Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Alan Ritchie, the new Judicial Conduct Commissioner

  1. #1

    Alan Ritchie, the new Judicial Conduct Commissioner

    The new Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Alan Ritchie, now uses templates to quickly dismiss complaints about judges. For example:

    <DATE>

    PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

    <COMPLAINANT'S ADDRESS>

    Dear <COMPLAINANT'S NAME>

    Complaint about <JUDGE'S NAME>

    1. I refer to your <LETTER/EMAIL> of <DATE> in which you complain of <DESCRIBE COMPLAINT IN A FEW WORDS>.

    2. In 1987 two Judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal (R v Kopyto) referred to criticisms of the judiciary which they described as:

    " ... so preposterous that no right thinking member of society would take them seriously".

    3. However, under section 15 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 (the Act), I am required to conduct a preliminary examination and form an opinion on what action I should take.

    4. I have done that. I am unable to find any evidence, or even suggestion, of fraud or judicial misconduct which could remotely warrant my intervention.

    5. There is no question but that you are asking me to act contrary to section 8(2) of the Act. That, however, is irrelevant in this case because in my opinion the complaint is frivolous, vexatious and not made in good faith.

    6. The complaint is dismissed by the application of section 16(1 )(d) of the Act.

    Yours sincerely

    Alan Ritchie
    <SIGNATURE>
    Judicial Conduct Commissioner
    Below are a few quotes from the documents related to a recent complaint about Ellen France:

    The complainant wrote:

    11. I expressly note that I do not complain about Ms France’s deliberate falsehoods, fraud and other gross judicial misconduct, other than her obscure threats, because I am well aware of the current Commissioner’s proclivity for taking advantage of the legal loophole in s 8(2) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004...

    12. Ms France’s threats are not an “instruction, direction, order, judgment or any other decision”,and the process of semantic recognition of threats does not involve questioning of the factual or legal accuracy of a decision or any part of a decision. Therefore, s 8(2) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 does not apply.
    Alan Ritchie delivered his decision just 4 (!) days later, using the above template:

    5. There is no question but that you are asking me to act contrary to section 8(2) of the Act.
    The complainant followed up:

    1. ...Unfortunately, your arbitrary and superficial conclusions raise more questions than give answers. You clearly used a generic form that requires amending only a few lines in its first paragraph to fit absolutely any complaint...

    11. In paragraph 5 of your decision, you stated:

    "There is no question but that you are asking me to act contrary to section 8(2) of the Act."

    Please hold on, I do have a question. Could you show the public and me where exactly in my complaint I was asking you to act contrary to section 8(2) of the Act? You are a liar, Mr Ritchie; even more so in the context of paragraphs 11‐12 of my complaint. Insofar as the judicial review is concerned, your false statement is irrational under New Zealand laws, as it is –

    so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.

    12. You clearly made the false statement knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or (at the very least) recklessly, careless as to whether it be true or false. As your duty was to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice, your falsehood amounts to fraud, whether actual or constructive. You are a fraudster, Mr Ritchie...

    19. I suggest that you reconsider your decision on my complaint in light of the above considerations, to avoid bringing the JCC office into disrepute and making a laughing stock of yourself. Or better, retire. It is abundantly clear now that no good will result to the New Zealand people from your prolonged service.
    Alan Ritchie acknowledged the receipt of the complainant's follow-up letter, but had nothing to say in response. He doesn't seem to have retired, either.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 29-09-2016 at 01:06 PM.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    The new Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Alan Ritchie...

    ... You clearly made the false statement knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or (at the very least) recklessly, careless as to whether it be true or false. As your duty was to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice, your falsehood amounts to fraud, whether actual or constructive. You are a fraudster, Mr Ritchie. ....
    FairHearing: Letter to the JCC, Mr. Ritchie, of today asking him to stop being a fraudster (thanks to your posting):

    "I am in receipt of your 15 September 2016 decision on my complaint about Justice Duffy.

    Your decision breaches s. 8(2) of the JCC Act as you “challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of any instruction, direction, order, judgment, or other decision given or made by a Judge in relation to any legal proceedings.”

    You have done that by overriding Duffy J’s ruling in Zhang v Minister of Immigration and Anor HC AK CIV-2012-404-004097 [17 April 2013], and thereby the CoA ruling, where Justice Duffy ruled

    At[24]:
    The importance of a decision-maker giving reasons was recognised in Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd [2000] 3 NZLR 546. The Court of Appeal identified three bases supporting this principle. The first was that “without reasons, it may not be possible to understand why judicial authority has been used in a particular way”: see [79].

    The second basis why decision-makers exercising judicial authority must give reasons was because “failure to do so means that the lawfulness of what is done cannot be assessed by a court exercising supervisory jurisdiction”... In this regard, the Court [Court of Appeal] said at [80]:

    “Those who exercise power…must address the right question…”


    At [25]:
    The third main basis for giving reasons was that they “provide a discipline for the Judge which is the best protection against wrong or arbitrary decisions and inconsistent delivery of justice”: see [82].

