Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Seeking justice from fraudsters

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    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.
    We have to be precise to realistically hope to expose NZ corruption. I agree with the above statements because I know the system is corrupt. However, an average parry who wishes to raise the issue of integrity cannot make such claims. There is no way to realistically prove the system is corrupt unless you have proven that its components - judges - are corrupt. A claim that a particular judge is corrupt or lacks integrity (is there any difference between the two?) because the system is corrupt is legally (and rationally) hopeless. So if one wants to reasonably claim a judge is corrupt, they need to show evidence specifically in relation to that specific judge.

    I don't think its feasible to make generic allegations of corruption at this stage. It's better to concentrate the efforts to show that individual judges of the highest NZ court are corrupt. Once corrupt SC judges are exposed, it'd be good time to speak about systemic corruption.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ...So if one wants to reasonably claim a judge is corrupt, they need to show evidence specifically in relation to that specific judge....It's better to concentrate the efforts to show that individual judges of the highest NZ court are corrupt. Once corrupt SC judges are exposed, it'd be good time to speak about systemic corruption.
    I assume you are talking about outside the system, as absolute irrefutable documentary evidence that a CoA judge has acted absolutely corruptly is irrelevant to the JCC in his investigation and decision. Based on an actual complaint and decision.

    If such criminal conduct, and irrefutable documentary evidence of that conduct, of a CoA Judge is irrelevant to the JCC then the alleged criminal conduct of corruption by a Supreme Court Judge, and irrefutable documentary evidence of it, would be similarly irrelevant to the JCC and nothing will happen.

    That's how systemic corruption works.

    Is my assumption about what you said correct?

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ...I don't think its feasible to make generic allegations of corruption at this stage. It's better to concentrate the efforts to show that individual judges... are corrupt...Once corrupt... judges are exposed, it'd be good time to speak about systemic corruption
    From what "Brockovich" has posted in 2014 and 2015 he has exposed individually judges corruption on a specific matter. The specific matter being:

    1. The tampering with evidence by Crown Prosecutors at a criminal Trial and their perjury before the CoA and Supreme Court on that issue:

    2. The criminal prosecution of those Crown Prosecutors (for those acts) being criminally stayed by Deputy Solicitor-Generals, then those same Solicitor-Generals criminally staying each other criminal prosecutions where they were named co-defendants under the s. 98A of the Crimes Act charges: Where District Court judges had authorised summons on those Crown Prosecutors and Deputy Solicitor-Generals to face the charges.

    At an injunction proceeding to force the Attorney-General, Solicitor-General and DSGs to stop criminally using their statutory powers to stay criminal prosecutions of the DSGs (in which each DSGs were named co-defendants under each others criminal charges) Justice Priestley falsify turned down the injunction application by ruling that documentary evidence existed, which did not exist*.

    On Judicial Review of those DSGs decisions (which used their statutory powers to stay a criminal prosecution in which they are named co-defendants under each others charges) the Judicial Reviews were struck out by Justice Andrews who falsified her decision by creating documentary evidence in her decision, which did not exist*

    At a preliminary hearing (in the above Judicial Reviews) on a interlocutory matter (the request to have Justice Heath testify as to what was before him at Trial) Justice Potter falsified her decision by ruling; as the documentary evidence existed (which did not exist*) before Justice Heath at the criminal Trial Justice Heath could not be called to testify.

    On complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner that the above Judges had breached their judicial oaths by falsifying their decisions in that way the Commissioner ruled that there was no "real and persuasive evidence" of such conduct, even though what the judges had ruled as existing, did not exist before them or the Commissioer*.

    On Judicial Review of the Commissioner's decision Justices Cooper and Toogood falsified their decision, to strike out the Judicial Review, by ruling the Affidavits filed in that Judicial Review proceeding (authorised by the A-G in response to a discovery order) attached the evidence which was claimed to have been tampered with, when the A-G affidavits swore they and the A-G had never possessed the documentary evidence* and had attached nothing to their affidavits as discovery.

    At the Court of Appeal (seeking an appeal of Justices Cooper's and Toogood's decision), Justice Harrison, ruled there was no merit in the appeal, even though he had the A-G authorised affidavits before him which did not attach any documentary evidence*

    On complaint to the Commissioner that all the above three above judges had breached their judicial oaths by falsifying their decision in that way the Commissioners ruled that there was no "real and persuasive evidence" of such conduct, even though the Commissioner had the A-G authorised affidavits and the judges decisions before him.

    On Judicial Reviews of the Commissioners decisions, on the conduct of Justice Cooper, Toogood and Harrison, Justice Toogood refused to recue himself on a formal application to do so and refused to allow the Judicial Reviews to be progressed.

    * the tampered with documentary evidence; tampered with by its removal from evidence by the Crown Prosecutors at the original criminal Trial.

    Unfortunately for the Commissioner, the Attorney-General and Justices Cooper, Toogood and Harrison, while they were committing their corrupt acts, the Registrar of the Supreme Court had withheld the April 2013 Recall Application filed in the Supreme Court from the Judges of that Court on the same matter of the Crown Prosecutors tampering with documentary evidence at the original criminal trial and perjury by those Prosecutors before the CoA and Supreme Court. In December 2015 he finally presented that Recall Application to the SC Judges.

