Page 35 of 37 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 369

Thread: Article: Chief Justice against sending activist to jail

  1. #341
    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
    "New Zealand is a fascist democracy that persecutes lawyers for speaking out against the state and we are no better ... than China" - Francisc Deliu. Well said! He's a hero. Matthew Theunissen and NZ Herald seem to be heroes of the day, too, because they published what Deliu said. NZ newspapers rarely provide such an opportunity to the losing party.

  2. #342
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ...
    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.



    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.
    So when the shit eventually hits the fan (ie when a news Media outlet has the balls to report to the Public or the UN files a Report on NZ's corruption) it is going to be fun, its just a matter of time.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 27-01-2017 at 12:28 PM.

  3. #343
    I tend to think that given the sheer scale of corruption, it's never going to happen. It took 5 years and Soviets to defeat Nazis. I'm not sure about UN, either. Look who was sitting there for 10 years or so, until her mandate expired last December - Lowell Goddard! It's seems NZ judiciary expect UN to cover for them.

  4. #344
    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
    Yet another piece of hypocrisy:

    24 January is Day of the Endangered Lawyer
    New Zealand Law Society President Kathryn Beck has praised the courage of lawyers around the world who risk harassment, imprisonment or even death to stand up for the rights of their clients.
    Lawyers’ organisations and lawyers internationally are recognising 24 January as the Day of the Endangered Lawyer.

    “Each year a disturbingly high number of lawyers are threatened, beaten, incarcerated or murdered because they represent unpopular clients or speak out against human rights abuses. Their brave and courageous actions are something for all lawyers to salute,” Ms Beck says.

    “New Zealanders are very fortunate that they live in a country where the rule of law is respected and adhered to. We take it for granted that we can be critical of our institutions, our justice system, our government and to seek to change the way things are done without fear of physical harm or unlawful imprisonment.

    “We have a right to legal representation and we know that a lawyer may represent any client as a matter of course, whatever they are alleged to have done, or whatever they believe. It is important, therefore, that as a profession we give our support to lawyers in other countries where that is not so.”

    Ms Beck says this year’s Day of Endangered Lawyer is the seventh such commemoration. The focus in 2017 is on China. There have been many reports of harassment and imprisonment of Chinese human rights lawyers.

  5. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    "New Zealand is a fascist democracy that persecutes lawyers for speaking out against the state and we are no better ... than China" - Francisc Deliu. Well said! He's a hero. Matthew Theunissen and NZ Herald seem to be heroes of the day, too, because they published what Deliu said. NZ newspapers rarely provide such an opportunity to the losing party.
    FairHearing: Francisc Deliu was not the "losing party", to be a losing party under law requires an honest decision.

    Deliu was the 'abused party', as such a dishonest disciplinary decision against him would be a nullity in any other country where the rule of law is applied (a decision against him simply could not exist - as Justice Harrison would be proven in those jurisdictions to be exactly what he was accused of being by Deliu - corrupt etc. Deliu's absolute defence of the truth would prevail in those overseas jurisdictions).

    The "losing party" are all New Zealanders, who remain unaware of the systemic judicial and Crown Executive corrupt in New Zealand which is covered up by the NZ Law Society, Crown Executives and the Courts.

    While the NZ Herald reporter, Matthw Theunissen, reported what Deliu said about the Justice Harrison and the Justice System, he did not investigate and report on Deliu's absolute defence of the truth (which was ignored by the dishonest disciplinary decision).
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 30-01-2017 at 07:24 AM.

  6. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by golfa View Post
    Q. C. I guess your meeting with the site's Administrators was fruitless as yoda is still posting the same shit.
    Thanks to Administrator regarding YODA.

  7. #347

  8. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by golfa View Post
    Thank you Admin !
    Does anyone know what issue is involved in Heenan v A-G?

    A High Court Judgment of 1 February 2017 ruled at:

    "[15] In the letter of 1 December 2016, he said the solicitor was “a bloody minded liar” and had “knowingly conspired” with the then Solicitor-General “and some fourteen Judges ... and others” to “knowingly aid, abet, and [condone] forgery, perjury, and massive property fraud, in this justice and police systems”.

    ..[19] I now make an order that Mr Heenan... is not to file any further application seeking leave to issue proceedings...

    [20] Mr Heenan is now warned that, if he does attempt to file any document in breach of this order or any other document containing allegations of a scandalous nature, he will be defying orders made by the High Court and will be in contempt of Court.

    [21] Because of the scandalous nature of allegations contained in the document referred to in para [11] filed with the High Court on 4 July 2016, I make an order suppressing any publication of the document. It will also not be attached to the publicly available copy of this judgment."


    Is this judgment just another JUDICIAL cover-up of judicial and lawyer corruption or just another YODA (Heenan being a nutter like YODA)?
    Last edited by Q. C.; 03-02-2017 at 08:15 PM.

  9. #349
    Does this help

    Heenan v Attorney-General [2011] NZCA 9; [2011] NZAR 200 (11 February 2011)

  10. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by Dixpat View Post
    Does this help

    Heenan v Attorney-General [2011] NZCA 9; [2011] NZAR 200 (11 February 2011)
    Thanks: I've now also read Heenan v Attorney-General [2014] NZHC 1911 (14 August 2014), and if you can believe that Judgment's facts, it would appear that Heenan is, unfortunately, a 'nutter' (a YODA).

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
  •