Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Judicial Fraud

  1. #1

    Exclamation Judicial Fraud

    Hello, I'd like to share my experience of judicial fraud. The fraud related to the assumption of personal jurisdiction by the Nelson District Court. The judge admitted that he had committed fraud, and followed his admission with an extensive technical question which in my opinion was designed to draw attention away from his unlawful act.

    I brought this to the attention of Judith Collins and she neither contested my allegation nor expressed any interest in finding a remedy.

    My website is

  2. #2
    My correspondence was primarily an invitation to settle for wrongful imprisonment. Here's the relevant text from my first letter.

    When asked how I would plead to the charges, I responsed with "no plea". After Judge Russell said a plea of NOT GUILTY had been entered, I said that he had misrepresented my position and that his action was fraudulent. He admitted that this was true, and asked me an extensive question which I believe was an attempt to draw attention away from the fraud. He said that the fraud was due to "the rules", and I asked him what the rules had to do with justice. After this the hearing was abandoned, and was resumed on Tuesday with Wayne Jones acting as defence counsel.
    Her response was to suggest legal avenues like the IPCA, the Judicial Conduct Comissioner, and the Community Law Service. In response I wrote:

    Thank you for your references to the IPCA and the Judicial Conduct Comissioner. According to the Commissioner's website, "The Commissioner is entitled to require you to complete a statutory declaration". So for me to make a complaint would imply acceptance of diminished legal status, which would invalidate the injury of the fraud. Appealing the decision is not an option because it would necessitate a change of position on my part concerning jurisdiction, which is of course the issue at the center of the fraud.
    Since then I've been chipping away at a common law remedy. I believe that a workable remedy involves change at a constitutional level because of conflict of interests existing between the Crown and the people of NZ.

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts