Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Why you should ALWAYS tape record your lawyer !!!

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Why you should ALWAYS tape record your lawyer !!!

    Lawyers are honest people, right ?
    The law society have rules of conduct of which they hold their members to, right ?
    The LCRO, on behalf of the New Zealand government, holds the law society accountable, right ?

    You may have noticed the post on NZJ Forum on Tuesday 14.08.2012 regarding the delaying of the sentencing of Barrister, Anthony David Banbrook, as the CEO of the failed finance company, National Finance 2000. He pleaded Guilty to the crime of Documentation Fraud against his 2026 investors.
    As part of his misrepresentation of these investors' money, Banbrook purchased property in Fiji.

    You may also recall his well publicised and arrogant outburst at his previous court appearance as regards to the setting of his sentencing date. Standing outside the dock and overtalking his lawyer, he bellowed to the judge that he could not possibly be sentenced in August as he had a "pre - booked holiday in ..... Fiji .. !!!!"

    Banbrook now has a new lawyer .....

    And he is seeking a "completely different sentence" ..... (To his imprisoned co - Directors)

    Sadly, I was also misrepresented by Anthony David Banbrook. On the 8th of December 2006, I made a formal complaint to the NZ Law Society (Garreth Heyns) that Banbrook had acted without an instructing solicitor. (Breach of NZLS rule 11.03 - could not represent in any court)
    In response to my complaint, Tony Banbrook sent a letter to the law society dated the 31.01.2007 saying that he DID have an instructing solicitor. He supported this letter with an "affidavit" dated the 21.09.2006, in which he named his associate, John Robin Holmes as this person. On the facing page of this "affidavit" was emblazoned the business name of " Holmes Dangen & associates. "

    I asked Mr Holmes via email as to Banbrook's statements. He replied in writing he was NOT the instructing solicitor.

    I arranged a meeting with Mr Holmes at his office to discuss the matter further. I tape recorded the meeting.

    Mr Holmes confirmed once again he was NOT the instructing solicitor and explained the reasons as to WHY he could not have been. He confirmed his emails to me. And he confirmed the Documentation Fraud committed by Banbrook, whilst stating there are no documents on the court file with his name on them ........

    The tape recording was transcribed and many copies were downloaded to CD. A copy of both was sent to the Law Society in support of my complaint. The transcript was sworn as an affidavit.
    In setting a new low, Garreth Heyns ASKED Tony Banbrook IF HE WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE RECORDING AND TRANSCRIPT ..... !!!!!

    Banbrook did not respond .....

    In keeping with their tradition of extreme corruption, the Law Society cleared Banbrook of any wrongdoing ... !!!

    I lodged a complaint with the NZ government's office of the LCRO (Hanneke Bouchier), as to the findings of the Law Society. I sent them copies of the recording and affidavit of the transcript. After waiting for one and a half years, they have granted me a hearing. (30.08.2012)

    BUT ....... the LCRO have stated to me in a letter dated the 6th of June 2012, that AFTER THIS HEARING, they MAY or MAY NOT, ask Anthony David Banbrook to answer whether he had an instructing solicitor .... !!!!! ( Yes - I have it in writing !!! )
    Complaint lodged 8th of December 2006. It is now the 15th of August 2012 .......

    As all on this NZJ Forum are only too aware, these are very sick, sick, depraved human beings of whom we are forced to engage with.

    If I have done everything correctly, there will be some attachments with this letter. The Fraudulent "affidavit" of Anthony David Banbrook, and the complete transcript of the tape recording. Enjoy. (I will post the LCRO finding)

    1victim.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Member Beachedas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Mangitanoka
    Posts
    44
    Blog Entries
    3
    Sadly I'm not at all surprised by these revelations. I've had several complaints before the Wellington District Law Society concerning blatant breaches of the rules of conduct,such as solicitors charging for responding to complaints about them.

    The lack of integrity in the New Zealand Law society appears to be the same malaise recently identified in the NZ Medical Council where an overly cosy relationship between the council & practitioners has been identified,

    Recently, I started recording every interaction I've had with bureaucrats , including the Police. It would certainly help some of these cases if people started posting these deviants and their exploits on youtube. Another method I've found useful is the video phone, which allows you record the conversation with another witness present.
    Last edited by Beachedas; 17-08-2012 at 12:38 AM.
    “The citizen's job is to be rude - to pierce the comfort of professional intercourse by boorish expressions of doubt”
    -John Ralston Saul-

  3. #3

    National Finance Fraudster, Anthony David Banbrook cleared by law society again ....

    National Finance fraudster, Anthony David Banbrook, has been cleared for the second time by Garreth Heyns of the New Zealand Law Society, of acting without an instructing solicitor.
    (For the uneducated, a barrister CANNOT ACT for a client in the absence of an instructing solicitor)
    The well publicised tape recording of John Robin Holmes, having been named by Banbrook as the instructing solicitor, was submitted with the sworn affidavit of the meeting, to Garreth Heyns as evidence to Banbrook's lie.
    But the Law Society stands defiant !!

    No action is to be taken against the fraudster.

    And as to the hearing with the LCRO - they have stated by letter that we are NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY THE TAPE RECORDING AT OUR HEARING on the 29th of October.

    Transparency is what they are all about !!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by 1victim; 07-01-2014 at 11:42 PM.

  4. #4
    Finally we will get our hearing with the corrupt LCRO. Thursday 29th November, 10am Auckland district courtroom 9.1.

    The LCRO are playing out their corruption hand by continuing to pretend that the FACT that Tony Banbrook did Not have an instructing solicitor is not a serious Breach of law society rules. (11.03)

    They won't put it in writing though !!!

    Quote lawyer Paul Borich : "A barrister can't act for a client in the absence of an instructing solicitor".

    The LCRO is still trying desperately to deny the John Holmes tape recording and even the sworn affidavit of the transcript !!

    Despite being sent copies of both, they will not acknowledge them ! This tape recording is, of course, the winning of this entire corrupt case.
    But the Government appointed LCRO will not let the Truth interfere with their corruption. They will clear the Convicted Criminal, Tony Banbrook, of any breaches of law society rules, no matter what ....

    So despite his former business associate, John Holmes, branding him a Blatant Liar and confirming there is no way he could have been the instructing solicitor, and further confirming him guilty of Documentation Fraud, Perjury and Forgery, the corrupt LCRO will follow the law society and clear Banbrook of any breach.

    Banbrook recently pleaded Guilty to the Crime of Documentation Fraud in his failed National Finance Company, in which he admitted making False Statements in misleading the 2026 investors. (victims)
    Despite his pleading Guilty and being convicted, he has been granted a "Disputed Facts Hearing" in the high court in Auckland on the 10th of December, after which he will be cleared of his malpractice and his conviction will be overturned. (Smells a bit like Sir Douglas Graham ....)

    So you plead Guilty, get convicted, and then get a special hearing to dispute the very evidence you pleaded Guilty to ..... ????
    Tony Banbrook certainly does have "friends in high places". (I am either Nostradamus, or I know the NZ "justice system" too well)

    I sincerely hope I have to come on to this forum and eat humble pie .....

    I will post the corrupt findings of the Government appointed LCRO.

    1victim

    (Note : Should anyone like a copy of the John Holmes tape recording please send me a private message)

  5. #5
    1Victim, you certainly did the right thing by tape recording the discussion with the non-solicitor. Without those tapes you would not have got this far, and their cover-up would have been complete.

    We also tape recorded a number of meetings, although not with our lawyer. I like your idea of putting the tapes online so anyone can listen to the evidence. I'd like to ask, does anyone know how do I get a cassette tape recording into a digital format?

