Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Public interest in forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts?

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ...Would you answer two simple questions:

    (1) Are "forgery, perjury and extortion, [allegedly] committed in the NZ courts" matters of genuine public interest?

    (2) If yes, would a competent, independent and impartial judge have found the opposite?...
    I will answer your questions:

    If "forgery, perjury and extortion, [allegedly] committed in the NZ courts" had a scintilla of evidence in support of the allegation it would be a matter of genuine public interest. However, that requires irrefutable evidence of those acts, not just an allegation.

    Any competent, independent and impartial judge, on seeing there was no evidence whatsoever of such allegations that would warrant genuine public interest, would rule there was no genuine public interest.

  2. #12
    Hi fairhearing,

    I would love to engage with your impotent attempt at cross examination but it seems needless.

    Cases are decided on their facts and the relevant law

    The very first line of your first post on this thread says "I've come across Koyama V NZLS of 1 March 2016 by Osborne AJ...", the whole basis of the thread is Yoda's facts and the application of the law to those facts.

    I am beginning to wonder if you have some role in Yoda's very unintelligent management of his litigation and legal situation.

    Are you the "jail lawyer" filling his head with these idiotic ideas? Seems very likely, given your tendency to promote systematic corruption as an answer and a defence to every legal problem imaginable.

    Perhaps it's time you change tact, whatever you (and your apprentice Yoda) are doing clearly doesn't have any basis or merit in reality

  3. #13
    FairHearing: You support what YODA is doing regarding alleged forged signatures of various judges, yet neither of your answered 'Dixpat's' question of 2 March 2016 of:

    "You [YODA] have made a big play on the fact that in your opinion various signatures have been forged. I assume that you believe they have been forged because they look different

    I attach a file where I have cut two of your signatures from various documents you have posted on this forum.

    Which of your signatures was forged?"
    Last edited by Q. C.; 09-03-2016 at 11:05 AM.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    I will answer your questions:

    If "forgery, perjury and extortion, [allegedly] committed in the NZ courts" had a scintilla of evidence in support of the allegation it would be a matter of genuine public interest. However, that requires irrefutable evidence of those acts, not just an allegation.

    Any competent, independent and impartial judge, on seeing there was no evidence whatsoever of such allegations that would warrant genuine public interest, would rule there was no genuine public interest.
    Let's agree to disagree. As I pointed out in my comment #5 above, and what you have ignored, a proper legal analysis of the case before Osborne required answers to two questions, (1) whether what was alleged was a matter of public interest, and if yes, (2) whether what was alleged was supported by some evidence.

    Osborne answered question #1 as NO. Accordingly, he didn't bother to answer #2. To prove I am wrong, please point to the place in Osborne's judgment where he makes findings on Koyama's evidence or tenability in general.

    You seem to have answered question #1, which was my original question, as YES. You seem to have disagreed with Osborne. Then you answered question #2 which I didn't ask and Osborne didn't bother to answer. Then you jumped back to question #1 and answered it as NO. Do you agree that question #1 is a pure question of law, which does not depend on the facts of any particular case? Do you agree that question #2 is a question of fact?

    To give you an example, "Pollution of Earth atmosphere" - is it a matter of public interest or not? I guess you'd answer yes. I then say that my cause is that wtfbbq69 pollutes Earth atmosphere. You'd then probably say I put forward no tenable evidence, so "Pollution of Earth atmosphere" isn't a matter of public interest. You'd thus contradict yourself.

    In another example, "Pollution of a private pool" - is it a matter of public interest or not?
    I guess you'd answer no. Then you wouldn't have to consider my evidence, however bulletproof it is, as it's simply irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    FairHearing: You support what YODA is doing regarding alleged forged signature of various judge, yet neither of your answered 'Dixpat's' question of 2 March 2016 of
    Q.C., you act as an unscrupulous NZ judge and attribute to me exactly opposite to what I have said on the record. If you look at my comment #5 above, you will read, "First of all, I do not believe in Yoda's signature forgery theory, as I am pretty sure the judges commit fraud themselves, putting their genuine signatures under their fraudulent judgments."

    For completeness, Dixpat didn't asked me, I didn't have to answer, not to mention I wasn't aware of the question. Anyway, if it's not trolling but a reasonable discussion about Osborne's judgment, then the question of which of Yoda's two signatures was forged is irrelevant. I don't give a damn.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by wtfbbq69 View Post
    The very first line of your first post on this thread says "I've come across Koyama V NZLS of 1 March 2016 by Osborne AJ...", the whole basis of the thread is Yoda's facts and the application of the law to those facts.
    You act as the judges in question, actively misrepresenting my legal position. Please point to one single fact in my comments in this thread which is "Yoda's", and one single argument in my comments which is based on that fact.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ... Please point to one single fact in my comments in this thread which is "Yoda's", and one single argument in my comments which is based on that fact.
    YODA's fact: The judge and you refer to YODA's filing an Application that claimed as 'a fact' that Court decisions were forged. Your argument is that the judge did not consider that that allegation of fact (in the Application) to be of genuine public interest, when you consider the very nature of the allegation should be of public interest. Thus, the Judge breached the rule of law.

    However, the Judge clearly considered and dealt with the application and its claims. As he ruled the Judgments YODA referred to are on the public record, meaning it is inconceivable that they could be forgeries and by that there cannot be any genuine public interest in what is claimed.

    If that considered decision is in error then that is a matter of appeal. However no one in the right mind would consider it an error in fact or law.