    I think that about summarises what "Brockovich" has said and appears to be prima facie proof of systemic judicial and Crown Executive corruption on at lease one issue of public importance.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 28-02-2016 at 08:28 AM.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    From what "Brockovich" has posted in 2014 and 2015...
    Is there a link to the actual JCC complaints and decisions so that one can see what was actually alleged and what was decided?

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Is there a link to the actual JCC complaints and decisions so that one can see what was actually alleged and what was decided?
    No, not at this stage, as there was a voluntary written commitment made to the Supreme Court (within the 2013 Recall Application matter) that details and evidence of the alleged corruption would not be published until that Court had dealt with the Recall Application and the 'Memorandum Seeking Relief from Egregious Conduct". On that judgement on the Recall and ruling on egregious conduct it is suggested to the Court that:

    "this Court would be free, on making a ruling on the Recall Application, to send a copy of the ruling to the Serious Fraud Office suggesting an investigation be opened on the corruption involving the original trial Crown Prosecutor, later Crown Counsels, the Attorney-General and Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison"

    The question at this stage for the District Court is;
    Was the conduct of the SC Registrar a wilful attempt to pervert the course of justice in the Supreme Court by his not presenting the 2013 Recall Application to the Judges and only doing so in December 2015 (2 years 8 months after filing) and only when the Commissioner intervened?

    If so, a summons must be authorised on the Registrar to face that charge that has been filed in the Wellington criminal court.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 03-03-2016 at 11:34 AM.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    No, not at this stage, as there was a voluntary written commitment made to the Supreme Court (within the 2013 Recall Application matter) that details and evidence of the alleged corruption would not be published until that Court had dealt with the Recall Application and the 'Memorandum Seeking Relief from Egregious Conduct".
    Well, the liars and fraudsters from the Supreme Court (Glazebrook, Young and O'Regan) are now in a difficult position, as they have been asked to effectively judge their own case, again. I am not afraid of saying "liars" and "fraudsters", as it is my honest opinion based on the facts outlined in this complaint. The complaint refers to SC118/2015, the details on which can be found here.

    I note that Glazebrook, Young and O'Regan have been told in SC118/2015, practically in their faces, that they are liars and fraudsters. They have not contested it, only noted, effectively, that being a liar and a fraudster is not a sufficient ground for a judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court to recuse himself or herself.

    The fourth SC judge, Elias, has failed to acknowledge the receipt of the complaint despite the requests for her to do so. This suggests that she either lacks integrity or is incompetent as the Chief Justice, as she cannot even organise work of her own office (in case if she had not been informed of the complaint).

    The fifth SC judge, Arnold, is the same S-G who argued the "extra-legal approach" the Privy Council condemned in Taito. The skills he showed in the process apparently allowed him to make it to the SC.

    The above makes me think that the current judges of the Supreme Court will not decide against themselves.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 05-03-2016 at 11:09 AM.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ...The above makes me think that the current judges of the Supreme Court will not decide against themselves.
    The current Judges of the SC are not asked to decide against themselves. They are asked to decide against what the former Justices of the SC (Justices Wilson, Blanchard and McGrath) decided.

    These former Justices decided not to deal with an issue properly put to them (an unrecorded decision), but to deal with an issue that did not exist and ruled on that (as recorded in the adverse decision).

    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.

  8. #18
    My point is, Glazebrook, Young and O'Regan (who make up the majority of SC) routinely conduct themselves in a fraudulent manner, similar to what you described about Wilson, Blanchard, McGrath, Toogood and Harrison. To ask judges to adjudicate the fraudulent conduct similar to their own one is the same as to ask them to decide their own case. Their judgment won't be valid from its inception, whatever way they decide (of course, not that it matters as the law doesn't work in New Zealand).

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    My point is, Glazebrook, Young and O'Regan (who make up the majority of SC) routinely conduct themselves in a fraudulent manner, similar to what you described about Wilson, Blanchard, McGrath, Toogood and Harrison. To ask judges to adjudicate the fraudulent conduct similar to their own one is the same as to ask them to decide their own case. Their judgment won't be valid from its inception, whatever way they decide (of course, not that it matters as the law doesn't work in New Zealand).
    I think the reality of the situation is the only choice available to the SC Judges - chop off the heads of others to avoid the same fate.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    I think the reality of the situation is the only choice available to the SC Judges - chop off the heads of others to avoid the same fate.
    This was put to them many times before. For example, "A refusal of leave would amount to, or would create the appearance of, a cover-up of if not fraud then actual bias. The reputation of this Court would be adversely affected, which is against the public interests and of significant public importance" (SC118/2015). "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, proving the proverb piscis primum a capite foetet" (SC3/2015).

    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. NZ press won't publish the evidence of conspiracy. Neither will the overseas press, as they don't care what is happening they don't know where. Sorry for the realistic views. I hope I am wrong.

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
  •