Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

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

  1. #1

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

    I've come across Koyama v NZLS [2016] NZHC 323 of 1 March 2016 by Osborne AJ, and it looks to me like a typical arbitrary judgment of a typical incompetent and/or corrupt judge of NZHC.

    The applicant claimed public interest. Osborne said that he had not found "any genuine public interest" in "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand". He based his arbitrary conclusion on that the applicant is a judgment debtor against whom various courts made unfavourable decisions.

    In other words, if the applicant had been a judgment creditor (i.e., had money to spend on the litigation) or if the applicant had been favoured by other judges, then Osborne would have considered deciding for the applicant, in line with other judges. Osborne thus not only took into account entirely irrelevant considerations, but wasn't independent (from other judges).

    I'd say that Osborne is rather corrupt than incompetent, as I fail to see how proper administration of justice cannot be of genuine public interest to a judge who has integrity.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 08-03-2016 at 05:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    I've come across Koyama v NZLS of 1 March 2016 by Osborne AJ, and it looks to me like a typical arbitrary judgment of a typical incompetent and/or corrupt judge of NZHC.

    The applicant claimed public interest. Osborne said that he had not found "any genuine public interest" in "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand". He based his arbitrary conclusion on that the applicant is a judgment debtor against whom various courts made unfavourable decisions.

    ...I'd say that Osborne is rather corrupt than incompetent, as I fail to see how proper administration of justice cannot be of genuine public interest to a judge who has integrity.
    FairHearing: Please do not lower yourself to the level of logic applied by YODA.

    The basis of the Judge's decision is that the Judgments claimed by YODA to be forgeries are on the public record. The allegations of perjury and extortion extend from that unfounded allegation of forgery.

    All the judgments posted by YODA are signed by the judges concerned and are therefore not forgeries. They are also, to any rational person, logical and reasonable decisions so why would anyone sign them as if they were the judge who wrote them.

    There cannot be any genuine public interest in a 'perception' that something is of public interest. Simply - as YODA is completely wrong in his allegations, to any fair minded person knowing all the facts, there is no genuine public interest.

    The judge is 100% correct.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 08-03-2016 at 06:47 PM.

  3. #3
    Does anyone agree (other than YODA) that the judgments YODA posted had forged signatures of the various judges on them?

    Does anyone agree with me that YODA is wrong? or

    Have you all just given up?

  4. #4
    All I know is that it's as boring as batshit.

  5. #5
    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.

    However, whether Koyama is right or wrong on the merits is completely irrelevant to the topic. What you advocate for, Q.C., is the extra-legal approach called palm tree justice, routinely employed by corrupt NZ judges. It's a common mistake to use the same approach trying to nail judicial corruption. Any legal error such as this one (judging the merits without due process) will be picked up, emphasised and used by the corrupt judges to destroy the case against them. As to Yoda, it's hard to ask for reasonableness from a self-represented litigant whose life is being destroyed and who is clearly being oppressed by judicial fraudsters.

    I will illustrate the above with a simple issue from Osborne's judgment.

    1. Osborne had Koyama's application to review the Registrar's refusal to dispense with security.
    2. Koyama's ground was that his allegations of "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand" are of public interest. The latter is a valid ground to apply for dispensation of security. So far so good.
    3. Whether Koyama's will make out his forgery allegations at the substantive hearing are irrelevant, for the purposes of this specific judgment. Generally, the strength of the proposed appeal does matter, but Osborne has not considered the strength given that he hadn't let Koyama past the "public interest" threshold.
    4. So it is entirely improper to say, in relation to Osborne's judgment, that Osborne was right to screw Koyama because the latter's substantive case is bullshit. We cannot possibly judge the merits from Osborne's judgment because it's not (and cannot possibly and lawfully be) on the merits. All the material Yoda has posted here is not admissible evidence, so let's leave it. Even if Koyama's case is utter nonsense, he has the right to a fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. And he was denied this right by Osborne, just as, I am pretty sure, by every other judge in his case (I haven't looked at any other Koayma's judgment, except the SC judgment mentioned below; my opinion is based on my extensive knowledge of the NZ justice system).
    5. Now, Osborne said that he didn't find any public interest in Koyama's matter. Well, that's definitely bullshit. "Forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand" are, without doubt, of public interest. Osborne has effectively found that judicial corruption is of no interest to the public. I reiterate that no competent judge who has integrity would have found that.
    6. If Osborne had been a competent, independent and impartial judge, he would have found that "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand" is definitely a matter of public importance and of public interest and that Koyama's allegations pass this test, because he alleges exactly that.
    7. Having found the above, the Osborne would have to consider the strength of the appeal (tenability) - i.e., was there any substance in Koyama's allegations. Koyama might well have failed that test, but at least the judgment would appear fair in this respect.
    8. Instead, is support of his effective finding that "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand" are of no public interest, Osborne put forward completely irrelevant considerations which breach numerous legal principles, including those related to natural justice and including s 50 of the Evidence Act 2006.


