Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

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

  1. #11

    Why you should ALWAYS tape record your lawyer !!! Part II .......

    Holmes Dangen & Associates Ltd. Do you need a Fraudulent Affidavit drawn up ??? ... Talk to John Holmes .....

    Continuing on from the previous post. The 3 page fraudulent "affidavit" allegedly sworn by John Holmes and used by Banbrook and Holmes's defence counsel - the law society standards committee and the LCRO - was put to Mr Holmes in 3 further tape recorded meetings.

    Tony Banbrook's evidence to the standards committee and the LCRO is : "Mr Holmes was the instructing solicitor".
    "I discussed it with Mr Currie and he agreed that Mr Holmes would be suitable".
    "I spoke to Mr Holmes and, umm. he was".

    Quote John Holmes : "That affidavit was prepared by Mr Tony Banbrook, a barrister".

    Paragraph 7 of their "affidavit" states : "I cannot continue to act as solicitor on record".
    Paragraph 9 states : "I seek leave to withdraw as solicitor on record".

    And here are some of the Bell Ringers from John Holmes to our questions .....

    What duties did you perform as an instructing solicitor ?
    J.H. "NONE".

    So you weren't actually the instructing solicitor ?
    J.H. "Yes that's right. No payment, no files".

    No duties performed as an instructing solicitor - how many times have you been an instructing solicitor and not performed one duty ?
    J.H. "Oh a few other things, yep".

    Confirming he's (Banbrook) banged your name on things without your knowledge before ?
    J.H. "Correct".
    "I've known him on occassions to bang our firm's name on stuff".
    "I've got correspondence from a few other things from lawyers about cases I've never heard about".

    And all these documents are fraudulent ?
    J.H. "Hmmm".

    What was his problem, you said he came to you with a problem ?
    J.H. "Oh I suppose his problem was he wanted to get out or wasn't getting paid and he may have said to me I've used you as instructing solicitor and umm but I've got no file so umm ...

    Yeah so you weren't the instructing solicitor ?
    J.H. "Um he would have come to me and said, with the affidavit and said um I've got a problem - I need to get off this case you, I've nominated you as instructing solicitor would you mind signing an affidavit, swear an affidavit, so that I can ahh get out of it ?

    Yeah but you were never the instructing solicitor, you were never signed up ?
    J.H. "I never signed up anything with Paul".

    Now this affidavit they're telling you you did - is this what they've done ? (Fraudulent affidavit produced)
    J.H. "Yeah that's the same one - yeah that's it".

    So that's what they've sent you ?
    J.H. "Yes"
    "I certainly don't recall signing the affidavit, I was astonished when I saw it actually".

    Why would you sign it ?
    J.H. "Well you may ask that and ahh you're right, in fact it was not a very good idea".
    "I had nothing to do with the case at all actually, but I swore the affidavit so he could withdraw".
    "He was seeking to withdraw wasn't he ? - not me - I had nothing to do with it".
    "I'd have to explain why I've said I was, obviously a bit slack in you might say um signing something that at the
    time was umm y'know simple enough and umm just to hopefully to get him off the hook and out of the case".

    So he's (Banbrook) done a Fraudulent Document, and put your name on it, and you've gone and signed a Fraudulent Document ?
    J.H. "Yeah".

    Yeah, well that's, that's the problem John, you've put your name to false documents which lines you up ...
    J.H. "Yes - that's right"

    As an accomplice to him ?
    J.H. "Hmmm".


    So, are lawyers allowed to write false affidavits after the fact ?

    We have requested a hearing with the standards committee and the LCRO to have all tape recordings played with Tony Banbrook and John Holmes present and await their reply.

    Banbrook recently pled guilty to this very same crime in his failed National Finance Company and is about to have his conviction overturned. No doubt his "friends in high places" will clear him of this crime also ....


    See attached 4 page sworn affidavit (a genuine one !) to our questions to Holmes.

    1victim
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by 1victim; 19-02-2013 at 03:04 PM.

  2. #12
    1 victim, you are to be commended on your "covert operations" in exposing these two criminals. I only wish I had done the same with my son's lawyer. Although it was just a traffic infringement, he told us there were no grounds for a case against him and it would not stand up in court, then in court he said precisely the opposite and supported the police.

    And then he denied saying what he said to us. If only I had the presence of mind to have tape recorded him !
    Mind you, as the corrupt Law Society and LCRO stop at nothing to exonerate their members, as is proven graphically in your case, it would do no good to complain anyway.