    I also refer you to [27] and [28] in that Justice Duffy decision and the outcome from her consideration of what a judgment must entail.

    As you are aware Justice Duffy’s Judgement complained about does not “address the right question” put to the Court [that the District Court decision was illegal – a fundamental jurisdiction for Judicial Review], and in fact does not record that question to be decided upon.

    As you have breached s. 8(2), by ruling, in contradiction to Duffy J in Zhang, that she did not have to give reasons for rejecting a Judicial Review on a question of illegality nor to record that question, I request that you provide a decision that does not breach s. 8(2).

    Please do not get any more judges involved in judicial corruption on the matter by you being stupid."

    The question is - will dear Ritchie respond!

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    The question is - will dear Ritchie respond!
    It doesn't really matter what that scumbag would say. What can come out of the mouth of the "Chief Executive Office and then Executive Director of the New Zealand Law Society" for 23 years, but pure lies? He's just a clown, Finlayson's puppet. One can easily imagine what sort of a lowlife Ritchie is, for him to have been selected by the Attorney-General for the position of the New Zealand Judicial Conduct Commissioner.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 29-09-2016 at 01:43 PM.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    It doesn't really matter what that scumbag would say. ...He's just a clown, Finlayson's puppet...
    FairHearing: I disagree with you in describing the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Alan Ritchie, as a "clown". Clown's are honest people who make everyone happy by their apparent ignorance and have positive affects on peoples lives.

    Alan Ritchie, as you know:

    1. Is absolutely dishonest; and

    2. Only makes Judges and the A-G happy; and

    3. Does so by his knowledge of what his role really is [to protect judges from proper and fair criticism and complaints and to ignore Parliaments real purpose of the JCC Act]; and

    4. Has a negative affect on peoples lives by helping to ruin the lives of people who complaint to him (we the public) about judges.

    Please use a better description in future. Thanks
    Last edited by Q. C.; 29-09-2016 at 01:56 PM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    Your decision breaches s. 8(2) of the JCC Act as you “challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of any instruction, direction, order, judgment, or other decision given or made by a Judge in relation to any legal proceedings.”
    That's exactly what the follow-up letter on the complaint about France alleged. Idiot Ritchie routinely breaches the Act himself and is stupid enough to not even realise that.

    Ritchie's role is that of a clown in the mockery-of-justice show being staged by New Zealand Government. Of course, this has nothing to do with the honest people working in a circus to entertain the public. Ritchie's circus defrauds the public, so the meaning of "clown" differs accordingly.

    Those complaining to JCC may want to consider asking Alan Ritchie to recuse from determining their complaints, on the grounds that a fair-minded informed lay observer, who is aware of the facts referred to in this thread, may reasonably apprehend that Ritchie may not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of issues before him.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ...Those complaining to JCC may want to consider asking Alan Ritchie to recuse from determining their complaints, on the grounds that a fair-minded informed lay observer, who is aware of the facts referred to in this thread, may reasonably apprehend that Ritchie may not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of issues before him.
    Yes, but. If numerous Judges of the Supreme Court, COA and High Court do not recuse themselves on the established legal principle for recusal (when called to do so on the identified conflict of interest before them), why do you expect a similarly dishonest Commission, Alan Ritchie, to follow the law and legal principles?
    Last edited by Q. C.; 29-09-2016 at 02:14 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Isn't this something that needs to be discussed publicly, involving the media of New Zealand?
    Yes, however you have to be patient and wait. Wait until they all have their heads in the noose.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    Yes, but. If numerous Judges of the Supreme Court, COA and High Court do not recuse themselves on the established legal principle for recusal (when called to do so on the identified conflict of interest before them), why do you expect a similarly dishonest Commission, Alan Ritchie, to follow the law and legal principles?
    Being a fool and fraudster, Ritchie won't recuse, of course. But a recusal application may be handy for two reasons:

    (1) To affirm that the complainant doesn't waive their legal rights under the principles of natural justice. The rights might be waived if the complainant implicitly consents to their complaint being determined by a known fool and fraudster.

    (2) To properly determine the recusal application, Ritchie would have to list all the alleged facts concerning his bias, and determine whether an informed fair-minded observer would consider him biased. Independently, Ritchie would have to get around the fact that he is judging his own case (of his own misconduct). Of course, he will conceal all these matters in his decision, thus tightening his noose, as you say.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Being a fool and fraudster, Ritchie won't recuse, of course. .. Of course, he will conceal all these matters in his decision, thus tightening his noose, as you say.
    FairHearing: The noose around the Commissioner's neck (and his predecessor) is at breaking strain. We don't want to break his neck just yet by adding more of his corruption.

    The noose I refer to is set for much bigger fish, if they stand by and do nothing.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 01-10-2016 at 11:34 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
  •