Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Seeking justice from fraudsters

  1. #1

    Seeking justice from fraudsters

    I can understand those inexperienced with the NZ justice system who pursue appeals in the hope that honest judges in appellate courts will listen to their arguments.

    However, I cannot understand those who, after having being abused by the system, keep filing recall applications and new proceedings. They attempt to argue law before the fraudsters who abused their fundamental rights in the first place. It seems quite useless to me from both practical and legal standpoints. I cannot see a reason for that, except the irrational hope that the fraudsters will go against their fraudulent nature and decide in favour of the litigant. Moreover, seeking justice from known fraudsters may be construed as a waiver of the right to a fair hearing. Am I missing something?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    I can understand those inexperienced with the NZ justice system who pursue appeals in the hope that honest judges in appellate courts will listen to their arguments.

    However, I cannot understand those who, after having being abused by the system, keep filing recall applications and new proceedings. They attempt to argue law before the fraudsters who abused their fundamental rights in the first place. It seems quite useless to me from both practical and legal standpoints. I cannot see a reason for that, except the irrational hope that the fraudsters will go against their fraudulent nature and decide in favour of the litigant. Moreover, seeking justice from known fraudsters may be construed as a waiver of the right to a fair hearing. Am I missing something?
    The only thing you are missing is that to file a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Commission requires that you exhaust all your legal remedies in your own country.

    Recalls are made when the appellate Court does not address the material issue that was properly placed before them. The reason for the Recall Application is to spell out what the material issue was and that they did not deal with it. So the appellate Court cannot claim it did not understand the issue put to them. In others words, as you have identified, continue to force them to continue to lie in their decisions and not address the issue.

  3. #3
    The outcome of a recall application may help with a UNHRC complaint (as you described) or may complicate it. Regardless, I believe a recall application is not needed to exhaust domestic remedies. They are exhausted when SC denies leave to appeal. A failure to address a material issue properly put to the court is already a denial of natural justice for UNHRC purposes (being a failure to take into account material considerations, and/or irrationality), so a recall application is not needed.

    The government cannot say in response to a UNHRC complaint that the court didn't understand the issue, because it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the judges were dumb, corrupt or both. Secondly, if the judges failed to understand what a reasonable and careful person would have understood in their shoes, then they were incompetent, which also breaches the UN covenant.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    The outcome of a recall application may help with a UNHRC complaint (as you described) or may complicate it. Regardless, I believe a recall application is not needed to exhaust domestic remedies. They are exhausted when SC denies leave to appeal. A failure to address a material issue properly put to the court is already a denial of natural justice for UNHRC purposes (being a failure to take into account material considerations, and/or irrationality), so a recall application is not needed.

    The government cannot say in response to a UNHRC complaint that the court didn't understand the issue, because it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the judges were dumb, corrupt or both. Secondly, if the judges failed to understand what a reasonable and careful person would have understood in their shoes, then they were incompetent, which also breaches the UN covenant.
    Yes I agree with you.

    However, the original Supreme Court Justices' [Sirs Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson] decision, was a decision by judges who are now retired. Their (unrecorded) decision was to not deal with the material matter properly put to them in a Leave Application (for a direct appeal from the High Court) - that is, the matter of the alleged criminal contempt (tampering with evidence) by Crown Prosecutors in the High Court.
    ,
    They did not deal with this matter of public importance by a (recorded) ruling in dismissing leave of; the HC Judge did not make an error in dealing with that witnesses' evidence.

    The Recall to the new Justices of the SC is on the basis that Blanchard, McGrath and Willson breached s, 16 of the SC Act, as they did not give reasons for refusing leave. The Recall in brief states:
    1. The Judgment did not address the evidentially-supported appeal ground that the Crown Prosecutor tampered with material evidence in the High Court.

    2. To comply with s. 16, on the Prosecutors fraud upon the HC evidence, legally required the Court to determine the HC Judge was not deceived by the conduct of the Crown Prosecutors - the Court failed to give that reason.

    3. The pertinent legal issue was deception of evidence, not absence of error. Fraud relies on deception, not error.

    4. The evidence before the SC was that the tampered with evidence was; its removal as the Counsel approved written evidence in the HC file by substitution of unapproved by Counsel and contrary written evidence (which the Crown Prosecutor had in fact written, as if it was the same witnesses' evidence). Which the HC Judge knew nothing about [the deception], so could not have made an error. And the original Leave to Appeal did not claim error by the Judge, just deception of the Judge.

    As that Recall Application involved exposure of criminal contempt by Crown Prosecutors at the HC (and their later perjury in the CoA and SC), the Supreme Court Registrar never presented that April 2013 Recall Application to the Judges. He only did so when the JCC asked the Justices in December 2015 why they were so incapacitated that they could not deal with an application file 2 years 8 months earlier.

    The Judges response is the basis of the Criminal Charges against the Supreme Court Registrar for "wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice" in the SC by not presenting the Recall Application until forced to.

    Interesting, and that is the basis for waiting and not going to the UNHRC - the new judges have only just received the April 2013 Recall Application (in mid December 2015) and should be given a last chance.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 26-02-2016 at 03:39 PM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    ...As that Recall Application involved exposure of criminal contempt by Crown Prosecutors at the HC (and their later perjury in the CoA and SC), the Supreme Court Registrar never presented that April 2013 Recall Application to the Judges. He only did so when the JCC asked the Justices in December 2015 why they were so incapacitated that they could not deal with an application file 2 years 8 months earlier.