    Teeny

  3. #13

    LAW, TRUTH, FACT, and Tape Recordings are no match for Government Corruption .....

    The Government employed LCRO, Owen Vaughan, is standing by his Fraudulent "Affidavit" in acting as the defence council for the two Criminals, Tony Banbrook and John Holmes, which he produced at the hearing on the 29th November 2012.

    The rule states : "THE DUTY TO DISCOVER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IS A CONTINUING ONE UP TO AND INCLUDING THE TIME OF JUDGEMENT."

    Owen Vaughan on the 22.01.2013 sent us an email stating : "If in future you send NEW and RELEVANT INFORMATION to FORM PART OF THIS REVIEW FILE, please indicate this and also quote the LCRO number that it relates to".......

    As is documented in our previous posts, we have done precisely this, by way of our affidavits etc. All information has also been presented to the Prime Minister.

    Our affidavits prove the crimes of Perjury, Forgery and Accounting Fraud against Banbrook and Holmes.

    Today, we received the attached letter from the LCRO. (Image 814)

    He now states : "Your emails of 14 January, 21,22,23 and 27 February (and copies of same) have been received in this office."

    "..the LCRO is NOT ACCEPTING FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS MATTER."

    "The content (Our affidavits of the tape recorded transcripts) of these emails WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE LCRO."

    A formal request to play all four tape recordings with all parties present has previously been made, with no response ....

    The Prime Minister has acknowledged receiving all of our submissions. We assume he endorses this corruption by his Government appointed LCRO. (Perhaps it is part of their contractual duties ?)

    They have been requested to re-consider their decision .....

    1victim
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #14
    LCRO: I wrote to Jeff Orr, Deputy Secretary, Policy Group Ministry of Justice, I said the LCRO are above the law and any decision they make cannot be appealed to a Higher Court.....he wrote back "In your letter you suggest the decisions of the LCRO cannot be judicially reviewed. In some circumstances, the decisions of those who exercise statutory powers can be judicially reviewed. you may wish to discuss these with your lawyer", the lawyer I complained about is the partner of 'Lying" Lawyer guilty...Hutt News 8-10-2010, the Lawyer I engaged was mentioned in the item by Antonio Bradley, this lawyer was prohibited from practising in conveyancing matters, after he pleaded guilty of charges of incompetence.....he is one of the untouchables, I tried and I was shot down in flames by the law Society and the LCRO, when he said I wasn't his client, he had simply made and semantic error and when he wrote My Client (and my name) several times, he didn't mean to say that....???
    Last edited by wepu67; 09-03-2013 at 06:16 PM.

  5. #15

    ANTHONY BANBROOK .. is an honest man - a good man - done a lot for the community ....

    .... it's just that when he's not being all of these things, he is committing crimes of perjury, forgery and accounting fraud !!!

    He was today (12.03.2013) kept out of jail by his "friends in high places", having pleaded Guilty to signing a false prospectus in misleading his 2026 victims of his failed finance company - National Finance. (See attached Image 837)

    As all readers of this thread can clearly see with documented proof, Tony Banbrook is guilty of all of the above crimes in his misrepresentation of Paul.

    Not only has he signed false documents - he has forged them with John Holmes's name on them ! And then lied about them !!

    And yet his QC - Harry Waalkens, stressed Banbrook was : ".... an upstanding member of the legal community with "FANTASTIC" references !!! "

    Well he must be, because the NZLS is allowing him to continue practising even with his conviction ...

    And yesterday (11.03.2013) Banbrook had the audacity to send a letter to Garreth Heyns, of the NZLS, stating "It is crystal clear that at all material times John Holmes was my instructing solicitor "...... !!!
    (See attached Image 838)

    So if you are in need of a fine upstanding "senior litigation lawyer", then seek out 66 year old Anthony David Banbrook. You won't miss him - he'll be the one with $24.8 million bulging out of his pockets, and setting off security alarms with his brand new ankle bracelet !!!!

    1victim
    Attached Images Attached Images

  6. #16
    The judge has revealed his identity in an email to the minister of justice. He sat as a Family Court Judge in Invercargill, but resigned and caught a lot of people unaware I waited two hours for a hearing before court staff informed us of his resignation. Actually as a family court judge he was very astute. Trouble for him was he was travelling between Dunedin and Invercargill daily a round trip of about 450 km per day. very foolish that bit and leads to debt and resignation. His criminal defence work was ethical and competent but other areas of laws were not so hot. In his handling of the case thats lead to his being struck off I am aquainted with the complainant and the person is not one I would want to cross.