    Of course, I had to simplify the above, and there's much more bullshit in Osborne's judgement. For example, Osborne has referred to some unidentified judgment where SC denied leave because Koyama had "not raised any tenable legal questions in his submissions, let alone any of special or public importance". Osborne didn't say his reference to SC was to imply that Koyama's present application was untenable. It appears Osborne purported to give reasons for his "lack of public interest". Either way, Osborne's reference to SC was entirely irrelevant and improper, for numerous reasons. To name a few,

    (a) Osborne put forward arguments in support of NZLS's case, acting as NZLS advocate, whereas NZLS hadn't appeared (Why? And why the judge hasn't ordered to put NZLS on notice?). Most likely, Koyama has learnt of Osborne's arguments only from the judgment, i.e. - he had no opportunity to reply. Unscrupulous Osborne rolls out the arguments he invented himself, but doesn't say whether Koyama had anything to say in reply.

    (b) The SC's criterion for leave is public IMPORTANCE. Osborne was adjudicating public INTEREST. Can everyone see the difference? The criteria for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and those for dispensation of security in the High Court are quite different, presumably. Koyama may not have made out public importance in SC, but that's irrelevant to the issue that was before Osborne.

    (c) Osborne said: "It involves an abuse of the process of this Court that the debtor seeks to raise again an argument as to the public interest of the matters he wishes to pursue." While unscrupulous Osborne has advanced arguments on the part of NZLS, he failed to advance arguments on the part of Koyama. Osborne should have known that a refusal of leave to appeal is a decision which is not on the merits and thus is not res judicata. It cannot be an issue estoppel, either, as the issues were different. See also s 50 of the Evidence Act. As such, Koyama's application could not be an abuse of process based merely on the SC decision, as Osborne stated.

    On a side note, it seems that Osborne referred to [2014] NZSC 144, which is a typical obscure judgment given by Arnold and two fraudsters, McGrath and Young (this is my honest opinion based on the facts outlined here). I do not believe a single word said by those supreme liars in their judgment.

    Finally, I'd say that Osborne's statement mentioned in (c) is a misrepresentation, if not a plain lie. Nowhere [2014] NZSC 144 says that Koyama pursued "an argument as to the public interest". The SC judgment only says that there was nothing tenable turning on "special or public IMPORTANCE". Also, I am curious whether Koyama's submissions before Osborne mentioned Arnold, McGrath and Young in the context of judicial misconduct. If yes, then Osborne's judgment is plain fraud.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 08-03-2016 at 11:23 PM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    I've come across Koyama v NZLS [2016] NZHC 323 of 1 March 2016 by Osborne AJ, and it looks to me like a typical arbitrary judgment of a typical incompetent and/or corrupt judge of NZHC.

    The applicant claimed public interest. Osborne said that he had not found "any genuine public interest" in "forgery, perjury and extortion, committed in the courts of New Zealand". He based his arbitrary conclusion on that the applicant is a judgment debtor against whom various courts made unfavourable decisions.

    In other words, if the applicant had been a judgment creditor (i.e., had money to spend on the litigation) or if the applicant had been favoured by other judges, then Osborne would have considered deciding for the applicant, in line with other judges. Osborne thus not only took into account entirely irrelevant considerations, but wasn't independent (from other judges).