    I only wish that more New Zealanders were like you, and did something about corruption, instead of shrugging it off. Corruption of the nature you describe is now a massive problem in NZ. Accountability is non-existent in several areas of NZ society. Wherever there are bodies setup to ensure ethics/rules followed, or to oversee a group of practitioners, their sole purpose in NZ is to cover-up corrupt behaviour and to ensure unaccountability. Whether this be the Law Society, the NZ Association of Counsellors, the Judicial Complaints Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the CYF Complaint Authority - the prime purpose is always the same, to ensure no accountability and cover-up wrong doings. NZ is now littered with thousands and thousands of genuine, credible stories from individuals all saying the same thing.
    Last edited by "Frank"; 28-11-2012 at 02:25 AM.

  6. #6
    It has been brought to our attention that the ENTIRE CHAPTER (11 - The practice of barristers) listing the obligations of a lawyer to have an instructing solicitor has been REMOVED from the "Rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors".

    It has been replaced by some new "code speak" dribble ....

    And so law society rule 11.03 stating ..." a barrister sole must accept instructions from a solicitor and may not accept instructions direct from a lay client " , has been REMOVED !!

    And rule 11.10 ..... " A barrister should keep his or her instructing solicitor reasonably informed of the progress of the brief " - REMOVED !!

    Previously the law society withdrew their advert stating this from the Yellow Pages ....

    So the John Holmes tape recording will probably be deemed invalid as to this "new rule" ....

    In regards to our hearing with the LCRO, I will post the details on this forum over the next few weeks.
    You will NOT be amazed at the "evidence" he put foward in trying to convince us that Mr Holmes WAS the instructing solicitor for the convicted fraudster, Tony Banbrook !!!


    They're all about transparency .....

    1victim

  7. #7
    Is this the "Tony Banbrook" who is involved with prostitution ?


    I have close friends who lost thousands in his collapsed National Finance Company due to his false statements in his prospectus. Whilst I understand the corrupt Law Society and LCRO protecting these Criminals, why is it that lawyers always escape prosecution in serious fraud cases ?
    This man should be in jail.

    Teeny

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victim View Post
    It has been brought to our attention that the ENTIRE CHAPTER (11 - The practice of barristers) listing the obligations of a lawyer to have an instructing solicitor has been REMOVED from the "Rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors".

    It has been replaced by some new "code speak" dribble ....

    And so law society rule 11.03 stating ..." a barrister sole must accept instructions from a solicitor and may not accept instructions direct from a lay client " , has been REMOVED !!

    And rule 11.10 ..... " A barrister should keep his or her instructing solicitor reasonably informed of the progress of the brief " - REMOVED !!

    Previously the law society withdrew their advert stating this from the Yellow Pages ....

    So the John Holmes tape recording will probably be deemed invalid as to this "new rule" ....
    I don't believe that this is correct. If you go to the Rules of Conduct and Client Care for Lawyers, the barristers' intervention rule is plainly still there (part 14 - "14.4 Subject to rules 14.6, 14.7, and 14.8, a barrister sole must not accept instructions to act for another person other than from a person who holds a practising certificate as a barrister and solicitor"). In fact the Law Society consulted extensively on the retention of the intervention rule in 2012 and decided that it would be retained for the time being.

    Maybe your informant was confused by referring to the "Rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors" which have indeed been removed in their entirety.

  9. #9
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Dargaville
    Posts
    448
    Blog Entries
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by corkscrew View Post
    I don't believe that this is correct. If you go to the Rules of Conduct and Client Care for Lawyers, the barristers' intervention rule is plainly still there (part 14 - "14.4 Subject to rules 14.6, 14.7, and 14.8, a barrister sole must not accept instructions to act for another person other than from a person who holds a practising certificate as a barrister and solicitor"). In fact the Law Society consulted extensively on the retention of the intervention rule in 2012 and decided that it would be retained for the time being.

