief in those members of the public who were misled/brainwashed by the NZ Government and who had no experience with the NZ justice system). Secondly, the judges risk nothing as they can get away with fraud not only without any adverse consequences, but potentially with some material benefits to them and with the moral satisfaction that those who attempted to resist or complain are completely destroyed (bankrupted, struck off, in a jail).
    Last edited by FairHearing; 24-04-2016 at 11:54 PM.


Posting Permissions

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