Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Seeking justice from fraudsters

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    )...The SC Judges are too deep in their own fraud to hope they'd keep their heads if they let the scandal out. On the other hand, they have nothing to worry about as long as it's all quiet...
    We wait with bated breath on the Supreme Court, as the state of being all quiet will not exist and is known to them.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    "The consistent failures of the lower courts, including the Court of Appeal, to apply the statutes passed by the Parliament, inter alia s 50 of the Evidence Act 2006 and s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, create the appearance that the New Zealand justice system does not consider itself bound by the legislation. The refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the proposed appeal would bring the administration of justice in New Zealand in disrepute."
    That is just beautiful !

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    What the current SC Justices have been asked to do is to sacrifice the original trial Crown Prosecutor, later Crown Counsels, the Attorney-General and Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison to maintain some confidence by the Public in the justice system of NZ.
    Am I correct in assuming that the current SC Justices have delivered their justice in [2016] NZSC 25?

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Am I correct in assuming that the current SC Justices have delivered their justice in [2016] NZSC 25?
    Yes. And the following complaint has already been made to the Commissioner:

    "Dear Sir

    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 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 criminal contempt issue not being addressed), but when caught out hiding the Recall Application from the Judges, which sought to address that criminal issue, he 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. Such as the related applications and memorandums.

    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."


    The Commissioner's response should be amusing.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    The Commissioner's response should be amusing.
    ...assuming the Commissioner is professionally competent and has integrity, otherwise it'll be boring, as usual.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ...assuming the Commissioner is professionally competent and has integrity, otherwise it'll be boring, as usual.
    The JCC cannot afford to act with integrity: He would lose his job and, if acting with integrity, too many judges would be removed from the bench.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 19-03-2016 at 10:11 AM.

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
  •