    Maybe your informant was confused by referring to the "Rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors" which have indeed been removed in their entirety.
    The rule is clearly still there but a willingness to enforce it is not. I sat in on a High Court case in Wellington recently where a barrister was seeking to claim costs from a client whom she claimed had given her instructions to represent a trust, despite there being no written consent from either of the trustees(the matter is proceeding). In essence it is up to the discretion of the court to decide whether or not to allow the enforcement of what is in effect a "reverse brief" and I have been informed that there have been at least two NZ cases where his has been allowed.

    Its not just the courts that seem to be lax in applying the rules, I know of several cases where solicitors have been allowed to avoid censure by the Law Society and charge an estate for resolving complaints against them (contrary to the rules) for taking enourmous fees by deduction without being required to account.

  10. #10

    Sparks fly as LCRO Maggot verbally assaults 84 year old blind woman !

    On the 15 July 2014, a hearing against the law society standards committee was held before LCRO DOROTHY THRESHER to dispute the law society decision in clearing barrister John Robin Holmes of signing a false affidavit and a false account.

    Two months prior to this hearing the LCRO was given written confirmation that in accordance with their rule #32, 4 people would be in attendance. The names of these support people were supplied but no acknowledgement was forthcoming from the LCRO. Included in the 4 people was the complainant's 84 year old blind mother. Several more requests were made to confirm this hearing - all resulting in NO ANSWER .....

    On Thursday 10th July, a further email was sent to MARK WAGER - case manager - to confirm the 4 support people, confirm the court room, and the time of the hearing. He was also phoned. NO REPLY was forthcoming .....

    Upon arrival at the Auckland district court on the 15th, following a 60 kilometre journey, we arrived to find no hearing was listed in the courtroom we were told it was to be held in.

    After 20 minutes of searching we were about to abandon our hearing, - which we had waited 2 and a 1/2 years for !! - when a woman advised us our courtroom had been changed !

    Two of our party of four entered the courtroom to find the waiting John Holmes in there. Immediately, negotiations were opened with him in an attempt to resolve the issue. This was achieved ...... Holmes agreed to deem his fraudulent documents VOID AB INITIO, by way of an affidavit.

    After delaying our hearing for 40 minutes, LCRO DOROTHY THRESHER finally arrived - the ANTICHRIST was amongst us !!!

    Immediately, THRESHER set out to antagonise and abuse us. Despite the 4 support people being confirmed months prior, THRESHER claimed she had not been notified ....... she is a f@#*ing liar !!

    As the coward she proved herself to be, she directed her vicious verbal assault towards the complainant's 84 year old blind mother and indignantly demanded she be removed from the hearing. Standing and holding his mother's white stick in the air, the complainant informed the ANTICHRIST that his mother would not be leaving.

    Not to be outdone, THRESHER spat out that there were people in the court to "take care of her" ! She beckoned to the enormous security officer present, that he may escort her out of the room .....

    After being told to "get off your high horse" several times, THRESHER finally realised what a fool she was making of herself and conceded ......

    This was the beginning to our Legal Complaints Review hearing against the "standards committee" decision.

    A formal complaint will be made as to THRESHER'S abusive conduct against a disabled senior citizen.

    Fortunately we managed to tape record the entire fiasco. Anyone wishing to hear the performance of DOROTHY THRESHER may contact me privately via the facility available on this Forum.

    In the interim, I have posted here two statements made by John Robin Holmes in regards to his signing a false affidavit in support of his friend, and convicted fraudster Anthony David Banbrook.

    The complaint against Holmes was that he KNOWINGLY signed an affidavit which included UNTRUE STATEMENTS.

    Caught out in our well publicised secret tape recordings, Holmes stated : "I had nothing to do with the case at all actually, but I swore the affidavit so he could withdraw" (Image 175)

    And : "I'd have to explain why I've said I was, obviously a bit slack in you might say in um signing something that at the time was umm was y'know simple enough and umm just to hopefully to get him off the hook and out of the case ...." (Image 176)

    Just as the Crimes Act s.110 False Oaths says ! Tui slogan here .........

    1victim
    Attached Images Attached Images

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
  •