Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

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

  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; 16-08-2012 at 11:38 PM.
    “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 10:42 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 01:25 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

    Will Prime Minister, JOHN KEY, endorse DOCUMENTATION FRAUD by his LCRO ? ........

    This post is written as an open letter to the prime minister, John Key, and his Government appointed Legal Complaints Review Officer, Owen Vaughan,which has been sent to both parties. You are both invited to reply.

    On the 8th of January 2013, the attached 10 Documents were sent to both the PM and the LCRO as PROOF that the Convicted Fraudster, TONY BANBROOK, had acted illegally in having NO instructing solicitor.
    This evidence was put forward in support of the Tape Recorded Interview with lawyer, John Holmes dated 01.03.2011, and several emails and affidavits in support.

    At Paul's "hearing" on the 29th of November 2012, a question was put to Owen Vaughan : " So, how's he represented me without an instructing solicitor ?

    The LCRO's reply was : "I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO AWAY AND CONSIDER WHAT IS THE COMPELLING EVIDENCE. BEARING IN MIND, THAT THERE IS A STANDARD OF PROOF THAT HAS TO BE MET".

    Quote Owen Vaughan 29.11.2012 : "There's obviously a conflict between what he's saying to the Standards Committee on the 8th March 2011"...

    (Image 718) Letter dated 11th December 2012 signed by Robert Hesketh - Convenor of Auckland Standards Committe 1.
    Quote Hesketh :" Mr Holmes is of the view ... in FACT they were NOT THE INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS".

    In his desperation to exonerate the Convicted National Finance Fraudster, Owen Vaughan produced a 3 page FRAUDULENT document which was IN FACT written by Anthony David Banbrook. The LCRO claimed this document was an "affidavit" written by John Robin Holmes stating he WAS the instructing solicitor.

    (Image 719) Mr Holmes's replys to this Fraudulent Document were Quote : " I HAVE NO PERSONAL RECOLLECTION OF THAT "AFFIDAVIT".

    " THE STATEMENTS IN THE "AFFIDAVIT" ARE INCORRECT".

    " IN SUMMARY, I AM SATISFIED THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONTENTS OF THE "AFFIDAVIT", WE WERE NEVER THE INSTRUCTING SOLICITOR ON ANY OF THE ACTIONS IN WHICH MR BANBROOK REPRESENTED YOU".

    Quote Owen Vaughan 29.11.2012: " WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT AN AFFIDAVIT ?"

    (Image 717) Crimes Act 1961 Section 114 Use of purported affidavit or declaration.
    Everyone is liable to imprisonment for 3 years who -

    (a) signs a writing that purports to be an affidavit ....
    (b) USES or OFFERS FOR USE any writing purporting to be an affidavit that
    he knows was not sworn or made .....

    (Image 717) Crimes Act 1961 Section 257 Using FORGED DOCUMENTS
    Everyone is liable to imprisonment for 10 years who knowing a document to be
    forged - (b) USES or ACTS UPON THE DOCUMENT AS IF IT WERE GENUINE ...
    (see also Sections 255/256/259)

    And further "Compelling Evidence" in meeting Mr Vaughan's "Standards of Proof" which need to be met, is by way of the "Lawyers and Conveyancers Rule 35" : Conflicting Interests"

    (Image 720) (1) A conveyancing practitioner MUST NOT ACT OR CONTINUE TO ACT IF THERE
    IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST .....

    Quote Robert Hesketh 11th December 2012 (Image 718) :"Mr Holmes states .. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THEM TO HAVE ACTED AS INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS ON THE MATTER".

    (Image 719) Quote John Holmes 8th June 2011 : "I CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE AGREED TO ACT AS AN INSTRUCTING SOLICITOR .... THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INAPPROPRIATE, INVOLVING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ...

    (Image 720) Rule 8 Obligations to keep records.
    A conveyancing practitioner must ensure that WRITTEN RECORDS ARE KEPT ....

    (Images 721 / 722 / 723) Email dated 11th July 2011 from John Holmes and accompanying DOCUMENTED PROOF OF HIS ACTING ON THE CONVEYANCING. Both documents are emblazoned with the names of JOHN HOLMES and his then employee, THADA ANNE ERASMUS. The documents are dated May and June2004 ....

    Both the Prime Minister and the LCRO were sent these 10 attached documents via email and couriered to the LCRO on the 11th January 2013. Neither have acknowledged receiving them ......

    And so to the Prime Minister, JOHN KEY, and your Government appointed LCRO, OWEN VAUGHAN -
    (Both of you have acknowledged being in possession of the JOHN ROBIN HOLMES TAPE RECORDING dated 01.03.2011) .......

    Have we met your "STANDARDS OF PROOF THAT NEED TO BE MET ?"
    Have we given you "COMPELLING EVIDENCE ?"

    Did John Holmes do the conveyancing and therefore COULD NOT REPRESENT ?

    Or will you endorse your FRAUDULENT "AFFIDAVIT" written by the CONVICTED FRAUDSTER, TONY BANBROOK ?

    Paul Currie
    Robb Currie
    Joyce Currie

    (1 victim)

    Footnote : Should anyone wish to get an audio copy and transcript of our complete "hearing" with the LCRO on the 29.11.2012 please send a private message.
    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
  •