  7. #17
    Oh another judge resigned after fiddling his expenses and his mentor who showed him how to fiddle them fought his case in court and won by claiming no criminal intent which is the first requirement for a successful prosecution the judge was shunted into a position where he would never meet the public again nor have to make rulings

  8. #18

    LCRO, OWEN VAUGHAN, endorses FORGERY in clearing Fraudster, Tony Banbrook ....

    Legal Coverup Review Officer, OWEN W.J.VAUGHAN, has confirmed himself Guilty as an accessory to the Crime of FORGERY (Section 257 of the Crimes Act) in clearing the self confessed Fraudster, Tony Banbrook, of having acted ILLEGALLY, WITHOUT an instructing solicitor.

    Although acknowledging having ALL of the attached sworn evidence in support, Vaughan has stated in his "Determination" dated 22.03.2013, that John Holmes WAS the instructing solicitor !!!!!!

    Vaughan produced NO EVIDENCE to prove his lie .....

    So despite the sworn evidence of four tape recordings, numerous emails, and the signed conveyancing documents as proof, OWEN VAUGHAN has stated, in his litany of lies that Quote :

    "MR HOLMES DOES NOT DISPUTE THE AUTHENTICITY OF HIS AFFIDAVIT" !!!!!!!!



    Lawyers and conveyancers act : Section 206 Proceedings of Legal Complaints Review Officer

    (3) Subject to subsection (2) and to S.205,207,and 208, the Legal Complaints Review Officer must perform his or her duties and excercise his or her powers in a way THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.


    And in a further brazen act of "We Can Do What We Bloody Well Like", Owen Vaughan has Threatened in his "determination", that himself, or the Fraudster Banbrook, will take legal action against Paul Currie if he exposes these Crimes committed by them !!!!!!!!


    A request has been forwarded to both the minister of "justice" and the minister for courts as to the proceedure for having Vaughan's "decision" judicially reviewed ......

    They're all about transparency - spelt C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N

    1victim











    Quote Originally Posted by 1victim View Post
    Holmes Dangen & Associates Ltd. Do you need a Fraudulent Affidavit drawn up ??? ... Talk to John Holmes .....

    Continuing on from the previous post. The 3 page fraudulent "affidavit" allegedly sworn by John Holmes and used by Banbrook and Holmes's defence counsel - the law society standards committee and the LCRO - was put to Mr Holmes in 3 further tape recorded meetings.

    Tony Banbrook's evidence to the standards committee and the LCRO is : "Mr Holmes was the instructing solicitor".
    "I discussed it with Mr Currie and he agreed that Mr Holmes would be suitable".
    "I spoke to Mr Holmes and, umm. he was".

    Quote John Holmes : "That affidavit was prepared by Mr Tony Banbrook, a barrister".

    Paragraph 7 of their "affidavit" states : "I cannot continue to act as solicitor on record".
    Paragraph 9 states : "I seek leave to withdraw as solicitor on record".

    And here are some of the Bell Ringers from John Holmes to our questions .....

    What duties did you perform as an instructing solicitor ?
    J.H. "NONE".

    So you weren't actually the instructing solicitor ?
    J.H. "Yes that's right. No payment, no files".

    No duties performed as an instructing solicitor - how many times have you been an instructing solicitor and not performed one duty ?
    J.H. "Oh a few other things, yep".

    Confirming he's (Banbrook) banged your name on things without your knowledge before ?
    J.H. "Correct".
    "I've known him on occassions to bang our firm's name on stuff".
    "I've got correspondence from a few other things from lawyers about cases I've never heard about".

    And all these documents are fraudulent ?
    J.H. "Hmmm".

    What was his problem, you said he came to you with a problem ?
    J.H. "Oh I suppose his problem was he wanted to get out or wasn't getting paid and he may have said to me I've used you as instructing solicitor and umm but I've got no file so umm ...

    Yeah so you weren't the instructing solicitor ?
    J.H. "Um he would have come to me and said, with the affidavit and said um I've got a problem - I need to get off this case you, I've nominated you as instructing solicitor would you mind signing an affidavit, swear an affidavit, so that I can ahh get out of it ?

    Yeah but you were never the instructing solicitor, you were never signed up ?
    J.H. "I never signed up anything with Paul".

    Now this affidavit they're telling you you did - is this what they've done ? (Fraudulent affidavit produced)
    J.H. "Yeah that's the same one - yeah that's it".

    So that's what they've sent you ?
    J.H. "Yes"
    "I certainly don't recall signing the affidavit, I was astonished when I saw it actually".