    The Judges response is the basis of the Criminal Charges against the Supreme Court Registrar for "wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice" in the SC by not presenting the Recall Application until forced to.

    Interesting, and that is the basis for waiting and not going to the UNHRC - the new judges have only just received the April 2013 Recall Application (in mid December 2015) and should be given a last chance.
    Back to business.

    So what you are saying is the SC Justices have "chopped off the head" of the Registrar and now you are asking them to "chop the heads off" of a couple of Crown prosecutors?
    Last edited by Q. C.; 26-02-2016 at 07:42 PM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    Back to business.

    So what you are saying is the SC Justices have "chopped off the head" of the Registrar and now you are asking them to "chop the heads off" of a couple of Crown prosecutors?
    Yes, and more.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    Yes, and more.
    Back to the topic, let's assume that you, John "Brockovich", is the party who seeks justice from SC in relation to fraud on the Crown prosecutor's part. Let's further assume that you are aware [of the allegations] that two current SC judges have blatantly falsified an SC decision. When the issue of falsification was directly put to them, along with the allegations of fraud on their part, the two, along with a third judge, have blatantly ignored the allegations and stated in the judgment that their participation in the past proceeding is not a ground for recusal (of course, the allegations were entirely omitted). Let's assume you are aware of a complaint put before the Chief Justice concerning the falsification (JCC lacks jurisdiction). The Chief Justice has failed to even acknowledge the complaint despite repeated requests to do so. The long story short, three out of five SC judges lack integrity. One is entitled to assume, given the lack of response from the Chief Justice, that the latter either lacks integrity or incompetent as a chief justice.

    Let's assume that the falsification allegations concern a SC judgment where the two judges, plus one who's retired, falsely stated that a respondent was represented by counsel and awarded costs to the respondent, while the respondent has not appeared in the proceeding at all (i.e., has not filed any document). The most likely reason of why the respondent hasn't appeared is that the SC has suddenly delivered its decision before the deadline it itself set for the respondent's submissions. In other words, the SC hasn't given a chance to the respondent to appear. So the judges effectively acted as advocate for the respondent. Their falsified judgment entirely omits the facts, the allegations, and the law.

    Knowing all the above, would you feel comfortable seeking justice from SC in its current composition? Would you ask the prima facie fraudsters to decide your case? Would you ask them to recuse from deciding your case, based on what you have just become aware of? What else would you do? That's what I was trying to ask in my first post in this thread.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Back to the topic, let's assume...

    Knowing all the above, would you feel comfortable seeking justice from SC in its current composition? Would you ask the prima facie fraudsters to decide your case? Would you ask them to recuse from deciding your case, based on what you have just become aware of? What else would you do? ....
    There is no need to "assume". As NZ has, and fosters, systemic judicial and executive corruption (when those participants deem it necessary to be corrupt - see section 105A of the Crimes Act 1961 for this type of corruption). Nothing in what you said surprises me and is not materially different to my experience.

    I am on record saying the only way to beat systemic judicial and executive corruption in a country (other than by revolution and alike) is to expose it to the Public.

    We will eventually get to the Public.

  9. #9
    If a judge lacks integrity, for example, has lied in a judgment, "adjudicated" allegations of his/her own fraud by completely ignoring them, and so on, such a judge cannot possibly be considered impartial anymore.

    According to the United Nations,
    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…
    If, hypothetically, every appellant to the SC had filed a memo, in addition to their pending recall or leave application, to the effect that they request the named judges to recuse due to the apparent lack of integrity, and that they decline to participate in any hearing with those judges because any decision would be invalid due to apparent bias, then the Supreme Court would effectively become non-functional. Then there would be a better chance that the government would have to do something about it.

    In practice, I guess the majority of appellants would be reluctant to do so due to their naive belief that the corrupt judges will take a pity on them and decide in their favour. So they would pursue their hopeless application.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    If a judge lacks integrity...

    If, hypothetically, every appellant to the SC had filed a memo, in addition to their pending recall or leave application, to the effect that they request the named judges to recuse due to the apparent lack of integrity...
    What do you mean if a judge lacks integrity. Having judicial integrity within a systemically corrupt system is impossible, as is the application of the rule of law, so there is no if. The NZ judges who are not corrupt lack integrity because they refuse to speak up, or do something, about those they know are corrupt.

    NZ judges (who are corrupt) refuse to Recuse themselves when they have a direct conflict of interest in the outcome of the case they are hearing, so the lesser apparent bias is an alien concept to them. There would never be a capitulation by the SC Justice to recusal requests, so Parliament would be none the wiser.

    FairHearing; It would be better to quote the United Nations on characteristics of judicial systems that are subject to systemic judicial and executive corruption (the non bribe type).

    I believe NZ would fit nicely into that grouping, as we rely on one person - the Judicial Conduct Commissioner who's decisions are not reviewable outside the systemically corrupt judiciary he is mandated to investigate and who is selected and put forward to that statutory position by the top executive within our corrupt system, the equally corrupt and powerful Attorney-General. Naturally the JCC will always be a LAWYER, to achieve the groups goal.

    Anything one does within the system to expose the situation is doomed to failure.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 27-02-2016 at 02:55 PM.

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
  •