Page 34 of 37 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 369

Thread: Article: Chief Justice against sending activist to jail

  1. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Interesting... Anyway, this proves Chris Finlayson is a reasonable person. No criminal in his right mind would consent to being prosecuted for his crimes. A-G and Crown Law in general are lucky in this respect as they enjoy absolute effective immunity from prosecution, just as the judiciary.
    But who else can you obtain consent from to prosecute the A-G and Judges for corruption.

    The SFO cannot even investigate the A-G's corruption, as they must first get the A-G's consent (as head of the SFO) to do so. So a prosecution of an A-G by the SFO can never happen, no matter what.

    Parliament cannot pass a resolution to prosecute a Judge for corruption in complicity with the A-G, as the A-G in question (Finlayson) will not inform or ask Parliament.

    The only solution is for the new A-G to consent to the prosecution of the former A-G (Finlayson), but the existing A-G (Finlayson) will not resign or advise the PM of his conflict of interest in considering whether he should consent to his own criminal prosecution, so the PM does not realise he should be replacing the existing A-G (Finlayson) with a new A-G who can fairly consider the request for consent.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 25-01-2017 at 01:19 PM.

  2. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    If only a mainstream Media's investigative Reporter would question what has been told to Transparency International compared to the reality in New Zealand
    Today's New Zealand reclaims title as world's least corrupt country by mainstream Media's Reporter Isaac Davison:

    "Among the criteria used to determine rankings are press freedom, public access to official information, fundamental rights and the absence of corruption."

    Joseph Goebbels would have died of envy.

    "Isaac Davison is a political reporter based at the Parliamentary Press Gallery since 2012. He writes on a range of issues including housing, corrections, environment and conservation, and was previously the Herald’s environment and science reporter. He has a Master of Arts degree in English from the University of Auckland and studied journalism at the University of Canterbury."
    Last edited by FairHearing; 26-01-2017 at 09:45 AM.

  3. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Today's New Zealand reclaims title as world's least corrupt country by mainstream Media's Reporter Isaac Davison:

    ...Joseph Goebbels would have died of envy....
    "Least corrupt" being the natural outcome when in NZ investigation of, and prosecution for, corruption by Judges and Crown Executives (including the Attorney-General - Finlayson) are not allowed.

    Joseph Geobbels system without the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts)

  4. #334
    I note how subtly and skillfully NZ Herald's political reporter Isaac Davison manipulated the public.

    The fact that New Zealand was listed in TI's report as ONE (of the two) of the world's PERCEIVEDLY least corrupt countries was presented in the headline as that New Zealand IS the world's least corrupt country.

  5. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    I note how subtly and skillfully NZ Herald's political reporter Isaac Davison manipulated the public.

    The fact that New Zealand was listed in TI's report as ONE (of the two) of the world's PERCEIVEDLY least corrupt countries was presented in the headline as that New Zealand IS the world's least corrupt country.
    I am willing to accept Isaac Davison's incorrect reporting is more ignorance or laziness, rather that conspiring to misinform or mislead.

    However, unfortunately the outcome is the same - the public are not informed as to just how corrupt our New Zealand judiciary and Crown Executives are (as journalists like Davison do not investigate allegations of corruption by those groups).

  6. #336
    It's pointless to investigate as the results wouldn't be published anyway.

  7. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    It's pointless to investigate as the results wouldn't be published anyway.
    FairHearing: So from what you and John "Brockovich" have posted:

    1. You can criminally prosecute Crown Executives for perverting the course of justice.
    2. But the Solicitor-Generals will use their statutory powers to stop those prosecutions, which were authorised by a District Court Judge.
    3. You can prosecute those Solicitor-Generals for their criminal acts of participating in a criminal group for the purpose of perverting justice.
    4. But the same Solicitor-Generals will use their statutory powers to stop each others prosecutions, which were authorised by a District Court Judge.
    5. The Law Society and LCRO will agree they have no jurisdiction to consider if that was ethical, as the S-Gs were acting in their official capacity.
    6. The Attorney-General will refuse his consent to prosecute those S-Gs for their corrupt acts.
    7. Judges of the High Court will strike out Judicial Reviews of the S-Gs and A-G's decisions, on the basis they are abuse of process.
    8. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner will dismiss complaints on the corrupt acts of those judges (in striking out the proceedings), on the basis there were 'judicial' decisions and therefore outside his jurisdiction.
    9. Judges of the High Court will strike out Judicial Reviews of the Commissioner's decisions, on the basis they are an abuse of process.
    10. The Attorney-General will refuse to ask Parliament for a resolution to prosecute those Judges for their corrupt acts.
    11. The SFO will not investigate the A-G's alleged corrupt acts, as he will not give them permission.
    12. You can prosecute those Judges (in 9 above) for perverting the course of justice by their decisions.
    13. But the District Court Judge will not ask for evidence to be filed in support of the charges (which he is required to do by an Act), and will dismiss the charges on the basis that absolutely no evidence was filed, so the charges against the Judges are an abuse of process.

    and
    14. Mainstream Media journalists will not investigate, as they know the results of their investigation (if they proved systemic judicial and Crown Executive corruption) "wouldn't be published anyway".

    How convenient.

    FairHeaing, who makes that decision not to publish and why?

    I understand why the Media and public said nothing in Nazi German, but the decision makers in NZ's Media would not be tortured, and them and their families shot, for exposing this corruption.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 27-01-2017 at 11:30 AM.

  8. #338

  9. #339
    ...
    15. As the farce unfolds, the complainant is being progressively oppressed and attacked with indemnity costs and other measures available to the corrupt officials. He/she typically ends up bankrupted; arrested for contempt of court; with his/her home raided by the police on a bogus pretext; facing malicious proceedings against him/her, also on a bogus pretext; struck off the roll of barristers & solicitors, or censored & suspended; squeezed out of the country; and so on.

    who makes that decision not to publish and why?
    I guess, the decision is made by the chief editor, in the best interests of the owner of the media outlet, and based on the feedback from the legal department. The chief editor also takes into account potential adverse consequences to him personally (see #15 above), and reasonably concludes that instead it's best to publish an article about NZ being the least corrupt country in the world.

  10. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by golfa View Post
    This is what happens if you accuse a Judge .... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11789909
    That's right, but they did not execute Frank Deliu and his family, so the decision maker in the mainstream Media organisation (which refuses to report cover-up of judicial corruption) does not have that excuse or the excuse that the Law Society will get involved to cover up the corruption (and cost them a fortune).

    So who has the decision makers in the mainstream Media by the balls, so that they never report cover-up of Judicial and Crown Executive corruption.

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
  •