    Why would you sign it ?
    J.H. "Well you may ask that and ahh you're right, in fact it was not a very good idea".
    "I had nothing to do with the case at all actually, but I swore the affidavit so he could withdraw".
    "He was seeking to withdraw wasn't he ? - not me - I had nothing to do with it".
    "I'd have to explain why I've said I was, obviously a bit slack in you might say um signing something that at the
    time was umm y'know simple enough and umm just to hopefully to get him off the hook and out of the case".

    So he's (Banbrook) done a Fraudulent Document, and put your name on it, and you've gone and signed a Fraudulent Document ?
    J.H. "Yeah".

    Yeah, well that's, that's the problem John, you've put your name to false documents which lines you up ...
    J.H. "Yes - that's right"

    As an accomplice to him ?
    J.H. "Hmmm".


    So, are lawyers allowed to write false affidavits after the fact ?

    We have requested a hearing with the standards committee and the LCRO to have all tape recordings played with Tony Banbrook and John Holmes present and await their reply.

    Banbrook recently pled guilty to this very same crime in his failed National Finance Company and is about to have his conviction overturned. No doubt his "friends in high places" will clear him of this crime also ....


    See attached 4 page sworn affidavit (a genuine one !) to our questions to Holmes.

    1victim

  9. #19

    Corruption comes to Pukekohe District Court .....

    Not even our small town courts are exempt from Judicial Corruption !!!

    Three Criminal Charges were filed under the Criminal Procedure Act Section 26, Private Prosecution, at the Pukekohe District Court with Registrar Sue Kirk on the 27th November 2013 against the convicted fraudster, Anthony David BANBROOK.
    The charges were Perjury, Forgery and False Accounting.

    Documented evidence and a CD (including the sworn transcript) of the John Robin Holmes tape recording of the 01.03.2011 - which clearly proves all three charges - were submitted in support.

    I had a half hour hearing with Judge Claire Ryan on the 12th December 2013, case number CRI-2014-057-000072.

    She confirmed she had not listened to the John Holmes recording or read the transcript.

    Judge Claire Ryan issued a "Directive" on that date, stating - Quote : "Mr Currie has appeared in front of me today. He has filed three Charging Documents in the Pukekohe District Court in late November 2013. It is now December 2013. Understandably Mr Currie wants some progress".

    "The registrar brought me the file this morning. I am concerned that Mr Currie's documents do not languish somewhere, because as I have explained to him justice delayed is justice denied and we need to make progress with them".

    "I have discussed the matter with Mr Currie. He seems to be on top of all the factual information. He has given me a large file. I have not had a chance to look at the full file. I am going to do that when I can because Mr Currie as a stakeholder in the justice system is owed that".

    Well, what a humanitarian eh ? .....

    Except .... for transparency, expedience and clarity, we have emailed and phoned Judge Ryan and her PA - Anne Molloy - a total of thirtyeight times to enquire, respectfully, if she has indeed honoured her pledge to read the evidence and listen to the John Holmes recording .....

    To date, we have had thirtyeight non-replies !!!!

    And further to Judge Ryan's "Directive" - she did not accept the Charging Documents for filing on the grounds that parts of them were "defective" !!! (See Helen Winkleman / Kim Dotcom COA judgement 19.02.2014 !!!)

    A quick perusal of Ryan's google pages reveal glowing propaganda tributes to her, e.g. upon being admitted to the bench : "It's wonderful that I have been given the opportunity to serve the community".

    "In dealing with a wide spectrum of people I was confronted with humanity - both my client's and my own"

    "She is very loyal and uses her considerable talents well to the benefit of others".

    To date in this case, Judge Claire Ryan has indeed used her "considerable talents" to benefit the convicted fraudster, Anthony David BANBROOK, by way of perverting justice.

    The false affidavit of Tony BANBROOK is attached below in which he falsely named John Holmes as his instructing solicitor. It is our charge of forgery (section 256(1)(3)(4)) against him. And again I have attached the complete transcript of the meeting with John Robin Holmes which proves the forgery.

    "Claire is a person of outstanding character, integrity and intelligence" - but will Claire honour her Judicial Oath and uphold the Law ???

    We will re-lodge our charges with the court soon.

    1victim
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by 1victim; 20-02-2014 at 01:14 PM.

  10. #20
    no matter how indisputable your evidence is, corruption will always find a way to defeat the truth in a New Zealand court. judge Claire Ryan is a cancer survivor - and yet her cancerous judgements eat away at innocent people's lives on a daily basis.

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
  •