    I'd say that Osborne is rather corrupt than incompetent, as I fail to see how proper administration of justice cannot be of genuine public interest to a judge who has integrity.
    Accusing the entire world of forgery and corruption is not a defence to an application for bankruptcy.

    Despite this, Yoda would have been better to request fee waiver on the basis of insufficient funds to pay, instead of public interest.

    Oh wait, he wouldn't do that because he is a COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON.

    And by association, anyone who supports his cause is extremely likely to be labelled as such as well. Be careful out there.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by wtfbbq69 View Post
    Accusing the entire world of forgery and corruption is not a defence to an application for bankruptcy.
    It is. A judgment obtained by fraud is invalid and not enforceable. Besides, I don't think he's accusing the whole world.

    Quote Originally Posted by wtfbbq69 View Post
    Despite this, Yoda would have been better to request fee waiver on the basis of insufficient funds to pay, instead of public interest.
    He may be able to pay. I agree with Koyama that paying NZ court fees is the same as financing judicial corruption in New Zealand, which is against the anti-corruption public policy. Even if Koyama was impecunious, it was unlikely to help him. More precisely, nothing in NZ can help him, as the motto of NZ courts is "let injustice be done though the heaven falls".

    I'd say he's smart in the sense that he doesn't want to pay even if he can. I'd do the same. It'd be not just a waste of money, but encouragement of judicial corruption.

    Quote Originally Posted by wtfbbq69 View Post
    And by association, anyone who supports his cause is extremely likely to be labelled as such as well. Be careful out there.
    That's exactly the problem. If you are not associated with the old boys, you are screwed. In other words, screw justice if I don't like your cause. What makes one think that their cause is more noble than Koyama's? Based on Osborne's judgment, Koyama was saying the right things, his words just fell on deaf and/or corrupt ears. BTW, I don't know what Koyama's cause is, and don't really care.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 09-03-2016 at 12:14 AM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ...More precisely, nothing in NZ can help him [YODA]...
    Rubbish. There are a range of medications that can assist YODA's mental problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    .... BTW, I don't know what Koyama's cause is, and don't really care.
    There is no "cause" in what YODA is doing, other than to believe one should misinterpret most decisions, simply not understanding things, not listening to reason and always ignore the facts.

    FairHearing - What you should care about is that YODA is an idiot and utterly wrong in what he alleges, and by doing what he is doing just helps those who are corrupt by allowing them to say "they are all nutters - just look at what YODA is saying and claiming".

  9. #9
    Well fairhearing, I didn't want to have to engage the use of my tar-brush but I'm afraid I now have to tar you with the same brush as Yoda.

    Maybe if you lunatics focused on the substantive issues of your respective grievances (and even, if need be, accept that fact that you argued/are arguing a baseless case) instead of these farcical allegations of corruption/forgery/whatever then you would get some success.

    As an example, how far had Yoda got with his insurance claim with Southern Response? Why?

  10. #10
    This thread is about one particular judgment of Osborne. I don't know what Yoda claimed with SR and I don't care. It's entirely irrelevant to this thread. I don't care what Yoda posted elsewhere, as it's entirely irrelevant to Osborne's judgment, either. Osborne's judgement is supposed to, and does speak for itself and on its own.

    "wtfbbq69", either you don't understand what a fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal is, or you are a troll acting precisely as the unscrupulous judges in question.

    In the former case, you seem to naively believe that Osborne was right to deny Koyama a fair hearing because Koyama's substantive claims in your or Osborne's views were meritless. What makes you think that your own case had any merit and the abuse you suffered from some other Osborne wasn't "just"?

    If you haven't been abused by the system, then to be interested in this forum you must be a part of the system. You are either some ignorant lawyer on your own, or one who works for the system, such as Attorney-General, Glazebrook, Young, Harrison, Cooper, Andrews, Woodhouse, Osborne and so forth and so on, or some clerk.

    The third possibility, that you are a curious member of the happily unaware public, seems quite unlikely to me.

    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?

    Please don't mention Yoda. These abstract questions have nothing to do with him, unless you suggest that the answers depend on who's asking.

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
  •