    I suggest you put your mine to genuine corrupt acts by the judiciary which are more than abundant enough. Don't waste time on this one, as there was simply no need whatsoever for any of the judges to act corruptly when dealing with YODA's case, there was nothing to hid.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 09-03-2016 at 12:23 PM.

  7. #17
    I am for justice for everyone. There is no justice or its appearance when the due process is not followed. As I showed in my comments above, Osborne has

    1. Unconditionally answered NO to a simple question of law, whether "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand" are matters of public interest. I don't think an honest judge would have done it.
    2. Failed to assess the factual basis of Koyama's claim in terms of tenability whatsoever. This is obvious from that the judge cited NO alleged primary facts. "Forgery, perjury..." are not facts, but allegations presumably based on primary facts (eg, "two different signatures"). Speaking abstractly, two different signatures of the same judge may reasonably indicate forgery, depending on the difference and other alleged circumstances (which is a matter for trial).
    3. Advanced arguments for NZLS to which Koyama clearly had not been given chance to reply.
    4. Made other numerous errors of law, such as improperly referring to other judgments.


    However, the Judge clearly considered and dealt with the application and its claims. As he ruled the Judgments YODA referred to are on the public record, meaning it is inconceivable that they could be forgeries and by that there cannot be any genuine public interest in what is claimed.
    This is precisely how corrupt COA would dismiss a potential appeal of Osborne's judgment, and how they judge on a routine basis. They'd completely ignore the grounds (1)-(4) above and give a superfluous, conclusory, arbitrary and prejudicial judgment consisting, effectively, of 1-2 lines of text. If I was a NZ appellate judge, I could easily dismiss absolutely any appeal with a rubber stamp saying "the Judge of the court below has clearly considered and dealt with the application and its claims. It is inconceivable that the matters were as the applicant had alleged, and there cannot be any genuine public interest in what was claimed." Of course, I would entirely omit the primary facts and the relevant law.

    To give a different example, the Privy Council in Taito has afforded justice to those convicted in "rape and abduction", "receiving stolen goods, interfering with a motor vehicle and theft from a vehicle", "rape and assault", "aggravated robbery", "murder" and so on. As far as I understand, YODA's fault is nowhere near that.

    Again, I don't care whether Koyama can possibly make his allegations based on his primary facts. R v Civil Service Appeal Board [1991] 4 All ER 310, 319:

    …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.
    I don't care whether Osborne's decision was right or wrong, but I'm concerned that it was clearly unlawful. My understanding is that "forgery, perjury and extortion" ultimately bear on "Brockovich"'s case. Osborne's judgment would adversely affect Brockovich if the latter wanted to seek to dispense with filing fees or security on the grounds of public interest. Clearly, if Brockovich had seek dispensation, Osborne's judgment, with cosmetic changes, could easily be used to dismiss Brockovich's, or anyone else's for that matter, application.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 18-03-2016 at 12:30 PM.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    I am for justice for everyone. There is no justice or its appearance when the due process is not followed. As I showed in my comments above, Osborne has...

    ...I don't care whether Osborne's decision was right or wrong, but I'm concerned that it was clearly unlawful...
    Without arguing your points: My point is that you should not fight corrupt acts by judges where there is no merit in the allegation being made by YODA in the substantive matter. The Judges need not be corrupt when dealing with YODA's claims to dismiss them, however they find it hard not to be corrupt because they are so used to acting in that manner or in this case Osborne was just too lazy to deal with a stupid matter raised by YODA so reverted to a quick tactic.

    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    My understanding is that "forgery, perjury and extortion" ultimately bear on "Brockovich"'s case. Osborne's judgment would adversely affect Brockovich if the latter wanted to seek to dispense with filing fees or security on the grounds of public interest. Clearly, if Brockovich had seek dispensation, Osborne's judgment, with cosmetic changes, could easily be used to dismiss Brockovich's, or anyone else's for that matter, application....
    No it does not apply to "Brockovich", as it is a criminal matter, so attracts no filing fees.

    With respect to "forgery, perjury and extortion" that is not claimed in "Brockovich". What is claimed is "criminal contempt" by a Crown Prosecutor and covering that criminal conduct up by judicial corruption by Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison.

    The difference in the merits of that claim and those of YODA's is that "Brockovich's" claim is supported by two affidavits authorised by the A-G and sworn by Ms. Lee of Crown Law and Mr. Douch a Crown Prosecutor.

    So to fight corruption from that prospective is a better way to involve the public, when it is decided to involve them.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    you should not fight corrupt acts by judges where there is no merit in the allegation being made...
    The Judges... find it hard not to be corrupt because they are so used to acting in that manner or in this case Osborne was just too lazy...
    Absolutely agree.

    But the funny thing is, it doesn't matter either way. When the allegations are without merit, they are dismissed in a lawful (rarely) or unlawful (routinely) way. When the allegations are bulletproof, they are still dismissed in an unlawful way.

    It's like with Nazi (that's how Orlov labelled them, didn't he?) - First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for YODA, and I did not speak out— Because I was not YODA. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Absolutely agree...

    It's like with Nazi ...
    It is not fair to compare corrupt judges to Nazi. The Nazi were evil, so did not need to be corrupt to achieve their aims (they used the gun). The judges who are corrupt don't need to be evil to achieve their aims (they use their statutory position).

    I agree it is fair to say that the Nazi existed because the public, the media, and politicians would not speak out because of their fear of the Nazi's evil.

    So if corrupt judges in NZ don't need to be evil, why do NZ politicians, who know of our judges corruption, not speak out and act to protect us?

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
  •